### CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS CO MMISSION REPORT ON 

# COMMERCIAL VESSEL FOULING IN CALIFORNIA:

ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND RE COMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES RELEASE FROM THE NON-BALLAST WATER VECTOR

Produced for the California State Legislature

By
L. Takata, M. Falkner and S. Gilmore

California State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Division April 2006EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fouling community organisms attach or associate with submerged portions of
structures. When associated with mobile st ructures such as vessels, nonindigenous fouling organisms can be mov ed from port to port and region to region, presenting the potential for a new invasion. Fouli ng has thus been considered an important mechanism for the introduction of nonindig enous species (NIS) in the marine and
estuarine environments.

The Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 (Act) directs the California State Lands Commission (Commission) to analyze and eval uate the risk of nonindigenous species
release from commercial vessel mechanisms other than ballast water (essentially vessel fouling), in consultation with a Tec hnical Advisory Group (TAG). This report summarizes the analysis, evaluation, and c onsultations conducted by the Commission in accordance with the Act, and offers reco mmendations to reduce the discharge of NIS from vessel fouling.

Considerations of the Commission and t he TAG included the hull husbandry practices of the commercial vessel fleet, environm ental conditions and vessel behaviors that influence fouling, and the f ouling management frameworks that have been adopted or considered by other regions. The most di fficult challenge for evaluating the risk of fouling for species introductions to the state was the limited amount of baseline information on vessel fouling and NIS across the types of vessels that regularly operate in California. A small minority of vessels or platforms that travel at very slow speeds, spend extended periods immobile, and rarely clean or paint hulls could be presumed to pose an elevated NIS risk. Ho wever, there was little info rmation on the potential posed by a majority of the fleet that conducts r egular vessel maintenance, spends relatively little time in port, and travels at normal speeds . There was also little information on how well the current hull maintenance practices of t he majority of the fleet limit the transport
and release of NIS.

iThe Commission believes, however, that these difficulties should not prevent California from moving forward with acti ons at this time. Some actions can be implemented immediately based on available knowledge, and others may be implemented to build the information and tools to refine manage ment in the future. The Commission
therefore recommends that legislation be adopted to:

1. Broaden the State program to include the control and prevention of NIS via commercial vessel fouling. Current legislation aut horizes the Commission to adopt regulations to prevent NIS introducti on only through ballast water. The
authorization should be expanded to include vessel fouling.

2. Broaden the reporting requirement s to include mandatory reporting on maintenance practices and other anti-fouling related behaviors of qualifying vessels operating in California waters. Information on those
factors that tend to exacer bate fouling, coupled with biol ogical surveys of fouling on those vessels, will supply data needed to better characterize the fouling NIS
risk for California.

3. Expand enforcement components of the Act to address mandatory reporting in Recommendation 2. In order for the information collected in Recommendation 2 to yield meaningful results, a high proportion of reports must be submitted. Programs with unenforced reporting requi rements experience low reporting rates, making any repres entative analysis impossible.

4. Authorize the Commission to develop an d adopt regulations that prevent or
minimize the introduction of NIS via vessel fouling. Regulations to define regular vessel maintenance practices for t he control of NIS fouling on commercial vessels, and requirements or restrictions for vessels that do not adhere to defined practices are needed.

5. Expand and coordinate biological r esearch directed towards characterizing the NIS risk posed by commercial vessel fouling with other Federal and State agencies. Baseline information on fouling and NIS that arrive on

iicommercial vessels will be critical for the formulation of future management
actions.

6. Support continued long-term NIS m onitoring in California waters. Longterm biological monitoring is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of management efforts to prevent NIS introductions; particularly as new management actions are implemented.

7. Support research promoting technology development. A technology that can collect and contain in-water cleaning debris would be a desirable tool to prevent NIS release during in-water cl eaning, while also providing commercial operators an avenue to clean hulls without placing a vessel in dry dock. Additionally, the advancement of antifouling coatings that are effective for preventing fouling accumulation and caus e little or no water quality impact, will be critical for NIS prevention as regi ons implement bans on biocidal paints.

8. Direct the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, in cooperation
with the U. S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, to evaluate the effects of biocidal antifouling coatings from vessels on water quality. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the State and Re gional Water Quality Control Boards
should conduct a full review to determi ne if biocidal ant ifouling coatings contribute to water quality impairments or to the exceedance of water quality criteria in California. Water quality plans and/or Total Maximum Daily Loads should be adopted or amended accordingly.

9. Expand the existing Marine Invasi ve Species Program’s outreach and education program to in clude the fouling vector. Nonindigenous species transport and introduction through vessel fou ling is a relatively new issue, and
there is little to no awareness of its im portance amongst key stakeholder groups.

iii10. Direct an appropriate agency to address the risk of fouling NIS introduction and spread in Califo rnia through vessels under 300 gross registered tons. Any vessel or structure of any size may accumulate fouling and may be important mechanisms for the tr ansport of NIS. The release and transfer of NIS through vessel types not included in the Act, including recreational and fishing vessels, should be examined by the agency(ies) with the appropriate authority, and re commendations to reduce NIS introductions from these mechanisms should be prov ided to the Legislature.

ivABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

Act Marine Invasive Species Act (Also Assembly Bill 433 of 2003)
ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council
CA California CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Commission California State Lands Commission
IACS International Associat ion of Classification Societies IMO International Maritime Organization
KT Knot
KTS Knots
LCR Lower Columbia River
m Meters MPH Miles per hour NIS Nonindigenous species
PRC Public Resource Code
Staff Staff of the Califo rnia State Lands Commission TAG Technical Advisory Group TBT Tributyltin
WSA Wetted Surface Area

vTABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................. i

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS.................................................................... v

I. PURPOSE........................................................................................ 1

II. INTRODUCTION: NONI NDIGENOUS SPECIES AN D VESSEL FOULING... 1

III. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP PROCESS.......................................... 5

IV. MERCHANT FLEET EFFORTS TO KEEP VESSELS CLEAN.........

................. 9

V. REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON VESSEL FOULING AND NIS..... 12

VI. EXISTING FRAMEWORKS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF VESSEL FOULING.......................................................................................... 23

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 31
VIII. LITERATURE CITED........................................................................... 41

IX. APPENDICIES................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX A: HULL-BORNE IN VASIVE SPECIES WORKSHOP LIST OF ATTENDEES 47

APPENDIX B: CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP PARTICIPANTS 50

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF THE HULL-BORNE INVASIVE SPECIES WORKSHOP (MAY 11, 2006) 53

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION TECHNICAL AD VISORY GROUP MEETING (AUGUST 3, 2005) 60

APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION TECHNICAL AD VISORY GROUP MEETING (OCTOBER 13, 2005) 65

APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION TECHNICAL AD VISORY GROUP MEETING (DECEMBER 19, 2005) 71

X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................... 76

viI. PURPOSE

This report was prepared for the California L egislature pursuant to the Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 (Act), codified as California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Sections 71203-71210.5. The Act enhanced and reauthorized the original law, the Ballast Water Management and Control for Noni ndigenous Species Act of 1999. In accordance with the Act, the California State Lands Commission (Commission) was charged with preparing an analysis of vectors (i .e., mechanism or pathway) other than ballast water, and relative risks of those ve ctors, for the introduc tion of nonindigenous species (NIS) from commercial vessels (Section 71210.5 of t he PRC). Per the law, the analysis shall include the release of NIS from vessel hulls, sea chests ( recessed boxes where water may be pumped aboard for engine cool ing or for ballast), sea suction grids (grates that cover water inta kes), other hull apertures, in -water propellers, chains, anchors, piping, and tanks, and shall be con ducted in consultation with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). This report summariz es the results of this analysis and offers recommendations to reduce the discharge of NI S from vessel vectors other than ballast
water.

II. INTRODUCTION: NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES AND VESSEL FOULING

Also known as “introduced”, “invasive”, “exo tic”, “alien”, or “aquatic nuisance species”, NIS in marine, estuarine and freshwater environments may be transported to new regions through numerous human activities. In tentional and unintent ional releases of fish and shellfish, aquaculture escapes, re leases from the aquariu m and pet industries, floating marine debris, bait shipping, and accidental release by research institutions are some of the mechanisms, or “vectors”, by which organisms are transferred (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). However, in coastal environments, commercial shipping is the most important vector for the introduction of NIS (Ruiz et al., 2000; Hewitt et al., 2004) in one study accounti ng for one half to three-quarters of NIS
introductions to North Americ a (Fofonoff et al., 2003).

1Once established, NIS can have severe ecological, econom ic and human health impacts to the receiving environment. Piment al et al. (2005) estimated approximately $120 billion worth of losses annua lly in the United States due to NIS. The most infamous NIS example is the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) introduced to the Great Lakes from the Black Sea. They a ttach to hard surfaces in dense populations that clog intakes of municipal water systems and electric generating plants, resulting in costs of approximately a billion dollars a y ear (Pimentel et al., 2005). The Asian clam ( Potamocorbula amurensi s) spread throughout the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries two years after its introduction, and accounts for up to 95% of living biomass in some shallow portions of the bay floor (Nichols et al., 1990).

Attempts to eradicate NIS after they have become widely distributed are typically unsuccessful and costly (Carlton, 2001; McEnnul ty et al., 2001; Meyerson and Reaser, 2002). Control is likewise extremely expensiv e. Prevention is therefore considered the most desirable way to address the iss ue. For managers, policy makers, and researchers dedicated to the prevention of marine and estuarine NIS introductions, ballast water has been the major focus during t he last decade. However, vessel fouling, which is a less understood mechanism, has been gaining attention as another important
vehicle for introductions.

Fouling organisms attach to submerged hard surfaces of both naturally occurring and man-made structures (Railkin , 2004). Fouling organisms su ch as mussels, seaweed, anemones, and sea squirts have been found on pi er pilings, tide pool rocks, and oil platforms (Figure II.1). Barnacles, ot her seaweeds, and the plant-like limbs of bryozoans may be attached to mussel shells . Mobile organisms such as shrimp, worms, and sea snails may be tucked in noo ks created by the larger animals. These associated mobile organism s are also part of this “fouling community”.

2Figure II.1: Mussel and Algae Fouling on a Vessel Propeller.

Mariners have long been aware of fouling as a nuisance to vessel operations as it relates to vessel performance, fuel efficiency, and antifouling efficiencies. Fouling on the hull can create drag, increasing fuel c onsumption and potentia lly causing engine strain. In pipes, fouling can block inflowi ng seawater meant to cool machinery. To prevent such problems, vessel operators periodically clean underwater vessel parts, and utilize antifouling paint s and antifouling systems.

Though much of the outer surface of vesse l hulls are treated with paints designed to discourage fouling growth, certain locati ons have been found to be more prone to fouling: dry docking support strips, waterli nes, propellers, rudders, sea chests, and worn or unpainted areas (Coutts et al., 2003; Mi nchin and Gollasch, 2003; Coutts and Taylor, 2004; Ruiz et al., 2005) (See Section V, “Review of Current Knowledge on Vessel Fouling and Nonindigenous Species”).

Despite efforts by the mariti me industry to minimize vess el fouling, recent studies indicate that fouling is still an important mechanism by which nonindigenous organisms can be transported to new regi ons. Vessels that move at slow speeds, spend long periods in port, or are repai nted infrequently, tend to accumu late more fouling (e.g. Coutts, 1999). Unlike the laminar areas of th e hull that experience strong water motion, sheltered recesses of vessels appear to be more hospitable for fouling organisms.

3Thus, studies have documented extensive fouli ng communities on towed vessels, in sea chests, and on recreational vessels. In Hawaii, fouling is believed to be responsible for more successful marine introductions than any other mechanism (Eldredge and Carlton, 2002). For North America, one study estimat ed that at least 36% invertebrates and algae introduced through the shipping vector arri ved via fouling (Fofonoff et al., 2003).

In addition, the nature of fou ling observed on vessels may change as restrictions on biocidal antifouling paints are adopted. Biocidal antifouling coatings deter the attachment of fouling organisms by leachi ng toxic compounds, such as those that contain tributyltin (TBT), copper, and zinc. Because these compounds are also detrimental to non-target organisms, many regions hav e adopted or are considering restrictions on their use. Tributyltin (TBT) is a highly effective antifouling agent that has been restricted by many nations in line with the 2001 Inter national Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention on the Control of Antifouling System s on Ships. Most non-TBT coatings available utilize copper compounds as biocides, though they are generally less effective and their longevity is shorter than TBT (Lewis, 2002). In addition, bans and restrictions on copper- based paints are being considered in a number of places, including the San Diego region. Biocide- free silicon-based coatings are available, but are more costly to apply and are currently only practically effective for active, swift vessels (those that cruise over 15 knots [KTS]) (Lewis, 2002; International Marine Coatings, 2006). As new coatings ar e developed and vessels shift to different antifouling coatings with potent ially lower efficacies, there are concerns that the risk posed by fouling as a transport mechanism for NIS may increase (Nerhing, 2001).

Since 2000, the Commission has administer ed California’s ballast water management program. In 2003, the Act expanded these responsibilitie s, directing the agency to formulate recommendations to prevent introductions through non-ballast, commercial vessel vectors – essentially vessel fouling. As required by the legislation (PRC Section 71210.5), Commission Staff (S taff) assembled a Techni cal Advisory Group (TAG) composed of representatives from state and federal resour ce agencies, the commercial shipping industry, and the scient ific research community.

4III. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP PROCESS

The Act (PRC Section 71210.5) requires Sta ff to consult with a TAG to prepare an analysis of non-ballast commercial vessel vectors for NIS introductions. Staff convened and facilitated a multidisciplinary TAG made up of representatives from the shipping industry (Chevron Shipping Company LLC, Pa cific Merchant Shipping Association, Matson Navigation), academia (Portland State Un iversity, University of California at Davis), research institutes (Cawthron Inst itute, Smithsonian En vironmental Research Center, San Francisco Estuar y Project), governm ent agencies (California State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wild life Service), and other interested parties (See Appendix B for a list of Commission TA G participants). Input was received during facilitated meetings that began with a collaborative workshop, followed by three TAG meetings. Discussions and areas of agreement were then considered by Staff to help guide recommendations put forward in this report.

Discussions began in May 2005 with a cross interest one-day workshop co-sponsored and conducted by the Staff and the Californ ia Sea Grant Extension Program. The workshop objective was to share informa tion and evaluate hull borne transport of invasive species for both the commercial maritime industry and recreational boating community. Attendees included scientists, and representatives from California ports and harbors, state and federal A gencies, environmental organizations, universities, hull coating companies, the commercial maritime industry, and the re creational boating community (See Appendix A for a list of workshop participants).

The workshop began with informational presentat ions from several experts on fouling issues to inform attendees prior to their participation in a fternoon break-out discussions. Speakers included vessel coating and maintenance professionals, a legal expert from the Sea Grant Law Center, and scientific ex perts from Hawaii, New Zealand, and the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (See Appendix C for a workshop summary). Topics presented included:

5• Overviews of hull borne aquatic invasive species in North America, Hawaii and
New Zealand

• Management strategies that have been adopt ed or considered for fouling NIS in
New Zealand and Hawaii

• Information on how various antifouling c oatings prevent fou ling growth, and the water quality problems presented by some coatings

• Hull husbandry practices of commercial vessels

• International, federal and state policies related to vessel fouling and antifouling coatings

Speakers participated in a panel-style question and answer session following the formal presentations. During the afternoon session, attendees were placed into break-out groups and asked to provide input on potent ial management consid erations. These group sessions identified data gaps and outreach needs related to vessel fouling and
NIS.

Three additional TAG meetings were conv ened by Staff between August and December of 2005, which focused on commercial vess el fouling. Thes e meetings included representatives from the ship ping industry, scientists, government agencies, and other interested parties (See Appendix B for a list of Commission TAG participants).

The objective of the August TAG meeting was to continue information sharing begun during the May workshop, but focused ex clusively on commercial vessels. TAG
members discussed the definiti on of “Non-ballast vessel-based vectors,” as stated in the
Act. Further discussions addressed how en vironmental characteristics, and vessel behaviors and maintenance practices may infl uence vessel fouling (See Appendix D for summary of August TAG meeting).

The October and December TAG meetings focused on the development of potential management frameworks to prevent NIS introductions via vessel fouling. During the October meeting, the TAG reviewed foulin g management frameworks of other regions

6including codes of practice, regulations , informational surveys, and risk assessment techniques, and began to discuss their potential for application in California. The TAG additionally began discussing and prioritizing information and research needs (See Appendices E and F for meeting summaries).

At the final meeting in December, the TAG considered the pros and cons of hypothetical management options that ranged from indus try education and outreach to potential regulations. This final meeting culminat ed in an informal list of areas where more
information would be beneficial for the devel opment of future management actions (See Figure III.1).



## TAG Meeting Framework TAG Meeting Framework

Information Sharing Information Sharing

Workshop May 11, 2005 Meeting #2 August 3 Meeting #3 October 13 Meeting #4 December 19

Discussion: focus on commercial vessels
Fouling risk factors

Commercial vessel maintenance frameworks Initial information sharing inclusive of recreational fouling
Preliminary scoping of potential management frameworks Potential Management Frameworks for CA: Research? Regulations? Best Management Practices? Potential Management Framework
Areas of Agreement Recommendation Development Recommendation Development

Figure III.1: Overview of major discussion area s and timing during Vessel Fouling Technical Advisory Group meetings.

Staff compiled and organized meeting notes to assist in the analysis of non-ballast commercial vessel vectors (See Appendices C-F for meeting summaries). The

7following list summarizes the major points that emerged during TAG discussions, and that framed the development of priority in formation gaps and action items. (These items are listed in the next porti on of this section):

• Vessel fouling poses an NIS risk that needs to be addressed.

• Much of the merchant fleet is well maintained, and likely poses lower risk.

• There is generalized knowledge on factors that facilitate fouling accumulation on
vessels.

• The extent of fouling risk in North America is unclear. There has been limited modern research conducted pr imarily in other regions, and it may be difficult to apply this data directly to California.

• Dry dock facilities are in high demand and booked well in advance. There is little flexibility for unplanned dry docking events for the purposes of out-of-water hull cleaning.

• Biocidal antifouling paints pose water quality concerns.

As a result of the considerat ions listed above, several items were identified during the TAG process that members believed deserved priority attention. These are listed
below and discussed further in focused sections of this report:

• Compile additional data and research to develop a comprehensive and effective framework to prevent NIS in troductions via vessel fouling in California. Specific data and research needs identified by the TAG were:
3⁄4 How the periodicity and type of commercial vessel maintenance relates to the accumulation and composition of fouling communities (e.g. dry dock vs. in-water cleaning frequency, type of antifouling paint).
3⁄4 The quantity of fouling and characteri zation of species found on vessels
that call to California.
3⁄4 Specific conditions that constitute a high risk vessel (e.g. vessel speed, husbandry, route, sedentary time, etc...).

• Develop protocols that may be used to flag a high risk vessel arrival to California.

8• Develop response measures to prevent NIS release.

• Develop technologies that contain and co llect fouling effluent during in-water cleaning.

• Develop standardized data collection prot ocols and procedures for diver or ROV
surveys.

• Increase outreach and educatio n regarding vessel fouling as a vector for NIS
introductions.

Areas of agreement from t he collaborative workshop and TAG meetings provided valuable multi-disciplinary input to Staff during its evaluation of vessel fouling. TAG discussions confirmed that many questions rema in regarding vessel fouling as an NIS vector, although discussions did offer some guidance for wher e future efforts should be focused. The information and suggestions pr ovided by the TAG were considered and incorporated into this report by Staff.

IV. MERCHANT FLEET EFFORTS TO KEEP VESSELS CLEAN

Vessels travel faster through water when t heir hulls are clean and smooth, free from fouling organisms such as barnacles, algae, or mollusks. Fouling control is important to protect the hull from corrosion, reduce drag, and save fuel. Vessel owners and operators have long understood t hese relationships, utilizing various mechanisms to prevent or reduce fouling, in cluding regular dry docking w here hulls are mechanically cleaned and antifouling compounds are applied, and peri odic in-water hull cleaning.

Antifouling compounds such as lime, arsenic, mercury, and pesticides (e.g. DDT) were used to coat vessel hulls prior to the 1960’s (IMO, 2002). Unfo rtunately, frequent reapplication of these co mpounds was necessary, increasing operating costs, and
arsenic and DDT have since been shown to have significant negative impacts on the environment. In the 1960’s, t he chemical industry developed biologically effective and cost-efficient organotin-based antif ouling paints (e.g. tributylti n), that were believed to be
less harmful than the biocides used at the ti me. These antifouling paints were designed

9to slowly release biocide, allowing vesse ls to go for as long as five years before reapplication.

By the mid-1970’s, most oceangoing vessels had tributyltin (TBT)-based antifouling paints applied to their hulls. Tributyltin wa s found to be highly effective at keeping the hull smooth and clean, however, subsequent studies have shown TBT to have significant environmental impacts. Tributyl tin and other organotin compounds leach into the water, persist in waters and sedim ents, and contaminate a range of non-target aquatic organisms. Tributyltin causes s hell deformation in sea oysters, reduces resistance to infection in fish, is absorbed throughout the food chain, and has been found to be highly toxic to humans. As a resu lt, several countries imposed rules to limit
the use of TBT in antifouli ng paints. In 1999, the IMO adopted Resolution A.895 (21) “Antifouling Systems Used on Ships”. The Re solution prohibited the application of organotin compounds on ships after Januar y 2003 with a complete prohibition by January 2008. With the im pending TBT-ban, paint manufactures have been developing TBT-free antifouling and fouling-re lease (non-biocidal) coatings. Many vessels currently utilize coatings with copper or zinc as the ac tive biocide in place of TBT. Some use slippery silicon-based coatings which contai n no biocides but make it difficult for organisms to adhere, or remain attached to the vessel.

The application of antifouli ng compounds is generally conducted in conjunction with regularly scheduled hull maintena nce operations required by classification societies, though hull coating and cleaning is not explicitly required. Classification societies, such as American Bureau of Shipping, Det Nor ske Veritas, and Lloyd’s Register, are organizations that establish and apply technical standards related to the design, construction, and survey of vessels. The majority of vessels are built and surveyed based on classification society standards, wh ich are published as rules. Ninety four percent of all commercial ve ssels operating in international trade belong to one of several societies that are part of the International Associat ion of Classification Societies (IACS) (IACS, 2004).

10Vessels built in accordance with IACS rule s are assigned a class designation and are subject to regular surveys to ensure that sh ips remain in compliance with those rules. Classification society rules include requirem ents for periodic hull surveys. While these rules are directed at ensuring safety and struct ural integrity rather than NIS prevention, they incidentally serve to control vessel f ouling to a certain degree. The frequency that most vessels routinely clean hulls and reapply antif ouling paints is a ssociated with the
hull maintenance rules of their classification . In general, each classed vessel is subject to a specified program of periodic surve ys. These specific programs are based on a five-year cycle that consists of annual surve ys (in-water), intermedi ate surveys (in-water or dry dock), and class renewal special surve ys (dry dock) that ta ke place every fifth year. As a vessel ages, the ri gor of each survey increases. For example, older vessels generally require more frequent out-of-water surveys and some vessels operating in certain areas, such as Alaska’s Prince William Sound, are subj ect to more frequent inspections (see Appendix D). Additionally, an incident that may have compromised the integrity of the hull (e.g. collision, grounding or allision) generally requires an out of water dry dock survey.

Vessels generally dry dock only as fr equently as needed or required because dry docking facilities are limited, making scheduli ng difficult and costly. While reapplication of antifouling compounds is normally not required by societies, vessel owners commonly take advantage of required dry dockings and elect to clean and reapply antifouling compounds at the same time. Because fouling continues to accumulate between required dry dockings and can reduce fuel efficiency, most companies also conduct interim in-water cleanings. These are conducted as needed, according to the results of frequent fuel consumption and speed performance tests (see Appendix E).

Most commercial vessel owners operating in California waters conduct regular hull
maintenance for structural and economic reas ons, not for NIS prevent ion. Therefore, while we may speculate that frequently dry docked and cleaned vessels pose “less” risk than those that are not maintained according to classification society rules, there is still

11a great deal of information needed on how much NIS prevention is achieved through adherence to these practices.

V. REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON VESSEL FOULING AND NIS

Staff and TAG members reviewed existing scient ific information in order to evaluate the risk posed by commercial vessel fouling for NIS introductions in California, and to provide informed considerations fo r potential management recommendations. Information examined included peer reviewed and gr ay literature studies and
discussions with scientists on the TAG with re search expertise on NIS and commercial vessel fouling. Unfortunately, little res earch has been conducted on vessel fouling and its role as an NIS transport mechanism, particu larly for North America. In the U.S., one limited study was conducted in the Port of Oakland, two are underway for the Pacific Coast, and a handful of studies have been completed in the Hawaiian Islands. The majority of research consists of sma ller studies conducted on a combination of
commercial and recreational vessels in Australia and New Zealand. In light of the
limited amount of inform ation, the TAG and the Commission examined generalized factors that affect fouling accumulation on vessels, the relative risk posed by vessels exhibiting those factors, and how factors may or may not app ly to merchant traffic in California. Emphasis was placed on topics t hat could guide the development of shipbased management strategies that may hel p prevent NIS introductions via vessel fouling to the State.

Vessel Movement and Maintenance Effects on Fouling Certain vessel movement patterns and maintenance practices have been observed to affect the diversity (variety of species) and quantity of f ouling observed on commercial vessels. These factors influence the ability of free swimming or floating organisms to attach to a vessel, the ability of fouling organisms to remain affixed, or affect the ability of the organism to survive voyages.

Immobile Periods: The amount of time a vessel spends in port or at anchor has a notable influence on fouling. Many floati ng or free swimming organisms are better able

12to attach or “settle” on surfaces while vessels are i mmobile, and vessels that spend long stationary periods have been observed to ha ve heavier fouling communities (Skerman, 1960; Rainer, 1995; Coutts, 1999). One study also indicated that fouling accumulates more quickly and more heavily in enclosed bas ins (e.g. marinas) likely because water and organisms are flushed out le ss frequently in comparison to inshore coastal areas (Floerl and Inglis, 2003).

Vessel Speed: Vessel speed influences the quantity and diversity of fouling species observed on vessels. At high speeds, m any organisms are unable to remain attached to vessels, or are less able to endure forc eful water moving past the surface. Less robust organisms may be dislodge d or may be unable to survive. Slow speeds are less stressful, allowing many fouling organisms to remain attached or continue settling on the vessel surface (Foster and Willan, 1979; Carlton and Hodder, 1995). Thus, slower moving vessels have been observed to accumulate thicker fouling than do faster vessels that travel over 18-20 KTS (Michin and Gollasch, 2003; Coutts and Taylor, 2004).

Voyage Duration: Shorter voyages have been observe d to be more advantageous for the survival of fouling communities than longer voyages. The prolonged exposure to harsh physical conditions of the open ocean during a long voyage may be detrimental to fouling organisms, or they may be deprived of food for an untenable length of time (Coutts, 1999).

Age of Antifouling Paint: As discussed in Section IV, “Merchant Fleet Efforts to Keep Vessels Clean”, commercial vessels regularly utilize antifouling coatings to discourage hull growth that can create drag. The majori ty of coatings in use today function by slowly releasing biocidal toxic agents (e.g. copper or zinc compounds) that kill fouling organisms or affect thei r ability to attach to the treated surface. The age of antifouling paint is strongly related to the divers ity and amount of foul ing organisms on both commercial vessels and recreational boats (Coutts, 1999; Floerl and Inglis, 2005). Older coatings have been observed to be le ss effective, presumably because the activity of the biocidal toxins decreases with time.

13In-water cleaning : In addition to periodic applic ation of antifouli ng paints, vessel operators and owners may also have fouling growth removed through scrubbing while the vessel remains in the water, in between paint applications. Wh ile in-water cleaning is effective for removing fouling organisms in the short term, research on recreational vessels suggests that it may increase the am ount of fouling in t he long term. It is suspected that this may occur because the mechanical removal of fouling leaves traces of scraped organisms, including s hell or tissue (Floerl, 2005; Floerl et al., 2005). For some fouling species, these remnants act as a signal for unattached fouling organisms in the water column to settle (Railkin, 2004). Additionally, in -water cleaning can dislodge viable organisms at a destination port which may facilitate introductions of NIS (see discussion in this section, “T ransfer from Vessel to Port”).

Environmental Factors that Influen ce Fouling – Salinity and Temperature As vessels transit from one port to another, th ey typically pass through changing salinity and temperature conditions, and these fa ctors are believed to be important determinants of the survival of fouling or ganisms. While some organisms are able to survive a wide range of environmental conditi ons, many are not. Dramatic or rapid changes in either salinity or te mperature are stressful for m any organisms. In one case, this attribute was utilized to treat a heavily fouled vessel that had been moored for five years at a high salinity location (33-35 par ts per thousand) in Washington State. Freshwater immersion resulted in approximat ely 90% removal of the original fouling growth (Brock et al., 1999). Organism in tolerance to wide salinity and temperature fluctuations may also partially explain wh y higher levels of fouling are observed on vessels traveling on short voyages at simila r latitudes where salinity and temperature levels tend to be more consistent (Coutts and Taylor, 2004).

In addition to voyage route, temperature and salinity also vary depending on other interacting variables. Season, amount of precipitation, and depth of a vessel’s submerged surfaces are some of the majo r components that infl uence both temperature and salinity levels in any given location, and thus may affect vessel fouling.

14Location on a Vessel Fouling is not uniformly distributed on submer ged portions of vessels. Some areas are particularly prone to fouling even on vessels with behaviors not generally conducive to fouling (e.g. travel at high speeds, spend little time in port). Areas sheltered from strong water forces, where antifouling coatings are less frequently renewed, or where antifouling systems may be irregular ly utilized tend to exhibit higher levels of fouling (Coutts and Taylor, 2004). The Act specific ally directs that the Commission include an analysis of specific vessel components. These “...shall include but not be limited to...hulls, sea chests, sea suction grids, othe r hull apertures, in-water propellers, chains, anchors, piping and tanks,” (Public Res ources Code (PRC) Section 71210.5). The
TAG and Staff therefore consi dered and prioritized the relative fouling risk associated with specific vessel areas.

Areas on a vessel that are shielded from strong water flow have been noted to foul even in cases where main portions of the hull ar e clean. Studies have noted higher numbers and/or diversity of fouling organisms in sheltered areas and in crevices around rudders or propellers, intake pipes, gratings, and bow thrusters (Figure V.1) (Ranier, 1995; Coutts and Taylor, 2004). In particular, recent research has documented extensive fouling communities in the sea chests of some vessels (Dodgson and Coutts, 2002,

Figure V.1: Intake opening on a vessel hull.
Note that fouling is visible, though surrounding exposed areas are clean.

15Coutts et al., 2003). Larger mobile organism s, such as crabs, snails, and shrimp have been found in sea chests, in addition to immobile, attached fouling organisms.

For vessels that are well maintained (cleaned and painted frequently) lowest risk areas are portions that are exposed to strong wate r movement such as the main hull, and areas of the rudder exposed to the intense flows generated by the propeller. There was no information available regarding fouling of propellers and anchors, which were explicitly listed in the Act.

As noted earlier in this section, older antifouling coatings appear to be less effective at preventing fouling accumulation. Portions of a vessel that are coated less frequently may thus pose a higher risk, even if they are subjected to strong water motion. Studies
in Tasmania and New Zealand have found high diversities of organisms on localized parts of the hull where s upport blocks prevented cleaning and/or painting during the most recent dry dock service (Coutts, 1999; Coutts and Taylor, 2004). These “dry dock support blocks” are placed at intervals under the length of the hull to suspend a vessel when it is brought into dry dock for repairs , maintenance, cleaning, or painting (Figure V.2). Though many dry dock operations alter nate the location of the blocks so hull

Figure V. 2: Vessel on dry dock blocks. The rectangular blocks suspend the vessel for maintenance, repair, and paint re-application.

16areas beneath them are serviced during every other docking, the ant ifouling coating is older at those locations in compar ison to the rest of the hull.

Transfer from a Vessel to Port Because fouling communities consist of organi sms that are either physically attached or that associate with vessel surfaces, NIS must be transferred fr om the vessel to a recipient port for possibility of intr oduction. This may occur through:

• Spawning or Egg Release

• Detachment (drop off a vessel)

• Mechanical removal (dislodged from a vessel)

Spawning or egg release can expose a recipient site to the young of fouling organisms
even if the adults are otherwis e unable to detach from a vessel. For example, eggbearing crabs too large to escape sea chests have been found in vessels arriving to New Zealand and Tasmania (Dodgshun and Cou tts, 2002; Coutts et al., 2003). For many marine invertebrates, certain environm ental events such as changes in salinity or temperature can trigger spawning. In parti cular, rises in sea temperature can cause spawning for many temperate species (Mi chin and Gollasch, 2003), and likely triggered spawning of an NIS mussel species found attached to a vessel that had been towed from the Washington-Oregon area to Hawaii (Apte et al., 2000).

For mobile organisms in particular, transfer to a recipient port may be accomplished by simply dropping off a vessel. Org anisms capable of in dependent detachment associated with fouling communities include cr abs, fishes, sea stars, shrimp, snails and plankton (Foster and Willan, 1979; Carlt on and Hodder, 1995, Dodgshun and Coutts, 2002; Coutts et al., 2003). Even in some documented cases involving the introduction of immobile fouling organism s, detachment is suspected as the only mode of transfer (Michin and Gollasch 2003).

Organisms can be dislodged if the vessel is bumped or during the process of in-water or dry dock cleanings. In-water cleaning is typically conducted between dry dock maintenance intervals to ensure that drag c aused by fouling is kept to a minimum, and

17to meet classification so ciety maintenance requirements (See Section IV, Merchant Fleet Efforts to Keep Vessels Clean). Duri ng in-water cleaning, fouling material is scraped or scrubbed from the underwater portions of the vessel, and can result in organisms dropping to the seafloor (Michin and Gollasch, 2003). A study in New Zealand on in-water scraping of smaller vessels (less than 49 meters [m]) indicated that 72% of the discarded organism s remained alive (Floerl et al., 2004), though it is not clear if other cleaning techniques (e.g. br ushing) on larger commercial vessels would yield similar results.

During cleaning in a dry dock, fouling is often removed via abrasive blasting or hydroblasting. Though organism s dislodged during dry do ck pose a theoretical NIS threat, increasing concerns over toxic subs tances entering the water have resulted in strict disposal requirements for effluent from dry docks. For exampl e, the National Point Source Discharge Permit issued to the commercial dry dock in San Francisco prohibits the direct discharge of particulates and effluent into waters of the State (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sa n Francisco Bay Region, 1999). Fouling material along with other waste particulates are generally placed in holding tanks and/or discharged to municipal wastewater systems or to a landfill. Thus, the potential for fouling introductions from dry docks theoretica lly presents limited risk (Godwin et al., 2004; Davidson et al., 2005).

Studies Conducted on U.S. Pacific Coast Because fouling appears to be af fected by factors that vary in relation to the type of commerce and environmental conditions of a specif ic region, it is im portant to consider field research conducted locally. A summary of studies conducted in the U.S. Pacific region are reviewed here.

Port of Oakland, 2004 A pilot study on nine containerships arrivi ng to the Port of Oakland in 2004 found patterns of fouling that varied in some aspects from studies conducted in other regions. As in other studies, the most fouling was observed in sh eltered, non-hull locations on each ship. In contrast, the overall amount of fouling was much lower than had been

18observed on vessels in New Zealand (Coutts and Taylor, 2004; Ruiz et al., 2005). This is likely partially due to the high average speed of the vessels in the study (24-28 MPH, or 21-24 KTS) and their short port residency ti me (less than 24 hours). In contrast to other studies, little fouling was found in dry dock support strip areas though the condition of antifouling paint there was poor . The authors suggest that containerships arriving to Oakland may have lower levels of fouling in comparison to other vessel types with differing movement patterns. However, they caution that the limited number of vessels examined and the focus on only one ship type make any generalizations premature.

Wetted Surface Area (WSA) of Commercial Vessels Arriving to California Ports Any submerged portion of a vessel represents a potential for fouling accumulation. Thus, an estimate of total amount of submerged surface area from all vessels that arrive to a region can provide some indication of the rate and pattern with which individual organisms may arrive (propagule pressure), and how they may contribute to NIS establishment. As part of a larger study to investigate fouling NIS potential on vessels arriving to the West Coast, the Aquatic Bi oinvasions Research and Policy Institute provided preliminary data on hull “wetted surf ace area” (WSA) of vessels arriving to California for this report. This analysis was based on vessel arriva ls from the ballast water reporting forms submitted to Ca lifornia between July 2003 and June 2005.

For the two years analyzed, 189.5 million square meters (m 2 ) of hull surface area has arrived to ports in the State ( ≈ 95 million m 2 per year). Forty-one percent arrived from Pacific Coast ports of North America (Calif ornia, Oregon, Washingt on, British Columbia and Alaska). The remain ing 59% (111.8 million m 2 ) arrived from overseas ports in 71 countries throughout the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, hi ghlighting the global scale of possible introduction via this mechanism. Containerships dominated California arrivals, accounting for 55% of the total W SA for the state, and were the most frequent visitor and one of the largest ship types on average (second only to tankers in terms of average WSA) (Figure V.3).

190 20 40 60 80 100 120

A uto Ba r ge B ul

k

C ontain er Gene r al Pas senger Tan ker O t h

er

Vessel typeWSA (x 1 million)

Figure V.3: Total wetted surface area (WSA) arriving to ports from July 2003 - June 2005 in California by vessel type.

The magnitude of the threat of invasion to California’s coastal waters from hull fouling is significant. The two-year total of WSA enter ing California waters equates to 11⁄2 times
the area of San Francisco County. However, without reliable data on biofouling densities across different vessel types, the ability to determine the full extent of propagule pressure to the State fr om commercial hull fouling is li mited. A first effort at gathering this data will be made later in 2006, with the longer term aim to determine how different vessel types, voyage routes, hull husbandry regimes, and recipient port conditions influence hull fouling transfers and species establishment.

Wetted Surface Analysis and Vessel Fouling Surveys in the Lower Columbia River In a preliminary study, vessel fouling and it s potential for introductions in the Lower Columbia River (LCR) was evaluated through: WSA calculations for vessels arriving between July 2002 and June 2005, a biologi cal analysis of fouling on 10 vessels surveyed in dry dock and on 7 vessels su rveyed on video, and an evaluation of the suitability of the Lower Columb ia River for invasion.

Over 40.5 million m 2 of WSA arrived in the region between July 2002 and June 2005. The scale of potential introducti ons was global – vessels arrived from 377 different ports

20in 66 countries. The vast majority (85%) of overseas arrivals came from Asian ports of
the Northwest Pacific. Vessel WSA was do minated by bulk carriers (>50%). Fouling on vessels examined on dry dock was highly vari able; it ranged between >90% and <1% of the WSA. High levels of fouling tended toward vessels that remained within either
marine or freshwater conditions and had not been cleaned within the last two years. Minimal fouling levels were associated with vessels that commonly traversed a range of salinity conditions, such as bar ges that frequent the LCR. Two vessels with the highest number of species had traveled to the LCR from overseas and had not spent much time in freshwater. Many of t he taxa on these vessels were probably nonindigenous to the Pacific Northwest region. Finally, the authors conjecture that the dramatically varying salinity and highly variable flow rates in t he LCR may serve to limit some invasions (Davidson et al., 2005).

Implications of Current Knowledge The review of current research provided in this section allows for broad generalizations regarding NIS invasion risk posed by foulin g on commercial vessels. However, the extent to which these principals apply to t he U.S. West Coast and California are unclear
due to the limited amount of information available. Fouling and associated NIS introductions are highly dependent on envir onmental conditions, vessel maintenance practices, type of shipping traffic, and vessel movement patterns, which can be regionally unique. Fouling factors also inte ract. A single vessel may exhibit behaviors that fall into both higher and lower risk categorie s, resulting in fouling NIS risk that can be complex and difficult to evaluate. This is especially the case for North America and California, where very little locally based research has been conducted on vessel fouling and its relationship to NIS introductions.

In a minority of instances where vessels or maritime structures exhibit exaggerated characteristics that contribute to fouling accumulation, the NIS risk has been observed to be high. For example, the decommissioned USS Missouri was observed to have accumulated at least 116 fouling species dur ing its five-year residency in Bremerton, Washington (Brock et al., 1999), before it was to be relocated to Hawaii. Towed vessels

21or maritime structures t hat move extremely slowly and spend very long periods immobile have been observed to be problemat ic in New Zealand and Hawaii (Rainer, 1995; Godwin, 2003; Coutts, 2005 (a)). In 2001, a barge that had arrived in New Zealand from the Philippines before 1991 and which had not been dry docked since its arrival, was observed to have accumulated over 28 tons of fouling organisms (Coutts, 2005(b)). A heavily fouled floati ng dry dock that was towed to Hawaii in 1992 from the Philippines is thought to be responsible for the establishment of several NIS to Pearl Harbor (Coles et al., 1999). An oil platfo rm towed for 68 days at an average of 3.7 MPH (3 KTS) from Japan to New Zealand arriv ed with over a ton of fouling (Foster and Willan, 1979). A floating dry dock towed to Hawaii from San Diego in 1999 had high levels of fouling the incl uded 34 NIS, and an algal specie s became established as a result (Godwin, 2003).

The majority of vessels in regular operation, however, do not exhibit similarly extreme characteristics. As noted in Section IV, most companies clean and paint hulls regularly for operational safety, to reduce maintenance costs, and to minimize drag-related fuel costs. Many minimize time in port and maxi mize transit speed in order to move cargo quickly for maximal profit. Because ther e have been no fouling studies across a broad range of vessel types, vessel movement pattern s, and maintenance practices, it is not known what kinds of fouling patterns resu lt on vessels that exhibit more common behaviors or that engage in a combination of behaviors with differing fouling effects (e.g. a swift vessel that typically spends three day s in port; a freshly painted vessel that has been moored for two weeks). Thus, while it may be possible to identify irregular situations that likely pose a high risk, it is not clear what level of risk is presented under more typical commercial vessel behaviors.

It is also notable that any vessel or structure of any size may accumulate fouling, and if mobile, can serve to transport NIS. Fact ors that influence fouling on commercial vessels also apply to other structures, includ ing private boats or yachts, fishing vessels, and navigational buoys (Railkin, 2004). For exampl e, the historical replica ship of the Golden Hinde transported over 64 species at various legs of its voyage from Yaquina

22Bay, Oregon to San Francisco Bay, Calif ornia in 1987. The vessel spent 30-day layovers at three ports prior to and during its 4-4.5 MPH (3.5-4 KT) trip (Carlton and Hodder, 1995). In a Hawaii study, 21 NIS were found on 12 overseas personal craft, though all but one of the NIS had already become establish ed in the state (Godwin et al., 2004). In New Zealand, recreational yachts have been suspected as a probable introduction vector for several problematic NIS (Floerl and Inglis, 2005). Though the Act explicitly directs the Commission to evaluat e the NIS risk posed by vessels over 300 gross registered tones able to carry ballast, it is important to note that a complete picture of the fouling NIS vector extends beyond commercial vessels.

VI. EXISTING FRAMEWORKS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF VESSEL FOULING

A range of strategies for mi nimizing NIS introductions through commercial vessel fouling have been proposed or adopted by various countries , states/territories and regions. To date, no country has adopted nat ional regulations for commerc ial vessels explicitly for the prevention of NIS introduc tions through vessel fouling. The types of management frameworks vary widely because there is little information on the efficacy of management strategies for the vector. In so me cases, the primary impetus for management is not fouling NIS pr evention, but the minimizati on of toxic antifouling paint release into the water as residues are scraped off during hull cleaning. The TAG and Staff examined the benefits and drawbacks of these strategies, and their potential for the prevention of fouling NIS in California.

Federal and California Codes and Statutes The Federal code (Code of Federal Regula tions [CFR] Section 151.2035 (5) and (6)) and the California statue (California Public Resources Code Section 71204 (e) and (f)) contain nearly identical lang uage prescribing minimum maintenance actions to control fouling. However, both are limited in scope and specificity. They require that anchors and anchor chains be rinsed upon retrieval at their place of origin, and that fouling organisms be regularly removed from hu lls, piping and tanks and be disposed of according to local, State or Federal regul ations. Parameters are not defined regarding the “regular” removal of fouling. Despite th is, the U.S. Coast Guard was able to use the

23federal regulation to intervene when decommissioned Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet vessels were moved from one Captain of t he Port Zone to another for dismantling. Much of the Suisun Bay fleet has been immobile for years, if not decades, with little or
no hull maintenance.

Hawaii In Hawaii, a draft information framewor k for the management of fouling NIS was developed by the Alien Aquat ic Organism Task Force, a stakeholder group formed by the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. The framework has not yet been officially adopted, and the State currently m onitors maritime arrivals for high risk vessels through an informal network of state, federal, ac ademic and private groups. Response is conducted through this informal network as much as possible.

The draft framework separates fouling NIS management into three componen ts. “Proactive measures” are geared towards minimi zing high risk arrivals to Hawaii, and include education and outreach, maritime activity monitoring, and the evaluation of arrivals for potential high risk vessels. The second component addresses the response to a high risk event, and these “reactive measures” may involve an investigation of the identified vessel, and/or a det ermination of actions to minimize the potential for NIS introduction. The third component, “post-event measures”, involves the development of long term management measures once it is determined that t hey are needed (Godwin, 2005).

In order to assist with the i dentification of potentially high risk vessel arrivals during the pro-active stage, an evaluative risk ma trix was developed (See Figure VI.1). Its components are based on vessel movement and maintenance patterns that influence fouling, though some of its specific par ameters have not yet been defined (Godwin et al., 2004) (see Section V, “Review of Cu rrent Knowledge on Vessel Fouling and Nonindigenous Species”). In the proposed matrix, vessels a rriving from outside of the
state that do not adhere to international maintenance codes of practice, and spend long periods immobile would be flagged. In additi on, certain vessel types are designated as

24high risk, based on prior NIS fouling surveys conducted in Hawaii. These would include vessel types that often travel at slow speeds and spend long periods inactive (e.g. barges, platforms, floating dry do cks). Potential reactive measures for high risk vessels include restricting time in port to essential operations, quarantine, or out of water cleaning for those intent on an extended stay.

Priority Vessels

• Towed Barges & Work Platforms

• Floating Drydocks

• Unique Arrivals
? Last port of call

outside Hawaii No Yes

Stop ? Compliance Standards

• ISM Code

• Local codes of practice

Yes

Stop No ? Lay-up or inactive period

< Time X > Time X

Stop Investigate
Ranking System
Acceptable

Stop Unacceptable

Response & Action

Figure VI.1: Preliminary “risk matrix” developed in Hawaii to as sist with the identificat ion of arrivals that pose a high fouling NIS risk to the state. From: Godwin, 2005.

New Zealand The Biosecurity New Zealand (formerly New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries) is the primary agency responsible for the prevent ion and management of marine NIS in New Zealand. There are currently no regulations in place related to the prevention of fouling NIS, however information gathering efforts ar e conducted through a survey. The survey
is included on the ballast water declarati on form required of all arriving vessels, and asks three questions relating to vessel maintenance and activity:

• When was the vessel last dry-docked and cleaned?

25• Has the vessel been laid up for three mont hs or more since it was last dry docked and cleaned? If yes, state when and where.

• Do you intend to clean the hull in New Zealand? If yes, state when and where.

In addition, New Zealand’s fishing industr y adopted voluntary codes of practice in December 1996, following the hi ghly publicized arrival of a fishing vessel in 1994 with approximately 90 tons of fouling (Hay and D odgshun, 1997; Coutts, 2005(a)). The code requests that foreign owned or sourced vessels be free from growth prior to entering
New Zealand’s Exclusive Economi c Zone. If this cannot be a ssured, the vessel should be inspected, and either cleaned before departure or have fouling removed in a manner that does not allow organisms to enter the marine environment.

Biosecurity New Zealand is currently consid ering several options for the regulation of hull cleaning practices. Proposed rules may requi re that out-of-water cleaning facilities contain, collect and dispose of or treat f ouling material in a manner that prevents discharge of organisms to t he marine environment. Additi onally, proposed rules may include a ban on in-water cleaning, regulations targeting high risk vessels only, or the adoption of codes of practice for in-water cleaning operations (Coutts, 2005 (a); New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries, 2006).

Australia Though Australia has not impl emented nationwide r egulations related to fouling on vessels larger than 25 m, all states and te rritories prohibit in-water cleaning on commercial-sized vessels (Hirst, 2006; New Zeal and Ministry of Fish eries, 2006). Most of these prohibitions are variants of t he Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) codes of pr actice (See discussion that follows on ANEZCC codes of practice), and in some cases have been adopted primarily to prevent biocidal antifouling paint flakes from entering the water or dropping to the sea floor. Currently, protocols tailored to specifically address fouling NIS are in very early stages of development (Hirst, 2006).

26In late 2005, Australia announced the implementation of national regulations to prevent fouling NIS introductions on internationally traveling vessels under 25 m. Though the regulation does not apply to commercial vessels, it is reviewed in this report because it represents the first legal r egime specifically aimed to wards the prevention of NIS introductions through the hull fouling vector in the marine environment (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, 2005). T he rule will become mandatory in October of 2006 after a one year voluntary period, and requires that vessel gear and seawater systems are clean of marine pests and growths. In addition, operators must perform one of three antifouling measures:

• Clean the hull one month prior to arrival

• Apply antifouling paint wit hin one year before arrival

• Book the vessel to be slipped and cleaned within one week of arrival

The Australian and New Zealand Envir onment Conservation Council (ANZECC)
The Australian and New Zealand Environmen t Conservation Council (ANZECC) was a
Ministerial Council that operated from 1991 to 2001 to develop coordinated policies between member nations. The Council pro duced codes of practice to minimize pollution problems caused by toxic antifou ling paints and to reduce the release of fouling NIS. In-water cleaning is prohibited, except in extraordinar y circumstances. The codes do allow the cleaning of sea chests , grids, and hull apertures under permit if
debris was not allowed into the water or onto the seafloor, and also allow propeller polishing under permit (ANEZCC, 1997).

Merchant Classification Society Requirements As discussed earlier, classification societies require periodic hull inspections and dry docking of commercial vessels (See Secti on IV, “Merchant Fleet Efforts to Keep Vessels Clean”). Though requirements vary slightly depending on the age of a vessel and classification, they generally require vess els to be dry docked at least once every five years. None of the societies requi res the hull to be cleaned while dry docked. Nevertheless, because of the increased fuel consumption that can result from fouling,

2728 and because the dry docking process is costly and difficult to schedule, most companies take the opportunity to clean and paint ve ssel hulls during these periods. Most companies also conduct interi m in-water cleanings according to fuel performance tests,
in order to maintain cost effective fuel efficiency.

Due to the lack of scientific knowledge on the most effective and practicable options for the prevention of NIS from commercial vess el fouling, no national policies have been adopted. For similar reasons, strategies t hat have been implemented in select regions range widely (See Table VI.1.). Clearly, more research will be needed to evaluate where the highest risks of NIS introduction lie and which preventative actions might be most protective.Country/State/PortManagementStrategyDetailsU.S. FederalCaliforniaEmbedded in ballastwater regulationEmbedded in ballastwater statuteRinse anchor chains and anchors at place of originRemove fouling from hull, piping and tanks on a regular basis. Dispose wastes in accordance with local, state, andfederal law.HawaiiInformationFramework TargetingHigh Risk Vessels(Proposed)Pro-active measures: Education/outreach, vessel arrival monitoring, evaluation for high-risk arrivals (See Figure VI.1.)Re-active measures: Rapid response/investigation of high risk eventPost-event measures: Long term regulations for high-risk events•Limit time in port•Vessel quarantine•Out of water cleaningSurvey(On Ballast WaterDeclaration Form)1. When and where was the vessel last dry-docked and cleaned?2. Has the vessel been laid-up for 3 months or more since it was last dry-docked and cleaned? If YES, state whenand where. (Also requests start and end date laid up)3. Do you intend to clean the hull of the vessel in New Zealand? If YES, state when and whereNew ZealandVoluntary Codes ofPractice(Fishing Industry)Chartered foreign owned or sourced fishing vessels must besubstantially free from plant or animal growth prior toentering New Zealand’s EEZ.If no assurance, vessel inspected and cleaned before departure.Otherwise inspected in NZ and if necessary, fouling removed so no foreign organisms enter the marine environmentTable VI.1: Summary of Current Management Frameworks for Vessel Fouling.Various regulations, proposed management actions,recommendations, guidelines, and codes of practice aimed towardspreventing NIS introductions through fouling are summarized below.2930Country/State/PortManagementStrategyDetailsProhibition(States/Territories/Ports)States& territories prohibit in-water cleaning.Many require containment and disposal regulations offouling debris removed during out-of-water cleaning.AustraliaRegulation(Vessels less than25 m)Keep ancillary gear and internal seawater systems clean of marine pests and growths, andBefore departing your last port for Australia...oClean hull within one month before arrival ORoApply antifouling paint within one year before arrival ORoBook vessel for slipping and cleaning within one week of arrival (cleaning should be in a shipway wherematerial removed can be collected and disposed of away from the sea)Australia andNew ZealandEnvironmentalConservationCouncil(ANZECC)Codes of PracticeIn-water hull cleaning prohibited, except under extraordinary circumstances.Sea-chests, sea suction grids, other hull apertures may be allowed under permit, if debris not allowed to pass to watercolumn or sea bed.Polishing propellers may be allowed under permit.MerchantClassificationSocietiesRequirements(Applies to majority ofmerchant fleet)Dry dock requirements vary somewhat depending on classification society. Generally:oDry dock every 5 years. Cleaning and painting is usually conducted, but is at thediscretion of the company.oInterim in-water cleanings: Periodicity at the discretion of the company. Typically dependent on results of fuelconsumption tests.Table VI.1 (Continued): Summary of Current Management Frameworks for Vessel FoulingVII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The most difficult challenge to developing recommendations that reduce the introduction of NIS from fouling is the limited amount of direct resear ch that has been conducted on
the vector. While studies in a number of regions indicate that fouling is an important mechanism through which modern invasions occur, few modern bas eline studies have been conducted to characterize the vector, particularly in North America. Although generalizations can be made on factors that influence t he degree of vessel fouling based on studies in regions outside of the mainland U.S., the information is not adequate to evaluate the specific NIS potential of the majority of vessels calling to
California. While vessels with extreme charac teristics that exacer bate fouling likely pose a risk, there is little information on the potential risk posed by the majority of the fleet that conducts regular vessel maint enance and exhibits more common behaviors.

The Commission believes, however, that these difficulties should not prevent the State from moving forward with acti ons at this time. Staff approached the development of recommendations by considering which acti ons can be implemented now to reduce NIS introduction via fouling based on the knowle dge currently available, and what actions are needed to build information and the tools needed to refine management measures
in the future.

Legislation should be adopted to:

1. Broaden the State Program to in clude the control a nd prevention of NIS release via commercial vessel fouling. The Act currently focuses on the prevention of NIS introduction through ballast water discharges, and does not authorize the Commission to adopt regulations to prevent NIS introduction through vessel fouling. This lack of explicit authority prevents the Commission from implementing regulatory acti ons related to the vessel fouling vector.

312. Broaden the reporting requirements to include mandatory reporting on maintenance practices and other fouling-related behaviors of qualifying vessels operating in California waters. Both vessel movement patterns and mainten ance practices are factors that strongly influence the degree of fouling found on vesse ls. Long mooring periods, slow transit speeds, and infrequent use of antifouli ng paint and systems have been found to facilitate fouling accumulation. However, there is currently no information on which characteristics are representat ive of the vessels that a rrive to and/or operate in California, and how many of these vessels exhibi t potentially higher risk characteristics.

It is known that the vast majority of vessel operators cl ean and paint hulls every five years, and perform periodic in-w ater cleaning during the inte rim. Most strive to minimize fouling due to operational dangers and incr eased fuel costs. Most also aim to maximize transit speeds and minimize time in port. However, case studies outside of California have observed that a small minority of vessels do not follow these
maintenance schedules and/or do not exhibi t these transit behaviors, and some have been found with excessive fouling. For exam ple, a decommissioned military vessel that had been moored in Washington State for 5 years was observed to have accumulated over 112 species prior to its reloca tion to Hawaii (Brock et al. 1999). With such contrasting profiles, it will be critical to characterize vessels in California waters to better
evaluate the nature of the ri sk posed by commercial vessels. Coupled with biological surveys of NIS fouling on vessels that oper ate in the State, vessel maintenance and behavior information will provide a better underst anding of the actual NIS risk posed by fouling, and will be key for identifying approp riate management solutions that minimize the risk of NIS introductions via this pathw ay. The adoption of this recommendation
would lead to an increase in the cost of the Commission Progr am associated with increased staff requirements for data entry, compilation, and analysis; as well as additional vessel inspections and monitoring.

323. Expand enforcement components of th e Act to address mandatory reporting in
Recommendation 2. The California Marine Invasive Species pr ogram is supported by active reporting compliance monitoring, outreach to the sh ipping community, and the authority to apply penalties for non-compliance, which has yielded reporting rates that have exceeded 90% since 2000 (Falkner, 2003; Falkner, et al . 2005). In contrast , mandatory reporting for the federal ballast water program is not similarly reinforced, and reporting rates were approximately 30% during 1999-2001 (Ruiz et al., 2001), making a sound assessment of the data impossible. The Commission ther efore believes that t he authority to apply penalties for non-reporting coupled with outr each to and monitoring of the shipping community, will ensure higher reporting rates. This authority will help assure that information collected through the survey prov ides representative information on the vessels operating in Californi a ports or places. The adoption of this recommendation is not expected to increase the cost of t he Commission Program above those anticipated with the adoption of Reco mmendation 2.

4. Authorize the Commission to develop a nd adopt regulations that prevent or
minimize the introduction of NIS via vessel fouling.
Regulations to define regular vessel maintenance practices fo r the control of NIS fouling
on commercial vessels are needed. These should place requirements or restrictions on
vessels that do not adhere to the defined practices. Though t here is a limited amount of scientific knowledge on the quantity and NIS risk presented by fouling that may be present on well maintained vessels operating in California, case studies show that a minority of vessels do not follow minimal “ good housekeeping” practices. For example, a barge that had not been dry docked for at least 10 years was found in New Zealand
with over 28 tons of foulin g (Coutts, 2005(b)). Such vessels have been found with extensive amounts of fouling and present high risk scenarios for NIS introduction (See Section V, “Review of Current Knowledge on Vessel Fouling and NIS” for further discussion).

33Both the Act and the federal ballast wate r regulation (33 CFR 151.2035(a)(6)) require that vessels remove fouling on a regular bas is, however, no definition or criteria is provided for the term “regular”. Given the high NIS risk pos ed by vessels that are not adequately maintained, the intent of the Act would be better served if criteria were placed on a definition for regular inspections and cleaning, and if vessels that do not adhere to defined criteria are subj ect to further examination.

The Commission should therefore be authoriz ed to adopt regulations that define parameters for regular husbandry practices for fouling control, and should be authorized to place requirements on vessels that do not fo llow such practices. Vessels that are not regularly maintained should be compelled to notify the Commission prior to their entry
into or movement within California waters . Such a framework would serve to flag potential high risk vessels, providing an opp ortunity for the Commission to gather information on the frequency of arrivals of potentially high-risk vessels to California ports, and to work with vessel operators on actions that can minimize the adverse impacts of a highly fouled vessel. Adoption of this recommendation is not expected to increase the cost of the Commission Program above those anticip ated with the adoption
of Recommendation 2.

5. Expand and coordinate biological r esearch directed towards characterizing the NIS risk posed by commercial vessel fou ling with other federal and state agencies.
The limited amount of scientific research on vessel fouling and NIS in California and the West Coast is the most prominent obstacle to a clear evaluation of the overall risk faced by the State. Existing studies have been conducted on limited numbers and types of vessels, in regions largely outside of Nort h America. Though relative generalizations from these studies regarding factors that influence fouling likely apply to vessels operating in California waters, the magnitude of the NIS risk cannot be extrapolated to
the State. For exam ple, while it may be presumed t hat a vessel that travels at an average of 7 KTS likely has more fouling than one that travels at 17 KT S, it is not known

34how much fouling, how many NIS, or the level of NIS risk t hat may be presented on
each.

A number of questions critical for the developm ent of effective, scientifically grounded management remain. At a mini mum, information is needed to address the most basic, but most important question: How many fouling organisms and how many NIS arrive to and move within California via vessel fouling? Such information is critical for a
characterization of the NIS risk faced by California. When coupled with vessel maintenance and movement patterns linked to fouling accumulation, research would lay the foundation to fill additional information gaps such as which kinds of vessels harbor notably more fouling than others, what criteria can be used to flag a potentially high risk vessel, and which vessels pose a negligible am ount of risk. Answer s to these kinds of management-based research questions can guide the formulation of preventative management actions in the future. Funds necessary to support such a research program could be obtained through three me chanisms: general funds, grants, or through the existing fees assessed on ships. The cost to adopt this recommendation to the Commission Program could be as much as $500,000 annually.

6. Support continued long-term NI S monitoring in California waters. Long-term biological monitoring is necessa ry to evaluate the effectiveness of management efforts to prevent NIS introduc tions; particularly as new management actions are implemented. Surveys are also crucial for determining how to modify or enhance management actions so they are optimally effective for reducing invasions. As mandated by the Act, the Calif ornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) administers a statewide monitoring program for NIS within California’s est uaries and along its coast. Legislation should support the CDFG’s conti nued long-term survey efforts so data may
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of management measures implemented to prevent NIS introductions via vessel fouling. Adoption of this recommendation is expected to increase the co st of the CDFG Program.

357. Support research promoting technology development. Vessel owners and operators strive to maintain clean hulls in orde r to minimize fuel costs, maximize vessel speed, meet classi fication society requirements, and to help ensure the structural integrity of their vessels. Available information indicates that hull cleaning at dry docks in Calif ornia presents a lowered NIS risk because these facilities are required to prevent fouling debris from entering the water column. Complete cleaning and re-coating with ant ifouling paint may provide better long-term antifouling protection than does in-water cleaning. However, dry dock facilities capable of accommodating commercial class vessels ar e limited, expensive, and scheduled well in advance. Most owners and operators theref ore conduct in-water cleaning between required dry dockings.

In-water cleaning is one of several ways through which fouling NIS can be transferred from a vessel to a recipient port, and the acti vity poses some NIS introduction risk. Because of the potential for in-water cleaning to release NIS and toxic antifouling paint debris, Australian territories and states hav e banned the practice. However, in the absence of in-water cleaning, fouling organ isms are still capable of transfer through spawning or by detachment from a vessel, and it has been contended that spawning or brood release may be the most important release mechanism (Michin and Gollasch, 2003; Davidson et al, 2005). There has been no dire ct research to indicate if the fouling NIS risk is lower if in-water cleaning is banned or if it is allowed it to proceed. Clearly,
NIS release can occur under either situation, and neither is optimal.

A technology that collects and contains in -water cleaning debris would be a desirable avenue to prevent NIS release during in-w ater cleaning, while also providing commercial operators an avenue to clean hulls wit hout placing a vessel in dry dock. In addition, a containment-based in-water cleaning technology could provide at tool to handle cases where a heavily fouled, high NIS risk vessel arrives to the State, and dry docks are not available. Prototype te chnologies have been under development to

36contain both fouling debris and toxic antif ouling paint residuals: however, none are currently available for commercial application.

As a result of current and impending bans on toxic antifouling coatings, many commercial vessel paint manufacturers are dev eloping non-toxic anti fouling coatings. However, currently available pr oducts are only effective fo r a minority of vessels that travel at very high speeds. As more r egions adopt bans on coatings that release biocides, it will be important t hat alternative antifoul ing tools are available to prevent the accumulation of fouling and minimize NIS introductions.

Legislation should therefor e facilitate the advancement of in-water cleaning technologies that collect and contain foul ing debris. The long-term goal of these technologies would be to phase out in-water cleaning activities in California that are not contained. Legislation should also facilitat e the advancement of antifouling coatings that create little or no water quality impacts , and which are effective for preventing fouling accumulation on vessels. The advancem ent of both of these technologies would
fulfill the intent of the Act to move the state towards the e limination of NIS discharge into
waters of the State in a manner that also addresses water quality issues that may be generated by the antifouling prac tices of vessels. Funds necessary to support such a research program could be obtained through three mechanisms: general funds, grants, or through the existing fees assessed on ship s. The cost to the Commission Program could be as much as $500,000 annually.

8. Direct the State and Regional Wate r Quality Control Boards, in cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, to evaluate the effects of biocidal antifouling coatings from vessels on water quality. Copper enters California’s freshwater, es tuarine, and marine environments from a variety of sources, including copper-based ant ifouling paints on vessels. Due to copper contamination, California’s major ports ar e included on California’s 2002 list of impaired waters as defined by the Clean Water Act Section 303(d).

37Though outside of the intent and scope of the Act to “...move the state expeditiously
towards the elimination of t he discharge of nonindigenous spec ies into the waters of the state...,” the Commission feels that water quality impairments that may be caused by vessel antifouling practices warrant attenti on. The Commission recommends that the State and/or Regional Water Quality Contro l Board(s) investigate the issue in cooperation with the United St ates Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority and jurisdiction granted to them by the Clean Water Act. Full chemical constituent identification and toxicological literature reviews should be conducted to assess the potential aquatic toxicities of all antifouling paints now in use in California’s waters, including their propensity for bioaccu mulation, leaching potential, and general environmental fate. More specifically, it should be determined if copper leachate from antifouling practices is contributing to:

• The impairments in the 2002 California list developed pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d).

• An exceedance of water quality criteria as provided under the California Toxics Rule (40 CFR Part 131) for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries.

• An exceedance of criteria for priority po llutants as provided in the 2005 California
Ocean Plan for near coastal ocean waters.

If it is determined that antif ouling practices of vessels do contribute to water body impairment or exceedance of water quality cr iteria, the boards should adopt or amend water quality plans and or Total Maximum Daily Loads accordingly, as directed by the federal Clean Water Act. SWRCB Program costs may increase and the appropriate funding source needs to be identified.

9. Expand the Marine Invasive Speci es Program’s existing outreach and education program to incl ude the fouling vector. The goal of expanding the Program’s exis ting outreach and education program would be to inform ports, the merchant shipping in dustry, the military, resource agencies and policy makers about vessel fouling and its ro le as an NIS vector. Nonindigenous

38species transport and introduction through vessel fouling is a relatively new issue for many of these entities, and there is littl e to no awareness of its importance amongst these groups. The problem was undersco red during the TAG meetings by a coincidental controversy over the proposed es tablishment of a ship breaking operation in Oregon, and the associated trans fer of vessels from the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet to the proposed operation or to an established operation in Texas. Though vessels in the reserve fleet exhibit exagger ated, high risk characteristi cs for fouling accumulation, there had been no consideration for the potenti al for NIS transfer prior to the public opposition and media attent ion that emerged over the controversy.

Outreach to the stakeholder community should clearly be part of the early steps in any NIS prevention program. Such efforts allow affected parties to come up to speed on an issue, to become educated participants in the search for preventative strategies, and provide the opportunity to take voluntary acti on to prevent NIS introductions and spread. There was strong agreement amongst TAG me mbers that outreach should be a high priority, particularly in light of the limited knowledge of fouling and NIS on the majority of the fleet that operates in California wate rs. Operations engaged in theoretically high fouling risk operations should be high priority targets of outreach. These would include (but are not limited to) the military, the Maritime Admi nistration, salvage operators, companies operating oil platforms, and vesse l towing companies. Awareness should also be raised amongst those involved with policy development, so well informed decisions can be made as emerging science provides a better understanding of the problem, and effective solutions for it. Adopt ion of this recommendation is not expected to increase the cost of the Commission Program.

10. Direct appropriate agencies to address the risk of fouling related NIS introduction and spread in California waters by vessels under 300 gross registered tons. The Act explicitly directs the Commission to evaluate the risk of NIS introductions by vessels over 300 gross registered tones, able to carry ballast. Howeve r, it is important to recognize that any vessel or structure of any size, with or without ballast water tanks,

39may accumulate fouling and subsequently transpor t NIS. Factors that influence fouling on commercial vessels described in this report also apply to other structures, including private boats or yachts, fishing vessels , and navigational buoys (Railkin, 2004).

Though vessels and structures under 300 gro ss registered tones are not encompassed by the Act, the Commission and the TAG belie ve that they are likely an important means for the introduction and spread of mari ne, estuarine and freshwater invasive species within California waters. The Commission recommends that the release and transfer of NIS through vessel types not in cluded in the Act, including recreational and fishing vessels, be examined by the agen cy(ies) with the appropriate authority and jurisdiction. Recommendations for the reduction of NIS introductions from noncommercial shipping, non-ballast water vector s should be provided to the Legislature.

40VIII. LITERATURE CITED
Apte, S., B.S. Holland, L.S. Godwin, J.P. A. Gardner. 2000. Jumping ship: A stepping stone event mediating transfer of a non- indigenous species via a potentially unsuitable environment. Biolog ical Invasions. 2: 75-79.

Australian and New Zealand Environment C onservation Council (ANZECC). 1997. Code of practice for antifouling and in -water hull cleaning and maintenance. 12 pgs.
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. 2005. New biofouling laws to protect Australia. Accessed October 15, 2005. Website: http://www.affa.gov.au/ content/output.cfm?ObjectID=7FBA840F432449 E3B22BCB2C4A3B28E8

. Brock, R., J.H. Bailey-Brock, J. Goody. 1999. A case study of efficacy of freshwater immersion in controlling introduction of alien marine fouling communities: The USS Missouri. Pacific Science. 53: 223-231.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. 1999. Waste discharge requirements for: San Francisco Drydock In c. Order No. 99- 035. NPDES Permit No. CA0005321. 15 pgs.

California State Water Resources Control B oard. 2005. California Ocean Plan. Water quality control plan, ocean waters of California. 57 pgs.
Carlton, J.T. and J. Hodder. 1995. Biogeogr aphy and dispersal of coastal marine organisms: experimental st udies on a replica of a 16 th -century sailing vessel. Marine Biology. 121: 721-730.
Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U. S. coastal waters: Environmental impacts and Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission. Arlington, VA. 28 pp.
Coutts, A.D.M. 1999. Hull foulin g as a modern vector for ma rine biological invasions: Investigation of merchant vessels visi ting northern Tasmania. Thesis. Australian Maritime College. 283 pgs.
Coutts, A.D.M., K.M. Moore, C.L. Hewitt. 2003. Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous ma rine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1504-1515.
Coutts, A.D.M. and M.D. Taylor. 2004. A pre liminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant ve ssels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 38: 215-229.

41Coutts, A.D.M. 2005 (a). Managing marine biosec urity in New Zealand: From a research provider’s perspective. In Hull fouling as a mechanism for marine invasive species introductions. Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential management strategies

. February 12-13, 2004. pp. 36-46. Godwin, L.S. (ed).
Coutts, A.D.M. 2005 (b). Slow-moving bar ge introduces biosecurity risk to the Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Pp. 29-35. In Hull fouling as a mechanism for marine invasive species introductions. Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential m anagement strategies. L.S. Godwin (ed. ) Honolulu, HI. February 12-13, 2003.
Coles, S.L., R.C. DeFelice, L.G. Eldredge, J.T. Carlton. 1999. Historical and recent introductions of non-indigenous marine species into Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Marine Biology. 135: 147-158.
Davidson, I., Sytsma, M., Ruiz , G. 2005. ANS Investigati ons in the Columbia River, Task IV Final Report: Prelim inary investigations of bi ofouling of ships’ hulls. Draft report to the US Coast Guard Res earch and Development Center. 63 pgs.
Dodgshun T. and A. Coutts. 2002. Ships’ sea chests: a “side door” for marine pests? Cawthron Institute. 9 pgs.
Eldredge, L.G. and J.T. Carl ton. 2002. Hawaiian marine bi oinvasions: A preliminary assessment. Pacific Science. 56: 211-212.
Falkner, M.B. 2003. Report on the Califo rnia ballast water management program. Produced for the California State Legi slature. California State Lands Commission. 82 pgs.
Falkner, M., Takata, L., S. Gilmore. 2005. Report on the Californ ia Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature. California State Lands Commission. 45 pgs.
Floerl, O. and G.J. Inglis. 2003. Boat harbour design can exacerbate hull fouling. Austral Ecology. 28: 116-127.
Floerl, O., N. Norton, G. Inglis, B. Hayden, C. Middleton, M. Smit h, N. Alcock, I. Fitridge. 2004. An investigation of hull cleaning and associated waste treatment options for preventing the spread of non-indigenous marine species. Final research report for Ministry of Fisher ies Project ZBS2002-04. 40 pgs.
Floerl, O. 2005. Factors that influence hull fouling on ocean-going vessels. Pp. 6-13. In Hull fouling as a mechani sm for marine invasive species introductions: Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential management strategies. L.S. Godwin (ed.) Honolulu , HI. February 12-13, 2003.

42Floerl, O. and G.J. Inglis. 2005. Potential fo r the introduction and spread of marine pests by private yachts. Pp. 22-28. In Hull fouling as a mech anism for marine invasive species introductions: Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential management strategies. L.S. Godwin (ed.) Honolulu, HI. February 12- 13, 2003.
Floerl, O., G.J. Inglis, H.M. Marsh. 2005. Selectivity in vector management: an investigation of the effectiveness of measures used to prevent transport of nonindigenous species. Biologic al Invasions. 7: 459-475.
Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, J.T. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnat ive species to the coasts of North America. In Invasive species: Vectors and management strategies. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton (eds). Pp. 152-182.
Foster, B.A. and R.C. Willa n. 1979. Foreign barnacles transported to New Zealand on an oil platform. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 13: 143-149.
Godwin, L.S. 2003. Hull fouling of maritime vessels as a pathway for marine species invasions to the Hawaiian Islands. Biofouling.19 (Supplement): 123-131.
Godwin, L.S., L.G. Eldredge, K. Gaut. 2004. The assessment of hull fouling as a mechanism for the introduction and dispersa l of marine alien species in the main Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Technical Report No. 28. Honolulu, HI.
Godwin, L.S. 2005. Development of an init ial framework for t he management of hull fouling as a marine invasive species transport mechanism. In: Hull fouling as a mechanism for marine invasi ve species introductions. Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential management strategies

. February 12- 13, 2004. pp. 47-54. G odwin, L.S. (ed).
Hay, C. and Dodgshun, T., 1997. Ecosystem Transplant? The case of the Yefim Gorbenko. Seafood N. Z. May 1997: 13-14
Hewitt, C.L., Campbell, M.L., Thresher, R. E., Martin, R.B., Boyd, S., Cohen, B.F., Currie, D.R., Gomon, M.F., Keough, M.J. , Lewis, J.A., Locke tt, M.M., Mays, N., MacArthur, M.A., O’Hara, T.D., Poore, G.C .B., Ross, D.J., Storey, M.J., Watson, J.E., Wilson, R.S. 2004. Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Mari ne Biology. 144: 183-202.
Hirst, J. (personal communication, 3/22/2006)

43International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). 2004. Classification societies – What, why, and how? Accessed March 2006. http://www.iacs.org.uk/

. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1999. Antifouling systems on ships. Resolution A.895 (21).
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2002. Focus on IMO: An ti-fouling systems. 31 pgs.
International Marine Coatings. 2006. TBT fr ee antifoulings and foul release systems. Accessed October 15, 2005. http://www.internationalmarine.com/newbuilding/broc hures/AF_Range_Brochure.pdf

. Lewis, J. 2002. Hull fouling as a vector for the translocation of marine organisms, Phase 3: The significance of the pros pective ban on tributyltin antifouling paints on the introduction and translocation of mari ne pests in Australia. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia. Report No. 2. 133 pgs.
Marine Invasive Species Act. 2003. Stat e of California Assembly Bill 433. 2003 Regular Session. Pass ed September 24, 2003.
McEnnulty, F.R., Bax, N.J., Schaffelke, B., Campbell, M.L. 2001. A review of rapid response options for the control of ABWMAC listed introduced marine pest species and related taxa in Australian wa ters. CRIMP Technical Report No. 23. Hobart Australia. 101 pgs.
Meyerson, L.A., Reaser, J.K. 2002. Bi osecurity: moving towards a comprehensive approach. BioScience. 52: 593-600.
Michin, D. and S. Gollasch. 2003. Fouling and ship’s hulls: How changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species. Biofouling. 19: 111-122.
Nehring, S. 2001. After the TBT Era: Alte rnative anti-fouling paint s and their ecological risks. Senckenbergiana maritima. 31(2): 341-351.
New Zealand Ministry of Fi sheries. Public consultati on paper – proposed biosecurity (hull cleaning) regulations. Accessed February 8, 2006. http://www.fish.govt.nz/su stainability/ballast/hull- cleaning/consultation.htm
Nichols, F.H., J.K. Thompson, and L.E. Sc hemel. 1990. Remarkable invasion of San Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the Asian clam Pomtamocorbula amurensis. II. Displacement of a former community. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 66: 95-101.

44Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morris on. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-inva sive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. BioScience

. 50: 53-65

. Skerman, T.M. 1960. Ship-foulin g in New Zealand waters: A survey of marine fouling organisms from vessels of the coastal and overseas trade. New Zealand Journal of Science. 3: 620-648.
Railkin, A.I. 2004. Marine Biofouling: Colonization Processes and Defenses. CRC Press. Washington D.C. 303 pgs.
Ranier, S.F. 1995. Potential for the introduc tion and translocation of exotic species by hull fouling: A prelimin ary assessment. Center for Research on Introduced Marine Pests. Technical Report No. 1.
Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annual Review of Ecol ogy and Systematics. 31: 481-531.
Ruiz, G.M., Miller, A.W., Lion, K., Steves, B. 2001. Stat us and trends of ballast water management in the United States. First bi ennial report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. 45 pgs.
Ruiz, G.M., C. Brown, G. Smith, B. Morr ison, D. Ockrassa, K. Nekinaken. 2005. Analysis of biofouling organisms associ ated with the hulls of containerships arriving to the port of Oakland: A Pilot Study. Pp.138-151. In Biological Study of Container Vessels at the Port of Oakland.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. 520 pp.

45

## IX. APPENDICIES

46APPENDIX A
Hull-Borne Invasive Species Workshop List of Attendees May 11, 2005 ● San Francisco, CA

Marian Ashe California Department of Fish and Game Susan Ellis California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division
John Berge Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Terri Ely California Department of Boating and Waterways, Aquatic Weed Control Unit
David Breninger Recreational Boaters of California Carl Ernst Marina Recreation Association

Margot Brown National Boating Federation Maurya Falkner California State Lands Commission

Chris Brown Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Sylvain Fillion International Paint Company

Brad Chapman Chevron Shipping Company LLC Reinhard E.Flick Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Coastal Studies
Amy Chastain San Francisco BayKeeper Paul Gates International Paint Company

Ashley Coutts Cawthron Institute, Marine Biosecurity Suzanne Gilmore California State Lands Commission

Jeff Crooks Tijuana River National Estuary Research Reserve Scott Godwin Bernice Pauahai Bishop Museum, Hawaii
Holly Crosson University of Californi a, Davis, Department Environmental Science and Policy Jamie Gonzalez University of California Se a Grant Extension Program

Ian Davidson Portland State University Allison Gordon Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

Larry Draper Recreational Boaters of California Ted Grosholz University of California, Davis

Diane Edwards California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality Brad Gross California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains

47Jon Gurish California Coastal Conservancy Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Marla Harrison Port of Portland Dragan Samardzic Matson Navigation
Jeffrey Herod U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento/San Joaquin Estuary Fishery Resources Office Jason Savarese National Sea Grant Law Center

Andrew Jirik Port of Los Angeles Guy Seabrook Magellan Companies, Inc

Leigh Johnson University of California Se a Grant Extension Program Nan Singhasemanon California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Jo-Anne Kushima State of Hawaii, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources Lisa Sniderman California Coastal Commission

Tim Leathers MRA/Cabrillo Isle Marina Ernie Soeterik Sherwin Williams

Mari Lou Livingood Association of Marina Industries Mike Sowby California Department of Fish and Game

Vivian Matuk California Coastal Commission Cindy Squires National Marine Manufacturers Association

Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project Jay Stachowicz University of California, Da vis, Section of Evolution and Ecology
Sarah Mongano California State Lands Commission Nancy Stein Contra Costa County Department of Public Works

Paul Murakawa State of Hawaii, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources David Stephens California State Lands Commission

William Needham Harbor Safety Committee of the SF Bay Region Sean Svendsens Svendsen's Boat Yard

Peter Ode California Department of Fish and Game Lynn Takata California State Lands Commission

Deborah Pennell Shelter Island Marina, Board of Directors MRA Drew Talley San Francisco Bay National Estuary Research Reserve

Russ Robinson Recreational Boaters of California Mariann Timms Marina Recreation Association

48Raynor Tsuneyoshi California Department of Boating and Waterways Kim Ward State Water Resources Control Board: Division of Water Quality
Valerie Van Way California State Lands Commission Chela Zabin University of Hawaii, Manoa

M K Veloz Northern California Marine Association Jody Zaitlin Port of Oakland

Ted Warburton California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains

49APPENDIX B

California State Lands Commission Technical Advisory Group Participants
** Denotes participants that attended at least one Commission TAG meeting

Cesar Alvarez** California Sea Grant Extension Abe Doherty California Coastal Conservancy

Marian Ashe** California Department of Fish and Game Diane Edwards California State Water Re sources Control Board

John Berge** Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Susan Ellis California Department of Fish and Game

Chris Brown Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Richard Everett United States Coast Guard

Marina Cazorla California Coastal Conservancy Schauadi Falamaki California Association of Port Authorities

Brad Chapman** Chevron Shipping Company LLC Maurya Falkner** California State Lands Commission

Ashley Coutts** Cawthron Institute, Marine Biosecurity Sylvain Fillion International Paint Company

Jeff Crooks** Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve Oliver Floerl National Centre for Aquatic Biodiversity and Biosecurity, New Zealand

Holly Crosson** West Coast Ballast Outreach Project Paul Gates** International Paint Company

Ian Davidson** Portland State University Suzanne Gilmore** California State Lands Commission

Nicole Dobroski** West Coast Ballast Outreach Project Scott Godwin Bernice Pauahai Bishop Museum, Hawaii

50Jamie Gonzalez** University of Californi a Sea Grant Extension Program Steve Moore San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Ted Grosholz University of California, Davis Paul Murakawa State of Hawaii, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources

Jon Gurish California Coastal Conservancy Sarah Newkirk The Ocean Conservancy

Jeffrey Herod** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento/San Joaquin Estuary Fishery Resources Office Peter Ode California Department of Fish and Game

Eric Holm Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Henry Olsen Matson Navigation

Andrew Jirik Port of Los Angeles Stephen Philips Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Leigh Johnson University of Californi a Sea Grant Extension Program Deborah Ruddock California Coastal Conservancy

Giselle Johnston** California State Lands Commission Greg Ruiz** Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Dalia Keroles** California State Lands Commission Dragan Samardzic** Matson Navigation

Jo-Anne Kushima** State of Hawaii, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources Tim Schott California Association of Port Authorities

Jackie Mackay** California State Lands Commission Linda Sheehan California CoastKeeper

Vivian Matuk California Coastal Commission Lisa Sniderman California Coastal Commission

Karen McDowell** San Francisco Estuary Project Mike Sowby California Department of Fish and Game

Whitman Miller** Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Jay Stachowicz University of California, Davis

51Lisa Swanson** Matson Navigation Steve Weisberg Southern California Coastal Research Project

Mark Sytsma** Portland State University Rodney Young** Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources

Lynn Takata** California State Lands Commission Chela Zabin University of Hawaii, Manoa

Drew Talley** San Francisco National Estuarine Research Reserve Jody Zaitlin Port of Oakland

Kim Ward** California State Water Re sources Control Board

52APPENDIX C Summary of the Hull-Borne Invasive Species Workshop May 11, 2005 San Francisco, CA
Though the full workshop presentations and discussions examined the issue of introductions through fouling on both recreational and commercial vessels, the summary here focuses on topics that apply to the commercial industry. This text was prepared by staff of the California Stat e Lands Commission so the agency may move forward with additional discussions regarding management recommendations for commercial vessels, as mandated by state legislatio n. A more complete proceedings document will be produced, to be collaboratively developed with the California Sea Grant Extension Program.

Morning Presentations
Greg Ruiz, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: Hull-Borne Aquatic Invasive Species Overview:
Dr. Greg Ruiz provided an overview on aquatic/marin e/estuarine invasions, and specifically provided information on the relative importance of hull fouling and ballast water as vehicles for the introduction of alien species. Commercial shipping is the largest means by which species are introduced to North America. The rate of invasion due to this “vec tor” has increased exponentially in North America since 1790. These increases have been largest on the Pacific Co ast. Ballast water and fouling are, in turn, the dominant shipping sub-vectors responsible for the lar gest number of invasions. The number of invasions likely due to fouling is growing in North America, and the rate of invasions through this vector may be increasing as well.
The Smithsonian has been conducting additional stud ies on the importance of the commercial vessel fouling vector. A preliminary estimate was conduct ed on the amount of vessel surface area arriving to the United States that may be colonized by fouling organisms. The estimate, based on vessel arrival data and vessel particulars from Lloyd’s Regi stry, suggested that some 130-150 million m 2 of colonizable surface arrived to U.S. ports annually between 1999 and 2001. The Smithsonian is also conducting fouling plate surveys at sites throughout the coastal United States, British Columbia, and Alaska. Plates made of PVC, plastic and wood are deployed at sites to collect fouling organisms, later retrieved, and attached organisms are identified. Such studies will allow researchers to better understand the relationship between the number of organisms transported to North America via shipping (propagule supply), and the number of organisms that successful ly establish reproductive populations (invasion success).

Scott Godwin, P.B. Bishop Museum: Marine Invasive Species Transported by Vessel Hull Fouling: Potential Management Approaches
Hawaii has been highly impacted by invasive species, with approximately 343 introduced through human mechanisms, and approximately 212 are believed to hav e been introduced via vessel fouling. In 2003, the state began formulating an information framework to minimize introductions through the fouling vector. Prior to stakeholder discussions, studies we re conducted on the dynamics of Hawaii port arrivals, and field surveys of fouling communities to inform t he stakeholder meetings. High risk vessels fell into those with regular, predictable arrivals, and those that do not behave regularly (stochastic):

53Stochastic, High Risk:

• Towed Vessel Platforms (i.e. floati ng dry docks, barges, drilling platforms)

• Derelict vessels

• Decommissioned Military

• Personal Craft
Predictable, High Risk:

• Towed Vessel Platforms
The stakeholder input effort began with a 2-day workshop in February 2003, and continued during meetings held through July 2003. The overarching goal adopted was, “Minimize marine alien species introductions by hull fouling,” since absolute prevent ion (no introductions) was deemed less realistic. The management strategies ultimately recommended by t he task force to achieve this goal fell into three categories: proactive, reactive, and post-event.

• Proactive Measures:

o Vessel traffic monitoring – to identify and respond to high risk situations

o Strong inter-agency communication, parti cularly to assist with the monitoring effort of recreational vessel arrivals

o Creation of a risk matrix (see notes below ) to identify high risk situations that may warrant investigation

o Education and outreach component to incr ease awareness of the issue with the maritime public

• Reactive Measure:

o Rapid response investigation of high ri sk events/vessels identified during the proactive stage

• Post-event Measures:

o Quarantine

o Cleaning requirement & procedures for proper cleaning
A very preliminary risk matrix was drafted to prioriti ze high risk events that may warrant investigation. Factors that lead to a high risk determination were:

• Priority (high risk) vessels

• Last port of call was outside of Hawaii

• Vessel does not observe compliance standards, such as local codes of practice, or IMO International Safety Management codes

• Length of time vessel was inactive or laid up (long time = higher risk)

Ashley Coutts, Cawthron Institute (New Zealand): An Overview of the Management of Biofouling on Vessels in New Zealand.
Vessel fouling is considered to be a very important vector for New Zealand invasives. Known invasives have originated from all over the world, with the top 3 source regions being the Europe/U.K./Mediterranean (48%), the United States (13%), and Asia/Japan (11%).
Management of the vector was initiated due to a Russi an fishing vessel that arrived in 1993, remaining in New Zealand for 18 months with 90 tones of fouling. Pre-border management controls that have been put in place since then are:

54Fishing Industry Codes of Practice:

• All chartered foreign owned or sourced fishing vessels must be substantially free from plant or animal growth prior to entering New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

• If it is not free of fouling, the vessel must be inspected and cleaned prior to departure.

• If it arrives to New Zealand and inspections reveal the vessel to be significantly fouled, the vessel is cleaned in a manner that doesn’t release organisms to the environment.
Outreach (primarily geared towards recreational boaters)

• Distribute information packs in the Pacific Isla nds (where personal vessels often originate), and at popular ports of entry to New Zealand.

• Distribute materials in yachting magazines.
Hull fouling questionnaire on ballast water reporting form (commercial vessels)

• When and where was the vessel last dry-docked and cleaned?

• Has the vessel been laid-up for 3 months or more since it was last dry-docked and cleaned? If yes, state when and where?

• Do you intend to clean the hull of the vessel in New Zealand? If yes, state when and where?
Current Knowledge of Fouling:

• Merchant vessels have been observed to carry a substantial diversity of fouling exotics.

• Fouling extent is related to the age of paint, vessel speed, and voyage duration.

• Fouling is higher in sheltered areas or those lacking good antifouling paint coverage (i.e. recesses, dry dock support strips, sea chest gratings).

Current Research

• En route survival of fouling organisms

• Evaluation of organism viability afte r various cleaning methods are used

• Fouling type and extent across various vessel types arriving to New Zealand

• Efficacy of hull cleaning methods.

Dragan Samardzic, Matson Navigation: Commercial Vessel Fouling Control
Dragan Samardzic provided an overview of Matson’s corp orate history, and characte ristics of their regular trade routes to Hawaii and Guam from California. Fou ling control is important to commercial shippers in order to protect the environment, reduce drag and save fuel, deliver goods more swiftly, and to protect the hull. Factors that affect fouling appear to be the type and condition of antifouli ng paint, locations where a vessel travels, the seabed type at ports and anch orages, and the speed of the vessel. U.S. flagged vessels typically go into dry dock approximately ever y 5 years for repairs, hull cleaning, and re-application of antifouling paint. As with Matson, hulls may be inspected more frequently by divers, and in-water cleaning occurs as needed.

Sylvain Fillion, International Paint Company: Antifouling and Foul-Release Technologies
Sylvain Fillion provided an overview of the major antif ouling (biocidal) and fouling-release (non-biocidal) coatings and their ability to reduce fouling on commercial vessels.
Biocidal coatings involve a “soluble binder” whic h is slowly released into the water and prevents organisms from attaching. The three main biocidal coatings are rosin-based, self polishing co-polymer (SPC), and a hybrid type (rosin/SPC combination). The best performing but most expensive are the SPC types, followed by the hybrid which is less expensive but less effective. The least expensive, but least

55effective biocidal coating is the rosin type, with an effective life of approximat ely 36 months on exposed portions of the hull.
Fouling-release coatings (non-biocidal) do not contain soluble binders, and are ultra smooth coatings that offer lower frictional resistance, and require less coat ings on a vessel when compared to their biocidal counterparts. With such coatings, organisms may attach, but are easily knocked off with vessel movement or gentle removal. Vessels show little f ouling after 25 months (primarily slime). After 25 months, vessels exhibit low amounts of fouling.

Jason Savarese, National Sea Grant Law Center: Legal Overview
Jason provided an overview of local, national and international regulations related to vessel fouling control, antifouling paints, and government bodies in volved with invasive species policy development. Though regulations related to both commercial and recreational vessels were covered, the summary here highlights those policies that relate to commercial vessels.
Regulations for Vessel Fouling:

• Victoria, Australia : Vessels of less than 200 tons must discard fouled organisms on land.

• New Zealand : Fishing industry has adopted codes of practice to clean vessels before leaving port, and require vessel maintenance and movement information from vessels in conjunction with ballast water reporting form (also see summary of presentation by Ashley Coutts).

• Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC): Adopted codes of practice for commercial vessels that discourage in-water hull cleaning wherever possible (also see talk by Ashley Coutts).

• United States : U.S. Code of Federal Regulation 33, and California law AB 433 requires rinsing of anchor chains of organisms at their place of orig in, and regular cleaning of hulls, piping and tanks. Hawaii has formulated a management framewor k for the issue that may be lead to the implementation of policies in the future (see presentation by Scott Godwin).
Antifouling Coating Policies

• The International Maritime Organization : The convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships bans the use of organotins on vess els, or requires vessels to cover such coatings so they do not leach after January 1, 2008. Ho wever, ratification had not been achieved by the 2003 implementation date, and the convention is not yet in force.

• Other Countries have adopted regulations banning or rest ricting biocidal antifoulant use. Australia banned Tributyl tin (TBT) in 2006. The Netherlands banned TBT for recreational vessels in 1999, but allowed its use on commercial vessels. After 2000, antifoulants many be used in the European Union only after evaluation and approval.

• In the United States , the EPA has adopted recomm ended TBT discharge values for application with the Clean Water Act and other EPA regulations. California, Washington and Alaska restrict the use of TBT on commercial vessels.

Alternative Fouling Control and Wa ter Quality Considerations: Jamie Gonzalez, UC Sea Grant Extension Program
Though there is an international c onvention for the eventual phase ou t of TBT, biocidal copper-based paints will remain legal in many areas, and will likely be used quite commonly to prevent fouling. Due to

56the low circulation of enclosed basins and harbors , the leached metals build up in the water and sediments, causing various problems for organisms residing in them. A non-toxic bottom paint demonstration project was conducted by Sea Grant in San Diego on a small number of (recreational) boats, to test the efficacy of non-biocidal coatings. The results indicate that epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings may potentially last longer than copper paint s, but require more frequent cleaning. In the long term they may be more cost effective under certai n use conditions, though they are more expensive initially.

Speaker Question and Answer Session
A brief question and answer session was held for part icipants to pose questions to speakers.
In response to a question on their opinion with regard to the balance between water quality (especially with relation to biocidal paints) and the prevention of fouling, speakers suggested that; 1) the goals of the society should drive the management priorities, and 2) In the case of Hawaii, the management recommendations aimed towards minimizing fouling intr oductions did not conflict with the water quality regulations in place, but tended to compliment each other . The water quality issues were entrusted to the regulatory agencies that had more expertis e and experience dealing with them.
In response to a question about the typical hull husba ndry practices of the whole commercial fleet, it was noted that international standards for the cleaning of vessels exist depending on vessel class. The U.S. fleet follows these standards. In the case of Hawa ii, it was not the U.S. fl agged vessels that typically posed the most risk. The “flags of convenience” ve ssels and foreign fishing vessels typically pose the most severe risk, though these comprise a small pe rcentage of the entire fleet that arrive to Hawaii.

Afternoon: Breakout Discussion Session
During the afternoon, participants we re separated into three discussion groups, each consisting of a mix of scientists, regulators, recreational vessel stake holders, and commercial shipping stakeholders. Groups were asked to address five questions:
1. Does vessel/boat fouling pose an invasive species risk that needs to be addressed? 2. What needs to be considered in solving the pr oblem of hull transport of invasive species by recreational and commercial vessels? 3. Where, how, and when should vessels be mainta ined to prevent fouling ANS introductions? 4. What information gaps need to be closed? 5. What are the outreach and educational needs fo r AIS prevention in California for recreational and commercial boats?
Following the breakout discussions, all participant s were reconvened, and representatives from each presented a synopsis of their respective discussions. Points of general (but not necessarily unanimous) agreement or discussion are included in this summary.

Question 1. Does vessel/boat fouling pose an in vasive species risk that needs to be addressed?
The majority of members in 2 of the 3 groups believed that fouling posed a risk that should be addressed. One group felt that fouling posed a risk, but the severity of that risk, and where the majority of the risk fell with respect to recreational or commercial vessels was unclear.

57Question 2. What needs to be considered in solving the problem of hull transport of invasive species by recreational and commercial vessels?

• Because it is not possible to predict what the nex t problematic invader might be, because control is generally much more costly than prevention, and be cause eradication is not typically successful, consider a vector-based management approach that minimizes introductions via the fouling vector as a whole.

• Consider incorporating a risk-based system that pr ioritizes high risk vessels or situations. Factors that may be used to evaluate the risk of a vessel or situation to consider are:

o Vessel behavior (speed, sitting time)

o Vessel type

o Hull husbandry practices

o Season

o Age of antifouling paint

o Vessel voyage route

o Port region/location

• Consider a management framewor k based on the hull husbandry practices of vessels and boats (see question 3 below).

• Examine existing program models (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii) to observe lessons learned and to avoid pitfalls.

• Consider water quality issues and regulati ons with respect to biocidal coatings.

• Any management measures proposed should incorporate a level of simplicity.

Question 3. Where, how, and when should vessels be maintained to prevent fouling ANS introductions?
Though there was no general consensus on what type of hull maintenance procedures should be adopted, discussions generated several potential pr actices that could be ado pted, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The points summarized below were topics that were raised by at least 2 groups.

• Periodically maintain antifouling coatings, with a pr eference for foul-release coatings (non-biocidal). One group suggested that coating applicat ion or cleaning periodicity could be certified to verify that a vessel has been maintained properly. At this time , however, it is recognized that non-toxic coatings are initially very costly, and are still currentl y undergoing testing and further development.

• Remove fouling organisms regularly from hulls as well as from other areas such as sea chests, anchors, etc. Ideally for AN S prevention, this would be done out of the water, however, this process is expensive and time consuming. In-water cle aning is more common and less costly, but current methods generally result in the release of fouling organisms into harbors or ports.

• One group suggested that a code for “Best Mana gement Practices” could be adopted for fouling maintenance.

• Another group suggested that ve ssels could be cleaned upon departure from California and inspected upon return.

58Question 4. What information gaps need to be closed?

• The relative risk posed by vessels based on vess el type, vessel behavior, and port conditions that increase potential risk (i.e . location, temperature).

• Current maintenance practices of vessels. One group suggested that this could be advanced through a survey that asks vessel operators or owners:

o How long was the vessel at the last port of call?

o When was paint last applied to the vessel hull?

o When was the vessel last in dry dock for hull cleaning?

• Extent of biofouling as it is affected by factors such as:

o Vessel type

o Hull maintenance practices

o Vessel activity

Question 5. What are the outreach and educational needs for AIS prevention in California for recreational and commercial boats?

• In general, outreach and education was deemed to be very important, and was particularly advocated for and by the recreational boating community. Potent ial vehicles for outreach discussed, therefore, applied largely to the recreational community. Sugges tions that could be applied to the commercial industry included:

o Advertisements/articles in industry publications (magazines)

o Distribution of posters and brochures to commercial community

o Internet/email distribution of information

• Communication between agencies involved with the shipping industry should be facilitated. In Hawaii, this is the major vehicle by which many high risk vessel movements are tracked (i.e. fishing vessels, barges, etc...).

• Increased communication between scientists and commercial/recreational stakeholders regarding magnitude of the invasive species problem.

59APPENDIX D Summary of the California State Lands Commission Technical Advisory Group Meeting
August 3, 2005 Sacramento, CA

Overview: Advisory Group Goals and Process Following the welcome and participant introductions, a presentation was given of the technical advisory group goals (TAG), anticipated advisory group meeting process, and the information that will likely be considered for the final legislative report.

TAG Function: As outlined in Assembly Bill 433 pas sed in 2003 (AKA “The Marine Invasive Species Act”), the function of this TAG is to serve as consultant to the CSLC in its analysis of the relative risk of non-ballast, commercial vessel based vectors for the release of nonindigenous species to California waters. Further consul tation with the U.S. Coast Guard and the State Water Quality Control Board is also mandated by the legislation. The CSLC will then submit a report summarizing an analysis and recommendations to the state Legislature by March 1, 2006.
Source of Report Input: The CSLC anticipates several sources of input for the final legislative report. In addition to TAG discussions, these will include:

• Review of scientific and grey literature on vessel fouling.

• Marine Bioinvasions Conference Discussions: The U.S. Coast Guard and Biosecurity New Zealand organized an informal discussion on t he risk and management of vessel fouling for species introductions at the 4 th Biennial Marine Bioinvasions Conference in New Zealand. The CSLC will participate, share information with the TAG, and incorporate applicable information into the report.

• Analyses of existing California vessel arri vals data. Additional analyses may also be completed and/or considered, but will be depen dent on data availability, information needs uncovered, and time constraints.
Anticipated Framework for TAG Meetings Though this framework is subject to modification, it is anticipated that a total of 4-5 TAG meetings will be held through December 2005 or January 2006. The first few meetings are or were intended to mutually inform all TAG participa nts, so discussions may proceed from a base knowledge of the issue. The current meeting continues the information sharing process begun during the joint workshop held on May 11, 2005 (see attached summary). The 3 rd meeting will be scheduled for late September or early October, during which discussions will begin on recommendation frameworks. The 4 th meeting is anticipated for November or December 2005, and will likely continue discussion s around potential recommendations. If consensus or majority recommendations are not reached, a final 5 th meeting will be held in early January.

Review of May 11 th Workshop An overview was given of speaker presentations and break-out group discussions from the May 11 th workshop. Major points presented by speakers that applied to the commercial vessel side of the issue were reviewed (see attached workshop summary, and power point presentation from the August 3 rd meeting).

60“Non-Ballast, Vessel-Based Vectors”: What should this include? Can the list be prioritized? AB 433 lists several explicit areas on a vessel that sh all be considered during the risk analysis of fouling introductions. These, “...include, but [will] not be limited to, hulls, sea ch ests, sea suction grids, other hull apertures, in-water propellers, chains, anchors, pipi ng and tanks.” The group was asked to discuss the list, if any area of importance should be added to t he list, and if the items could be prioritized.
“Non-Ballast, Vessel-Based Vectors” Two additional vessel areas/categories were suggested as a component to consider with the AB 433 list: rudders , and “ non-hull protected areas ”. Non-hull protected areas would include regions of a vessel that are sheltered from wa ter shear forces when a vessel is underway, such as bow thruster tunnels, rope guards, intakes or grills. Ashley Coutts noted that he has observed organisms in these anomaly areas during the course of his research. It was suggested that an alternative method for organizing vessel regions according to risk could be to split items into “laminar areas” (lower risk, i.e. exposed hulls) and “protected areas” (areas protected from shear forces – higher risk).

It was asked if the mandate was intended to includ e NIS transport connected to the transfer of goods, for example, those that may be moved with pallets or in packing material.
It was also noted that organisms which do not a ttach to the vessel surface and are thus not technically “fouling” organisms, may also pose a risk for introductions (Miller). These may be located on interstitial areas of the vessel or within sea chests, and are associated more frequently with slow moving vessels. For example, Ashley Coutts found large mature organisms, including decapod crustaceans (i.e. crabs) in sea chests.
Prioritizing Parts of a Vessel: In many cases, the categorization of parts of a vessel into higher or lower risk categories was complex, as several factors interact with each ot her. A risk determination, therefore, will often depend on a number of variables acting in concert (i.e. location on a vessel, maintenance practices, vessel behavior, vessel location, etc.). In general, highest priority vessel parts could be considered a higher risk on all vessels, regardless of other factors. Lower priority areas on are likely low for many vessels, but could be considered a high risk on some depending on other factors. For example, the laminar hull of a fast moving vessel (low risk factors) that hasn’t been repainted in some time and has spent substantial time in its last port of call could pose a significant risk.
Given these complications, areas that are likely of higher risk would include:

• Hulls: Laminar areas where antifouling paint coat ing is thin or old (i.e. dry dock support strips). Portions sheltered from shear forces.

• Sea Chests: Extensive fouling communities including large mobile organisms have been observed to inhabit sea chests.

• Sea Suction Grids : Intake grids have been observed to accumulate fouling.

• Non-Hull Protected Areas: described above.

• Rudders: Areas sheltered from shear forces, such as the stem, can accumulate fouling.
Though the designation of risk could depend on other interacting variables, lower risk areas may include:

• Laminar Hull areas that are well maintained (cleaned and painted).

• Rudder areas that are well maintained (cleaned and painted) and subject to the shear forces of the propeller.

61Several of the items listed in AB 433 required clar ification, and more information will be obtained prior to the next meeting in October.

• Tanks: It was unclear what type of tank this refers to (i.e. ballast, grey water?)

• Piping: It was unclear if this referred to the areas around intakes and outtakes or all piping.
For some vessel regions, the relative risk for fouling accumulation was unclear due to lack of knowledge or research:

• In-Water Propellers: Could be a lower priority due to the movement of the propeller, and safety issues associated with a fouled propeller. Chevron noted that they coat propellers with self-polishing antifouling paints (Chapman).

• Anchors: Some companies, such as Chevron, equip vessels with automatic mechanisms that rinse anchors with ambient port wate r as they are brought aboard (Chapman).

• Rudders: It is suspected that main portions expo sed to shear forces may pose a lower risk, while protected areas may accumulate fouling (Coutts).

Environmental Characteristics That Influence Fouling A pre-prepared list of characteristics was created based on the May 11 th workshop, and the TAG was asked if there were environmental factors that would result in more or less fouling on a vessel, and if these could be prioritized. As with the prioritizati on of locations on a vessel, the relationship between level of fouling and environmental factors can be comple x. Numerous variables likely interact and result in varying amounts of fouling, and va rying rates of species survival.
Osmotic (salinity) and temperature stresses may be an important driver for the survival of organisms associated with vessels, and should be considered. It was noted that the relationship between survival and these variables is very complex, and more research needs to be conducted to better understand them. Several points for consideration were discussed.

• Rapid and dramatic changes in salinity or temperature are stressful for many organisms. In a management context, vessels arriving to the Great Lakes from high salinity ports, for example, may be a lower concern than those from other freshwater ports. Conversely, it was noted that voyages within the same latitude (similar temperatures) have been found to be especially problematic in New Zealand (Coutts).

• Some organisms are adapted to tolerate wide fluctuations in temperature and salinity

. The issue was raised that, in theory, transits to and from high and low salinity organisms may serve to select for the hardiest NIS. Widely fluctuating conditions could possibly result in vessels arriving to port with organisms that are the most tolerant and thus more likely to invade.

• The frequency and duration of freshwater exposure is important for seagoing vessels (and organisms). Vessels that arrive to Portl and, then sail to freshwater portions of the Columbia River, and thereafter return to Portland, are observed to be less fouled than when they initially arrived (Davidson). Also, obser vations from international voyages to and from Alaska, suggest that trips shorter than 12 hou rs are related to better survival (Coutts).
In addition to the physical tolerances of potential NIS, the variability of environmental salinity and temperature can be complex, and can be influenced by a number of factors that are not as straightforward as season or latitude. Se veral considerations were discussed.

• Salinity will generally decrease in port areas during periods of high rain or snowmelt

. This occurs, for example, in Alaskan harbors. Conversely, periods of little freshwater input will generally result in higher salinities.

62• Depth of vessel keel : A deeper keel would expose an organism to higher salinities, relative to shallower portions. Even if a vessel enters an estuary with a fresh surface salinity, deeper portions of the estuary and the vessel may experience higher salinities. Temperature, likewise, will vary with depth.

• The sea chest environment may experience wide temperature and salinity fluctuations
, as ambient water is taken into a vessel through it for vessel operations. Nonetheless, they have been observed to have significant fouling communities.
Bottom Type During the May 11 th workshop, invited speaker Dragan Sama rdzic of Matson Navigation indicated that the harbor seafloor type is a factor that influences fouling, but the TAG was unfamiliar with this relationship. Lisa Swanson will touch base with Dragan and clarify.

Vessel Behavior and Maintenance Practices That Influence Fouling As with environmental characteristic s, the TAG was asked to discuss and prioritize vessel behaviors and maintenance practices that influence fouling. Research by Ashley Coutts revealed a striking relationship between the age of antifouling paint, voyage speed and vo yage duration. Again, fouling levels can be influenced by several factors acting together, and co nsideration of any one alone would not be adequate to evaluate risk. In general the prio rity factors were considered to be:

• Vessel Inactive/Layover Time : The more frequently a vessel is sedentary, the more fouling it accumulates.

• Vessel Speed :

o “Fast” vessels traveling approximately 15 KTS or faster may be considered a lower risk. Vessels traveling at 22 KTS or above for at least 3 hours has very little fouling (Coutts).

o “Slow” vessels traveling approximately 10 KTS or slower are a high risk. Vessels that typically travel at 3 knot s or less will have extensive fouling.

• Age of Paint: The older the antifouling paint, the higher the fouling. Studies in Tasmania indicate that copper based antifouling coatings less than 663 days old had the lowest levels of fouling (Coutts). Thereafter, fouling increased dramatically.

• Voyage Duration: Shorter voyages pose a higher risk.

• Age of Vessel/Vessel Flag: This factor is often correlated with the maintenance practices of the vessel owners. Companies that can afford new vessels, are also more able to keep them well maintained, and less fouled. These are also often correlated with the vessel’s country of registry (Coutts). The maintenance of ve ssels are very dependent on operators, and poorly managed vessels/companies (i.e. irregularly sc heduled, irregularly routed tramp vessels) should be a priority (Chapman).

• Last Port of Call: In New Zealand, a last port of call with a similar latitude is considered a higher risk.

Hull Maintenance and Vessel Classification Societies John Berge of PMSA provided the TAG with informati on on classification societies, and their relationship to vessel hull maintenance. Classification societie s are private (non-governm ental) organizations that establish and apply vessel design and maintenance standa rds for vessels. Societies certify vessels that are maintained according to rules established by t hat society for a particular vessel type. The vast majority of the world fleet belongs to one of the 10 majo r societies, as current cert ification is important for insurance purposes.

63Classification society rules include requirements for periodic hull maintenance. Though these are directed towards ensuring safety and structural integr ity rather than NIS prevention, the frequency with which most vessels routinely clean hulls are dependent on the requirements of their classification. Prior to this meeting, John Berge conducted an informal survey of PMSA members on their hull cleaning practices, and those that responded (5) indicated th at they typically follow the requirements of their classification society. In general these are:

• Dry dock every 5 years with extensions possible with favorable interim in-water inspections.

• Interim in-water inspections and cleanings (diver):

o Self polishing coatings: 24-36 months after dry dock

o Other Coatings: Every 6 months.
Dry docking occurs more frequently under certain circumstances:

• As a vessel ages, societies generally requ ire more frequent out-of-water inspections

• In the event of an emergency, or an incident that raises concerns for hull integrity (i.e. significant scraping or bumping)
Due to the scarcity of dry docks available scheduling is very difficult, so vessels are generally not dry docked more frequently than needed or required. Dry docking is also expensive. Brad Chapman indicated that for Chevron, each day in dry dock costs approximately one million dollars for the docking, cleaning, and vessel repairs.
There is generally not a requirement to recoat ant ifouling paint during requir ed dry docking intervals, however, most operators take advant age of the opportunity to clean, and paint or touch up their hulls. Cleaning and repainting during these periods is also in the best interest of the operators, due to safety concerns and costs associated with reduced fuel effici ency from fouled laminar hull areas. Many vessels conduct frequent performance tests to evaluate fuel efficiency, and conduct in-water (diver) cleaning accordingly (Berge). In-water cleaning takes approximately 1 day (Chapman).
Special Area Requirements : Vessels operating in certain areas or routes may also be required to maintain vessels more frequently. For example, all vessels operating in Alaska’s Prince William Sound are inspected annually, and are taken out of the water every two years (Chapman).

Sea Chest Maintenance : Sea chests are coated and/or cleane d less frequently than laminar areas, as they are generally of less concern for fuel effi ciency, and can only be accessed during dry dock. Cleaning may occur once every 10-15 years as needed, and the sea chest of a vessel nearing the end of its operational life may not be cleaned or painted.

Action Items

• Clarify definition of items from AB 433 list of par ts of a vessel that should be considered: “tanks” and “piping”

• Determine if AB 433 applies to NIS introductions related to vessel cargo.

• Locate upcoming paper by J. Crooks that obs erved that NIS had a su rvival advantage over natives in harbor environments with relatively high contaminant concentrations. (Tally)

• Locate paper by Michin on the temperature an d salinity conditions that trigger fouling community spawning events.

• Lisa Swanson will clarify wi th Dragan Samardzic regardi ng the relationship between sea bottom type and fouling.

• Contact Keith Hayes who has been studying risk assessment models for NIS based on environmental factors.

64APPENDIX E Summary of the California State Lands Commission Technical Advisory Group Meeting
October 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA

West Coast Ballast Outreach Project Update Following welcome and introductions, Holly Crosson, Project Coordinator for the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project (Sea Grant Extension) provided a pr ogram update. The project has received funding for 3 additional years, during which Holly and Program Representative Nicole Dobroski will continue the outreach mission of the project. Planned activities include:

o Updated reprint of the “Stop Ballast Wa ter Invasions” poster and associated brochure

o Re-initiation of the Ballast Exchang e newsletter with expanded distribution

o Coordination with the California Maritime Ac ademy on the development of a ballast related seminar series

o Creation of a new project website Though the program’s grant directs that the Project’ s efforts be focused on ballast water, there is the potential for other NIS issues, such as vessel fouling, to be addressed to a lesser extent.

TAG Input Framework – Meeting Goals The overall framework for the TAG input process was reviewed. The goals of this third meeting were to examine existing management frameworks in other count ries/states for vessel fouling and to discuss options for the California to consider. Staff int ends to utilize discussions from today’s meeting to construct “straw-men” management scenarios for discussi on, criticism, deconstruction and/or revision at the next (4 th ) meeting, planned for November or early December.
The TAG’s final input to the CSLC is not required to be in any specific format. Considerations put forward may be explicit or general (i.e. guideline-like), and t he final format will be up to the TAG. It does not necessarily need to be presented in a written document. AB 433 states only that the CSLC must consult with an advisory group (the TAG), and consider this input during the formulation of recommendations for the report to the state Legislature.

Action Items from Prior Meeting (August 3, 2005)

Non-Ballast Vessel Based Vectors List: Linda Sheehan (California Coast Keeper) was contacted for clarification on intent of AB 433 with regard to the type(s) of piping and tanks that were meant for consideration by this TAG, and if cargo-related NIS (such as those associated with packing material) were intended for considerat ion. She indicated that the terms were meant to have broad application towards any thing that may involve NIS.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servic e (USDA) announced that as of September 16, 2005 wood packing material (i.e. wooden pallets , boxes, crates, etc.) must be heat treated or fumigated prior to entering the United States to reduc e the risk of pest introductions. The APHIS regulation would presumably address the issue of introductions via packing materials.
A question was raised weather recreational boats carried on commercial vessels might be subject to consideration by the TAG, for example, if they were fouled and later placed in a California

65harbor. Dragan Samardzic noted that during his years working on commercial vessels, he had never witnessed such a situation.
Fouling NIS Survival and Copper Contamination : Jeff Crooks summarized the findings of his recent study that compared the diversity of nonindigenous, and native fouling organisms in the San Francisco Bay Area (Tiburon) when expos ed to varying concentrations of copper contamination. The results indicated that t he diversity of natives declined with increasing contamination, while the diversity of NIS did no t. These results suggest that contamination may have some bearing on the vulnerability of a system to invasion, in addition to traditional factors such as propagule pressure (number of organisms). The results are currently being drafted into a manuscript for publication.
NIS Transfer from Vessel to Port (Michin and Gollasch 2003) : Ian Davidson provided a copy of a paper suggested during the last meeting, which described the effects of temperature on fouling introductions. Four mechanisms by which organisms attached to vessels can be transferred to a recipient port were also described:
1. A rise in sea temperature less than 3.6 oF can trigger a wide range of species to spawn 2. Mobile species associated with fouling communities, such as crabs, can simply drop off 3. In-water cleaning releases viable organisms from a vessel to the water column or sea floor 4. The waste disposal practices of dry dock facilities may result in NIS discharge with effluent to a port.
The waste disposal practices of commercial dry docks in California are governed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards under the authority of the Clea n Water Act. The San Francisco dry dock is prohibited from discharging effluent directly into the waters of the state. Following repair operations, wash-down water is collected in holdi ng tanks and discharged into the City of San Francisco’s Treatment plant. Since the Regional Boards may have varying requirements for such discharges, Staff will investigate disposal practices of commercial dry docks located in Southern California.
Sandy Sea Bottoms and Fouling Accumulation Dragan Samardzic clarified that the information shared during the May 11 th workshop (vessels moored in sandy bottom areas tend to accumulate fouling faster than in other areas) was based on personal observation from his years working in the merchant shipping industry.

Styela Clava (a Sea Squirt) Invasion in New Zealand Ashley Coutts shared news on a recently discovered in vasion of a sea squirt to New Zealand. In August, the presence of Styela clava in Auckland (North Island) was confirmed by a scientist visiting from the United Kingdom for the Marine Bioinvasions Conferenc e. Since then, it has also been observed in Lyttleton Harbor (South Island).
The species devastated the Canadian mussel aquacu lture industry by smothering mussel lines and competing for food, resulting in a ~40% loss of produc tion. There are concerns that it may cause similar impacts to New Zealand’s mussel farming industry. Originally from Korea and introduced to Australia in the 1970’s, the New Zealand invasion likely originated fr om Australia via vessel fouling. Larvae are only viable for 24 hours, and are thus not likely to have been transported via ballast water. A survey is currently underway to ascertain the geographic ex tent of the invasion, and to decide what management measures might be taken.

Existing Vessel Fouling Management Practices (See appended Table, pg. 8) A table of management practices considered or adopt ed in other states/nations was distributed to the group prior to the meeting, and quickly reviewed. Strategies included:

66• Codes of practice (antifouling paint applic ation, cleaning periodicity, in-water cleaning restrictions/bans)

• Survey (New Zealand): vessel behavior/maintenance

• Risk-Assessment

• Regulations (Australia, vessels <25 m): Requirements for hull condition prior to entering Australian waters

Clarification of Merchant Classi fication Society Requirements : (See amended table, pg. 8). (Samardzic) The periodicity of interim in-wat er cleanings are not mandated, but are generally completed as noted in the table (every 2-3 year s for self-polishing coat ings), and are typically dictated by fuel consumption performance. Frequen cy of diver inspections is typically dependent on company requirements (Matson performs these quarterly).
Companies strive to control levels of fouling, as heavy fouling can only be removed through scraping, often down to exposed metal. Hard scraping re moves antifouling coatings, eliminating protection from future attachment, and vessel operators prefer to avoid it. For example, Dragan Samardzic once observed vessels that had been stationary for 3-9 months in the tropics that had accumulated incredibly large and thick fouling organisms (esp. ba rnacles). Such fouling can only be remedied via scraping. It is uncommon to observe operators that continue running vess els without regard to fouling control. (Samardzic)
Effectiveness Codes of Practice and Surveys (Coutts, New Zealand): It was asked whether there was some sense for how widely applied and how effective non-mandatory codes of practice where. Initially, compliance was limited; howev er, compliance appears to have increased even without government enforcement for several reasons:

• Growing public awareness and support for biosecurity – education and outreach are very important

• Industry/company desire to avoid the hassle and embarrassment of being responsible for a new introduction (i.e. 1993 Russian trawler)

• The point above appears to have resulted in some level of industry self-policing
The vast majority of commercial vessels are cle an, with the exception of the difficult to reach nooks and crannies on any individual vessel. The ma jority of ocean-going recreational boats (i.e. yachts) are also clean, as most owners have the incentive and financial ability to maintain them. It is the exceptional, stochastic vessel types/event s that pose the most risk, such as vessels that travel at slow speeds, military vessels that ar e sold or moved after being laid up, the small minority of vessels/owners uninterested in maintena nce, etc. It was this logic that led to the development of the Hawaii risk matrix.
The survey included on the ballast water declaration appears to serve mainly as an information gathering tool, rather than for targeted investigat ion or enforcement. By the time a form is received and processed, the vessel has typically departed.
Can it be assumed that risk factors observed in New Zealand apply to California? (Ruiz) With the caveat that direct studies are la cking the Northern Hemisphere, it is likely that, in general the characteristics of highest risk vessels for California will be very similar to those in New Zealand (slow movers, long lay-up). Also as in the Southern Hemisphere, the expectation is that fouling on any given vessel will be generally low with small “hot-spots” of heavier fouling (the “nooks and crannies”). However, the specific magni tude of risk for North America is not clear. Even for the Southern Hemisphere where the majori ty of recent research has been conducted, studies are limited, covering small sample si zes, a limited number of vessel types, vessel behaviors, cleaning practices, and routes. How t he diversity of fouling organisms on vessels in North America will stack up is unknown.

67Priority Research Questions and Information Needs Given the lack of research/information on vessel foul ing as a NIS vector in North America and California, CSLC anticipates that further data gathering will li kely be included as a recommendation. The TAG was asked which questions might be the most important for directing future management options and for furthering the basic science of the field.
Surveys on the species and extent of biota arriving to California ports via commercial vessel fouling were considered one of the highest prio rities. Discussion indicated that such studies should be coupled with information on several vessel variables to elucidate relationships with NIS introduction risk:

• Vessel type – include a broad cross section of vessel types

• Vessel behavior - voyage speed, lay over time, etc.

• Maintenance practices - frequency of in-water cleaning and out of water cleaning

• Transit route(s) – prior ports of call. Supplemental information could be obtained from the USCG for the last 3 ports of call.

• Antifouling coating age and type - (Coutts) As the phase out of TBT-based coatings proceeds, invasion patterns may shift in response to increased use of Copper-based coatings. (Samardzic) Many companies hav e already moved away from TBT coatings. (Gates) As of 2005, TBT paints could not be sold in the U.S., and all vessels must have sealed (covered) or removed such paints by 2008.
Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy In stitute (ABRPI), a par tnership between the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and Portland State University, are currently initiating a study with funding from CSLC, which intends to address many of the above priority research. Current research aims to:

• Estimate “wetted surface area”, or vessel surface area that may be colonized by fouling organisms, that moves into and out of U.S. West Coast ports.

• Investigate pilot methods for biological survey s of fouling organisms across vessel types coming into and out of these same ports.
Future components of the research would include a characterization of fouling communities across vessel types, sour ce ports (transit route), and vessel behaviors (maintenance, residence time, etc). Together, these data sets would then enable an analysis of the overall magnitude of NIS moving through West Coast Ports.
Information on vessel operations and maintenance factors tied to fouling : Information on vessel activities that might influence fouli ng extent and accumulation was considered a high priority, and would be extremely useful if combined with biotic surveys of fouling (described above). Such information could be collected via a vessel survey, with questions related to dry docking, cleaning, painting, and/or laid-up periods, etc.
Potential survey in conjunction with CA SB 771: California Senate Bill 771 passed in September (2005) requires the CSLC to conduc t a 1 year survey of arriving vessels for greywater/blackwater discharge issues. The CLSC could devise 2-4 targeted fouling related questions in consultation with the scientific community, and add them to this survey. This approach would minimize the num ber of forms required of arriving vessels, and would collect information that could compliment the biotic surveys. Information could also be gathered through shipping agents, CSLC inspectors, and coordinated communication with USCG.

68Fouling on military vessels: Virtually nothing is known about the fouling levels on military vessels, though some likely exhibit high risk behav iors. For example, vessels in the “Mothball” fleet (out-of-service military vessels) have been moored in Suisun Bay (San Francisco Bay Region) for extended periods, and likely contain su bstantial fouling communities. Transport of such vessels would constitute a high risk even t. Unfortunately, research access to military vessels is extremely difficult to obtain. In addition, AB 433 specifically exempts military vessels from its authority, and they are instead subject to the Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces.
Cruise/passenger vessels have been observed to have substantial communities in sea chests, and their voyage patterns may be of particular importance. Such vessels tend to visit pristine areas (marine parks, wilderness areas) that may requi re higher levels of protection. They make frequent trips on regular routes to international lo cations (i.e. California to Mexico, California to Canada), increasing NIS exposure from specific regions (repetitious inoculations).
Stochastic, theoretically high risk vessels , such as slow moving towed structures, foreign fishing vessels, derelict vessels, should be examined or monitored in California, due to the disproportionately high risk they present in Ha waii and New Zealand. For California, towed drilling platforms may be of particular interest as these may occasionally be moved to other regions in the U.S. and Canada.
Role of route and freshwater exposure : There is evidence that freshwater exposure dislodges/inactivates many organisms attached to vessels, suggesting that seagoing vessels that spend some period in freshwater may pose a lower risk in some situations. This effect, and its implications for NIS introduction potential, should be investigated.
Colonization from vessel to port: The mechanisms by which organisms may transfer from a visiting vessel to a recipient port, through spawning or in-water cleaning for example (Michin and Gollasch 2003), are important research areas, however, may be of less immediacy given information gaps in more critical areas. In t he meantime, it would be good to assume that high levels of fouling on a vessel equate to high risk for introduction to a port.
Long term monitoring of NIS, such as the CDFG coordinated monitoring, should clearly be continued. Long term monitoring will be key to evaluate how invasion patterns change with ballast water management, ballast water treatment, and the phase out of TBT. This will also be the primary information needed to attempt to eval uate the effectiveness of management activities.

Potential Management Strategies for California The TAG was asked to discuss the following questi on, “Considering what’s known/not known about fouling and other non-ballast water vessel vectors, what management strategies should or could California consider?”

Further research and vessel operational/maintenance information collection via surveys (as discussed in the prior section):

o Clear priority

o Some members felt that more information and/or research was needed before regulations or restrictions should be implemented.

Codes of Practice :

o At a minimum, these should be developed rather than postponing action until more information is gathered. These could be particula rly important if it is decided that it is premature to implement restrictions or regulations.

o Could expand upon the maintenance requirement s of merchant classification societies.

69Requirements for regular sea chest painting and cleaning

o It was noted that most vessels currently paint sea chests every 5 years.

o Water used to cool a vessel’s engine is brought in through sea chest openings. Chlorination systems typically operate to ke ep cooling system components unobstructed by growth, and sea chests are exposed at so me level to the de-fouling action of these systems.

o However, researchers have observed that so me sea chests are very clean while others are not. Since many vessels have multiple sea chests, it may be that the operational condition of chlorination/cleaning systems vari es in each one, or that the exposure of sea chests to these systems varies.
Support or incentives for the development of in-water cleaning technologies that eliminate or reduce organism release into the water. There are a small number of technologies in developmental stages that reduce particle re lease during in-water cleaning; however, none are known to be ready for co mmercial distribution:

o U.S. Navy (Jerry Bohlander) – First present ed the development of a technology some years back, but current status is unknown.

o 2 companies in NZ claim they have a tec hnology developed that contains organisms as small as 60 microns. System testing will begin in November (2005), and the results may be available in approximately a year.
A major disadvantage of these prototype system s is that they have difficulty reaching the recesses & crevices where fouling is commonly highest. They perform best on exposed laminar surfaces, where fouling is generally the lowest.
Though the ANZECC and some Australian ports prom ote codes of practice that prohibit in-water cleaning, it’s not clear that such prohibitions are beneficial in all situations (i.e. on heavily fouled vessels). In-water cleaning bans also do not a create win-win situat ion for environmental protection and commercial shippers. Support or incentives for the development of in-water cleaning technologies have the potential to create a mutually beneficial solution for all parties
Define parameters for a risk matrix, and implement action on high risk vessels. Since the vast majority of the arriving fleet will likely pres ent a low risk, it was suggested to focus attention on infrequent, high risk occasions (poorly mainta ined, slow movers, extended sitters). Some suggestions for action that could be taken were:

o Inspection

o Cleaning requirements/case-by-case permits for cleaning

o Quarantine

o Restrictions on port activities

Outreach and Education: An outreach and education component to the merchant shipping industry should be included as part of any recommendations.

70APPENDIX F Summary of the California State Lands Commission Technical Advisory Group Meeting
December 19, 2005

Sacramento, CA

Proposed Vessel Dismantling Operation in Oregon & Suisun Bay Mothball Fleet Ian Davidson provided a brief overview on the developments related to a proposal by Bay Bridge Enterprises to establish a ship dismantling operation in the Port of Newport, Oregon. Should the proposal move forward, the deactivated vessels from Suisun Bay (AKA the “Mothball Fleet”) may be moved to Oregon for deconstruction. Originally, relocation was planned for February, but has been postponed due to vocal opposition over the potential for contaminatio n and NIS introductions. It is likely that an EIS will be prepared, and the TAG was asked monitor the federa l register notice for the EIS and send comments.

It is unclear which federal or state environmental r egulations will have to be followed prior to relocation efforts since most, if not all of the fleet is compos ed of military vessels. Kim Ward indicated that if California state water quality issues come into play , jurisdiction and oversight would fall to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Karen McDowell vol unteered to find out if anyone from the RWQCB has been monitoring the issue.
Several related newspaper articles from the Oregoni an, Portland’s main newspaper, were distributed to the group. A December 18 th article focused specifically on the issu e of potential fouling NIS introductions through the relocation activities. Quoted representat ives from the Maritime Administration (MarAd), and from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (whe re some vessels have already been moved) were unaware of the hull fouling issue.

Hull Husbandry Survey for 2006 As discussed during the last TAG meeting (October 13 th ), 4 questions related to the hull fouling husbandry/fouling control practices were formulated with input from members of the TAG from the scientific community. The questions are designed to supplement biological studies, and were distributed in conjunction with the 2006 California Clean Coas t Act survey (see attached document).
The distribution of the survey was tar geted at vessels arriving to Californi a, however, it was noted that it would be advantageous if the hull husbandry survey could be distributed more widely. The CSLC welcomes other states to utilize the survey if they are interested. It was noted that vessel identification was missing from form, and the IM O number and vessel name will be added to an amended form. It was also noted the specificity of the question about t he type of antifouling treatment applied was unclear (Chapman). If the form is revised, the question and/or the instructions for this question may also be revised.

Overview of TAG Discussions Thus Far Throughout the TAG discussions since May, several considerations have been identified that frame the development of recommendations

• Vessel fouling poses an NIS risk that needs to be addressed

• Specific knowledge on the nature of fouling risk factors for N. America and California is very limited

• There is generalized knowledge on fouling risk factors, based on studies conducted in New Zealand and Hawaii

71• Dry docks are in high demand and booked well in ad vance. There is little flexibility for unplanned scheduling.

• Biocidal antifouling paints pose water quality problems

• Much of the merchant fleet is well maintained, and likely pose lower NIS risk

• Occasional/stochastic vessels likely pose significant NIS risk
During the last TAG meeting (October 13 th ) several potential management frameworks were discussed and prioritized in very broad terms. These were: Information gathering/research, codes of practice, sea chest maintenance requirements, incentives/support for in-water cleaning technology development, and regulatory action on stochastic high risk vessels.

Straw-Person Management Options Based on discussions from the October TAG m eeting, Staff formulated a set of straw-person management scenarios to generate discussion and cons tructive criticism during this meeting. TAG members were asked to provide feedback on why options were favorable or not, if or how an option might be improved, and to consider which management idea s might be appropriate both for now and for the future. Scenarios ranged from education and outreach to regulatory action, and were distributed on a handout (see attached document). These were then discussed systematically by the group.

Discussion: Straw-Person Management Options – Outreach It was noted that a lack of knowledge on fouling an d associated NIS risk was underscored by the Oregon ship dismantling operation controversy. It will ther efore be important to incr ease awareness amongst agencies or companies that may be involved in activiti es that pose a high fouling risk, and with state and federal entities involved in policy development and decision making (Ruiz).
Discussed entities that may warrant targeted outreach, and avenues for reaching them were:
Commercial Shipping Industry

• Target Companies : salvage operations, dry dock facilities, oil platforms, vessel towing companies

• Articles for industry publications such as Pacific Maritime, and maritime listservs

• Commercial dive companies that clean and inspect vessels

UC Sea Grant Extension/West Coast Ballast Outreach Project has several initiatives planned that may be potential avenues for outreach:

• Seminar series in conjunction with the Califor nia Maritime Academy - the fouling issue could be a topic area covered.

• Advisory Committee meeting January 17 th for input on NIS issues and outreach recommendations

• Regular mailings and/or distribution of pamphlet s could include fouling education materials, for example, an insert in the ballast water brochure

• Special workshop organization and coordination.

• Inclusion of fouling information on their website

• Articles in their newsletter
State Resource Agency Networks:

• California Association of Professional Scientists (state scientist union)

72• Western Regional Panel of the ANS Task Force meetings are organized by Susan Ellis (California Department of Fish and Game) however, this group meets somewhat irregularly and informally
Federal Agency Priorities and Information Networks

• Maritime Administration : has an environmental officer for the western region. Dragan Samardzic will locate his contact information.

• ANS Task Force is composed of a network of federal agencies for the purposes of coordination and communication. Scott Newsham (executive secretary, ANS Task Force) may be a good contact.

• Additional agencies that should be priority outreach targets : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Military, Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service

• Outreach to legislators, such as Sununu and Boxer through letters or other avenues.

• Washington DC meetings/briefings geared towards informing Congressional staffers on relevant current issues and may be good netwo rking/outreach opportunity. These occur throughout the year, and an option could be to sponsor an event through a program such as the Oceans Caucus, or participate/organize ev ents that receive media attention such as the National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week held in DC.

Discussion: Straw-Person Management Options – Vessel Surveys The TAG was asked if a mandatory vessel survey would be beneficial. It was noted that a survey similar to New Zealand’s could be very useful, however, without an associated penalty for non-reporting, submission rates will be less effective (Davidson, Mill er). It was suggested that fouling questions could also be asked by CSCL inspectors during boarding (R uiz). If a mandatory survey is implemented, it was suggested that the industry be involved with the formulation of questions to ensur e that they are clear and reasonable (Chapman).

Discussion: Straw-Person Management Options – Hull Maintenance: Codes of Practice & Requirements Straw person scenarios outlining specific hull cleaning and coating practices for co des of practice (COP) and maintenance requirements were identical, howe ver, the COP version would be optional whereas requirements would be mandatory. These options ar e summarized together here, because discussions generally applied to both.
It was noted that promotion/distribution of any COP should be accompanied with information on their rationale and purpose, and with a contact for more information (Ruiz).
Time periods specified in the cleaning requirements (cl ean within 6 months; coat within 3 years of arrival, 2 week lay-up) generated notable discussion. It was noted that these place holder periods were somewhat arbitrary (Sytsma) and it was unclear if vess els that meet these criteria would constitute a high risk. The TAG was unable to suggest more appropria te time frames. A complicating factor is the variability of fouling rates due to envir onmental factors. In particular, f ouling accumulates faster in warmer waters depending on geographic location. In addition, some antifouling paints are designed to last up to 10 years, and are more effective if not scraped. Frequent cleaning on these coatings may not improve hull cleanliness, and could exacerbate fouling (Gates, Samardzic)
Idea - Dive inspection rather than cleaning or coating: A suggestion was put forward to request (in the case of COP’s) or require (for regulations) dive inspections, rather than cleani ng or coating, if certain criteria are not met by vessels prior to arriving in California (e.g. not cleaned within 6 months, not coated within 3 years, laid-up more than 2 weeks) (F alkner, Chapman). This could be coupled with a requirement to provide the inspection documentation to the CSLC.

73If an inspection requirement was implemented, standardi zed protocols for the su rvey and collection of specific types of data would need to be developed to asce rtain relative fouling risk. Criteria would also need to be developed to discern acceptable versus unacceptable fouling condition (Samardzic). Currently, inspection procedures are performed accord ing to the requirements of classification societies or owners, and focus on mechanical and structural aspects rather than on biological issues (Gates, Samardzic). Inspection reports are unstandardized and narrative in format, typically noting only problems. They are also not conducted in low visib ility conditions (~30 ft or less), and are thus not often conducted on the U.S. west coast. (Chapman)
Inspection videos are typically taken during diver inspections. If these or photographic images could be collected in a standardized manner, they could provide information for inspection purposes and also biological data for research. Images and video reduce error and are less subjective for data collection and evaluation. Vessel masters also seem to be extremel y interested in this type of information, so they may monitor operational aspects of their vessel. (Ruiz)
Fuel Consumption as an indicator for fouling : It was asked if fuel consumption is related to fouling accumulation (Berge). There is a relationship betwe en higher levels of fouling and lowered fuel economy, though engine or mechanical problems can also cause increased fuel consumption (Chapman, Samardzic). Chevron has been investigating the re lationship, and Brad Chapman will provide information that is available.

Discussion: Straw-Person Management Opti ons – Regulatory Action on High Risk Arrivals Identification of a high risk vessel will be critical for determining which will be subject to regulatory action (Berge). The TAG was thus asked to consider what criteria might be used. Some extraordinary cases, such as the Suisun Bay Mothball fleet movemen t, are very likely high risk situations (Davidson). However, though it is known which general factors co nstitute higher risk (slow speed, long lay-up, high temperature, etc.), in less extreme cases it is not clear where an acceptable delineation between high and low risk might lie for California. The concept of loca ting potential high risk vessels for closer investigation is good, but it is not clear if it would be most appro priately implemented as a data gathering activity, or as a regulatory action (Ruiz). At this point in time, it may be best to flush out the characteristics of a high risk vessel, and develop options for what may be done with high risk arrivals, both today and in a few years as new technologies are developed (Ruiz).
Responsibility and resources : If inspections or investigations were implemented, it was asked which agency would be responsible for conducting them (Crosson). It will be important to make this determination, and to identify funding that would be needed for such personnel intensive efforts (Falkner).
Actions on high risk arrivals: If a vessel was determined to be a hi gh risk arrival, the TAG was asked to consider what actions might be taken. A requirement for out-of-water-cleaning would be difficult to implement due to dry dock demand and scheduling issues, particularly since vessel s in this situation would likely be irregular and unplanned (McDowell). An in-water cleaning would not be protective (Chapman). Fine or fee: To be effective, any fine or fee should be higher than the cost of cleaning the vessel, however this would not be protective once a vessel has already arrived in port (Ashe). A fine could also be subjective, unless specific criteria were used to evaluate fouling accumulation (Berge). Quarantine: It was suggested that an area outside of a port, possibly a low current area offshore, could be dedicated towards inspec tions and in-water cleaning (Samardzic). Identification of such a site would be difficult, however (Ashe), as NIS spread to other areas would still be a potential problem. The state of Ha waii has been investigat ing potential quarantine sites which would be sacrificial in nature, but have not yet been successful (Kushima).

74Require vessel remedy problem or deny return: An idea suggested was that if a high risk vessel arrives, require that they remedy the problem before their next visit, and provide documentation that they have done so (e.g. diver cleaning and inspection). If they do not comply, deny entry on the next visit to California (Chapman). A similar type of procedure is used by the Coast Guard. It was noted t hat though the CSLC’s has authority to deny entry, it has never been used and could be challenged (Berge, Falkner).

Action on extreme risk arrivals: Though there is not enough knowledge at this point in time to discern between high and low risk vessels for California, it wa s noted that the state could attempt to define an extreme risk criteria. For example, a vessel laid up for 30-50 years such as those in the Suisun Bay Mothball Fleet would fall into an extreme risk category . Such vessels could be subject to meet certain criteria before entering Californ ia waters, or face penalties.

Discussion: Straw-Person Management Options – In-Water Cleaning Restrictions In-water cleaning using a technology or technique wher e fouling material is contained and collected (not allowed to enter the water column or seafloor ) was discussed both as an action that could be implemented on high risk arrivals, and as the only in-w ater cleaning method allowed in California on any vessel. Though vacuum type-technologies are under development by the Navy, and by companies in New Zealand and Hawaii, none are currently available fo r commercial application (Kushima, Samardzic). Biological evaluation will occur during 2006 on the New Zealand technology. Other technologies may warrant investigation, such as the limno-curtain us ed to contain biocides applied to freshwater plant pests.
It was asked what size class fouling organisms ty pically fall under (Berge). Most research has been focused on larger organisms. There may still be an issue with smaller organisms such as algae spores and microbes, but little research has been done on organisms in these size classes (Ruiz). It was also asked what size filter might be approp riate, say, if a contained in-water cleaning technology utilized one to eliminate organisms prior to discharge in the water column (Falkner). It was suggested that a 50-80 micron mesh might be appropriate, according to unevaluated, best scientific judgment (Ruiz). This would not, however, address microorganisms or algal spores (Ruiz).

Points of General Agreement:

• Outreach on vessel fouling as a vector for NIS introductions is a clear priority. Companies engaged in potentially high risk operations, resource agenci es, and policy-making entities should be priority outreach targets.

• Biological research on levels and type of fouling on vessels that arrive to California is important.

• Vessel surveys on behavior and maintenance fact ors that influence fouling will be important to compliment biological research and for the development of risk evaluation.

• The identification of conditions and criteria that constitute a high risk arrival to California/West Coast is needed for the development of r egulatory management frameworks.

• For vessels identified as high risk, the development of response measures that prevent NIS release is needed.

• The development of technologies that contain and collect fouling effluent during in-water cleaning is needed.

• If a requirement for diver inspections is implem ented, standardized survey methods, data collection protocols, and video/image collection proc edures will also need to be developed.

75X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Ian Davidson for providin g preliminary data and text in Section V on the wetted surface area of commercial vessels arriving to California ports.

Staff would also like to extend its sincer e appreciation to the following people for contributing a substantial am ount of their valuable time and expertise to the development of this report:

Marian Ashe John Berge Brad Chapman Ashley Coutts

Jeff Crooks Holly Crosson
Nicole Dobroski
Richard Everett

Oliver Floerl
Paul Gates
Scott Godwin Jeffrey Herod
Jo-Anne Kushima

Karen McDowell
Whitman Miller Greg Ruiz Dragan Samardzic
Lisa Swanson Mark Sytsma Drew Talley

Kim Ward

76