Great Ships

for the

Great Lakes?

Commercial Vessels Free of Invasive

Species in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

Seaway System

AA SSccooppiinngg RReeppoorrtt ffoorr tthhee GGrreeaatt SShhiippss IInniittiiaattiivvee 

 Allegra Cangelosi 

Nicole Mays 

Northeast-Midwest Institute 

Washington DC 
1
Great Ships for the

Great Lakes? 

CCoommmmeerrcciiaall VVeesssseellss FFrreeee OOff IInnvvaassiivvee 

SSppeecciieess iinn tthhee GGrreeaatt LLaakkeess--SStt.. LLaawwrreennccee 

SSeeaawwaay SSyysstteemm

A Scoping Report for the Great Ships Initiative 

Allegra Cangelosi 

Nicole Mays 

May 2006

50 F St., NW. Suite 950 

Washington DC 20001 

www.nemw.org

2
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank Tim Brown of the Delta Institute; Peter Wise of the Delta 

Institute (formerly of Kestral Management); and Dr. Alan Randal of The Ohio State University 

for their contributions to this report. We would also like to thank Andy Buchsbaum and Jordan 

Lubetkin of the National Wildlife Foundation, also of the project team, for their advice and 

support throughout the report preparation effort. Georges Robichon of FedNav Ltd., Gary Failor 

of Cleveland Port Authority, and Steve Fisher of the American Great Lakes Ports Association 

gave invaluable insights into the maritime industry on the Great Lakes. We would also like to 

thank the Port Directors of the American Great Lakes Ports Association generally for responding 

to our many technical questions about their operations. We owe the entire effort to the Great 

Lakes Protection Fund for their generous financial support. Finally, we would like to thank 

Jonathan Champion, Barbara Wells and Christine Soliva of the Northeast-Midwest Institute for 

their assistance in researching, formatting and editing the report. 

Copyright © 2006 by the Northeast-Midwest Institute 

Reproduction of the report, or portions of it, is permitted with the customary credit to the source. 

3
Executive Summary 

Without implementation of effective prevention measures by ships, the Great Lakes will 

remain at high risk of invasion from organisms carried in ballast water. As the Great Lakes 

maritime industry seeks to sustain and increase cargo volumes and infrastructure investment 

from governments, biological pollution is an “Achilles’ heel,” undermining crucial public and 

political support. Concern over ship-mediated biological pollution has inspired strong interest 

within the Great Lakes maritime industry to resolve the problem, and a special opportunity for 

collaborative action. 

This scoping report provides a fact base, rationale, and preliminary plan for a “Great 

Ships Initiative” (GSI), a collective industry-led response to the problem of ship-mediated 

introductions of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes. First, the report details key facets of 

transoceanic trade on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system (GLSLSS), including the 

system’s physical features (ports, fleets, and cargoes); fiduciary players and transaction chains, 

including the supply chain and transportation chain (terminal owners, stevedores, and freight 

forwarders); and the regulatory players, internationally, domestically, and regionally. It also 

describes the drivers and contextual conditions that influence the nature and extent of 

transoceanic waterborne transportation in the GLSLSS, i.e., global trade trends and competitors. 

Second, the report details the ship-mediated biological pollution problem, the state-of-the-art of 

prevention methodology, and policy options for the Great Lakes region. Third, it describes 

relevant Environmental Management System models and makes recommendations regarding a 

systemwide, industry-sponsored response to the invasive species problem. This section projects 

the economic effects and environmental impact of a GSI. The report’s conclusion proposes the 

GSI, charts a series of next steps for making the GSI a reality, and makes caveats for ensuring 

the efforts’ effectiveness. 

In light of the factors outlined in this scoping report, particularly the still-developing 

technology and policy for shipboard treatment of ballast water, the project team concludes that 

an industry response to the problem of ship-mediated invasive species does not fit the 

conventional understanding of an Environmental Management System, which is facility-specific 

and strictly implementation oriented. Instead, an industry response to the problem of shipmediated invasive species needs to be an unconventional application of Environmental 

Management principles. In particular, it needs to be collective in nature—across both the 

GLSLSS geography and the GLSLSS maritime industry sectors—and requires three fundamental 

semi-sequential phases: treatment tool development, treatment tool installation throughout the 

salty fleet, and implementation assistance and monitoring. The first phase involves preparing 

promising treatment systems for installation and regulatory approval. The second phase involves 

a suite of financial incentives to speed deployment of effective treatment systems onto the fleet 

of ships that visit the Great Lakes from overseas. The third phase entails outreach to ensure 

effective installation and operation of treatment systems and to monitor any further discharge of 

organisms and treatment residuals. 

The project team proposes a Great Ships Initiative that combines the resources and 

expertise of the maritime industry—particularly ports and carriers—with government and quasigovernmental entities, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and St. 

4
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, to accelerate the development, testing, installation, 

and fleetwide use of effective ballast treatment methods. The treatment development and testing 

phase will require creation of a treatment “incubator” to provide intensive bench, pilot, and 

shipboard evaluation services to vendors of ballast treatment prospects suitable to Seaway-sized 

vessels, with the goal of advancing meritorious systems as rapidly as possible to an approvalready and market-ready condition. 

At the same time, the GSI should establish with the states and provinces consistent 

monitoring of Great Lakes harbors for newly arrived alien species, and undertake studies to 

assess post-discharge implications of treatment system performance on receiving systems. The 

GSI also should prepare to deploy use of the ports’ financing tools, grants, relief from tolls and 

fees, and/or shipper preference policies to drive rapid implementation of proven treatment 

systems throughout the entire salty fleet visiting the Great Lakes. Finally, the GSI should prepare 

to provide active technical assistance to shipyards, ship operators and crews through the St. 

Lawrence Seaway Management/Development Corporations and Sea Grant to ensure effective 

installation and use of installed treatment systems. 

In response to this project effort, Canadian and American Great Lakes ports created a 

Great Ships Initiative at their January 20, 2006, meeting through a Memorandum of Agreement 

with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which will serve as the GSI fiduciary. The 

MOA lays out an operating structure involving a decision-making executive committee 

composed of GSI contributors and stakeholders. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation/Management Corporations have allocated $100,000, participating ports have 

committed almost $100,000 (collectively) to support the first year of operations, the Maritime 

Administration has donated a retrofitted barge for pilot-scale tests (valued at over $600,000), and 

the Universities of Wisconsin-Superior and Minnesota-Duluth have committed in-kind 

laboratory resources. Meanwhile, the Northeast-Midwest Institute responded to a funding 

opportunity sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for funds 

totaling over $1 million. Congress has appropriated over $800,000 to support the startup effort 

(through the Department of Transportation). If successful, the GSI and its test facility could 

provide a possible model for productive action by other regions. The official launch for the GSI 

is anticipated in summer 2006. 

5
Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................. 4 

Table of Contents................................................................................................ 6 

 

List of Figures, Boxes and Tables......................................................... 8 

I. Introduction.................................................................................... 11 

Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystem; Healthy Great Lakes Economy.................. 11 

The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway and Biological Pollution................... 11 

The Great Lakes Biological Pollution Prevention Project............................. 15 

Purpose of the Scoping Report.............................................................. 16 

II. Great Lakes Maritime Commerce: Moving Pieces ... and What Moves 

Them........................................................................................................... 17 

Physical Pieces.................................................................................. 17 

Fiduciary Pieces................................................................................. 37 

Drivers and Influences......................................................................... 57 

III. Ship-Mediated Biological Pollution in the GLSLSS and its Prevention.. 62 

Ship-Mediated Biological Pollution.......................................................... 62 

The State of the Art of Prevention............................................................ 66 

IV. Analysis....................................................................................... 94 

Niche for Industry Action....................................................................... 94 

Economic Feasibility of Industry Action.................................................... 95 

Agenda for Industry Action: A Great Ships Initiative.................................... 101 

Recommendation Actions..................................................................... 102 

Summary and Conclusion..................................................................... 103 

End Note: Recent Developments............................................................ 103 

Literature Cited.................................................................................... 107 

Appendix A: A Note on the Role on Additional Vectors of Introduction and 

Spread of Invasive Species in the Great Lakes................................ 117 

Maritime-Related Vectors of Secondary Spread....................................... 118 

Non-Maritime Related Vectors of Introduction and Spread.......................... 132 

Appendix B: Ballast Volumes and Numbers of Organisms Discharged into the 

GLSLSS by Transoceanic Ships under Various Scenarios................ 134 

Total Foreign Ballast Volumes....................... ....................................... 134 

Overall Rate of Foreign Ballast-Entrained Organisms............................... 136 

6
Quantities of Organisms from Foreign Ports Discharged into the GLSLSS by 

Transoceanic Vessels Relative to Current National Law, and the Proposed 

Global Convention.................................................. .......................... 139 

7
List of Figures, Boxes and Tables 

Figures 

1. Cargo tonnage transported on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 12 

2. Direct jobs created by major commodities transported on the Great Lakes-St. 

 Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 12 

3. Revenue impacts generated by major commodities transported on the Great Lakes-St. 

Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 13 

4. Zebra mussel range expansion by year since first sighting in Lake St. Clair and Lake 

Erie in 1998 15 

5. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system profile, including the Soo Locks, Welland 

Canal, and St. Lawrence Seaway locks 20 

6. Map of commercial ports in the Great Lakes, including Canada Port Authorities and 

U.S. public ports 21 

7. Comparative vessel length of transoceanic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker 

fleets that operated on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System in 2002 27 

8. Major types of transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system in 2002 28 

9. Comparative year of build of transoceanic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker vessel 

fleets that operated on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 29 

10. Generalized trade pattern of overseas-flagged transoceanic vessels transporting steel 

in and grain out of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 31 

11. Total tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the overseas-flagged 

transoceanic fleet, 1999–2002 31 

12. Tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the overseas-flagged 

transoceanic fleet by major cargo category, 1998–2002 33 

13. a. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in 

Lake Ontario in 2002 33 

b. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in 

Lake Erie in 2002 34 

c. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in 

Lake Huron in 2002 34 

d. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in 

Lake Michigan in 2002 35 

e. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in 

Lake Superior in 2002 36 

14. Map of private ports in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and types of 

cargoes processed 43 

15. Map of public ports in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and types of 

cargoes processed 44 

16. General representation of the flow of funds associated with maritime transportation 

in the Great Lakes 51 

17. Flag country of transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system in 2002 54 

8
18. Comparative vessel classification for U.S.-flagged lakers, Canadian-flagged lakers, 

and overseas-flagged Salty vessels operating on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system 56 

19. Global activity of a single transoceanic vessel over a 14-month period 64 

20. Great Lakes map showing invasion hot spots, based on number of first sightings of 

 presumed ballast-mediated invaders, including examples 73 

21. The two forms of ballast-water exchange: flow through and empty-refill 75 

22. The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project barge platform moored 

in Duluth-Superior Harbor 87 

 

Boxes 

1. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 22 

2. Comparison of Major Freshwater Port Systems with Transoceanic Shipping 23 

3. Steel Import Example 39 

4. Grain Export Example 40 

5. Port Governance Case Study 46 

6. Example of Fees and Tolls Charged to Typical Salty Vessel 51 

 

7. Automation Identification Systems (AIS) 100 

8. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: A Brief Overview 106 

Tables 

1. Comparison of the U.S.-, Canadian-, and overseas-flagged fleets currently operating 

on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 25 

2. Ocean-going vessels types relative to representative length, beam, and depth 26 

3. World fleet currently capable of entering the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 28 

4. Cargoes transported by transoceanic vessels to and from major ports in the Great 

 Lakes in 2002 32 

5. Top 12 companies that operated overseas-flagged transoceanic vessels that entered 

the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 43 

 

6. Cargo tolls, vessel charges, and lockage charges assessed for vessels transiting the 

 Montreal-Lake Ontario and Welland Canal sections of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

 Seaway system 49 

 

9
7. a. Results from a survey assessing shippers’ ranking criteria for selecting a 

 transportation provider 61 

 b. Results from a survey assessing shippers’ ranking criteria for selecting a 

 transportation provider 61 

8. Comparison of ballast capacity and ballast pump rate across major vessel type 63 

9. Examples of ballast water treatment systems currently undergoing commercial 

 development 83 

 

10. Examples of ballast water treatment systems tested on board commercially 

 operating vessels 86

10
I. Introduction 

Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystem; Healthy Great Lakes Economy

 The Great Lakes supply essential economic and ecological services to the Canadian and 

American heartland. Comprising 18 percent of the world’s fresh surface water, they provide 

drinking water for 28 million Canadians and Americans; process water for power production 

facilities at a rate of 4.2 billion cubic meters per year; offer a habitat to support a multi-billion 

dollar recreational and commercial fishing industry; and supply irrigation water for agriculture 

and other uses (Environment Canada & GLNPO, 2002). Ecologically, the lakes’ sand dunes, 

coastal wetlands, islands, rocky shorelines, prairies, savannas, forests, fens, and other landscape 

features are globally unique, supporting a rich and diverse variety of species. In particular, the 

lake's waterways, wetlands, and islands sustain over 180 species of indigenous fish and provide 

habitat for many species, including 131 globally imperiled or rare species (Environment Canada 

& GLNPO, 2002; The Nature Conservancy, 1994). Their value as a source of inspiration, 

education, and aesthetic beauty adds further immeasurable benefits to the tally. 

 Economic and ecological services are equally dependent upon the health of the Great 

Lakes. Pollution of any type can interfere with these beneficial uses, and the cost of mitigating 

that interference is often high. Moreover, even uses of the lakes we have come to take for 

granted, such as for drinking water or recreation, are vulnerable to pollution. This prospect fuels 

energetic interest in protecting the Great Lakes ecosystem from chemical, physical, and 

biological pollution. 

The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway and Biological Pollution 

 Spanning 1,200 kilometers with a combined shoreline in excess of 16,000 kilometers, the 

Great Lakes have been a corridor for commercial transportation since the times of Native 

American and French traders. The lakes became an avenue for overseas shipping much more 

recently, in 1959, with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Seaway circumvents natural 

barriers to navigation, such as Niagara Falls and rapids along the St. Lawrence River, through 

artificial waterways and locks. Over 3,700 kilometers in length, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system (GLSLSS) penetrates Quebec, and borders the eight U.S. Great Lakes states and 

the Canadian province of Ontario. Transoceanic waterborne trade through the system now 

connects ports in the region to others around the globe. Over time, the system has become well 

integrated with the rail and highway systems of the region, such that the major rail and highway 

hubs of the mid-continent are also major GLSLSS ports. 

 In total, the Great Lakes waterborne transportation system directly employs more than 

44,000 people and provides $6 billion each year to the U.S. and Canadian economies (Martin 

Associates, 2001). Of the goods traded on and through the GLSLSS, overseas tonnage is 

diminutive relative to the tonnage traded domestically and between the United States and 

Canada. Still, it accounts for a disproportionately higher share of this employment and revenue 

impact (figs. 1-3). Of the approximately 220 million metric tons of cargo that move into, out of, 

11
and around the lakes each year, less than five percent is transoceanic trade. However, in 2000, 

steel imports (an effective surrogate for total overseas trade) represented approximately 2.6 

percent of the cargo tonnage shipped on the GLSLSS, but accounted for 12.3 percent of the jobs 

and 23.2 percent of the revenue generated by the system (Martin Associates, 2001). 

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

Steel

General Cargo

Grain

Ore

Coal

Cement

Stone/Aggregates

Petroleum

Other Dry Bulk

Other Liquid Bulk

Salt

Total

1,000 Metric Tons

Fig. 1. Cargo tonnage transported on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 

(source: Martin Associates 2001) 

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

Steel

General Cargo

Grain

Ore

Coal

Cement

Stone/Aggregates

Petroleum

Other Dry Bulk

Other Liquid Bulk

Salt

Non Allocated

Direct Jobs Created

Fig. 2. Direct jobs created by major commodities transported on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system in 2000 (source: Martin Associates 2001) 

12
0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Steel

General Cargo

Grain

Ore

Coal

Cement

Stone/Aggregates

Petroleum

Other Dry Bulk

Other Liquid Bulk

Salt

Non Allocated

Revenue in $1,000

Fig. 3. Revenue impacts generated by major commodities transported on the Great Lakes-St. 

Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 (source: Martin Associates 2001) 

 

In promoting its value to the region, the Great Lakes maritime industry also points to 

environmental advantages of waterborne transportation generally—such as lower air-pollutant 

emissions—relative to other modes (Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum, 

2002). In a period of less than one week, a ship can move the entire distance of the GLSLSS and 

carry a load of cargo equivalent to 870 trucks or 225 rail cars with a minimum of handling (St. 

Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 2004). 

 Unfortunately, an indirect cost of transoceanic waterborne shipping—related to 

introductions of alien aquatic organisms or biological pollution—seriously diminishes the net 

benefit of these cost and environmental advantages, and is eroding public support in the Great 

Lakes region for maritime trade. The GLSLSS circumvented natural barriers to navigation by 

ships, and in so doing opened the door to the movement of aquatic organisms into the otherwise 

isolated Great Lakes. Prior to the opening of the Seaway, commercial shipping was an 

uncommon vector, accounting for one introduction in each of the 1940s and 1950s (Mills et al., 

1993). Following Seaway completion, the ballast water discharged by commercial transoceanic 

ships has been responsible for at least six introductions per decade (Mills et al., 1993), 

accounting for roughly 30 of the 43 established non-native aquatic species appearing in the Great 

Lakes since 1959 (Grigorovich et al., 2003a). Over 160 nonindigenous aquatic species are 

established in the Great Lakes. The majority of these species are native to Europe and Eurasia, 

particularly the Ponto-Caspian region—the geographic region of our greatest transoceanic 

trading partners (Mills et al., 1993; Ricciardi, 2001). 

 While organisms may be transferred by many ship components (including hulls, sea 

chests, and anchor chains) by far the most studied ship-mediated vector is ballast water. 

Numerous studies (e.g., Williams et al., 1988; Hallegraeff & Bolch, 1992; Carlton & Geller, 

1993; McCarthy & Khambaty, 1994; Smith et al., 1996; Galil & Hulsmann, 1997; Pierce et al., 

1997; Johengen et al., 2005) have documented the presence of aquatic organisms in ballast water 

and the invasion risk that such organisms present. Grigorovich et al. (2003a) went one step 

13
further and performed a predictive analysis for likely invaders to the Great Lakes via ballast 

water transport, based on donor regions, invasion histories, salinity and climate tolerances, 

availability for ballast uptake, and survivability in ballast tanks. This analysis determined that 16 

species not yet reported in the lakes pose a high risk of invasion. An additional 31 species not yet 

reported in the Great Lakes pose a lower risk of invasion (Grigorovich et al., 2003a). 

 From a strictly economic standpoint, many nonindigenous species introductions to the 

Great Lakes and other ecosystems are considered either benign or even beneficial; these 

nonproblematic species introductions tend to be either planned importations that are amenable to 

human cultivation and control, or incidentally introduced with little propensity to spread. In 

contrast, invasive species—those nonindigenous species that, once introduced, proliferate 

beyond human purposes or control—incur costs. Sea lampreys, for example, have caused 

millions of dollars in damage to Great Lakes fisheries and cost over $10 million to control every 

year (Meersman, 2004). In a five-year study period in the 1990s, the zebra mussel cost Great 

Lakes raw-water users alone over $20 million per year in added maintenance (Park & Hushak, 

1999). Moreover, to the extent that invasive species transported to North America by ships 

trading in the Great Lakes can and do subsequently spread, the footprint and associated 

economic cost estimates ultimately far exceed those associated with the basin. For example, the 

zebra mussel—transported throughout the Great Lakes in the ballast water of both overseas and 

domestic ships and to inland waterways via recreational vessels—now plagues two-thirds of the 

nation, and has an estimated overall price tag of $3.1 billion (GAO, 2002; fig. 4). 

The negative environmental implications are far worse. All nonindigenous species that 

become established permanently alter the food web of the receiving system, and many have 

disastrous effects. Negative ecological effects of aquatic invaders of the Great Lakes system 

range from the highly visible, such as habitat destruction, to the insidious, such as the 

degradation of nutritional value in the forage base for predatory fish. Sea lampreys decimate lake 

trout populations. Round gobies compete with native fish species for food and habitat, displacing 

them from prime spawning sites. Zebra mussels profoundly alter trophic dynamics due to their 

rapid growth and tremendous filter-feeding. Today, invasive species are considered second only 

to habitat destruction in reducing biological diversity globally (Vitousek et al., 1997). 

The seriousness of the problem has prompted international, federal, and state initiatives to 

better manage ship-mediated species invasions. In the Great Lakes region alone, in the past 

several years six of the eight U.S. states—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and 

Wisconsin—have introduced, and in one case enacted, legislation concerning the discharge of 

ballast water.1

 Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, the incoming chairman of the Council of Great Lakes 

Governors, indicated that solving the problem of ship-mediated invasive species would be one of 

his top priorities (Wisconsin Office of the Governor, 2004). A group of attorneys general from 

the Great Lakes region has submitted a legal petition to the U.S. Coast Guard demanding better 

enforcement of federal law to protect the lakes. The International Joint Commission has joined 

with The Nature Conservancy to fund a study of economic consequences of terminating 

saltwater trade to the Great Lakes. 

 

1

 Michigan passed Public Act 114 of 2001. Throughout the Great Lakes states, ballast water regulatory bills have been introduced, but failed to 

pass, in Minnesota during 2001, in Illinois and Wisconsin during 2002, in New York during 2003, and in Indiana during 2004. 

14
As the Great Lakes maritime industry seeks to sustain and increase cargo volumes from 

shippers and infrastructure investment from governments, biological pollution is viewed as its 

Achilles’ heel, undermining crucial public and political support. This concern has inspired strong 

interest on the part of the industry itself to resolve the problem, and a special opportunity for 

constructive action. 

Fig. 4. Zebra mussel range expansion by year since first sighting in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie 

in 1988 (source: USGS, 2004) 

The Great Lakes Biological Pollution Prevention Project 

 

 A coalition of organizations (the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Delta Institute, the 

National Wildlife Federation, and Kestrel Management Services) launched a project supported 

by the Great Lakes Protection Fund to stimulate a decisive effort by the public and private direct 

users of the waterborne transportation system in the GLSLSS to prevent further ship-mediated 

invasive species introductions in the Great Lakes. Called the Great Lakes Biological Pollution 

15
Prevention Project, the project argued that users of the GLSLSS would benefit from getting 

ahead of the problem and solving it in the ways they consider best. This goal could be 

accomplished through implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS) specifically 

addressing the ship-mediated invasive organisms. 

 The goal of an EMS is to work with all the moving pieces of an industrial—or in this 

case, transportation—process, to influence financial flows toward a desired environmental 

protection outcome. If done well, the EMS will also in the end contribute to the economic 

footprint of the process. In this case, the EMS, termed the “Great Ships Initiative” (GSI), would 

take a collective approach, potentially involving ports, carriers, and cargo owners throughout the 

GLSLSS to eliminate the further introduction of aquatic invasive species by commercial vessels 

in the Great Lakes. 

 

Purpose of the Scoping Report 

 

 This scoping report provides a fact base, rationale, and preliminary implementation plan 

for a GSI, a collective industry-led response to address the problem of ship-mediated 

introductions of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes. The primary sponsor of a GSI 

should be the maritime industry sector specifically involved in GLSLSS transoceanic trade that 

mediates the initial introductions of invasive organisms into the Great Lakes. First, the report 

describes in some detail many facets of transoceanic trade on the GLSLSS, including physical 

features, i.e., ports, fleets, and cargoes; the fiduciary players and financial flows, including the 

supply chain and transportation transaction chain, i.e., the terminal owners, stevedores, and 

freight forwarders; and the regulatory chain. It then describes drivers and other contextual 

conditions that influence the nature and extent of transoceanic waterborne transportation in the 

GLSLSS, i.e., global trade trends and competitors. Together these physical and financial entities 

comprise the moving pieces of transoceanic maritime commerce on the GLSLSS, which in 

response to prevailing external influences create both its economic and environmental footprint. 

Though moving pieces associated with the Salty trade receive the greatest emphasis in this 

section, information on the moving pieces exclusively associated with the domestic trades—a 

ready mechanism for subsequent spread of organisms once they are introduced to the system—

appears in the scoping report’s appendices. 

 Second, the report details the ship-mediated biological pollution problem, the state-ofthe-art of prevention methodology, and policy options for the Great Lakes region. Third, it 

describes relevant EMS models and makes recommendations regarding a systemwide, industrysponsored response to the invasive species problem—the GSI. This section also projects the 

economic effects and environmental impact of a GSI. The report’s concluding section charts a 

series of next steps for making the GSI a reality, and makes caveats for assuring effectiveness of 

the effort. 

16
II. Great Lakes Maritime Commerce: 

Moving Pieces ... and What Moves Them 

 The physical features of the GLSLSS—locks, vessels, ports, and cargoes—are fairly 

familiar to residents of the Great Lakes region. Less apparent but equally important to 

transoceanic shipping are the intangible features of the GLSLSS, specifically, the fiduciary 

entities and financial flows that constitute transaction chains, and the constellation of regulations 

that govern commercial vessel movements and operation. Transaction chains include the supply 

chains, comprising cargo producers, bulk users (manufacturers and refiners), and consumers; and 

the transportation services chains, comprising stevedores, terminal owners, shipowners, and 

charterers. The regulatory pieces comprise port states, flag states, classification societies, 

international groups, and regional and subregional agencies. These moving pieces respond to 

each other, as well as external drivers and conditions such as prevailing regional and 

international economic trends, global trade rules and patterns, and new regulatory regimes. The 

outcome is the nature and extent of transoceanic waterborne transportation on the GLSLSS and 

its environmental footprint. 

 The first step to developing an EMS for the transoceanic maritime industry vis-a-vis

invasive species is to fully understand these moving pieces, both tangible and intangible, and the 

drivers and conditions that influence them. 

Physical Pieces 

The visible, physical features of the GLSLSS transoceanic trade include the natural 

waterway, locks, and connecting channels; port facilities; vessels; and cargoes. 

Natural Waterway 

The GLSLSS—comprising Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, as well 

as connecting channels, the St. Lawrence River, and Gulf of St. Lawrence—spans more than 

3,700 kilometers from east to west. The lakes alone contain approximately 23,000 cubic 

kilometers of water, and cover an area of 244,000 square kilometers (Environment Canada & 

GLNPO, 2002). 

With an average depth approaching 150 meters, Lake Superior is by far the largest lake of 

the GLSLSS, containing almost 7,800 cubic kilometers of water. It stretches 560 kilometers from 

east to west, and 257 kilometers north to south. The second-largest lake of the GLSLSS by 

volume, Lake Michigan, holds just over 3,000 cubic kilometers of water, and is approximately 

190 kilometers wide and 495 kilometers long. Averaging 85 meters in depth, the lake reaches 

281 meters at its deepest point. The third-largest lake by volume, Lake Huron, contains 2,200 

cubic kilometers of water, has an average depth of 59 meters, and measures 331 kilometers 

across and 294 kilometers north to south. Lake Erie, the smallest of the five lakes in volume (308 

cubic kilometers), measures 388 kilometers across and 92 kilometers from north to south, and 

has an average depth of only 19 meters. Lake Ontario is similar to Lake Erie in length and 

17
breadth (310 kilometers by 85 kilometers), but its greater average depth (approximately 86 

meters) holds almost four times the volume (1,020 cubic kilometers). 

The natural channels that connect the Great Lakes are as important to the GLSLSS as the 

lakes themselves. The northernmost channel, the St. Mary’s River, is a 154-kilometer waterway 

flowing from Lake Superior down to Lake Huron. The wide Straits of Mackinac join lakes 

Michigan and Huron. The St. Clair and Detroit rivers, and Lake St. Clair between them, form a 

143-kilometer-long channel connecting Lake Huron with Lake Erie. The 56-kilometer Niagara 

River, including Niagara Falls, links lakes Erie and Ontario. From Lake Ontario, the water from 

the GLSLSS flows through the St. Lawrence River, emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence—a distance of 1,600 kilometers. 

Locks and Connecting Channels

 In addition to natural connecting channels, the GLSLSS comprises a series of manmade 

locks and channels that allow vessels to travel between the Atlantic Ocean and ports throughout 

each of the Great Lakes. The dimensions of these locks and connecting waterways determine the 

size of vessels that can ply the St. Lawrence Seaway. Each lock in the GLSLSS is 233 meters 

long, just over 24 meters wide, and nine meters deep. The locks can accommodate vessels that 

are 225 meters long and 24 meters wide, with a draft of eight meters. 

 

 Today’s system developed over time, and is a combination of individual systems 

sometimes created independently of each other. It currently has four major components (fig. 5): 

 

Artificial Connecting Waterways: The first artificial waterway, the Lachine Canal, was 

constructed between 1821 and 1825 to bypass the Lachine Rapids of the St. Lawrence. The canal 

became obsolete in 1959, being replaced by the South Shore Canal of the St. Lawrence Seaway 

and was finally closed in 1969. 

The oldest artificial waterway still in use in the GLSLSS is the Welland Canal, which 

navigationally connects Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. A major engineering feat of its time, the 

Welland Canal began as a private commercial venture in 1829. The Canadian provincial 

government purchased it in 1841, upgrading it a number of times throughout the remainder of the 

19th century and early 20th century. Construction on the current version—a series of eight 

locks—was completed in 1932. The canal was deepened in the 1950s, and then further 

straightened in 1973. Since 1998, the canal has been managed by the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Management Corporation on behalf of the Canadian federal government. 

In addition, the GLSLSS includes smaller connections with areas outside the Great Lakes 

basin. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal/Illinois Waterway provides a connection between 

Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. The Waterway consists of eight single chamber lock 

and dam projects, and allows for shallow draft navigation between the two regions. The New 

York State Canal System includes the Erie Canal which connects Lake Erie (at Buffalo) to the 

tidal Hudson River (at Albany). The channel depth in this canal system averages around four 

meters, and its locks can accommodate vessels up to 91 meters long and 13 meters wide. An 

18
additional component of this New York State Canal System connects the Erie Canal to Lake 

Champlain and the St. Lawrence River. 

 The Soo Locks: The Soo Locks allow vessel transit between Lake Huron and Lake 

Superior. This lock system was initiated in 1852 when the U.S. Congress passed an act to 

subsidize the construction of a canal connecting Lakes Huron and Superior. The canal was 

turned over to the State of Michigan in 1855, and then transferred back to the federal government 

in 1881, which placed it under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since this 

time, the U.S. federal government has periodically upgraded the connector, with the construction 

of four parallel locks between 1943 and 1968 creating the current Soo Locks system. 

 The St. Lawrence Seaway: The St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake 

Ontario also represented a mammoth, joint Canadian and U.S. federal government effort. 

Constructed in the 1950s, it took five years and an army of 22,000 workers to connect the Great 

Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean via this intricately linked system of two U.S. and five Canadian 

locks, channels, canals, dams, dikes and several associated hydroelectric dams. The total 

project’s overall construction cost was $1 billion, equal to roughly $6.85 billion in 2006 dollars. 

Following completion of the Seaway in 1959, ocean-going vessels were able to travel from the 

Atlantic all the way to ports on Lake Superior. 

Connecting Channels: Naturally occurring connecting channels also enable passage from 

one part of the Great Lakes system to another. These channels are dredged at times to 

accommodate the shipping. The St. Mary’s River connects Lake Superior and Lake Huron. 

Within this connecting channel are the Soo locks, which allow vessels to bypass the St. Mary’s 

Falls. The channel depth of the St. Mary’s River is between eight and nine meters. In recent 

years, between $16 million and $19 million in operation and maintenance funding has been 

appropriated annually to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the St. Mary’s River. 

 The St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River system connects Lakes Huron and Erie. 

The channel depth in the St. Clair River is between eight and nine meters. Lake St. Clair has a 

relatively shallow average depth of three meters. As a result, the navigation channel in Lake St. 

Clair is dredged to 8.4 meters. The channel depth in the Detroit River is between 8.4 and 9.0 

meters. Operation and maintenance funding in recent years has varied between $694,000 and 

$1.6 million for the St. Clair River, $3.5 million and $4.3 million for the Detroit River, and 

$97,000 and $466,000 for channels in Lake St. Clair. 

 

19
Fig. 5. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system profile, including the Soo Locks, Welland Canal, 

and St. Lawrence Seaway locks (source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority) 

Since 1959, the GLSLSS has remained relatively unchanged. While some maintenance 

dredging does occur, it is currently minimal. Some, believing that the region’s economic wellbeing is directly tied to the amount of shipping through the Seaway, have periodically 

proposed—for example, in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study (box 1)— further 

improvement of the system’s infrastructure or maintenance to allow larger vessels including 

container ships and/or a longer navigation season. However, environmental advocates and other 

resource users raise concerns about the impacts and cost of such changes. Besides the likelihood 

of introducing more aquatic invasive species to the lakes, enlarging the system may also increase 

water flow out of the lakes, worsening the problems of lower lake levels seen in recent years. 

Port Facilities

Port facilities and the network of development and industrial capacity that has grown 

around them embody significant capital investment by industry, Great Lakes states and 

provinces, and the U.S. and Canadian federal governments. Though they are relatively expensive 

to modify, ports are also moving pieces of the Great Lakes maritime system. The number of 

ports in the region has diminished through a process of port rationalization and consolidation. 

This process, retarded at times by local political pressures to maintain operations at some 

marginal ports, would likely accelerate if economic forces were given free rein. There continues 

to be new investment in some of the major public port infrastructure, and the two federal 

governments continue to invest in the port system by dredging channels (including channels to 

private ports). Currently, there are 65 commercial ports in the Great Lakes. Of these, 12 are 

major ports in the United States (Burns Harbor, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Duluth, Erie, Green 

Bay, Milwaukee, Monroe, Oswego, Superior, and Toledo), and five are major Canadian ports 

(Hamilton, Oshawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto, and Windsor) (fig. 6). 

Port facilities can be large and generalized to a range of cargoes or small and specialized 

to a specific cargo or even a specific carrier. Port infrastructure varies depending on the types of 

20
cargoes they process and their roles as destination- and/or transit-ports. A port is considered a 

destination port if the shippers/receivers of the majority of cargoes are located within a 75-mile 

radius. In the Great Lakes region, ports that receive steel and steel products from overseas for steel 

making, refinement, and manufacturing—including Burns Harbor, Cleveland, and Detroit—tend 

to be destination ports. Infrastructure at these ports, in a sense, includes the nearby manufacturing 

facilities that process the cargoes. Major rail connectors near these port facilities are designed to 

transport the production output of manufacturing facilities to consumers. 

The port infrastructure is made up of one or more docks. A dock typically consists of the 

following elements: 1) a navigation channel dredged to provide underwater clearance for ships to 

reach land; 2) a defined seawall separating land and water; 3) landside improvements such as 

outdoor or indoor cargo storage areas; 4) cargo handling equipment such as cranes, forklifts, 

conveyors, etc. 

Ports are considered transit ports when the shippers/receivers of most of the goods 

passing through are outside a 75-mile radius. Transit ports mark the beginning or end of only one 

leg of a journey for cargoes. Other significant legs of the cargoes’ journey may involve rail, truck 

or other vessel transit. In the Great Lakes, transit ports are associated with grain movement. For 

example, Duluth, Milwaukee, and Toledo are transit ports that transfer grain from trains from the 

heartland to waterborne vessels for transportation abroad. These ports are identifiable by their 

numerous grain elevators and railway connections to move cargoes to these facilities. 

Fig. 6. Map of commercial ports in the Great Lakes, including Canada Port Authorities and U.S. 

public ports

21
Box 1: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 

Since 1959, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway (GLSLS) system has enabled oceangoing vessels access to ports in the Great Lakes—some over 2,163 kilometers from the 

system’s Atlantic Ocean entrance. Though the GLSLS opened in an era dominated by smaller 

“break bulk” freighters, the design limitations of the system (it can accommodate vessels up to 

225 meters long and 24 meters wide) restrict many vessels from using the system. Classes of 

ships unable to use the system include the larger container ships that now dominate the 

shipping industry. 

Citing the age, size limitations, and cost of maintaining the GLSLS system, maritime interests 

have periodically proposed further improvement of the system infrastructure or maintenance to 

allow larger vessels, including container ships, and/or a longer navigation season. For example, in 

May 2003 the U.S. and Canadian governments announced the joint Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway Study to assess the ongoing maintenance and capital requirements to sustain and 

optimize the GLSLS system and the marine transportation infrastructure on which it depends. 

The memorandum of cooperation signed by the two countries listed the following study 

objectives: 

• Identify factors and trends affecting the domestic and international marine 

transportation industries. 

• Assess current and future transportation requirements for the waterway. 

• Evaluate the reliability and condition of the waterway, including the costs and benefits 

of maintaining the existing infrastructure. 

• Assess the environmental, engineering, and economic factors associated with the 

current and future needs of the GLSLS system and its transportation infrastructure. 

Transport Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation are leading the study, which is 

examining maintenance rather than major infrastructure modifications, including the expansion of 

the system. The study steering committee includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. 

Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 

Environment Canada, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to Wayne Schloop, the 

former project manager for the study on the U.S. side (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the project 

schedule calls for a report to be completed by the fall of 2006. He expects a public review period 

to follow. 

The GLSLS study follows an 18-month U.S. Army Corps of Engineers effort called the Great 

Lakes Navigation System Review. This analysis considered the economic cost and environmental 

impacts of modifications to the system, with a focus on increasing the depths of the locks and 

channels. Much of this work was completed and made public in June 2002. A final report was not 

completed, however, and so there were only overall findings or recommendations. It was decided 

that the binational GLSLS study was the appropriate next step. 

22
In addition, some transit ports in the GLSLSS specialize in transshipment, i.e., the 

transfer of goods from one waterborne carrier to another, or to another mode of transportation. 

Transshipment ports are equipped with specialized, large storage facilities that are designed to 

receive goods from one size or type of vessel and load another. All of the GLSLSS 

transshipment ports are located along the St. Lawrence River, including Quebec City and 

Montreal. Cargoes from the U.S. and Canadian agricultural and industrial heartland arrive from 

western GLSLSS ports to these transit ports in Seaway-sized vessels, where they are off-loaded, 

combined with other shipments, and then loaded into much larger ocean-going bulk cargo and 

container ships for overseas shipment. Typically, the Seaway-sized vessels then load iron ore for 

transport back to Great Lakes ports. From overseas, larger vessels carry containerized and 

general cargo to ports along the St. Lawrence, which is subsequently transshipped to road and 

rail. The Port of Montreal is a major center for transshipment of containerized cargo to rail, as 

the port has excellent rail links to central Canada and the American Midwest. The Port of 

Quebec transshipped 5 million–6 million metric tons of cargo per year in 2001 and 2002. Smaller 

St. Lawrence ports, such as Baie-Comeau, Sept-Isles, and Trois-Rivieres, transship grain from 

Seaway-sized ships to larger ocean-going bulk carriers. 

Compared with other major freshwater port systems worldwide, the ports of the GLSLSS 

are situated far from open water (box 2). For example, the Port of Duluth, Minnesota, in Lake 

Superior is 2,163 kilometers from the Atlantic Ocean; the Port of Chicago, Illinois, in Lake 

Michigan is 2,013 kilometers from the Atlantic Ocean; and the Port of Toronto, Ontario in Lake 

Ontario is 563 kilometers from the Atlantic Ocean. In contrast, the world’s busiest freshwater 

port, the Port of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, is situated a mere 164 kilometers from open water. 

Box 2: Comparison of Major Freshwater Port Systems 

with Transoceanic Shipping 

Country State/Province Port Distance from Coast/Sea 

United States Minnesota Duluth 2,163 km 

United States Illinois Chicago 2,013 km 

United States Michigan Detroit 995 km 

United States Ohio Cleveland 859 km 

Canada Ontario Toronto 562 km 

United States Pennsylvania Philadelphia 164 km 

United States Oregon Portland 126 km 

China Jiangsu Nanjing 270 km 

Spain Andalusia Seville 80 km 

Belgium Flanders Belgium 60 km 

Germany Bremen Bremen 60 km 

23
Vessels 

There are four types of vessel fleets involved in the movement of cargo throughout the 

GLSLSS, which vary significantly in appearance, specialization, and trade pattern (table 1). 

Briefly summarized, they include the following: 

U.S.-flagged domestic vessels (“Lakers”) comprise approximately 60 vessels, the vast 

majority of which are bulk freighters. Lakers are by far the largest vessels on the Great Lakes, 

with some vessels over 300 meters in length. Their size prevents them from transiting the 

Welland Canal, and so they trade exclusively in the upper four Great Lakes. Lakers move cargo 

to serve three primary markets: iron ore and coal for domestic steel production, coal for electric 

utilities and power companies, and limestone for cement manufacturers. The primary trade 

pattern for laker vessels is to carry iron ore and coal from northern Michigan and Minnesota 

south to the major industrial cities. Vessels tend to return north in ballast, although some 

backhaul of stone does occur. 

 U.S.-flagged domestic barges comprise over 27,000 vessels nationally; but the number of 

barges that travel routes relevant to the Great Lakes total approximately 6,000 vessels due to 

U.S. Coast Guard regulations restricting the geographic scope of inland barge traffic. These 

vessels, which enter the GLSLSS from the Illinois River at Chicago are prohibited from traveling 

northward beyond Milwaukee, WI and east beyond Muskegon, MI. A typical barge operating on 

the Mississippi and Illinois River systems measures 59 meters long and can carry just over 1,300 

metric tons of cargo. The barges transport many of the same bulk commodities carried by the 

larger laker and Salty fleets, including grain, petroleum products, chemicals, and coal. In general, 

grain is shipped from ports along the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway south to 

Gulf of Mexico ports for shipment overseas. Other commodities such as chemicals and iron and 

steel products tend to be transported upriver on the Mississippi and Illinois Waterway. 

 Canadian-flagged domestic vessels (“Canadian lakers”) comprise approximately 80 

vessels, most of which are self-unloading bulk carriers. Because the vessels are much smaller 

than U.S-flagged lakers, they are able to visit ports throughout each of the five Great Lakes, and 

in some cases, Canadian ports outside the GLSLSS. In general, cargoes the Canadian lakers 

carry are similar to those carried by the U.S. domestic fleet, with coal, iron ore, and limestone, 

accounting for nearly two-thirds of the cargo carried. Other cargoes carried include tanker 

products, grain, salt, miscellaneous bulk, and cement. The primary pattern for Canadian lakers is 

to transport grain from Thunder Bay and Duluth-Superior to ports along the St. Lawrence River.

 Seaway-sized transoceanic vessels (“Salties”) comprise approximately 220 vessels 

flagged in more than 30 countries. The vast majority of vessels are bulk carriers, though there are 

also a small number of general cargo carriers, heavy lift ships and tankers in service. With the 

exception of barges, Salties are by far the smallest vessels operating on the lakes, with most 

vessels approximately 180 meters long. This smaller size enables them to enter the lakes from 

overseas, transit the St. Lawrence Seaway, Welland Canal, and all five Great Lakes. Salties 

generally follow a “steel in - grain out” trade pattern, whereby iron and steel, and other high 

value cargoes generally arrive from Europe, and are discharged in a series of lower lake ports. 

24
Vessels then travel in full ballast to pick up grain for their outgoing voyage, primarily from 

Duluth-Superior and Thunder Bay. 

Table 1. Comparison of the U.S.-, Canadian-, and overseas-flagged fleets currently operating on 

the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 

U.S.-flagged lakers U.S.-flagged barges Canadian-flagged 

lakers 

Overseas-flagged 

Salties 

Number of 

vessels 

 In fleet 

60 ~6,000 80 220 

Length (average) 230 m 59 m 190 m 160 m 

Beam (average) 24 m 10 m 21 m 21 m 

Gross registered 

tonnage (average) 18,000 MT 1,360 MT 15,000 MT 14,000 MT 

Ballast capacity 

(average) 30,000 m3 -- 15,000 m3 10,000 m3

Ballast pump rate 4,500 m3

/hour -- 1,000–2,000 m3/hour 1,000–2,000 m3/hour 

Primary cargos Iron ore, coal, limestone 

Grain, oilseeds, 

petroleum products, 

chemicals 

Iron ore, coal, 

limestone Steel products, grain 

Trade pattern Upper four Great Lakes 

Mississippi River, 

Illinois Waterway, 

Intracoastal waterway 

Great Lakes, 

St. Lawrence River, 

eastern coast of 

Canada 

Great Lakes, St. 

Lawrence Seaway, 

overseas 

Representative 

vessel 

The GLSLSS’s transoceanic trade is the primary vector for non-native species 

introductions into the Great Lakes, and is therefore the primary focus of this report. Canadian 

and U.S. domestic fleets that operate exclusively within waters of the GLSLSS are considered 

insular and therefore a ready secondary vector for species spread about the GLSLSS. These 

fleets are described in Appendix A of this report. 

25
Size and Types 

 The dimensions of the St. Lawrence Seaway locks are 225 meters in length and just over 

24 meters in breadth. Seaway-sized transoceanic ships are therefore small in comparison with 

other ocean-going vessels (table 2). On average, Seaway-sized bulk carriers are 180 meters long 

and 23 meters wide, and are classed within the Handymax class of bulk carriers. In contrast, a 

Panamax bulk carrier measures 225 meters long and 32 meters wide, while a Capesize bulk 

carrier measures 288 meters long and 45 meters wide. Typical container ships measure over 240 

meters in length and 32 meters in width. Car and container vessels, though smaller in length than 

most bulk carriers and tankers, are disproportionately wider compared to both these vessel types. 

Seaway-sized transoceanic vessels are also small in comparison with the Canadian and 

U.S. laker fleets (fig. 7). Of the three fleets, U.S. lakers are by far the largest vessels on the Great 

Lakes, with some vessels over 300 meters in length. Their size prevents them from transiting the 

Welland Canal, such that they trade exclusively in the upper four Great Lakes. Canadian lakers, 

though smaller than U.S-flagged lakers, are still larger than the transoceanic vessels, and 

therefore are able to visit ports throughout each of the five Great Lakes, and in some cases, 

Canadian ports outside the Great Lakes system. 

Table 2. Ocean-going vessels types relative to representative length, beam, and depth 

Type of ocean-going vessel Length (m) Beam (m) Depth (m) 

Aframax tanker 246 43 20 

Panamax tanker 228 32 19 

Handymax tanker 165 25 13 

Very large crude carrier 327 56 30 

Container (1500 – 2000 TEU) 174 27 16 

Container (2000 – 3000 TEU) 226 32 19 

Container (3000 – 3500 TEU) 241 32 19 

Container (3500 – 4000 TEU) 246 32 19 

Container (4000 – 4500 TEU) 263 37 22 

Capesize bulk carrier 288 45 24 

Panamax bulk carrier 225 32 19 

Handymax bulk carrier 182 32 16 

Chemical tanker 149 23 13 

Car/container carrier 180 32 23 

LNG carrier 276 46 25 

26
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 100 101 -

120

121 -

140

141 -

160

161 -

180

181 -

200

201 -

220

221 -

240

241 -

260

261 -

280

281 -

300

> 301

Length (m)

Number of vessels

Transoceanic Salties

Canadian Lakers

U.S. Lakers

Fig. 7. Comparative vessel length of transoceanic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker fleets that 

operated on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System in 20022

 

Numbers 

Each year an average of 220 distinct transoceanic vessels visit the lakes. The vast 

majority of these vessels are bulk carriers, although there are a small number of general cargo 

carriers, heavy lift ships, and tankers in service (fig. 8). About 60 percent of these ships belong to 

a stable, core group of vessels that make regular runs into the lakes every shipping season. The 

rest are ships that visit the lakes in so-called tramp service, available to move cargo as the need 

arises, but not in dedicated service to the lakes. In fact, Seaway-sized vessels that visit the 

GLSLSS in a given year represent only a small percentage of the total pool of available vessels 

in service globally. A 2001 vessel fleet analysis conducted by Lloyd’s Maritime Information 

Services of London for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation determined that 

41,909 vessels, representing 69.7 percent of the world’s fleet, are small enough to enter the St. 

Lawrence Seaway (ACOE, 2002a; table 3). 

The smaller size and shallower draft of Seaway-sized vessels not only enables them to 

transit the St. Lawrence Seaway, Welland Canal, and all five Great Lakes, but also to access 

more port systems globally, especially those of developing countries. Examples of nondeep-

 

2

 Figure is based on an original analysis of vessels that transited the GLSLSS in 2002. Information was gathered 

from many sources including databases compiled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center 

(http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/NDC/data/data1.htm), and classification society and individual ship owner/operator 

websites. 

27
water and/or less developed ports that are open only to Seaway-sized ships elsewhere include 

certain ports in China and central and west Africa. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bulk carrier General cargo carrier Other Heavy lift carrier Chemical tanker

Percentage of Transoceanic Fleet (%)

Fig. 8. Major types of transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 

system in 20022

Table 3. World fleet currently capable of entering the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 

(source: ACOE, 2002a) 

No. of Vessels % of World Fleet 

(no. of vessels) Gross Tons % of World Fleet (gross tons) 

Bulk carrier 1,028 15.4 2,778,325 1.6 

Container 663 21.8 3,596,327 4.7 

Gas 722 60.7 1,793,053 7.6 

General Cargo 12,048 81.2 26,506,134 44.6 

Misc. 16,496 92.8 18,346,314 60.8 

Passenger 3,405 83.5 9,762,675 32.8 

Reefer 959 71.5 3,153,159 44.9 

RoRo 1,093 60.5 5,796,004 19.4 

Tanker 5,495 58.7 10,821,003 5.3 

TOTAL 41,909 69.7 82,549,994 12.9 

28
Useful Life 

Because these Seaway-sized transoceanic vessels operate mostly in a saltwater 

environment, their useful service life is approximately 25 years—significantly shorter than U.S.- 

and Canadian-flagged lakers, which ply primarily within the freshwater system. Most of the 

transoceanic vessels currently entering the GLSLSS are at the end of their service life, though a 

recent spate of new builds have or will soon come on-line (fig. 9). 

0

15

30

45

60

75

< 1940 1941 -

1945

1946 -

1950

1951 -

1955

1956 -

1960

1961 -

1965

1966 -

1970

1971 -

1975

1976 -

1980

1981 -

1985

1986 -

1990

1991 -

1995

1996 -

2000

2001 -

2005

Year of build

Number of vessels

U.S. Lakers

Canadian Lakers

Transoceanic "salties"

Fig. 9. Comparative year of build of transoceanic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker vessel 

fleets that operated on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 20022

 

Cargoes 

Cargoes are quantified in terms of tonnage and value. More than 220 million metric tons 

of cargo move into, out of, and around the Great Lakes each year. Much of this tonnage—

approximately 95 percent—is carried in bulk freighters and tankers of the U.S. and Canadian 

laker fleets. These laker cargoes include coal, iron ore, limestone, and grain (see appendix A). In 

contrast, cargoes transported by transoceanic ships tend to have lower tonnage but higher value. 

Generally, the incoming cargoes include iron and steel products discharged in lower-lake ports, 

and the outgoing cargo is grain taken on board in upper-lakes ports for delivery overseas (fig. 

10). A significant portion of grain cargo, however, departs from the Port of Toledo in the lower 

lakes. 

29
The iron and steel products carried by Salties generally arrive from European ports in 

Belgium, the Netherlands, Brazil, France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the 

United Kingdom. Lower-lake ports receiving these high-value cargoes include Toronto, 

Hamilton, Oshawa, Ashtabula, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Burns Harbor, and Milwaukee (table 

4). Not all of the cargo arrives to a single port, however. Instead it is common for vessels to 

discharge part of their cargo at several lower-lakes ports as they travel farther west in the basin, 

taking on more and more ballast water each time they unload (fig. 10). From their final discharge 

port, the Salties then travel in full ballast to pick up grain for their outgoing voyage, primarily 

from Duluth-Superior and Thunder Bay (table 4). The grain usually is then transported to ports in 

Belgium, the Netherlands, Algeria, Italy, Spain, Venezuela, and the United Kingdom. 

Besides iron, steel and grain, Salty vessels also carry specialty cargoes in and out of the 

Great Lakes. Generally, these cargoes are carried on smaller vessels, which are able to visit a 

wider variety of port and dock facilities. For example, FedNav recently moved a shipment of 

windmills to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to be used in wind-power generation. Other examples 

include heavy machinery, such as imported machine presses used by General Motors in auto 

manufacturing, and outgoing tunnel boring equipment manufactured by Robbins Co. for use in 

European construction projects (G. Failor, pers. comm.). A regular transit route has also recently 

opened up between ports in Germany and Finland and Menominee, Wisconsin, and Duluth, 

Minnesota, for the importation of wood and paper products. The Port of Toledo has also recently 

begun receiving shipments of sugar and aluminum. 

In 2002, more than 12 million metric tons of overseas cargo passed through GLSLSS 

ports, including nearly 6.8 million metric tons arriving at GLSLSS ports, and more than 5.5 

million metric tons leaving GLSLSS ports (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp, 2003). 

This figure is on par with the annual tonnage carried by transoceanic vessels over the last four 

years (fig. 11). As in previous years, the major commodities were iron, steel, and agricultural 

products. The iron and steel float of nearly 3 million metric tons, almost all of it imported, 

represented an increase from 2001, though tonnage has generally been declining compared with 

past years (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp, 2003; fig. 12). The agricultural products 

float of almost 4.7 million metric tons also represented a decline compared to previous years (St. 

Lawrence Seaway Development Corp, 2003; fig. 12). Overall, more than 20 ports in the 

GLSLSS, including those in Canada, received cargoes from nearly 40 countries in 2002, while 

cargoes for export were shipped from only 14 ports in the system to 30 countries during that 

same period (ACOE, 2004; figs. 13 a–e). 

30
Fig. 10. Generalized trade pattern of overseas-flagged transoceanic vessels transporting steel in 

and grain out of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 

0

4

8

12

16

1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Total cargo tonnage 

(millions of metric tons)

Fig. 11. Total tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the overseas-flagged 

transoceanic fleet, 1999–2002 (source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp, 2003) 

31
Table. 4. Cargoes transported by transoceanic vessels to and from major ports in the Great Lakes 

in 2002 (source: ACOE, 2004) 

32
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Agricultural

products

Animal

products

Mine products Forest

products

Iron & Steel Steel Slab Other

manufactures

& misc.

Cargo tonnage

(millions of metric tons)

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fig. 12. Tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the overseas-flagged 

transoceanic fleet by major cargo category, 1998–2002 (source: St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corp, 2003) 

Fig. 13a. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake 

Ontario in 20022

33
Fig. 13b. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake 

Erie in 20022

Fig. 13c. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake 

Huron in 20022

34
Fig. 13d. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake 

Michigan in 20022

35
Fig. 13e. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake 

Superior in 20022

 

36
Fiduciary Pieces 

 The financial network through which money flows to nourish Great Lakes maritime trade 

is even more complex than the system’s physical infrastructure. Fiduciary moving pieces 

populate the supply chain and the transportation services chain that enable waterborne 

transportation on the GLSLSS. This section describes the primary fiduciary players and their 

relationships to one another. It then outlines the flow of funds associated with typical 

transactions resulting in visits by transoceanic vessels to Great Lakes ports. 

The Supply Chain 

The supply chain comprises entities that extract, alter, or otherwise own material from 

extraction/production of its raw form through manufacturing processes to its consumption as a 

finished product. Supply chain entities interact with transportation services to move materials 

from one production stage to the next. The financial decisions, implicit or explicit, made by 

members of a supply chain influence whether and how transportation will occur. 

Supply chains involving waterborne transportation can be simple or complex depending 

upon the degree of refinement of the cargo prior to and following transport. In the case of the 

GLSLSS, the supply chains for imports and exports derive from distinct industries—steel and 

grain, respectively—but the two industries share responsibility for transportation conditions 

associated with their cargoes; for reasons of economic efficiency, the same ships and the same 

voyages (albeit different legs) are used for their respective waterborne shipment. It is doubtful 

that either industry would be sufficient to support waterborne trade on the GLSLSS in the 

absence of the other for any extended period. 

The supply chain associated with the most significant cargo imported to the GLSLSS 

from overseas, i.e., steel, reflects both pre-shipping and post-import (within the Great Lakes 

region) processing. The story begins with the overseas entities exporting finished and semifinished steel to the GLSLSS port range. Imported semi-finished steel may then be further 

processed to meet specifications of U.S. manufacturers. Between 1997 and 2002, shippers in 

Europe were responsible for 74 percent of the steel imported to U.S. ports in the Great Lakes 

(ACOE, 2004). These European steel cargoes departed from Belgium, the Netherlands, 

Lithuania, France, and Latvia. Though the steel manufacturers directly responsible for shipments 

like these are diverse and numerous, they are often owned by or organized into larger 

international steel groups. Among the larger of these groups are Arcelor, Duferco, THEIS, and 

ThyssenKrupp. Non-European steel imports during the 1997-2002 timeframe originated in Asia 

(Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea) and South America (predominantly Brazil, 

with some from Venezuela and Argentina) at 15 percent and 8 percent, respectively (ACOE, 

2004). Major steel producers in South America include Arcelor and Gerdau SA. 

The specific names of and volumes shipped to specific receiving companies through 

GLSLSS ports are considered proprietary information and carefully guarded by the ports, and for 

the same reason are not available under the Freedom of Information Act. However, given the 

ports through which the material passes, International Steel Group, Inland Steel, and USX, Steel 

are likely receivers of these goods. Upon arrival in the lakes (usually Burns Harbor, Detroit, 

37
Cleveland, Chicago, and Hamilton), imported steel may pass through a series of intermediary 

refinement processes at steel service centers (box 3). The number of these intermediaries varies, 

and so the steel may make several stops along the supply chain to be cut, pickled, stamped, etc., 

before finally being used to assemble finished manufactured goods. The most significant end 

user of steel in the Great Lakes region is the auto manufacturing industry; others include 

appliance manufacturers and the construction industry (S. Fisher, pers. comm.). Consumers of 

the finished products from steel imported from abroad to the GLSLSS are largely (though not 

entirely) domestic to the United States and Canada. 

The supply chain associated with the exports from the Great Lakes is simpler, at least on 

the Great Lakes-based side, which in this case is the pre-shipping side (box 4). Agricultural 

products such as grain and oilseeds are purchased from Midwestern farmers by corporations like 

Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, CHS, General Mills, AGP, and Louis-Dreyfuss, and moved via 

rail to grain elevators at Duluth-Superior and Thunder Bay, or, to a lesser extent, Milwaukee and 

Toledo. The grain shippers then hire Salty vessels (empty of cargo having unloaded steel from 

their in-bound voyage) to move these grain cargoes abroad. In some cases, shippers use 

Canadian laker vessels to transport grain first through the St. Lawrence Seaway to Quebec and 

other ports along the St. Lawrence River for transshipment. Several Canadian laker loads can be 

consolidated at these outer deep water ports and loaded into ocean-going vessels too large for the 

Seaway. At the other end of the journey, processing may or may not occur prior to consumption. 

Between 1997 and 2002, 61 percent of the grain exported from U.S. ports in the Great Lakes was 

sent to Europe, with Africa accounting for another 27 percent of grain exports (ACOE, 2004). 

Countries within Europe receiving the goods included Italy, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, 

and the United Kingdom, while Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia were the largest African 

consumers of the Great Lakes grain (ACOE, 2004). The majority of this processed grain is 

consumed within these overseas markets. 

38
Box 3: Steel Import Example 

 The supply chain associated with imports of steel products to Great Lakes can vary 

considerably in complexity. Steel may be imported in raw, semi-finished, or finished form, and 

may pass through a number of service centers or “middle men” before ultimately being consumed 

by a manufacturer. 

 A good example would be a shipment of European-produced steel destined for a North 

American automobile manufacturer. Consider a shipment of steel produced by ThyssenKrupp 

Steel AG, one of the major multinational steel groups. ThyssenKrupp produces highly finished, 

cold-rolled steel and supplies the auto industry and other consumer goods manufacturers. This 

steel goes through a number of finishing processes prior to export, which may occur at one 

integrated facility or at a number of facilities throughout Europe. 

 When the steel is finished and ready for export, ThyssenKrupp arranges for the shipment to 

be transported to the Great Lakes via an ocean-going carrier. The carrier then transports the steel 

shipment to one of the major steel ports in the Great Lakes, such as Burns Harbor, Detroit, 

Cleveland, Chicago, or Hamilton. The steel may undergo further processing, such as slicing, 

sizing, stamping, etc., at service centers in and around the port before being delivered to the final 

manufacturer. 

 This is just one example of a supply chain for steel imported to the Great Lakes. Steel may 

be imported raw or semi-finished as well, and undergo processing and finishing at integrated 

steel mills in the Great Lakes region. 

39
Box 4: Grain Export Example 

 Before export, the supply chain associated with exports of grain and agricultural products 

from the Great Lakes is relatively simple. Grain is grown and harvested on farms in Midwestern 

North America and transported via rail to grain silos at ports such as Duluth, Thunder Bay, 

Toledo, and Milwaukee. These silos are owned and operated by the large companies that ship 

and export grain (i.e., Cargill, ADM, General Mills, and Louis Dreyfuss). Here, grain is loaded onto 

ocean-going vessels bound for overseas destinations. 

 However, the supply chain varies in complexity once the grain has left the exporting port. For 

example, grain from Duluth or Thunder Bay may be shipped to ports along the St. Lawrence 

River for consolidation with other grain and transshipment to larger ocean-going vessels. Some 

grain may be processed and refined in the importing nation for use in consumer food products. 

An example of this type of processing is in the export of barley from Duluth to Ireland and Great 

Britain for use in a brewery owned by Budweiser. A simpler supply chain also exists in the form of 

direct exports of grain and agricultural products as food aid for nations such as Egypt and Algeria. 

 

 

40
The Transportation Services Chain 

Members of the supply chain contract with transportation service providers to move their 

goods. Transportation services relevant to the GLSLSS include vessel ownership, operation and 

maintenance, Seaway operation and maintenance, vessel pilotage, cargo loading and unloading, 

and maintenance of dock space and intermodal links. 

Shipowners, Operators and Charterers 

The chain of unique entities delivering ship operation to a shipper of cargo, like the 

supply chain itself, may be simple or complex, involving separate shipowners, charterers, and/or 

operators. A shipowner is the company legally recorded as the vessel’s owner on the ship’s 

certificate of registration. A ship operator is the company responsible for the actual management 

of the vessel and its crew. A ship charterer is the company responsible for the transportation of 

cargo to and from a specified series of ports on a time-limited basis. 

The transportation services chain is most simple when the cargo to be shipped is highly 

reliable and frequent. Ships in dedicated trade may be owned and operated by separate 

subsidiaries of the same company. Indeed, at times, the cargo shippers, carriers, and even 

receivers of goods are components of the same corporate entity. For example, Cargill formerly 

owned its own fleet of carriers for service on the GLSLSS. 

However, the trend in transportation service chains, in both waterborne transportation on 

the GLSLSS and globally, is toward complexity. Fewer than 10 percent of the 220 Salty vessels 

that entered the GLSLSS in 2002 were owned and operated by the same company. This low rate 

is in part an artifact of shipowners setting up “dummy” companies in order to switch vessel 

registrations from traditional shipping nations to offshore registers (see discussion of “Flag 

States” below) to enjoy lower taxes, fees, wage scales, and regulations for vessels. However, it 

also reflects a global trend toward vessel chartering as shippers/receivers look to reduce 

overhead and liability, and maintain flexibility in constantly changing global trade markets. 

Shipowners offer their vessels to cargo owners for charter. There are three basic types of 

charters available: 

Voyage charter, in which the shipper contracts with the vessel owner to move a cargo 

from point A to point B on specified dates, and for a certain sum—either as so much per ton or a 

lump sum. The vessel owner remains responsible for the cost of running the ship during this 

period, and for paying for the fuel and port expenses. 

Time charter, in which a charterer hires the ship for a period of time, which may be 

months or even years, for an agreed rate paid in advance and at regular intervals. In this capacity, 

a ship charterer is considered a customer of the shipowner, with the two parties entering into a 

contractual arrangement. The charterer pays for the fuel and operational and port expenses, 

although capital and running expenses, for keeping the ship in good condition, remain the 

responsibility of the owner. 

41
Bareboat charter, in which the vessel owner virtually hands over his ship to the charterer, 

who will treat it as his own, possibly painting it his colors, placing his own crew aboard, and 

taking full responsibility for its trading, in return for regular agreed payments. 

Both voyage chartering and time chartering involve vessels and cargo being matched on 

the charter market. Shipowners or operators contact brokers—middle men who specialize in 

setting up work for a given vessel—when they have a ship available, free of cargo. The broker 

then contacts the shipper/receiver who has a particular volume of cargo to transport from one 

location to another, or for a specific period of time. The deal is completed when the charter party 

is drawn up. The charter market is complex and often volatile, where large sums of money can 

sometimes be gained—or lost—depending on supply and demand. However, this service chain is 

ideal for shippers with unreliable or infrequent consignments of cargo. These vessels operate in 

so-called “tramp trade,” analogous to taxi services that hire drivers and a centralized dispatcher 

(agent) to inform the cabs of their next human consignment. The shippers of cargo also have 

agents to procure the most cost-effective carriers for a particular shipment. 

In contrast, bareboat charters are particularly useful if the shipper/receiver has a longterm requirement for bulk transport, but does not wish to become a shipowner due to the large 

capital investment. The duration of these charters range from 10 to 15 years, providing a base 

load of shipping capacity to cover long-term material supply contracts. Charters of this type are 

generally agreed upon before the vessel is built. FedNav Ltd. is an example of a company 

involved in the long-term charter of a large proportion of its fleet operating on the Great Lakes. 

Despite these dynamic owner-charterer-operator relationships, a stable core group of 

companies operates vessels making one or more runs into the GLSLSS each shipping season. 

Table 5 lists the top 12 companies that operated transoceanic vessels that entered the GLSLSS in 

2002. 

Port Administrations 

As noted above, ports comprise one or more docks. The vast majority of port and dock 

space in the Great Lakes is private. In particular, the smaller ports around the Great Lakes are 

often owned and operated by the private entities shipping cargo. For example, a steel mill or 

mining operation might have its own port. These private ports process shipments almost 

exclusively involving U.S. and Canadian domestic vessels (fig. 14). The region’s major 

commercial ports, comprising many docks, are far larger than these private ports, and are the 

destinations for most transoceanic vessels (fig. 15). At these locations there is typically some 

public ownership of docks. These facilities, fewer in number than private ports, are owned and 

managed by public agencies. 

 

42
Table 5. Top 12 companies that operated overseas-flagged transoceanic vessels that entered the 

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 20022

Ship operator Type of vessel No. of vessels Average gross registered 

tonnage 

Bulk carrier 40 

FedNav Ltd. 

General cargo carrier 1 

20,895 

Wagenborg Shipping General cargo carrier 19 6,253 

Bulk carrier 15 

Canfornav Ltd 

General cargo carrier 1 

17,479 

Bulk carrier 14 

Polish Steamship Company 

General cargo carrier 2 

16,262 

Flinter Groningen BV General cargo carrier 7 5,096 

Oldendorff Carriers Bulk carrier 6 17,245 

BBC Chartering & Logistics General cargo carrier 5 5,356 

Bulk carrier 3 

B&N Rederi 

General cargo carrier 2 

5,620 

Lithuanian Shipping Corporation Bulk carrier 5 9,965 

General cargo carrier 1 

Jumbo Shipping 

Heavy load carrier 3 

6,412 

Knutsen O A S Tanker 4 13,590 

Fig. 14. Map of private ports in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and types of 

cargoes processed2

43
Fig. 15. Map of public ports in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and types of 

cargoes processed2

Public Port Authority Organizations Models

There are a number of models for the organization and operation of public port 

authorities in the Great Lakes, and these tend to mirror the models throughout the rest of North 

America.3

 Some ports in the Great Lakes are owned and operated by government entities, 

including state, county, and municipal governments. For example, the port of Milwaukee is 

municipally run, the port of Green Bay is owned and operated at the county level, and Burns 

Harbor (as well as Indiana’s non-Great Lakes ports) is state owned and operated. 

 The more common model, however, is for a public port authority to be established by 

state legislation. Most of the major Great Lakes ports, such as Cleveland, Toledo, Duluth, 

Chicago, and Detroit, operate under this model. State legislation authorizes the port authority to 

engage in maritime commerce activities and, in some cases, other activities such as bonding and 

financing. Typically, these port authorities are governed by a board of directors, with state, 

county, and municipal governments appointing a predetermined number of the board members. 

 

2

 Three Great Lakes ports operate under State control (Indiana Ports, Ogdensburg, and Oswego); five under City control (Monroe, Ashtabula, 

Lorain, Milwaukee, and Superior); and one under County control (Green Bay). The remaining ports operate under Port Authorities or Port 

Districts that are partnerships between some combination of State, County, and City Government: three by State/City authority (Chicago, 

Waukegan, and Erie), two by State/City/County authority (Detroit-Wayne and Duluth), and two by City/County authority (Cleveland-Cuyahoga 

and Toledo-Lucas). 

44
Box 5 provides an example, detailing the organization, authority, and governance of the Port of 

Cleveland. 

 Canada’s major public ports were commercialized in 1998 under the Canada Marine Act. 

This law designated the 14 most significant Canadian ports as Canada Port Authorities (CPAs). 

These self-sufficient port authorities receive no federal appropriations, deriving all revenue from 

maritime operations. In addition, they are no longer controlled and operated directly by the 

federal government. Despite these recent changes, Canadian ports remain public institutions. The 

major CPAs are governed by boards of directors similar to those of their U.S. counterparts, 

appointed by and representing federal, provincial, local, and municipal governments. Smaller 

ports in Canada that are not eligible for CPA status have also been defederalized, with the 

Transport Ministry selling or transferring these ports to municipal, provincial, or private 

interests. 

Port Financing Authorities 

Many port authorities throughout the United States provide financing mechanisms for 

developments and projects to promote economic development, generally. These authorities are 

ready entities that can support countywide or regional economic development efforts because 

they usually have broad-based representation in their boards and the ability to supply funding. 

The funding revenues may vary by port authority, but they generally are provided by tax 

revenues, bonds, and income from industry-related activities. For example, one of the Cleveland 

Port Authority’s revenue sources is a bed tax from hotels in Cuyahoga County. This revenue is 

shared and agreed on by the Port, the Cleveland Visitors Bureau, and 12 participating 

municipalities. The success of these financing mechanisms outside of maritime and shipping 

operations has been developed over the past 10 years. 

The concept of using the port for development finance was created at the St. Paul Port 

Authority, Minnesota. It demonstrated the need for a regional venue to improve and retain 

development opportunities in the region and highlight their competitive advantage. Toledo and 

Cleveland Ports recognized St. Paul’s success and sought similar financing mechanisms for 

nontraditional developments outside of their role of shipping operations. Today, ports throughout 

Ohio and other Great Lake states look to Cleveland and Toledo as successful operations in 

providing financing alternatives for communities. To better understand how the ports obtained 

this power, a review of the statutory authorities is required. 

Types of Port Financing

Most port authorities establish their own set of financing tools through a separate division 

of a development office within the authority’s organizational structure. The financing incentives 

are the low interests and fee structures these tools provide. This structure provides a competitive 

advantage over traditional developer/bank investments, which usually charge high fees and 

penalties. In addition, the Ohio Department of Development administers separate supportive 

bond funds established solely for port use under the Port Authority Bond Reserve Fund Program 

to “provide eligible Port Authorities financial assistance for economic activities.” 

45
Box 5: Port Governance Case Study 

Legislative Authority and Origin – The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority was 

authorized under the Ohio Port Authorities Act, which became Chapter 4582 of the Ohio Revised 

Code. In 1968, the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County created the Port Authority as an 

independent agency. 

The powers granted to the Port Authority include to: 

• Acquire, construct, furnish, equip, maintain, repair, sell, exchange, lease, convey other 

interests in, or operate real or personal property related to, useful for, or in furtherance of 

any authorized purpose, and make charges for the use of any port authority facility 

• Straighten, deepen, and improve any canal, channel, river, stream, or other water course 

or way necessary or proper in the development of the facilities of the port authority 

• Issue bonds or notes for the acquisition, construction, furnishing, or equipping of any real 

or personal property 

• Issue revenue bonds beyond the limit of bonded indebtedness provided by law 

• Operate any property in connection with transportation, recreational, governmental 

operations, or cultural activities 

• Apply to the proper authorities of the United States for the right to establish, operate, and 

maintain foreign trade zones and to establish, operate, and maintain foreign trade zones 

Mission – The strategic mission of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is to assist 

private industry in retaining and creating jobs by providing waterborne cargo 

transportation/services and by providing economic development facilitation through financing 

services and other development tools in partnership with local and state development agencies. 

To serve this mission, the Port Authority is divided into two groups: a Maritime Group and a 

Development Finance Group. The Maritime Group provides support to the manufacturing base of 

the region by supplying transportation services that positively impact the area’s competitiveness. 

The Development Finance Group provides support to the community’s private industry through 

financing vehicles that enhance the competitiveness of the area. 

Governance – The Port Authority is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. Three of 

these directors are appointed by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. The remaining six 

directors are appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland, with the approval of the Cleveland City 

Council. Directors serve for a minimum four-year term. Board members earn a salary as 

compensation, with the Chairman earning $15,000, the Vice Chairman earning $8,000, and 

remaining members earning $4,800 annually. 

46
Port Bonding Authorities

Some of the major public port authorities have bonding authority and have made 

significant investments in waterfront redevelopment. Some of the profits from these investments 

may support maritime activity indirectly. As a result of Toledo and Cleveland’s interest in 

opening new venues, resolutions adopted in 1988 under the Ohio Revised Code allow the port 

authority to finance development projects that are approved by its board: 

(A)A port authority created in accordance with section 4582.02 of the Revised Code 

may: 

(1) Acquire, construct, furnish, equip, maintain, repair, sell, exchange, lease to or 

from, lease with an option to purchase, convey other interests in, or operate real or 

personal property, or any combination thereof, related to, useful for, or in 

furtherance of any authorized purpose, and make charges for the use of any port 

authority facility, which shall be not less than the charges established for the same 

services furnished by a public utility or common carrier in the jurisdiction of the 

particular port authority; 

(2) Issue bonds or notes for the acquisition, construction, furnishing, or equipping of 

any real or personal property, or any combination thereof, related to, useful for, or 

in furtherance of any authorized purpose, in compliance with Chapter 133 of the 

Revised Code, except that the bonds or notes only may be issued pursuant to a 

vote of the electors residing within the territory of the port authority. The net 

indebtedness incurred by a port authority shall never exceed two per cent of the 

total value of all property within the territory comprising the authority as listed 

and which (9) Enjoy and possess the same rights, privileges, and powers granted 

municipal corporations under sections 721.04 to 721.11 of the Revised Code; 

Types of Port Development Projects

The Cleveland Port and Toledo Ports have financed a variety of development projects 

throughout and outside of their jurisdictions. These include such large projects as the world 

headquarters for Owens-Corning Fiberglass in Toledo and Applied Industrial Technologies in 

Cleveland. In addition to these industrial investments, recently the ports have financed retail 

development investments—even though they are considered riskier. Examples include financing 

$230 million for a mixed-use development in suburban Westlake, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; $14 

million for a retail parking garage in University Heights (a Cleveland suburb); and $39 million 

for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, a cultural/entertainment facility. 

47
Marine Terminals

 The ports in the Great Lakes are considered “landlord” or nonoperating ports, which 

means they do not directly employ labor to load and unload vessels. Rather, the ports contract 

with marine terminals to handle cargo loading and unloading. In addition, marine terminals can 

be responsible for locating a vessel to carry cargo for a customer. 

 Marine terminals lease space from and pay wharfage fees to port authorities per ton of 

cargo loaded or unloaded. They also charge vessel operators a fee for cargo loading and 

unloading operations, which incorporates the terminal’s operating costs, such as rent and 

wharfage. 

 

Labor 

 The Great Lakes region relies heavily on the maritime industry for employment. Shipping 

activity at 16 major U.S. Great Lakes ports in 2000 created almost 44,000 jobs directly, and 

54,000 jobs indirectly (Martin Associates, 2001). Of the direct jobs created, 5,422 (12.3 percent) 

were associated with the movement of steel and 1,467 (3.3 percent) were associated with the 

movement of grain (Martin Associates, 2001). Though some of the grain-related jobs were likely 

associated with Mississippi-bound trade, and other commodities were associated with 

transoceanic trade, a reasonable estimate of the number of jobs directly generated by 

transoceanic cargo movement in the GLSLSS is 10,000—equivalent to nearly one-quarter of the 

total number of direct jobs. Martin Associates (2001) also reports that GLSLSS shipping 

provided $1.6 billion in direct income, and $2.7 billion in indirect income. Compared with 1991, 

direct and indirect jobs and personal income had more than doubled by 2000.4

 

Waterborne shipments in the GLSLSS directly provide employment in the maritime 

services sector, comprising cargo handling and transportation, vessel operations, and government 

agencies (39 percent of direct jobs); the shipping/consignee sector, comprising the manufacturing 

plants that depend on the cargoes shipped using the GLSLSS (32 percent of direct jobs); the 

transportation sector, including railroad and trucking industries (28 percent of direct jobs); and 

the port sector, including port authorities and associated organizations (1 percent of direct jobs) 

(Martin Associates, 2001). 

Virtually all of this labor is unionized. Primary labor organizations representing workers 

from these sectors in the Great Lakes for the U.S. flag lakers are the American Maritime 

Officers; International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots; and Seafarers International 

Union. For the salty ships, the only Unites States labor involved are the dock workers 

represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association; 

Seaway Development Authorities 

 The U.S. and Canadian federal governments have authorized organizations to help 

manage GLSLSS maritime activity on their respective sides of the national frontier. The 

Canadian government established the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) 

 

3

 All monetary comparisons are in nominal dollars. 

48
as a nonprofit organization in 1998 to bring commercial management concepts to St. Lawrence 

Seaway operations. Seaway users and other stakeholders finance and run the organization under 

contract to the Canadian government, which retains ownership. The SLSMC requires every ship 

entering, passing through, or leaving the Seaway to pay a toll assessed against the ship, its cargo, 

and its passengers for a complete or partial transit of the Seaway, covering a single trip in one 

direction. The cargo-related toll varies by commodity, and is assessed per metric ton. A vessel 

charge increases with gross registered ton of the vessel. Finally, lockage charges to SLSMC 

increase per lock, and vary depending on the ballast condition of the vessel. Lockage charges 

apply only to the Welland Canal. Table 6 provides an overview of the cargo tolls, vessel charges, 

and lockage fees applicable to vessels transiting the GLSLSS. It should be noted that these tolls 

and charges are assessed in Canadian dollars; the values in table 6 and the following tables have 

been converted to U.S. dollars. 

 The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), a wholly owned 

government corporation and an operating administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the U.S. portion of the 

Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. This responsibility includes managing vessel traffic 

control in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, as well as maintaining and 

operating the two U.S. Seaway locks in Massena, N.Y. The SLSDC coordinates its activities 

with its Canadian counterpart, the SLSMC, to ensure that the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence 

Seaway—including the two U.S. locks—are available for commercial transit. The SLSDC and 

SLSMC, under international agreement, jointly publish and administer the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. 

The United States does not charge tolls.

Table 6. Cargo tolls, vessel charges, and lockage charges assessed for vessels transiting the 

Montreal-Lake Ontario and Welland Canal sections of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system 

Montreal-Lake Ontario Welland Canal 

Cargo Tolls ($US per metric ton) 

 Bulk Cargo 0.768 0.5088 

 Grain 0.472 0.5088 

 Coal 0.4533 0.5088 

 General Cargo 1.85 0.8143 

 Steel Slab 1.675 0.5829 

 Contanerized Cargo 0.768 0.5088 

Vessel Charges (per GRT) 0.0741 0.1203 

 Minimum charge per vessel per lock 15.96 15.96 

Lockage charges (per lock) 

 Loaded Vessels 0 406.36 

 Ballasted Vessels 0 300.23 

49
The Cost of Shipping 

Shipping costs can be divided intro three categories: capital costs, operating costs, and 

voyage costs. 

Capital costs include interest on the money used to purchase the vessel and the 

amortization and depreciation thereof. A typical recently built Handimax-sized, bulk cargo 

carrier can be purchased for $30 million Interest on this purchase could average between $2 

million and $4 million per year. 

Operating costs are the ongoing expenses related to the day to day running of the vessel. 

These include crew and manning; insurance and classification; repairs and maintenance; stores 

and lubes; and administration. Crew and manning is by far the largest component of operating 

costs, generally accounting for 40 percent to 45 percent of the aggregate. Typical annual crew 

and manning costs for bulk carriers range from $600,000 to $900,000. Repairs and maintenance 

is generally the second-largest cost category, typically accounting for 15 percent – 20 percent of 

total operating costs. The third-biggest cost factor is insurance and classification. However, as 

with crew and manning, and repairs and maintenance, these costs are highly influenced by the 

nationality of the shipowning company. In total, operating costs for a bulk carrier range from $1 

million to $3 million. 

Voyage costs are those costs directly attributed to a voyage, including the cost of fuel, 

port charges, pilotage fees, cargo handling expenses, canal and lock tolls, hold cleaning, and 

other miscellaneous costs such as representation at the ports of call. Fuel is the single mostimportant item in voyage costs, accounting for approximately 50 percent of the total. Port-related 

charges represent another major component and include various fees levied against the vessel 

and/or its cargo for the use of the facilities and services provided by the port. Generally, portrelated charges, including port dues and service charges, account for approximately 30 percent – 

40 percent of the total voyage cost (see box 6). These costs range from $100,000 to $600,000, 

depending on length of voyage and type of cargo carried. 

If the vessel is chartered, port dues and charges are generally charged to the shipowner. 

The charterer, in turn, usually pays all charges specific to the cargo, as well as canal and toll 

dues, though in some situations the shipper/receiver pays for cargo loading/unloading. If this is 

the case, the shipper/receiver may contract with a stevedore to load or unload cargo. 

 

Regardless of the terms of the voyage charter, most of the fees, tolls, and other shipping 

costs incurred by the associated parties are passed on to the shipper/receiver. In turn, the shipper 

incorporates the costs into the price of its goods, ultimately passing those costs on to purchasers 

and consumers. Figure 16 represents the flow of funds associated with maritime transportation in 

the Great Lakes. Box 6 details an example of the various fees and tolls a Salty vessel carrying 

cargo to a Great Lakes port would be subject to. 

50
Fig. 16. General representation of the flow of funds associated with maritime transportation in the 

Great Lakes. 

51
Box 6. Example of Fees and Tolls Charged to Typical Salty Vessel

The following table presents a hypothetical example of the various fees and tolls a Salty 

vessel carrying cargo to a Great Lakes port would be subject to. In this example, a typically sized 

Salty vessel (14,000 metric tonnes) is fully loaded with steel bound for the Port of Cleveland, 

Ohio. 

During the course of its voyage, the vessel would be required to pay a cargo toll and a vessel 

charge to transit the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the GLSLSS. At the Welland Canal, a lock 

charge is assessed, as well as additional cargo tolls and vessel charges. At the Port of Cleveland, 

the vessel must pay a docking/berthing fee for space at the port, and a wharfage fee to unload its 

cargo. While the total of these tolls and charges will vary with the size of the vessel and the 

amount and value of cargo carried, they can become substantial.

An overview of the fees and tolls a hypothetical salty vessel carrying 

cargo to Cleveland, OH would be required to pay

Seaway and Port Fees Example 

14,000 MT Salty fully loaded with steel entering the Great Lakes and bound for Cleveland, OH 

Montreal-Lake Ontario Fees 

Cargo Toll $23,450 

Vessel Charge $1,037.40 

Lock Charges N/A 

Welland Canal Fees 

Cargo Toll $8,160.60 

Vessel Charge $1,684.20 

Lock Charges $3,250.88 

Port of Cleveland Fees 

Dock/Berth $1,120 

Wharfage $9,800 

TOTAL $48,503.08 

52
Regulatory Pieces

Vessel operators must deliver transportation services in compliance with a constellation 

of regulations from disparate government and maritime industry regulating authorities. Some of 

the regulating authorities have overlapping geographic jurisdictions, in which operators must 

comply with several sets of standards at once. In addition, various sets of regulations phase in 

and out as the ship plies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The potential for inefficiency related to 

overlap and conflict inspires energetic industry efforts, through the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), to coordinate regulation and standards related to aspects of waterborne 

transportation domestically and internationally. Government regulators, which are independent 

and often sovereign authorities, may not sign onto or fulfill such agreements, but internal 

industry regulators (known as classification societies) do for purposes of assuring safe vessel 

operation and complying with government regulators to safeguard investments by ships’ 

underwriters. This section identifies and describes the jurisdictions and entities that may regulate 

a ship’s voyage into the GLSLSS. 

Flag States 

To gain port entry, every commercial vessel must have a certificate of registration from a 

nation state and operate under the flag of that nation. The United Nations Convention of the Law 

of the Sea requires that flag states bear primary responsibility for governing all aspects of ocean 

space, including delimitation, environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and 

commercial activities, transfer of technology, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean 

matters. While international agreements help make requirements across flag states consistent—

by at least establishing a regulatory floor—each flag state can impose its own requirements on 

ships under its registration in keeping with those agreements. Some states have more onerous 

requirements than others. The U.S. flag requirements are some of the world’s most stringent. 

Flag state requirements may govern operational, structural, and financial circumstances, such as 

taxation rates, fees, crew nationality, working conditions, wage scales, and environmental 

protectiveness. 

At one time, ships flew the flag of the nation where their owner was located, but the 

disparity between flag requirements and the competitive nature of the global shipping market has 

led shipowners to choose registrations based on fiscal considerations. Due to stringent U.S. 

requirements, the U.S. flag is one of the most expensive to fly and the least frequently 

encountered, except on ships that seek access to subsidies and markets exclusively reserved by 

Congress for U.S. flag vessels. Flag “shopping” has resulted in large numbers of registrations 

with nations that offer the least stringent registration requirements. Among flag states, there is a 

competitive advantage to offering inexpensive approaches to meeting floor requirements and not 

exceeding them. The result is a wide variation in how internationally established safety and 

environmental standards are realized and enforced among the scores of registries worldwide. In 

fact, some flag states are accused of merely paying lip service to mandatory requirements, such 

as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and the 1978 Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Worldwide, nearly 30 countries—including 

Barbados, Bermuda, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Liberia, Malta, and Panama—have been identified as 

53
“flags of convenience” by the Fair Practices Committee of the International Transport Workers’ 

Federation. 

Salties visiting the GLSLSS fly flags of more than 30 countries (fig. 17). The most 

common flags are the Netherlands (14 percent of vessels), Cyprus (10 percent), the Bahamas (8 

percent), and Norway (8 percent). Of the 220 Salties that entered the Great Lakes in 2002, about 

half were registered under a flag of convenience. 

Port States

A port state has the authority to regulate, inspect, detain, or deny entry to a belowstandard ship that visits its ports. Port state control is a powerful line of defense against 

substandard flag state enforcement of internationally agreed shipping standards, particularly in 

the interest of vessel safety and environmental protection. It is also a way for countries to 

stipulate requirements that exceed the international conventions. However, to comply with global 

trade law, any imposition or enforcement of this authority must be “flag neutral” and otherwise 

unbiased with respect to national origin. The United States, for example, unilaterally enacted 

regulations to address ballast water introductions of invasive species. The Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) required vessels entering the 

Great Lakes to conduct ballast water management, and the National Invasive Species Act of 

1996 (NISA) reauthorized these requirements and also established a regulatory national ballast 

water management program. 

Seaway Development Authorities 

 The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation’s Seaway Practices and Procedures, 

established under Section 99 of the Canada Marine Act, and the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation’s Seaway Regulations, established pursuant to the St. Lawrence 

Seaway Act of 1954, jointly regulate the transit of ships in a subsection of the Great Lakes St. 

Lawrence Seaway System, from Montreal to Lake Erie. Every ship entering the GLSLSS after 

operating beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) must agree to comply with these 

regulations. 

Ports

 Ports can issue port-specific regulations that cover a broad range of topics. Operational 

matters such as mooring of vessels, vessel speed while navigating around the port, and required 

safety procedures and safety equipment are typically included. Port regulations also establish the 

fees for berth space, wharfage, and support services that vessels must pay. Ports also have 

authority over environmental regulation, such as provisions regulating or prohibiting the 

discharge of oil into port waters. 

54
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Antigua & Barbuda

Bahamas

Barbados

British West Indies

Bulgaria

Cayman Islands

Croatia

Cyprus

Germany

Gibraltar

Greece

Holland

Hong Kong

Ireland

Liberia

Lithuania

Malaysia

Malta

Marshall Islands

Myanmar

Netherland Antilles

Netherlands

Norw ay

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Russia

St. Vincent

Sw itzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Number of vessels

Fig. 17. Flag country of transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 

system in 20022

 

 

55
States/Provinces

 

States and provinces have authority to regulate vessel operations in their waters, provided 

that those regulations do not conflict with constitutional powers of the federal government, 

federal laws, and regulations. States may enact regulations that address both operational and 

environmental concerns. Typically, state environmental regulation derives from the power to 

preserve and protect the state’s natural resources (O’Shea and Cangelosi, 1996). From this 

authority, states have enacted regulations over various pollutant discharges, establishing No 

Discharge Zones for marine sanitation devices (in 15 coastal and Great Lakes states) and 

regulating ballast water discharges (in California, Oregon, Michigan, and Washington). A 

Washington law requiring oil spill prevention and response measures illustrates a conflict with 

federal authority; these regulations were challenged by an international tanker trade organization 

in 1995, and in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated much of Washington’s law on the 

grounds that it was preempted by the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Washington Attorney 

General’s Office, 2000). However, this ruling affirmed a state’s right to regulate discharge 

quality and, indirectly, the management practices of vessels in their waters. 

Classification Societies

Regardless of cargo type, commercial operation, and flag country, marine underwriters 

will insure only classed ships. Therefore, all commercially operating vessels must be certified by 

a classification society—an independent, self-regulating organization that establishes and applies 

technical standards for the design, construction, and survey of ships. Societies issue these 

standards as published rules. A vessel that has been designed and built to the appropriate rules of 

a society may apply for and receive its certification upon completion of the relevant 

classification surveys. For ships in service, societies carry out regular surveys to be sure the ship 

remains in compliance with their rules. Should any defects that may affect class become 

apparent, or damage be sustained between the relevant surveys, the shipowner and/or operator 

must inform the society concerned without delay. 

The role of classification and classification societies has been recognized in the 

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the 1988 Protocol to the International 

Convention on Load Lines. Classification is one element within a network of maritime safety 

partners, including the shipowner, shipbuilder, flag state, port state, underwriter, shipping 

financier, and charterer. 

Classification rules are developed to contribute to the structural strength and integrity of 

essential parts of the ship’s hull and its appendages, and the reliability and function of the 

propulsion and steering systems, power generation, and other features and auxiliary systems built 

into the ship to maintain essential services on board. Classification societies also maintain 

significant research departments that contribute to the ongoing development of appropriate, 

advanced technical standards. 

More than 50 organizations worldwide define their activities as providing marine 

classification. Ten of those organizations form the International Association of Classification 

Societies (IACS): the American Bureau of Shipping, Bureau Veritas, China Classification 

56
Society, Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer Lloyd, Korean Register of Shipping, Lloyd’s 

Register, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Registro Italiana Navale, and Russian Maritime Register of 

Shipping. These 10 societies, together with the Croatian Register of Shipping and the Indian 

Register of Shipping—which have been accorded associate status by IACS—collectively class 

about 94 percent of all commercial tonnage involved in international trade worldwide, and about 

95 percent of commercial tonnage involved in international trade in the Great Lakes (fig. 18). 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of fleet

U.S. Laker Canadian Laker Transoceanic Salties

Russian Maritime Register

Polski Rejestr Statkow

Panama Registry

Nippon Kaiki Kyokai

Lloyds Register

Germanischer Lloyd

Det Norske Veritas

China Classification Society

Bulgarski Koraben Registar

Bureau Veritas

American Bureau of Shipping

Fig. 18. Comparative vessel classification for U.S.-flagged lakers, Canadian-flagged lakers, and 

overseas-flagged Salty vessels operating on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 

system2

Drivers and Influences

 Key drivers and influences for transoceanic waterborne trade activity in the GLSLSS 

include global events (such as catastrophic events, political conflict, global trade trends, and 

conglomeration); regional economic trends; competition with alternate modes of 

transportation/port ranges; and inertia. 

Global Change 

The globalization of the world economic and financial system means major economic 

trends and events anywhere in the world could influence commercial transportation activity on 

the GLSLSS. 

57
Catastrophic Events and Political Conflict 

 Catastrophic weather or political events anywhere in the world could influence 

waterborne trade to and from the GLSLSS. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf 

Coast, disrupting operations and traffic in New Orleans and the Port of Louisiana, among 

America’s busiest ports. It is clear that the closure of Gulf ports could have resulted in significant 

cargo diversion, either to other ports or other modes of transportation. A possible outcome could 

have been increased movement and/or storage of grain at Great Lakes ports, such as DuluthSuperior (Passi, 2005). However, Cargill, the nation’s largest grain exporter, has indicated that 

their best option may be to accept decreased exports for a short while and remain unchanged 

until the Gulf Ports reopen (Knight Ridder News, 2005). For imported cargo, vessels originally 

destined for New Orleans could be diverted through the St. Lawrence Seaway to Great Lakes 

ports such as Burns Harbor (Associated Press, 2005). Given the combination of circumstances—

such as a shortage of railcars for grain due to the rail system running at capacity, high fuel costs 

that make road transport unattractive, and limited capacity at the nation’s other ports—it is 

difficult to predict Katrina’s impact on patterns, costs, and efficiency of maritime transport. 

 Similarly, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks highlighted a need for vastly 

increased security at America’s port facilities. New federal security requirements will require 

new expenditures. The American Association of Port Authorities estimates that port facilities 

will have to spend $5.4 billion on enhanced security measures over the next decade in order to 

comply with regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (AAPA, 2004). 

Some federal assistance is available through port security grants, but the ports will bear most of 

this cost and likely seek to recoup these expenses from their customers. 

 Economic Trends 

 Currently, intense development activity in China is consuming raw material and 

waterborne transportation capacity globally, creating a vessel shortage and higher freight rates 

for vessels that could be deployed to China. Because these higher rates do not apply to 

landlocked modes of transportation that cannot service China, such as rail, the cost advantage of 

using waterborne transportation versus rail transportation to move goods inland has diminished. 

 Increased oil prices are driving energy development trends that favor GLSLSS 

waterborne trade. For example, wind farm components destined for the Midwest and refinery 

components destined for tar sand plants in Canada, are in increasing demand, and can only be 

transported by ships due to their size. 

 Trade Barriers 

Trade barriers are political actions that alter the distribution of markets for traded goods. 

In the global economy, such barriers can alter trade patterns, whether they are raised by the 

United States or abroad. Affected parties consider some barriers fair and others discriminatory. 

The World Trade Organization crafts agreements and houses mechanisms to thwart arbitrary or 

unfair barriers. Trade barriers that have affected maritime commerce into or out of the Great 

58
Lakes include U.S. steel tariffs and European Union stipulations regarding genetically modified 

crops. 

One trade barrier that affects maritime commerce into or out of the Great Lakes is the 

onset and removal U.S. steel tariffs. In 2002, President Bush imposed a tax on certain steel 

imports to help level prices of domestic products and often-cheaper foreign products, and 

provide relief to local steel companies. This barrier had little initial effect on Great Lakes trade, 

despite the importance of steel importation to that trade, because it exempted the steel moved by 

carriers into the lakes. However, following a 2003 World Trade Organization decision that the 

tariffs violate international trade rules, they were dropped. This decision put U.S. steel 

companies at a competitive disadvantage against heavily subsidized steel from other countries, 

such as Japan and Russia, and resulted in less movement of domestic steel on the GLSLSS by 

laker vessels. However, the decision also resulted in more steel being carried on the GLSLSS by 

transoceanic vessels to manufacturers such as automakers, and reduced manufacturing costs for 

these customers. 

Another example is the barrier to shipment of genetically modified crops from the United 

States to countries overseas, particularly in Europe. In the late 1990s, farmers in the United 

States rapidly adopted genetically modified crops, resulting in the most intense diffusion of new 

agricultural technology ever experienced (Wisner & Wang, 2000). However, numerous 

governments and consumers in the United States and around the world have raised concerns 

about the human consumption of genetically modified crops. In September 2000, the approval 

process of genetically modified crops came under heavy scrutiny in the United States, with many 

companies and suppliers removing products from retail stores. The European Union sought to 

block entry of U.S. genetically modified crops. A number of countries, and most recently the 

European Union, have introduced mandatory labeling programs for grain and oilseeds processed 

directly for human consumption. This has resulted in fewer shipments of grain and grain 

products from the Great Lakes to these governments. Great Lakes crop producers that continue 

to ship to the concerned governments expend additional resources to separate nongenetically 

modified crops from genetically modified crops, labeling both products before shipping, and 

marketing and finding customers for genetically modified crops. 

Conglomeration 

 In the shipping industry and many other industries worldwide, a major trend has emerged 

recently as companies merge into larger and more powerful organizations. This trend has 

resulted in the building and operation of more efficient ships, in terms of speed and cargo 

capacity, by fewer shipping lines. It has also enabled companies to play a role in more aspects of 

the supply chain, from port terminals operations to nonmaritime transportation of cargoes. The 

growing dominance of a handful of players capable of overseeing many, if not all, aspects of the 

transportation service chain for specific cargoes appears to have had a meaningful influence on 

the industry and market prices. For example, larger ships mean lower costs for the transported 

cargoes, and company mergers result in reduced administrative expenses—many of which have 

been passed on to the consumer. Beyond the issue of price, merged companies also offer a 

number of side benefits to shippers/receivers, including a consolidation of highly skilled 

management and “one-stop shopping” for global transportation services. 

59
 In addition, many companies are reducing the number of vendors and suppliers with 

whom they work. For example, Proctor and Gamble, a major international producer of personal 

and home-care products, now relies on only a handful of ocean carriers worldwide. Such 

decisions result in carriers calling at fewer ports, while serving others through transshipment of 

overland connections. 

Competition with Alternative Transportation Modes/Port Ranges 

 Shippers of bulk steel and grain to and from the North American heartland are not 

entirely dependent on GLSLSS. There are road, rail, and river barge transportation alternatives to 

link inland producers and consumers to alternative West, North, East, and Gulf Coast port 

ranges. In particular, the GLSLSS competes with rail transit to West Coast ports for grain 

exports and Mississippi River barge shipping to Gulf ports for both grain exports and steel 

imports. The fact that the GLSLSS is closed for a portion of the year due to cold weather, and 

vessel size restrictions imposed by the Seaway channel contributes advantages to competing 

modes of transportation. Meanwhile, proximity to producers and markets, lower costs, and 

ability to move large objects (like windmill components) advantage the GLSLSS. According to 

a recent study, it would cost shippers and receivers of goods to and from the Great Lakes $55 

million more per year to move cargo by alternate means such as truck or train, or by transferring 

it from overseas ships at eastern or Gulf ports for transport into or out of the Great lakes on 

barges or local boats (Taylor & Roach, 2005). Maritime industry advocates refute aspects of the 

study claiming it did not take into account the volume of cargo moved during specific times of 

the year. For example, nearly half the GLSLSS’s grain exports move during the last three months 

of the years—a volume they claim would overwhelm alternate transportation options during that 

period. 

Competition with rail to West Coast Canadian ports: Each year Canada exports 

approximately 25 million tons of grain (Canadian Wheat Board, 2004). At one time, the majority 

of Canada’s grain grown in the prairies of western Canada was shipped by rail for export through 

Thunder Bay in the East. However, in 1995, Canada acted to deregulate rail transport of grain, 

and removed subsidies for the railways that carried grain (Fulton et al., 1998). Grain shipments 

from Thunder Bay have since declined steadily, from 10 million to 12 million metric tons before 

1995 to 5 million to 7 million metric tons after 1995 (Thunder Bay Port Authority, 2005). In 

recent years, less Canadian grain has passed through the GLSLSS than the port of Vancouver 

alone, with a 2000-2004 average of 6.1 million metric tons traveling on the Seaway and an 

average of 9.0 million metric tons shipped through Vancouver (St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corp., 2004; Vancouver Port Authority, 2004). Prince Rupert, Canada’s other 

major West Coast port, typically exports 2 million to 4 million metric tons yearly (Prince Rupert 

Port Authority, 2001). A significantly smaller amount, approximately 363,000 metric tons 

annually, is shipped through the Hudson Bay port of Churchill. Remaining exports are split 

between smaller ports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, or by direct shipment from prairie 

elevators. 

Competition with river barge traffic to Gulf ports: In 2002, grain shipments exported 

from U.S. ports via the GLSLSS were only 2.2 percent of total U.S. grain exports and 6 percent 

of total U.S. wheat exports. By comparison, in the same year grain shipped down the Mississippi 

60
River and exported via Gulf ports such as Baton Rouge and New Orleans accounted for 62 

percent of total U.S. grain exports. Although much of this southbound cargo was corn or other 

commodities that are not shipped on the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River/Gulf Coast region 

still exported four times as much wheat as U.S. ports on the GLSLSS in 2002 (ACOE, 2004). 

Competition with rail transit from East Coast ports: In the case of iron and steel 

products, Great Lakes shipping saves little in direct transportation costs compared with rail 

transit from East Coast ports, but saves up to six weeks in travel time, itself a source of 

significant cost savings. Shippers select the GLSLSS over rail because it can generate cost 

savings in three primary ways: reduced handling, reduced time of transit, and reduced freight 

rate. These cost savings stem in large part from the fact that rail capacity in the United States is 

already fully exploited (NRC, 1996). In addition, alternatives for transoceanic waterborne trade 

require intermodal transfers that can damage precision steel goods. It is estimated that rail rates 

for grain would be 15 cents to 30 cents/bushel higher in the absence of the GLSLSS alternative 

(Martin Associates, 2001). This observation is corroborated by the annual pattern of higher rail 

rates for grain in winter when the GLSLSS system is closed. 

Regional Economic Trends 

 

 In the last 30 years, there has been a significant economic shift within the Great Lakes 

region and nationally from manufacturing toward the high-tech and service sectors, including 

outdoor recreation. The decline of smokestack industry in the Great Lakes region to these less 

“place-based” industries has meant a shift of income and employment growth away from portbased shipping-related economies. Accordingly, in some parts of the region, residents place a 

high value on a healthy natural environment where they can enjoy outdoor recreation and second 

homes. In the context of this shift in industrial culture and public values, Great Lakes port 

administrations are under pressure to improve the aesthetics associated with port activities, and 

replace working dock areas with residential and recreational assets. Annual GLSLSS traffic 

decreased precipitously in the 1980–1982 economic recession, and has been increasing modestly 

since then. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers predicts future growth of 0.7 percent annually in 

the absence of GLSLSS improvements (ACOE, 2003). 

 

Inertia 

 Established business relationships and trade routes moderate the timing and extent to 

which global events (economic or climatic) ultimately affect waterborne trade in the GLSLSS. 

Some shipments may be influenced more by the internal business decisions of multinational 

corporations than by ordinary comparative advantage. For example, patterns of steel shipments 

into and out of Cleveland seem to reflect this influence. Trade that is driven by the internal 

concerns of a particular multinational corporation may be relatively insensitive to shipping costs. 

 Logistical inertia is a major driver of transportation choices in the marketplace, even 

when it runs counter to cost effectiveness. Shippers may continue with one approach to 

transportation despite fluctuations in its efficiency vis a vis other approaches because there is 

considerable transaction cost associated with making changes, and the cost savings may be short 

lived. A recent survey that assessed the criteria shippers use to select transportation providers 

61
found that while pricing was the most important factor, other factors such as on-time 

performance, customer service, document quality and accuracy, and shipment tracking were also 

considerations. Furthermore, 62 percent of the shippers surveyed indicated they were reluctant to 

switch transportation providers based solely on price (Journal of Commerce, 1999). (See tables 

7a and 7b for additional detail.) 

Table 7a. Results from a survey assessing shippers’ ranking criteria for selecting a transportation 

provider 

Factor Percent of shippers rating 

this factor as “most important” (%)

Pricing 31 

On-time performance 22 

Customer service 13 

Document quality and accuracy 13 

Shipment tracking 11 

Global coverage 5 

Table 7b. Results from a survey assessing shippers’ ranking criteria for selecting a transportation 

provider 

Statement Percent of shippers who agreed 

with statement (%) 

See inherent value of carriers 72 

Reluctant to switch transport 

providers based solely on price 62 

Would sacrifice a few days for price 50 

See confidential rates as extremely 

important 48 

Believe confidentiality as achievable 29 

62
III. Ship-Mediated Biological Pollution in the 

GLSLSS and its Prevention

 Biological pollution is the displacement of viable and harmful biological material from 

one ecosystem to another. Ship-mediated biological pollution occurs as a consequence of ship 

movements between disparate ecosystems. Technically, ship-mediated biological pollution can 

include terrestrial organisms, in particular forest and crop pests that have arrived in grain cargo 

and in wood pallets. However, this scoping effort focuses on aquatic organisms that hitch rides in 

ships’ ballast water, on their hulls, and adhered to anchor chains or sea chests. This section 

describes ship-mediated biological pollution, and the state of the art of prevention, including 

prevention policy, prevention methods, and regulatory regimes. 

Ship-Mediated Biological Pollution

Ballast Water 

Ballast water and entrained solids in ships entering the GLSLSS from overseas are 

considered the primary mode by which ships transfer non-native aquatic organisms (Grigorovich 

et al., 2003a). It is also considered the primary mode of ship-mediated biological pollution 

globally (Carlton et al. 1995, Carlton & Geller 1993, Carlton 2001). 

Function of Ballast Water 

 Ballast water is essential to present day commercial ship operations. When ships are 

empty or partially empty of cargo, they take on ballast water to maintain draft and stability, 

submerge the propeller and rudder, and uphold acceptable stress loads on the hull. Weather 

conditions and water depth influence a ship’s ballast operations, but the amount, weight, and 

distribution of cargo on board ultimately determine ballast loads and distribution within the ship. 

The greater the load of cargo, the less ballast water and vice versa. 

Ballast Operations in the GLSLSS 

Ballast uptake and discharge most often occur in port during cargo operations, but may 

also occur while the vessel is in transit in the open lake or through connecting waterways to 

maintain trim. Ships generally contain two matched pumps to drive ballasting operations, but to 

save fuel a ship’s master will employ the process of “gravitation” to load and unload water, using 

gravity instead of ballast pumps, to the extent possible. 

For ships that enter the GLSLSS loaded with cargo and make their first stops in the 

southern lakes to off-load cargo, most ballast uptake occurs in those lower lake harbors. This 

ballasting process prepares the ships to travel empty of cargo to upper lakes ports to load grain.

Subsequent ballast discharge occurs in the upper lake ports where grain cargoes are loaded (fig. 

10). 

63
Ballast water storage capacities and flow rates differ among various types of vessel. 

Seaway-sized bulk carriers have a ballast capacity of around 10,000 cubic meters and pump rate 

of 600 cubic meters per hour; Seaway-sized tankers have a ballast capacity of 5,000 cubic meters 

and pump rate of 300 cubic meters per hour; and Seaway-sized general cargo carriers have a 

ballast capacity of around 8,000 cubic meters and pump rate of 900 cubic meters per hour. These 

volumes and pump rates are less than other transoceanic vessel types (table 8), and diminutive 

relative to the largest vessels on the lakes, the U.S.-flagged lakers, which have an average ballast 

capacity of 30,000 metric tons—three times that of Salty vessels, and double that of Canadianflagged lakers (table 1). The ballast pump rate of these vessels—approximately 4,500 metric tons 

per hour—is also more than double that of the Salty and Canadian-flagged laker fleets (table 1). 

Table 8. Comparison of ballast capacity and ballast pump rate across major vessel types 

 

Ship Type Ballast Capacity 

(m3

) 

Ballast Pump Rate 

(m3/hour) 

Seaway-sized bulk carrier 10,000 600 

Seaway-sized tanker 5,000 300 

Seaway-sized general cargo carrier 8,000 900 

Handymax bulk carrier 25,000 800 

Panamax bulk carrier 35,000 1,000 

Capesize bulk carrier 60,000 2,800 

Aframax tanker 60,000 1,500 

VLCC tanker 120,000 3,000 

LNG carrier 50,000 2,400 

Ballast Tank Residuals 

Even when fully loaded with cargo, ships are rarely completely empty of ballast water. 

There is clearance below the bell mouths of the ballast lines in the ballast tanks to avoid clogging 

that makes some amount of water unpumpable using standard ballast pumps. The residual ballast 

water is a mixture of water and sediment from ports recently visited around the globe (e.g., fig. 

19), with volumes up to 200 cubic meters per Seaway-sized transoceanic vessel (Johengen et al., 

2005). To reduce cost of displaced cargo capacity caused by unpumpable ballast residuals some 

shipowners/charterers (e.g., FedNav) require routine ballast purges in the high seas to ensure that 

unpumpable residuals are water only rather than heavier sediment (George Robichon, pers. 

comm.). Ships carrying extremely high-value cargoes may be equipped with a “stripper pump” 

system to remove water residuals as well (George Robichon, pers. comm.). When the cargo 

value is lower, the residuals are simply transported to the next port of call and become 

resuspended during subsequent ballast uptake. 

On arrival in the Great Lakes system, vessels fully loaded with cargo, i.e., those declaring 

“no ballast on board” (NOBOB), generally off-load cargo in ports in the lower lakes where they 

take on ballast water, and proceed to a series of Great Lakes ports in the upper lakes to pick-up 

64
and off-load additional cargo (and ballast water). During these short voyages, the residual, 

unpumpable ballast water from overseas ports mixes with Great Lakes ballast water and is 

discharged—and thus diluted into the ports of call in the upper lakes where cargo is loaded. 

Fig. 19. Global activity of a single transoceanic vessel over a 14-month period. Circles indicate 

sites where ballast water was loaded (red) and discharged (light blue) (source: Holeck et 

al., 2004) 

Ballast Water-Entrained Biota 

 Ballast water uptake in ports entrains ambient organisms and—if the port is shallow—

suspended solids, as well as associated chemical pollutants. Similarly, ballast water taken up in 

the process of a BWE at sea contains an array of open ocean taxa. Ships transport these 

organisms and species, often in a viable condition, across natural biological barriers to distant 

receiving systems where they are released and may become invasive. 

 Nearly all major phyla can occur in ballast water; overall, ocean-going ships transport at 

least 7,000 species between continents every day (Carlton, 1999). A review of several European 

ballast water studies (Gollasch et al., 2002) reported 990 different taxonomic groups, including 

bacteria, fungi, protozoans, algae, invertebrates, and fish. The most frequently detected taxa in 

these studies were algae, and crustacean, molluscan, and polycheate invertebrates. Moreover, all 

life stages of these organisms, including resting stages, are entrained in ballast water. While 

species diversity in ballast tanks can be quite high, it can also vary greatly. The studies in the 

same review observed diversity ranging from 3–502 total taxonomic groups (Gollasch et al., 

2002). 

 

65
 The numbers of individuals in these taxonomic groups in ballast tanks varies too, and can 

be high. An examination of vessels traveling on the U.S. East Coast found 3,800–39,000 live 

organisms per cubic meter in ballast water at the end of each voyage (Lavoie et al., 1999). Lenz 

et al. (2000) estimated abundances of more than 50,000 zooplankton and 110 million 

phytoplankton per cubic meter in ships’ ballast water. In 2003, the International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) conducted a review of worldwide ballast water studies to 

determine the range of organism concentrations observed in ships’ ballast water. Zooplankton 

concentrations in these studies ranged from 0–172,000 individuals per cubic meter, with a mean 

concentration of 464 organisms per cubic meter. In the same studies, phytoplankton 

concentrations ranged from 1,000–4.9 x 1010 per cubic meter, with a mean concentration of 2.9 x 

108 organisms per cubic meter (IMO MEPC 49/2/21, 2003). 

Ballast tanks also have been shown to harbor pathogenic bacteria and viruses. The ICES 

review of ballast studies reported bacteria concentrations between 2.4 x 1011 and 1.9 x 1012 cells 

per cubic meter, with a mean concentration of 8.3 x 1011 cells per cubic meter, and virus-like 

particle (VLP) concentrations between 6 x 1011 and 14.9 x 1012 particles per cubic meter, with a 

mean concentration of 7.4 x 1012 particles per cubic meter (IMO MEPC 49/2/21, 2003). 

In the United States, Vibrio cholerae have been observed in the ballast tanks of cargo 

vessels visiting ports of the Gulf of Mexico (McCarthy and Khambaty, 1994), and Drake et al. 

(2001) described microbial populations (including V. cholerae) aboard vessels arriving in the 

Chesapeake Bay. A number of fecal-indicating organisms and human pathogens also have been 

detected in ballast water residuals of transoceanic cargo vessels visiting the GLSLSS, including 

fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella spp., E. coli, Vibrio 

cholerae, Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and enteroviruses (Knight et al., 1999). 

Niimi and Reid (2003) and Johengen et al. (2005) theorize that unpumpable ballast 

residuals in ships that enter the GLSLSS declaring no ballast on board (NOBOB) also present a 

high risk for continued species introductions to the Great Lakes. For example, Johengen et al. 

(2005) identified 186 taxonomic groups in residual ballast water and sediments from vessels. The 

most common of these were numerous dinoflagellate and diatom species, copepods, rotifers, 

cladocerans, and nematodes—many of which are nonindigenous to the Great Lakes. Other 

organisms—such as mites, ostracods, barnacle larvae, chironomids, hydrozoans, gastropods, 

bivalves, amphibods, crab, and shrimp—were found in lesser quantities. Furthermore, MacIsaac 

et al. (2002) estimated that residual water carried by these vessels could contain up to 105

zooplankton per cubic meter. An examination of ballast sediments aboard vessels entering the 

Great Lakes by Bailey et al. (2003) found highly variable densities of copepod eggs, but 

estimated that each vessel could discharge between 5.3 x 105

 and 8.6 x 108 of viable propagules 

(Bailey et al., 2003). Appendix B provides estimates of the ballast volumes and numbers of 

foreign organisms that may be discharged into the GLSLSS by transoceanic ships in light of 

current trade patterns and ballast management practices. 

66
A Note on Hulls, Anchor Chains and Sea Chests

Though ballast water is considered the dominant vector of aquatic species introductions 

to the Great Lakes since the 1960’s (Mills et al., 1993; Ricciardi, 2001), other components of 

vessels are also responsible for the introduction of aquatic species to disparate ecosystems. For 

example, hull fouling has played a significant role in the transport of sessile species—including 

ascidians, sponges, polychaetes, barnacles, bivalves, and gastropods—to brackish and marine 

waters in many ports and regions of the world. However, unlike ballast water, which threatens 

only receiving systems when a vessel discharges its ballast water, hull fouling is a risk to all 

ports that a vessel visits irrespective of a cargo condition. 

In the Great Lakes, hull fouling is not considered a significant vector for new 

introductions from overseas because most freshwater fouling organisms would likely not survive 

prolonged exposure to highly saline (i.e., 30 ppt) oceanic water during transoceanic voyages. The 

vector may nonetheless be responsible for the subsequent spread of already introduced fouling 

species throughout the lakes by U.S. and Canadian laker vessels, particularly those that remain 

entirely within the lakes’ freshwater system. 

The significance of other possible ship-related vectors in the transport of species to the 

Great Lakes—including bilge discharges, sea chests, sea-sieves, anchors, chain lockers, intake 

pipes, bow thruster tunnels, rope guards, and piping—is unclear. A great deal more research, 

focusing on the ship as a whole, is needed to ascertain the degree to which these vectors are 

responsible for the movement of species, particularly in light of research indicating that wellknown aquatic invaders—including the zebra mussel—are able to tolerate at least some level of 

salinity.

The State of the Art of Prevention

Both prevention policy and prevention technology related to ship-mediated biological 

pollution are in developmental stages. The absence of a regulatory standard and near-term 

implementation dates has stalled more active development of solutions (GAO, 2005). However, 

this situation is so unacceptable that a more advanced condition is likely on both fronts. In 

particular, Congress is likely to act this year or next to resolve questions of standards and 

timeframe. This section summarizes key policy and technology questions for preventing shipmediated transfers of aquatic invasive species into the GLSLSS. 

Prevention Policy 

 Fundamental policy questions remain unanswered and there is little consensus about the 

best approach to preventing ship-mediated biological pollution, even among advocates of rapid 

progress. Therefore the best next policy step will likely be a set of goals and contingencies 

should the goals be unachievable. The fundamental policy questions include: 

67
How Clean is Clean? 

 Our society rarely precisely defines the word “prevention”: is it reduction of risk to a 

particular acceptable level, or is it the absolute elimination of risk? Complicating this discussion 

relative to ship-mediated introductions of invasive species is the fact that the discharge rate 

(propagule pressure) associated with a particular level of risk, including no risk, is not known to 

science, and/or may vary dramatically among species, places, seasons, and years. The only 

scientific point of agreement seems to be that zero ship-mediated transfers of species beyond 

their range would attenuate ship-mediated species invasions. There is no agreement, and no 

direct evidence, to support a protective performance standard that exceeds zero. In the absence of 

this information, policymakers latch their proposed solutions to logic associated with one of at 

least two interacting schools of thought. These include: 

• “Less is more” and “least possible is best”: This theory holds that risk to the 

environment may be directly related to inoculation pressure, such that less inoculation 

pressure is likely to increase environmental protection, and the extent of 

environmental protectiveness could increase as inoculation pressure approaches zero. 

• A threshold inoculation concentration: This theory holds that there may be an 

inoculation threshold level that should be the action level. Reductions below that 

level are irrelevant, either because organisms delivered via other vectors squelch any 

additional prevention benefits, or because the organisms are unlikely to become 

established if the inoculation falls below a given concentration. In the same way, 

partial reductions that do not breach the action level threshold are likely not worth the 

trouble. 

It is not clear whether or to what degree either theory reflects reality. The resulting 

problem of how best to regulate in the context of these unknowns, while vexing, is not at all new 

to environmental policy. Policymakers encountered the same questions in the effort to regulate 

carcinogens, spurring the famous mega-mouse study, which consumed thousands of mice in its 

attempt to determine the nature of exposure risk (continuous or threshold-like) associated with 

carcinogens. The same issue also led to Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement language 

stipulating “virtual elimination” of high-priority toxicants in discharges to the Great Lakes, 

skirting the question of whether a numeric representation of virtual elimination is zero or some 

higher value. In the end, it is a matter of societal judgment whether the prevention should be 

absolute or a matter of minimizing risk to an acceptable level greater than zero. 

 

Is Treatment a Viable Approach to Prevention? 

In reality, treatment generally will never be 100 percent effective. Because ships are very 

large and can harbor very small organisms of concern that are capable of rapid asexual 

reproduction—including bacteria and viruses—in numerous places, a ship would need to be 

actively toxic inside and out throughout its journey to absolutely prevent incidental organism 

transfers. Likewise, a shore-based facility would have to immerse the entire ship—hulls, anchor 

chains, and all—and sterilize ballast tanks to avoid regrowth. For these reasons, those who want 

to eliminate risk with certainty may gravitate to the prospect of curtailing waterborne 

68
transportation into the GLSLSS from overseas generally. Taylor and Roach (2005) conducted an 

economic analysis that found that curtailing saltwater shipping into the Great Lakes would not be 

more expensive than sustaining further ship-mediated invasions. Under this scenario, goods 

shipped by waterborne transportation and destined to the Great Lakes region would be 

transferred to laker ships at a new transfer facility, or intermodally from existing East Coast port 

facilities. 

Indeed, if society values sufficiently absolute and certain prevention of new direct shipmediated introductions of invasive species into the Great Lakes, this outcome is likely to evolve 

naturally from economic forces ensuing from the escalating costs of waterborne cargo movement 

associated with meeting tight treatment requirements. However, this high value on absolute 

prevention would have to exist in the context of continued introduction (and consequent overland 

migration) or ship-mediated organisms to other coasts, and continued introductions of aquatic 

organisms by other vectors. If society can accept a solution that delivers prevention to a lesser 

degree or with less certainty, and/or wishes to improve protection of the Great Lakes through 

positively influencing global ship-vector prevention, then shipboard treatment is likely to be the 

preferred outcome. 

Where to Treat, on Ship or Shore? 

 In theory, shipboard treatments (ballast and hull) could be pushed to a level of extreme 

effectiveness that virtually eliminates risk of organism transfer without commensurate sideeffects for the environment, but this outcome would carry high cost and a protracted 

development horizon. Moreover, it would require the problematic monitoring of treatment 

systems operation on every ship. 

Some practioners suggest shore-based ballast treatment as an alternative to shipboard 

treatment because there are fewer logistical constraints (such as space and power requirements) 

in shore applications. The hope is that resolving the technological problems in this way will 

make greater prevention effectiveness feasible sooner. As fixed entities, land-based treatment 

systems would also be easier to monitor using conventional approaches. However, though a 

greater range of technology options could be applied to ballast treatment in a land-based 

scenario, this advantage does not guarantee quicker or more effective prevention implementation 

than ship-based treatments. 

First, ships would need to be retrofitted in dry dock to pump to a land-based facility. 

Second, the land-based facility or facilities would need to be authorized, funded, designed, 

constructed, and effectively operated, which implies substantial start-up time and effort. Finally, 

even if shore-based treatment could be organized rapidly, from a biological standpoint, the 

investment would be in a piecemeal treatment strategy, which given invasive organisms 

propensity to spread, does not spell effectiveness for any ecosystem. The few locations where 

motivated and resourceful operators might effectively undertake shore-based ballast treatment 

would not be adequate to staunch new source regions for pest species, and only a subset of these 

locations might actually choose to do so. Under these circumstances, eventually organisms 

would move over land, often quite rapidly, to protected ecosystems, negating the value of the 

investment in shore-based treatment. 

69
 In light of these realities, shore-based treatment may be most useful as a threat or fallback 

requirement should the development and implementation of shipboard treatment be too slow. 

This approach is embodied in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy document (Great 

Lakes Regional Collaboration, 2005). In addition, the Australian Ballast Water Treatment 

Consortium (ABWTC)—a team of researchers based at James Cook University and a consortium 

of Australian government and industry partners—has developed a pilot plant to sterilize ballast 

water. Housed in a portable, 20-foot-long shipping container, the plant uses filtration, UV 

irradiation, chlorine dioxide injection, and a high-speed sonic/shear device to treat ballast water 

as it is loaded onto a ship (Hillman et al., 2004). 

Even so, advocates of a shore-based backup plan will have to be very careful to prevent 

discourse over shore-based treatment from becoming a digression from, or an excuse for the 

industry to avoid, investment in shipboard solutions. Also, to the extent that public funds 

available to redress ship-mediated invasive species are limited, any investment in shore-based 

solutions—even as short-term or fallback options—will reduce the available funding for highquality shipboard treatments. 

How Can Governments Speed Development of Treatment Tools? 

 Once it is accepted that shipboard treatment is a necessary, if insufficient, answer to the 

problem of ship-mediated invasions into the Great Lakes, another important policy question 

emerges: How can governments exploit market forces to catalyze and accelerate research and 

development of effective treatment systems? A market analysis commissioned by the NortheastMidwest Institute estimated that the ballast treatment system market could exceed $1 billion 

following ratification of the IMO treaty (Royal Haskoning, 2001). Current policy would appear a 

perfect recipe for delay. Though treatment has been heralded as the “long-term” solution to the 

problem since at least 1990, uncertainty over the performance requirement for treatment and 

deadlines for its application to ships has thwarted investment in treatment system development 

by vendors and venture capitalists. 

Two types of performance requirements are under constant discussion: 

• A benchmark for treatment performance that would essentially eliminate risk to the 

environment, also called an “environmentally protective standard”. 

• A benchmark for ensuring that an alternative treatment performance exceeds that of 

BWE. 

Presumably, the benchmark for exceeding BWE performance is lower than the 

environmentally protective benchmark. The question is how to stimulate the development of 

treatment systems that perform as close to the environmentally protective standard as possible—

as soon as possible—without legislating the impossible. 

Policy options under discussion include: 

70
• Option 1: Set a treatment standard based solely on what is needed to protect the 

environment, and impose the standard upon availability of cost-effective treatments 

that meet the standard. In the meantime, use best management practice, including 

BWE. 

This alternative defines a treatment expectation and sets a tentative deadline for future 

application of the standard, but if no treatments are available to meet the standard in a costeffective manner by the deadline, application of the standard will be delayed. If treatments are 

available sooner, the deadline will be moved forward. This approach is essentially consistent 

with pending legislation (S.363) as reported by the Senate Commerce Committee, which requires 

BWE of all ships until treatments become available that meet the ultimate, environmentally 

protective, discharge standard (though there is also a narrative provision for approving 

treatments that are better than ballast exchange). 

The bill sets tentative dates (such as 2014 and 2016 for Seaway-sized ships) for 

imposition of the standard, but these deadlines are subject to change depending upon availability 

of suitable treatments. If no cost-effective treatments are deemed available, this approach means 

protracted use of BWE practices, which are known to be inadequate for protecting the Great 

Lakes. The distant and uncertain nature of the deadlines could reduce incentive for near-term 

treatment development activity. Politically, states are likely to regulate in the absence of faster 

federal controls. Still, advocates of this approach contend that it will result in the development of 

better technologies, though they may be fewer and longer in coming. It also means that ships will 

have to install treatment only once. For the same reason, this approach is highly feasible from a 

regulatory standpoint. 

• Option 2: Set a treatment standard and deadlines for imposing it, and assess all 

policy options three years before the deadline. 

This approach essentially sets a treatment standard and a tentative deadline as a goal for 

treatment developers, but defers the decision of what to do if no treatments are available by three 

years before the deadline. Meanwhile, BWE is the primary if not exclusive alternative practice. 

Both the IMO convention on ballast water and S. 363 as introduced used this approach. The 

advantage and disadvantage of this approach is flexibility, which would never hold the industry 

to an impossible treatment standard, but also would provide little predictability for prospective 

vendors of treatment systems. 

• Option 3: Set a standard and a deadline and stick to both. 

This option is designed to force a solution that allows the transportation/manufacturing 

industry to respond in whatever way it finds most efficient. Options include one or more of the 

following: 

• Develop and use highly effective on-board treatment systems; shore-based 

treatments at a choke point in the GLSLSS; or backup port-based treatment 

systems that effectively render Salty ship operations in the GLSLSS risk-free. 

• Use a cargo-transfer facility to move cargoes from Salty to captive laker fleets. 

71
• Shift transportation modes to train or truck from saltwater ports. 

• Relocate receiving industry to saltwater coastal port ranges. 

In terms of costs, this approach reflects a gamble. It could truncate an unnecessarily 

protracted research and development effort and deliver truly protective treatment most efficiently 

because it attenuates the costs of nonindigenous aquatic invasive species in the GLSLSS most 

rapidly, and would set up a healthy competition among treatment vendors to supply the most 

cost-effective approaches. However, if industry cannot (or chooses not to) meet the deadline, this 

alternative could drive up costs, including protracted legal wrangling, the significant adaptations 

of current trade patterns listed above, and/or continued nonindigenous aquatic invasive species 

introductions while the best approach is being determined. 

This option would require binational cooperation with Canada, and the United States or 

any other government would have to ensure that the method chosen does not transfer the 

problem elsewhere. 

• Option 4: Set a protective standard and a date certain at which ships must use best 

treatments available; raise the performance floor over time as treatments improve 

until standard is met. 

This alternative, embodied in the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S. 770), 

manages the problem of uncertain treatment technology development by requiring ships to use 

best treatments available pending the development of treatments that achieve environmental 

protectiveness. Congress or the federal government would set a protective standard and a date 

certain for ships to install best treatments available, and as treatments improve, the less effective 

options will be dropped from the list of approved alternatives until the standard is met. Ships 

have a guaranteed approval period for any “best option” treatment systems they install; ships 

would have to upgrade their installations after the approval period, but probably not more than 

once per Salty ship. 

This alternative implies a level of continued risk of nonindigenous aquatic invasive 

species until the perfect treatment systems develop, but immediate improvements in prevention 

are all but guaranteed. It is likely that the best-performing treatments currently exceed the 

effectiveness of BWE, but this fact requires verification. Meanwhile, this approach requires 

improved BWE—including practices such as flushing and stripping to mitigate NOBOB risk, 

more thorough purges of ballasted tanks (higher volume exchanges) and greater accountability, 

as well as management of hulls and other ship surfaces to prevent fouling. Setting a nonnegotiable deadline and the ultimate standard for environmental protection will prevent 

shipowners from stalling treatment development at a mediocre stage. Assuming that the best 

treatments at least meet the IMO standard, even treatments approved early in the process will be 

internationally accepted. 

 

Do All Ships Need to Treat? 

 There has been some discussion of how to best target regulations to achieve the best 

performance. Australia, in particular, has actively developed a risk assessment tool to target 

72
regulations on high-risk voyages. Some of this discussion stems from a resource-stakeholder 

interest in reducing political opposition to meaningful regulation, and some has been motivated 

by industry interest in reducing the economic impacts of regulation. The resulting proposals use 

risk assessment and other modeling exercises to predict the highest-risk voyages, based on 

identifying: 

• Ecosystems that are most environmentally matched and therefore conducive to the 

establishment of transferred organisms. 

• Receiving systems that appear to be invasion hot spots. 

• Species in ballast-source regions that have characteristics conducive to invasive 

behavior, in a particular a receiving system like the Great Lakes. 

Each of these approaches remains theoretical and controversial. The problem is not only 

identifying voyages associated with a known high risk of invasion potential, but ascertaining 

whether the risk of other voyages is actually low or just unknown. Moreover, such predictions 

must be reliable for all taxonomic groups that the ship may be carrying, across seasons and 

receiving- and source-system pairings. This would be a Herculean modeling task under the best 

of circumstances, but nature is also sending mixed signals. Recent studies in invasion biology 

have examined the relationships between ship-mediated invasions and commercial shipping 

patterns. Analysis of the sites of first discovery for aquatic invaders in the Great Lakes has 

indeed identified four invasion hot spots: the Lake Huron–Lake Erie corridor; the Lake Erie–

Lake Ontario corridor; the Lake Superior–Lake Huron corridor; and the western end of Lake 

Superior (fig. 20). These hot spots comprise less than 6 percent of the total water surface area in 

the Great Lakes, but account for approximately 53.5 percent of the aquatic invasive species 

recorded since 1959 (Grigorovich et al., 2003a). 

The locations of ballast discharge roughly correspond to these invasion hot spots. Four of 

the basin’s significant ports—Cleveland, Detroit, Duluth-Superior, and Toledo—are in or around 

discharge areas. However, though southern Lake Michigan, with the ports of Chicago and Burns 

Harbor, is another major area where ocean-going vessels deballast, the area is not an invasion hot 

spot. Poor water quality and the need for ships to begin to deballast prior to arriving at shallow 

berths could explain some of this effect. Conversely, the Lake Superior–Lake Huron and Lake 

Erie–Lake Ontario hot spots are generally not near the basin’s busier ports, but it is possible that 

ships discharge ballast water to reduce draft before entering these shallow passages (Carlton et 

al., 1995). 

73
Fig. 20. Great Lakes map showing invasion hot spots, based on number of first sightings of 

presumed ballast-mediated invaders, including examples (source: Grigorovich et al., 

2003a) 

The conditions within the receiving system also may affect vulnerability to invasion. 

Despite the hot spot near Duluth–Superior, Lake Superior overall had a small number of 

invasions, especially considering that this lake receives a disproportionately large amount of 

ballast discharge from Salty vessels that initially enter the lakes declaring NOBOB. Since 1959, 

only eight species new to the Great Lakes were initially recorded in Lake Superior. This may be 

explained by bias in research efforts to survey and identify invasive species in Lake Superior. 

However, other factors, such as mismatches of Lake Superior’s physiochemical characteristics 

with potential invasives’ physiological tolerances, or food limitation associated with low 

productivity, may also contribute to this lower invasion rate (Grigorovich et al., 2003b). 

Unfortunately, the relationship between known ballast-discharge areas and invasion hot 

spots is weak enough that it cannot justify geographically targeting regulatory activity. 

Moreover, intensified restrictions at invasion hot spots in the lakes could have the effect of 

simply shifting commercial shipping activity—invasion risk—to the less-regulated areas. Given 

the high stakes of relaxing prevention erroneously, and the inherent complexity of prediction, the 

best policy outcome of a serious modeling exercise would likely resemble a blanket prevention 

policy, like the current U.S. policy. 

74
Prevention Techniques 

 

 Ballast water is the suspected primary means among many for a ship to transport 

organisms to the GLSLSS. Shipboard prevention measures will require changes or additions to 

normal ship operations, such as management practices and treatment systems. Some of the 

prospective methods and their development status are outlined below. 

Ballast Water Management 

 Ballast water management can take the form of management practices, treatment systems 

to alter the quality of ballast discharge, or revisions to ship design that eliminate the need for 

ballast water. 

Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) 

Federal law requires ships to undertake ballast water exchange (BWE ) before entering 

any U.S. port after operating outside the EEZ. BWE is an accepted practice, both nationally and 

internationally,5

 to attenuate ballast-mediated species transfers by replacing ballast water taken 

on board in coastal areas, including at docks and ports, with open-ocean water prior to discharge 

in subsequent ports of call. The theory behind the practice of BWE is that open-ocean organisms, 

adapted to high seas conditions, are much less likely to become established in near-coastal areas 

than organisms from ports of origin, which are adapted to near-coastal conditions—even though 

there has been little empirical research on its effectiveness as a prevention measure (Locke et al., 

1993). Open-ocean water is defined variously depending on the regulatory body. For example, 

the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 defines open ocean as “water beyond the 200-mile 

exclusive economic zone.” Similarly, the International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments defines it as water “at least 200 nautical 

miles from the nearest land and at least 200 meters in depth.” In contrast, Australia’s ballast 

water requirements define open ocean as “outside the Australian 12-nautical-mile limit.” 

There are two forms of BWE: flow-through and empty refill (fig. 21). Ships undertaking 

flow-through exchange gradually flush water through full ballast tanks. Empty refill involves 

discharging the ballast water completely and then refilling the tank. BWE has several limitations 

as a preventive measure; the volumetric purge is never a complete one, and organism purges are 

less efficient yet. While the uppermost volumetric purge using these operations is 99 percent, the 

purge of these two operations for replacing near-coastal zooplankton with open ocean 

zooplankton, for example, is closer to 70 percent (Locke et al., 1991; Taylor et al., 2002). 

 

5

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) and International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and 

Sediments 

75
Fig. 21. The two forms of ballast water exchange: flow through and empty-refill. A flow-through 

exchange continuously pumps ocean water into ballast tanks, forcing coastal water out. 

In an empty-refill exchange, a ballast tank filled with coastal water is completely flushed 

and refilled with ocean water. 

Both BWE methods likely offer some prevention capabilities, but are encumbered with 

limitations such as the following: 

• Vessels in the NOBOB (unballasted) condition cannot conduct complete exchange of 

their ballast water and thereby purge residuals due to load limits. 

• Industry representatives claim that some ships are not structurally designed to safely 

carry out BWE in the open-ocean, even when empty of cargo. 

• BWE may not be possible in rough weather, even for ships well adapted to it. 

• Some coastal organisms can survive in ocean water. 

• BWE does little or nothing to attenuate risk of transfers by ships plying exclusively 

near coastal areas. 

• BWE effectiveness trials have produced mixed and inconsistent results, and 

implementation is difficult to monitor for enforcement purposes with any precision. 

A recent Great Lakes-based study by Johengen et al. (2005) calculated the efficiency of 

BWE using changes in the concentration of the physical tracers, salinity and rhomadine dye, on 

board three vessels—the Federal Progress, Berge Nord, and Kenai—and found high overall 

exchange efficiency for all three. Based on salinity measurements, exchange efficiencies ranged 

from 80 percent (Federal Progress) to 100 percent (Berge Nord); based on rhodamine dye 

measurements, exchange efficiencies ranged from 86 percent (Berge Nord) to 98 percent 

(Federal Progress). Also, there were no noticeable differences in calculated exchange 

efficiencies when comparing type of exchange (e.g., flow-through and empty-refill) or starting 

salinty (e.g., high versus low). 

76
Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) 

 

There is global demand for ballast water management options that are more practical and 

environmentally protective than the current mandatory practice of BWE (GloBallast, 2005), 

spurring private- and public-sector researchers worldwide to develop and evaluate alternative 

ballast water management options. The seminal inventory of prospective treatment methods was 

published in 1996 (National Research Council, 1996). The need for a transition to BWT is 

particularly acute in the Great Lakes region because some 85 percent of ship visits occur in the 

unballasted condition, precluding BWE but nonetheless presenting a risk to the receiving system. 

Some of the first empirical work to test prospective BWT took place in the Great Lakes region 

through the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Development Project (see below). 

The technological challenges associated with effective BWT are significant and the 

suitability of treatment options depends on many crucial considerations, including the biological 

effectiveness across the entire array of ambient aquatic organisms found in ports globally; 

operational and maintenance concerns in the harsh environment of the commercial vessel; ship 

and crew safety; power and space requirements; environmental soundness; cost; maintenance; 

compatibility with ship operations; and ease of use. 

BWT can be achieved by physically separating organisms from ballast flow; killing 

organisms prior to discharge; or rendering them reproductively inviable. These processes could 

be carried out on board a vessel or made available to multiple vessels at a shore-based facility. If 

installed on board, systems can treat water during ballast intake and/or discharge, or en route. 

Systems also can be used alone or in combination with other treatment options. The majority of 

proposed treatment options are derived from technologies with proven effectiveness in a 

wastewater or industrial treatment arena, but all of them require require further research on their 

efficacy and safety. 

Candidate Technologies 

Specific technologies under consideration include: 

Filtration: Filtration—the use of a porous surface or medium to remove organisms from 

the ballast stream—has been shown to be operationally feasible for Seaway-sized ships at the 50 

micrometer pore size (Parsons & Harkins, 2002). This pore size also has effectively removed all 

ambient macrozooplankton and most ambient micrzooplankton from Lake Superior water 

(Cangelosi et al., 2001). The technology may prove to be one of the more primary viable 

treatment options, as particles and organisms too large to fit through the filter can be diverted 

back into the source water by automatic cleaning mechanisms. In addition, the process does not 

generate any chemical or thermal residue. However, because flow rate constraints may limit a 

filter’s capacity to eliminate smaller organisms from the ballast water, filtration will need to be 

combined with a secondary technology, such as UV irradiation, to improve overall biological 

performance (Cangelosi, 2002). Several vendors are researching and developing ballast water 

filtration systems. 

Ultraviolet Irradiation (UV): UV generates photochemical reactions that inactivate 

organisms either by burning them generally or damaging cellular processes involving DNA and 

77
RNA. UV can be used on both ballast intake and discharge, and as a secondary treatment to 

filtration. This treatment also produces no residuals and can have broad spectrum effectiveness 

with adequate wavelength and dose. It has yet to be shown whether systems can be designed to 

deliver a stable dose of a given wavelength of UV to the entire ballast flow given a range of 

water quality, and they must be adequately durable to withstand shipboard use. 

Deoxygenation: Deoxygenation kills organisms by depriving them of oxygen. Treatment 

concepts include purging oxygen from ballast water with an inert gas or binding the oxygen to a 

chemical additive. Such a treatment would involve no residuals, and has the added advantage of 

possibly altering pH—further harming organisms—and having anticorrosion qualities. 

Disadvantages of this treatment technology may include its inability to kill certain species such 

as cysts, spores, and anaerobic bacteria that can survive without oxygen. 

Cyclonic Separators: Cyclonic separators use centrifugal forces to separate particles with 

specific gravity greater than water from the ballast flow. In theory, the technology is simple—

with no moving parts, environmentally sound, and inexpensive. However, space requirements 

could be prohibitive for systems that can manage the high flow-rates of ballast water while still 

separating planktonic organisms—which tend to be almost neutrally bouyant—from the intake 

flow (Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine, 2002). Pilot-scale and shipboard studies on commercially 

available cyclonic separators to date have revealed little or no biological effectiveness 

(Sutherland et al., 2001; Cangelosi et al., 2001), but the technology is still under development. 

Hydrodynamic Cavitation: Cavitation has been effectively used for a variety of industrial 

applications, such as chemical synthesis, wastewater treatment, and biotechnology. These 

applications are attributed to the generation of local conditions of high pressures and 

temperatures, turbulence with associated liquid circulation, and generation of free radicals. 

Hydrodynamic cavitation—an alternative to the use of acoustic cavitation (ultrasound)—for the 

generation of cavitating conditions has been studied in detail recently, and appears to be suitable 

for ballast water treatment applications. Hydrodynamic cavitation can be generated by the 

passage of water through a constriction such as throttling valve. The geometry of the constriction 

strongly influences the intensity of the cavitating conditions as well as the zone of influence of 

cavitation. 

Nonoxidizing Biocides: Nonoxidizing biocides are widely used in water-treatment 

scenarios to control for bacteria and algae. Compounds include ammonium compounds, aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and metals and their salts, which treat by destroying cellular structures and 

metabolic processes. In theory, these biocides could be added to ballast water during intake and 

used to treat ballast water en route. However, certain environmental requirements may need to be 

met, including detoxification or deactivation of compounds to meet discharge standards. 

Compounds also may have associated cost, and ship and crew safety issues. 

In-Tank Coatings: In-tank coatings could be used to reduce biological fouling on ballast 

tank surfaces. Such compounds are composed of toxic polymer or chemical binding agents that 

are lethal to biota that settle on the surface. They require a great deal more research and 

development, and issues of concern include the movement of water inside the ballast tank, the 

78
limitation of the treatment to organisms that settle on surfaces, and the discharge of chemical 

residuals with the ballast water 

Magnetic Fields: Magnetic fields involve the generation by ferromagnetic or 

electromagnetic systems of a magnetic field of specified flux. This technology has been 

demonstrated to control zebra mussels and may have wider application for ballast water 

treatment. However, the biological and chemical effects of magnetic systems are not well 

understood, nor are the effectiveness of magnetic treatments on board operating ships, especially 

in saltwater situations. A great deal more research is needed on the biological and chemical 

effects of magnetic systems, and the effectiveness of magnetic treatment on board operating 

ships—especially in saltwater. 

Oxidizing Biocides: Oxidizing biocides, such as chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, 

hydrogen peroxide, and bromine, treat by destroying cellular structures and metabolic processes. 

In theory these compounds could be added to the intake ballast stream and used to treat ballast 

water en route. Disadvantages of oxidizing biocides, however, include environmental 

requirements for minimal discharge of inert chemical concentrations, high cost, safety issues, 

and risks of corrosion. 

Pulsed Electric Fields and High-Energy Pulses: Pulsed electric fields and high-energy 

pulses have the potential to seriously damage and/or kill the types of organisms contained in 

ballast water. Pulsed electric fields involve the transfer of an electric pulse between two 

electrodes. High-energy pulses form an arc across an electrode gap by short, high-energy pulses 

to produce chemical reactions. Disadvantages of this technology for shipboard application 

include high installation and operational costs. Little research has been conducted on these 

technologies; more research is needed on its suitability to treat all taxa contained in ballast water, 

as well as the formation of chemical byproducts and issues of crew and ship safety. 

Thermal Energy: Thermal energy is commonly used to sterilize water. Many harmful 

organisms found in ballast water can be killed or inactivated at temperatures around 40 degrees 

Celsius. The application of waste heat from the main engine-cooling circuit to heat the ballast 

water is one example of how this technology can be used. Treating ballast water en route in this 

form is advantageous because organisms entrained within sediments also are treated, and 

possibly at higher temperatures. There also is the opportunity for recirculation of the ballast 

water. However, the process may not be applicable to short, domestic voyages or appropriate in 

temperate regions because of high heat loss to the ocean. 

Ultrasonic Treatment: Ultrasonic treatment uses in-line transducers that apply sound 

energy of specified amplitude and frequency to the water. Sound energy can biologically 

inactivate organisms in the ballast water by producing mechanical stresses that disrupt cells or 

cause cavitation. The overall effectiveness of the technology is influenced by many factors 

including frequency, water temperature, and concentration of dissolved matter. A great deal 

more research and development is needed to ascertain the suitability of this technology to ballast 

water treatment, particularly in relation to crew health and safety and the technology’s impact on 

a ship’s structural integrity. 

79
Design Innovations: Another “technology” that could reduce ballast-mediated transfers 

of species is the redesign of the ballast system of ships to either reduce the volume of ballast that 

must be transported, or otherwise improve the extent to which organisms can be flushed or 

removed before or during a voyage. Ideas include the design of a “ballastless” ship. Two 

research teams at the University of Michigan and in Europe each have proposed a ballast-free 

ship—a concept that will essentially eliminate the transport of ballast-mediated aquatic 

organisms (Kotinis et al., 2004; van Dyck, 2005). The ballast-free ship concept involves a shift 

in paradigm that approaches ballast-water operation as the reduction of buoyancy, rather than the 

addition of weight to get a vessel to its required drafts (Kotinis et al., 2004). Under a U.S. patent, 

the concept replaces traditional ship ballast tanks with longitudinal structural ballast trunks that 

surround the cargo hold below the ballast draft. These trunks are connected to an intake plenum 

near the bow and a discharge plenum. 

Treatment Systems under Commercial Development 

 Specific technologies currently under commercial development include: 

Filtration: 

• Arkal Filtration Systems of Israel is marketing automatic backflush disk filtration 

systems of various nominal ratings for use on board vessels to treat ballast water. The 

systems have been extensively used in other water treatment applications including 

shipboard grey water. In 2000, Arkal joined with Hyde Marine of Cleveland, Ohio, to 

install a 100-micron Arkal Galaxy automatic backflush filter for full-scale testing on 

board the Great Lakes Ballast Demonstration Project’s barge platform in Duluth, 

Minnesota. A similar model, capable of 50-micron filtration was next installed on 

board the Princess Cruises vessel the MS Coral Princess in conjunction with an 

Aquisonics UV system. Testing of this treatment combination was conducted in the 

fall of 2004. Total capital and operating costs of the system is approximately $3-$4 

per ton of ballast water (Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine, 2002). 

• OptiMarin AS of Norway has developed a filter by the name of MicroKill FilterSep 

that has the same operative features as the company’s cyclonic seperator (see below) 

but is fitted with a filter element that filters down to grades of 50-microns. The 

patent-pending MicroKill FilterSep has been tested at the pilot-scales, and will soon 

be tested at the full-scale (OptiMarin, 2006). The price for a system is not available, 

though it is expected to be in the hundred’s of thousands of dollar-range, depending 

on vessel size and ballast system specifications. 

UV: 

• Aquionics Inc. of Erlanger, Kentucky, has developed a UV system for the treatment 

of ballast water known as the Aquionics In-Line UV system®. In 2001, the system 

was tested at full-scale on board the U.S.S. Cape May in Baltimore Harbor, in 

combination with a primary cyclonic separator. In 2003, Aquionics partnered with 

Hyde Marine, to install it’s In-Line UV system as a secondary treatment to filtration 

on board the Princess Cruise’s ship, the Coral Princess. The price for a system is not 

available, though it is expected to be in the hundred’s of thousands of dollar-range, 

depending on vessel size and ballast system specifications. 

80
• OptiMarin AS of Norway has developed the MicroKill UV system for use as a 

secondary treatment of ballast water. The system has been installed and tested in 

combination with several primary treatment technologies including filtration and 

cyclonic separation on board five vessels: the Regal Princess, the Sea Princess, the 

Star Princess, the R.J.Pfeiffer, and the Stolt Aspiration. Total capital and operating 

costs of the system is approximately $3-$4 per ton of ballast water (Glosten-Herbert 

& Hyde Marine, 2002). 

Deoxygenation: 

• Browning Transport Management, a private company based in Norfolk, Virginia, has 

patented a ballast water treatment system called AquaHabiStat. The system involves 

the removal of dissolved oxygen from the ballast water as it is pumped on board. A 

full-scale prototype system for a 30,000 DWT vessel was tested in a dockside setting 

in 2000. Plans are currently being formulated to test the system on board an operating 

vessel. The price for a system is expected to range between $500,000 and $1,000,000, 

depending on vessel size and ballast system specifications (Davis, 2003). 

• MH Systems of San Diego, California, is testing the efficacy of deoxygenation 

combined with elevated levels of carbon dioxide in treating ballast water. Though the 

practical application of the system still needs to be verified in a large scale effort, the 

system is estimated to cost approximately $3 million, including parts and materials, 

labor, installation and maintenance (Husain et al., 2003). 

• NEI Treatment Systems, LLC of Los Angeles, California, has patented the Venturi 

Oxygen Stripping System—a deoxygenation technology that rapidly removes 95 

percent of dissolved oxygen from ballast water. The technology, after years of 

research and development, has recently been installed on an actively trading USflagged bulk carrier the TECO Ocean, where biological trials, at flow rate of 1,000 

m3

/hour, have shown the system capable of meeting the IMO’s new performance 

standard for ballast water treatment systems (MarineTalk, 2005). Installation of the 

Venturi Oxygen Stripping System is expected to cost around $500,000. 

Cyclonic Separators: 

• Maritime Solutions Inc. of New York, New York, has developed a cyclonic seapartor 

known as the MSI Microfugal Separator® to treat ballast water. The patented system 

utilizes the proprietary MSI Microfugal Model 1500 Separator to separate the 

components of the influent ballast water in the primary treatment stage. In 2001 the 

system was tested at full-scale on board the U.S.S. Cape May in Baltimore Harbor, in 

combination with a secondary UV system. The price for a system is not available. 

• OptiMarin AS of Norway has developed the MicroKill Separator as a primary ballast 

water treatment mechanism. Following extensive laboratory tests, the system was 

installed and tested at full-scale on board the MV Regal Princess in 2000. Since then 

it has been installed and tested on board two Princess Cruise Line vessels, the MS Sea 

Princess and the MS Star Princess, as well as the U.S.-flagged container ship, R.J. 

Pfeiffer, and the chemical tanker, Stolt Aspiration. All five installations involved 

systems arranged in combination with the MicroKill UV system. Total capital and 

operating costs of the system is approximately $3-$4 per ton of ballast water 

(Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine, 2002). 

81
Non-Oxidizing Biocides: 

• Vitamar Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee, has developed SeaKleen®, a patented 

formulation of vitamin K3, which in very small doses may be effective at killing most 

organisms contained in the ballast water. In 2000, Vitamar, Inc. joined with Hyde 

Marine of Cleveland, Ohio and researchers at the University of Maryland to test 

SeaKleen® at full-scale on board the U.S.S. Cape May in Baltimore Harbor. Results 

from the tests indicate that one gram of SeaKleen® is capable of treating one metric 

ton of ballast water (Cutler et al., 2003). At current prices, it would be anticipated that 

ballast water treatment using SeaKleen® would cost approximately 15 cents per 

metric ton with very low or non-existent initial capital costs (Wright, 2004). 

• Baker Petrolite Corporation of Sugar Land, Texas, is marketing the organic biocide, 

Acrolein® as a treatment option for ballast water. The company has conducted 

extensive laboratory experiments of the chemical, as well as carried out full-scale 

trials of its use on board a container vessel operating in the Gulf of Mexico (Penkala 

et al., 2003). More full-scale studies are planned. The estimated cost of Acrolein® 

application in ballast water is projected to be between $0.16 and $0.19 per metric ton 

(State Water Resources Control Board et al., 2002). 

Oxidizing Biocides: 

• Nutech o3, Inc. of Arlington, Virginia, has designed a ballast water treatment system 

that injects ozone into a ship's ballast water, as it is taken on board the ship. The 

system has been tested on board a British Petroleum oil tanker, the ST Tonsina, since 

the summer of 2000, and most recently on board the ST Prince William Sound. The 

technology has also undergone extensive laboratory testing at the University of 

Washington's Marrowstone research facility in Puget Sound and at the La Que Center 

for Corrosion Technology in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Additional, fresh 

water testing on freighters operating on the Great Lakes is being planned for 2006. 

Projected costs of the system are estimated to be approximately $1.5 million per 

vessel based on a 125k dwt prototype (Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, 

2005). 

• Degussa AG of Germany is marketing a liquid biocide called Peraclean® Ocean as a 

chemical ballast water treatment option. The product is a special formulation of 

peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. The first evaluations of the performance of 

Peraclean® Ocean were conducted in the laboratory using various indicator 

organisms. Field trials were next conducted in the U.S. in association with Maritime 

Solutions Inc. at Baltimore Harbor on board the U.S.S. Cape May. Although no cost 

projections are yet available, researchers estimate that approximately 150 liters of 

Peraclean® Ocean is sufficient for treating 1,000 tons of ballast water (Degussa, 

2006). 

Thermal Energy: 

• Hi Tech Marine of Sydney, Australia, has developed several treatment systems that 

uses waste heat from a ship’s engine room to disinfect ballast water. The systems are 

suitable for both on board and shore-based applications. Biological tests of these 

systems has been conducted at various capacities, including on board the Australian 

bulk carrier MV Sandra Marie. Total capital and operating costs of one example 

82
system for a Cape Size bulk carrier is estimated at $5.43 cents per metric ton 

(Thornton & Chapman, 2003). 

• Aquacide LLC of Michigan City, Indiana, is currently developing an on board system 

that uses waste heat from the ship’s power plant to pasteurize ballast water. No 

shipboard results or information on costs are yet available. 

Multi-Component Systems: 

• Degussa AG and Hamann AG, both of Germany are working together to develop a 

modular concept for treating ballast water. Their proposed system involves several 

stages: a hydrocyclone to filter out solids; a filter to remove particles greater than 50 

microns; and a chlorine-free oxidant disinfection stage (Peraclean® Ocean). The 

estimated cost of the multi-stage system is $0.30 per treated meter of ballast water. 

• Marine Environmental Partners, a private company based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 

has patented a treatment system called MariSan® that uses 50-micron pre-filtration 

and electro-ionization to treat ballast water. The company is operating a scale version 

of the system at the Oceanographic Center of Nova Southeastern University, and 

installed a pilot version of the system on a cruise ship in California (the MS Elation) 

in 2002 for formal testing by the California Lands Commission. Costs of treatment 

are estimated to be low as 0.5 cents per metric ton. 

• Maritime Solutions Technology, Inc. has developed a patent-pending multicomponent ballast treatment system using the company’s separation technology as the 

first stage, and either the UV technology of Aquionics, Inc., the chemical biocide 

technology of Degussa AG, or the ozone treatment of Norsk Ozon AS as a second 

stage treatment. The estimated cost for a system is not available, though it is expected 

to be in the hundred’s of thousands of dollar-range, depending on vessel size and 

ballast system specifications. 

• OceanSaver AS—a fully owned subsidiary of MetaFil AS—is currently developing 

the OceanSaver®—a Norwegian-made three-component treatment system that is 

composed of a 50-micron filter, a nitrogen super-saturation generator, and a 

hydrodynamic cavitation unit. The system is currently undergoing full-scale tests on 

board several vessels including the MV Federal Welland and the Hual Trooper. The 

technology is expected to be commercialized in 2006, and will cost approximately 

$800,000 per unit. The development is supported by Innovation Norway, Statoil, and 

major shipowners, research institutions, and key industrial companies from Norway 

and abroad. 

Table 9 also details examples of ballast water treatment systems currently undergoing 

commercial development. 

83
Table 9. Examples of ballast water treatment systems currently undergoing commercial 

development 

Trademark name Vendor Location Treatment 

technology Test stage 

Acrolein Baker Petrolite Corporation Sugar Land, Texas Non-oxidizing biocide Tested at full-scale 

AquaHabiStat Browning Transport 

Management Norfolk, Virginia Deoxygenation Tested at full-scale 

Aquionics In-Line 

UV system Aquionics Inc. Erlanger, Kentucky UV Installed onboard operating ship 

Arkal Galaxy Filter Arkal Filtration Systems Israel Filtration Installed onboard 

operating ship 

MariSan Marine Environmental 

Partners Inc. 

Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida Multi-component Tested at full-scale 

MicroKill FilterSep OptiMarin AS Norway Filtration Tested at pilot-scale 

MicroKill Separator OptiMarin AS Norway Cyclonic separation Installed onboard 

operating ships 

MicroKill UV OptiMarin AS Norway UV Installed onboard 

operating ships 

MSI Microfugal 

Separator Maritime Solutions Inc. New York, New York Cyclonic separation Installed onboard operating ship 

OceanSaver OceanSaver AS Norway Multi-component Installed onboard 

operating ships 

Peraclean Ocean DeGussa AG Germany Oxidizing biocide Tested at full-scale 

SeaKleen Vitamar Inc. Memphis, Tennessee Non-oxidizing biocide Tested at full-scale 

Venturi Oxygen 

Stripping System NEI Treatment Systems Inc. Los Angeles, California Deoxygenation Installed onboard operating ship 

-- Aquacide LLC Michigan City, Indiana Thermal energy Not known 

-- DeGussa AG & Hamann AG Germany Multi-component Not known 

-- Hi Tech Marine Australia Thermal energy Tested at full-scale 

-- Maritime Solutions Inc. New York, New York Multi-component Not known 

84
-- MH Systems San Diego, California Deoxygenation Tested at pilot-scale 

-- Nutech o3 Inc. Arlington, Virginia Oxidizing biocide 

(ozone) 

Installed onboard 

operating ship 

Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Activities 

 Research and development of shipboard treatment is occurring in locations around the 

world, and accelerating in response to recently negotiated International Maritime Organization 

treatment objectives, evaluation methods, and implementation deadlines. Research and 

development activities take place at the bench-, pilot-, and ship-scale and involve operational and 

biological effectiveness concerns. 

Ballast Treatment Research Development Testing and Evaluation Facilities: A limited number 

of test facilities capable of conducting rigorous ballast treatment tests is emerging domestically 

and internationally. These facilities are being developed because the shipboard environment is 

too difficult a test environment to successfully meet all information needs. Tests at stationary 

facilities, while more controllable than the shipboard tests, nonetheless require specialized and 

expensive test infrastructure including large tanks and pumps in order to detect performance with 

any degree of certainty at levels relevant to standards for ballast discharge. The earliest of these 

facilities were designed prior to the development of the IMO standard. More recently facilities 

are coming on line capable of testing according to IMO requirements. 

 

 In the United States, the Naval Research Laboratory, in partnership with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, has established a ballast water treatment testing facility in Key West, Florida. The facility 

functions as an instrumented scientific test platform for the evaluation of technologies designed 

to eliminate aquatic nuisance species in shipboard ballast. 

 

 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently solicited proposals for 

establishing regional testing facilities in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. The solicitation—the 

NOAA-Fish and Wildlife Service Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program grants 

competition for Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) facilities (OAR-SG2006-2000364)—offered more than $1 million over a four year period to a Great Lakes facility, 

and start-up grants for facilities in other regions. The Northeast-Midwest Institute and several 

partners were awarded the Great Lakes funds. The Maritime Administration is providing barge 

platforms to support pilot level tests to qualified regions as an in-kind contribution. The 

Northeast-Midwest Institute has custodianship of one such barge which will be retrofitted to 

conduct a variety of pilot level tests. 

 

Internationally, there are several countries with test pads under development. Singapore 

is likely to develop a facility consistent with IMO specifications. Meanwhile, other facilities are 

under development in the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and at the Norwegian 

Institute for Water Research (NIVA). 

85
Shipboard Tests: One of the first shipboard tests of a treatment technology was conducted by the 

Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project (GLBTDP). Co-led by the NortheastMidwest Institute and the Lake Carriers' Association, the Project undertook field trials of a deckmounted filtration system in 1997 on board an operating bulk cargo vessel, the MV Algonorth, at 

various locations in the Great Lakes system. Most recently, the GLBTDP has investigated a fullscale UV treatment system installed on board an operating chemical tanker (the MT Stolt 

Aspiration) that routinely visits the Great Lakes from ports in northern Europe. 

 

Outside of the Great Lakes, members of the GLBTDP team investigated the performance 

of cyclonic separation in combination with UV on board the MS Regal Princess as it plied waters 

in British Columbia, Canada and Alaska in 2000. Following, Princess Cruises installed the same 

technologies on two more of its vessels (the MS Star Princess and the MS Sea Princess), and an 

alternative treatment combination (filtration and UV) on board the MS Coral Princess. All three 

treatment systems have undergone extensive biological testing primarily by the California State 

Lands Commission, in association with researchers from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 

San Jose State University and San Francisco State University. These parties have also undertaken 

shipboard evaluations of a similar cyclonic separator and UV system installed on the bulk 

carrier, the MV R.J. Pfeiffer. The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute is also undertaking 

shipboard evaluations of two separate systems. 

 

Researchers from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory have undertaken extensive 

testing of various treatment systems installed on board a commercially operating vessel (the 

U.S.S. Cape May) moored in Baltimore Harbor, including a cyclonic separator, a UV system, and 

the biocide SeaKleen. While, researchers from the University of Washington among others have 

investigated the biological effectiveness of ozone on board the oil tanker, ST Tonsina, since the 

summer of 2000, and most recently on board the ST Prince William Sound. 

 

Internationally, the Norwegian-based OceanSaver AS is currently testing its three 

component ballast water treatment system (the OceanSaver®) on several ships, including the

M/V Federal Welland, which plies routinely to the Great Lakes, and the auto transport, the Hual 

Trooper. Preliminary laboratory and land-based tests of this treatment process confirm the theory 

and support the likelihood that OceanSaver® will meet the requirements of the new IMO 

convention. Several shipboard studies of heat treatment have also been conducted by researchers 

in the Pacific Rim, including two by Australian scientists on the MV Iron Whyalla, and the MV 

Sandra Marie. 

Table 10 also details examples of ballast water treatment systems tested on board 

commercially operating vessels. 

86
Table 10. Examples of ballast water treatment systems tested on board commercially operating 

vessels 

Treatment 

technology Ship name Ship type Flow rate (m3

/hr) 

Visits Great 

Lakes Test year(s) Contact 

Cyclonic separation 

and UV MS Regal Princess Cruise ship 200 No 2000 

Allegra Cangelosi 

Northeast-Midwest 

Institute 

Cyclonic separation 

and UV MS Sea Princess Cruise ship 220 No 2001 Tom Mackey Hyde Marine Inc. 

Cyclonic separation 

and UV MS Star Princess Cruise ship 255 No 2003 Tom Mackey Hyde Marine Inc. 

Cyclonic separation 

and UV R.J. Pfeiffer Containership 350 No 2003 Tom Mackey Hyde Marine Inc. 

Cyclonic separation 

and UV MT Stolt Aspiration Chemical tanker 250 Yes 2004 

Allegra Cangelosi 

Northeast-Midwest 

Institute 

Cyclonic 

separation, UV, 

SeaKleen, 

Peraclean Ocean 

U.S.S. Cape May Bulk/container 350 No 2000, 2001 

Dr. David Wright 

Chesapeake 

Biological Laboratory 

Filtration MV Algonorth Bulk carrier 273 Yes 1997 

Allegra Cangelosi 

Northeast-Midwest 

Institute 

Filtration and UV MS Coral Princess Cruise ship 250 No 2004 Tom Mackey 

Hyde Marine Inc. 

OceanSaver Hual Trooper Auto 

transporter -- No 2005 Aage Bjørn Andersen OceanSaver AS 

OceanSaver MV Federal 

Welland Bulk carrier ~300 Yes 2005 Aage Bjørn Andersen OceanSaver AS 

Ozone ST Prince William 

Sound Oil tanker 2,200 No 2005 Joel Mandelman Nutech O3, Inc 

Ozone ST Tonsina Oil tanker ~2,200 No 2000 - 2004 Joel Mandelman 

Nutech O3, Inc 

Thermal energy MV Iron Whyalla Bulk carrier 2,000 No 1997 Dr. Geoff Rigby 

Reninna Consulting 

Thermal energy MV Sandra Marie Bulk carrier -- No 1997 Glenn Thornton 

Hi Tech Marine 

Venturi Oxygen 

Stripping System TECO Ocean Bulk carrier 1,000 No 2004 NEI Treatment Systems 

87
Other Studies: Several barge- and land-based full scale tests of treatment technologies have been 

conducted around the world. In 1998, the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project 

continued trials of the same filter unit tested onboard the MV Algonorth on a stationary barge 

platform moored in Duluth Harbor, Minnesota (fig. 22), and compared the effectiveness of 25- 

and 50-micron screen sizes. In 2000, the same barge platform was used to evaluate two ballast 

treatment combinations: 40-micron filtration in combination with UV, and cyclonic separation in 

combination with UV. Experiments were undertaken in Two Harbors and Duluth Harbor, 

Minnesota. In August of 2001, the Project returned to the barge platform to investigate the 

effectiveness of 100-micron depth filtration in combination with an upgraded UV system. 

Outside the Great Lakes, researchers from the San Francisco Estuary Institute are 

assessing on-shore treatment of ballast water discharges using both existing wastewater 

treatment plants and purpose-built treatment plants. Researchers from the University of Miami 

have also conducted evaluations of several technologies including self-cleaning screens, 

hydrocyclones and UV irradiation at a dockside pilot facility. 

 Globally, a team of researchers based at James Cook University, and a consortium of 

Australian government and industry partners are working together as the Australian Ballast 

Water Treatment Consortium (ABWTC). The ABWTC has developed a pilot plant to sterilize 

ballast water. Housed within a portable, twenty-foot long shipping container, the plant utilizes 

filtration, UV irradiation, chlorine dioxide injection and a high speed sonic/shear device to treat 

ballast water as it is being loaded on board a ship. In Singapore, researchers at the Environmental 

Technology Institute of the Nanyang Technology University have evaluated various treatments 

at the pilot scale, among other scales, including filtration, UV, ozone, and chemicals. 

Fig. 22. Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Barge Platform moored in 

Duluth-Superior Harbor 

88
Hull Management 

The need to effectively manage fouling on a ship’s hull has been universally recognized 

for decades. Hull fouling creates a pathway for the introduction of non-native aquatic species to 

disparate waterways, and the increased weight and presence of fouling organisms on the hull also 

can significantly reduce a ship’s speed and increase fuel consumption. 

Chemicals, including organo-mercury compounds, lead, arsenic, and DDT, have 

historically been used to treat hull fouling. However, such compounds pose severe environmental 

and human health risks, and were withdrawn from use during the early 1960s. They were 

replaced largely by tributyltin (TBT) compounds. Initially, TBT was incorporated into freeassociation paints, in which the biocide was dispersed in a soluble resinous matrix. However, 

release rates were uncontrolled, causing performance to quickly diminish. In the mid-1970s, 

TBT was incorporated into self-polishing copolymer paints that were widely acclaimed as the 

most effective antifoulants ever devised, providing antifouling cover for five or more years. 

The benefit of TBT-based paints in preventing hull fouling, however, has been 

counterbalanced by concerns about TBT’s high toxicity. Environmental studies worldwide have 

provided evidence that TBT compounds persist in the water and sediments, killing aquatic life 

other than that attached to the hulls of ships, and possibly entering the food chain. Specifically, 

TBT has been shown to cause shell deformations in oysters; sex changes (imposex) in whelks; 

and immune response, neurotoxic, and genetic affects in other marine species. 

In response to these environmental concerns, many countries have banned the use of 

TBT-based paints on vessels of less than 25 meters in length, and on marine and estuarine 

structures such as piers and buoys. For example, in the United States, the Organotin Antifoulant 

Paint Control Act restricts the use of TBT-based paints on vessels of less than 25 meters in 

length. The Act also requires that TBT-based paints applied to vessels greater than 25 meters 

have a release rate of less than 4 μg TBT per cm2

 per day. Other countries, including Japan and 

New Zealand, have gone one step further and placed a total ban on TBT-based paints on all 

vessels, regardless of length. However, ships coated with TBT-based paints are still permitted to 

visit these countries. 

Internationally, there is pressure from the IMO to phase out the use of TBT-based paints 

worldwide within the next 10 years. In 1999, the IMO adopted an Assembly resolution that 

called on the Marine Environment Protection Committee to develop an instrument to address the 

harmful effects of antifouling systems used on ships. This resolution called for a global 

prohibition on the application of organotin compounds on ships by 1 January 2003, and a 

complete prohibition by 1 January 2008. In 2001, the IMO adopted a new International 

Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships, prohibiting the use of 

harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships and establishing a mechanism to prevent 

the potential future use of other harmful substances in antifouling systems. This convention will 

enter into force 12 months after 25 states representing 25 percent of the world’s merchant 

shipping tonnage have ratified it. To date only 11 countries have signed on to the convention, 

representing 9 percent of the world’s tonnage. 

89
In the wake of this international and national pressure, the challenge for paint 

manufacturers has been to formulate products that perform as well as TBT-based paints but have 

minimal impact in the aquatic environment. Currently copper oxide-based paints are considered 

the best alternative to TBT-based paints. However, these compounds remain problematic due 

risks of corrosion to aluminum hulls, a short lifespan, and the demand for regular in-water hull 

cleaning. Also, though less toxic than TBT-based paints, paints containing copper oxide are still 

highly toxic to aquatic organisms. One promising alternative under development is the use of 

fouling release coatings. These are nontoxic, silicone-based nonstick coatings that weaken the 

adhesive bond between fouling organisms and the ship’s hull, such that organisms are removed 

as the vessel moves through the water. Other potential options include coatings with microscopic 

prickles, natural biocides, and electrical charges across the hull. 

Sea Chest, Anchor Chain Management

Currently there are no international, national, or state requirements for the treatment of 

ships’ sea chests, anchors and anchor chains, bilge discharges, sea-sieves, chain lockers, intake 

pipes, bow-thruster tunnels, rope guards, and piping. Antifouling paints such as those mentioned 

above probably could be used to control the buildup of fouling organisms on these structures. 

The possibility of application however, is likely to be directly related to the need to reduce fuel 

consumption by lessening the opportunity for fouling organisms to reduce a ship’s speed. 

Regulatory Regimes 

Since the problem first came to light, several levels of government, including national, 

international, regional and state/local entities, have become active in the attempt to reduce the 

problem through regulation. Of these, the most influential with respect to Great Lakes protection 

are regulations issued by the United States government and a convention negotiated by the 

International Maritime Organization. The private sector also has begun to self-regulate around 

the problem. This section briefly describes the various regulatory regimes and estimates through 

calculations and assumptions the current or projected effect of these regulations on the risk of 

new introductions to the Great Lakes. 

Domestic Regulation 

U.S. law (the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990) set 

up the first regulatory program directed at minimizing ballast introductions of invasive species. 

This early program was focused on ships entering the Great Lakes after operating outside the 

exclusive economic zone. The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) then expanded the 

program to be national in scope. Both programs require vessels to manage their ballast water 

either by conducting ballast water exchange (BWE) or by using a ballast water treatment (BWT) 

that is demonstrated to be as effective as or more effective than BWE. NISA charged the U.S. 

Coast Guard with first establishing a voluntary national program and, in the event it was found to 

be ineffective, making its provisions mandatory. In 2001, the U.S. Coast Guard reported to 

Congress that the number of vessels that provided information on ballast water management was 

too low for an effective assessment of compliance with the voluntary guidelines. As a result, it 

began the process of making the voluntary guidelines mandatory, publishing a notice of proposed 

90
rulemaking for a mandatory national ballast water management program in July 2003, and a final 

rule in July 2004. 

In September 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard established voluntary best management 

practices for residual ballast water and sediment carried by transoceanic vessels that enter the 

Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone declaring “no ballast on board” 

(NOBOB). These best management practices include: 

• Conducting mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast-laden voyages in an area 

200 nautical miles from any shore and in water 2,000 meters deep whenever possible, 

prior to entering the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

• For vessels unable to conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange, conducting saltwater 

flushing of their empty ballast water tanks in an area 200 nautical miles from any shore, 

whenever possible. 

NOBOB vessels that do conduct the practices are asked to incorporate them into their 

required ballast water management plan. The U.S. Coast Guard intends to monitor NOBOB 

vessels engaging in these practices to determine the efficacy of the program. If the best 

management practices are not effective in preventing aquatic invasive species introductions, the 

U.S. Coast Guard may consider other alternatives. 

 In recent years, many bills have been proposed in Congress to reauthorize the National 

Invasive Species Act’s ballast water program, but none has been enacted. A full listing of current 

legislation can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/legislation.htm. All of these bills 

would expand the ballast water management program already in place under NISA, but they vary 

widely in nature and scope. For example, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S.770) 

would strengthen national ballast water regulations and focus on introduction pathways other 

than ballast water and other needs, such as early detection and monitoring, rapid response, 

controlling spread, and research. The Ballast Water Management Act (S.363) would amend the 

national ballast water program with provisions similar to those in the IMO Convention (see 

below). Furthermore, various committees in the House of Representatives and Senate are likely 

to develop their own ballast water bills. There is clearly interest in passing federal ballast water 

legislation, but it is uncertain what form such legislation would take. 

International Treaty Requirements

In February 2004, the International Maritime Organization adopted the International 

Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, which will 

require ships to conduct ballast water management through BWE or BWT. The convention 

includes standards for the operational effectiveness of BWE and the biological effectiveness for 

BWT. 

 Although the adoption of an international agreement on ballast water is a significant 

development, the IMO Convention is unlikely to effectively prevent further ballast water 

introductions in the near future. The convention gradually phases in BWT standards—based on 

vessel size and construction date—that do not apply to many ships until 2014 or 2016. This 

91
ensures that in the short term, BWE will be the main management activity required. Furthermore, 

the convention does not enter into force until one year after ratification by 30 nations 

representing 35 percent of the world’s shipping. As a result, it is doubtful that any meaningful 

ballast management will be required internationally in the near future. 

Seaway Development Requirement 

Both the U.S. and Canadian Seaway Development Corporation issued a Code of Best 

Practices for Ballast Water Management of the Shipping Federation of Canada on September 28, 

2000. Ships entering the Seaway that operate within the GLSLSS must agree to comply with the 

Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the 

Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping, adopted by the Lake Carriers Association 

and Canadian Shipowners Association on January 26, 2001. 

State/Provincial Requirements 

A number of states have passed legislation pertaining to ballast water and ballast water 

management, which vary widely in scope. A Michigan law charged the Department of 

Environmental Quality with determining whether vessels are employing voluntary ballast water 

management (BWM) guidelines or BWT; determining if BWT systems could be used to prevent 

introductions, and if so, at what date; and compiling a list of vessels employing voluntary 

guidelines or ballast treatment systems. The Rhode Island State Legislature charged the 

Department of Environmental Management with gathering information on international, federal, 

and state ballast water management policies, and making recommendations for the establishment 

of a state BWM program. 

Other states, such as Alaska, Maryland, and Virginia, have laws requiring vessels to 

report their ballast operations. Oregon also has reporting requirements and requires vessels 

arriving from overseas to conduct BWE. California has a mandatory state BWM program that is 

supported by fees charged to vessel operators, and Washington State’s program requires ballast 

water reporting and monitoring, and establishes standards for BWT systems. Furthermore, in the 

past several years, ballast water bills have been introduced in the legislatures of several Great 

Lakes states, including Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. Although they 

were not enacted, these bills further demonstrate that in the absence of effective federal ballast 

water regulation, the states are prepared to address the issue. 

Port-Specific Regulation

Two North American ports have taken action to regulate ballast discharges. In 1997, well 

in advance of any Canadian federal requirements, the Port of Vancouver, British Columbia, 

began requiring vessels to perform mid-ocean BWE prior to arrival. The Port of Oakland, 

California, enacted similar requirements in 1999, though these requirements have since been 

superseded by state and federal regulations (Bay Area Monitor, 2000). 

92
Pending Legal Action

In September 2005, attorneys general from six Great Lakes states including Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, filed a brief in federal court 

proposing several remedies to better regulate ballast water discharges under the Clean Water Act. 

The action complements a March 2005 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

of California in San Francisco that required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin 

regulating ballast water discharges. Specifically, the brief asks the court to order the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency to: 

• Promptly repeal the rule, 40 CFR § 122.3(a), that exempts aquatic nuisance species 

from regulation under the Clean Water Act. 

• Establish interim regulatory controls by April 1, 2006, which marks the start of the 

next shipping season on the Great Lakes. 

• Establish final regulatory controls by October 1, 2007, that include strict standards for 

vessel ballast water discharges. 

The brief is the latest attempt by the six Great Lakes states to incite federal action on the 

issue. In July 2005, the group sent a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing S.363, the Ballast Water 

Management Act of 2005, which would place sole responsibility for regulating ballast water 

discharges on the U.S. Coast Guard, rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Industry Self-Regulation

Examples of carrier self-regulation for ballast water management include 

• Lake Carriers’ Association and Canadian Shipowners Association voluntary guidelines. 

Ships entering the GLSLSS must agree to comply with the Voluntary Management 

Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the Great Lakes by 

U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping, adopted by the Lake Carriers Association and 

Canadian Shipowners Association in January 2001. Appendix A provides more detail on 

these voluntary measures. 

• Fednav International Limited, a leader in the international shipping business into the 

Great Lakes, also requires routine ballast purges by its vessels in the high seas to assure 

that unpumpable residuals are water only (not heavier sediment). 

• CMA CGM, a leading worldwide container shipping company, has implemented a ballast 

water management plan on all vessels it operates. The plan underlines the fact that the 

uptake of ballast water must be carried out in deep water, at least 200 nautical miles away 

from the coast. All ballast operations are also to be recorded in a ballast water record 

book at the disposal of the authorities.

• The Clean Cargo Group within the Businesses for Social Responsibility is the only clear 

example of a shipper regulating ballast water management of waterborne transportation 

services. The group’s main goal is to develop cost-effective environmental specifications 

for waterborne carrier service providers in order to significantly improve air quality (e.g., 

by reducing emissions and improving fuel/engine efficiency) and reduce the introduction 

of aquatic invasive species (e.g., by endorsing process standards for BWE and BWT). To 

93
• On a more integrated scale, recently the maritime industry of the GLSLSS has been 

investigating the prospect of a Green Marine initiative to address the wide range of 

environmental problems it faces. Biological pollution associated with the industry will 

clearly be a priority. 

94
IV. Analysis 

In recent months, the invasive species problem associated with commercial shipping on 

the GLSLSS has received heavy media coverage (e.g., Egan 2005a; Egan, 2005b; Egan, 2005c; 

Passi, 2005b; Passi 2005c), sparked in part by the release of an academic report and scientific 

article laying out environmental and economic rationales for prompt and dramatic action 

(Johengen et al., 2005; Taylor & Roach, 2005). Some of the media coverage even raises the 

prospect of closing the GLSLSS to transoceanic shipping as a ready solution. In the wake of this 

media attention, it is clear that both the maritime industry and those negatively affected by shipmediated introductions of invasive species in the GLSLSS would benefit from rapid and 

effective action to prevent future introductions. 

 

Niche for Industry Action 

 

The content of the media discourse charts a clear course for an industry initiative to 

develop and implement solutions to the problem of ship-mediated invasive species in the Great 

Lakes. It can be argued that the environmental advocates’ job is done when they have proposed a 

solution (like closing the Seaway) whose benefits of preventing further invasions outweigh the 

costs to society. Questions of cost-effectiveness—the most economically efficient means to 

achieving a commonly held societal objective—are best addressed by the private sector, 

especially in the case of highly technical questions of marine technology. Accordingly, the 

industry, in its responses to this media assault, was wise not to argue claims that the problem is 

serious (Jacquez & Corfe, 2005; Passi, 2005b). Instead, the industry took issue with closing the 

GLSLSS to salty ships as the best approach to curtailing the problem (Jacquez & Corfe, 2005), 

and argued that shipboard treatment is the most cost-effective approach, and the approach 

embraced by the international community. 

If an approach identified by industry provides adequate certainty of resolving the 

problem, it is likely to attract support from environmental advocates and ultimately be embraced 

by policymakers in lieu of more drastic measures. Often such a broadly supported approach also 

benefits the environment, because a consensus response is likely to move more quickly to 

regulation than one that is opposed by industry or environmental interests. 

Industry initiatives to design and implement cost-effective solutions to environmental 

problems have grown dramatically in the U.S. and internationally over the last decade. Industry 

often implements environmental management initiatives through the structure of Environmental 

Management Systems (EMSs). These initiatives are often organized around principles of the 

Environmental Management System (EMS) model developed by the International Standards 

Organization (ISO), a nongovernmental organization that seeks to develop voluntary standards 

for many aspects of international commerce and trade and may also address ship-mediated 

invasive species. Standards developed by ISO address traditional activities, such as agriculture 

and construction; mechanical engineering; to medical devices; and the newest information 

technology, such as the digital coding of audio-visual signals for multimedia applications. ISO 

also standardized the dimensions of freight containers, increasing the speed and reducing the cost 

of international trade. Two of the best-known standards are ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, which set 

quality and environmental management standards throughout the production and delivery 

95
process (ISO, 2005). The ISO 14001 model helps industries organize an effective and 

comprehensive response to environmental concerns. In particular, the model contains the 

following generic components of an EMS: 

• Policy, leadership, and guidance 

• Planning and management of change 

• Implementation, operation, and accountability 

• Performance measurement and corrective action 

• Management review 

Ports are already actively involved in the EMS approach to pollution reduction. The Port 

of Houston Authority is recognized for its leadership in EMS development and implementation. 

The objectives of the port’s EMS include reducing stormwater impacts from scrap-metal storage, 

and reducing NOx and VOC emissions. The American Association of Port Authorities (APPA) 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are supporting a two-year training effort called 

the Port Environmental Management System Assistance Project. Eleven port districts were 

chosen to participate in this program (no Great Lakes ports applied to participate) and will be 

trained in developing EMS for their facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 

(Chicago) is considering a similar effort for Great Lakes Ports. 

Currently certification under ISO 14001 does not imply action to address ballast water. 

However, the 2004 work plan for the ISO’s Ships and Marine Technology Technical Committee 

(and its Marine Environment Protection Subcommittee) identifies ballast water management as a 

“possible new work item” (ISO/TC 8, 2004). 

Economic Feasibility of Industry Action

From society’s standpoint, there are clear benefits to an industry-led initiative to address 

biological pollution in the GLSLSS. The upper-end cost estimates for effective methods of 

prevention are $1.5 million per ship (Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine, 2002; Rigby & Taylor, 

2001; Taylor et al., 2002), totaling about $330 million for all ships that visit the GLSLSS from 

overseas. This value is less than even modest estimates of the overall costs to society of invasive 

species in the GLSLSS (e.g., GAO, 2002; Leigh, 1998; Park & Hushak, 1999). Moreover, an 

industry-led effort will likely identify more cost-effective methods than nonindustry-led efforts, 

and this cost-effectiveness also benefits society because the costs of pollution prevention are 

ultimately passed on to the public. 

However, from industry’s standpoint, there are difficult unanswered questions about the 

benefits of action. Can waterborne transportation within the GLSLSS absorb the costs of 

biological pollution prevention? If so, is taking action ahead of regulations through an industryled initiative preferable to waiting for regulations or other outcomes? Which combinations of 

incentives and cost-sharing arrangements would make an effective EMS for the Great Lakes-St. 

Lawrence Seaway maritime transportation system most economically and financially feasible? 

96
Industry’s Ability to Absorb the Costs of Prevention 

 Because the GLSLSS shipping industry has clear cost advantages of $8 – $21 per metric 

ton over rail and truck competitors (Martin Associates, 2001), the industry could absorb some 

additional costs without the industry or the regional economy suffering serious economic 

hardship. With approximately 12 million metric tons shipped to and from overseas through the 

GLSLSS per year, the industry’s cost advantage implies an ability to absorb fleetwide treatment 

costs of $96 million – $252 million per year, potentially indicating that amortization could occur 

within two years. Shippers would continue to use the GLSLSS so long as it has any positive cost 

advantage. 

However, the wildcards here are the cost and length of the research and development 

process for approved treatment solutions and the price response of alternative modes of 

transportation should waterborne transportation become less advantageous. Although the range 

of cost increases that GLSLSS maritime industry could absorb over the short term appears more 

than adequate for one-time treatment installations, sustainable long-term cost increases 

associated with a protracted and expensive research and development process could stop well 

short of $8 – $21 per ton. 

If the cost advantages that the GLSLSS imparts to Great Lakes industries disappeared 

over a sustained period, industry would relocate, and the region’s economy would experience 

reduced activity and losses of income and employment. In particular, if GLSLSS shipping 

became more expensive, more imports would go to East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports. Vogt et 

al. (2002) illustrate this relationship in reverse, estimating that a hypothetical reduction in 

shipping costs in the GLSLSS would have a positive economic development impact on the Great 

Lakes region that would be almost exactly balanced by a negative effect on regional economic 

development on the East Coast. However, over the long term the cost advantages of GLSLSS 

waterborne transportation could be bolstered by commensurate increases in prices for alternative 

modes of transportation as demand for the alternatives rose. In addition, it can be expected that 

waterborne transportation costs to other regions will reflect biological pollution prevention costs 

as domestic and International Maritime Organization requirements are imposed. 

Benefits of Action Ahead of Regulations 

Industry enjoys several benefits by launching environmental initiatives generally. These 

include: 

• Improved environmental performance 

• Enhanced compliance 

• Attraction of new customers and markets 

• Increased efficiency and reduced costs 

• Enhanced employee awareness and morale 

• Integration of environmental practices into business systems 

• Enhanced image with public, regulators, lenders and investors, and 

• Qualification for recognition and incentive programs 

97
In the context of transoceanic shipping to the GLSLSS and managing biological 

pollution, an industry initiative could have the following specific benefits and value: 

• Public/consumer preference for environmental approach 

• International trade preference 

• Acceleration of the research and development process 

• Influence regulatory requirements in the United States and internationally 

• Compliance assistance with federal/state regulations 

• Assistance with voluntary government programs, (such as the U.S. Coast Guard 

STEP program) 

Waiting for regulations would offer little reduction of installation costs because 

biological pollution prevention requirements are expected globally within 10 years regardless of 

industry action. Waiting to be forced to act also could have dramatic negative effects including: 

• Public demand for prevention approaches that are not cost-effective 

• Negative public relations for the waterborne transportation industry vis-a-vis other 

modes of transportation 

• Promulgation of poorly advised federal regulations that cannot be implemented 

• A political patchwork of regulations at the local, state and regional level 

• Conflicts, potentially legal in nature, between natural resource stakeholders and the 

GLSLSS maritime industry 

Ways to Optimize Economic Feasibility of Industry Pro-action 

The problem of ship-mediated invasive species will be difficult to resolve, and at the 

early stages of research and development identifying and implementing solutions could carry 

significant expense. Moreover, the precise costs are uncertain pending the identification of 

effective approaches and the finalization of a regulatory standard and timeframe. Therefore, it 

has been difficult for inventors to attract venture capital from financers to assist in startup 

(Northeast-Midwest Institute and Lake Carriers’ Association, 2001; Royal Haskoning, 2001). 

The remaining sources of capital for investment in treatment solutions in advance of the 

regulatory regime are government and the treatment customers themselves, i.e., the maritime 

industry. Cost-sharing among the public and private prospective beneficiaries of timely, costeffective ballast treatment solutions appears to be an essential prerequisite to achieving these 

solutions. 

Cost-Sharing Opportunities with Government

There is understandable general resistance to government investment in research and 

development of technology that is thought to be part of the cost of doing business in the private 

sector. In particular, environmentalists hold to the principal of “the polluter pays” when that 

technology is associated with pollution cleanup. However, some have argued that there is a role 

for public funding of ballast treatment development to support prevention rather than cleanup. 

Moreover, the special circumstances surrounding ballast treatment research and development—

98
especially the fact that it is not yet required—make private investment unlikely and government 

investment necessary if development progress is to occur. 

To date, United States federal investment in treatment research and development has 

occurred primarily through the Ballast Technology Demonstration Project (BDTP), administered 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Authorized in 1996 in the National 

Invasive Species Act, the BTDP has historically issued national requests for proposals for 

technology development assistance. The proposals referenced a wide range of technologies and a 

variety of ship types. In all, the program has granted approximately $10 million to more than 50 

treatment research teams. This effort has made slow progress, however, perhaps because its 

solicitations have been so general in nature. Program leadership has most recently redirected the 

funds to more targeted objectives, issuing an RFP for ballast treatment development specific to 

the needs of the GLSLSS (NOAA, 2006). 

Additional federal agencies, including the U.S. Maritime Administration, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Coast Guard, and Defense Department, are also investing in treatment 

research and development. 

• MARAD has launched a program of retrofitting retired barge platforms for ballast 

treatment testing. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lakes National Program Office 

has invested in ongoing Great Lakes work through the Great Lakes Ballast 

Technology Demonstration Project. 

• The U.S. Coast Guard has conducted contract research on treatment systems in 

Florida (Waite et al., 2003). 

• The U.S. Coast Guard has partnered with the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), 

Department of Defense, to design, construct, and operate a prototype, pilot-scale 

ballast water treatment system test facility at the NRL’s facility in Key West, Florida. 

Other forms of federal and state government cost-sharing could help defray the cost of 

purchase and installation of treatments that achieve governmental approvals. These incentives 

include: 

• Waivers of GLSLSS tolls 

• Waivers of port fees 

• Financing assistance by public port authorities 

• Tax incentives 

Cost-Sharing Opportunities within Industry

There is a strong case to be made for industry to share the costs of resolving the shipmediated invasive species problem across the supply chain involved in waterborne transportation 

on the GLSLSS, rather than encumbering carriers alone. First, the cost-effectiveness of 

waterborne transportation on the GLSLSS may hinge on the rapid resolution of the problem of 

ship-mediated invasive species. Second, the cost of alternative transportation would likely 

increase in the absence of competition with the waterborne-freight rates affecting all shippers 

99
and their customers. Both land-side and ship-side components of the industry in the United 

States and Canada share the freight rate benefits that competition supports. 

The most straightforward example of cost sharing for research and development process 

is the FedNav Ltd. decision to partner with a ballast treatment vendor, OceanSaver AS, to 

develop a ballast treatment system that could later be supplied to the FedNav fleet. The benefit is 

mutual: FedNav Ltd. will enjoy a return on its investment in any purchases (including its own) of 

the system once approved, and the vendor benefits from access to operating ships and shipengineering expertise to trial its system, as well as capital to help finance treatment development. 

This simple relationship is a lean and efficient means to an end for the maritime industry, but 

also risky. If the selected system does not yield a usable product, the entire industry still goes 

wanting. 

Cost sharing of treatment dissemination and installation in ships has taken the form of 

shippers granting “preferred ship” status to carriers that undertake measures that surpass or predate legal requirements. This approach presupposes the identification and availability of 

treatment solutions. Such shipper policies have the effect of reducing the fleet “supply” available 

for carrying goods to those who meet the shippers’ environmental standards, enabling eligible 

carriers to raise their prices above those of noneligible shippers, underwriting the expense 

associated with installing treatments. The Clean Cargo Group in the Businesses for Social 

Responsibility is an example of a group of shippers that voluntarily limits the supply of eligible 

carriers through requiring that they meet certain environmental standards. 

Cost-Sharing within Government and Industry

One example of the more complex system of cost sharing—involving the maritime 

industry and government entities pooling resources to support mutually beneficial 

research/development and installation outcomes—happens to have occurred in the Great Lakes 

maritime industry. In advance of national and international processes, the GLSLSS maritime 

industry pooled its resources to develop and implement Automated Information Systems for 

ships visiting the GLSLSS (box 7). In particular, the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development/Management Corporations were extremely active in contracting the development 

work, visiting shipyards to ensure proper installation, and providing technical assistance on 

system operation to crews. The corporations are credited with significantly speeding domestic 

adoption of the technology generally, and have received international recognition for their role. 

This broader approach to cost sharing is most suitable to addressing ship-mediated 

invasive species development because ballast treatment development and evaluation are 

extremely capital intensive. In addition, collective and cross-sector cost sharing, if applied to 

ballast treatment, would not preclude entrepreneurial activity resulting in individual cost-sharing 

arrangements like those undertaken by FedNav Ltd. and the Clean Cargo Group. Instead, 

collective cost sharing would integrate them into an industrywide push, and maintain momentum 

in research and development even if treatments subject to private investment failed to meet 

expectations. The treatment system being nurtured by FedNav Ltd., for example, could serve as 

one candidate for collective research and development services, and dissemination and 

implementation support. 

100
In particular, supply chain members may wish to cost share for public relations reasons when 

they are: 

• Functionally close to the waterborne transportation step 

• Geographically close to the waterborne transportation step 

• Functionally or geographically close to consumers affected by the waterborne 

transportation step 

Box 7: Automatic identification System (AIS)

The implementation of an Automatic Identification System (AIS) on Great Lakes vessels is an 

example of a program that solved a series of critical problems facing the Great Lakes shipping 

industry related to ship safety, vessel traffic management, and maritime security. The AIS is a 

shipboard broadcasting transponder system operating in the VHF maritime band that is capable 

of send and receiving information such as identification, position, speed heading, to other ships 

and to shore. All ships over a certain size are required to be equipped with an on-board AIS 

transponder that will communicate with shore-based units as well as other ships in the system. 

The benefits of the AIS include enhanced safety through real-time ship-to-ship communications of 

vessel locations, speeds, and courses, reduced transit times, enhanced fleet management, and 

faster response times in the event of an accident or incident. 

The AIS project was implemented by a team that included the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation (SLSDC), the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management 

Corporation (SLSMC), and marine transportation interests, with technical support from the U.S. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

Full-scale shipboard AIS testing and evaluation was completed during the 2002 navigation 

season. Final rules for mandatory AIS carriage were issued on December 23, 2002, and the 

system is now fully operational. All shore-based units are in place and approximately 300 vessels 

now are equipped with AIS transponders. 

The total cost of implementing the AIS is estimated at $1.8 million, which is lower than original 

estimates. The cost of individual shipboard units has dropped from upwards of 20,000 per unit to 

about 5,000. 

 

 

101
Agenda for Industry Action: A Great Ships Initiative 

What would a GLSLSS maritime industry-led initiative to achieve a cost-effective, 

timely, and protective response to the problem of ship-mediated invasive species look like? 

What would be its specific objectives? 

A conventional EMS is facility specific and prescribes a set of practices associated with 

all relevant links of the supply chain that ensure the desired outcome. To the extent that there are 

regulations, the EMS also ensures cost-effective compliance. Unfortunately, technical methods 

that eliminate risk of new introductions of invasive species by ships are not yet available and 

cannot be prescribed. Government regulations are “to be determined.” In addition, carriers do not 

have the resources they need, including large shore-based evaluation infrastructure and extensive 

field biological expertise, to vet prospective treatment methods in-house, nor are these resources 

yet available for hire elsewhere. 

This technological and policy uncertainty need not prevent an industry response to the 

problem of ship-mediated biological pollution. However, the process for making a cogent 

response would be unconventional enough that “EMS” may be an improper moniker. Rather than 

a facility-specific and strictly implementation-oriented response associated with most EMS 

processes, this process needs an integrated initiative, staged over time across government and the 

GLSLSS maritime industry. 

Such an EMS initiative will require the development prevention practices in phases that 

involve supplying information to government entities that can help inform the regulatory 

process. It will also require a “trigger point” at which the project emphasis shifts from tool 

development and approval to more conventional EMS activities, including installation and 

implementation exercises within the fleet of ships that visits the Great Lakes—and to the extent 

that regulations are in place, compliance assistance. Finally, the initiative should include careful 

monitoring to allow the early detection of any arriving alien species in GLSLSS harbors, which 

would greatly facilitate successful rapid response. 

An industry-led initiative would be most productive as a collective effort across the 

GLSLSS port range, throughout the maritime commerce related industry, and between the public 

and private sectors. The problem is systemic and global in nature and requires a systemic 

solution that is consistent with international and domestic regulatory programs; no individual 

port, state, or ship can solve the problem for itself without solving the problem for all ports, 

states, and ships that share the waterborne trade patterns and resource. In addition, research and 

development is generally hobbled by disparate and sporadic support. Research and development 

of ballast treatment needs adequate and sustained support to carry candidate systems with 

commercial potential through significant regulatory uncertainty. The public sector alone cannot 

fill the void because expertise in the unique problem of designing technologies for the vessel 

environment resides primarily in the waterborne transportation industry. Finally, the involvement 

of the entire supply chain would add substantial value during the implementation phase because 

important incentive opportunities reside with the companies hiring vessels to carry their goods. 

102
Recommendation Actions

 

Without the implementation of effective prevention measures by ships, the Great Lakes 

will remain at high risk of invasion from organisms carried in ballast water. The environmental 

and economic problems caused by continued introductions of ship-mediated invasive species are 

extremely serious and costly. A conventional Environmental Management System (EMS) will be 

difficult for industry to execute to address the problem because of the developing state of 

technology and policy, as well as the tight financial margins, complex transaction chains, and 

collective nature of the economic and infrastructural drivers behind GLSLSS shipping. 

Recommendation 1: The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway maritime industry—ports, carriers, 

and shippers—collectively should launch a Great Ships Initiative (GSI) to speed protection of the 

Great Lakes freshwater resource from ship-mediated invasive species. 

Recommendation 2: The GSI should comprise two fundamental stages: incubation of treatment 

solutions and dissemination of treatment solutions. It should involve the following specific 

activities: 

• Treatment Incubation - Identifying, testing, and otherwise supporting the 

development of promising methods for preventing ship-mediated invasive species 

applicable to Seaway sized ships (plying anywhere) at a common, fully equipped test 

site on Great Lakes 

• Approval Assistance - Facilitating the successful induction of meritorious systems 

into regulatory approval processes, including both experimental or type-approval 

exercises (such as STEP), by generating relevant empirical information on treatment 

performance and providing technical support 

• Installation Assistance - Defraying the cost of installing approved systems and 

methods on the fleet of ships that visit the Great Lakes through financing tools, 

grants, toll and fee relief, and/or shipper preference policies 

• Monitoring - Supporting states in monitoring their shores and harbors for, and 

responding to, newly established organisms 

• Communication with Regulators - Communicating outcomes fully to the relevant 

state, national, and international regulatory agencies 

Recommendation 3: While the GSI should be driven by the maritime industry, it should be 

coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the U.S. Coast Guard and other relevant 

regulatory agencies. 

Recommendation 4: The GLSLSS should use its own resources to leverage adequate public and 

private funds and enhance the productivity of publicly funded research. 

Recommendation 5: The GLSLSS should imbed this effort within a more broadly focused Green 

Ships EMS. Recently the maritime industry of the GLSLSS has been investigating the prospect 

of a Green Marine initiative to address the wide range of environmental problems it faces. 

Biological pollution associated with the industry will clearly be a priority. The GSI should serve 

103
as the mechanism for managing those issues associated with biological pollution within the 

broader Green Marine initiative. 

Summary and Conclusion 

Regardless of the competing strategies for redressing the problem of ship-mediated 

invasive species introductions into the Great Lakes, shipboard treatment systems for Seawaysized ships need to be developed and implemented as quickly as possible. Treatment tools to 

prevent ship-mediated aquatic invaders generally are developing too slowly. Private sources are 

reluctant to provide financing because of uncertain regulatory standards and deadlines. 

Government grant programs have been general and applicants often lack sufficient expertise—

maritime, process, or biological—to proffer successful and productive projects. Meanwhile, 

official processes to test treatment performance (e.g., the Shipboard Treatment Evaluation 

Program and ETV) require substantial investment and are most suitable for relatively well-vetted 

treatment prospects. A Great Ships Initiative (GSI) could fill a critical gap by narrowing the 

focus to Seaway-sized vessels, training the combined resources and input of GLSLSS maritime 

and government interests on treatment development, and providing financial support and 

technical services to bring treatment prospects to verification/approval-ready and market-ready 

condition. 

End Note: Recent Developments 

The American Great Lakes Ports Association—in collaboration with the NortheastMidwest Institute; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; University of Wisconsin-Superior; 

relevant federal, state, and provincial agencies; and interested carriers—has established a Great 

Ships Initiative (GSI) to focus public and private resources on producing solutions to the 

problem of ship-mediated invasive species in the Great Lakes. The GSI objectives include: 

• Enabling systematic monitoring of Great Lakes ports for new introductions by ships 

• Activating a set of incubators to accelerate the identification and verification of 

treatment tools to stop organisms introductions by Seaway-sized ships 

• Accelerating the fleet-wide installation and use of effective treatment systems as soon 

as they are developed 

 These GSI activities will be carefully coordinated with national and international 

programs and regulating agencies to ensure that there is no duplication of effort and maximize 

national and international impact. 

GSI Management 

GSI activities will be overseen by an executive committee comprising volunteer 

principals of private, public, and nonprofit organizations that contribute funds or other capital to 

the GSI effort. The committee will use advisory groups and administrative staff to make major 

project-management decisions, such as budgeting, fundraising, project review outcomes, 

industry outreach, and state and federal relations. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

104
(see box 8) will manage the funds assembled by the EC to support GSI activities, while the 

Northeast-Midwest Institute serves as the GSI’s managing entity. 

 

GSI Programs 

Harbor Monitoring 

The Harbor Monitoring Program aims to detect new aquatic invasive species as soon as 

possible so that rapid response measures can be taken. The program will seek to facilitate 

consistent harbor monitoring activity at the major U.S. and Canadian commercial ports on the 

Great Lakes. Local port authorities will act as sponsors, working in partnership with their own 

state/provincial environmental and natural resource agencies. 

Technology Incubators 

The GSI Incubators will function as a partnership of industry, state and federal 

government, and NGOs with the goal of accelerating the development, installation, testing, and 

use of viable shipboard technologies/methods suitable to Seaway-sized ships to prevent aquatic 

invasive species introductions. Through an RFP (or similar means), the GSI will invite vendors 

to bring forward promising prevention treatments for consideration. The GSI may offer 

incentives as a means of inducing participation. Technical Advisory Groups established by the 

Executive Committee (EC) will serve as the front-door evaluators of the potential for candidate 

systems to meet GSI goals if given adequate attention and support. They will also recommend to 

the EC the type and amount of “incubation” that is necessary to ready the treatments for 

shipboard use. 

 The specific incubators offered by the GSI may include over time: 

• A Marine Engineering Incubator, serving treatment vendors whose products would be 

improved with greater technical understanding of ships 

• A Business Incubator, serving treatment vendors with promising systems but too little 

financial wherewithal to succeed in the marketplace 

• A Research and Development Incubator, serving treatment vendors with treatments 

that lack sufficient performance information to determine their possible effectiveness, 

or which could be improved with the benefit of shake-down trials 

The EC will offer to supply the specific suite of incubator services likely to prepare 

promising candidate systems for the market, under financial terms and conditions that may vary 

depending on the EC’s estimation of the promise and/or needs of the candidate systems and their 

vendors. At the discretion of the EC, the costs of these services and general development of the 

systems could be directly underwritten by the GSI or provided in return for a profit-sharing 

arrangement or other financial mechanism. 

105
Research and Development Incubator 

The Research and Development Incubator is being launched first to assist vendors in 

developing their treatment systems and ultimately prepare those systems for the market and 

routine use. The incubator will have capacity at three scales: 

• Bench scale (laboratory): Bench-scale tests will take place at the University of 

Wisconsin and will address questions of treatment mechanism, dose-effectiveness, 

and residual toxicity. 

• Pilot scale (barge-based): Pilot-scale tests will take place in a shore-linked barge 

platform, and will supply information on treatment performance at a scale 

approximating shipboard flow rates, and will include “grow-out” studies (what 

happens to treated organisms post-discharge). 

• Shipboard scale: Shipboard tests could take place on volunteer Canadian lakers or 

transoceanic Seaway-sized vessels, depending on the stage of research and 

development. These tests will be designed to verify that treatment performance is not 

altered dramatically by shipboard conditions, and to test operational endurance of the 

systems. 

Over $1 million in funds and in-kind contributions are available or likely will become 

available to launch the R & D Incubator activities (see below). These include: 

• Direct contributions from U.S. and Canadian ports totaling approximately $100,000 

• A $400,000 earmark in 2005 DOT appropriations to the University of Wisconsin to 

launch tests and a pilot-scale test pad 

• A $500,000 earmark in 2006 DOT appropriations to the University of Wisconsin as 

above 

• A more than $200,000 Sea Grant award to the Northeast-Midwest Institute to conduct 

preliminary shipboard tests to refine the shipboard testing protocols 

• $50,000 from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute for engineering assistance 

• $100,000 from the St. Lawrence Seaway Development/Management corporations in 

the United States and Canada for a mobile laboratory 

• An in-kind contribution of a MARAD barge as a test platform (worth more than 

$600,000) 

• Direct collaboration with FedNav Ltd. treatment trials scheduled for summer 2006 

• $1 million awarded from NOAA over four years to assist in operation of the testing 

facility 

This funding, combined with additional contributions from ports, government agencies, 

and private-sector sources, will provide the necessary impetus to deliver treatment solutions—

including their development, installation, and use—for Seaway-sized ships in advance of the 

anticipated federal and international time frame. 

106
Coordination with Federal Programs and Agencies 

The GSI will be carefully designed to add value to ongoing regulatory and voluntary 

programs to prevent ship-mediated introductions of invasive species. As Seaway-sized ships ply 

around the globe, the GSI mission is to help solve international maritime commerce issues, not 

just those of the Great Lakes. Accordingly, the U.S. Coast Guard, with a regulatory program 

governing ballast discharge, will be closely consulted on the design and implementation of 

shipboard treatment evaluations of the GSI. The GSI goal will be to maintain such high quality 

in its evaluations that the efforts may be deemed tantamount to—or, at the Coast Guard’s 

discretion, a part of—the Coast Guard’s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). 

The Canadian Coast Guard and the IMO also will be consulted and kept informed. 

107
108

 

What is NFWF?

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a private, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 

organization, established by Congress in 1984 and dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife, 

and plants, and the habitat on which they depend. Its goals are to promote healthy populations of 

fish, wildlife, and plants by generating new commerce for conservation. The foundation meets 

these goals by creating partnerships between the public and private sectors and strategically 

invests in conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources. 

What NFWF does

Matching Grants – The foundation identifies conservation needs, reviews proposed projects, 

fosters cooperative partnerships, and commits a combination of federal and nonfederal funds to 

on-the-ground conservation projects. The foundation commits funds in the form of matching 

grants to ensure that they are leveraged. 

Building Partnerships – The foundation creates partnerships among federal, state, and local 

governments, corporations, private foundations, individuals, and nonprofit organizations. Creating 

partnerships facilitates the strategic identification of conservation issues and promotes efficiency 

and cooperation in the delivery of solutions through matching grants. 

Leveraging Funds – Matching grants are partially supported by Congressionally appropriated 

dollars that must be matched by a ratio of one to one. However, the foundation strives to 

maximize dollars invested in conservation and currently averages more than a 2:1 return on funds 

entrusted to the foundation. For every dollar that Congress provides to the foundation, nearly $3 

in on-the-ground conservation takes place. Since its founding in 1984, NFWF has supported over 

6,400 grants and leveraged $261 million in federal funds for more than $786 million in on-theground conservation. 

Recommendation 

Due to its expertise in managing, leveraging, and disbursing funds, as well as its expertise in 

fostering and developing effective partnerships between public and private entities, NFWF would 

make an excellent choice to help coordinate and implement the Great Ships Initiative. 

Source: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Web site, www.nfwf.org 

Box 8: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: 

 A Brief Overview 
Literature Cited 

American Association of Port Authorities (2004). News Release: AAPA Concerned FY ’05 

 Budget Lacks Funds for Port Facility Security. February 2, 2004. Alexandria, VA. 

American Waterways Operators (2005). The American Waterways Operators website. 

http://www.americanwaterways.com, Arlington, VA. 

Aquatic Sciences, Inc. (1996). Examination of Aquatic Nuisance Species Introductions to the 

Great Lakes through Commercial Shipping Ballast Water and Assessment of Control 

Options. Phase 1 and 2. Report Prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, Sarnia, Ontario, 

Canada. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2002a). Great Lakes Navigation System Review Reconnaissance 

Study. Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, MI. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2002b). Waterborne Commerce of the Great Lakes. Part 3 – 

 Waterways and Harbors. Great Lakes. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2002c). Lock Performance Monitoring System. Summary of Lock 

 Statistics for 2000 and 2001. Navigation Data Center. Water Resources Support Center, 

 Alexandria, VA. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States. 

 Volume 2 – Vessel Company Summary. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. 

Associated Press (2005). Some Cargo Diverted from Gulf Could Go Through Indiana Ports. The 

 Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN, September 1, 2005. 

Army Corps of Engineers (2004). Public Domain Database. Waterborne Commerce Statistics 

Center, New Orleans, LA. http://www.wrsc.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc.htm

Bailey SA, Duggan IC & van Overdijk CDA (2003). Viability of Invertebrate Diapausing Eggs 

Collected from Residual Ballast Sediment. Limnology and Oceanography; 48(4): 1701-

1710. 

Bay Area Monitor of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area. March/April 2000. 

Business for Social Responsibility (2005). Clean Cargo Group website. 

http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/WGO/CC-GF/ccneed.cfm, San Francisco, CA. 

Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters (2005). Newsletter: July 2005. Website: 

http://www.cbmu.com/downloads/IUMI%20Newsletter%20July%2005.pdf

Canadian Shipowners Association (2003). Annual Report 2002 - 2003. 

http://www.shipowners.ca/, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

109
Canadian Wheat Board (2004). Canadian Wheat Board Website. 

http://www.cwb.ca/en/index.jsp, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 

Cangelosi A, Knight IT, Balcer M, Wright D, Dawson R, Blatchley ER III, Reid DM, Mays NL 

and Taverna J (2001). Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Biological 

Effectiveness Test Program (includes M.V. Regal Princess Trials). Proceedings of the 

Global Ballast Water Management Program (GloBallast) Symposium and Workshop, 

London, U.K., March 26-30, 2001. 

Cangelosi A (2002). Filtration as a Ballast Water Treatment Measure. In: Invasive Aquatic 

Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & 

S Olenin, eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Carlton JT & Geller JB (1993). Ecological Roulette: The Global Transport of 

 Nonindigenous Marine Organisms. Science; 261: 78-82. 

Carlton JT, Reid DM & van Leeuwen H (1995). Shipping Study. The Role of Shipping in the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal Waters of the United 

States (other than the Great Lakes) and an Analysis of Control Options. U.S. Coast Guard 

& National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant. U.S. Coast Guard, 

Marine Environment Protection Division, Washington, DC. 

Carlton JT (1999). The Scale and Ecological Consequences of Biological Invasions in the 

World’s Oceans. In: Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management (OT Sandlund, PJ 

Schei & A Viken (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecth, Netherlands. 

Carlton JT (2001). Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and 

Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Cutler SJ, Cutler HG, Glinski J, Wright D, Dawson R & Lauren D (2003). SeaKleen®, a 

Potential Product for Controlling Aquatic Pests in Ships’ Ballast Water. Proceedings of 

the 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 

July 

Davis JP (2003). AHS AquaHabistat Ballast Water Treatment. International Aquatic Invasive 

Species Conference, Windsor, Canada, June 11, 2003 

Drake LA, Choi K-H, Ruiz GM & Dobbs FC (2001). Microbial inventories in ballast water of 

 ships arriving in Chesapeake Bay. Biological Invasions; 3: 193-199. 

Degussa (2005). Degussa website: Beware the Stowaways. 

http://www.degussa.com/en/products/archive/2005_11_18_ballast_water.html

Egan D (2005a). Noxious Cargo. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, MN, October 30, 

2005. 

110
Egan D (2005b). Turning Tide on Invasive Species. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 

Milwaukee, MN, November 12, 2005. 

Egan D (2005c). Invasive Species Fight Grows. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, 

MN, November 25, 2005. 

Environment Canada & Great Lakes National Program Office (2002). The Great Lakes: An 

Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. Government of Canada & U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Toronto, Ontario & Chicago, IL. 

Failor G (2004). Personal communication. Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, 

Cleveland, OH. 

Fisher S (2004). Personal communication. American Great Lakes Ports Association, 

Washington, DC. 

Ford (2005). Ford Motor Company website: 

http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/sustainability/report/envManaging.htm

Fulton M, Baylis K, Brooks H & Gray R (1998). The Impact of Deregulation on the Export 

 Basis in the Canadian Grain Handling and Transport System. University of 

 Saskatchewan. 

Galil B & Hulsmann N (1997). Protist Transport via Ballast Water-Biological Classification of 

 Ballast Tanks by Food Web Interactions. European Journal of Protistology; 33: 244-253 

General Accounting Office (2002). Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment 

Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031.pdf, 

Washington, DC. 

General Accounting Office (2005). Invasive Species: Progress and Challenges in Preventing 

Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the Ballast Water in Ships. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051026t.pdf, Washington DC. 

GloBallast (2005). Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast). Website 

http://globallast.imo.org/. 

Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine (2002). Full-Scale Design Studies of Ballast Water Treatment 

Systems. Prepared for the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project by the 

Glosten Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington, Herbert Engineering Corp., of Alameda, 

California and Hyde Marine Inc., Cleveland, Ohio 

Gollasch S, MacDonald E, Belson S, Botnen H, Christensen JT, Hamer JP, Houvenaghel G, 

Jelmert A, Lucas I, Masson D, McCollin T, Olenin S, Persson A, Wallentinus I, Wetsteyn 

L & Wittling T (2002). Life in Ballast Tanks. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. 

111
Distribution, Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & S Olenin, eds), 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (2005). NOAA-GLERL Website. “NOBOB-

 A Project: Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water 

 as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes.” 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task_rpts/2001/nsreid10-1.html, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (2004). Great Lakes Fishery Commission Website. 

http://www.glfc.org/, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2005). Aquatic Invasive Species Strategy Team. Canals 

and Waterways Action Plan. 

Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum (2002). The Great Lakes: A Waterways 

Management Challenge. Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, OH 

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/waterwaymanagement.pdf

Grigorovich IA, Colautti RI, Mills EL, Holeck K, Ballert AG & MacIsaac HJ (2003a). BallastMediated Animal Introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes: Retrospective and 

Prospective Analyses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science; 60: 740-756. 

Grigorovich IA, Korniushin AV, Gray DK, Duggan IC, Colautti RI & MacIsaac HJ (2003b). 

Lake Superior: An Invasion Coldspot? Hydrobiologia; 499: 191-203. 

Hallegraeff GM & Bolch CJ (1992). Transport of Diatom and Dinoflagellate Resting Spores in 

Ships’ Ballast Water: Implications for Plankton Biogeography and Aquaculture. Journal 

of Plankton Research; 14: 1067-1084. 

Hamer JP (2002). Ballast Tank Sediments. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, 

Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & S Olenin, eds), Kluwer 

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 

Hillman S, Hoedt F & Schneider P (2004). The Australian Pilot Project for the Treatment of 

Ships’ Ballast Water. Final Report for the Australian Government Department of the 

Environment and Heritage. CRC Reef Research Centre, Queensland, Australia. 

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/antifouling/ballast/pubs/ballast.pdf

 

Holeck KT, Mills EL, MacIsaac HJ, Dochoda MR, Colautti RI & Ricciardi A (2004). Bridging 

 Troubled Waters: Biological Invasions, Transoceanic Shipping, and the Laurentian Great 

 Lakes. BioScience 54(10): 919-929. 

Husain M, Felbeck H, Apple R, Altshuller D & Quirmback C (2003). Ballast Water Treatment 

by De-oxygenation with Elevated CO2 for a Shipboard Installation – A Potentially 

Affordable Solution. Proceedings of the 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D 

Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July 

112
IBM (2005). IBM website. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/ems/index.shtml

International Maritime Organization. Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water: Comments on 

draft Regulation E-2. Concentrations of organisms delivered in ships’ ballast water in the 

absence of any treatment: Establishing a baseline for consideration of treatment efficacy. 

Submitted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). IMO 

document MEPC 49/2/21. May 23, 2003. 

International Standards Organization (2005). International Standards Organization Website. 

www.iso.org. Geneva, Switzerland. 

International Standards Organization (2004). ISO/TC 8 Ships and Marine Technology Status 

Report. Geneva, Switzerland. 

Jacquez AS & Corge R (2005). Seaway Is Too Vital to Even Think About Closing. The 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, MN, November 7, 2005. 

Johengen T, Reid D, Fahnenstiel G, MacIsaac H, Doblin M & Jenkins P ( 2005) Assessment of 

Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes. Cooperative Institute for Limnology 

and Ecosystem Research & NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 

Ann Arbor, MI. 

Journal of Commerce, Oct. 8, 1999, p. 1. 

Kotinis M, Parsons MG, Lamb T & Sirviente A (2004) Development and Investigation of the 

Ballast-Free Ship Concept. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers Vol. 112, 2004. 

Knight IT, Wells CS, Wiggins B, Russel H, Reynolds KA & Huq A (1999). Detection and 

Enumeration of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in the Ballast Water of Transoceanic 

Cargo Vessels Entering the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the General Meeting of the 

American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, IL. Abstract Q-71, p.546. 

Lake Carriers’ Association (2003). 2002 Statistical Annual report. http://www.lcaships.com/, 

Cleveland, OH. 

Lavoie DM, Smith LD & Ruiz GM (1999). The Potential for Intracoastal Transfer of Nonindigenous Species in the Ballast Water of Ships. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science; 

48: 551-564. 

Leigh P (1998). Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery. 

Journal of Great Lakes Research; 24(2): 351-360. 

113
Lenz J, Anders HJ, Gollasch S & Dammer M (2000). Einschleppung Ffremder Organismen in 

Nord- und Ostsee: Untersuchungen zum Okologischen Gefahrenpotential durch den 

Schiffsverkehr. UBA Project Water, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Germany. 

Levings CD, Piercey GE, Galbraith M & Jamieson GS (1998). Analyses of Invertebrate Fauna in 

Ballast Water Collected in Ships arriving in British Columbia Ports, Especially those 

from the Western North Pacific. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Zebra 

Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference, Pembroke, Ontario, March 16-19, 

1998. 

Locke A, Reid DM, van Leeuwen HC, Sprules WG & Carlton JT (1993). Ballast Water 

Exchange as a Means of Controlling Dispersal of Freshwater Organisms by Ships. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:2086-2093. 

MacIsaac HJ, Robbins TC & Lewis MA (2002). Modeling Ships’ Ballast Water as Invasion 

Threats to the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science; 59: 

1245-1256. 

MarineTalk (2005). MarineTalk website: Ballast Water Treatment Meets IMO Standards. 

http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Ballast-Water-TreatmentMeets-IMO-Standards-NEI002103128TU.html

Martin Associates (2001). Economic Impact Study of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway 

System. Report prepared for the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 

Washington, DC. http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/impact_study_en.pdf

McCarthy SA & Khambaty FM (1994). International Dissemination of Epidemic Vibrio 

cholerae by Cargo Ship Ballast and other Nonpotable Waters. Applied Environmental 

Microbiology; 60: 2597-2601. 

Meersman T (2004). The Control of Sea Lampreys is Down to a Science. The Minneapolis Star 

Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, June 13, 2004. 

Mills EL, Leach JH, Carlton JT & Secor CL (1993). Exotic Species in the Great Lakes: A 

History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research; 19(1): 1-54. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2006). Ballast Water Technology 

Demonstration Program (Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation Facility). 

Request for Proposals. http://fedgrants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=1562

National Research Council (1996). Transit Cooperative Research Program. Report 13 – Rail 

Transit Capacity. Transportation Research Board. National Academy Press, Washington, 

DC. 

114
Niimi AJ (2000). Influence of Vessel Transit Patterns on Developing a Ballast Water 

Management Strategy for Exotic Species. Marine Pollution Bulletin; 40: 253-256. 

Niimi AJ & Reid DM (2003). Low Salinity Residual Ballast Discharge and Exotic Species 

Introductions to the North American Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin; 46: 1334-

1340. 

Northeast-Midwest Institute & Lake Carriers’ Association (2001). International Ballast 

Technology Investment Fair, September 20-21, 2001, Chicago Navy Pier, Chicago, IL 

(http://www.nemw.org/ballastfair.htm). 

OptiMarin (2006). OptiMarin Ballast Systems: Practical Solutions for Ballast Water Treatment. 

http://www.optimarin.com/PDF_Files/OptiMar_Brochure.pdf

O’Shea S & Cangelosi A (1996). Trojan Horses in Our Harbors: Biological Contamination from 

Ballast Water Discharge. The University of Toledo Law Review; 27(2): 381-400. 

Park J & Hushak L (1999). Zebra Mussel Control Costs in Surface Water Using Facilities. Ohio 

Sea Grant Report TS-028, Columbus, OH. 

Parsons M, Moll R, Mackey T & Farley R (1997). Great Lakes Ballast Demonstration Project–

Phase 1. Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystem Research, University of 

Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Parsons M & Harkins R (2002) Full-Scale Particle Removal Performance of Three Types of 

Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primary Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine 

Technology 39(4) October 2002: 211-222. 

Passi P (2005a). Great Lakes Ports Could See More Grain. The Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, 

MN, September 3, 2005. 

Passi P (2005b). So Long, Salties? The Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, MN, December 25, 2005. 

Passi P (2005c). Invasive Problem Wouldn’t Disappear with Salties Departure. The Duluth News 

Tribune, Duluth, MN, December 25, 2005. 

Penkala JE, Law M & Cowan J (2003). Acrolein as a Potential Treatment Alternative for Control 

of Microorganisms in Ballast Tanks: Five Day Sea Trial. Proceedings of the 2nd

International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July 

Pierce R, Carlton JT, Carlton D & Geller JB (1997). Ballast Water as a Vector for Tintinnid 

Transport. Marine Ecology Progress Series; 149: 295-297. 

Prince Rupert Port Authority (2001). 2001 Annual Review. 

http://www.rupertport.com/home.htm, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada. 

115
Reeves E (1999). Analysis of Laws and Policies Concerning Exotic Invasions of the Great 

 Lakes. Report to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Office of the Great 

 Lakes.

Reid D (2004). Personal communication. Consultant, Nepean, Ontario, Canada. 

Ricciardi A (2001). Facilitative Interactions Among Aquatic Invaders: Is an “Invasional 

Meltdown” Occurring in the Great Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science; 58: 2513-2525. 

Rigby G & Taylor AH (2001). Ballast Water Treatment to Minimise the Risks of Introducing 

Nonindigenous Marine Organisms to Australian Ports. Ballast Water Report Series No. 

13, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia. 

Robichon G (2004). Personal communication. FedNav Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada 

Royal Haskoning (2001). Global Market Analysis of Ballast Water Treatment Technology. 

Submitted to the Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC 

http://www.nemw.org/Haskoningreport.pdf

Ryan G (2001). Ballast Water and NOBOB Panel Session II: Management Options and Unmet 

Needs. Looking Forward, Looking Back: Assessing ANS Prevention and Control, Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Workshop, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, May 16, 2001. 

Smith LD, Wonham MJ, McCann LD, Reid DM, Ruiz GR & Carlton JT (1996). Shipping Study 

II: Biological Invasions by Nonindigenous Species in United States Waters: Quantifying 

the Role of Ballast Water and Sediments parts I and II. The National Sea Grant College 

Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6, Report no. CG-D-02-97, Government 

Accession No. AD-A321543. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Washington, D.C. and Groton, CT. 

St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (2000). The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence 

Waterway. A 20/20 Vision for the Future. Canadian Shipowners Association, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada http://www.shipowners.ca/upload/VisionPaperEn.pdf

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (2003). 2002 Traffic Report. 

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com, Ontario, Canada. 

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (2004). St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation Website. http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com, Ontario, Canada. 

State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, The 

California State Lands Commission & The California Department of Fish and Game 

(2002). Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Organisms. California Environmental Protection Agency Website 

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/Mandated/2002/BallastWater.pdf

116
Sutherland TF, Levings CD, Elliot CC & Hesse WW (2001) Effect of a Ballast Water Treatment 

System on Survivorship of Natural Populations of Marine Plankton. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 210:139-148. 

Tamburri MN, Wasson K & Matsuda M (2002) Ballast Water Deoxygenation Can Prevent 

Aquatic Introductions While Reducing Ship Corrosion. Biological Conservation 103:331-

341. 

Taylor A, Rigby G, Gollasch S, Voigt M, Hallegraeff G, McCollin T & Jelmert A (2002). 

Treatment and Control of Ballast Water. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. 

Distribution, Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & S Olenin, eds), 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 

Taylor JC & Roach JL (2005). Ocean Shipping in the Great Lakes: Transportation Cost Increases 

That Would Result from a Cessation of Ocean Vessel Shipping. Grand Valley State 

University, Grand Rapids, Michigan 

The Nature Conservancy (1994). Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin 

Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities. Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL 

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage/glbd/issues/index.html

Thornton GA & Chapman JE (2003). The Use of Heat for Ballast Water Disinfection – the 

AquaThem Method. Proceedings of the 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D 

Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July 

URS Dames and Moore (2000). Feasibility of Onshore Ballast Water Treatment at California 

Ports. Prepared for the California Association of Port Authorities, San Francisco, 

California. 

U.S. Coast Guard (2005). Website. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/bwm.htm

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996). Ruffe Control Program. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ashland/ruffe/ruf_cont.html, Fisheries Resource Office, 

 Ashland, WI. 

U.S. Geological Survey (2004). Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Information Resource. 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/, Gainesville, FL. 

Van Dyck, P (2005). Design for Performance: The Quest for Ballast-Free Ships. Motor Ship, 86 

(1015): 10-12 

Vancouver Port Authority (2003). Statistics Overview 2003. http://www.portvancouver.com/, 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

117
Verling E, Ruiz GM, Smith LD, Galil B, Miller AW & Murphy KA (2005). Supply-Side 

Invasion Ecology: Characterizing Propagule Pressure in Coastal Ecosystems. Proc. R. 

Soc. B; 272: 1249-1257. 

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J & Melillo JM (1997). Human Domination of Earth’s 

Ecosystems. Scienc; 277: 494-499. 

Vogt DP, Southworth F, Peterson BE & Rizy C (2002). Estimation of Regional Economic 

Benefits from Improvements in Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation: Phase 1 

Reconnaissance Study. Report prepared for the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, MI. 

Waite TD, Kazumi J, Lane PVZ, Farmer LL, Smith SG, Smith SL, Hitchcock G & Capo TR 

(2003). Removal of Natural Populations of Marine Plankton by a Large-Scale Ballast 

Water Treatment System. Marine Ecology Progress Series; 258: 51-63. 

Washington Office of the Attorney General (2000). Press Release: U. S. Supreme Court 

Partially Invalidates Washington’s Oil Spill Prevention Law. March 6, 2000, Olympia, 

WA. 

Weakly J (2004). Personal communication. Lake Carriers’ Association, Cleveland, OH. 

Wisner RN & Wang K (2000). Genetically and Non-Genetically Modified Crops, How they are 

Created, Produced and Marketed. Tokyo Agro-Forum Bulletin, December 19, 2000. 

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/wisner/Wisner/japan%20gmo%20900%20revised.pd

f

Wisconsin Office of the Governor (2004). Press Release: Governor Doyle Announces his 

Chairmanship of the Great Lakes Council of Governors. April 21, 2004, Madison, WI. 

Williams RJ, Griffiths FB, Van der Wal EJ & Kelly J (1988). Cargo Vessel Ballast Water as a 

Vector for the Transport of Nonindigenous Marine Species. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science; 26: 409-420. 

Wright (2004). National and International Research on SeaKleen. Washington State 

Environmental Soundness Work Group, January 8, 2004. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ballast/jan08_wright.pdf

118
Appendix A: 

A Note on Additional Vectors of Introduction and 

Spread of Invasive Species into the Great Lakes 

Visits by transoceanic vessels are the leading primary vector by which many non-native 

organisms travel to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system (GLSLSS) from abroad. 

However, it is not the only such primary vector. Aquaculture, bait trade, aquarium use and 

recreational boats in transoceanic expeditions, also account for new introductions of non-native 

aquatic species. In addition, once established in the system, other aspects of the maritime 

transportation system including domestic vessel trade and connecting waterways, join salty 

vessels as vectors of organism spread. These and other secondary vectors accelerate the impact 

of introduced species, and thwart control efforts. Figure 1 illustrates the non-ballast vectors 

responsible for the primary and secondary spread of many notorious invading organisms within 

the Great Lakes 

While the top priority of the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) should be attenuating the 

primary vector of ocean-going maritime trade, state and federal policy is also urgently needed to 

interdict other primary vectors and stop secondary spread of invasive organisms. The nature and 

extent of these maritime industry-related, and non-maritime industry-related alternative vectors 

of introduction and secondary spread relevant to the GLSLSS are summarized below. 

Fig. 1. Map showing first sightings of presumed invaders transported to the Great Lakes by 

vectors other than ballast water (source: USGS, 2004) 

119
Maritime-Related Vectors of Secondary Spread

U.S.-Flagged Lakers 

Fleet and Vessels 

 The U.S.-flagged laker fleet comprises approximately 60 vessels, the majority of which 

are self-propelled, self-unloading bulk carriers, although there is a small number of tankers, 

cement carriers, tugs, and barges in service. U.S.-flagged lakers are by far the largest vessels on 

the Great Lakes, with many vessels in the fleet more than 300 m long. Their size prevents them 

from transiting the Welland Canal, so that U.S. lakers trade exclusively in the upper four Great 

Lakes. 

Because they do not ply saltwater, U.S. lakers can have very long useful service lives. 

Most of the lakers in operation today began service in the 1960s or 1970s, while the younger 

vessels entered the fleet in the early 1980s. It is not uncommon for lakers to serve for 50 years. 

Because of this longevity, many lakers undergo refurbishment during their life cycle. For 

example, the vessel Alpena, currently operated by Inland Lakes Management, was constructed as 

a conventional bulk carrier in 1942, but converted to a cement carrier in 1989. 

Cargoes 

The U.S.-flagged laker fleet transports three primary types of cargo around the upper four 

Great Lakes: iron ore, coal, and limestone. In 2002, the fleet transported over 147 million metric 

tons of cargo—a figure on par with the annual tonnage carried by the fleet over the last 10 years 

(fig. 2)—including 53 million metric tons of iron ore for use in domestic steel production, 38 

million metric tons of coal for use by steel manufacturers and electric utilities, and 33 million 

metric tons of limestone for use by diverse customers including the steel, construction, chemical, 

and paper industries (LCA, 2003). With the exception of 2002, both the iron ore and limestone 

floats have been steadily declining in recent years, while the coal float holds steady (fig. 3). 

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Total cargo tonnage

(1,000,000 metric tons)

Fig. 2. Total tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the U.S.-flagged lakers, 

1993—2002 (LCA, 2003) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cement Coal Grain Iron ore Limestone Potash Salt

Cargo tonnage

(millions of metric tons)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fig. 3. Tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the U.S-flagged lakers by major 

cargo category, 1998–2002 (source: LCA, 2003) 

121
Vessel Movement Patterns

The primary pattern of cargo movement for U.S.-flagged laker vessels is to carry iron ore 

and coal from northern Michigan and Minnesota south to major industrial cities in lower 

Michigan and Ohio. Vessels tend to return north in ballast, although there is some backhaul of 

other cargoes including cement, salt, grain, sand, and various liquid-bulk products. Some ships, 

generally the small and mid-sized vessels, may also engage in a triangular trade whereby they 

undertake a number of short hauls with cargo or ballast before returning to Lake Superior for an 

iron ore or coal cargo. Figures 4 through 6 illustrate the typical voyage patterns laker vessels 

follow in transporting these commodities. 

Fig. 4. Generalized trade pattern of U.S.- and Canadian-flagged laker vessels transporting iron 

ore throughout the Great Lakes 

122
Fig. 5. Generalized trade pattern of U.S.- and Canadian-flagged laker vessels transporting coal 

throughout the Great Lakes 

Fig. 6. Generalized trade pattern of U.S.- and Canadian-flagged laker vessels transporting 

limestone throughout the Great Lakes 

123
Owners and Operators

Unlike the transoceanic vessels operating on the GLSLSS, there is little ambiguity 

between U.S. laker-vessel owners and operators. This is primarily because the Jones Act—a U.S. 

law that requires cargo moving between two U.S. ports to be carried in vessels that are U.S.-

owned and U.S.-built and employ U.S. citizens—offers little benefit for vessels to be owned and 

operated by different companies. Of the 14 companies currently operating U.S.-flagged vessels 

in the Great Lakes (table 1), only one—the MV Southdown Challenger—has a different owner 

and operator, and this is due to the acquisition of the vessel’s previous owner by an offshore 

company. 

Table 1. Companies that currently operate U.S.-flagged lakers on the Great Lakes 

Ship operator Type of vessel No. of vessels Average gross 

registered tonnage 

American Steamship Company Dry bulk carrier 11 20,793 

Central Marine Logistics Dry bulk carrier 2 13,328 

Cleveland Tankers Ship Management Tankers 1 5,854 

Dry bulk carrier 2 8,211 

Grand River Navigation Company, Inc. Barge 1 13,500 

Tug 1 180 

Great Lakes Associates, Inc. Dry bulk carrier 1 11,076 

Great Lakes Fleet, Inc. Dry bulk carrier 8 20,632 

HMC Ship Management Operators, Ltd. Cement carrier 1 6,967 

Inland Lakes Management, Inc. Cement carrier 3 7,260 

Interlake Steamship Company Dry bulk carrier 8 22,126 

ISG-Burns Harbor, Inc. Dry bulk carrier 2 34,291 

Oglebay Norton Marine Services Co. Dry bulk carrier 11 15,918 

Barge 1 3,413 Pere Marquette Shipping Company Tug 1 569 

Barge 1 14,356 Upper Lakes Towing Company, Inc. Tug 1 841 

Barge 1 15,823 VanEnkevort Tug & Barge Inc. Tug 1 1,179 

124
Canadian-Flagged Lakers 

Fleet and Vessels 

 The Canadian-flagged laker fleet comprises approximately 80 vessels operated by eight 

companies. Most of these vessels are self-unloading bulk carriers, though there are also a small 

number of tankers, cement carriers, and general cargo carriers. Canadian lakers are much smaller 

than U.S-flagged lakers, averaging around 220 meters in length. Because of their smaller size, 

Canadian lakers are able to visit ports throughout the five Great Lakes. Some vessels are also 

small enough to transit the St. Lawrence Seaway and thus visit Canadian ports outside the Great 

Lakes system, undertaking an important function in connecting the heavy industries on the south 

shores of Ontario with the eastern coast of Canada. 

The age and condition of the Canadian laker fleet is similar to that of the U.S.-flagged 

laker fleet, with many of the vessels constructed during the 1960s and 1970s and some newer 

vessels built in the 1980s. The service life for this fleet is approximately 45 years—slightly 

shorter than that of vessels in the U.S. fleet, owing to their occasional exposure to saltwater. 

Cargoes 

In general, cargoes carried by Canadian lakers are similar to those carried by U.S. lakers, 

with iron ore, coal, and limestone making up nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s total float. Other 

cargoes include tanker products, grain, salt, miscellaneous bulk, and cement. Approximately 60 

percent of Canadian-laker traffic is involved in north-south trade with U.S. ports in the Great 

Lakes; the remaining 40 percent involves trade outside the Great Lakes to Canada’s eastern 

seaboard (CSA, 2003). 

In 2002, the Canadian-flagged laker fleet carried more than 66 million metric tons of 

cargo—a figure on par with the annual tonnage carried by the fleet over the last 10 years (fig. 

7)—including 15 million metric tons of iron ore, 17 million metric tons of coal, 8 million metric 

tons of limestone, and 6 million metric tons of grain (CSA, 2003). In recent years coal, for use 

in power and steel production, has replaced iron ore as the leading cargo transported by the fleet 

(CSA, 2003). The 15 million metric tons of iron ore transported in 2002 represented the smallest 

iron ore float in 11 years (fig. 8). 

 

125
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Total cargo tonnage 

(1,000,000 metric tons)

Fig. 7. Total tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the Canadian-flagged laker 

fleet, 1992–2002 (source: CSA, 2003) 

0

7

14

21

Cement Coal Coke General

cargo

Grain Gypsum Iron ore Limestone Misc.

Bulk

Potash Salt Tanker

products

Cargo tonnage

(millions of metric tons)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fig. 8. Tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric tons) carried by the Canadian-flagged laker fleet 

by major cargo category, 1998–2002 (source: CSA, 2003) 

126
Vessel Movement Patterns

The primary transit pattern for Canadian lakers in the Great Lakes is much different from 

the movement of the U.S.-flagged laker fleet. Canadian lakers are generally involved in 

triangular trading rather than direct trading, transporting coal and grain from ports on western 

Lake Superior to ports on Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence Seaway, and then moving to 

the gulf ports of Sept Isles and Port Cartier in ballast to load iron ore. The iron ore is carried to 

Hamilton and U.S. ports in Lake Erie for steel production. The vessels then travel back to Lake 

Superior in ballast to reload cargos of coal and grain. Figures 4-6 and 9 illustrate the typical 

voyage patterns Canadian lakers follow in transporting these commodities. 

Fig. 9. Generalized trade pattern of Canadian-flagged laker vessels transporting grain throughout 

the Great Lakes 

Owners and Operators

As with the U.S.-flagged fleet, there is little benefit for Canadian vessels to be owned and 

operated by different companies. The Canada Shipping Act requires that vessels involved in 

trade between Canadian ports use Canadian crew and be owned by Canadian companies. 

Although no regulation requires that the ship be built in Canada, any ship built elsewhere is 

subject to an import tariff equal to 25 percent of the vessel’s value. Recently, however, several 

partnerships between major Canadian shipping companies have been created. For example, 

Algoma Central Corporation and Upper Lakes Group, Inc. have combined to form Seaway 

Marine Transport, which is responsible for the commercial management of the two companies’ 

fleets, including 21 self-unloading vessels and 13 gearless bulk cargo vessels (table 2). 

127
Table 2. Companies that operate Canadian-flagged vessels on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 

Seaway system 

Ship operator Type of vessel No. of vessels Average gross registered 

tonnage 

Bulk carrier 19 19,132 

Algoma Central Corp. 

Tanker 5 7,993 

Bulk carrier 16 21,516 

Canada Steamship Lines, Inc. Cement carrier 1 6,729 

Ore carrier 1 33,792 

Desgagnes Tankers Tanker 4 7,298 

Lower Lakes Towing Ltd. Bulk carrier 4 11,250 

Purvis Marine Ltd. General cargo carrier 1 3,280 

Bulk carrier 1 4,433 

Transport Desgagnes, Inc. General cargo carrier 6 6,179 

Tanker 3 6,262 

Transport Nanuck General cargo carrier 1 6,037 

Bulk carrier 17 8,756 

Upper Lakes Group, Inc. 

Cement carrier 1 6,792 

U.S.-Flagged Barges 

 The Illinois Waterway is another passage for cargo leaving and entering the Great Lakes 

region. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics, 40.7 

million metric tons of commodities were moved on the river in 2003. That was a typical year; 

from 1994 through 2003, the total annual tonnage was always 39 million–43 million metric tons. 

In 2003, as in other years, over half of the cargo (more than 21 million metric tons) moved down 

river to the Mississippi River. This down-river movement was dominated by food and farm 

commodities (including grain), averaging approximately 16 million or 17 million metric per 

year. 

Fleet and Vessels 

There are over 27,000 commercial barges in operation in the United States (American 

Waterways Association, 2005). This total encompasses vessels that ply all of the nation’s rivers 

and interior waterways; the number of barges that travel routes relevant to the Great Lakes is 

smaller—approximately 6,000—but still significant. A 2003 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

inventory identified approximately 3,000 barges operated by towing and barge operators on the 

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and their tributaries. 

A typical barge that operates on the Mississippi and Illinois River systems measures 59 

meters long by 10.7 meters wide and can carry just over 1,300 metric tons of cargo. They are 

designed to carry bulk cargo either on open decks or in holds or tanks within the barge’s hull. 

Most of these barges are not self-propelled, requiring a tow or pushboat to move them. Multiple 

128
barges are typically arranged into “tows,” with tows of 15 barges common on the Illinois 

waterway and even longer on the Mississippi River. 

Cargoes 

Barges are used to transport many of the same bulk commodities carried by the larger, 

self-propelled bulk cargo vessels of the laker and Salty fleets. The most common barge cargos on 

the Illinois and Mississippi River system are grain, petroleum products, chemicals, and coal. In 

2002, just over 39 million metric tons of cargo was transported on the Illinois Waterway, which 

is in line with the average for recent years (Army Corps of Engineers, 2002b). Nearly half of 

this, or 17 million metric tons, was downbound shipments of grain and other farm products 

heading to ports along the Mississippi River. The most significant upbound commodities in 2002 

were 2.8 million metric tons of chemical products, 2.4 million metric tons of petroleum products, 

and 2.2 million metric tons of manufactured goods (split evenly between limestone and cement, 

and iron and steel products). 

Vessel Movement Patterns 

 Barge traffic flows year round in both directions on the Mississippi River and Illinois 

Waterway. In general, grain is shipped from ports along the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 

Waterway south to Gulf of Mexico ports for shipment overseas. Other commodities, such as 

chemicals and iron and steel products, tend to be transported upbound on the Mississippi River 

and Illinois Waterway. Petroleum products tend to move in both directions, with significant 

amounts both shipped and received by ports all along the Mississippi River and Illinois 

Waterway. 

 These river barges are not specifically designed to operate in the open-water environment 

of the Great Lakes. As a result, relatively few barges travel from the Chicago Ship and Sanitary 

Canal onto or across Lake Michigan, with most of the barge traffic in the San-Ship Canal 

performing intracanal operations (GLRC, 2005). However, some barges do operate in southern 

Lake Michigan, typically staying close to shore and traveling between the ports of Chicago, 

Calumet Harbor, Gary, Indiana Harbor, and Burns Harbor (fig. 10). The Coast Guard has created 

special rules to allow river barges to travel to the ports of Milwaukee and Muskegon, further 

north along Lake Michigan’s coastline. Approximately 1,600 transits between the western rivers 

and Lake Michigan occur annually. With three or four barges per tow, this equates to an 

approximate total of between 4,000 and 6,400 barges per year (U.S. Coast Guard, pers. comm.). 

129
Fig. 10. Generalized trade pattern of domestic barges traveling between the Illinois Waterway and 

Lake Michigan ports 

Owners and Operators 

As with the U.S. laker fleet, Jones Act requirements provide little incentive for barges to 

be owned and operated by different companies. Due to the large number (over 27,000) of barges 

operating within the United States, there are a large number of companies that own and operate 

barges. These companies range in size, from relatively small operations that own a handful of 

barges to large transportation firms that may own and operate many hundreds of barges. Some 

companies operate their barges for charter and other barge companies may be subsidiaries of 

much larger companies, as in the case of barge operators associated with ADM and General 

Dynamics Corp. Table 3 provides an overview of some of the companies that operate barges on 

the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

there are approximately 35 such barge companies (Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). 

130
Table 3. Companies that operate U.S.-flagged barges on the Mississippi River and Illinois 

Waterway 

Barge Operator Type of Barge Number of Barges 

ADM Dry Covered Barge 15 

Dry Covered Barge 630 AGP Memco LLC Dry Open Barge 840 

Deck Barge 12 Alberici, J.S. Const. Co., Inc. Other Dry Cargo Barge 6 

Ameren, UE Dry Covered Barge 41 

American Marine Constructors Deck Barge 3 

Apex Towing Co. Double Hull Tank Barge 5 

Artco Fleeting Services Deck Barge 1 

Baxter, R.R. and Baxter, Jameson Dry Covered Barge 8 

Dry Covered Barge 2 

Blessey Marine Services, Inc. 

Double Hull Tank Barge 79 

Cemex, S.A. DE C.V. Dry Covered Barge 1 

Deluca, David T. Dry Covered Barge 2 

Deck Barge 9 

Durocher Marine 

Other Dry Barge 1 

Single Hull Tank Barge 5 

Economy Boat Store Double Hull Tank Barge 1 

Other Tank Barge 1 

Deck Barge 2 

Egan Marine Corp. Double Hull Tank Barge 9 

Other Tank Barge 3 

Eneix, Lloyd H. Dry Covered Barge 1 

Single Hull Tank Barge 11 

Florida Marine Transporters, Inc. Double Hull Tank Barge 6 

Other Tank Barge 41 

Dry Open Barge 6 

Garvey Marine Inc. Deck Barge 2 

Double Hull Tank Barge 1 

Gillen, Edward E. Co. Deck Barge 12 

Dry Covered Barge 22 

Hamm’s Harbor Service and Fleeting Dry Open Barge 10 

Deck Barge 2 

Dry Covered Barge 1 

Hannah Marine Corp. 

Double Hull Tank Barge 16 

Dry Covered Barge 2 

Holly Marine Towing 

Deck Barge 7 

131
Dry Covered Barge 45 

Illinois Marine Towing, Inc. Dry Open Barge 11 

Deck Barge 1 

Kadinger Marine Service Other Dry Cargo Barge 1 

Single Hull Tank Barge 65 

Kirby Inland Marine, LP Double Hull Tank Barge 707 

Other Tank Barge 65 

Single Hull Tank Barge 11 

Le Beouf Bros. Towing, LLC Double Hull Tank Barge 31 

Other Tank Barge 1 

Lower Illinois Towing Co. Deck Barge 1 

Dry Covered Barge 1 

Material Service Corp. Dry Open Barge 1 

Deck Barge 84 

Matteson, L.W. Inc. Deck Barge 16 

Metal Management Midwest, Inc. Dry Open Barge 1 

Midwest Generation, LLC Dry Open Barge 25 

Midwest Marine Management Dry Covered Barge 50 

Powley Sand and Gravel Dry Covered Barge 6 

Dry Covered 6 

Riverdocks, Inc. 

Deck Barges 2 

Dry Covered Barge 2 

SCF Barge Line II, Inc. Dry Open Barge 1 

SCF Towboat III Dry Covered Barge 6 

Artificial Waterways 

In some cases, introductions of invasive species have occurred via the artificial 

waterways and canals that allow vessels to transit between water bodies. Eleven of the invasive 

species established in the Great Lakes basin reached the lakes through a canal. Of these, four (sea 

lamprey, purple loosestrife, alewife, and white perch) are considered to have had substantial 

impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem (Mills et al., 1993). 

The sea lamprey is the most notable example of an invasive species introduction via 

canal. This species entered Lake Ontario through the Erie Canal in the 1830s. The subsequent 

opening of the Welland Canal allowed sea lamprey to spread to Lake Erie by 1921, and 

eventually spread to all of the Great Lakes (Mills et al., 1993). Once in the lakes, the lamprey 

severely affected native fish populations, leading directly to the collapse of the region’s lake 

trout fishery. To this day, lamprey-control programs cost millions of dollars each year. 

132
The most recent of these introductions occurred in the late 1950s, but canals and artificial 

waterways remain a potential route for additional introductions. One of the greatest invasion 

threats is the potential for Asian carp to reach Lake Michigan via the Chicago Ship and Sanitary 

Canal. These carp pose a significant threat to the Great Lakes and would be expected to compete 

with valuable sport and commercial fish. Once introduced, they would likely become a dominant 

species in the ecosystem (GLFC, 2004). 

Relevance to Invasions 

Due to their typical vessel voyage patterns, the U.S. and Canadian laker fleets are not 

significant sources of new nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes. Because the U.S. laker fleet 

never operates outside of the Great Lakes, U.S. lakers are never in a position to take on foreign 

ballast water. While some Canadian lakers travel beyond the Seaway, they typically operate 

around Canada’s Atlantic coast. Little, if any, of their ballast water comes from across the ocean. 

However, thanks to the large volume of ballast water they transport around the Great Lakes 

annually, the U.S. and Canadian laker fleets may play a role in spreading and dispersing species 

already introduced and established in the lakes (Aquatic Sciences, Inc., 1996; Reeves, 1999). 

 Similarly, barges may pose a risk for spreading previously introduced species. Although 

the overwhelming majority of barges that operate on the inland waterways and Great Lakes do 

not carry ballast water, a subset of tank and heavy-lift barges may ballast for stability when 

empty (U.S. Coast Guard, pers. comm.). However, the amount of ballast water transferred by 

these vessels is unknown, and the likelihood of barge ballast transporting viable aquatic invasive 

species remains unexplored. While the risk posed by barge ballast water may remain 

undetermined, hull fouling on barges appears to have been a problem in the past and could 

continue to act as a dispersal mechanism for some invasive species. It has been theorized that the 

movement of barge traffic was a major factor in the rapid spread of zebra mussels from the Great 

Lakes throughout the United States (USGS, 2004). In this case, barges traveling from the Great 

Lakes along the Mississippi Rivers and other inland waterways inadvertently transferred zebra 

mussels attached to their hulls. Furthermore, the canals and artificial waterways that barges 

travel can also act as a conduit for invasive species transfer, as in the case of the round goby 

spreading from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River basin via the Chicago Ship and Sanitary 

Canal (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, 2005). 

 The laker fleets have attempted to proactively address this potential for spreading 

organisms. Beginning in 1993, the laker fleets developed and implemented a Voluntary Ballast 

Water Management Program (VBWMP) to slow the spread of the Eurasian Ruffe, which had 

been introduced to Duluth/Superior Harbor in the late 1980s. It requires vessels to either not take 

on ballast in Duluth/Superior Harbor, or, when ballasting is operationally required, to exchange 

ballast water in an area of Lake Superior where Ruffe are unlikely to survive (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1996). To date, this program has been successful, as the Ruffe infestation 

remains mostly confined to Lake Superior’s western end, with exceptions around Alpena, Little 

Bay de Noc, and Big Bay de Noc, Michigan. 

 The laker fleets have built on these early efforts to develop a series of voluntary 

management practices to reduce species transfer. These include: 

133
• Developing programs similar to the VBWMP for harbors where U.S. or Canadian 

authorities determine a nuisance species has become established 

• Conducting annual inspections to assess sediment accumulation and removing 

sediment, if necessary 

• Developing sediment removal policies and plans 

• When practical and safe, having vessels take only minimum required ballast to safely 

depart dock and then complete ballasting in deeper water 

• Cooperating with scientific research into sampling, analysis, and ballast-treatment 

technologies 

Non-Maritime Related Vectors of Introduction and Spread 

Aquarium/Pet trade

Release from home aquaria has resulted in the introduction of invasive species 

throughout the United States. The aquatic weed Hydrilla, cultivated as a freshwater aquarium 

plant, has been accidentally released at several points in the United States. Plants from home 

aquaria or cultivation facilities were likely responsible for infestations starting in Tampa Bay, 

Florida, and near Washington, DC. Hydrilla has since spread throughout the Southeast and as far 

north as Massachusetts. Introduction of Hydrilla on the West Coast likely resulted from 

importation of other ornamental aquatic plants. A handful of species has also been introduced to 

the Great Lakes via accidental release from home aquaria—mainly snail species that were 

accidentally released between the 1900s and 1930s. Since the 1970s, however, the bluespotted 

sunfish, Asiatic clam, and a parasitic copepod have also been introduced (Mills et al., 1993). 

Recent years have seen a number of “close calls” with species released from aquaria. In 

2000, Caulerpa taxifolia—a highly invasive seaweed popular in aquaria—was discovered in a 

lagoon in California. Two years later, snakehead fish were intentionally released into a Maryland 

pond. 

Fisheries and Aquaculture 

In the Great Lakes, deliberate introduction and stocking of aquatic species, particularly 

fish, occurred throughout the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. 

Eight fish species have been introduced or stocked, which have had both positive and negative 

impacts. In some cases, these stocked species support commercial and recreational fisheries. 

However, examples such as common carp and Pacific salmon have impacted native fish and 

wildfowl through competition, predation, and habitat destruction (Mills et al., 1993). 

In addition to the introduction or stocking of species in the wild, the introduction of 

species for aquaculture is also a potential vector for invasive species. The Asian carp discussed 

above were originally imported to the Mississippi River basin to control algae in aquaculture 

facilities. During flooding in the early 1990s, they escaped into the Mississippi River and have 

been moving north since, altering fish and shellfish communities and posing a looming threat to 

the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

134
Another potential impact of fishery and aquaculture introductions is the coincident 

introduction of parasites and disease. Three fish pathogens—Furunculosis, Glugea hertiwgi, and 

whirling disease—have been reported in the Great Lakes. G. hertwigi was responsible for high 

mortalities of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario rainbow smelt during the 1960s. Furunculosis and 

whirling disease affect salmon and trout, most commonly in fish hatcheries and aquaculture 

settings (Mills et al., 1993). 

Recreational Vessels 

While ballast water from large commercial vessels is the most significant source of 

introductions, there are a number of secondary vectors as well, including the numerous 

recreational vessels owned and operated by private citizens. Recreational vessels that come into 

contact with invasive species can hasten the spread of organisms or introduce them to bodies of 

water. This is of particular concern for small boats that can be transported over land via trailer, as 

well as recreational vessels that travel directly between two bodies of water. For example, some 

35,000 recreational vessels travel between Lake Michigan and the Chicago Ship and Sanitary 

Canal (on the Illinois Waterway) annually—each one a potential vector for aquatic invasive 

species (Army Corps of Engineers, 2002c). 

Research 

Laboratories and universities throughout the basin make use of many different aquatic 

species in conducting research and experiments, creating the risk of accidental release and 

establishment of species. This risk is made more serious by the relative lack of regulatory 

constraints on research organisms, as well as the overall lack of information about the potential 

consequences of accidental release (Carlton, 2001). 

135
Appendix B: 

Ballast Volumes and Numbers of Organisms 

Discharged into the GLSLSS by Transoceanic 

Ships Under Various Scenarios 

Total Foreign Ballast Volumes

Based on best available data and a number of assumptions,6

 the total amount of ballast 

water discharged by the transoceanic Salty fleet in the GLSLSS is estimated to be approximately 

5.8 million cubic meters per year (table 1), equal to an average discharge of more than 18,879 

cubic meters per day. In comparison, the U.S-flagged laker fleet discharges volumes an order of 

magnitude greater—some 227,400 cubic meters into the Great Lakes each day (Ryan, 2001)—

and the Canadian-flagged laker fleet discharges more than twice the transoceanic fleet—an 

average of 57,500 cubic meters into the GLSLSS each day (D. Reid, pers. comm.). 

Although these figures provide an estimate of the volumes of ballast water that vessels, 

including those entering the system from outside the EEZ, discharge into the GLSLSS, they 

greatly exceed the volumes of foreign ballast water (which could contain non-native organisms) 

that is discharged into the system. The reason for this discrepancy is that virtually all ships 

entering the GLSLSS after operating outside the EEZ either purge their tanks of near coastal 

water in the high seas through conducting a “ballast water exchange” (BWE) pursuant to federal 

law (see below) or they are empty of pumpable ballast water and full of cargo. Neither practice 

(BWE or removal of pumpable ballast water) completely removes near coastal organisms from 

ballast tanks. Rather, the foreign ballast water that ships in both conditions ultimately discharge 

into the GLSLSS is heavily diluted either by open ocean water or GLSLSS water. 

In light of these considerations, what volume of foreign ballast water is in fact carried to 

and discharged into the GLSLSS by merchant ships? Approximately 15 percent of transoceanic 

vessel visits to the Great Lakes system from overseas are in the ballasted condition, containing 

water that has been diluted in the high seas through BWE (St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Authority, 2003; fig. 1). Of these, Johengen et al. (2005) reported that each vessel can have as 

much as 25,500 cubic meters or as little as 1,500 cubic meters of ballast water on board, with 

over 50 percent of vessels having capacities greater than 10,000 cubic meters. Using 10,000 

cubic meters as metric for the average amount of ballast water salty vessels carry into the 

GLSLSS, approximately 460,000 cubic meters of ballast water was discharged in the GLSLSS in 

2002 alone by the 46 vessels that had conducted BWE (table 1). Similar studies by Parsons et al. 

(1997) and Locke et al. (1993) have estimated that 716,462 and 719,565 cubic meters of ballast 

water, respectively, was discharged into the GLSLSS by transoceanic vessels that conducted 

BWE prior to entering the system in a one year period. 

 

6 Vessel visit data provided by St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority (2003). Average foreign ballast volume per vessel and BWE 

efficiency estimates provided by Johengen et al. (2005). 

136
Assuming that BWE delivers a 86–98 percent efficiency at purging the harbor water from 

foreign ports and replacing it with high-seas water, as reported by Johengen et al. (2005), the 

portion of this 460,000 cubic meter volume that is foreign ballast water falls somewhere in the 

range of 9,200 to 64,400 cubic meters (table 1). 

The remaining 85 percent of transoceanic vessels arrive fully loaded with cargo with only 

unpumpable ballast residuals in ballast tanks (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority, 

2003; fig. 1). After their cargo is discharged, Great Lakes water mixes with the residual, 

unpumpable ballast water already present in the tanks, only to be discharged at upper-lakes ports 

where the vessel takes on cargo for its outgoing voyage, primarily Duluth-Superior Harbor and 

Thunder Bay (Bailey et al., 2003). Based on best available data and a number of assumptions, 

5.8 million cubic meters of this mixed ballast water is discharged into the lakes annually by 

transoceanic vessels (table 1). At the most, approximately 106,000 cubic meters of this volume is 

the original foreign ballast water, equivalent to 350 cubic meters discharged into the lakes per 

day (table 1). 

Recently the U.S. Coast Guard issued voluntary guidelines urging ships in the NOBOB 

condition to undertake a partial exchange in the open ocean. If ships follow this guidance, the 

volume of foreign ballast discharged by these ships will further decrease. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Number of transoceanic vessels

 arriving from overseas

Ballast on board

No ballast on board

Fig. 1. Number of overseas-flagged transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. 

Lawrence Seaway system declaring “ballast on board” and “no ballast on board,” 1993–

2002 (source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority, 2003) 

137
Table 1. Estimates of foreign ballast water volume discharged in the GLSLSS by transoceanic 

ships in 2002 (in cubic meters) given a range of BWE efficiency assumptions. 

Ballasted (BOB) 

vessels 

Unballasted (NOBOB) 

vessels TOTAL 

Number of vessel visits in 2002 46 531 577 

Average foreign ballast volume 

per vessel (m3

) 10,000 200 566,200 

Ballast from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

64,400 106,200 

(no BWE requirements) 170,600 

Ballast from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

98% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

9,200 106,200 

(no BWE requirements) 115,400 

Ballast from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

100% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

0 106,200 

(no BWE requirements) 106,200 

Ballast from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

395,600 0 395,600 

Ballast from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

98% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

450,800 0 450,800 

Ballast from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

100% BWE efficiency (m3

) 

460,000 0 460,000 

Ballast from foreign ports 

combined with GLSLSS ballast 

discharged in GLSLSS (m3

) 

0 5,203,800 5,203,800 

Total amount of ballast water 

discharged by the transoceanic 

fleet in the GLSLSS (m3

) 

460,000 5,310,000 5,770,000 

Overall Rate of Foreign Ballast-Entrained Organisms 

Assuming that organism densities in ships arriving to the Great Lakes are similar to those 

in ships plying globally, a typical Salty entering the Great Lakes could carry an average of 464 

zooplankton per cubic meter, 2.9 x 108 phytoplankton per cubic meter, and 8.3 x 1011 bacteria per 

cubic meter in its ballast water—based on the ICES review of worldwide ballast water studies to 

determine the range of organism concentrations observed in ships’ ballast water (IMO MEPC 

49/2/21, 2003). Applying these ICES metrics to the 2002 estimates of transoceanic vessel visits 

138
to the GLSLSS provided by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (2003) and 

Johengen et al.’s (2005) estimates of the average volume of foreign ballast per vessels—and 

assuming that BWE is only 86 percent efficient (Johengen et al., 2005) and organism densities in 

residual ballast are identical to those in fully ballasted ships—the number of organisms from 

foreign ports discharged into the GLSLSS in 2002 can be calculated at 79 million zooplankton, 

49 trillion phytoplankton, and 14 quadrillion bacteria (table 2). Similarly, the total amount of 

organisms contained in ballast water discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the GLSLSS 

(including that originating from foreign ports, the high seas, and Great Lakes lower ports) in 

2002 can be estimated at 2.7 billion zooplankton, 1.7 quadrillion phytoplankton, and 4.7 

quintillion bacteria (table 2). 

A recent study by Verling et al. (2005) that looked at zooplankton survivorship across 

various voyage durations and routes found that the mean density of zooplankton for a 

transatlantic voyage was 39,800 organisms per cubic meter at the start of the voyage, and 613 

organisms per cubic meter at the end of the voyage. Applying this end-of-voyage estimate to the 

same data and assumptions used to generate table 2, the number of organisms from foreign ports 

discharged into the system in 2002 can be calculated at 104 million zooplankton. Similarly, the 

total amount of organisms contained in ballast water discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the 

GLSLSS (including that originating from foreign ports, the high seas and Great Lakes lower 

ports) in 2002 can be estimated at 3.6 billion zooplankton. 

Table 2. Estimates of total organisms discharged in the GLSLSS by transoceanic ships in 20027 

Ballasted (BOB) 

vessels 

Unballasted (NOBOB) 

vessels 

ESTIMATED 

TOTAL 

Number of vessel visits in 2002 46 531 577 

Average foreign ballast volume 

per vessel (m3

) 10,000 200 981 

ZOOPLANKTON 

Zooplankton from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

29,881,600 49,276,800 

(no BWE requirements) 79,158,400 

Zooplankton from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

183,558,400 0 183,558,400 

 

7 Vessel visit data provided by St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority (2003). Average foreign ballast volumes per vessel and BWE 

efficiency estimates provided by Johengen et al. (2005). Organism quantities based on ICES review which states that on average 1 cubic meter of 

ballast water contains 464 plankton ≥50 micrometers in minimum dimension (zooplankton), 2.9 X 108

 plankton <50 micrometres and ≥10 

micrometers in minimum dimension (phytoplankton), and 8.3 X 1011 bacteria per cubic meter (IMO MEPC 49/2/21, 2003). Also, organism 

densities in ships arriving to the Great Lakes are assumed to be similar to those in ships plying globally, and organism densities in residual ballast 

are assumed to be identical to those in fully ballasted ships. 

139
Zooplankton from foreign ports 

combined with GLSLSS 

zooplankton discharged in 

GLSLSS (#) 

0 2,414,563,200 2,414,563,200 

Total amount of zooplankton 

discharged by the transoceanic 

fleet in the GLSLSS ((#) 

213,440,000 2,463,840,000 2,677,280,000 

PHYTOPLANKTON

Phytoplankton from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

1.87 X 1013 3.08 X 1013

(no BWE requirements) 4.95 X 1013

Phytoplankton from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

1.15 X 1014 0 1.15 X 1014

Phytoplankton from foreign ports 

combined with GLSLSS 

phytoplankton discharged in 

GLSLSS (#) 

0 1.51 X 1015 1.51 X 1015

Total amount of phytoplankton 

discharged by the transoceanic 

fleet in the GLSLSS (#) 

1.34 X 1014 1.54 X 1015 1.67 X 1015

BACTERIA

Bacteria from foreign ports 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

5.31 X 1016 8.81 X 1016

(no BWE requirements) 1.41 X 1017

Bacteria from high seas 

discharged in GLSLSS assuming 

86% BWE efficiency (#) 

3.28 X 1017 0 3.28 X 1017

Bacteria from foreign ports 

combined with GLSLSS bacteria 

discharged in GLSLSS (#) 

0 4.32 X 1018 4.32 X 1018

Total amount of bacteria 

discharged by the transoceanic 

fleet in the GLSLSS (#) 

3.81 X 1017 4.41 X 1018 4.66 X 1018

140
Quantities of Organisms from Foreign Ports Discharged into the 

GLSLSS by Transoceanic Vessels Relative to Current National Law, 

and the Proposed Global Convention 

Federal law requires vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the EEZ with ballast 

water on board to undertake ballast water exchange (BWE) to purge tanks of near coastal water. 

Johengen et al. (2005) found BWE to be 86 to 98 percent effective at replacing coastal water 

with open-ocean water in practice. However, the government has only recently issued voluntary 

best management practices for managing residual water and sediment in the ballast tanks of the 

approximately 85 percent of transoceanic vessels that declare NOBOB, arriving in the lakes with 

a full complement of cargo (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority, 2003). 

Globally, the IMO’s International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ 

Ballast Water and Sediments will require ships to manage their ballast water through BWE or 

BWT. The convention will require ships to perform BWE with an efficiency of at least 95 

percent volumetric exchange. Ships undertaking BWT will be required to discharge less than 10 

viable organisms per cubic meter greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum 

dimension, and less than 10 viable organisms per milliliter less than 50 micrometers in minimum 

dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension (equivalent to 9 x 

106

 per cubic meter). The convention also includes discharge standards for indicator microbes, 

including Vibrio cholerae, Escherichia coli and Enterococci. 

Based on best available data and a number of assumptions,8 table 3 provides estimates of 

the quantities of organisms (plankton only) from foreign ports discharged in the Great Lakes by 

transoceanic vessels following BWE, and also the quantities likely to be discharged in the lakes 

following application of the international convention. The adoption of the international 

convention’s BWE standard could reduce the number of plankton greater than or equal to 50 

micrometers discharged into the GLSLSS from foreign ports by 20 million (table 3). However, 

compared to BWE, the adoption of the convention’s BWT standard will produce a tenfold 

decrease in the discharge of this larger plankton into the lakes (table 3). 

For smaller plankton of less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and greater than 

or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension, adoption of the international convention’s 

BWE and BWT standards could result in little change in the quantity of organisms from foreign 

ports being discharged into the GLSLSS (table 3). 

 

6 2002 Vessel visit data provided by St. Lawrence Seaway Development Authority (2003). Average foreign ballast volumes per vessel and BWE 

efficiency estimate of 86 percent, relative to federal law, provided by Johengen et al. (2005). Analysis assumes that each cubic meter of ballast 

water contains 464 plankton ≥ 50 micrometers in minimum dimension, and 2.9 X 108

 plankton < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and 

greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension, based on ICES review (IMO MEPC 49/2/21). Analysis also assumes that vessels 

declaring NOBOB are not required to manage their ballast water relative to BWE; that organism densities in ships arriving to the Great Lakes are 

similar to those in ships plying globally; and that organism densities in residual ballast are identical to those in fully ballasted ships. 

141
Table 3. Estimates of the quantities of organisms (plankton only) from foreign ports discharged 

in the Great Lakes by transoceanic vessels relative to current federal law, the proposed 

international convention, and no ballast management requirements, based on best available data 

and a number of assumptions6

 

Ballasted (BOB) 

vessels 

Unballasted (NOBOB) 

vessels TOTAL 

Number of vessel visits (2002) 46 531 577 

Average foreign ballast volume 

per vessel (m3

) 10,000 200 981 

Total foreign ballast volume (m3) 460,000 106,200 566,200 

PLANKTON ≥ 50 MICRONS IN MINIMUM DIAMETER 

Quantity of plankton given no 

ballast management (#) 213,440,000 49,276,800 262,716,800 

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWE that is 

86% effective (federal law) (#) 

29,881,600 49,276,800 79,158,400 

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWE that is 

95% effective (IMO) (#) 

10,672,000 49,276,800 59,948,800 

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWT to IMO 

standard (#)

4,140,000 955,800 5,095,800 

PLANKTON < 50 AND ≥ 10 MICRONS IN MINIMUM DIAMETER

Quantity of plankton given no 

ballast management (#) 1.33 x 1014 3.08 x 1013 1.36 x 1014

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWE that is 

86% effective (federal law) (#) 

1.87 x 1013 3.08 x 1013 4.95 x 1013

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWE that is 

95% effective (IMO) (#) 

6.67 x 1012 3.08 x 1013 3.75 x 1013

Quantity of plankton given 

management using BWT to IMO 

standard (#)

4.14 x 1012 9.56 x 1011 5.09 x 1012

142
143
Insert back page

144

50 F St., NW. Suite 950 

Washington DC 20001 

Hwww.nemw.org