# G r e a t S h i p s f o r t h e G r e a t L a k e s ?

C o m m e r c i a l V e s s e l s F r e e o f I n v a s i v e S p e c i e s i n t h e G r e a t L a k e s

- S t

. L a w r e n c e S e a w a y S y s t e m

A A S S c c o

o p

p i i n

n g g R R e e p

p o o r r t

t f f o o r

r t t h h e e G G r r e

e a

a t t S S h h i i p

p s s I I n

n i i t

t i

i a

a t t i

i v

v e e

Allegra Cangelosi Nicole Mays

Northeast-Midwest Institute Washington DC1

# G r e a t S h i p s f o r t h e G r e a t L a k e s ?

C C o o m m m m e e r

r c

c i i a

a l l V V e e s

s s s e e l

l s

s F F r r e

e e

e O O f f I I n

n v v a a s s i i v

v e e

S S p p e e c

c i i e

e s

s i i n

n t t h h e e G G r r e

e a

a t t L L a a k k e e s

s

- - S

S t t

. . L L a a w w r r e

e n n c c e e

S S e e a

a w w a a y S S y y s s t t e e m m

A S c o p i n g R e

p o r t f o r t h e G r e a t S h i p s I n i t i a t i v e

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 th e 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 Wildlif e Foundation, also of the projec t 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 Grea t 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 ge nerous financial support. Fina lly, 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 preventi on 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 “A chilles’ heel,” undermining crucial public and political support. Concern over ship-mediated bi ological pollution has insp ired strong interest within the Great Lakes maritime industry to reso lve the problem, and a special opportunity for

collaborative action.

This scoping report provides a fact base, ra tionale, and preliminary plan for a “Great Ships Initiative” (G SI), a collectiv e industry-led response to th e problem of ship-mediated introductions of aquatic invasive species in the Gr eat Lakes. First, the report details key facets of

transoceanic trade on the Great Lakes-St. La wrence Seaway system (GLSLSS), including the system’s physical features (ports, fleets, and ca rgoes); fiduciary players and transaction chains, including the supply chain and tr ansportation chain (terminal ow ners, stevedores, and freight forwarders); and the regulatory pl ayers, internationally, domestically, and regionally. It also

describes the drivers and contex tual 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 biologi cal pollution problem, the state-of-the-art of prevention methodology, and policy options for th e Great Lakes region. Third, it describes relevant Environmental Management System models and makes reco mmendations regarding a systemwide, industry-sponsored re sponse 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 scop ing report, particularly the still-developing technology and policy for shipboard treatment of ba llast 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 Ma nagement System, which is facility-specific and strictly implementation orie nted. Instead, an industry res ponse to the problem of shipmediated invasive species needs to be an unconventional applica tion of Environmental Management principles. In particular, it need s to be collective in nature—across both the GLSLSS geography and the GLSLSS maritime indus try sectors—and requires three fundamental semi-sequential phases: treatment tool developm ent, treatment tool installation throughout the salty fleet, and implementation assistance and monitoring. The first phas e involves preparing promising treatment systems for installation a nd regulatory approval. Th e second phase involves

a suite of financial incentives to speed deployment of effectiv e treatment systems onto the fleet of ships that visit the Great Lakes from overs eas. The third phase entails outreach to ensure effective installation and operation of treatment sy stems 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—particularlyports and carriers—with government and quasigovernmental entities, such as the St. Lawr ence Seaway Development Corporation and St.

4Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, to accel erate the development, testing, installation,

and fleetwide use of effective ballast treatmen t methods. The treatment development and testing phase will require creation of a treatment “incuba tor” to provide intensive bench, pilot, and shipboard evaluation services to vendors of ballast treatment pros pects suitable to Seaway-sized vessels, with the goal of advanc ing meritorious systems as rapi dly as possible to an approvalready and market-ready condition.

At the same time, the GSI s hould establish with the states and provinces consistent monitoring of Great Lakes harbors for newly a rrived alien species, a nd undertake studies to assess post-discharge implications of treatment system performance on receiving systems. The GSI also should prepare to deploy us e of the ports’ financing tools, grants, relief from tolls and fees, and/or shipper preferen ce 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 assi stance to shipyards, ship operators and crews through the St. Lawrence Seaway Management/Development Corpor ations 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 se rve as the GSI fiduciary. The MOA lays out an operating structure involving a decision-making executive committee composed of GSI contributors and stakehol ders. 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 fo r 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 Northeas t-Midwest Institute responded to a funding opportunity sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for funds totaling over $1 million. Congress has appropria ted over $800,000 to support the startup effort (through the Department of Transportation). If su ccessful, the GSI and its test facility could provide a possible model for produc tive 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; Heal thy 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 Pr evention.. 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 Industr y Action.................................................... 95 Agenda for Industry Action: A Great Ships Initiative.................................... 101

Recommendation Actions ..................................................................... 102 Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................... 103

End Note: Recent Devel opments............................................................ 103

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

Appendix A: A Note on the Role on A dditional 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 Number s of Organisms Discharged into the GLSLSS by Transoceanic Ships under Various Scenarios................ 134

Total Foreign Ballast Volu mes....................... ....................................... 134 Overall Rate of Foreign Ballast-Entrained Organisms............................... 136

6Quantities 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 Lak es-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 12

2. Direct jobs created by major commodi ties 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 sinc e 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 La kes, including Canada Port Authorities and U.S. public ports 21

7. Comparative vessel lengt h of transoceanic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker fleets that operated on the Great Lakes-S t. Lawrence Seaway System in 2002 27

8. Major types of transoceanic vessels t hat entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 28

9. Comparative year of build of transoceani c 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 metr ic 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 Lake s-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 f unds associated with maritime transportation
in the Great Lakes 51

17. Flag country of transoceanic vessels th at entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 54

818. Comparative vessel classification fo r U.S.-flagged lakers, Canadian-flagged lakers, and overseas-flagged Salty vessels oper ating 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 spot s, 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 Se away system 25

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

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

4. Cargoes transported by transoceanic vessel s 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 se ctions of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system 49

97. a. Results from a survey assessing sh ippers’ ranking criteria for selecting a transportation provider 61 b. Results from a survey assessing ship pers’ 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 under going commercial development 83

10. Examples of ballast water treatment systems tested on board commercially operating vessels 86

10

# I. Introduction

Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystem; H ealthy Great Lakes Economy

The Great Lakes supply essential economic a nd 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 Am ericans; process water for power production

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

dollar recreational and commercial fishing industry; and supply ir rigation water for agriculture and other uses (Environment Canada & GLNP O, 2002). Ecologically, th e lakes’ sand dunes, coastal wetlands, islands, rocky shorelines, prairi es, savannas, forests, fens, and other landscape features are globally unique, suppor ting 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 im periled or rare species (Environment Canada & GLNPO, 2002; The Nature C onservancy, 1994). Their value as a source of inspiration, education, and aesthetic beauty adds furt her immeasurable bene fits to the tally.

Economic and ecological services are equall y dependent upon the he alth 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 commerc ial 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. Lawr ence Seaway. The Seaway circumvents natural barriers to navigation, such as Niagara Falls an d rapids along the St. Lawrence River, through artificial waterways and locks. Over 3,700 kilo meters 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. Transocean ic 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 trans portation 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 an d through the GLSLSS, overseas tonnage is diminutive relative to the tonnage traded domestically and be tween 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 milli on metric tons of cargo that move into, out of,

11and 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 sh ipped 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

St

eel

G

ener a l C

ar

go G r a in O r e C oal Cement

St

one/ Aggregates Petrol eum

O

t her Dry B ul

k

O

t her Li

q uid B ul

k Salt Total1,000 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

G

ener al

C

ar

go Grain O r e Coal

C ement

Sto

ne/

Aggr egat es

P et

roleum

O

t her D

r y

Bul

k Other Liquid Bulk Salt

N

on

Allocat e dDirect Jobs Created

Fig. 2. Direct jobs created by major comm odities transported on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2000 (source: Martin Associates 2001)

120 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

Steel Genera l C

a r go Gra i n O r e Coal Cement

S ton

e / Ag

g r e g a te

s

P

e tro

l e u m Other D r y Bu

lk

O

t her

Liq

u id Bulk Sa lt

N

o n Allo c at

e dRevenue in $1,000

Fig. 3. Revenue impacts generated by majo r 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 trans portation generally—such as lower air-pollutant emissions—relative to other modes (Great La kes 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 tr ansoceanic waterborne shipping—related to introductions of alien aquatic organisms or bi ological 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 ba rriers to navigation by ships, and in so doing opened the door to the m ovement 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 introduc tion in each of the 1940s and 1950s (Mills et al

., 1993). Following Seaway completion, the ballast wa ter 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 studi ed 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 or ganisms in ballast water and the invasion risk that such organisms present. Grigorovich et al . (2003a) went one step

13further and performed a predictive analysis for likely invaders to the Great Lakes via ballast water transport, based on donor regions, invasion histories, sa linity 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 inva sion. An additional 31 species not yet reported in the Great Lakes pose a lo wer risk of invasion (Grigorovich et al ., 2003a).

From a strictly economic standpoint, ma ny 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 impor tations that are amenable to human cultivation and control, or incidentally introduced with li ttle propensity to spread. In contrast, invasive species—those nonindigenous species that, once in troduced, 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 pe riod 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 foot print and associated economic cost estimates ultimately far exceed thos e associated with the basin. For example, the zebra mussel—transported throughout the Great Lake s in the ballast water of both overseas and domestic ships and to inland waterways via recr eational vessels—now plagues two-thirds of the nation, and has an estimated overall pri ce 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. Toda y, invasive species are considered second only to habitat destruction in reducing bi ological diversity globally (Vitousek et al ., 1997).

The seriousness of the problem has prompted inte rnational, federal, and state initiatives to better manage ship-mediated speci es invasions. In the Great La kes region alone, in the past several years six of the eight U.S. states—Illinoi s, Indiana, Michigan, Mi nnesota, New York, and Wisconsin—have introduced, and in one case enact ed, legislation concer ning 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-mediate d invasive species would be one of his top priorities (Wisconsin Office of the G overnor, 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 introduce d, but failed to pass, in Minnesota during 2001, in Illinoi s and Wisconsin during 2002, in New York during 2003, and in Indiana during 2004.

14As the Great Lakes maritime industry seeks to sustain and increase cargo volumes from shippers and infrastructure investment from go vernments, biological pollution is viewed as its Achilles’ heel, undermining crucial public and polit ical support. This concern has inspired strong interest on the part of the industry itself to re solve the problem, and a special opportunity for

constructive action.

Fig. 4. Zebra mussel range expansion by year si nce 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 Manage ment Services) launched a project supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund to stimulate a d ecisive 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 La kes. Called the Great Lakes Biological Pollution

15Prevention 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 to ward 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 specifical ly involved in GLSLSS tr ansoceanic trade that mediates the initial introductions of invasive orga nisms into the Great Lake s. First, the report describes in some detail many facets of tran soceanic trade on the GLSLSS, including physical features, i.e., ports, fleets, and cargoes; the fiduciary players a nd financial flows, including the supply chain and transportation transaction chai n, i.e., the terminal owners, stevedores, and freight forwarders; and the regulatory chain. It then describes drivers and other contextual

conditions that influence the natu re 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 tr ade receive the greates t emphasis in this section, information on the moving pieces exclusiv ely associated with the domestic trades—a ready mechanism for subsequent spread of orga nisms once they are introduced to the system— appears in the scoping report’s appendices.

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

describes relevant EMS models and makes r ecommendations regarding a systemwide, industrysponsored response to the invasi ve species problem—the GSI. Th is 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 realit y, 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 re gion. 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 oper ation. Transaction chai ns include the supply chains, comprising cargo producers, bulk users (man ufacturers and refiners), and consumers; and the transportation services chains, comprising stevedores, terminal owners, shipowners, and charterers. The regulatory pieces comprise port st ates, flag states, classification societies, international groups, and regional and subregional agencies. Th ese 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 re gulatory regimes. The

outcome is the nature and extent of transocean ic 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 movi ng pieces, both tangible and intangible, and the

drivers and conditions that influence them.



### Physical Pieces

The visible, physical features of the GLSL SS transoceanic trade include the natural waterway, locks, and connecting channels; port facilities; vessels; and cargoes.



### Natural Waterway

The GLSLSS—comprising Lakes Superior, Mich igan, 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 la kes alone contain ap proximately 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, La ke 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 sout h. The second-largest la ke 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. Aver aging 85 meters in depth, the lake reaches 281 meters at its deepest point. The third-larg est lake by volume, Lake Huron, contains 2,200 cubic kilometers of water, has an average de pth 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 acro ss and 92 kilometers from north to south, and has an average depth of only 19 meters. Lake On tario is similar to Lake Erie in length and

17breadth (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 ri vers, 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 ve ssels to travel between the A tlantic Ocean a nd ports throughout

each of the Great Lakes. The dimensions of th ese locks and connecting waterways determine the size of vessels that can ply th e 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 wate rway, the Lachine Canal, was constructed between 1821 and 1825 to bypass the Lach ine Rapids of the St. Lawrence. The canal became obsolete in 1959, being replaced by the Sout h Shore Canal of the St. Lawrence Seaway and was finally closed in 1969.

The oldest artificial waterw ay still in use in the GLSLSS is the Welland Canal, which navigationally connects Lake Onta rio to Lake Erie. A major engi neering feat of its time, the Welland Canal began as a private commercial venture in 1829. The Canadian provincial government purchased it in 1841, upgr ading it a number of times throughout the remainder of the

19 th century and early 20 th 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 conne ctions with areas outside the Great Lakes basin. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal/Il linois Waterway provides a connection between Lake Michigan and the Mississipp i River. The Waterway consists of eight single chamber lock and dam projects, and allows for shallow draf t navigation between the two regions. The New York State Canal System includes the Erie Cana l 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

18additional component of this Ne w 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 connec ting Lakes Huron and Superior. The canal was turned over to the State of Michigan in 1855, and th en 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 periodica lly 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 Ca nadian 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 intricatel y linked system of two U.S. and five Canadian locks, channels, canals, dams, dikes and seve ral 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-g oing 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 anothe r. These channels are dredged at times to accommodate the shipping. The St. Mary’s Rive r connects Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Within this connecting channel are the Soo lock s, 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 Corp s 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 betw een 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 dept h 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.

19Fig. 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 relati vely unchanged. While some maintenance dredging does occur, it is curr ently minimal. Some, believing that the region’s economic wellbeing is directly tied to the amount of sh ipping through the Seawa y, 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, envi ronmental advocates and other resource users raise concerns about the impacts a nd cost of such changes. Besides the likelihood of introducing more aquatic invasive species to the lakes, enlargi ng 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 netw ork of development and industr ial capacity that has grown around them embody significant cap ital investment by industry, Great Lakes states and provinces, and the U.S. and Canadian federal go vernments. Though they are relatively expensive to modify, ports are also moving pieces of th e Great Lakes maritime system. The number of ports in the region has diminished through a pro cess of port rationalizati on and consolidation. This process, retarded at times by local politi cal 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 p ublic port infrastructu re, 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

20cargoes they process and their role s as destination- and/or transi t-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, po rts that receive steel and steel pr oducts from overseas for steel making, refinement, and manufact uring—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 conn ectors near these port facilities are designed to transport the production output of manuf acturing facilities to consumers.

The port infrastructure is made up of one or more docks. A dock typi cally consists of the following elements: 1) a navigation channel dredge d 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 ar eas; 4) cargo handling equipment such as cranes, forklifts,

conveyors, etc.

Ports are considered transit ports when the shippers/recei vers 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, tran sit ports are associated with grain movement. For example, Duluth, Milwaukee, and Toledo are transit ports that transfer grai n from trains from the heartland to waterborne vessels for transporta tion abroad. These ports are identifiable by their numerous grain elevators and ra ilway connections to move car goes to these facilities.

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

21Box 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 t he 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 m any vessels from using the system. Classes of ships unable to use the system include the la rger 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, an d/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 maint enance and capital requirements to sustain and optimize the GLSLS system and the marine transpor tation infrastructure on which it depends.

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

• Identify factors and trends affecting t he 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 Tr ansportation are leading the study, which is examining maintenance rather than major infrastr ucture modifications, including the expansion of the system. The study steering committee include s the U.S. Army Corp s of Engineers, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Sain t Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Environment Canada, and U.S. Fish and Wildlif e 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.

22In addition, some transit ports in the GL SLSS specialize in transshipment, i.e., the transfer of goods from one waterbor ne carrier to another, or to another mode of transportation. Transshipment ports are equipped with specialize d, large storage facilitie s that are designed to receive goods from one size or type of vessel and load anothe r. 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 ag ricultural and industrial heartland arrive from western GLSLSS ports to these transit ports in S eaway-sized vessels, where they are off-loaded, combined with other shipments, and then load ed into much larger ocean-going bulk cargo and container ships for overseas shipment. Typically, th e Seaway-sized vessels then load iron ore for transport back to Great Lakes ports. From over seas, larger vessels carry containerized and general cargo to ports along the St. Lawrence, which is subseque ntly transshipped to road and rail. The Port of Montreal is a major center for transshipment of containe rized cargo to rail, as the port has excellent rail links to central Cana da and the American Midwest. The Port of Quebec transshipped 5 million–6 million metric t ons of cargo per year in 2001 and 2002. Smaller St. Lawrence ports, such as Baie-Comeau, Sept-Isle s, and Trois-Rivieres, transship grain from Seaway-sized ships to larger ocean-going bulk carriers.

Compared with other major freshwater port sy stems worldwide, the ports of the GLSLSS are situated far from open water (box 2). For exam ple, 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 O cean; and the Port of Toronto, Ontario in Lake

Ontario is 563 kilometers from the Atlantic Oc ean. In contrast, the worl d’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 invol ved 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 ar e by far the largest vessels on the Great Lakes, with some vessels over 300 meters in length. Th eir 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 ma rkets: iron ore and coal for domestic steel production, co al 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 Gr eat Lakes total approximately 6,000 vessels due to U.S. Coast Guard regulations restricting the ge ographic scope of inland barge traffic. These vessels, which enter the GLSLSS fr om the Illinois River at Chica go are prohibited from traveling northward beyond Milwaukee, WI and east beyond Muskegon, MI. A typical barge operating on the Mississippi and Illinois Ri ver systems measures 59 meters long and can carry just over 1,300 metric tons of cargo. The barges transport ma ny of the same bulk commodities carried by the larger laker and Salty fleets, incl uding grain, petroleum products, ch emicals, and coal. In general, grain is shipped from ports al ong the Upper Mississippi River a nd 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 ca rriers. 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 GLSL SS. 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-S uperior to ports along th e St. Lawrence River.

Seaway-sized transoceanic vessels (“Salties”) comprise approximately 220 vessels flagged in more than 30 countries. The vast major ity of vessels are bulk carriers, though there are also a small number of general cargo carriers, h eavy lift ships and tankers in service. With the exception of barges, Salties are by far the smalle st vessels operating on the lakes, with most vessels approximately 180 meters long. This smalle r 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” trad e pattern, whereby iron and steel, and other high value cargoes generally arrive from Europe, and ar e discharged in a series of lower lake ports.

24Vessels 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 m 3

-- 15,000 m 3 10,000 m 3

Ballast pump rate 4,500 m 3 /hour -- 1,000–2,000 m 3 /hour 1,000–2,000 m 3 /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 theref ore the primary focus of this report. Canadian and U.S. domestic fleets that operate exclusivel y within waters of the GLSLSS are considered insular and therefore a ready se condary vector for species spread about the GLSLSS. These fleets are described in Appendi x A of this report.

25Size and Types

The dimensions of the St. Lawrence Seaway lo cks 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 car riers. In contrast, a

Panamax bulk carrier measures 225 meters lo ng 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 fa r the largest vessels on the Great Lakes, with some vessels over 300 meters in lengt h. 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 stil l larger than the transoceanic vessels, and therefore are able to visit po rts throughout each of the five Gr eat 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

260 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 2002 2

Numbers

Each year an average of 220 distinct transo ceanic 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 tanke rs 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 tr amp 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 pe rcentage of the total pool of available vessels in service globally. A 2001 vessel fleet analys is conducted by Lloyd’s Maritime Information Services of London for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporat ion determined that 41,909 vessels, representing 69.7 percent of the worl d’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, a nd 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 th at 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.

27water 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 tankerPercentage of Transoceanic Fleet (%)

Fig. 8. Major types of transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 2

Table 3. World fleet currently capable of enteri ng 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

28Useful Life

Because these Seaway-sized transoceanic vessels operate mostly in a saltwater environment, their useful service life is approxi mately 25 years—significantly shorter than U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers, which ply primarily within the freshwater system. Most of the

transoceanic vessels curr ently entering the GLSLSS are at the end of thei r 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 buildNumber of vessels U.S. Lakers

Canadian Lakers

Transoceanic "salties"

Fig. 9. Comparative year of build of transocea nic Salty, Canadian laker, and U.S. laker vessel fleets that operated on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 2



### Cargoes

Cargoes are quantified in terms of tonnage a nd 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 frei ghters and tankers of the U.S. and Canadian laker fleets. These laker cargoes include coal, iron ore, limestone, and gr ain (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 st eel products discharged in lower-lake ports, and the outgoing cargo is grain taken on board in upper-lakes ports for deli very overseas (fig. 10). A significant portion of grain cargo, however, departs from the Port of Toledo in the lower

lakes.

29The iron and steel products ca rried by Salties generally arri ve 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 se veral lower-lakes ports as they travel farther west in the basin, taking on more and more ballast water each time th ey 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, Sa lty vessels also carry specia lty 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 ex ample, FedNav recently moved a shipment of windmills to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to be us ed in wind-power generation. Other examples include heavy machinery, such as imported mach ine 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. co mm.). A regular transit route has also recently opened up between ports in Germany and Finl and 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 a rriving 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 m illion metric tons, almost all of it imported, represented an increase from 2001, though tonnage has generally be en declining compared with past years (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp, 2003; fig. 12). Th e agricultural products float of almost 4.7 million metric tons also repres ented 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 ca rgoes 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).

30Fig. 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

YearTotal 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)

31Table. 4. Cargoes transported by transoceanic vessels to and from major ports in the Great Lakes in 2002 (source: ACOE, 2004)

320 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 me tric 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 2002 2

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

Erie in 2002 2

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

Huron in 2002 2

34Fig. 13d. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake Michigan in 2002 2

35Fig. 13e. Countries of origin and destination for cargoes transported to and from ports in Lake Superior in 2002 2

36

### Fiduciary Pieces

The financial network through which money flows to nourish Great Lakes maritime trade is even more complex than the system’s phys ical infrastructure. Fiduciary moving pieces populate the supply chain and the transportation services chai n that enable waterborne transportation on the GLSLSS. This section desc ribes 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 tran soceanic vessels to Great Lakes ports.



### The Supply Chain

The supply chain comprises entities that extrac t, alter, or otherwise own material from extraction/production of its raw fo rm through manufacturing proce sses to its consumption as a finished product. Supply chain en tities interact with transportation services to move materials from one production stage to the next. The financ ial decisions, implicit or explicit, made by members of a supply chain influence whethe r and how transportation will occur.

Supply chains involving waterborne transpor tation 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 im ports and exports derive from distinct industries—steel and grain, respectively—but the two industries share responsibility for tran sportation conditions associated with their cargoes; for reasons of economic efficiency, the sa me ships and the same voyages (albeit different legs) are used for their respective water borne shipment. It is doubtful that either industry would be sufficient to support waterbor ne 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 Lakesregion) processing. The story begins with the overseas entities exporting finished and semifinished steel to the GLSLSS port range. Import ed semi-finished steel may then be further processed to meet specifications of U.S. ma nufacturers. Between 199 7 and 2002, shippers in Europe were responsible for 74 percent of the st eel 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 ma nufacturers directly re sponsible 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 duri ng the 1997-2002 timeframe originated in Asia (Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, Japan, and South Kor ea) and South America (predominantly Brazil, with some from Venezuela and Argentina) at 15 percent and 8 percen t, respectively (ACOE, 2004). Major steel producers in South Amer ica include Arcelor and Gerdau SA.

The specific names of and volumes shippe d to specific receiving companies through GLSLSS ports are considered proprietary informa tion 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, Intern ational Steel Group, Inland Steel, and USX, Steel are likely receivers of these goods . Upon arrival in the lakes (usu ally Burns Harbor, Detroit,

37Cleveland, 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 finish ed manufactured goods. The most significant end

user of steel in the Great La kes region is the auto manufactur ing industry; others include appliance manufacturers and the construction indus try (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 oilseed s are purchased from Midwestern farmers by corporations like Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, CHS, Genera l Mills, AGP, and Louis-Dreyfuss, and moved via rail to grain elevators at Dulu th-Superior and Thunder Bay, or, to a lesser extent, Milwaukee and Toledo. The grain shippers then hire Salty vess els (empty of cargo having unloaded steel from their in-bound voyage) to move these grain car goes abroad. In some cases, shippers use Canadian laker vessels to transport grain firs t through the St. Lawrence Seaway to Quebec and other ports along the St. Lawrence River for transshipment. Se veral 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 anot her 27 percent of grain exports (ACOE, 2004). Countries within Europe receiv ing the goods included Italy, Be lgium, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, while Algeria, Moro cco 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.

38Box 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 Eur opean-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-goi ng 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 ma y undergo further processing, such as slicing, sizing, stamping, etc., at servic e centers in and around the port before being delivered to the final

manufacturer.

This is just one example of a supply chain fo r 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.

39Box 4: Grain Export Example

Before export, the supply chain associated wi th exports of grain and agricultural products from the Great Lakes is relatively simple. Grai n 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 a nd 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 tr ansportation service providers to move their goods. Transportation services re levant to the GLSLSS include vessel ownership, operation and maintenance, Seaway operation and maintenan ce, vessel pilotage, car go 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, i nvolving separate shipowners, charterers, and/or operators. A shipowner is the company legally r ecorded 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 sh ip charterer is the company res ponsible for the tr ansportation of cargo to and from a specified series of ports on a time-limited basis.

The transportation services chai n 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 co rporate entity. For example, Cargill formerly

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

However, the trend in transportation service ch ains, 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 a nd operated by the same company. This low rate is in part an artifact of shipowners setti ng up “dummy” companies in order to switch vessel registrations from traditional sh ipping nations to offshore registers (see discussion of “Flag States” below) to enjoy lower taxes, fees, wage scales, and regulations fo r vessels. However, it also reflects a global trend toward vessel char tering as shippers/rece ivers look to reduce overhead and liability, and maintain flexibility in constantly ch anging global trade markets.

Shipowners offer their vessels to cargo owners for charter. Th ere 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 specifie d dates, and for a certa in sum—either as so much per ton or a lump sum. The vessel owner remains responsible for the cost of runni ng 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 th e shipowner, with the two parties entering into a contractual arrangement. The charterer pays fo r the fuel and operational and port expenses, although capital and running expenses, for keep ing the ship in good condition, remain the responsibility of the owner.

41Bareboat 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 cont act 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 speci fic 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—d epending on supply and demand. Howe ver, 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-effectiv e carriers for a part icular shipment.

In contrast, bareboat charters are particularly useful if the shippe r/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 materi al supply contracts. Char ters of this type are generally agreed upon before the vessel is bu ilt. FedNav Ltd. is an example of a company involved in the long-term charter of a large prop ortion of its fleet operating on the Great Lakes.

Despite these dynamic owner-charterer-operato r relationships, a stable core group of companies operates vessels making one or more runs into the GLSL SS each shipping season. Table 5 lists the top 12 companies that operated tr ansoceanic 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 privat e. In particular, the smaller ports around the Great Lakes are often owned and operated by the private entitie s shipping cargo. For example, a steel mill or mining operation might have its own port. Thes e private ports proce ss 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, fe wer in number than private ports, are owned and managed by public agencies.

42Table 5. Top 12 companies that operated over seas-flagged transoceanic vessels that entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system in 2002 2

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 processed 2

43Fig. 15. Map of public ports in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system and types of cargoes processed 2

Public Port Authority Organizations Models

There are a number of models for the or ganization and operation of public port authorities in the Great Lakes, and these tend to mirror the mode ls throughout the rest of North

America. 3 Some ports in the Great Lakes are ow ned and operated by government entities, including state, county, and m unicipal governments. For exampl e, the port of Milwaukee is municipally run, the port of Green Bay is owne d and operated at the county level, and Burns Harbor (as well as Indiana’s non-Great La kes ports) is state owned and operated.

The more common model, however, is for a p ublic 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. St ate 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 au thorities are governed by a board of directors, with state, county, and municipal government s appointing a predetermined number of the board members.

2 Three Great Lakes ports operate under State control (Indiana Po rts, Ogdensburg, and Oswego); five under City control (Monroe, Ashtabula, Lorain, Milwaukee, and Superior); and one under County control (G reen Bay). The remaining ports operate under Port Authorities or Port Districts that are partnerships between some combination of Stat e, County, and City Government: three by State/City authority ( Chicago, Waukegan, and Erie), two by State/City/Count y authority (Detroit-Wayne and Duluth), and two by City/County authority (Cleveland -Cuyahoga and Toledo-Lucas).

44Box 5 provides an example, detailing the organiza tion, authority, and governance of the Port of

Cleveland.

Canada’s major public ports were commercia lized in 1998 under the Canada Marine Act. This law designated the 14 most significant Canadi an ports as Canada Port Authorities (CPAs). These self-sufficient port authoriti es receive no federal appropria tions, deriving all revenue from maritime operations. In addition, they are no longer controlled a nd operated directly by the federal government. Despite these recent changes, Canadian ports remain public institutions. The major CPAs are governed by boards of directors si milar to those of their U.S. counterparts, appointed by and representing fe deral, 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, pr ovincial, 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 ab ility to supply funding. The funding revenues may vary by port authorit y, but they generally are provided by tax revenues, bonds, and income from industry-related activi ties. 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 financin g 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 high light their competitive advantage. Toledo and Cleveland Ports recognized St. Paul’s success and sought similar financing mechanisms for nontraditional developments outside of their ro le of shipping operations . Today, ports throughout

Ohio and other Great Lake states look to Clev eland and Toledo as successful operations in providing financing alternatives for communitie s. To better understand how the ports obtained this power, a review of the st atutory authorities is required.

Types of Port Financing

Most port authorities establish their own set of financing tool s through a separate division of a development office within the authority’s or ganizational structure. The financing incentives

are the low interests and fee structures these t ools provide. This structure provides a competitive advantage over traditional deve loper/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 th e Port Authority Bond Reserve Fund Program to “provide eligible Port Authorities fina ncial assistance for economic activities.”

45Box 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 Cuyaho ga 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 St ates 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-Cuya hoga County Port Authority is to assist private industry in retaining and creatin g jobs by providing waterborne cargo transportation/services and by providing econom ic development facilitation through financing services and other development tools in partnersh ip 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 th at positively impact t he area’s competitiveness. The Development Finance Group provides suppor t to the community’s private industry through financing vehicles that enhance t he competitiveness of the area.

Governance – The Port Authority is governed by a ni ne-member Board of Directors. Three of these directors are appointed by the Cuya hoga County Commissioners. The remaining six directors are appointed by the Mayo r of Cleveland, with the appr oval 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.

46Port Bonding Authorities

Some of the major public port authoritie s have bonding authority and have made significant investments in waterfront redevelopmen t. 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 proj ects 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, mainta in, repair, sell, exchange, lease to or from, lease with an option to purchase, convey other intere sts in, or operate real or personal property, or any combination ther eof, related to, useful for, or in furtherance of any authori zed 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 co mmon carrier in the jurisdiction of the particular port authority; (2) Issue bonds or notes fo r the acquisition, construction, furnishing, or equipping of any real or personal property, or any combin ation 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 tw o per cent of the total value of all property within the te rritory 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 fi nanced a variety of development projects throughout and outside of their ju risdictions. These include such large projects as the world headquarters for Owens-Corning Fiberglass in To ledo and Applied Industrial Technologies in

Cleveland. In addition to these industrial invest ments, recently the ports have financed retail development investments—even though they are c onsidered riskier. Exam ples include financing $230 million for a mixed-use development in suburban Westlake, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; $14 million for a retail parking garage in Universi ty Heights (a Cleveland suburb); and $39 million for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, a cultural/entertainment facility.

47Marine Terminals

The ports in the Great Lakes are consider ed “landlord” or nonope rating ports, which means they do not directly employ labor to load and unload vessels. Rath er, the ports contract with marine terminals to handle cargo loading and unloading. In addition, marine terminals can be responsible for locating a vesse l to carry cargo for a customer.

Marine terminals lease space from and pay wh arfage 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 te rminal’s operating costs, such as rent and wharfage.

Labor

The Great Lakes region relies heavily on th e 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 Asso ciates, 2001). Of the direct jobs created, 5,422 (12.3 percent)

were associated with the movement of steel an d 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, a nd 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 Associat es (2001) also reports that GLSLSS shipping provided $1.6 billion in direct income, and $2.7 bill ion 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 direc tly provide employment in the maritime services sector, comprising cargo handling and transportation, ve ssel operations, and government agencies (39 percent of direct jobs); the shi pping/consignee sector, comprising the manufacturing plants that depend on the cargoes shipped using the GLSLSS (32 percent of direct jobs); the transportation sector, including rail road and trucking industries (28 percent of direct jobs); and the port sector, including port auth orities and associated organizati ons (1 percent of direct jobs) (Martin Associates, 2001).

Virtually all of this labor is unionized. Prim ary labor organizations representing workers

from these sectors in the Great Lakes for the U.S. flag lakers are the American Maritime Officers; International Organiza tion 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 Inte rnational Longshorem en’s Association;

Seaway Development Authorities

The U.S. and Canadian federal government s have authorized or ganizations to help manage GLSLSS maritime activity on their respective sides of the national frontier. The Canadian government established the St. Lawr ence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC)

3 All monetary comparisons are in nominal dollars.

48as a nonprofit organization in 1998 to bring commer cial management concepts to St. Lawrence Seaway operations. Seaway users and other stak eholders finance and run the organization under contract to the Canadian government, which re tains ownership. The SLSMC requires every ship entering, passing through, or leavin g the Seaway to pay a toll asse ssed against th e ship, its cargo, and its passengers for a complete or partial tran sit of the Seaway, coveri ng a single trip in one direction. The cargo-relate d 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 ba llast condition of the vessel. Lockage charges apply only to the Welland Canal. Table 6 provides an overview of the car go 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 admi nistration 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 a nd 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 en sure that the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway—including the two U.S. locks—are availa ble 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 divide d 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 typi cal 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 re lated to the day to da y running of the vessel. These include crew and manning; insurance and cl assification; repairs a nd 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 aggregat e. 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-bi ggest cost factor is insurance and classification. However, as with crew and manning, and repairs and maintena nce, 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, incl uding the cost of fuel, port charges, pilotage fees, car go 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 appr oximately 50 percent of the total. Port-related charges represent another major component and in clude 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 due s 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 char ges are generally charged to the shipowner. The charterer, in turn, usually pays all charge s specific to the cargo, as well as canal and toll dues, though in some situations the shipper/receiver pays for car go 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 th e various fees and tolls a Salty vessel carrying cargo to a Great Lakes port would be subject to.

50Fig. 16. General representation of the flow of funds associated with maritime transportation in the

Great Lakes.

51Box 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 l oaded 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 sect ion 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 sp ace at the port, and a wharfage fee to unload its cargo. While the total of these tolls and charges will va ry 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 enteri ng 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 ma ritime industry regulating authorities. Some of the regulating authorities have overlapping geogr aphic 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 ju risdiction. The potential for inefficiency related to overlap and conflict inspires energetic industry efforts, th rough the International Maritime Organization (IMO), to coordinate regulation and standa rds related to aspe cts 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 cl assification societies) do for purposes of assuring safe vessel operation and complying with government regul ators to safeguard investments by ships’

underwriters. This section identifie s 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 mu st 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 st ates bear primary responsibility for governing all aspects of ocean space, including delimitation, environmental contro l, 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 k eeping with those agreements. So me states have more onerous requirements than others. The U.S. flag requirem ents are some of the world’s most stringent. Flag state requirements may govern operational, stru ctural, and financial circumstances, such as taxation rates, fees, crew nationality, workin g 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 compet itive nature of the globa l 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 mo st expensive to fly and the least frequently encountered, except on ships that seek access to s ubsidies and markets exclusively reserved by Congress for U.S. flag vessels. Flag “shopping” ha s resulted in large numb ers of registrations with nations that offer the least stringent regist ration requirements. Among flag states, there is a competitive advantage to offering inexpensive appr oaches to meeting floor requirements and not exceeding them. The result is a wide variation in how internationally established safety and

environmental standards are reali zed and enforced among the scores of registries worldwide. In fact, some flag states are accused of merely pa ying lip service to mandatory requirements, such

as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, th e International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and th e 1978 Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping fo r Seafarers. Worldwide, near ly 30 countries—including Barbados, Bermuda, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Liberia, Malta, and Panama—have been identified as

53“flags of convenience” by the Fair Practices Co mmittee of the International Transport Workers’

Federation.

Salties visiting the GLSLSS fly flags of mo re 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 Sa lties 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 stat e control is a powerful li ne of defense against substandard flag state enforcement of internationally agreed shipping standards, particularly in the interest of vessel safety a nd environmental protection. It is also a way for countries to stipulate requirements that exc eed the international c onventions. 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 Un ited 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 ba llast water management, and the Na tional Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) reauthorized these requirements and also estab lished a regulatory national ballast

water management program.

Seaway Development Authorities

The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp oration’s Seaway Practices and Procedures,

established under Section 99 of the Canada Ma rine 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 La ke Erie. Every ship en tering 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 spee d while navigating around the port, and required safety procedures and safety equipment are typica lly included. Port regulations also establish the fees for berth space, wharfage, and support servic es that vessels must pay. Ports also have authority over environmental regulation, such as provisions regulating or prohibiting the discharge of oil into port waters.

540 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 2002 2

55States/Provinces

States and provinces have authority to regulat e 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 addr ess both operational and environmental concerns. Typically, state enviro nmental regulation derives from the power to preserve and protect the stat e’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 sa nitation devices (in 15 coastal and Great Lakes states) and regulating ballast water discharges (in Calif ornia, Oregon, Michigan, and Washington). A Washington law requiring oil spil l prevention and response measures illustrates a conflict with federal authority; these regulations were challeng ed by an international tanker trade organization in 1995, and in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court inva lidated much of Wash ington’s law on the grounds that it was preempted by the federal Oil Pollution Ac t of 1990 (Washi ngton Attorney General’s Office, 2000). However, this ruling a ffirmed a state’s right to regulate discharge quality and, indirectly, the management pr actices 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-regu lating 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 cer tification 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. Shoul d any defects that may affect class become apparent, or damage be sustained between the re levant surveys, the shipowner and/or operator must inform the society concerned without delay.

The role of classification and classifica tion 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, fl ag state, port state, underwriter, shipping financier, and charterer.

Classification rules are develope d to contribute to the structur al strength and integrity of essential parts of the ship’s hull and its appe ndages, and the reliability and function of the propulsion and steering systems, pow er 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 contribut e to the ongoing development of appropriate,

advanced technical standards.

More than 50 organizations worldwide defi ne their activities as providing marine classification. Ten of those organizations form th e International Associa tion of Classification Societies (IACS): the American Bureau of Sh ipping, Bureau Veritas, China Classification

56Society, Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer Lloyd, Korean Register of Shipping, Lloyd’s Register, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Regi stro Italiana Navale, and Ru ssian 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 involv ed in international trade worldwide, and about 95 percent of commercial tonnage involved in international trad e 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 system 2



### 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 range s; and inertia.



### Global Change

The globalization of the world economic a nd financial system means major economic trends and events anywhere in the world could influe nce commercial transportation activity on

the GLSLSS.

57Catastrophic 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 Ne w 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 couldhave been increased movement and/or storage of grain at Great Lakes ports, such as DuluthSuperior (Passi, 2005). However, Cargill, the natio n’s largest grain exporter, has indicated that their best option may be to accept decreased e xports for a short while and remain unchanged until the Gulf Ports reopen (K night Ridder News, 2005). For impor ted cargo, vessels originally

destined for New Orleans could be diverted th rough 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 th e rail system running at ca pacity, high fuel costs that make road transport unattractive, and lim ited 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 Po rt 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 Mariti me Transportation Security Act (AAPA, 2004).

Some federal assistance is availa ble through port security grants, but the ports will bear most of this cost and likely seek to recoup th ese expenses from their customers.

Economic Trends

Currently, intense development activity in China is consuming raw material and waterborne transportation capacity globally, crea ting 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 ve rsus 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 co mponents destined for the Midwest and refinery components destined for tar sand plants in Ca nada, 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 tr ade patterns, whether th ey are raised by the United States or abroad. Affected parties consider some barriers fair and others discriminatory. The World Trade Organization craf ts agreements and houses mechan isms to thwart arbitrary or

unfair barriers. Trade barriers that have affect ed maritime commerce into or out of the Great

58Lakes include U.S. steel tariffs and European Un ion stipulations regardi ng genetically modified

crops.

One trade barrier that affects maritime comme rce into or out of the Great Lakes is the onset and removal U.S. steel tariffs. In 2002, Pr esident Bush imposed a tax on certain steel imports to help level prices of domestic pr oducts and often-cheaper foreign products, and provide relief to local steel companies. This barrie r had little initial effect on Great Lakes trade, despite the importance of steel importation to that trade, because it exempt ed the steel moved by carriers into the lakes. However, following a 2003 World Trade Organizat ion decision that the tariffs violate international trade rules, th ey 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 result ed in more steel bei ng 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 m odified 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 Eur opean Union sought to block entry of U.S. genetically modified crops. A number of countries, and most recently the European Union, have introduced mandatory labe ling programs for grain and oilseeds processed directly for human consumption. This has resu lted 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 a dditional resources to separate nongenetically modified crops from genetically modified cr ops, labeling both products before shipping, and marketing and finding customers fo r genetically modified crops.

Conglomeration

In the shipping indus try and many other industries worldw ide, 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 enable d companies to play a role in more aspects of the supply chain, from port term inals operations to nonmaritime tr ansportation 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 consolida tion of highly skilled management and “one-stop shopping” fo r global transportation services.

59In addition, many companies are reducing the number of vendors and suppliers with whom they work. For example, Proctor and Gamb le, a major international producer of personal and home-care products, now relies on only a ha ndful of ocean carriers worldwide. Such

decisions result in carriers call ing at fewer ports, while serving others through transshipment of

overland connections.

Competition with Alternative Tr ansportation 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 transpor tation 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 ba rge shipping to Gulf ports fo r 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 contribu tes advantages to competing modes of transportation. Meanwhile, proximity to producers and markets, lower costs, and ability to move large objects (like windmill com ponents) advantage the GL SLSS. According to a recent study, it would cost shi ppers and receivers of goods to and from the Great Lakes $55 million more per year to move cargo by alternate m eans 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). Mari time industry advocates re fute 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 (Canadia n Wheat Board, 2004). At one time, the majority of Canada’s grain grown in the prairies of west ern 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, fr om 10 million to 12 million metric tons before

1995 to 5 million to 7 million metric tons af ter 1995 (Thunder Bay Port Authority, 2005). In recent years, less Canadian grain has passe d through the GLSLSS than the port of Vancouver alone, with a 2000-2004 average of 6.1 million metr ic tons traveling on the Seaway and an average of 9.0 million metric tons shippe d through Vancouver (St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., 2004; Vancouver Port Author ity, 2004). Prince Rupe rt, Canada’s other major West Coast port, typically exports 2 million to 4 million metric tons yearly (Prince Rupert Port Authority, 2001). A significantly sma ller 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 Pacifi c 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 th e same year grain shipped down the Mississippi

60River 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 La kes, 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 th e 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 preci sion steel goods. It is estimated that rail rates for grain would be 15 cents to 30 cents/bushel higher in the abse nce of the GLSLSS alternative (Martin Associates, 2001). This observation is co rroborated 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 si gnificant economic shift within the Great Lakes region and nationally fro m manufacturing toward the high-tech and service sectors, including

outdoor recreation. The decline of smokestack industry in the Gr eat Lakes region to these less “place-based” industries has mean t a shift of income and employ ment growth away from portbased shipping-related economies. Accordingly, in some parts of the re gion, residents place a high value on a healthy natural environment wher e they can enjoy outdoor recreation and second

homes. In the context of this shift in indus trial culture and public values, Great Lakes port administrations are under pressure to improve th e 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 r ecession, and has been increasing modestly since then. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pr edicts future growth of 0.7 percent annually in

the absence of GLSLSS im provements (ACOE, 2003).



### Inertia

Established business relationships and trade routes moderate the timing and extent to which global events (economic or climatic) ultimately affect wa terborne trade in the GLSLSS. Some shipments may be influenced more by th e internal business decisions of multinational corporations than by ordinary comparative advant age. For example, patte rns of steel shipments

into and out of Cleveland seem to reflect this influence. Trade that is driven by the internal concerns of a particular multinat ional corporation may be relatively insensitive to shipping costs.

Logistical inertia is a major driver of tr ansportation 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 a ssociated with making changes, and the cost savings may be short lived. A recent survey that assessed the criteria shippers use to select transportation providers

61found that while pricing was the most importa nt factor, other factors such as on-time performance, customer service, document quality and accuracy, and shipment tracking were also considerations. Furthermore, 62 per cent of the shippers surveyed indicated they were reluctant to switch transportation providers ba sed 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 biologi cal pollution occurs as a consequence of ship movements between disparate ecosystems. Tech nically, ship-mediated biological pollution can include terrestrial organisms, in particular forest and crop pests th at 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 hul ls, 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 sh ips entering the GLSLSS from overseas are considered the primary mode by which ships tr ansfer 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 o ccur 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 matc hed 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 pump s, 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 em pty of cargo to upper la kes ports to load grain. Subsequent ballast discharge occurs in the upper lake ports wher e grain cargoes are loaded (fig. 10).

63Ballast water storage capacities and flow rates differ among various types of vessel. Seaway-sized bulk carriers have a ballast capa city of around 10,000 cubic meters and pump rate of 600 cubic meters per hour; Seaw ay-sized tankers have a ballast capacity of 5,000 cubic meters and pump rate of 300 cubic meters per hour; a nd Seaway-sized general cargo carriers have a ballast capacity of around 8,000 c ubic meters and pump rate of 900 cubic meters per hour. These volumes and pump rates are less than other tran soceanic 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 ofSalty 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 lake r fleets (table 1).

Table 8. Comparison of ballast capacity and ballast pump rate across major vessel types

Ship Type Ballast Capacity (m 3 ) Ballast Pump Rate (m 3 /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 ba llast lines in the ballast tanks to avoid clogging that makes some amount of water unpumpable us ing 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 cubi c meters per Seaway-sized tr ansoceanic vessel (Johengen et al

., 2005). To reduce cost of displaced cargo capacit y 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 th an heavier sediment (George Robichon, pers. comm.). Ships carrying extremely high-value car goes may be equipped w ith a “stripper pump” system to remove water residuals as well (George Robichon, pers. comm.). When the cargo value is lower, the residuals are simply tran sported 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

64and off-load additional cargo (and ballast water). During these short voyages, the residual, unpumpable ballast water from overseas ports mi xes 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 am bient 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, mollus can, 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).

65The numbers of individuals in these taxonomic groups in ballast tanks varies too, and can be high. An examination of vessels trave ling 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 wa ter. In 2003, the Intern ational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) conducted a revi ew of worldwide ballast water studies to determine the range of organism concentrations observed in ships’ ballast water. Zooplankton concentrations in these studies ranged from 0–17 2,000 individuals per cubic meter, with a mean concentration of 464 organisms per cubic me ter. In the same studies, phytoplankton concentrations ranged from 1,000–4.9 x 10 10 per cubic meter, with a mean concentration of 2.9 x

10 8 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 ba cteria concentrati ons between 2.4 x 10 11 and 1.9 x 10 12 cells per cubic meter, with a mean concentration of 8.3 x 10 11 cells per cubic meter, and virus-like particle (VLP) concentrations between 6 x 10 11 and 14.9 x 10 12 particles per cubic meter, with a

mean concentration of 7.4 x 10 12 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 orga nisms and human pathogens also have been

detected in ballast water residuals of transoce anic 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 declar ing 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 dinoflagella te and diatom species, copepods, rotifers, cladocerans, and nematodes—many of which are nonindigenous to the Great Lakes. Other organisms—such as mites, ostracods, barnac le larvae, chironomids, hydrozoans, gastropods, bivalves, amphibods, crab, and shrimp—were found in lesser quantities. Fu rthermore, MacIsaac

et al . (2002) estimated that residual water carri ed by these vessels could contain up to 10 5
zooplankton per cubic meter. An examination of ballast sediments aboard vessels entering the Great Lakes by Bailey et al . (2003) found highly variable de nsities of copepod eggs, but estimated that each vessel could discharge between 5.3 x 10 5 and 8.6 x 10 8 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.

66A Note on Hulls, Anchor Chains and Sea Chests

Though ballast water is considered the dominan t 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, bi valves, 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 fou ling is a risk to all ports that a vessel visits i rrespective of a cargo condition.

In the Great Lakes, hull fouling is not considered a significa nt vector for new

introductions from overseas because most freshwat er fouling organisms w ould likely not survive prolonged exposure to highly saline (i.e., 30 ppt) oceanic water during transoceanic voyages. The vector may nonetheless be responsi ble for the subsequent spread of already intr oduced fouling species throughout the lakes by U.S. and Canadian laker vessels, particular ly 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, a nd 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 th e zebra mussel—are able to tole rate at least some level of salinity.



### The State of the Art of Prevention

Both prevention policy and pr evention technology related to ship-mediated biological pollution are in developmental stages. The abse nce of a regulatory st andard and near-term implementation dates has stalled more active de velopment 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 reso lve questions of standards and timeframe. This section summarizes key polic y and technology questions for preventing shipmediated transfers of aquatic inva sive species into the GLSLSS.



### Prevention Policy

Fundamental policy questions remain unanswere d 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 w ill likely be a set of goals and contingencies should the goals be unachievable. The fundamental policy questions include:

67How Clean is Clean?

Our society rarely precisely defines the word “prevention”: is it re duction 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 th e discharge rate (propagule pressure) associated wi th 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-med iated transfers of species beyond their range would attenuate ship-mediated spec ies invasions. There is no agreement, and no direct evidence, to support a prot ective performance standard that exceeds zero. In the absence of this information, policymakers latc h their proposed solutio ns to logic associated with one of at least two interacting school s of thought. These include:

• “Less is more” and “lea st possible is best”: This theory holds that risk to the environment may be directly related to inocul ation pressure, such that less inoculation pressure is likely to increase envir onmental 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 organi sms 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 ac tion level threshold are likely not worth the

trouble.

It is not clear whether or to what degree either theory re flects 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 (con tinuous or threshold-lik e) associated with carcinogens. The same issue also led to Gr eat 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 represen tation of virtual elimination is zero or some higher value. In the end, it is a matter of so cietal 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 journe y to absolutely preven t incidental organism transfers. Likewise, a shore-base d facility would have to immers e 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 gravitat e to the prospect of curtailing waterborne

68transportation into the GLSLSS from overseas ge nerally. Taylor and Roach (2005) conducted an economic analysis that found that curtailing saltwat er shipping into the Great Lakes would not be more expensive than sustaining further ship-m ediated invasions. Under this scenario, goods shipped by waterborne transportation and des tined 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 require ments. However, this high value on absolute prevention would have to exist in the context of continued in troduction (and consequent overland migration) or ship-mediated organisms to othe r 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 with out 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 co nstraints (such as space and power requirements) in shore applications. The hope is that resolving th e technological problems in this way will make greater prevention effectiv eness feasible sooner. As fixed entities, land-based treatment systems would also be easier to monitor usi ng 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 quick er 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 effectiv ely operated, which implies substantia l start-up time a nd effort. Finally, even if shore-based treatment could be organi zed rapidly, from a bi ological standpoint, the investment would be in a piecemeal treatmen t strategy, which given invasive organisms propensity to spread, does not spell effectiven ess for any ecosystem. The few locations where motivated and resourceful operators might effectively undertake shore-ba sed ballast treatment would not be adequate to staunch new source regi ons for pest species, and only a subset of these locations might actually choose to do so. Unde r these circumstances, eventually organisms would move over land, often quite rapidly, to pr otected ecosystems, negating the value of the

investment in shore-based treatment.

69In light of these realities, shore-based treatm ent 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 Lake s Regional Collaboration St rategy document (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, 2005). In additi on, the Australian Ballast Water Treatment Consortium (ABWTC)—a team of researchers based at James C ook University and a consortium of Australian government and indu stry partners—has developed a pi lot plant to sterilize ballast water. Housed in a portable, 20-foot-long shipping container, the plant uses filtration, UV irradiation, chlorine dioxide inj ection, and a high-speed sonic/shea r 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 beco ming 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 speci es are limited, any investment in shore-based solutions—even as short-term or fallback op tions—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 invasi ons into the Great Lakes, a nother important policy question emerges: How can governments exploit market fo rces to catalyze and accelerate research and development of effective treatment systems? A market analysis commissioned by the NortheastMidwest Institute estimated that the ballast tr eatment system market could exceed $1 billion following ratification of the IMO treaty (Roya l Haskoning, 2001). Current policy would appear a perfect recipe for delay. Though treatment has been heralded as the “lo ng-term” solution to the problem since at least 1990, uncer tainty over the performance re quirement 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 “envi ronmentally protective standard”.

• A benchmark for ensuring that an alternat ive treatment performance exceeds that of

BWE.

Presumably, the benchmark for exceeding BWE performance is lower than the environmentally protective benchmark. The questio n is how to stimulate the development of treatment systems that perform as close to the environmentally protectiv e standard as possible— as soon as possible—without le gislating the impossible.

Policy options under discussion include:

70• Option 1: Set a treatment standard based sole ly 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, us e 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 av ailable 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 forw ard. 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 availa ble that meet the ultimate, environmentally protective, discharge standard (though there is also a na rrative 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 th ese deadlines are subject to ch ange depending upon availability

of suitable treatments. If no cost-effective treatments are deemed available, this approach means protracted use of BWE practices, which are know n to be inadequate for protecting the Great

Lakes. The distant and uncertain nature of th e 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 ma y 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 de adlines for imposing it, and assess all policy options three years before the deadline.

This approach essentially sets a treatment st andard and a tentative deadline as a goal for treatment developers, but defers th e decision of what to do if no tr eatments are available by three years before the deadline. Meanwhile, BWE is th e 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 w ould provide little predicta bility 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 th at allows the transportation/manufacturing industry to respond in whatever wa y it finds most efficient. Opti ons include one or more of the following:

• Develop and use highly effective on-boa rd treatment systems; shore-based treatments at a choke point in the GLSLSS; or backup port-based treatment systems that effectively render Salty sh ip operations in the GLSLSS risk-free.

• Use a cargo-transfer facility to move cargoe s from Salty to captive laker fleets.

71• Shift transportation modes to trai n or truck from saltwater ports.

• Relocate receiving industry to salt water coastal port ranges.

In terms of costs, this approach reflects a gamble. It could truncate an unnecessarily protracted research and development effort and de liver truly protective treat ment most efficiently

because it attenuates the costs of nonindigenous aquatic invasive species in the GLSLSS most rapidly, and would set up a healthy competiti on 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 wrangl ing, the significant adaptations of current trade patterns listed above, and/or continued nonindigenous a quatic invasive species introductions while the best appr oach is being determined.

This option would require binational cooperati on 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 performan ce floor over time as treatments improve

until standard is met.

This alternative, embodied in the National Aquatic Inva sive Species Act (S. 770), manages the problem of uncertain treatment te chnology development by requiring ships to use best treatments available pending the developm ent 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 availa ble, and as treatments improve, the less effective options will be dropped from the list of approved alternatives until the st andard is met. Ships have a guaranteed approval period for any “best option” treatment system s 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 conti nued risk of nonindigenous aquatic invasive species until the perfect treatment systems develop, but im mediate improvements in prevention are all but guaranteed. It is likely that the be st-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 (highe r volume exchanges) and greater accountability, as well as management of hulls and other sh ip 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 be st target regulations to achieve the best performance. Australia, in partic ular, has actively developed a ri sk assessment tool to target

72regulations on high-risk voyages. Some of this discussion stems from a resource-stakeholder interest in reducing political opposition to mean ingful regulation, and some has been motivated by industry interest in reducing the economic im pacts of regulation. The resulting proposals use risk assessment and other modeling exercises to predict the highest-ri sk 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 ha ve characteristics c onducive to invasive behavior, in a particular a receiv ing system like the Great Lakes.

Each of these approaches remains theoretica l and controversial. The problem is not only identifying voyages associated with a known high risk of invasion poten tial, but ascertaining whether the risk of other voyages is actually lo w or just unknown. Moreove r, 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. Recen t 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–Lak e 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 disc harge roughly corre spond to these invasion hot spots. Four of the basin’s significant ports—Cl eveland, Detroit, Duluth-Superi or, and Toledo—are in or around discharge areas. However, though southern Lake Mi chigan, with the ports of Chicago and Burns Harbor, is another major area where ocean-going ve ssels 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. C onversely, the Lake Superior–Lake Huron and Lake Erie–Lake Ontario hot spots are ge nerally not near the basin’s busie r ports, but it is possible that ships discharge ballast water to reduce draft be fore entering these shallow passages (Carlton et
al ., 1995).

73Fig. 20. Great Lakes map showing invasion hot s pots, based on number of first sightings of presumed ballast-mediated invaders, including examples (source: Grigorovich et al

., 2003a)

The conditions within the recei ving system also may affe ct vulnerability to invasion. Despite the hot spot near Du luth–Superior, Lake Superior overall had a small number of invasions, especially considering that this lake rece ives a disproportionate ly large amount of ballast discharge from Salty ve ssels that initially enter the lakes decl aring NOBOB. Since 1959, only eight species new to the Great Lakes were init ially 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’ physio logical 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 ar eas and invasion hot spots is weak enough that it cannot justify geographically targeting regulatory activity. Moreover, intensified restrictions at invasion hot spots in the la kes could have the effect of simply shifting commercial shipping activity—i nvasion 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 seriou s 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 pr actices and treatment systems. Some of the prospective methods and their developm ent status are outlined below.

Ballast Water Management

Ballast water management can take the form of management practi ces, treatment systems to alter the quality of ballast di scharge, 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. BW E 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. Th e theory behind the practice of BW E 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 ar e 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 defi nes open ocean as “water beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.” Similarly, the In ternational Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sedime nts defines it as water “at least 200 nautical

miles from the nearest land and at least 200 meters in depth.” In contra st, Australia’s ballast water requirements define open ocean as “outsi de the Australian 12-nautical-mile limit.”

There are two forms of BWE: flow-through an d empty refill (fig. 21). Ships undertaking flow-through exchange gradually flush water th rough full ballast tanks. Empty refill involves discharging the ballast water completely and th en 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 zooplan kton 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 (NIS A) and International Convention for the Cont rol and Management of Ships’ Ballast Wat er and

Sediments

75Fig. 21. The two forms of ballast water exchan ge: 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 fille d with coastal water is completely flushed

and refilled with ocean water.

Both BWE methods likely offer some preventi on capabilities, but are encumbered with limitations such as the following:

• Vessels in the NOBOB (unballasted) conditi on cannot conduct complete exchange of their ballast water and thereby purge residuals due to load limits.

• Industry representatives claim th at some ships are not struct urally designed to safely carry out BWE in the open-ocea n, 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 sali nity 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).

76Ballast Water Treatment (BWT)

There is global demand for ballast water mana gement 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 a nd evaluate alternative ballast water management options. The seminal i nventory of prospective treatment methods was published in 1996 (National Research Council, 1996). The need for a tr ansition to BWT is particularly acute in the Great Lakes region becaus e some 85 percent of ship visits occur in the unballasted condition, precluding BW E but nonetheless presenting a ri sk to the receiving system. Some of the first empirical work to test pros pective BWT took place in the Great Lakes region through the Great Lakes Ballast Technol ogy Development Project (see below).

The technological challenges associated with effective BWT are significant and the suitability of treatment options depends on many cr ucial considerations, in cluding the biological

effectiveness across the entire array of ambient aquatic orga nisms found in ports globally; operational and maintenance concer ns 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 separatin g 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 tr eat water during ballast intake a nd/or discharge, or en route. Systems also can be used alone or in combinati on with other treatment options. The majority of proposed treatment options are derived from t echnologies 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 operationa lly 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 mi crzooplankton 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 cleanin g mechanisms. In addition, the process does not generate any chemical or thermal residue. Howeve r, because flow rate constraints may limit a filter’s capacity to eliminate smaller organisms from the ballast water, filtr ation will need to be combined with a secondary te chnology, such as UV irradiati on, 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

77RNA. UV can be used on both ballast intake a nd 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 depr iving them of oxygen. Treatment concepts include purging oxygen from ballast wate r 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 organi sms—and having anticorrosion qualities. Disadvantages of this treatment technology may incl ude its inability to kill certain species such as cysts, spores, and anaerobic bact eria that can survive without oxygen.

Cyclonic Separators: Cyclonic separators use centrifugal forces to separate particles with specific gravity greater than water from the ba llast flow. In theory, the technology is simple— with no moving parts, environmentally sound, a nd 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). Pi lot-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 us ed 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 liqui d 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. Hy drodynamic 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 fo r bacteria and algae. Compounds incl ude ammonium compounds, aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals and their salts, whic h treat by destroying ce llular structures and metabolic processes. In theory, these biocides co uld be added to ballast water during intake and

used to treat ballast water en r oute. However, certain environmen tal 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 t oxic 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 con cern include the movement of wa ter inside the ballast tank, the

78limitation 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 ge neration by ferromagnetic or electromagnetic systems of a magnetic field of specified flux. This technology has been

demonstrated to control zebra mussels and ma y have wider application for ballast water treatment. However, the biological and chemi cal effects of magnetic systems are not well understood, nor are the effectiveness of magnetic tr eatments on board operati ng ships, especially

in saltwater situations. A great deal more research is ne eded on the biological and chemical effects of magnetic systems, and the effectiv eness of magnetic treatment on board operating ships—especially in saltwater.

Oxidizing Biocides: Oxidizing biocides, such as chlo rine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and bromine, tr eat by destroying cellular structur es 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 chem ical concentrations, hi gh 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 a nd/or kill the types of organisms contained in

ballast water. Pulsed electric fields involve the transfer of an el ectric pulse between two electrodes. High-energy pulses form an arc acro ss 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 suitabili ty 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 ca n 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 ba llast water en route in this form is advantageous because organisms entr ained within sediments also are treated, and possibly at higher temperatures. There also is the opportunity fo r recirculation of the ballast water. However, the process may not be applicab le to short, domestic voya ges or appropriate in temperate regions because of high heat loss to the ocean.

Ultrasonic Treatment: Ultrasonic treatment uses in-l ine 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 st resses that disrupt cells or

cause cavitation. The overall eff ectiveness of the technology is influenced by many factors including frequency, water temperature, and con centration of dissolved matter. A great deal more research and development is needed to ascert ain the suitability of th is technology to ballast water treatment, particularly in re lation to crew health and safety and the technology’s impact on a ship’s structural integrity.

79Design Innovations: Another “technology” th at could reduce ballas t-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 otherw ise improve the extent to whic h organisms can be flushed or removed before or during a voyage. Ideas incl ude 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 eliminat e the transport of ballast-mediated aquatic organisms (Kotinis et al. , 2004; van Dyck, 2005). The ballast-fr ee ship concept involves a shift in paradigm that approaches ballast-water opera tion as the reduction of b uoyancy, 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 structur al ballast trunks that surround the cargo hold below the ba llast draft. These trunks are c onnected 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 ot her 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 Demonstratio n 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 tr eatment 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 FilterS ep 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 sepa rator. In 2003, Aquionics partnered with Hyde Marine, to install it’s In-Line UV syst em 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 thous ands 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 bo ard 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 ba llast water as it is pumped on board. A full-scale prototype system for a 30,000 DWT ve ssel 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 e xpected 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 di oxide in treating balla st water. Though the practical application of the system still needs to be verified in a large scale effort, the system is estimated to cost approximat ely $3 million, including parts and materials, labor, installation and maintenance (Husain et al ., 2003).

• NEI Treatment Systems, LLC of Los Angele s, California, has patented the Venturi Oxygen Stripping System—a deoxygenation technology that rapidly removes 95 percent of dissolved oxyge n from ballast water. The technology, after years of research and development, has recently b een installed on an actively trading USflagged bulk carrier the TECO Ocean , where biological trials, at flow rate of 1,000

m 3 /hour, have shown the system capable of meeting the IMO’s new performance standard for ballast water treatment syst ems (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 Sepa rator 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 th e MicroKill UV system. Total capital and operating costs of the system is approxi mately $3-$4 per t on of ballast water (Glosten-Herbert & Hyde Marine, 2002).

81Non-Oxidizing Biocides:

• Vitamar Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee, has developed SeaKleen®, a patented

formulation of vitamin K 3 , 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 antic ipated that ballast water treatment using SeaKleen® would cost approximately 15 cents per metric ton with very low or non-existe nt initial capital costs (Wright, 2004).

• Baker Petrolite Corporation of Sugar Land, Te xas, is marketing the organic biocide, Acrolein® as a treatment option for ba llast water. The company has conducted extensive laboratory experiments of the chem ical, as well as carr ied 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 pla nned. 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 de signed a ballast water treatment system that injects ozone into a ship's ballast wa ter, 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 tes ting at the University of Washington's Marrowstone resear ch 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 estimat ed to be approximately $1.5 million per vessel based on a 125k dwt prototype (Can adian Board of Marine Underwriters, 2005).

• Degussa AG of Germany is marketing a liqui d biocide called Pera clean® 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 th e laboratory using various indicator organisms. Field trials were next conducted in the U.S. in association with Maritime

Solutions Inc. at Baltim ore Harbor on board the U.S.S. Cape May . Although no cost projections are yet available, researcher s estimate that approximately 150 liters of

Peraclean® Ocean is sufficient for treati ng 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. Biologi cal tests of these systems has been conducted at various cap acities, including on board the Australian

bulk carrier MV Sandra Marie . Total capital and operating costs of one example

82system 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 informati on on costs are yet available.

Multi-Component Systems:

• Degussa AG and Hamann AG, both of Germa ny 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 part icles greater than 50 microns; and a chlorine-free oxidant disi nfection 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 co mpany based in Ft. La uderdale, Florida, has patented a treatment system called Ma riSan® that uses 50- micron pre-filtration

and electro-ionization to trea t ballast water. The company is operating a scale version of the system at the Oceanographic Center of Nova Southeaste rn 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 Californi a 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 th e UV technology of Aquionics, In c., the chemical biocide technology of Degussa AG, or the ozone treatment of No rsk Ozon AS as a second stage treatment. The estimated cost for a syst em 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 nitrog en 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 commercial ized in 2006, and will cost approximately $800,000 per unit. The development is support ed 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.

83Table 9. Examples of ballast water treatm ent 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 Ox idizing 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 Germa ny 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 shipboa rd treatment is occurri ng in locations around the world, and accelerating in response to recently negotiated Internationa l Maritime Organization treatment objectives, evaluation methods, a nd 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 capab le of conducting rigorous ballast treatment tests is emerging domestically and internationally. These facili ties are being developed because the shipboard environment is too difficult a test environment to successfully m eet all information needs. Tests at stationary facilities, while more controllable than the sh ipboard tests, nonetheless require specialized and expensive test infrastructure including large tank s 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 Re search Laboratory, in partne rship with the U.S. Coast Guard, has established a ballast water treatment tes ting facility in Key West, Florida. The facility functions as an instrumented scientific test pl atform for the evaluation of technologies designed to eliminate aquatic nuisance species in shipboard ballast.

The National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration recently solicited proposals for establishing regional testing facilities in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. The solicitation—the

NOAA-Fish and Wildlife Service Ballast Wate r Technology Demonstration Program grants competition for Research, Development, Testi ng 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 facilitie s in other regions. The Northeas t-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 w ith test pads under development. Singapore is likely to develop a facility consistent with IMO specifications. Meanwh ile, other facilities are under development in the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA).

85Shipboard Tests: One of the first shipboard tests of a treatment technology was conducted by the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project (GLBTD P). Co-led by the NortheastMidwest Institute and the Lake Ca rriers' Association, the Project und ertook field trials of a deckmounted filtration system in 1997 on boa rd 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 boa rd 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 comb ination with UV on board the MS Regal Princess as it plied waters in British Columbia, Canada and Alaska in 200 0. 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 combinati on (filtration and UV) on board the MS Coral Princess . All three treatment systems have undergone extensive biol ogical testing primarily by the California State Lands Commission, in association with research ers from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, San Jose State University and San Francisco Stat e 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 Biologica l Laboratory have unde rtaken extensive testing of various treatment systems installe d 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, rese archers from the University of Washington among others have investigated the biological effectiven ess 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 severa l 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® w ill 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.

86Table 10. Examples of ballast water treatment systems tested on board commercially operating

vessels

Treatment technology Ship name Ship type Flow rate (m 3 /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 O 3 , Inc

Ozone ST Tonsina Oil tanker ~2,200 No 2000 - 2004 Joel Mandelman
Nutech O 3 , 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

87Other Studies: Several barge- and land-based full scale tests of treatment t echnologies have been conducted around the world. In 1998, the Great Lake s 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 barg e platform was used to evaluate two ballast

treatment combinations: 40-micron filtration in co mbination with UV, and cyclonic separation in combination with UV. Experiments were undert aken in Two Harbors and Duluth Harbor, Minnesota. In August of 2001, the Pr oject 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 t echnologies 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 industr y partners are working togeth er as the Australian Ballast Water Treatment Consortium (ABWTC). The ABWT C 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 sh ip. In Singapore, research ers at the Environmental Technology Institute of the Nanyang Technology Un iversity have evaluated various treatments at the pilot scale, among other scales, incl uding filtration, UV, ozone, and chemicals.

Fig. 22. Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Barge Platform moored in Duluth-Superior Harbor

88Hull Management

The need to effectively manage fouling on a ship’s hull has been uni versally recognized for decades. Hull fouling creates a pathway for th e introduction of non-nati ve aquatic species to disparate waterways, and the increased weight an d presence of fouling or ganisms on the hull also can significantly reduce a ship’s spee d and increase fuel consumption.

Chemicals, including organo-mercury co mpounds, lead, arsenic, and DDT, have historically been used to trea t hull fouling. However, such com pounds pose severe environmental and human health risks, and were withdraw n 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 di spersed in a soluble re sinous matrix. However,

release rates were uncontrolle d, causing performance to quick ly diminish. In the mid-1970s, TBT was incorporated into self-polishing copolymer paints that were widely acclaimed as the most effective antifoulants ever devised, providi ng antifouling cover for five or more years.

The benefit of TBT-based paints in pr eventing hull fouling, however, has been counterbalanced by concerns abou t TBT’s high toxicity. Environm ental studies worldwide have provided evidence that TBT compo unds persist in the water and se diments, killing aquatic life other than that attached to the hulls of ship s, 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 gene tic affects in other marine species.

In response to these envir onmental concerns, many countri es have banned the use of TBT-based paints on vessels of less than 25 me ters 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 pain ts applied to vessels greater than 25 meters have a release rate of less than 4 μg TBT per cm 2 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 coat ed with TBT-based paints are still permitted to

visit these countries.

Internationally, there is pressure from the IM O 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 antifouli ng 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 Ha rmful 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 substanc es in antifouling system s. This convention will enter into force 12 months after 25 states repr esenting 25 percent of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage have ratified it. To date onl y 11 countries have signe d on to the convention, representing 9 percent of the world’s tonnage.

89In the wake of this international and national pressure, the challenge for paint

manufacturers has been to formul ate products that perform as well as TBT-based paints but have minimal impact in the aquatic environment. Curre ntly copper oxide-based paints are considered the best alternative to TBT-based paints. Ho wever, these compounds remain problematic due risks of corrosion to aluminum hulls, a short lifespan, and the demand fo r regular in-water hull cleaning. Also, though less toxic than TBT-based paints, paints co ntaining copper oxide are still highly toxic to aquatic organism s. One promising alternative under development is the use of fouling release coatings. These are nontoxic, sili cone-based nonstick coati ngs that weaken the adhesive bond between fouling or ganisms and the ship’s hull, su ch that organisms are removed as the vessel moves through the water. Other poten tial options include coa tings with microscopic prickles, natural biocides, and elec trical charges across the hull.

Sea Chest, Anchor Chain Management

Currently there are no internati onal, national, or st ate 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 pa ints such as those mentioned above probably could be used to control the buildup of fouling organisms on these structures. The possibility of application howev er, is likely to be directly related to the need to reduce fuel consumption by lessening the opportunity for fou ling organisms to reduce a ship’s speed.



### Regulatory Regimes

Since the problem first came to light, severa l levels of governmen t, including national, international, regional and state/ local entities, have become active in the attempt to reduce the problem through regulation. Of these, the most in fluential with respect to Great Lakes protection are regulations issued by the United States government and a conve ntion negotiated by the International Maritime Organization. The privat e 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 Nuisan ce Prevention and Control Act of 1990) set up the first regulatory program directed at minimizi ng ballast introductions of invasive species. This early program was focused on ships ente ring the Great Lakes afte r 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 na tional program and, in the event it was found to be ineffective, making its prov isions mandatory. In 2001, the U.S. Coast Guard reported to Congress that the number of vessels that provide d 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 guide lines mandatory, publishing a notice of proposed

90rulemaking for a mandatory national ballast wate r management program in July 2003, and a final rule in July 2004.

In September 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard es tablished voluntary best management practices for residual ballast water and sediment carried by transoceanic vessels that enter the

Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Ec onomic Zone declaring “no ballast on board” (NOBOB). These best mana gement 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 exch ange, 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 practi ces to determine the efficacy of the program. If the best management practices are not effective in preven ting aquatic invasive sp ecies introductions, the U.S. Coast Guard may consider other alternatives.

In recent years, many bills have been pr oposed in Congress to re authorize 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 progr am already in place under NISA, but they vary widely in nature and scope. For example, th e National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S.770) would strengthen national ballast water regulations and focus on introduction pathways other

than ballast water and other n eeds, such as early detection and monitori ng, 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 Representative s 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 Internat ional Maritime Organization adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Sh ips’ Ballast Water and Sediments, which will require ships to conduct ballast water mana gement through BWE or BWT. The convention includes standards for the operational effectiven ess of BWE and the biol ogical effectiveness for

BWT.

Although the adoption of an in ternational agreement on balla st water is a significant development, the IMO Convention is unlikely to effectively prevent further ballast water

introductions in the near future. The conventi on gradually phases in BWT standards—based on

vessel size and constr uction date—that do not apply to many ships until 2014 or 2016. This

91ensures that in the short term, BWE will be the main management activity required. Furthermore,

the convention does not enter into force unt il one year after ratif ication 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 Devel opment Corporation issu ed 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 Tr ansfer of Aquatic Nuisanc e 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 de termining whether vessels are employing voluntary ballast water management (BWM) guidelines or BWT; determini ng if BWT systems could be used to prevent introductions, and if so, at what date; a nd compiling a list of vessels employing voluntary guidelines or ballast treatment systems. The Rhode Island St ate Legislature charged the Department of Environmental Management with ga thering 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 requi rements and requires vessels arriving from overseas to conduct BWE. Californi a has a mandatory state BWM program that is supported by fees charged to vessel operators, a nd Washington State’s program requires ballast water reporting and monitoring, a nd establishes standards for BWT systems. Furthermore, in the past several years, ballast water bills have been introduced in th e legislatures of several Great Lakes states, including Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin. Although they were not enacted, these bills further demonstrate th at in the absence of effective federal ballast water regulation, the states are prep ared 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 requirement s, the Port of Vancou ver, British Columbia, began requiring vessels to perform mid-ocean BW E prior to arrival. The Port of Oakland, California, enacted similar re quirements in 1999, though these requirements have since been superseded by state and federal regulations ( Bay Area Monitor, 2000).

92Pending Legal Action

In September 2005, attorneys general from si x Great Lakes states including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, filed a brief in federal court proposing several remedies to better regulate ball ast 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 th at required the U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency to begin regulating ballast water discharg es. 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, whic h marks the start of the next shipping season on the Great Lakes.

• Establish final regulatory c ontrols by October 1, 2007, that include strict standards for vessel ballast water discharges.

The brief is the latest attempt by the six Grea t 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 re gulating ballast water discharges on the U.S. Coast Guard, rather th an the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Industry Self-Regulation

Examples of carrier sel f-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 th e 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 worldwid e container sh ipping company, has implemented a ballast water management plan on all vessels it opera tes. 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 fo r Social Responsibility is the only clear example of a shipper regulating ballast wate r management of waterborne transportation services. The group’s main goal is to develop cost-effective environm ental specifications for waterborne carrier service providers in order to significantly improve air quality (e.g., by reducing emissions and improving fuel/engi ne 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 pol lution 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 cove rage (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 th e media coverage even raises the prospect of closing the GLSLSS to transoceanic shipping as a rea dy solution. In the wake of this media attention, it is clear that both the maritim e 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 th e 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 ec onomically efficient means to achieving a commonly held societal objective— are best addressed by the private sector, especially in the case of highl y technical questions of marine technology. Accordingly, the industry, in its res ponses to this media assault, was wise not to argue cl aims that the problem is serious (Jacquez & Corfe, 2005; Passi, 2005b). Instead , the industry took i ssue with closing the GLSLSS to salty ships as the be st approach to curtailing the problem (Jacquez & Corfe, 2005), and argued that shipboard treatment is the mo st cost-effective approach, and the approach embraced by the international community.

If an approach identified by industry provides adequate certain ty of resolving the problem, it is likely to attract support from envi ronmental 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 i ndustry 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 initi atives through the structure of Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). These initiatives are often organized ar ound principles of the Environmental Management System (EMS) mode l developed by the Inte rnational Standards Organization (ISO), a nongovernmental organizati on that seeks to deve lop voluntary standards for many aspects of international commerce a nd trade and may also address ship-mediated invasive species. Standards developed by ISO addr ess 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 cont ainers, 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 sta ndards throughout the production and delivery

95process (ISO, 2005). The ISO 14001 model help s 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 EM S approach to pollution reduction. The Port of Houston Authority is recogni zed 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 ar e supporting a two-year training effort called the Port Environmental Management System Assi stance Project. Eleven port districts were chosen to participate in this program (no Great Lakes ports applied to pa rticipate) 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 unde r ISO 14001 does not imply action to address ballast water. However, the 2004 work plan for the ISO’s Sh ips and Marine Technology Technical Committee (and its Marine Environment Protection Subcommitt ee) 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 benefi ts 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-H erbert & 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 esti mates 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 co st-effective methods than nonindustry-led efforts,

and this cost-effectiveness also benefits soci ety 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 transporta tion within the GLSLSS absorb the costs ofbiological pollution prevention? If so, is taking action ahead of regulations through an industryled initiative preferable to waiting for regulati ons or other outcomes? Which combinations of incentives and cost-sharing arrangements would ma ke 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 Asso ciates, 2001), the industry could absorb some additional costs without the industry or the regional economy suffering serious economic hardship. With approximately 12 million metric to ns 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, potentia lly 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 rese arch and development process for approved treatment solutions and the price response of alternative modes of transportation should waterborne transportati on 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 re search and development process could stop well short of $8 – $21 per ton.

If the cost advantages that the GLSLSS im parts 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 em ployment. 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, estimati ng that a hypothetical reduction in shipping costs in the GLSLSS would have a posit ive economic development impact on the Great Lakes region that would be almost exactly bala nced by a negative effect on regional economic development on the East Coast. However, over th e 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 alternativ es 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 Or ganization requirements are imposed.



### Benefits of Action Ahead of Regulations

Industry enjoys several benef its by launching environmenta l 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 pr actices into business systems

• Enhanced image with public, regulat ors, lenders and investors, and

• Qualification for recogniti on and incentive programs

97In the context of transoceanic shipping to the GLSLSS and managing biological pollution, an industry initiative could have th e 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 progr ams, (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 e xpected 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 waterbor ne transportation indus try vis-a-vis other modes of transportation

• Promulgation of poorly advised federal re gulations that cannot be implemented

• A political patchwork of regulations at the local, state and regional level

• Conflicts, potentially legal in nature, betw een natural resource stakeholders and the GLSLSS maritime industry



### Ways to Optimize Economic Feasibility of Industry Pro-action

The problem of ship-mediated invasive specie s will be difficult to resolve, and at the early stages of research and development iden tifying 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 Carri ers’ 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 pub lic and private prospective be neficiaries of timely, costeffective ballast treatment solutions appears to be an essential prerequisite to achieving these

solutions.

Cost-Sharing Opportuni ties with Government

There is understandable gene ral resistance to government investment in research and development of technology that is thought to be pa rt of the cost of doing business in the private sector. In particular, environmen talists 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 tr eatment development to support prevention rather than cleanup. Moreover, the special circumstances surrounding ballast treatment research and development—

98especially the fact that it is not yet required—make privat e investment unlikely and government investment necessary if devel opment progress is to occur.

To date, United States federal investment in treatment research and development has occurred primarily through the Ballast Technolo gy Demonstration Project (BDTP), administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration. Authorized in 1996 in the National Invasive Species Act, the BTDP has historically issued nati onal requests fo r 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 ma de slow progress, however, perhaps because its solicitations have been so general in nature. Prog ram leadership has most recently redirected the funds to more targeted objectives , issuing an RFP for ballast trea tment 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 retrofit ting 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 contra ct 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, constr uct, and operate a pr ototype, 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 pub lic 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 proble m across the supply chain involved in waterborne transportation on the GLSLSS, rather than encumbering carrier s alone. First, the cost-effectiveness of waterborne transportation on th e GLSLSS may hinge on the rapid resolution of the problem of ship-mediated invasive species. Second, the cost of alternative tran sportation would likely increase in the absence of competition with the waterborne-freight rates affecting all shippers

99and 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 sh aring 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 invest ment 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 syst em does not yield a usable product, the entire industry still goes wanting.

Cost sharing of treatment dissemination and in stallation 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 presu pposes the identification and availability of treatment solutions. Such shipper policies have th e effect of reducing the fleet “supply” available for carrying goods to those who me et the shippers’ environmental standards, enabling eligible

carriers to raise their prices above those of noneligible shippers, un derwriting the expense associated with installing treatments. The Cl ean 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 in ternational processes, the GLSLSS maritime industry pooled its resources to develop and implement Automated Information Systems for ships visiting the GLSLSS (box 7). In pa rticular, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development/Management Corporations were extr emely active in contra cting the development work, visiting shipyards to ensure proper insta llation, and providing technical assistance on system operation to crews. The corporations ar e credited with significantly speeding domestic adoption of the technology generally, and have receive d international recognition for their role.

This broader approach to cost sharing is most suitable to addressing ship-mediated invasive species development because ballas t treatment development and evaluation are extremely capital intensive. In addition, collective and cross-sector cost sharing, if applied to ballast treatment, would not preclud e entrepreneurial activity result ing in individual cost-sharing arrangements like those undertaken by FedNav Ltd. and the Clean Cargo Group. Instead, collective cost sharing would in tegrate them into an industryw ide push, and maintain momentum in research and development even if treatments subject to private inve stment failed to meet expectations. The treatment system being nurture d by FedNav Ltd., for example, could serve as

one candidate for collective research and development services, and dissemination and implementation support.

100In particular, supply chain members may wish to cost share for public relations reasons when they are:

• Functionally close to the wate rborne transportation step

• Geographically close to the wa terborne transportation step

• Functionally or geographically close to consumers affected by the waterborne transportation step

Box 7: Automatic identi fication System (AIS)

The implementation of an Automatic Identificatio n 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 operati ng in the VHF maritime band that is capable of send and receiving information such as identif ication, 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-base d 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, redu ced 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 t hat included the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), the C anadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC), and marine transportation in terests, with technical support from the U.S. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

Full-scale shipboard AIS testing and evaluat ion 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-base d units are in place and approximately 300 vessels now are equipped with AIS transponders.

The total cost of implementing the AIS is estima ted 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 pr escribes a set of prac tices 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-effectiv e compliance. Unfortunate ly, 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 determin ed.” In addition, carriers do not have the resources they need, including large sh ore-based evaluation infrastructure and extensive field biological expertise, to ve t 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 impr oper 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 deve lopment prevention practices in phases that involve supplying information to government en tities 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 conventio nal 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, co mpliance assistance. Finally, the initiative should include careful monitoring to allow the early de tection of any arrivi ng 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 commer ce related industry, and between the public and private sectors. The problem is systemic and global in nature a nd requires a systemic

solution that is consistent with internationa l and domestic regulatory programs; no individual port, state, or ship can solve the problem for it self without solving the problem for all ports, states, and ships that sh are the waterborne trade patterns and resource. In addi tion, research and development is generally hobbled by disparate a nd sporadic support. Research and development of ballast treatment needs adequate and sust ained support to carry candidate systems with commercial potential through signi ficant 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 substantia l value during the implementation phase because important incentive opport unities reside with the companies hi ring vessels to carry their goods.

102

### Recommendation Actions

Without the implementation of effective prev ention 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 introduc tions 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 th e problem because of th e developing state of technology and policy, as well as the tight financ ial margins, complex transaction chains, and

collective nature of the economic and infras tructural drivers behind GLSLSS shipping.

Recommendation 1: The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway maritime industry—ports, carriers, and shippers—collectively should la unch a Great Ships Initiative (G SI) to speed protection of the Great Lakes freshwater resource from ship-mediated invasive species.

Recommendation 2: The GSI should comprise two fundament al stages: incubation of treatment

solutions and dissemination of treatment soluti ons. It should involve the following specific

activities:

• Treatment Incubation - Identifying, testing, and otherwise supporting the development of promising methods for pr eventing ship-mediated invasive species applicable to Seaway sized ships (plying anywhere) at a common, fully equipped test

site on Great Lakes

• Approval Assistance - Facilita ting the successful induction of meritorious systems into regulatory approval processes, incl uding both experimental or type-approval exercises (such as STEP), by generating re levant empirical information on treatment performance and providing technical support

• Installation Assistance - Defraying the co st of installing approved systems and methods on the fleet of ships that visit the Great Lakes through financing tools, grants, toll and fee relief, a nd/or shipper pr eference policies

• Monitoring - Supporting states in monito ring their shores and harbors for, and responding to, newly established organisms

• Communication with Regulator s - 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 w ith the U.S. Coast Guard and other relevant regulatory agencies.

Recommendation 4: The GLSLSS should use its own resource s to leverage ad equate public and private funds and enhance the produc tivity of publicly funded research.

Recommendation 5: The GLSLSS should imbed this effort wi thin 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 wi de range of environmental problems it faces. Biological pollution associated with the industry w ill clearly be a priority. The GSI should serve

103as the mechanism for managing those issues asso ciated with biological pollution within the

broader Green Marine initiative.



### Summary and Conclusion

Regardless of the competing strategies fo r redressing the problem of ship-mediated invasive species introductions into the Great Lakes, shipboard treatm ent systems for Seawaysized ships need to be developed and implemente d as quickly as possibl e. Treatment tools to prevent ship-mediated aquatic invaders generall y are developing too slow ly. Private sources are reluctant to provide financing because of uncertain regulatory standards and deadlines. Government grant programs have been general a nd applicants often lack sufficient expertise— maritime, process, or biological—to proffer successful and productive projects. Meanwhile, official processes to test tr eatment performance (e.g., the Sh ipboard Treatment Evaluation Program and ETV) require substantial investment a nd 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 comb ined resources and input of GLSLSS maritime and government interests on tr eatment development, and pr oviding financial support and technical services to bring tr eatment prospects to verificatio n/approval-ready and market-ready

condition.



### End Note: Recent Developments

The American Great Lakes Ports Associat ion—in collaboration with the NortheastMidwest Institute; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Univer sity of Wisconsin-Superior; relevant federal, state, and provincial agencies ; and interested carriers— has established a Great Ships Initiative (GSI) to focus public and pr ivate 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 accelerat e the identification and verification of treatment tools to stop organisms introductions by Seaway-sized ships

• Accelerating the fleet-wide installation and us e 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, a nd nonprofit organizations that cont ribute funds or other capital to the GSI effort. The committee will use advisory gr oups and administrative staff to make major project-management decisions, such as budge ting, fundraising, project review outcomes, industry outreach, and state and federal relations. The Nationa l 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 ac tivity at the major U.S. and Ca nadian commercial ports on the Great Lakes. Local port authorities will act as s ponsors, working in partnership with their own state/provincial environmental and natural resource agencies.

Technology Incubators

The GSI Incubators will function as a pa rtnership of industry, state and federal government, and NGOs with the goal of accelerati ng the development, installation, testing, and use of viable shipboard technologies/methods suita ble to Seaway-sized sh ips to prevent aquatic invasive species introductions. Through an RFP (or similar means), the GSI will invite vendors to bring forward promising prevention treatm ents 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 gi ven 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 techni cal understanding of ships

• A Business Incubator, serving treatment vendor s with promising systems but too little financial wherewithal to succeed in the marketplace

• A Research and Development Incubator, se rving 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 suit e 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 a nd/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 GS I or provided in retu rn for a profit-sharing arrangement or other financial mechanism.

105Research and Development Incubator

The Research and Development Incubator is being launched first to assist vendors in developing their treatment systems and ultimate ly prepare those systems for the market and

routine use. The incubator will have capacity at three scales:

• Bench scale (laboratory): Be nch-scale tests will take place at the University of Wisconsin and will address questions of tr eatment 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, de pending 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 contribu tions 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 port s 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 refi ne the shipboard testing protocols

• $50,000 from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute for engineering assistance

• $100,000 from the St. Lawrence Seaway Deve lopment/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. tr eatment 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 cont ributions from ports, government agencies, and private-sector sources, will provide the ne cessary impetus to deliver treatment solutions— including their development, installation, and us e—for Seaway-sized ship s in advance of the anticipated federal and international time frame.

106Coordination 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 solv e international maritime commerce issues, not just those of the Great Lakes. Accordingly, th e U.S. Coast Guard, with a regulatory program governing ballast discharge, will be closely c onsulted 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 Co ast Guard’s Shipboard Technol ogy Evaluation Program (STEP).

The Canadian Coast Guard and the IMO also will be consulted and kept informed.

107108 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 d edicated 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 co mmerce for conservation. The foundation meets these goals by creating partnerships between t he public and private sectors and strategically

invests in conservation and the sust ainable use of natural resources.

What NFWF does Matching Grants – The foundation identifies conservation needs, reviews proposed projects, fosters cooperative partnerships, and commits a co mbination 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 partnersh ips among federal, state, and local governments, corporations, private foundations, in dividuals, 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 cu rrently averages more than a 2:1 return on funds

entrusted to the foundation. For ev ery dollar that Congress provides to the foundation, nearly $3 in on-the-ground conservation takes place. Since its founding in 1984, NFWF has supported over6,400 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 be tween 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 S ecurity. February 2, 2004. Alexandria, VA.

American Waterways Operators (2005). The Am erican 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 Lake s Navigation System Re view Reconnaissance Study. Great Lakes and Ohio River Divi sion, Army Corps of Engineers , Detroit, MI.

Army Corps of Engineers (2002b). Waterborne Commerce of the Great Lakes. Part 3 – Waterways and Harbors. Great Lakes. In stitute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.

Army Corps of Engineers (2002c). Lock Perfor mance 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. Instit ute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.

Associated Press (2005). Some Cargo Diverted from Gulf C ould 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.

109Canadian 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 T echnology 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 Ba llast Water Treatment Measure. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distri bution, Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & S Olenin, eds), Kluwer Academic P ublishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Carlton JT & Geller JB (1993). Ecolog ical 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 Organism s 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 Pr ogram/Connecticut Sea Grant. U.S. Coast Guard,

Marine Environment Protection Division , Washington, DC.

Carlton JT (1999). The Scale an d Ecological Consequences of Biological Invasions in the

World’s Oceans. In: Invasive Species and Bi odiversity Management (OT Sandlund, PJ Schei & A Viken (eds.), Kluwer Academ ic 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 2 nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July

Davis JP (2003). AHS AquaHabist at Ballast Water Treatment. International Aquatic Invasive Species Conference, Windsor, Canada, June 11, 2003

Drake LA, Choi K-H, Ruiz GM & Dobbs FC (2001). Microbial i nventories 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/produc ts/archive/2005_11_18_ballast_water.html

Egan D (2005a). Noxious Cargo. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , Milwaukee, MN, October 30,

2005.

110Egan D (2005b). Turning Ti de 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 La kes 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/re port/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 vi a Ballast Water-Biological Classification of Ballast Tanks by Food Web Interactions. European Journal of Protistology ; 33: 244-253

General Accounting Office (2002). Invasive Sp ecies: Clearer Focus a nd Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031.pdf

, Washington, DC.

General Accounting Office (2005). Invasive Speci es: Progress and Challenges in Preventing

Introduction into U.S. Waters Vi a the Ballast Water in Ships. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051026t.pdf , Washington DC.

GloBallast (2005). Global Ba llast Water Management Progr amme (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 Balla st Technology Demonstration Project by the Glosten Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washingt on, 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, Olen in S, Persson A, Wallentinus I, Wetsteyn L & Wittling T (2002). Life in Ballast Tanks. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe.

111Distribution, Impacts and Management (E Leppakoski, S Gollasch & S Olenin, eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laborat ory (2005). NOAA-GLER L Website. “NOBOB- A Project: Assessment of Transoceanic NOB OB 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/n sreid10-1.html , Ann Arbor, MI.

Great Lakes Fishery Commi ssion (2004). Great Lakes Fi shery Commission Website. http://www.glfc.org/ , Ann Arbor, MI.

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2005). Aquatic Invasive Sp ecies 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, Mi lls EL, Holeck K, Ballert AG & MacIsaac HJ (2003a). BallastMediated Animal Introductions in the La urentian Great Lakes: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses. Canadian Journal of Fisher ies and Aquatic Science ; 60: 740-756.

Grigorovich IA, Korniushin AV, Gray DK, Du ggan 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 fo r Plankton Biogeograp hy 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, Do rdrecht, Netherlands.

Hillman S, Hoedt F & Schneider P (2004). The Au stralian 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/an tifouling/ballast/pubs/ballast.pdf

Holeck KT, Mills EL, MacIsaac HJ, Dochoda MR, Co lautti 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 2 nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July

112IBM (2005). IBM website. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/ems/index.shtml

International Maritime Organization. Harmful aq uatic 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 base line 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 Organi zation (2005). International Sta ndards Organization Website. www.iso.org . Geneva, Switzerland.

International Standards Organi zation (2004). ISO/TC 8 Ships a nd 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-Salin ity Ballast Water as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes. Cooperati ve Institute for Limnology and Ecosystem Research & NOAA-Great Lake s 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 Microbiol ogy, 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 Po tential 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 Ruff e Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery. Journal of Great Lakes Research; 24(2): 351-360.

113Lenz J, Anders HJ, Gollasch S & Dammer M (2000). Einschleppung Ffremder Organismen in Nord- und Ostsee: Untersuchungen zum Okol ogischen 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 Eight h International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference , Pembroke, Ontario, March 16-19,

1998.

Locke A, Reid DM, van Leeuwen HC, Spru les WG & Carlton JT (1993). Ballast Water Exchange as a Means of Contro lling Dispersal of Freshwater Organisms by Ships. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:2086-2093.

MacIsaac HJ, Robbins TC & Lewi s 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: Balla st Water Treatment Meets IMO Standards. http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Balla st-Water-TreatmentMeets-IMO-Standards-NEI002103128TU.html

Martin Associates (2001). Ec onomic 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). Inte rnational Dissemination of Epidemic V ibrio

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 Admini stration (2006). Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program (Research, Developm ent, 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. Transpor tation Research Board. National Academy Press , Washington,

DC.

114Niimi 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 Resi dual Ballast Discharge and Exotic Species

Introductions to the North American Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin; 46: 1334-

1340.

Northeast-Midwest Institute & La ke Carriers’ Association (2001). International Ballast Technology Investment Fa ir, September 20-21, 2001 , Chicago Navy Pier, Chicago, IL ( http://www.nemw.org/ballastfair.htm ).

OptiMarin (2006). OptiMarin Ballast Systems: Pr actical Solutions for Ba llast Water Treatment. http://www.optimarin.com/PDF_Files/OptiMar_Brochure.pdf

O’Shea S & Cangelosi A (1996). Trojan Horses in Our Harbors: Biologi cal Contamination from Ballast Water Discharge. The University of Toledo Law Review ; 27(2): 381-400.

Park J & Hushak L (1999). Zebra Mussel Cont rol Costs in Surface Water Using Facilities. Ohio Sea Grant Report TS-028 , Columbus, OH.

Parsons M, Moll R, Mackey T & Farley R (19 97). 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 Partic le Removal Performance of Three Types of Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primar y Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine Technology 39(4) October 2002: 211-222.

Passi P (2005a). Great Lakes Po rts 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 Woul dn’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 2 nd

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 A nnual Review. http://www.rupertport.com/home.htm , Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada.

115Reeves E (1999). Analysis of Laws and Polici es 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 Mi nimise the Risks of Introducing Nonindigenous Marine Organi sms to Australian Ports. Ballast Water Report Series No.

13 , Department of Agriculture, Fisher ies and Forestry, Canberra, Australia.

Robichon G (2004). Personal communication. FedNav Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Royal Haskoning (2001). Global Market Analys is 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: Ma nagement Options and Unmet

Needs. Looking Forward, Looking Back: Asse ssing 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, Ru iz GR & Carlton JT (1996). Shipping Study II: Biological Invasions by Nonindigenous Speci es in United States Waters: Quantifying

the Role of Ballast Water a nd 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 Corporati on (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 Cor poration (2003). 2002 Traffic Report. http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com , Ontario, Canada.

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporatio n (2004). St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Website. http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com , Ontario, Canada.

State Water Resources Control Board, Californ ia Environmental Prot ection Agency, The

California State Lands Commi ssion & The California Department of Fish and Game (2002). Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatme nt Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms. California Enviro nmental Protection Agency Website http://www.calepa.ca.gov/P ublications/Reports/Manda ted/2002/BallastWater.pdf

116Sutherland TF, Levings CD, Elliot CC & Hesse WW (2001) Effect of a Ballast Water Treatment System on Survivorship of Natural Popula tions of Marine Pla nkton. Marine Ecology Progress Series 210:139-148.

Tamburri MN, Wasson K & Matsuda M (2002) Ballast Water Deoxygenation Can Prevent Aquatic Introductions While Re ducing Ship Corrosion. Biol ogical 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). Ocea n 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 Opportunitie s. Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ec opage/glbd/issues/index.html

Thornton GA & Chapman JE (2003). The Use of Heat for Ballast Wate r Disinfection – the AquaThem Method. Proceedings of the 2 nd International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, IMO, London, 21-23 July

URS Dames and Moore (2000). F easibility 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). Nonindigen ous 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.

117Verling E, Ruiz GM, Smith LD, Galil B, Miller AW & Murphy KA (2005). Supply-Side Invasion Ecology: Characterizing Propagul e Pressure in Coastal Ecosystems. Proc. R.

Soc. B ; 272: 1249-1257.

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J & Meli llo JM (1997). Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Scienc; 277: 494-499.

Vogt DP, Southworth F, Pete rson BE & Rizy C (2002). Es timation 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 P opulations of Marine Plankton by a Large-Scale Ballast Water Treatment System . Marine Ecology Progress Series ; 258: 51-63.

Washington Office of the Atto rney General (2000). Press Re lease: U. S. Supreme Court Partially Invalidates Washi ngton’s Oil Spill Prevention La w. March 6, 2000, Olympia,

WA.

Weakly J (2004). Personal communication. Lake Carriers’ Associ ation, Cleveland, OH.

Wisner RN & Wang K (2000). Genetically and N on-Genetically Modified Crops, How they are Created, Produced and Marketed. Tokyo Ag ro-Forum Bulletin, December 19, 2000. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/wisne r/Wisner/japan%20gmo%20900%20revised.pd

f

Wisconsin Office of the Governor (2004). Pr ess 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 & Ke lly 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 lead ing 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, al so 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 effo rts. Figure 1 illustrates the non-ballast vectors responsible for the primary and secondary spread of many notori ous 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, stat e 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 ther e is a small numb er of tankers, cement carriers, tugs, and barges in service. U. S.-flagged lakers are by fa r 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 bega n 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, ma ny lakers undergo refurbishment during their life cycle. For example, the vessel Alpena, currently operated by Inland Lake s Management, was constructed as a conventional bulk carrier in 1942, but c onverted to a cement carrier in 1989.

Cargoes

The U.S.-flagged laker fleet transports thr ee primary types of cargo around the upper four Great Lakes: iron ore, coal, and limestone. In 2002, the fleet tran sported over 147 million metric tons of cargo—a figure on par with the annual tonna ge carried by the fleet over the last 10 years (fig. 2)—including 53 million metric tons of ir on ore for use in domestic steel production, 38 million metric tons of coal for use by steel ma nufacturers and electric u tilities, and 33 million metric tons of limestone for use by diverse cust omers including the steel, construction, chemical, and paper industries (LCA, 2003). With the excep tion of 2002, both the iron ore and limestone floats have been steadily declining in recent y ears, while the coal float holds steady (fig. 3).

1200 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

YearTotal 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 SaltCargo 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)

121Vessel 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 ba llast, although there is some backhaul of other cargoes including cement, salt, grain, sand, and various li quid-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 w ith cargo or ballast before retu rning to Lake Superior for an iron ore or coal cargo. Figures 4 through 6 illustrate the typical voy age 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

122Fig. 5. Generalized trade pattern of U.S.- a nd 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

123Owners and Operators

Unlike the transoceanic vesse ls 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 comp anies 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

Barge 1 13,500 Grand River Navigation Company, Inc.

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 comprise s approximately 80 vessels operated by eight companies. Most of these vessels are self-unloa ding 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 mete rs in length. Because of their smaller size,

Canadian lakers are able to vi sit ports throughout the five Great Lakes. Some vessels are also small enough to transit the St. La wrence Seaway and thus visit Ca nadian 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 cons tructed 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 limest one making up nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s total float. Other cargoes include tanker products, grain, salt, mis cellaneous bulk, and cement. Approximately 60 percent of Canadian-laker traffi c is involved in north-south trad e 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 carri ed 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 or e 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).

1250 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

YearTotal cargo tonnage(1,000,000 metric tons)

Fig. 7. Total tonnage of cargo (i n 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
productsCargo tonnage(millions of metric tons) 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fig. 8. Tonnage of cargo (in millions of metric t ons) carried by the Canadian-flagged laker fleet by major cargo category, 1998–2002 (source: CSA, 2003)

126Vessel 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 di rect trading, transporting coal and grain from ports on western Lake Superior to ports on Lake Ontario and al ong the St. Lawrence Seaw ay, and then moving to the gulf ports of Sept Isles and Port Cartier in ba llast 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 follo w 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 ve ssels to be owned and operated by different companies. The Canada Shipping Act requir es 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 an d 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-unloa ding vessels and 13 gearless bu lk cargo vessels (table 2).

127Table 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

Cement carrier 1 6,729 Canada Steamship Lines, Inc.

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

General cargo carrier 6 6,179 Transport Desgagnes, Inc.

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 car go (more than 21 million metric tons) moved down river to the Mississippi River. This down-river movement wa s 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 commercia l 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 st ill significant. A 2003 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inventory identified approximate ly 3,000 barges operated by towi ng and barge opera tors on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and their tributaries.

A typical barge that operate s on the Mississippi and Illinoi s River systems measures 59 meters long by 10.7 meters wide and can carry ju st over 1,300 metric t ons of cargo. They are designed to carry bulk cargo either on open decks or in holds or tanks w ithin the barge’s hull. Most of these barges are not self-propelled, re quiring a tow or pushboat to move them. Multiple

128barges 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 Rive r system are grain, petroleum pr oducts, chemicals, and coal. In 2002, just over 39 million metric tons of cargo wa s transported on the Illinois Waterway, which is in line with the average for recent years (A rmy Corps of Engineers, 2002b). Nearly half of this, or 17 million metric tons, was downbound sh ipments 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 r ound in both directions on the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. In general, grain is shipped from ports along the Upper Missi ssippi River and Illinois Waterway south to Gulf of Mexico ports for shipment overseas. Other commodities, such as chemicals and iron and steel pr oducts, tend to be transporte d upbound on the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. Petroleum products tend to move in bot h directions, with significant amounts both shipped and received by ports al l along the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.

These river barges are not specifically desi gned to operate in th e open-water environment of the Great Lakes. As a result, relatively few ba rges travel from the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal onto or across Lake Michig an, with most of the barge traffic in the San-Ship Canal performing intracanal operations (GLRC, 2005). Howe ver, some barges do operate in southern Lake Michigan, typically staying close to shor e and traveling between the ports of Chicago, Calumet Harbor, Gary, Indiana Harbor, and Burns Harbor (fig. 10). The Co ast Guard has created special rules to allow river barg es to travel to the ports of Milwaukee and Muskegon, further north along Lake Michigan’s coastline. Approxima tely 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.).

129Fig. 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 require ments 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 rela tively small operations that own a handful of barges to large transportation firms that ma y 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 ba rge operators associated with ADM and General Dynamics Corp. Table 3 provides an overview of some of the comp anies that operate barges on the Mississippi River and Illinoi s Waterway. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, there are approximately 35 such barge co mpanies (Army Corps of Engineers, 2003).

130Table 3. Companies that operate U.S.-flag ged barges on the Missi ssippi 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 Double Hull Tank Barge 1 Economy Boat Store Other Tank Barge 1 Deck Barge 2 Double Hull Tank Barge 9 Egan Marine Corp. Other Tank Barge 3

Eneix, Lloyd H. Dry Covered Barge 1

Single Hull Tank Barge 11 Double Hull Tank Barge 6 Florida Marine Transporters, Inc. Other Tank Barge 41 Dry Open Barge 6

Deck Barge 2 Garvey Marine Inc. Double Hull Tank Barge 1

Gillen, Edward E. Co. Deck Barge 12

Dry Covered Barge 22

Dry Open Barge 10 Hamm’s Harbor Service and Fleeting 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

131Dry 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 Double Hull Tank Barge 707 Kirby Inland Marine, LP Other Tank Barge 65 Single Hull Tank Barge 11 Double Hull Tank Barge 31 Le Beouf Bros. Towing, LLC Other Tank Barge 1

Lower Illinois Towing Co. Deck Barge 1

Dry Covered Barge 1

Dry Open Barge 1 Material Service Corp. 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 occurr ed via the artificial waterways and canals that allow vessels to trans it between water bodies. Eleven of the invasive species established in the Great Lakes basin reached the lakes thr ough a canal. Of these, four (sea lamprey, purple loosestrife, alewif e, and white perch) are consid ered to have had substantial impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem (Mills et al. , 1993).

The sea lamprey is the most notable exampl e of an invasive species introduction via canal. This species entered Lake Ontario through the Erie Cana l in the 1830s. The subsequent opening of the Welland Canal allowed sea la mprey 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 popul ations, leading direc tly to the collapse of the region’s lake trout fishery. To this day, lamprey-control programs cost millions of dollars each year.

132The most recent of these introductions occurred in the late 1950s, but canals and artificial waterways remain a potential route for additiona l 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 th e Great Lakes and would be expected to compete with valuable sport and commercial fish. Once in troduced, they would likely become a dominant species in the ecosystem (GLFC, 2004).



### Relevance to Invasions

Due to their typical vessel voya ge patterns, the U.S. and Ca nadian laker fleets are not significant sources of new nonindige nous species to the Great Lakes. Because the U.S. laker fleet never operates outside of the Great Lakes, U.S. la kers are never in a position to take on foreign

ballast water. While some Canadian lakers tr avel beyond the Seaway, they typically operate around Canada’s Atlantic coast. Little, if any, of their ballast water come s from across the ocean. However, thanks to the large volume of ball ast water they transpor t around the Great Lakes annually, the U.S. and Canadian laker fleets may pl ay a role in spreading and dispersing species already introduced and establis hed in the lakes (Aquatic Scie nces, Inc., 1996; Reeves, 1999).

Similarly, barges may pose a risk for spre ading previously introduced species. Although the overwhelming majority of barges that ope rate on the inland waterways and Great Lakes do not carry ballast water, a subset of tank and h eavy-lift barges may balla st 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. Wh ile 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 ma jor 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 in advertently transferred zebra

mussels attached to their hulls. Furthermore, the canals and arti ficial waterways that barges travel can also act as a conduit for invasive sp ecies transfer, as in th e 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 proac tively address this potential for spreading organisms. Beginning in 1993, the laker fleets developed and impl emented a Voluntary Ballast Water Management Program (VBWMP) to slow th e spread of the Eurasian Ruffe, which had been introduced to Duluth/Superior Harbor in the la te 1980s. It requires vesse ls to either not take on ballast in Duluth/Superior Harbor, or, when ba llasting is operationally required, to exchange

ballast water in an area of La ke Superior where Ruffe are unlik ely 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 sp ecies 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 rele ased at several points in the Un ited States. Plants from home aquaria or cultivation facilities were likely resp onsible 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 aq uatic plants. A handful of species has also been introduced to

the Great Lakes via accidental release from ho me 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 c opepod 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 an d stocking of aquatic species, particularly fish, occurred throughout the latter ha lf 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 specie s support commercial and recreational fisheries. However, examples such as common carp and P acific salmon have impact ed native fish and wildfowl through competition, predation, and habitat destruction (Mills et al ., 1993).

In addition to the introducti on 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 shel lfish communities and posing a looming threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem.

134Another potential impact of fishery and a quaculture introductions is the coincident introduction of parasites and disease. Three fish pathogens— Furunculosis, Glugea hertiwgi , and whirling disease—have been re ported 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 secondar y vectors as well, in cluding the numerous recreational vessels owned and ope rated by private citizens. Recreat ional vessels that come into contact with invasive sp ecies can hasten the spre ad 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 Mi chigan 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 mo re serious by the relati ve lack of regulatory constraints on research organisms, as well as th e 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 comparis on, the U.S-flagged laker fleet di scharges volumes an order of magnitude greater—some 227,400 cubic meters in to 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 th e volumes of ballast water that vessels, including those entering the sy stem 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 ta nks of near coastal water in the high seas through c onducting a “ballast water excha nge” (BWE) pursuant to federal law (see below) or they are empt y of pumpable ballast water and full of cargo. Neither practice (BWE or removal of pumpable ba llast 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 ov erseas 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 balla st 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 B WE efficiency estimates provided by Johengen et al . (2005).

136Assuming that BWE delivers a 86–98 percent effi ciency at purging the harbor water from foreign ports and replacing it with hi gh-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 S eaway Development Authority, 2003; fig. 1). After their cargo is discharged, Great Lakes water mixes with the residual, unpumpable ballast water already pr esent 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 wa ter is discharged into the lakes annually by transoceanic vessels (table 1). At the most, a pproximately 106,000 cubic meters of this volume is the original foreign ballast wate r, equivalent to 350 cubic meters discharged into the lakes per day (table 1).

Recently the U.S. Coast Guard issued volunt ary 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

YearNumber of transoceanic vesselsarriving 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)

137Table 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 (m 3 ) 10,000 200 566,200

Ballast from foreign ports discharged in GLSLSS assuming 86% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 64,400 106,200 (no BWE requirements) 170,600

Ballast from foreign ports discharged in GLSLSS assuming 98% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 9,200 106,200 (no BWE requirements) 115,400

Ballast from foreign ports discharged in GLSLSS assuming 100% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 0 106,200 (no BWE requirements) 106,200

Ballast from high seas discharged in GLSLSS assuming 86% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 395,600 0 395,600

Ballast from high seas discharged in GLSLSS assuming 98% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 450,800 0 450,800

Ballast from high seas discharged in GLSLSS assuming 100% BWE efficiency (m 3 ) 460,000 0 460,000

Ballast from foreign ports

combined with GLSLSS ballast

discharged in GLSLSS (m 3 ) 0 5,203,800 5,203,800

Total amount of ballast water discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the GLSLSS (m 3 ) 460,000 5,310,000 5,770,000



### Overall Rate of Foreign Ballast-Entrained Organisms

Assuming that organism densitie s in ships arriving to the Great Lakes are similar to those in ships plying globally, a typica l Salty entering the Great Lake s could carry an average of 464 zooplankton per cubic meter, 2.9 x 10 8 phytoplankton per cubic meter, and 8.3 x 10 11 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

138to the GLSLSS provided by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (2003) and Johengen et al .’s (2005) estimates of the average volum e 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 ballas t water discharged by the tran soceanic 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 zoopl ankton, 1.7 quadrillion phytoplankton, and 4.7 quintillion bacteria (table 2).

A recent study by Verling et al . (2005) that looked at zoop lankton survivorship across various voyage durations and routes found th at the mean density of zooplankton for a transatlantic voyage was 39,800 organisms per cubi c 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 calcu lated at 104 million zooplankton. Similarly, the total amount of organisms containe d in ballast water discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the GLSLSS (including that origina ting from foreign ports, the hi gh seas and Great Lakes lower ports) in 2002 can be estima ted at 3.6 billion zooplankton.

Table 2. Estimates of total organisms discharged in the GLSLSS by transoceanic ships in 2002 7

Ballasted (BOB)

vessels Unballasted (NOBOB)

vessels ESTIMATED

TOTAL

Number of vessel visits in 2002 46 531 577

Average foreign ballast volume per vessel (m 3 ) 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 10 8 plankton <50 mi crometres and ≥ 10 micrometers in minimum dimension (phytoplankton), and 8.3 X 1011 b acteria per cubic meter (IMO ME PC 49/2/21, 2003). Also, organ ism densities in ships arriving to the Great Lakes are assumed to be similar to those in ships plying globally, and organism densit ies in residual ballast

are assumed to be identical to those in fully ballasted ships.

139Zooplankton 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 10 13 3.08 X 10 13
(no BWE requirements) 4.95 X 10 13

Phytoplankton from high seas discharged in GLSLSS assuming 86% BWE efficiency (#) 1.15 X 10 14 0 1.15 X 10 14

Phytoplankton from foreign ports

combined with GLSLSS phytoplankton discharged in GLSLSS (#) 0 1.51 X 10 15 1.51 X 10 15

Total amount of phytoplankton discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the GLSLSS (#) 1.34 X 10 14 1.54 X 10 15 1.67 X 10 15

BACTERIA

Bacteria from foreign ports discharged in GLSLSS assuming 86% BWE efficiency (#) 5.31 X 10 16 8.81 X 10 16
(no BWE requirements) 1.41 X 10 17

Bacteria from high seas discharged in GLSLSS assuming 86% BWE efficiency (#) 3.28 X 10 17 0 3.28 X 10 17

Bacteria from foreign ports

combined with GLSLSS bacteria discharged in GLSLSS (#) 0 4.32 X 10 18 4.32 X 10 18

Total amount of bacteria discharged by the transoceanic fleet in the GLSLSS (#) 3.81 X 10 17 4.41 X 10 18 4.66 X 10 18

140

### Quantities of Organisms from Fo reign Ports Discharged into the GLSLSS by Transoceanic Vessels Rel ative to Current National Law, and the Proposed Global Convention

Federal law requires vessels entering the Gr eat 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 wa ter and sediment in th e ballast tanks of the approximately 85 percent of transo ceanic vessels that declare NOBOB , arriving in the lakes with a full complement of cargo (St. Lawren ce 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 perf orm BWE with an efficiency of at least 95 percent volumetric exchange. Ships undertaking BW T will be required to discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter greater th an or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum dimension, and less than 10 viable organisms pe r milliliter less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 microm eters in minimum dimension (equivalent to 9 x

10 6 per cubic meter). The convention also includes discharge stan dards 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 BW E, and also the quantities likely to be discharged in the lakes following application of the in ternational convention. The a doption 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 conv ention’s BWT standard will produce a tenfold decrease in the discharge of this larg er plankton into the lakes (table 3).

For smaller plankton of less than 50 micromet ers in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimens ion, adoption of the inte rnational 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. Lawr ence Seaway Development Authority (2003). Average foreign ballast volumes per vessel and BWE efficiency estimate of 86 percent, rela tive to federal law, provided by Johengen et al . (2005). Analysis a ssumes that each cubic meter of ballast water contains 464 plankton ≥ 50 micrometers in minimum dimension, and 2.9 X 10 8 plankton < 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension, ba sed on ICES review (IMO MEPC 49/2/21). Analysis also assumes th at vessels declaring NOBOB are not required to manage their ballast water relative to BWE; that organism densities in ships arriving to th e Great Lakes are similar to those in ships plying globally; and that organism de nsities in residual ballast are identical to those in fully ball asted ships.

141Table 3. Estimates of the quantities of organi sms (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 manageme nt requirements, based on best available data and a number of assumptions 6

Ballasted (BOB)

vessels Unballasted (NOBOB)

vessels TOTAL

Number of vessel visits (2002) 46 531 577

Average foreign ballast volume per vessel (m 3 ) 10,000 200 981

Total foreign ballast volume (m 3 ) 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 10 14 3.08 x 10 13 1.36 x 10 14

Quantity of plankton given management using BWE that is

86% effective (federal law) (#) 1.87 x 10 13 3.08 x 10 13 4.95 x 10 13

Quantity of plankton given management using BWE that is 95% effective (IMO) (#) 6.67 x 10 12 3.08 x 10 13 3.75 x 10 13

Quantity of plankton given management using BWT to IMO

standard (#) 4.14 x 10 12 9.56 x 10 11 5.09 x 10 12

142143

# Insert back page

144 50 F St., NW. Suite 950 Washington DC 20001 Hwww.nemw.org