## 2011 BIENNIAL REPORT ON THE

CALIFORNIA MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

PRODUCED FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE

By L. Takata, N. Dobroski, C. Scianni and M. Falkner California State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Divisi on January 2011Executive Summary | i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California‟s Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 renewed and expanded the Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act of 1999, to address the threat of noninidenous species (NIS) introductions. The law charged the California State Lands Commission (Commission) with oversight and administration of the state‟s program to prevent or minimize the release of NIS from commercial vessels. To advance this goal, the Commission‟s Marine Invasive Species Prog ram (MISP) utilizes an inclusive, multi

- faceted approach to: Develop sound, science

- based policies in consultation with technical experts and stakeholders; Track and analyze ballast water and vessel fouling management practices of the California commercia l fleet; Enforce laws and regulations to prevent introductions; and, Facilitate outreach to promote information exchange amongst scientists, legislators, regulators, and other stakeholders. This report fulfills the reporting mandate set forth in Public Res ources Code (PRC) Section 71212 and summarizes the activities of the MISP in each of these areas from July 2008 through June 2010.

Vessel Arrival Statistics and Compliance with Ballast Water Management Requirements Commercial vessels are required to submi t a Ballast Water Reporting Form upon departure from each port or place of call in California. These forms provide specific information about vessel capacity, voyage particulars, and the origin and management of ballast water that is discharged in the sta te. Data from the forms are used to examine trends in the quantity and geography of arrivals, ballast water management and discharge, and patterns of compliance and noncompliance in the state. Compliance with the requirement to submit reporting forms is consistently very high. Since 2004, compliance has remained above 93%, and has been even higher in recent years. From July 2008 through June 2010, 98% of forms were submitted as required,
and 87% were submitted on time.Executive Summary | ii

Arrival statistics from July 2 008 through June 2010 appear to reflect the global economic downturn that has depressed international trade. The overall number of arrivals to California began decreasing in late 2006, a pattern that continues throughout the time period of focus for this r eport. Over 6,000 arrivals were observed during the first six months of 2006, declining to a low of 4488 arrivals during the first six months of
2010. Aside from LA

- LB, many ports saw a decrease in the proportion of arrivals from places outside of the Pa cific Coast Region (“foreign arrivals”). Since the last biennial report (Falkner et al. 2009), Oakland and San Diego‟s foreign arrivals have declined 5% and Hueneme‟s foreign arrivals have declined 6%. Nearly 50% of all arrivals to
California came from o ther ports within the Pacific Coast region.

Compliance with ballast water management requirements in California remains extremely high. Of the more than 120 million metric tons (MMT) of vessel

- reported ballast water carried into State waters between July 2008 and June 2010, over 98% was managed in compliance with California law. Approximately 84% of arrivals comply with California‟s requirements by retaining ballast water on board, which is considered the most protective management strategy. Of the 20.9 MMT of ballast water discharged, 88% was appropriately managed through legal ballast water exchange and was compliant with California law. While ballast water exchange at legal distances offshore is most protective, some attempt at ballast water exchange i s, in most cases, more beneficial than no exchange at all. The vast majority of ballast water in violation of management requirements (over 76%) had been exchanged prior to discharge, but in a location not acceptable under California law. Further, the pr oportion of ballast water discharged in the state that is compliant with state law has been steadily improving since the latter half of 2006, even though total discharges have been on the rise.

Commission Marine Safety personnel verify vessel

- reported b allast water management practices through onboard inspections of vessel logbooks and sampling ballast water to be discharged. Between July 2008 and June 2010, 4310 ballast water inspections (22.5% of arrivals) were conducted by Commission staff. Approxim ately 1.1% ofExecutive Summary | iii

arrivals were found to be in violation with operational aspects of the law, which includes improper ballast water management.

Hull Husbandry Reporting Form Data Analysis : Trends in Vessel Fouling

- Related
Practices and Behaviors
Commission staff has also been moving forward with data collection and the development of management requirements to prevent introductions via the vessel fouling vector. Beginning in 2008, vessels operating in California waters are required to
submit a Hull Husbandr y Reporting Form (HHRF) once annually. This form requests information on certain voyage behaviors and maintenance practices that influence the amount of fouling that accumulates on the wetted surfaces of vessels, influencing the
risk for NIS introduction. Data from the HHRF forms will be used in concert with targeted biological research funded by the Commission to better understand how husbandry practices and voyage characteristics affect the quantity and quality of fouling organisms arriving in Californi a on commercial ships. These two data streams, in
addition to consultation with a multi

- disciplinary technical advisory group during 2010 and 2011, will be used to develop management requirements by January 1, 2012 to reduce introductions through the vesse l fouling vector.

The rate of submission for the HHRF has improved dramatically, from 74.4% during 2008 (the first year the form was required), to nearly 93% in 2009, and data indicates that most vessels are taking various steps to minimize fouling gro wth. Overall, 83% of all vessels have been out of water (either newly built or dry docked) and painted with
fresh antifouling coatings within the past three years (99% within the past five years). Because of the relatively young age of these coatings
, th e physical removal of organisms while the vessels remain in water does not appear to be a major tool used
fleet

- wide, as less than 10% of all vessels conduct in

- water cleaning of the hull and other submerged surfaces. The application of antifouling coatin gs to deter fouling growth is conducted on a regular basis, typically during either the shipbuilding process

or the last out

- of

- water dry dock. The majority (86.1%) of the vessels operating in California are utilizing biocide

- based coatings, while 3.8% ut ilize biocide

- free coatings,Executive Summary | iv

and 3.7% utilize a combination of antifouling coating types. A little over half of the fleet (50.1

– 65.7%) has installed marine growth prevention systems (MGPSs) to prevent fouling organisms from accumulating within sea chest s and internal piping networks. However, more investigation will be needed to determine how often vessels with installed MGPSs actually utilize them.

Voyage characteristics examined from the HHRFs suggest a gradient of risk associated
with different ve ssel types . Elevated traveling speed and shorter sedentary periods are associated with lower levels of fouling accumulation. Auto carriers, container vessels, and passenger vessels that visit California travel at elevated speeds in excess of 16
knots and spend a day or less in port. In comparison, bulk vessels and the “other” vessel type category travel at slower speeds and typically spend over three days in port. In addition, a dramatic increase in frequency and duration of extended layups (immobile
pe riods) between 2008 and 2009 appear to be a consequence of the global economic recession. Per capita, the 2009 California fleet saw a 21.6 % increase in the total number of layups since each vessel‟s most recent dry docking or delivery. Large
increases i n the duration of layups was also observed, with layups of 60

- 99 days and 500 days or greater experiencing the largest increases. In the absence of drydocking or
in

- water cleaning, extended sedentary periods have the potential to result in the
accumulatio n of heavy fouling, raising concerns for the potential of NIS transfer from vessels that have experienced extended layups.

Implementation of Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharge The Commission has been moving forward with several projects for the implementation of California‟s performance standards for ballast water discharge. Since December of 2007, the Commission has produced three legislatively mandated reviews of ballast water treatment systems and one additional update. These reports ev aluate whether systems will be available to meet the performance standards on new vessels for which construction began on or after January 1, 2010 or 2012 (applicable effective date depends on vessel‟s ballast water capacity). Multiple systems have demons trated that they have the potential to meet California‟s performance standards, and systems shouldExecutive Summary | v

be available by the time the construction of affected vessels nears a phase where treatment systems must be installed. However, recent discussions within ex pert scientific panels convened by other state groups (Great Lakes Collaborative) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency have raised questions about technology availability and the ability of scientists to verify system performance for standards a s strict as California‟s. This information is being weighed by Commission staff and may require changes to the Commission‟s plans for implementing California‟s performance
standards.

Regardless of how performance standards are implemented, once vessels begin to use ballast water treatment systems in California, information on their installation and use will be needed to monitor compliance. In addition, compliance inspections will require Commission staff to take samples of treated ballast water from dis charge piping. Assembly Bill 248 of 2009 provided the Commission with the authority to request ballast water treatment information on forms to be developed by the Commission. Two forms were adopted in October of 2010 to collect the needed information

– th e “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Annual Reporting Form” and the “Ballast Water Treatment Supplemental Reporting Form.” In the fall of 2009, the Commission adopted regulations that require vessels to install sampling ports (i.e. sampling facilities) a s near to the point of discharge as practicable. The regulations are based on the International Maritime Organization‟s Guideline G2, establishing design specifications for in

- line sampling facilities, and requirements for where the sampling facilities sho uld be installed on the discharge line. Sampling facilities must be installed on vessels by the same year that they must comply with California‟s performance standards.

Marine Invasive Species Program Involvement at the State, Federal, and
International Levels Commission staff continues to play an active role in several organizations that address ship

- born NIS issues at the state, federal and international levels. Because California‟s MISP is often a leader in the development and implementation of preven tative measures for reducing NIS release from ships, staff has received recent invitations toExecutive Summary | vi

speak or participate on committees/panels, including (but not limited to): the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force (Washington D.C.), the National Invasive Species Council (Washington D.C.), the North Sea Ballast Water Opportunity
Work group (Germany and Sweden), the State of Washington‟s Ballast Water Working Group, the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force (Oregon), the
Minne sota Invasive Species Conference, and the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative. Commission staff members have also given programmatic presentations at numerous local, state, national and international science and management conferences, including the I nternational Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, the International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species, the California and the World Oceans Conference, and the CSLC‟s Prevention First Symposium.

Looking Forward In the coming years Commission staff int ends to: (1) improve compliance with current ballast water management requirements by targeting outreach and enforcement on arrivals with comparatively lower compliance rates; (2) develop a revised course of action for the implementation of California‟s pe rformance standards for ballast water discharge in consultation with scientific experts; (3) pursue an amendment to PRC Section 71204.7 to extend the grandfathering of vessels engaged in the testing of experimental ballast water treatment systems through t he United States Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP); (4) develop regulations to reduce NIS discharge via the vessel fouling vector; (5) d evelop Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with international agencies working in parallel with the C ommission in developing fouling management strategies ; and, (6) support research promoting ballast water treatment technology development, in

- water hull cleaning technology development, and fouling prevention in the sheltered nooks and crannies of the wett ed surfaces of vessels (niche areas). As a part of all of these activities, the Commission will continue to use current resources to work proactively with the regulated industry, scientific community, and state, national and international regulatory agenc ies to reduce the risks of biological invasions to California waters.Table of Contents | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

....................................................................................... i ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

..................................................................... v iii I. PURPOSE

............................................................................................. 1 II. IN TRODUCTION

..................................................................................... 2

Nonindigenous Species and Vehicles of Introduction

– “Shipping Vectors”

............. 2 NIS Impacts

.............................................................................................. 3 Prevention Through Vector Management

........................................................ 4 III. REGULATORY OVERV IEW: BALLAST WATER

.......................................... 10

The International Maritime Organization

......................................................... 10 National Regulations Outside the United States

................................................ 12 United States Federal Regulations

................................................................ 12 U.S. State Programs

... ................................................................................ 18 IV. REGULATORY OVERVIEW: VESSEL FOULING

.......................................... 23

The International Maritime Organization

......................................................... 23 National Programs Outside of the United States

............................................... 24
United States Federal

– Fo uling Provisions of the Vessel General Permit (VGP)

..... 25 U.S. State Programs

– Hull Cleaning CWA Section 401 Certifications Under the VGP

... 25 V. CALIFORNIA’S MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

............................. 27

Programmatic Origins and Overview

................................. ............................. 27 Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharge

......................................... 28 Vessel Fouling

.......................................................................................... 34 Structure and Function of the Commission‟s Marine Invasive Species Program

...... 35 VI. DATA ANALYSIS

......................................................... ........................... 42

Trends in Statewide Vessel Traffic

................................................................. 42 Ballast Water Discharge, Management and Compliance

.................................... 51 Compliance Through Field Inspections

........................................................... 71 Trends in Vessel Fouling

- Related Practices and Patterns

................................... 72
Fee Submission

......................................................................................... 87 VII. RESEARCH

........................................................................................... 89

Funded and Collaborative Research

.............................................................. 89
Review of Current Vessel Vector Research

..................................................... 100 V III. CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD

................................................ 107
IX. REFERENCES

........................................................................................ 116Abbreviations and Acronyms | viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill
ABRPI Aquatic Bioinvasions Research and Policy Institute
Act Marine Invasive Species Act ( C hapter 491, Statutes of 1999 )
AFS Antifouling Systems on Ships
APL American Presidential Line
Ba Barium
BEAM Ballast Exchange Assurance Meter
BOE Board of Equalization
BW Ballast Water
BWE Ballast Water Exchange
BWM Ballast Water Managem ent
BWT Ballast Water Treatment
CA California
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDOM Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter
CFU Colony

- Forming Unit
Commission California State Lands Commission
CWA Clean Water Act DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Michigan)
EA Environmental Assessment
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HHRF Hull Husbandry Reporting Form
IMO International Maritime Organization
l Liter
LA

- LB Los Angeles

- Long Beach port complex

m Meters
ml MilliliterAbbreviations and Acronyms | ix

MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (New Zealand)
MARAD Maritime Administration
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO)
MGPS Marine Growth Prevention Syst em MISP Marine Invasive Species Program
MLML Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
MMT Million Metric Tons
Mn Manganese
MOA Memoranda of Agreement
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MPPS Massively Parallel Pyrosequencing
MT Metric Tons
NA S National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council
NIS Nonindigenous Species

nm Nautical Miles
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOBOB No Ballast On Board
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ODEQ O regon Department of Environmental Quality
OR Oregon
P Phosphorous
PCR Pacific Coast Region
PPT Parts Per Thousand
PRC Public Resources Code QV Qualifying Voyage
SAB Science Advisory Board
SB Senate Bill
SD Standard Deviation
SERC Smi thsonian Environmental Research Center
STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program
TAG Technical Advisory GroupAbbreviations and Acronyms | x

TBT Tributyltin
μm Micrometer
U.S. United States
USCG United States Coast Guard
VGP Vessel General Permit (Clean Water Act)
WA Washington
Water Board State Water Resources Control Board (California)
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesSection I. Purpose | 1

I. PURPOSE

This report was prepared for the California State Legislature purs uant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71212. According to statute, the California State Lands
Commis sion (Commission) shall prepare and update biennially, a report that includes an analysis of ballast water and vessel fouling management practices rep orted by the industry, summarizes recent research addressing the release of nonindigenous species (NIS) by vessels, evaluates the effectiveness of California‟s Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP), and puts forth recommendations to improve the effectiven ess of the
program.

Since the inception of the MISP in 2000 , four biennial reports have been completed.
Activities from the first two and one half years of the program are detailed in the first biennial report to the Legislature (Falkner 2003). MISP acti vities from January 2003 through December 2004 are covered in Falkner et al. (2005), Falkner et al. (2007) covers the period from January 2004 through June 2006 , and Falkner et al. ( 2009 )
summarizes activities from July 2006 through June 2008. This documen t constitutes the fifth MISP biennial report reviewing program activities, administration, research, and data analyses from July 2008 through June 2010.Section II. Introduction | 2

II. INTRODUCTION

Nonindigenous Species and Vehicles of Introduction

– “Shipping Vectors”
Also know n as “introduced,” “invasive,” “exotic,” “alien,” or “aquatic nuisance species,” nonindigenous species (NIS) in marine, estuarine and freshwater environments may be transported to new regions through numerous human activities. Aquaculture, live bait
rele ase, intentional sportfishing introductions
, release of aquarium pet and live seafood specimens
, transfer via leisure watercraft, and accidental release from research
institutions are just a few of the mechanisms, or “ vectors , ” by which organisms are
intr oduced into United State (U.S.) waters ( Weigel et al. 2005, M inchin et al. 2009 ). In coastal environments, commercial shipping is the most important vector for invasion, accounting for or contributing to 79.5% of introductions to North America (Fofonoff e t al. 2003).

Commercial ships transport organisms through two primary mechanisms

- ballast water and vessel fouling. Ballast water is necessary for many functions related to the trim, stability, maneuverability, and propulsion of large seagoing vesse ls (National Research Council 1996). Vessels may take on, discharge, or redistribute water during cargo loading and unloading, as they encounter rough seas, or as they transit through shallow coastal waterways. Typically, a vessel takes on ballast water as cargo is unloaded in one port to compensate for the weight imbalance, and will later discharge water when cargo is loaded in another. This transfer of ballast water from “source” to “destination” ports results in the movement of many organisms from one region to the next. In this fashion, it is estimated that more than 7000 species are moved around the world on a daily basis (Carlton 1999). Moreover, each ballast water discharge event has the potential to release over 21.2 million individual planktonic animals (Minton et al. 2005).

Fouling organisms are aquatic species attached to or associated with submerged hard surfaces. These include organisms such as barnacles, algae, and mussels that physically attach to vessel surfaces, and mobile organisms s uch as worms, crabs, and amphipods (small shrimp

- like animals) that associate with the attached fouling community. When vessels move from port to port, fouling communities are transportedSection II. Introduction | 3

along with their “host” structure. Fouling organisms are introduced to new environments when they spawn (reproduce) or drop off their transport vector (i.e. vessels). Thus vessel fouling has been identified as one of the most important mechanism for marine NIS introductions in several regions, including Australia, North Am erica, Hawaii and the North Sea (Ruiz et al. 2000a, Eldredge and Carlton 2002, Gollasch 2002).

NIS Impacts The rate, and thus the risk, of species invasions has increased significantly during recent decades. In North America, the rate of reported invasi ons in marine and estuarine waters has increased exponentially over the last 200 years (Ruiz et al. 2000a)

. Prior to the implementation of ballast water regulations, a new species was believed to become established every 14 weeks in the San Francisco Estu ary (Cohen and Carlton 1998). One of the primary factors leading to this increase has been the vast expansion of global trade during the past 50 years, which in turn has lead to significantly more ballast water, fouled hulls, and associated organisms movi ng around the world. The increased speed of global trade has allowed many more potentially invasive organisms entrained in ballast tanks to survive under shorter transit times (Ruiz and Carlton 2003). Organisms that arrive “healthy” in recipient regions are more likely to thrive and reproduce in their new habitats.

Once established, NIS can have severe ecological, economic, and human health impacts in the receiving environment. One of the most infamous examples is the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) which was introduced to the Great Lakes from the
Black Sea in the mid

- 1980s. Zebra mussels attach to hard surfaces in dense populations (as many as 700,000 per square meter) that clog municipal water systems and electric generating plants, resulting in c osts of approximately a billion dollars a year (Pimentel et al. 2005). In such high densities, zebra mussels filter vast amounts of tiny floating plants and animals (plankton) from the water. Plankton support the foundations of aquatic food webs, and dis ruptions to this base appear to reverberate throughout the ecosystem. By dramatically reducing plankton concentrations and crowding out other species, zebra mussels have altered ecological communities, causing localizedSection II. Introduction | 4

extirpation of native species (Mart el et al. 2001) and declines in recreationally valuable fish species (Cohen and Weinstein 1998). In 2007, a cousin of the zebra mussel, the quagga mussel ( Dreissena rostriformis bugensis ), was discovered in the Colorado River Aqueduct System that serves so uthern California, and in 2008 the zebra mussel was discovered in San Justo Reservoir (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). Impacts to California‟s waterways and conveyance structures are only beginning to be
calculated.

In San Francisco Bay, the overbite clam ( Corbula amurensi s) spread throughout the region‟s waterways within two years of being detected in 1986. The clam accounts for up to 95% of the living biomass in some shallow portions of the bay floor (Nichols et al. 1990). It is believed t o be a major contributor to the decline of several pelagic fish species in the Sacramento

- San Joaquin River Delta , including the threatened delta smelt, by reducing the plankton food base of the ecosystem (Feyrer et al. 2003, Sommer et al. 2007)

.

In add ition to impacting ecosystems and native species, NIS may also pose a risk to
human health. Vessels and port areas have been connected to the spread of epidemic
human cholera in a number of instances (Takahashi et al. 2008, Ruiz et al. 2000 b ), including t he transport of the toxogenic Vibrio cholerae serotype O1 from Latin America to Mobile Bay
, Alabama in 199 1, which lead to the closure of nearly all Mobile oyster beds that summer and fall (Lovell and Drake 2009). In addition to cholera , microbes
that hav e been found in ships include the microorganisms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (Hallegraeff 1998), coral pathogens (Aguirre

- Macedo et al. 2008), human intestinal parasites ( Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium parvum, Enterocytozoon bieneusi)
and th e microbial indicators for fecal contamination ( E . coli and intestinal enterococci ) (Reid et al. 2007).

Prevention T

hrough Vector Management Attempts to eradicate NIS after they have become widely distributed are often unsuccessful and costly (Carlton 20 01). Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million wasSection II. Introduction | 5

spent to eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed ( Caulerpa taxifolia) from two small embayments (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour) in southern California (Woodfield 2006). Control is likewise e xtremely expensive. By the end of 2010, over $12 million will have been spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ) (M. Spellman, pers. comm. 20 10 ). Prevention of species introductions through vector management is therefore considered the most desirable way to address the NIS issue.

Ballast Water Management The vast majority of commercial vessels use ballast exchange as the primary method of ballast water management. Exchange has been the best compromise of effica cy, environmental safety, and economic practicality. Most vessels are capable of conducting exchange, and the management practice does not require any special structural modification to most vessels in operation. During exchange, the biologically
rich wat er that is loaded while a vessel is in port, or near the coast, is exchanged with the comparatively species

- poor waters of the open ocean. Coastal organisms adapted to the conditions of bays, estuaries and shallow coasts are not expected to survive or be able to reproduce in the open ocean due to differences in biology and oceanography (Cohen 1998). Open ocean organisms are likewise not expected to survive in coastal
waters.

Ballast water exchange (BWE) is an interim ballast water management tool, howe ver, because of its variable efficiency and several operational limitations. Scientific research indicates that ballast water exchange typically eliminates between 70% and 99% of the organisms originally taken into a tank while the vessel is in or near por t (MacIsaac et al. 2002, Wonham et al. 2001 , USCG 2001, Zhang and Dickman 1999, Parsons 1998, Cohen 1998), however the percentage of ballast water exchanged does not necessarily correlate with a proportional decrease in organism abundance (Choi et al. 2005 , Ruiz and Reid 2007). A proper exchange can take many hours to complete, and in some circumstances, may not be possible without compromising safety due to adverse sea conditions or antiquated vessel design. Some vessels are regularly routed on shortSection II. Introduction | 6

voya ges, or voyages that remain within 50 nautical miles (nm) of shore. In such cases, the exchange process may create a delay or require a vessel to deviate from the most
direct route.

Because of the aforementioned limitations on exchange, regulatory agenc ies and the commercial shipping industry have looked toward the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies as a promising management option. For regulators, ballast
water treatment can provide NIS prevention including in situations where exchange may be unsafe or impossible. Technologies that eliminate organisms more effectively than exchange will provide a consistently higher level of protection to coastal ecosystems from NIS. For the shipping industry, the use of effective ballast water treatment systems will allow voyages to proceed along the shortest routes, in all operational scenarios, thereby saving time and money, and avoiding the safety issues related to BWE.

Until recently, financial investment in the research and development o f ballast water treatment systems was limited and the advancement of ballast water treatment technologies slow. Many barriers have hindered the development of technologies including equipment design limitations, the cost of technology development, and the lack of guidelines for testing and evaluating performance. However, some shipping industry representatives, technology developers and investors considered the absence of a specific set of ballast water performance standards as a primary deterrent to
progr ess. Performance standards would set benchmark levels for organism discharge that a technology would be required to achieve for it to be deemed acceptable for use in California. Developers requested these targets so they could design technologies to
meet these standards (MEPC 2003). Without standards, investors were reluctant to devote financial resources towards conceptual or prototype systems because they had no indication that their investments might ultimately meet future regulations. For the

same r eason, vessel owners were hesitant to allow installation and testing of prototype systems onboard operational vessels. It was argued that the adoption of performance standards would address these fears, and accelerate the advancement of ballast
treatment technologies. Thus in response to the slow progress of ballast waterSection II. Introduction | 7

treatment technology development and the need for effective ballast water treatment options, state, federal and international regulatory agencies have adopted or are in the process of de veloping performance standards for ballast water discharge . California adopted performance standards regulations in October of 2007 and is preparing for the implementation of those standards when the ships that must meet them begin arriving
to the state in 2011 (See Section IV for more details).

Vessel Fouling Management Mariners have long been aware of fouling (the attachment or association of aquatic organisms to the underwater areas of vessels) as a nuisance to vessel operations as it
relates to vesse l performance and fuel efficiency. Fouling on the hull can create drag, increasing fuel consumption and can cause engine strain. In pipes, fouling can block inflowing seawater meant to cool machinery. To prevent such problems, common industry fouling ma nagement strategies include cleaning of underwater vessel surfaces and the use of antifouling coatings and systems.

Antifouling coatings, either biocide

- containing or biocide

- free, function to reduce the extent to which organisms can attach to submerged portions of vessels. Biocidal antifouling coatings are applied during dry dock and deter the attachment of fouling organisms by leaching toxic compounds, such as tributyltin (TBT), copper, and zinc. However, these compounds are also detrimental to non

- tar get organisms in the surrounding environment, and many regions have adopted or are considering restrictions on their use. TBT is a highly effective antifouling agent that has been restricted by many nations in line with the 2001 International Maritime Orga nization (IMO) Convention on the Control of Antifouling Systems on Ships (IMO 2001), which bans the use of all organotin compounds in antifouling coatings as of September 17,
2008. Most non

- TBT coatings available utilize copper compounds as biocides, thou gh 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

. Biocide

- free silicon

- based coatings are available, but are mo re costly to apply and are currently only practically effective for active, swift vessels (those thatSection II. Introduction | 8

cruise over 15 knots) (Lewis 2002, Inter national Marine Coatings 2006). These coatings produce a slippery surface making it difficult for many fouling or ganisms to remain attached once the vessel is underway. As new coatings are developed and vessels shift to different antifouling coatings with lower toxic effects and potentially lower efficacies, there are concerns that the risk posed by fouling as a tra nsport mechanism for NIS may increase (Nehring 2001).

In addition to the use of antifouling coatings, vessels also regularly clean underwater portions of their vessels to manage fouling growth. The frequency with which most
vessels clean their hull is u sually based on the maintenance rules of their classification society (organization that establishes and applies technical standards for ship design, construction and survey). Vessel

- specific programs may include a five

- year cycle of
annual in

- water survey s and special out

- of

- water (dry dock) surveys. Most vessel owners take advantage of required dry dockings to clean vessel hulls of fouling organisms and apply a fresh coat of antifouling paint . Because fouling continues to accumulate between required dry d ockings, vessel owners also conduct interim in

- water cleanings of the vessel hull. Out

- of

- water cleanings during dry dock allow for the containment of materials, including fouling organisms that are removed from the vessel
hull. In

- water cleanings, however , may allow organisms and paint debris to enter the
water column. In

- water cleaning, therefore, has increasingly come under scrutiny due to concerns about water quality and NIS introductions. As part of the California Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Wate r Quality C ertification of the U.S. EPA Vessel
General Permit (VGP) , the California State Water Board has prohibited in

- water cleaning in water bodies that have been included in California‟s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as “impaired”. These include California‟s major shipping ports.

Despite the efforts of the maritime industry to minimize vessel fouling by employing hull cleaning and antifouling coatings, recent studies indicate that fouling is still an important mechanism by which NIS can be tra nsported to new regions (see Takata et al. 2006). Vessels that move at slow speeds, spend long periods in port, or are repainted infrequently, tend to accumulate more organisms (Coutts 1999). Though much of theSection II. Introduction | 9

outer surface of vessel hulls are treated wi th antifouling paints, certain locations, particularly those that are not exposed to shear forces, have been found to be more prone to fouling . These “niche” areas, including dry docking support strips, waterlines, propellers, rudders, sea chests, and wor n or unpainted areas (Coutts et al. 2003, Minchin and Gollasch 2003, Coutts and Taylor 2004, Davidson et al. 2009 a )
, have the potential to harbor diverse assemblages of NIS. Although the vessel fouling vector can have a high level of NIS introduction risk associated with it, managers and policy makers have only recently been focusing attention and resources toward it (See Section IV for more details).Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 10

III. REGULATORY OVERVIEW : BALLAST WATER

International, U.S. federal and state regulations governing t he management of ballast water share many similar components. Nearly all allow ballast water exchange as an acceptable method of ballast water management, and many programs provide some type of exemption should a vessel or its crew become endangered by th e exchange process. Many accept approved alternative ballast water treatments in anticipation of the development of effective technologies. Many also require the onboard maintenance of ballast water logs and management plans, and require the submission o f forms detailing ballast management and discharge practices.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) The IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) in February of 2004, which becomes effective one year after ratification by 30 countries representing 35% of the world shipping tonnage (IMO 2005). As of September 30, 2010, 27 countries representing 25.32% of the world shipping tonnage, had signed the BWM Convention ( IMO 2010). The United States is not a signatory to the convention, and a s of the writing of this report, the BWM Convention lacked the required number of signatories
and had not entered into force.

The BWM Convention requires vessels to conduct exchange at least 50 nautical miles ( nm ) from shore in waters at least 200 meters (m) deep, though it is preferred that exchange be conducted 200 nm offshore (IMO 2005). It also imposes performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (Regulation D

- 2) wit h an associated implementation schedule based on vessel ballast water capacity and year of construction (Tables III. 1 and III. 2).

Until the BWM Convention is ratified, it cannot be enforced upon any ships (IMO 2007). By 2007, insufficient time remained to ratify the BWM Convention and have it enter intoSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 11

Table III. 1. Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards

Organism Size Class IMO BWM Convention, Regulation D

- 2 Performance Standards [1] California (CA) [1,2]

Organisms greater than 50 μm [3] in minimum dimension < 10 viable organisms per cubic meter No detectable living organisms

Organisms 10

– 50 μm in minimum dimension < 10 viable organisms per ml [4] < 0.01 living organisms per ml

Living organisms less than 10 μm in minimum dimension

Escherichia col

i

Intestinal enterococci
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 & O139) < 250 cfu [5] /100 ml

< 100 cfu/100 ml

< 1 cfu/100 ml or < 1 cfu/gram wet weight zooplankton samples < 10 3 bacteria/100 ml < 10 4 viruses/100 ml

< 126 cfu/100 ml

< 33 cfu/100 ml

< 1 cfu/100 ml or < 1 cfu/gram wet weight zoological samples

[1] See Imp lementation Schedule (Table III. 2) for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim Performance Standards and IMO Ballast Water Performance Standards. [2] Final discharge stan dard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes. [3] Micrometer

– one
- millionth of a meter [4] Milliliter

– one
- thousandth of a liter [5] Colony

- forming unit (cfu)

– a measure of viable bac terial numbers

Table III. 2. Implementation Schedule for Performance Standards

Ballast Water Capacity of

Vessel Standards apply to new vessels

in this size class constructed on

or after Standards apply to all other vessels in this size class beginning in 1
< 1500 metric tons 2009 (IMO) 2 /2010 (CA) 2016
1500

– 5000 metric tons 2009 (IMO) 2 /2010 (CA) 2014
> 5000 metric tons 2012 2016

1 In California the standard applies to vessels in this size class as of January 1 of the year of compliance. The IMO Conve ntion applies to vessels in this size class not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of the ship in the year of compliance (IMO 2005) 2 IMO has pushed back the initial implement ation of the performance standards for vessels constructed in 2009 in this size class until the vessel‟s second annual survey, but no later than December 31, 2011 (IMO 2007).

force before the original first date of performance standards implementation in 2009

. Consequently, the IMO General Assembly adopted Resolution A.1005(25), onSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 12

November 29, 2007. The Resolution delayed the date by which vessels with keels laid in 2009, and with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT must comply with Regulation D

- 2, from 2009 until the vessel‟s second annual survey, but no later than December 31, 2011 (IMO 2007). For now, the implementation dates for all other vessel size classes remain the same as originally proposed (Table III. 2).

National Regulations Outsid e of the United States Over a dozen countries outside of the United States have ballast water management requirements. Nearly all include ballast water exchange at varying distances from shore as a primary management tool, and some also allow approved bal last water treatment as an option. Many require that vessels maintain a ballast water management plan, ballast water log, or both, and some require reporting of ballast water activities to the arrival region or country. Some have regulations that apply t o only a subset of ports or areas, or apply in addition to requirements in effect nationally. Table III

- 3 summarizes general ballast water management requirements that apply in countries outside of the
United States. Some areas have ballast water treatme nt requirements for human health purposes (e.g. addition of chemicals to prevent Cholera outbreak), and these are included in the table since they function to reduce NIS release as well.

United States Federal Regulations The authority to regulate ballast water discharges in the United States recently shifted to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in addition to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). As of February 6, 2009, the EPA must regulate ballast water, and other discharges incidental to no rmal vessel operations, under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This requirement stems from a 2003 lawsuit filed by Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. challenging the U.S. EPA regulation which excluded discharges incidental to the normal operation of ships from regulation under the CWA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system (see See Northwest
Envtl. Advocates v. United States EPA
, (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2006, No. C 03

- 05760 SI)
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 )) , On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court concludedSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 13

Table III

- 3: National Ballast Water Management Requirements for Countries Outside of the U.S.

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. The s ea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine resources , stretching out to 20 0 nautical miles from its coast; BW=Ballast Water; BWE=Ballast Water Exchange; BWT=Ballast Water Treatment Country Arrivals

Affected General Requireme nts Special/Local Provisions Paperwork Required Reference

Argentina All arrivals to

River Plate Basin, and River Parana BWE in open sea following

IMO methods.
BWT allowed if IMO or Argentine approved. Port of Buenos Aires has additional treatment requirem ents for cholera prevention. Management Plan Log Prefectura

Naval Argentina, 1998

Australia Overseas

arrivals with “high risk” ballast BWE more than 12 nm from

shore in waters 200 m deep. “High risk” = Salt water from outside of Australia‟s territorial sea (12 nm). State of Victoria has additional requirements for ballast water from inside Australia‟s territorial sea. Management Plan Log Reporting Australian

Quarantine and Inspection Service, 2008

Brazil All arrivals BWE at least 200 nm from shore in w aters at least 200 m deep. If 200 nm BWE not possible, BWE 50 nm from shore in waters at least 200 m deep.

Arrivals to the Amazon and Para rivers must conduct a 2 nd exchange in specified areas to reduce salinity before discharge. Management Plan Reporting Brazil Maritime

Authority, 2005

Canada From outside

the Canadian EEZ BWE at least 200 nm from

shore in waters 2000 m deep. BWE not required for specified common waters arrivals.
BWT allowed if IMO D

- 2 Standards are met. Management Plan Reporting Canadian

Minister of Justice , 2006. From within the Canadian EEZ BWE at least 50 nm from shore

in waters 500 m deep.

Chile Arrivals from

abroad BWE more than 12 nm from

the Chilean coast. If BWE not possible, addition of 100 grams (g) sodium hypochlorite and 14 g calcium hypochlorite per ton of ballast water. Management Plan Log Reporting DIRECTEMAR

A

- 51/002; Globallast 2010Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 14

Table III

- 3 (Continued): National Ballast Water Managem ent Requirements for Non

- U.S. Countries

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. The s ea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction ov er use of marine resources , stretching out to 20 0 nautical miles from its coast; BW=Ballast Water; BWE=Ballast Water Exchange; BWT=Ballast Water Treatment Country Arrivals

Affected General Requirements Special Provisions Paperwork Required Reference

Georgia Arrivals with BW

from outside the Black Sea BWE in the Black Sea. Management Plan Lloyd‟s Register, 2009

Isra el Arrivals with BW

not from open
ocean BWE in open ocean beyond

continental shelf or fresh water current effect. Ships bound for Eilat must exchange outside of the Red Sea. Ships bound for Mediterranean ports must exchange in Atlantic Ocean. Reporting Llo yd‟s Register, 2009

New Zealand BWE at least 200 nm from shore and in waters over 200 m deep. Discharge of fresh ballast water may be allowed. Permission must be granted for any discharge. Except in emergency, no discharge granted for “high risk” balla st water from Tasmania or Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Log Reporting Biosecurity

New Zealand, 2005

Panama Panama Canal

arrivals No ballast discharge. Panama Canal Authority, 2010

Peru All arrivals BWE 12 nm from Peru before discharging, even if ballas t water was taken up in a Peruvian port. If BWE not undertaken, harbormaster will designate an alternative exchange area. Management Plan Reporting Lloyd‟s

Register, 2009Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 15

Table III

- 3 (Continued): National Ballast Water Management Requirements for Non

- U.S. Countries

Country Arrivals

Affected General Requirements Special Provisions Paperwork Required Reference

Persian Gulf: Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROMPE) Arrivals from

outside the ROMPE area (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oma n, Qatar, Sudi Arabia & United Arab Emirates) BWE 200 nm from land in

waters at least 200 m deep. If 200 nm BWE not possible due to safety reasons, BWE must occur at least 50 nm from shore in waters at least 200 m deep. BWT allowed if system is approved in accordance with the IMO BWM Convention performance standards. MEPC 59/INF.3, 2009

Russia Arrivals to

Novorossiysk BWE in the Black Sea Lloyd‟s Register, 2009

Ukraine Arrivals to

Odessa and Yuzhnyy BWE in the Black Sea Log Reporting (if discharging ) Lloyd‟s

Register, 2009

United Kingdom, Orkney Islands Arrivals to the

Orkney Islands Ships wishing to discharge

at the Flotta Terminal. Discharge to shore reception facility. Liquified gas tankers may discharge into Scapa Flow if ballast water has bee n taken onboard within 24 hours and at least 12 miles from shore. Reporting Lloyd‟s Register, 2009

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. The s ea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine resources , stretching out to 20 0 nautical miles from it s coast; BW=Ballast Water; BWE=Ballast Water Exchange; BWT=Ballast Water TreatmentSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 1 6

that the EPA had exceeded its authority under the CWA and vacated the regulation in question. On July 23, 2008, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the district

c ourt. A motion filed by the EPA for an extension of the CWA vacature until December 19, 2008 was granted in September of 2008. In December, 2008, EPA issued the NPDES Vessel General Permit for discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels. The implementation of the permit was subsequently delayed until February 6, 2009 to provide the regulated community with additional time to comply.

In large part, the NPDES Vessel General Permit delegates the management of ballast water discharges to existin g USCG regulations found in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 151. The USCG regulations, developed under authority of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, revised and reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, require ballast water management (i.e. ballast water exchange) for vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. The EEZ is t he sea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine reso urces, stretching out to 200 nautical miles from its
coast

. Vessels that experience undue delay, however, are exempted from the ballast water management requirements. The NPDES Vessel General Permit includes provisions for ballast water management of vesse ls transiting between Captain of the
Port Zones (USCG designated geographic regions that partition U.S. waters, defined in CFR 33 Part 3) along the Pacific Coas t of the U.S. These vessels are required to conduct ballast water exchange 50 nm from shore in w aters at least 200 m deep. There is no management requirement, however, for vessels traveling “coastally” or wholly within the 200 nm EEZ bound for U.S. ports on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts.

Vessels may use onboard treatment systems to meet the current b allast water management requirements if that system is approved by the Commandant of the USCG. However, as of November 2010
, no approval process has been implemented. On August 28, 2009, the USCG issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for federal
ballas t water performance standard s and for a U.S. type approval process for ballast water treatment systems. The proposed rule would implement two different standardsSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 17

in two phases. The “phase

- one standards” are the same as the IMO BWM Convention (Table III

- 2 ), and would be implemented in a staggered fashion depending on a vessel‟s ballast water capacity and build date. All vessels built on or after January 1, 2012 would be required to comply upon delivery. Vessels built before January 1, 2012 would be requi red to comply by their first scheduled drydocking after specified dates based on ballast water capacity, with the latest implementation date proposed for January 1, 2016. A “phase two” standard would be 1000 times more stringent than the IMO BWM
Conventio n standards, and vessels would be required to meet them beginning in 2016, however, the implementation of the phase two standard is contingent upon a review of the availability of technologies to meet that standard. The public comment period for the propo sed rule closed on December 4, 2009, and the USCG received thousands of comments on the contents of the proposed regulations. It is possible that the proposed regulation could undergo substantial change and delay before a final rule is issued. At
this time , no date has been set for the release of the final regulation.

The current NPDES Vessel General Permit does not include performance standards for the discharge of ballast water, though standards will likely be included in the next iteration of the permi t (in 2013) based on the outcome of the USCG rulemaking, and if treatment technologies are determined to be commercially available and economically
achievable to meet those standards. The U.S. EPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, is currently ga thering information from two panels consisting of leading scientific experts to inform the selection of ballast water discharge standards and to assess the availability of ballast water treatment technologies. The first panel, convened through
the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council ( NAS ) Water Science and Technology Board is evaluating numeric limits for living organisms in ballast water. More specifically, the NAS committee is evaluating the risk of species introductions given certain concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharges ( The National Academies 2010) . A final report on the committee‟s recommendations is due in June 2011. The second panel has been convened through the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecologi cal Processes and Effect Committee which has been augmented with panel members with expertise in ballast water management in order to assess theSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 18

availability of ballast water treatment technologies. The SAB has met several times in 2010 and has been gather ing and reviewing available data about ballast water treatment system performance, operation, and a host of other statistical and methodological analyses. A final report of the SAB findings is expected to be complete
in mid

- 2011. The NAS and SAB reports wi ll be used by U.S. EPA to guide the selection of ballast water standards for the next iteration of the NPDES Vessel General Permit, and by the USCG in the development of the final discharge standard rulemaking.

U.S. State Programs
States have taken two a pproaches to the implementation of ballast water management. Some states have specific authority granted by state legislation to establish ballast water management requirements either by regulation or permit. Other states have added specific provisions to the Vessel General Permit through the CWA Section 401 certification process. The following is a summary of ballast water management requirements by state and how each has approached implementation.

Ballast Water CWA Section 401 Certifications Under the V essel General Permit (VGP)
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows states t o add requirements above and beyond those present in a federal permit. Eight states established ballast water management requirements in 2009 through the VGP, five of which specif ically included the establishment of performance standards. Illinois, Indiana and Ohio require vessels to comply with the IMO BWM Convention standard (see Table III

- 2) by 2012 for newly built vessels or 2016 for existing vessels. Pennsylvania established a two

- phase standard that requires vessels built prior to 2012 to install treatment systems that meet
the IMO BWM Convention standard by 2012, and vessels built on or after 2012 to meet California‟s performance standards (roughly equivalent to1000 times t he IMO standard). New York will require all vessels to install treatment systems that meet a standard roughly equivalent to 100 times the IMO BWM Convention standard by 2012. Vessels constructed on or after 2013 must install systems that meet California‟s performance
standards.Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 19

The states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania included general (non

- performance standard) ballast water management conditions in their 401 certifications. In Connecticut, vessels are required to utili ze ballast water treatment systems before discharging, if they have a system installed to meet the requirements of any other jurisdiction. Iowa requires that vessels perform open sea exchange so any ballast water discharged in the state meets certain wate r quality standards set by state law (IDNR in 567~ 61.3 (455B)), including standards for pH, turbidity, and other chemical constituents. Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania require vessels arriving from within the U.S. EEZ with ballast on board to co nduct exchange in waters at least 50 nm from shore and at least 200 m deep. New York and Pennsylvania also require that vessels with only residual amounts of ballast water perform a saltwater flush at least 50 nm from shore in waters at least 200 m deep. These provisions apply until New York and Pennsylvania begin implementing their respective performance
standards in 2012.

Other State Ballast Water Programs (Non

- Federal VGP)

Great Lakes Region
I n 2008, regulations were established requiring all „ NOBOB‟ vessels (vessels declaring No Ballast On Board) to conduct a salt

- water flush of their ballast tanks prior to entering the St. Lawrence Seaway. This regulation closed a loophole in prior regulations and
addresses the residual ballast water and sedi ments in otherwise empty ballast tanks.

Hawaii In October 2007, the Department of Land and Natural Resources adopted new rules to manage ballast discharge from vessels operating in Hawaiian waters. The regulations require a vessel specific management plan, advance reporting to the state, and mid

ocean (greater than 200 nm from any coast) BWE for any ballast originating from
outside state waters.Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 20

Michigan Michigan passed legislation in June 2005 (Act 33, Public Acts of 2005) requiring a permit for th e discharge of any ballast water from oceangoing vessels into the waters of the state beginning January 2007. Through the general permit (Permit No. MIG140000) developed by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), any ballast water discharged mu st first be treated by one of four methods (hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended solids removal, or deoxygenation) that have been deemed environmentally sound and effective in preventing the discharge of NIS.
In state waters, vessels must use treatment technologies in compliance with applicable requirements and conditions of use as specified by Michigan DEQ. Vessels using technologies not listed under the Michigan general permit may apply for individual permits if the treatment technology used is deemed, “environmentally sound and its treatment effectiveness is equal to or better at preventing the discharge of aquatic nuisance species as the ballast water treatment methods contained in [the general] permit,” (Michigan D EQ 2006).

Minnesota Effective July 1, 2008 Minnesota state law requires vessels operating in state water to have both a ballast water record book and a ballast water management plan approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA 2008). Addition ally, the MPCA has issued a State Disposal System general permit for ballast water discharges into Lake Superior and associated waterways. Under the permit, all vessels are required to comply immediately with approved best management practices. No later th an January 1, 2012, new vessels will be required to comply with the IMO BWM Convention performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (see Table III

- 1), and existing vessels will be required to comply with those standards no later than January 1, 2016 (MPCA 2008).

Oregon Oregon began requiring ballast water management in 2002. Vessels arriving from outside the EEZ are required to conduct exchange at least 200 nm offshore in waters atSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 21

least 2000 m deep. Oregon‟s legislation also established th e first U.S. regulations designed to reduce the risk of intra

- coastal transport of NIS. Domestic voyages traveling within 200 nm of shore must conduct exchange at least 50 nm from shore in at least 200 m of water ( Hoof f 2010) . Exchange is not required fo r ballast water originating from within the common waters of Oregon, between 40 o N and 50 o N latitude. Based on recommendations in a 2008 legislative report prepared by the Oregon Task Force on the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) was given rulemaking authority for ballast water discharge performance standards and the development of emergency ballast water management protocols. ODEQ anticipates a notice of proposed rulemaking in late
2010 , which may include provisions for these standards and protocols (Hooff 2010 ).

Washington The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in consultation with their stakeholder Ballast Water Work Group, completed a comprehensive rewrite of the
st ate‟s ballast water management regulations, which became effective on July 26, 2009. Washington requires open sea exchange (in waters at least 200 nm from shore and 2000 m deep) for voyages originating from outside the U

. S . EEZ. Vessels that do not
trave l outside the EEZ must exchange in waters at least 50 nm from shore and 200 m deep. In June of 2009, WDFW initiated a new rulemaking to adopt permanent
concentration

- based performance standards for ballast water discharge. A priority for WDFW is to adopt standards that help bring the national and/or U.S. Pacific coast states into greater management consistency. The WDFW no longer independently approves treatment systems for use in state waters and now relies on regional, national or international approval s. Systems previously approved under the interim regulations will remain approved for their original period of use. WDFW staff expects the new standards to be adopted in early 2011 (Pleus, A., pers. comm. 2010).

Wisconsin As of February 1, 2010, vessels t hat discharge ballast in Wisconsin waters must comply with the General Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin Pollutant DischargeSection III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 22

Elimination System. The permit was established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) under authority provid ed by Chapter 283, Wisconsin Statutes. Among its provisions, the permit sets ballast water performance standards roughly 100 times more restrictive than the IMO BWM Convention standard. All vessels
constructed on or after 2012 must meet the Wisconsin Stand ard set forth in the permit. Existing vessels have until 2014 to comply. Prior to the implementation of the standards, WDNR will conduct an assessment of the availability of treatment systems to meet the
Wisconsin standards. If the WDNR determines that tre atment technologies which meet the Wisconsin standard are commercially unavailable, the permit requires vessels to comply with the IMO BWM Convention standard in place of the Wisconsin Standard. The existing implementation schedule remains the same.Section IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 23

IV. REGULATORY OVERVIEW : VESSEL FOULING

While ballast water management has progressed substantially over the past decade, comparatively little attention has been directed towards managing NIS introductions via vessel fouling. Currently, no country has adopt ed mandatory national regulations that specifically address NIS introductions from commercial vessel fouling, though Australia and New Zealand have voluntary guidelines. Some regions have implemented restrictions on the use and cleaning of antifouling co atings applied to submerged portions of vessels, because many antifouling coatings discourage organism attachment by slowly releasing toxic substances. Though such regulations were established to address water quality concerns and not NIS, they have the p otential to affect NIS introductions through the fouling vector.

The International Maritime Organization On September 17, 2008, the IMO International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) (IMO 2001) entered into force, twelve months after ratification by 25 member states representing 25% of the world ship tonnage. The AFS Convention calls for the prohibition of organotin compounds (including tributyltin, or TBT) in antifouling coatings applied to ships. Thou gh such coatings are highly effective at preventing fouling growth, they are highly toxic, persist in the aquatic environment, and bioaccumulate in the tissues of organisms, including
marine mammals. Under the AFS Convention, ships must either remove org anotin antifouling coatings, or must coat over them so that they do not leach into the water. Vessels engaged in international voyages must carry a Declaration of Antifouling Systems signed by the owner or authorized agent (IMO 2001).

In 2009, the federa l Clean Hull Act (H.R. 3618) was introduced in the Congress in order for the U.S. to sign on and implement the AFS Convention. In November 2009, the bill had passed the House and was referred to the Senate for consideration. The Senate has not taken any a ction on the bill. Hence, as of the writing of this report, the United States is not a party to the AFS Convention, and U.S. flagged vessels are not subject toSection IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 24

its requirements, unless they enter a port of a member state that is a party to the AFS
Convent ion.

National Programs Outside of the United States

Australia Australia has developed guidance documents with voluntary measures that vessels may follow to minimize the transport of NIS through fouling. The guidelines encourage
vessels to utilize anti fouling coatings in accordance with the AFS Convention, and ensure they are utilized in “niche” areas (sheltered from strong, shear water forces) where fouling tends to accumulate more rapidly in comparison to exposed surfaces.
Areas that are not coated w ith antifouling paint for operational reasons (e.g. cathodic anodes, propellers, propeller shafts, internal seawater pipes) should be inspected and cleaned frequently. The installation and regular operation of marine growth protection systems (MGPS) are e ncouraged for internal seawater systems and sea chests ( underwater compartment s through which external sea water is drawn in or discharged for operational purposes) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009a). More extensive guidance is provided for the management of fouling on non

- trading vessels, which include vessel classes used for construction and tow, research, inshore patrol, defense, and local transport (e.g. ferries and water taxis). In addition to recommendations provided for trading commercial vessels, guidance for non

- trading vessels includes advice on ship design and construction, specified management measures for over a dozen vessel classes, and guidelines for maintaining a biofouling record book (Commonwealth of Australia 2009b). In order to prevent the release of NIS, most
Australian states/territories do not allow in

- water cleaning of vessel hulls. Propeller polishing or sea chest cleaning may be allowed in some places, but specific permission must be requested in advance.

New Zealand Biosecurity New Zealand, a division within the country‟s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), is currently developing measures to reduce the risk for invasions via the fouling vector. Background and consultation doc uments were distributed in mid

- 2010Section IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 25

describ ing recent research on the invasion risk posed by fouling on vessels and the pros and cons of three general management options: 1) Await an international solution; 2) Develop voluntary measures and rely primarily on education and outreach for implementatio n; or 3) Implement mandatory regulations through an import health standard requiring a “clean hull” for arriving vessels. The division prefers the implementation of an import health standard as it would provide the highest level of protection and benefit for the country (Biosecurity New Zealand 2010). MAF Biosecurity New Zealand anticipates implementing requirements soon after reviewing input
received on these consultation documents.

United States Federal

– Fouling Related Provisions of the Vessel Gener al Permit In addition to the regulation of ballast water, the EPA‟s Vessel General Permit (VGP) also limits discharges originating from antifouling hull coatings, underwater ship husbandry, and seawater piping fouling protection. Antifouling hull coatings and chemicals used for seawater piping fouling protection must be either registered according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or must not contain biocides or toxic materials banned for use in the U.S. The use of TBT antifouling coatings are explicitly prohibited under the VGP and, as in the AFS Convention, vessels must remove such coatings or paint over them to prevent toxic leaching. Under the VGP, underwater ship husbandry must be conducted in a manner that minimizes the
disc harge of fouling organisms and antifouling hull coatings, and the cleaning of copper

based antifouling coatings must not produce a visible plume of paint.

U.S. State Programs

– Hull Cleaning CWA Section 401 Certifications Under the
Vessel General Permit (VGP) Three states included requirements related to hull cleaning and maintenance as part of
their CWA 401 certifications to the EPA Vessel General Permit. Massachusetts and Maine both prohibit in

- water cleaning and fouling removal . The rationale for
im plementing these restrictions differed between the two states, however. Maine did so for water quality reasons, and Massachusetts did so to prevent NIS spread. With the exception of propeller polishing, the California State Water Resources Control BoardSection IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 26

(Water Board) prohibits in

- water cleaning on all vessels except those using biocide

- free antifouling coatings. The Water Board deemed biocide

- free antifouling coatings a “best available technology”, and vessels utilizing such coatings may conduct in

- water cleaning in California waters (EPA 2009).Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 27

V. CALIFORNIA’S MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

Programmatic Origins and Overview The Marine Invasive Species Program‟s enabling legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 703 (Chapter 849, Statutes of 1999), addressed the ballast water invasion threat at a time when national regulations were not mandatory. This legislation, named the Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act
, established a statewide
multi

- agency program to prevent and control aquati c NIS introductions from commercial vessels. In addition to the Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) and the Board of Equalization (BOE) were charged to direct research, monit or vessel arrivals and species introductions in California waters, develop policy and regulations, and to cooperatively consult with one another to address the NIS problem (Falkner 2003). Chapter 849 required that vessels entering California from outside the U.S. EEZ manage ballast before discharging into state waters. Vessels were required to exchange ballast water 200 nm offshore or treat ballast water with an approved shipboard or shore

- based treatment system. There was, however, no management require ment for vessels transiting between ports wholly within the U.S. EEZ, despite evidence that “intra

coastal” transfer may facilitate the spread of NIS from one port to the next ( Lavoie et al. 1999, Cohen and Carlton 1995). The Legislature, sensitive to the uncertainties surrounding the development of an effective ballast water management program for the State, included a sunset date of January 1, 2004 in Chapter 849

.

In 2003 the Marine Invasive Species Act (Act) (Chapter 491, Statutes of 2003) was passed , reauthorizing and enhancing the 1999 legislation to include many of the recommendations of the program‟ s first biennial report to the L egislature (see Falkner 2003). The Act reauthorized, enhanced, and renamed the State‟s ballast water management progra m, creating the Marine Invasive Species Program , and applies to all U.S. and foreign vessels over 300 gross registered tons that arrive at a California port or place. The Act requires all vessels to have a ballast water management plan and
ballast tank lo gbook specific to the vessel. A ballast water reporting form detailing theSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 28

ballast water management practices must be submitted to the Commission by each vessel upon departure from each port call in California.

The Act also directed the Commission to a dopt regulations for vessels transiting within the Pacific Coast Region (PCR). The PCR is defined as coastal waters of the Pacific Coast of North America east of 154 degrees West longitude and north of 25 degrees North latitude, exclusive of the Gulf of C alifornia (Figure V.1). The coastal regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.6; 2 CCR § 2280 et seq .) , which were finalized in March 2006, require vessels arriving to California (CA) ports after operating withi n the PCR to conduct ballast water exchange 50 nm from shore in waters at least 200 m deep prior to discharging into California waters.

Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharge The Marine Invasive Species Act (Act) further directed the Commiss ion
, in consultation with the Water Board, the USCG and a technical advisory panel
, to recommend performance standards for the discharge of ballast water to the State Legislature (see PRC Section 71204.9). The Commission convened the technical advisory pa nel in 2005, and after several meetings submitted the recommended standards and information on the rationale behind its selection in a report to the State Legislature in January of 2006 (Falkner et al. 2006). By the fall of that same year, the Legislature passed the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Chapter 292, Statutes of 2006), directing the Commission to adopt the recommended standards and implementation schedule through the California rulemaking process by January 1, 2008. The Commission completed t hat rulemaking in October 2007 (2 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2291 et seq . (see Tables III.1 and III.2)).

Chapter 292 also directed the Commission to review the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of currently available balla st water treatment systems by January 1, 2008. The review and resultant report was approved by the Commission in December 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007). Additional reviews must be completedSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 29

Figure V.1. Exclusive Economic Zones of Pacific North Ame rica (200 nm), and the Pacific Coast Region (PCR). The PCR extends from approximately Cooks Inlet, AK (154° west longitude) to 3⁄4 down the Baja Peninsula (25° north latitude) and 200 nm offshore.Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 30

18 months prior to the implementation dates for all other vessel classes and 18 months before the implementation of the final discharge standard on January 1, 2020 (see
Table III

. 2 for full implementation schedule , and Table V.1 for a list of completed and
future reviews ). During any of these reviews, if it is d etermined that existing technologies are unable to meet the discharge standards, the report must describe why they are not available.

The first technology assessment report (Dobroski et al. 2007) determined that technologies would not be available to me et California‟s discharge standards for new build vessels with a ballast water capacity less than or equal to 5000 MT by the original 2009 implementation date. In response, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 in 2008 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008 ). Chapter 696 amended PRC Section 71205.3(a)(2) and delayed the implementation of the interim performance standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than or equal to 5000 MT from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. Chapter 696 also re quired an additional assessment of available ballast water treatment technologies by January 1, 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009) prior to the new 2010 implementation date. The 2009 assessment report (Dobroski et al. 2009) determined that technologies were a vailable that had demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards. The report recommended that the Commission proceed with the initial implementation of the performance standards on January 1, 2010.

As of January 1, 2010, newly built vessels (vessels for which construction began on or after January 1, 2010) with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT that discharge ballast in California waters must comply with California‟s performance standards. Vessel
construction often takes a year or more, and it is anticipated that the first vessels that must meet the performance standards will not begin to arrive in California until sometime during 2011. Commission staff is in the process of preparing protocols to assess compliance with th e performance standards and will be ready to beginSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 31

inspections once new build vessels that fall under the 2010 implementation date arrive
in California waters.

Table V. 1. Assessments of Ballast Water Treatment Systems

Assessment Completion Applies To Co mpliance Date Conclusion

Dec. 2007 New vessels ** with ballast water

capacity ≤ 5000 MT Jan. 1, 2009 (delayed to 2010) Technologies not available

Jan. 2009 New vessels ** with ballast water

capacity ≤ 5000 MT Jan. 1, 2010 Technologies available that show potential to meet CA standards

Oct. 2009 (Update) * New vessels ** with ballast water

capacity >5000 MT Jan. 1, 2012 Technologies available that show potential to meet CA standards.

Aug. 2010 New vessels ** with ballast water

capacity > 5000 MT Jan. 1, 2012 Technologies available that show potential to mee t CA standards. Sep. 1, 2011 (Update) New vessels ** with ballast water

capacity > 5000 MT (Update) Jan. 1, 2012 To be determined

Jul. 1, 2012 Existing vessels built before Jan.

1, 2012, with ballast water capacity of 1500

- 5000 MT Jan. 1, 2014 To be det ermined

Jul. 1, 2014 Existing vessels built before Jan.

1, 2012, with ballast water capacity <1500 MT and >5000 MT Jan. 1, 2016 To be determined

Jul. 1, 2018 Assessment of all vessels to meet

final discharge standard of no detectable living organisms for all organism size classes. Jan. 1, 2020 To be determined

* Updates are not legislatively mandated reports. **”New Vessels” refer to those for which construction was initiated on or before the compliance date (3 rd column).

The most recent technology asse ssment report was approved by the Commission in August 2010 (see California State Lands Commission 2010) and addresses the availability of ballast water treatment systems for new build vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 metric tons ( MT ) . These vessels must comply with California‟s performance standar ds beginning January 1, 2012. The report concluded that, based on the data currently available, multiple treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performanc e standards. Vessels forSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 32

which construction is initiated on or after January 1, 2012 will not be expected to meet the standards until construction is complete and the vessels are commissioned, likely
sometime in 2014 at the earliest. The lead time availabl e for further technology development and refinement is sufficient to indicate that technologies will be available by the time these vessels are operational and are required to meet California‟s
standards. Commission staf f will prepare an update to the Aug ust 2010 assessment by September 1, 2011
, in order to ensure that technology development and availability is progressing on schedule to allow for the implementation of the standards beginning January 1, 2012. The next legislatively mandated technology asse ssment report is due July 1, 2012 in advance of the implementation of the standards for existing vessels, those built before January 1, 2010, with a ballast water capacity between 1500 and 5000 MT (Table V.1).

Commission staff has already begun gathering information in preparation for the September 2011 update. Recent discussions from several international, federal and state panels have begun to inform the conclusions for this updated report. The Great Lakes Collaborative, a panel of Great Lakes states an d associated stakeholders (on which the Commission participates) completed a report summarizing issues around determining whether treatment technologies are available to meet the Wisconsin ballast water discharge standards which are 100 times more stringen t than the IMO BWM
Convention standard (see Table III

- 1) ( Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative 2010 ).
The Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative concluded that there are no available protocols or techniques to verify system performance to the Wisconsin standard

– a standard weaker than California‟s standards. Additional discussion about technology availability and the ability of scientists to verify system performance have also taken place at the federal level through the EPA‟s Science Advisory Board (s ee Section III. Regulatory Overview

– Ballast Water). The SAB committee of scientific and engineering experts on ballast water have not completed their deliberations yet, but based on information presented at public meetings to date, the committee believes that technologies will not be available to meet standards of 100x or 1000x IMO (approximately representing the Wisconsin and California standards, respectively)Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 33

within the next 10 years. This information is being weighed by Commission staff and may requir e changes (possibly through legislative or rulemaking action, see Section VIII. Conclusions) to the Commission‟s plans for implementing California‟s performance
standards.

Implementing California’s Performance Standards
As discussed in California State L ands Commission (2010), the Commission does not have the practical ability to test and approve ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters. Therefore, Commission staff will focus on dockside inspection of vessels for verification of compli ance with the performance standards (in accordance with PRC Section 71206). Vessel inspections will consist of both an administrative review of applicable ballast water management plans and reporting documents as well
as the collection of ballast water sam ples for analysis.

Vessels must currently keep an up

- to

- date ballast water management plan on board as well as copies of all ballast water reporting forms submitted to the Commission within the past two years. However, once vessels begin to use ballast w ater treatment systems, information on the installation and use of systems will be needed to monitor compliance with the performance standards. Based on recommend ations in Dobroski et al. (2009 ), Assembly Bill 248 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 2009) was passe d in the fall of 2009, which provided the Commission with the authority to request ballast water treatment information on forms to be developed by the Commission. In 2009, Commission staff convened a technical advisory panel to discuss the development of
t wo forms

– the “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Annual Reporting Form” and the “Ballast Water Treatment Supplemental Reporting Form.” Forms were adopted through the California rulemaking process in October 2010.

During an inspection, once Commission s taff has reviewed applicable vessel paperwork, a ballast water sample will be drawn from vessels intending to discharge in California waters. Because California‟s performance standards are a discharge standard, samples must be drawn from the vessel‟s balla st water discharge piping. MostSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 34

vessels do not have the equipment necessary to enable the Commission‟s Marine Safety personnel to take samples of ballast water from the discharge line. Therefore, the Commission developed regulations in the fall of 2009 tha t require vessels to install sampling ports (i.e. sampling facilities) as near to the point of discharge as practicable (2 CCR § 2297). In order to maintain international uniformity, the regulations are based on the IMO Guideline G2 for ballast water sampl ing with additional input provided by the USCG. The regulations establish design specifications for in

- line sampling facilities and set requirements for where the sampling facilities should be installed on the discharge line (i.e. the sampling point). Samp ling facilities must be installed on vessels by the same year that they must comply with California‟s performance standards.

Vessel Fouling The 2003 Marine Invasive Species Act (Act) directed the Commission to analyze and
evaluate the risk of NIS release from commercial vessel vectors other than ballast water (essentially vessel fouling) in a report to the Legislature, developed in consultation with a technical advisory group. The report (see Takata et al. 2006) was approved by the
Commission and submitt ed to the Legislature in April 2006. It summarized the analysis, evaluation, and consultations conducted by the Commission in accordance with the Act, and offered recommendations to reduce the discharge of NIS from vessel fouling.

In October 2007, the Gov ernor signed Assembly Bill 740 (Chapter 370, Statutes of 2007) which incorporated the recommendations in Takata et al. (2006), and further

amen ded the Act to include provisions requiring the removal of fouling organisms from vessel hulls, piping, propeller s, sea chests and other submerged portions of vessels on a regular basis. Additional recommendations adopted in Chapter 370 were intended to position the Commission to develop science

- based management actions to reduce the
release of NIS from vessel fouli ng in the future, following the fulfillment of key information gaps. The Commission was given authority to collect hull husbandry (e.g. drydocking, in

- water cleaning) and other fouling

- related information from vessels operating in California. This data w as identi fied in the 2006 report to the L egislature as a critical need to help inform the development of any future management action(s). InSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 35

consultation with a fouling

- specific technical advisory group, the Commission developed and adopted the Hull Husba ndry Reporting Form (HHRF) and has been collecting this detailed information annually from the California fleet since January 2008 (see Section
VI for summaries of HHRF data).

The mandatory Hull Husbandry Reporting Forms are being collected as part of a larger effort to inform the development of management strategies to better prevent introductions via commercial vessel fouling in California. HHRF data will be used in conjunction with results from MISP

- funded biological research on the occurrence and

ec ology of fouling organisms on ships (see Section VII ), other emerging research on commercial hull fouling , and consultation with a technical advisory group to develop regulations by January 1, 2010, as directed by Chapter 370 . Technical advisory group

mee tings began in August of 2010 and it is anticipated that they will be completed in early 2011, when Commission staff will initiate the rulemaking process

.

Structure and Function of the Commission‟s Marine Invasive Species Program
The Marine Facilities Di vision of the California State Lands Commission administers the Marine Invasive Species Program. To carry out the requirements of the Act and to ensure effective management, the MISP is separated into three primary functional components: 1) Data Management , 2) Field Operations, and 3) Program Administration (Figure V.2). All program components contribute to outreach activities in the form of technical advisory groups, dispersal of educational materials, and public outreach at state, national and internatio nal events.

MISP Data Management MISP data management staff track s ballast water management, compliance and enforcement of more than 900 vessel arrivals every month. This involves tracking all vessel arrivals, reviewing ballast water management reports to identify and clarify inconsistencies, and issuing delinquency notices to owners or operators. In order to verify that vessels on qualifying voyages submit Ballast Water Reporting Forms,Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 36

received forms are matched with arrival data from the Northern and Southern California Marine Exchanges. Late and missing form notifications are sent to agents representing

Figure V.2. MISP Components and Associated Functions

vessels that neglect to submit forms. Between July 2008 and June 2010, over 18,000
balla st water reporting forms were received, reviewed, entered into a database, and reconciled with actual port arrival data. Vessels that submit forms with inconsistent, incorrect or questionable data are flagged in the database for follow

- up during an inspec tion boarding. Data management staff is continual contact with ship officers and agents, relaying information about MISP requirements. Staff coordinate s information requests with field operations staff, so inspectors can ensure that crew receive needed
i nformation when boarding vessels.

MISP data management staff also track s Hull Husbandry Reporting Form (HHRF) submission and compliance. Submitted forms are reviewed for inconsistencies and areSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 37

then entered into the MISP database. MISP administrative st aff reconciles received HHRF against vessel arrival data to determine if the once

- annual reporting requirement has been met. Notices are sent to agents representing vessels with outstanding
HHRFs.

MISP Field Operations (Inspections) MISP field operations are based out of offices located in Northern and Southern California. Commission Marine Safety personnel at these field offices implement an extensive vessel boarding, monitoring, and outreach program to ensure compliance with the Act. Though the centra l role of inspectors/inspections is to enforce laws that vessels must obey in order to reduce the release of problematic organisms in California waters, MISP inspectors do much more. They are the primary conduit providing regulatory information to vessel p ersonnel. Inspectors help crew understand their complicated and ever

- changing legal obligations, how to properly complete and maintain paperwork, and which agencies to submit paperwork to. Education and outreach is considered one of the key drivers for the high compliance rates observed with the MISP program.

All vessels are required to submit to compliance inspections, which include sample collection of ballast water, examination of ballast water logbooks, engine books, report forms, and any additional i nquiries as needed. The Marine Invasive Species Act specifies that at least 25% of arriving vessels are to be inspected, with enforcement administered through the imposition of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. During vessel boardings, Marine Safety personnel verbally explain paperwork, reporting, and ballast management obligations, and point out where a vessel may be falling short of compliance. Staff also sample s ballast tanks when discharge is intended. The samples are analyzed for salini ty (a measure of the salt concentration in water), which is currently the best available method to indicate if ballast water has been exchanged. Salinity levels are expected to indicate whether ballast water originated
from coastal or mid

- ocean areas becau se coastal regions tend to have more freshwater runoff. Coastal regions often exhibit lower salinities than open ocean water, whichSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 38

maintains an approximate reading of 35 PPT (parts per thousand). When a violation is found, a citation is given to the vess el crew and a hard copy is retained in Commission files. A copy of the violation and enforcement letter is also sent to the vessel owner. The vessel is then targeted for re

- inspection upon its next visit to California waters. The
Commission finds that w orking with vessel owners in this way creates a positive working relationship with the industry that results in higher compliance rates.

In addition to verifying compliance with the management requirements of the Act, the inspection program plays a key r ole in MISP activities by providing vessel access for researchers collecting data that are used to improve the future management of NIS. Such assistance has become particularly important as heightened security levels at ports would otherwise hinder or bloc k ship access. Assistance may involve simply escorting scientists onboard vessels so they may obtain samples, or may involve the inspector(s) collecting the samples directly. In the past, MISP inspectors have worked with researchers who are noted experts in their field, including staff from the Smithsonian Institution, San Francisco State University, and Portland State University. Most recently, Commission Marine Safety personnel assisted the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) on a project de signed to validate a prototype
hand held device

– the Ballast Exchange Assurance Meter (BEAM). The BEAM takes measurements of key chemical tracer elements in ballast water to determine whether ballast water exchange occurred offshore or not. Commission Ma rine Safety personnel boarded approximately 40 vessels to collect samples for this project (see Research, Ballast Water Exchange Verification for more details).

MISP Administration & Policy Development MISP administrative staff works closely with staff w ithin the other two MISP program components, the data management and field staff teams, in order to assess vessel compliance with the requirements of the Act, develop regulations and policy recommendations for the Legislature, and coordinate research to re duce the spread of NIS from vessel vectors. Administrative staff regularly consults with a wide array of scientists, state and federal regulators, non

- government organizations and the maritimeSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 39

industry to evaluate current knowledge and guide policy recomm endations. The administrative component of the MISP also directs and funds targeted, applied research that advances the development of strategies for NIS prevention from the commercial ballast water and vessel fouling vectors.

In addition to the regulat ory directives, the Act included mandates to address management gaps to improve the Commission‟s ability to prevent NIS introductions from commercial vessel vectors. MISP administrative staff frequently assemble s Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) to discus s policy and regulatory matters related to general NIS management, specific directives of legislation and/or regulations, and the implementation of legislative mandates. TAGs include representatives from the maritime industry, ports, state, federal, and i nternational agencies, environmental organizations, and research institutions. They serve as a forum through which information and ideas are exchanged and discussed to ensure that policy recommendations and rulemaking actions consider the best available s cience , as well

as concerns of affected stakeholders, while also fulfilling legislative mandates. The technical advisory group process also functions as an effective outreach tool, as TAG members relay information to their respective constituencies, keep ing them abreast of
Commission actions and activities. The MISP administrative program has assembled technical advisory groups to discuss regulations for ballast water management within the Pacific Coast Region, the setting of performance standards for ba llast water discharge, potential changes to the MISP fee, the development of several forms to collect vessel fouling and ballast water treatment technology data, the development of recommendations to reduce NIS introductions via vessel fouling, and for ass essments
of ballast water treatment technologies.

Administrative staff also represent s the MISP at state, national and international conferences, advisory panels, and committees related to invasive species science and management. Such participation is pa rticularly important given the global nature of shipping and the transport of NIS. Communication with other regulatory jurisdictions (states, federal, international) serves to increase efficiency, consistency, andSection V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 40

effectiveness by sharing successes and fai lures amongst programs. Because California‟s MISP is often a leader in the development and implementation of preventative measures for reducing NIS release from ships, staff has received invitations to speak or participate on committees/panels, including (but not limited to) the federal Aquatic Nuisance Species (AN S) Task Force (Washington D.C.), the National Invasive Species Council (Washington D.C.)
, the North Sea Ballast Water Opportunity Work group (Germany, Sweden), the State of Washingto n‟s Ballast Water Working Group, the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invas ive Species Task Force (Oregon), The Minnes ota Invasive Species Conference, and the Great Lakes Ballast
Water Collaborative. Administrative staff has also given programmatic presentations at

nu merous local, state, national and international science and management conferences, including (but not limited to): the International Con ference on Marine Bioinvasions, the
International Confere nce on Aquatic Invasive Species, the California and the World
Oceans Conference
, the CalFED Science Conference , the Ocean Sciences Conference, the Coastal Zone Management Conference , and the California State Lands Commission‟s Prevention First Symposium.

The Shared Role of Outreach One of the key components f or the success of the MISP continues to be the close communication, coordination, and outreach between the Commission, the maritime industry, and other state, federal and international agencies. Outreach is a role shared by all parts of the MISP, with eac h component of the program exchanging information
with various external stakeholder groups (Figure V.3 ). Program administration staff
interact s primarily with science, policy, and decision making representatives to coordinate and develop improved manageme nt policies. Data management staff
consult s with shipping agents and owners on a daily to weekly basis over paperwork submission requirements and general questions about California rules. Field inspectors are the primary conduit for information to ship o fficers and crew, educating them on state requirements and supplying outreach materials. Inspectors also facilitate access to vessels for researchers working on studies that will inform future management
decisions.Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 41 Figure V.3. MISP Information E xchan ge with Stakeholders

In general, outreach activities coordinate information exchange among scientists, legislators, the regulated industry, non

- governmental organizations and regulating agencies. By establishing and maintaining relationships with the div erse groups that play a role in the transport of NIS via commercial ships‟ ballast water and vessel fouling, MISP staff helps ensure improved compliance amongst the regulated community, the development of well

- informed policy decisions, and the utilization of management tools/strategies based on the best available science.Section VI. Data Analysis | 42

V I . DATA ANALYSIS

Trends in Statewide Vessel Traffic
Ballast Water Reporting Requirements Under the Marine Invasive Species Act (Act), the master, owner, operator, agent, or
person in charge of a vessel is required to submit the “Ballast Water Reporting Form” upon departure from each port or place of call in California. A qualifying voyage (QV) for the purposes of reporting and fee submittal refers to all vessels greater than 300
g ross registered tons operating in California waters. The Commission is required to compile the information obtained from submitted forms to assess shipping patterns and compliance with the requirements of the Act. Utilizing a state database created under AB 703 (Chapter 849, Statutes of 1999), and modified pursuant to the Act (Chapter 491, Statutes of 2003), the Commission can assess: (1) rates of compliance with mandatory reporting requirements (see Ballast Water Reporting Compliance
, this section ); (2) QV traffic patterns (see Vessel Traffic Patterns
, this section ); (3) patterns of ballast water discharge and management according to vessel class and geographic area (see Ballast Water Discharge Patterns
, this section ); and (4) rates of compliance with bal last water management requirements (see Ballast Water Management Compliance
, this section ).

Commission staff supplements the ballast water information reported by vessels on the Ballast Water Reporting Form with: (1) transportation statistics collected from the two California Marine Exchanges, individual ports, and shipping agents; and (2) verification inspections of vessels operating in California waters conducted statewide by Commission Marine Safety personnel. These three primary sources of data enabl e Commission staff to assess vessel compliance and efficacy use of various ballast water management practices. This information is assessed for both coastal (w ithin the Pacific Coast Region, or PCR ) and foreign (arriving from outside of the PCR) vessel tra ffic to California ports. The PCR extends from approximately Cooks Inlet, Alaska (154° west longitude) to 3⁄4 down the Baja Peninsula (25° north latitude) a nd 200 nm offshore (see Figure V.1). Reporting and ballast water management requirements are also asse ssed at two geographic scales: statewide and local port system. Through the originalSection VI. Data Analysis | 43

legislation ( Chapter 849, Statutes of 1999 ) and as implemented by regulations, the Commission has identified 19 port zones, including Humboldt Bay, Sacramento, Stockton, Carquinez, Richmond, San Francisco, Oakland, Redwood, Moss Landing, Monterey, Morro Bay, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Port Hueneme, El Segundo, Los Angeles

- Long Beach (LA

- LB), Avalon/Catalina, Camp Pendleton, and San Diego ( Figure VI .1).

Figure VI .1. C alifornia Port ZonesSection VI. Data Analysis | 44

Ballast Water Reporting Compliance In late 2000, the Commission initiated an electronic procedure to notify ship agents and owners of missing Ballast Water Reporting Forms

. This electronic notification process, coupled with education a nd outreach to the shipping industry, has resulted in high compliance with ballast water reporting requirements. The ballast water reporting requirements changed in 2004 as a result of the passage of the Act (Chapter 491, Statutes of 2003). Therefore, for this report
, all time series data and graphs are presented from January 2004 forward, with a specific focus on the period from July
2008 through June 2010. For purposes of data analysis and reporting, the six

- month period from January through June will be indicated as “a” and the period from July through December will be indicated as “b”. Between 2008b

- 2010a, 98% of QVs to California ports or places were compliant with reporting requirements, and 87% of QVs were both compliant and submitted forms on time ( Figure VI .2).

Figure VI .2. Compliance with requirement to s ubmit the Ballast Water Reporting Form

(a = January to June, b = July to December)Section VI. Data Analysis | 45

Vessel Traffic Patterns Based upon the information provided by vessels on the Ballast Water Reporting F orms, Commission staff assesses patterns of vessel traffic and ballast water management. Vessel traffic to California ports has decreased in recent years from a high of 6025 QV arrivals per six month period in 2006a ( Figure VI .3) to a low of 4488 QV arrivals du ring the first six months of 2010. The recent downturn in the economy has likely contributed
to the decline in vessel arrivals seen since late

- 2006.

Figure VI .3. Number of q ualifying voyage (QV) arrivals to California p orts

(a = January to June, b = Ju ly to December)

While the total number of QV arrivals is down, the distribution of QV arrivals by port has remained consistent with previous reports ( Figure VI .4 , see Falkner et al. (2007, 2009)). There has, however, been some recent change in the ratio o f coastal to foreign vessel traffic for each port. As with previous years, the LA

- LB Port Complex leads the state inSection VI. Data Analysis | 46

Figure VI .4. Distribution of qualifying v oyage (QV) arrivals by p ort. Coastal voyages originate from Pacific Coast Region (PCR) por ts , foreign voyages originate from non

PCR ports (see Figure V.1 for map of PCR).Section VI. Data Analysis | 47

Figure VI .4 (contined). Distribution of q ualifying v oyage (QV) a rrivals by p ort. Coastal voyages originate from Pacific Coast Region ( PCR ) ports, foreign voyages origi nate

from non

- PCR ports (see Figure V.I for map of PCR).Section VI. Data Analysis | 48

arrivals, receiving 49% of all QVs to California ports between 2008b and 2010a. During this time, LA

- LB received more foreign arrivals than any other port in California (a total of 5359 foreign QVs between 2008b and 2010a), and was a close second (3301) behind the Port of Oakland (3369) for the total number of coastal arrivals. Foreign
arrivals accounted for two

- thirds (64%) of vessel traffic to LA

- LB (Figure VI.4 A

- D). While Oakland received compara ble numbers of coastal arrivals as LA

- LB, Oakland received barely 6% of LA

- LB‟s total number of foreign arrivals (Oakland = 364 total for
2008b

- 2010a) (Figure VI.4 A

- D). Between 2008b and 2010a only ten percent of QVs to Oakland were of foreign origin, thi s is a decrease of five percent over previous reports (see Falkner et al. 2009); between 2006b and 2008a, 15% of arrivals to Oakland were foreign in origin.

Several other California ports also saw a drop off in the relative proportion of foreign
vessel t raffic from 2008b to 2010a as compared to the previous report (see Falkner et al. 2009). Foreign arrivals at the Port of Hueneme declined from 70% during 2006b

2008a, to 64% of arrivals during 2008b

- 2010a. San Diego experienced a similar 5%
decline in the proportion of foreign traffic arriving to the port. These decreases in foreign vessel arrivals can likely be attributed to decreased demand for foreign consumer goods, including automobiles

.

The types of vessels calling on each of California‟s ports var ies as a function of local industry, demand, and port infrastructure (e.g. the presence of container cranes) (Figure VI.5) . The Ports of LA

- LB and Oakland combined received 99% of all container vessel traffic to California ports. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, on average, received the majority of bulk (56%) and passenger (52%) vessel arrivals to California (Figure VI.6A). The majority of the remaining passenger vessels (33% on average) calling on California arrive to the Port of San Diego. Forty

- one percent of all tank vessels, on average, arrive to LA

- LB with the remainder largely divided between the Ports of Richmond (23%), Carquinez (19%), and El Segundo (12%) (Figure VI.6B). AutoSection VI. Data Analysis | 49

Figure VI .5. Percent of QV Arrivals to California by Vessel Type (2008b

– 2010a)

carriers primarily arrive to LA

- LB (34% on average), San Diego (27%), Hueneme (23%), and Carquinez (12%). Unmanned barges, on average, predominately arrive to LA

- LB (31%), Richmond, (30%) and Carquinez (29%).

Since July 2008, almost 50% of all arrivals to California originated from within the Pacific Coast Region (Figure VI.7, see Figure V.1 for map of PCR). Thirty

- six percent of vessel calls to California ports came from other California ports, 7% originated in Washington State (up 2 % since the previous report), 4% in coastal Mexican ports (i.e. within the PCR), 2% in Oregon, 4% in coastal Canadian ports, and less than 1% from Alaska. The majority of foreign (non

- PCR) arrivals to California came from Asian ports (China, Japan, Korea, and all other Asian countries (“Other Asia”) account for 22% of all QVs), followed by approximately 8% from foreign (non

- PCR) Mexican ports, and 6% from Central America (Figure VI.7).Section VI. Data Analysis | 50

Figure VI .6. Average Number of Arrivals per Six

- Month Period by Ve ssel Type and Port (2008b

– 2010a) for Oakland and LA

- LB (A) and the Remaining California Ports (B).

Note that the scales are not the same across panels.Section VI. Data Analysis | 51

Figure VI .7. Last Port of Call for Qualifying Voyages (QVs) to California Ports (2008b

– 2010a)

B allast Water Discharge, Management and Compliance

Ballast Water Discharge Patterns The risk for NIS introductions through ballast water is based on many factors, including (but not limited to) the source, age, and volume of ballast water discharged,
enviro nmental similarities between the source and recipient port waters, and time of year (i.e. season). Therefore, an examination of geographic and volumetric patterns of ballast water retention and discharge provides valuable background that may be used to
fra me relative trends and risk of species introductions in the State.

Vessels that do not discharge any ballast water within the state pose no risk for NIS introductions through the ballast water vector (see Section II for discussion of NISSection VI. Data Analysis | 52

introduction risk s due to vessel fouling), and retention is currently the most protective management strategy available. Since reporting requirements were implemented in 2000, the percent of QVs retaining all ballast water on board while in state waters (i.e. not dischargi ng) increased to a high of 86% in 2007, and since 2008 has leveled off at 84% (Figure VI.8).

Figure VI

. 8

. Reported Ballast Water Management (a = January to June)

The percent of QVs discharging ballast in California water has remained static since
2008 (Figure VI.8), however the total volume of ballast water discharged by all QVs and the average volume of ballast water discharged per QV over that same time period has continued to increase (Figures VI.9 and VI.10 respectively). More ballast water was
dis charged into California waters during the first six months of 2009 (5.65 million metric tons, MMT) than in any similar time period since the inception of the Marine Invasive Species Program (Figure VI.9). In addition, the highest average per voyage volume of ballast water discharge in the history of the program was observed in 2009a (Figure VI.10).Section VI. Data Analysis | 53

Figure VI

. 9

. Total Volume Ballast Water Discharged (metric tons; MT)

(a = January to June, b = July to December)

Figure VI. 10

. Average volume (MT) of Ball ast Water D ischarged per Qualifying Voyage (QV) . Average calculated using the number of vessels discharging not the total number QVs

.Section VI. Data Analysis | 54

In 2009 and early 2010, the number of QVs discharging ballast water in the state declined (Figure VI.10), yet the total v olume of ballast water discharge reached an all time high. The increase in the total volume and average per voyage volume of ballast water discharged was driven, in large part, by bulk and tank vessels. Bulk and tank vessels carry more ballast water, on av erage, than any other ship type. The average ballast water capacity of a bulk vessel operating in California waters is 22,132 metric tons (MT). The average tank vessel ‟s capacity in California is 31,643 MT. By comparison, container vessels operating in Cal ifornia, which account for almost half of the total arriving vessel population (see Figure VI .5), carry an average of only 14,408
MT of ballast water

- less than half the capacity of tank vessels. Due to the nature of their cargo operations, bulk and tank vessels often cannot retain all ballast water on
board

. When these vessel types load cargo they frequently need to discharge the entire capacity of their ballast tanks and have very little operational leeway to eliminate the
need to deballast. Thus, an a verage of 51% of arriving bulk vessels discharge in California waters, and 25% of arriving tankers discharge while in California (Table VI.1). Container vessels, on the other hand, are better able to adjust cargo operations so they may reduce discharge vo lumes or to eliminate the need to discharge completely. On average, only of 8% of containerships that arrive to California discharge ballast

.

Table VI .1. Average Distribution o f QVs and Discharge Patterns by V essel T ype (2008b

– 2010a).

Vessel Type Ave rage Number of QVs Per 6 Month Period Average Number

Discharging Per 6 Month Period Percent Discharging

Auto 329 5 2 % Bulk 313 158 51 % Container 2159 168 8 % General 214 37 17 % Other 42 7 17 % Passenger 325 53 16 % Tank 1002 247 25 % Unmanned Barge 316 86 27 %Section VI. Data Analysis | 55

A closer look at the actual number of discharging bulk and tank vessels (Table VI.1) and the volume of ballast water discharged by these vessel types (Figure VI.11) highlights the role that bulk and tank vessels play in driving the total volume of ballast water discharged in the state.

Figure VI .1 1

. Total Volume of Ballast Water (metric tons; MT) Discharged per Six

Month Period as a Function of Vessel Type. (a = January to June, b = July to December)

The data collected on the Ballast Water R eporting Forms not only allow for analysis of discharge patterns by vessel type, but also by arrival port. A close examination of the number of QVs discharging by port highlights the regional nature of vessel discharge patterns (Table VI.2). As might be ex pected based on the numbers of QV arrivals (see Figure VI.4), the greatest discharge volumes occur in the ports of LA

- LB, Carquinez, Richmond, and Oakland. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach receive largeSection VI. Data Analysis | 56

numbers of discharging vessels from both coa stal and foreign origin, while the majority of arrivals discharging in the San Francisco Bay ports of Oakland, Carquinez, and Richmond are of coastal origin.

Table VI.2. Number of Qualifying Voyages that Discharged Ballast by Port, Six

- Month Period, and O rigin of Voyage (2008b

- 2010a; a = January to June, b = July to December). Coastal voyages originated from ports within the PCR. Foreign voyages originated from ports outside of the PCR.

Discharge Port 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

Coastal Foreign Coastal Fo reign Coastal Foreign Coastal Foreign

Humboldt 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sacramento 2 5 4 14 2 3 6 9

Stockton 6 7 10 10 4 7 2 18
Carquinez 115 31 110 28 86 22 113 23

Richmond 107 16 83 22 81 19 77 16

San Francisco 10 4 2 4 7 8 4 0

Oakland 51 10 31 9 59 7 49 1 4

Redwood 4 5 2 6 0 10 1 6

Hueneme 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 3
El Segundo 19 8 29 9 26 5 24 3

LA

- LB 200 241 174 180 126 200 125 187

Avalon/Catalina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Diego 18 12 14 8 16 14 14 11

TOTAL 537 341 460 293 407 296 416 290Section VI. Data Analysis | 57

The number of QVs d ischarging at each port (Table VI.2) is one indicator of potential risk of introduction, however the volume of ballast water released at these ports is perhaps a better gauge of invasion pressure (Table VI.3). The Ports of Richmond and Carquinez received l ess than one

- half as many QVs, on average, as Oakland (see Figure VI.4), but these ports received, on average, approximately 5 times more ballast water than Oakland per six

- month period (Table VI.3). The average volume of ballast water discharged from coas tal voyages per six

- month period was greater for Carquinez
than LA

- LB, even though LA

- LB had approximately 65% more coastal vessels discharging, on average, than Carquinez. This pattern can be explained by the high volume of tank vessel traffic to Carquine z.

Overall, 54% of the volume of ballast water discharged in California between 2008b and 2010a came from vessels whose last port of call was within the PCR (Table VI.3). Thus coastal ballast water plays an equal, if not more important, role in the transp ort of nonindigenous species as does foreign ballast water. Given the combination of the quantity of arriving coastal vessels and the large volumes of ballast water discharged by such transits (Tables VI.2 and VI.3), these data demonstrate the high potenti al for intraregional transport of introduced species ac ross several recipient ports. In examining these statistics, it is important to note that several factors influence invasion
risk in addition to the volume of ballast water released. This includes the age of the ballast water discharged (species often survive better when held for a short period of time), the degree of repeated inoculation (frequency with which ballast is discharged in a given area), and similarity between donor and recipient regions (b iological, chemical, and physical characteristics at each port) (Carlton 1996, Ruiz and Carlton 2003). The coastal regulations implemented in early 2006 require vessels to manage their ballast water when moving between ports in the PCR. The regulations are proving to be an important tool to help reduce the risk of new species introductions into California‟s ports.Section VI. Data Analysis | 58 Table VI .3. Discharge Volume (metric tons = MT) by Port, Six

- Month Period, and Source of Voyage. (2008b

- 2010a; a = January to June, b = Ju ly to December)

Discharge

port 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

Percent
foreign
discharges Percent

coastal
discharges Total

volume
discharged
(MT) Percent

foreign
discharges Percent

coastal
discharges Total

volume
discharged
(MT) Percent

foreign
discharges Per cent

coastal
discharges Total

volume
discharged
(MT) Percent

foreign
discharges Percent

coastal
discharges Total

volume
discharged
(MT)

Humboldt 0% 100% 17107 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0

Sacramento 98% 2% 42150 85% 15% 154,236 75% 25% 40,465 67% 33% 138,703

Stockton 54% 46% 100,990 62% 38% 215,500 83% 15% 97,192 98% 2% 190,136
Carquinez 29% 71% 1,363,209 24% 76% 1,336,988 26% 74% 1,178,798 24% 76% 1,290,097

Richmond 9% 91% 1,056,739 22% 78% 902,955 15% 85% 912,057 19% 81% 923,387

San Francisco 49% 51% 60, 473 43% 57% 54,811 27% 73% 52,801 0% 100% 4,382

Oakland 37% 63% 258,339 59% 41% 217,683 43% 57% 204,333 43% 57% 296,633

Redwood 44% 56% 84,744 98% 2% 71,102 100% 0% 108,508 0% 100% 77,051

Hueneme 100% 0% 672 82% 18% 4,490 0% 100% 241 32% 68% 2,257

El S egundo 10% 90% 216,598 43% 57% 427,142 16% 84% 340,068 10% 90% 185,755

LA

- LB 69% 31% 2,272,484 67% 33% 2,228,566 69% 31% 2,252,241 71% 29% 1,943,051
San Diego 42% 58% 21,505 69% 31% 32,706 50% 50% 19,710 21% 79% 15,285

TOTAL 43% 57% 5,495,012 48% 52% 5, 646,181 46% 54% 5,206,411 47% 53% 5,066,737Section VI. Data Analysis | 59

Ballast Water Management Compliance

Ballast water management requirements for vessels that must discharge ballast water in California depend on where a vessel arrives from, and the origin of ballast water
inte nded for discharge. California Code of Regulations Article 4.6 (Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1) requires that the master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel arriving to a California port or place from another port or place within the Pacific Coast Region with ballast water from within the PCR, manage ballast water in at least one of the following
ways: Exchange the vessel‟s ballast water in near

- coastal waters (more than 50 nm
from land and at least 200 meters [m] deep) before entering the waters of the State, if that ballast water has been taken on in a port or place within the PCR.
Retain all ballast water on board the vessel. Use an alternative, environmentally sound, Commission or USCG

- approved
method of treatment Discharge the ballast water to a n approved reception facility (currently there are no such facilities in California).

California PRC Section 71204.3 requires that the master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel arriving to a California port or place from a port or place outside of the Pacific Coast Region, or with ballast water from outside the PCR, shall manage ballast water in at least one of the five following ways: Exchange ballast water in areas at least 200 nm from any shore and in waters at least 2000 m deep (mid

- ocean water s) before discharging in California waters
Retain all ballast water on board the vessel. Discharge ballast water at the same location where it was taken on, provided that
the ballast water has not been mixed with water taken on in an area other than
mid

- oc ean waters. Use an alternative, environmentally sound, Commission or USCG

- approved
method of treatment.Section VI. Data Analysis | 60

Discharge the ballast water to an approved reception facility (currently there are no such facilities in California).

If ballast water that will be dis charged in California originates from outside the PCR, that ballast water must be managed according to the requirements in California PRC Section 71204.3, regardless of the vessel‟s last port of call.

Of the more than 120 MMT of vessel

- reported ballast wa ter carried into State waters between July 2008 and June 2010, over 98% or 118 MMT was managed in compliance with California law. The majority of vessels operating in California achieve compliance with California‟s requirements by retaining their ballast water on board. Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010, approximately 84% of the QVs arriving to the State, an average of 3938 arrivals during each six

- month period did not discharge ballast water (Figure VI. 8 ) , and were therefore compliant with Californi a law.

Of the 20.9 MMT of ballast water discharged into California from July 2008 through June 2010, 88% was appropriately managed through legal ballast water exchange and was compliant with California law (Figure VI.1 2 ) . When examined over a longer
te mporal scale, an interesting trend emerges. Although the total volume of ballast water discharged into California has exhibited an increasing trend since the last half of 2006, the volume of noncompliant ballast water has exhibited a decreasing trend (Figu re VI.12). Noncompliant ballast water has accounted for a smaller and smaller proportion of all ballast water discharges through the years, from 24% in the latter half of 2006, to
9.8% in the latter half of 2010.

Approximately 2.5 MMT of noncompliant ball ast water was discharged in to California waters from July 2008 and June 2010. This noncompliant ballast water generally fell into one of three categories: Ballast water exchange was conducted , but the location of exchange was not in
mid

- ocean or in near

- coastal waters as required by PRC Section 71204.3 or by 2
CCR § 2280 et seq

.Section VI. Data Analysis | 61

Figure VI. 1 2

. Volume (million metric tons, MMT) of Compliant and Noncompliant Ballast Water (BW) Discharged by Six

- Month Period Since July 2006

. I ncludes only compliance of di scharging vessels and does not include data for vessels that comply by

retaining ballast water (a = January to June, b = July to December).

Ballast water was not exchanged. Vessel reported exchanging ballast water, but the location of exchange was
unknown or unspecified.

While ballast water exchange at legal distances offshore is clearly most protective, some attempt at ballast water exchange is, in most cases, more beneficial than no exchange at all. Most vessels in violation of management requirements attempted to exchange before discharging in California, but did so in a location not acceptable by
California law. The percentage of voyages falling into this category was relatively stable over the past 2 years, and accounted for 72.6% of noncompliant ba llast water by volume in 2008b (144 qualifying voyages), 75% in 2009a (96 QVs), 80.8% in 2009b (83QVs) and 77% in 2010a (97 QVs) (Figure VI. 13 ).Section VI. Data Analysis | 62

Figure VI. 13

. Volume (million metric tons; MMT) of Noncompliant Ballast Water (BW) Discharged by Violatio n Type (a = January to June, b = July to December).

Of the noncompliant ballast water exchanged in the wrong location between 2008b and 2010a, 11.8% (0.214 MMT from 89 QVs) was exchanged within five percent of the required offshore distance (e.g. within 1 0 nm of the 200 nm boundary for mid

- ocean waters or within 2.5 nm of the 50 nm boundary for near coastal waters). This subgroup serves as an example of vessels that are attempting to comply with California law but failed to extend fully to the required di stance offshore.

Across the time period examined, the largest proportions of noncompliant ballast water can be attributed to tank vessels, followed by bulk vessels. These two vessel types were responsible for the vast majority of all noncompliant balla st water discharged into California from July 2008 through June 2010, accounting for approximately 88.6%. The relative contribution of both bulk and tank vessels were fairly consistent over this time span. Tankers accounted for between 51.3%

- 61.3% of non compliant discharges. Excluding 2010a, bulkers accounted for between 32.8%

- 35.8% of noncompliantSection VI. Data Analysis | 63

discharges. During the 2010a time period, bulkers accounted for a smaller proportion of noncompliant discharges, approximately 18.9% (Figure VI. 14 ). Despit e the high proportion of noncompliant ballast water attributable to bulk and tank vessels, the overall volume of noncompliant ballast water discharged by these vessel types has exhibited a decreasing trend from 0.89 MMT in 2008b to 0.39 MMT in 2010b. This mirrors the general pattern of overall reductions in illegal ballast water discharge across all vessel types during the last 4 years (Figure VI. 1 2 ).

Figure VI. 14

. Volumes of Noncompliant Ballast Water (BW) by Vessel Type (a =

January to June, b = Jul y to December)

Over the past six and a half years, container vessels have continually accounted for the greatest proportion of QVs to California (Figure IV.5)

- 45% between January 2004 and June 2006 (Falkner et al. 2007), 44% between July 2006 and June 2008, and 46% from July 2008 to June 2010 . While the percentage of qualifying arrivals attributed to container vessels has consistently dominated other vessel types, the total volume and proportion of noncompliant ballast water discharged from container v essels was comparatively low during the 2 year focus of this report, accounting for between 4.1%Section VI. Data Analysis | 64

(2008b) to 10.8% (2010a). Over a longer time scale, this proportion had been decreasing until recently, from 31.7% of all noncompliant ballast water discharge s in 2004a (Falkner et al. 2007), to a low of 4.1% in 2008a (Figure VI. 14 ). During more recent time periods however, the proportion of noncompliant ballast water discharged by containers has been slowly increasing, from 4.5% in 2008b to 10.8% in 2010a.

Due to safety concerns associated with transferring personnel to an unmanned barge to conduct ballast water exchange, barges may utilize a safety exemption in California as per PRC section 71203. In such cases, vessels are not compelled to exchange ballas t
water intended for discharge, because the process would pose a safety risk to the
vessel or crew. However, if barges are examined as if they did not utilize the safety exemption , vessel type would represent the 3rd largest source of ballast water that wa s not appropriately exchanged prior to discharge (Figure VI. 15 ). Between July of 2008 and June of 2010, barges would have accounted for 14.2% (2010a) to 20.5% (2009a) of such discharges by volume , despite the fact that barges account for only 7% of arriva ls. Seventy

- seven percent of this ballast water, or 0.35 MMT, was exchanged but at
distances from land that would not be considered adequate (Figure VI. 16 ). In addition, the proportion of total barge discharges that would have been considered noncomplian t was much higher than for tankers or bulkers: approximately 27.0% of barge discharges were noncompliant, versus 15.7% and 10.1% for bulkers and tankers respectively. This notable amount of noncompliant ballast water attests to the need for moving forward with the implementation of performance standards, where ballast water would undergo treatment before discharge. Because many ballast water treatment systems treat on uptake and/or discharge when a vessel is likely to be in the sheltered waters of a port, the use of technologies should allow barges to reduce the risk of NIS introduction with significantly less concern for vessel and/or crew safety.

In addition to discharge volumes and vessel types, the source of the discharged water can relay important inf ormation for the risk of NIS introductions, particularly since risk may relate to chemical, physical, and biological similarities between source and receiving waters. The majority of noncompliant ballast water discharged in CaliforniaSection VI. Data Analysis | 65

Figure VI. 15

. Volu mes of Noncompliant BW by Vessel Type, Inclusive of Unmanned Barges Which Generally Utilize a Safety Exemption for Ballast Water Exchange

(a = January to June, b = July to December)

Figure VI. 16

. Volumes (million metric tons, MMT) of All Ballast Wate r Discharged by Unmanned Barges (a = January to June, b = July to December) . Black and grey bars denote ballast water that would be considered non

- compliant, if the safety exemption was not utilized.Section VI. Data Analysis | 66

from July 2008 through June 2010 originated from within the United States West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (200 nm or closer to California, Oregon or Washington)
and the Mex ican EEZ. This proportion ranged from 61.3% (2009b) to 73.6% (2009a) of all ballast discharged . The relative dominance of these tw o sources was not consistent through all 6 month intervals. Mexico was clearly the largest source in 2008b (42.5%
vs. 22.5% from the U.S. West C oast ), while the U.S. West Coast was clearly dominant during 2009b (38.7% vs. 22.6% from Mexico ). During 2009a and 2010a, the two sources contributed similarly to noncompliant discharges, with Mexico accounting for 38.0% and 39.8% respectively, and the U.S. West Coast accounting for 35.6% and 33.6% respectively (Figures V I .17

– V I

. 20 ). The majority of noncompliant ballast water from both of these sources was discharged by tank vessels, which accounted for 74.3% by volume between July 2008 and June 2010.

With the exception of 2009b, Asia is the third largest source of noncompliant ballast water, fluctuating between 10.9% (2009b) and 14.2% (2009a), with no obvious increasing or decreasing trend during the examination period. In contrast to noncompliant ballast water originating from the U.S. West Coast or Mexico, noncompliant ballast water sourced from Asia was not dominated by tanker vessels. Rather, bulkers accounted for between 72.5% to 96.9% of these discharges. Other than an 8.5% contribution in 2008b, tank vessels did not contribute to noncompliant discharges originating from Asia.

Prior to the implementatio n of California‟s coastal regulations requiring ballast water management of vessels transiting within the PCR (2 CCR § 2280 et seq ., implemented March 22, 2006), vessels arriving from the west coast of Canada were required to exchange their ballast water a t a distance greater than 200 nm from shore. During this time, noncompliant ballast water discharged from vessels arriving from Canada accounted for 2.6% (11 vessels) of the total volume of noncompliant ballast water in 2004 and 4.2 % (14 vessels) in 2005 (Falkner et al. 2007). However, during the first six months of 2006 (i.e. when coastal regulation was implemented), noncompliant ballast water arriving from Canada accounted for only 0.7% (1 vessel) of the total volume ofSection VI. Data Analysis | 67

Figure VI. 17

. Source of Nonco mpliant Ballast Water ( 2008b; July

- December 2008).

Numerals in parentheses denote number of vessels.

Figure VI. 1 8

. Source of Noncompliant Ballast Water ( 2009a; January

- June 2009).

Numerals in parentheses denote number of vessels.Section VI. Data Analysis | 68

Figure VI. 19

. So urce of Noncompliant Ballast Water ( 2009b; July

- December 2009).

Numerals in parentheses denote number of vessels.

Figure VI. 20

. Source of Noncompliant Ballast Water ( 2009a; January

- June 2010 )

.

Numerals in parentheses denote number of vesselsSection VI. Data Analysis | 69

nonc ompliant discharge . Excluding the second half of 2008 when 1.9% (6 vessels) of noncompliant discharges originated from Canada, less than 1% of the total volume of noncompliant discharges into California originated from this region. This consistently
low proportion of noncompliant discharge from vessels arriving from Canada may be attributable to the fact that vessels now only have to exchange their ballast water 50 nm from shore, rather than 200 nm, in order to be compliant with California law.

Ballast water that is not exchanged composes a much smaller proportion of noncompliant discharges in comparison to ballast water that was exchanged at inadequate distances from shore. Examination of this smaller subset of noncompliant
ballast water exhibits slig htly different source pattern . The U.S. West Coast account ed for the majority of such ballast water during 2008a, approximately 57.8%. During more recent time periods, this source accounts for over two thirds of unexchanged ballast
water discharged in C alifornia , 77.7% in 2009a, 74.2% in 2009b, and 64.0% in 2010a. During 2008a

- 2010b, v essel types responsible for unexchanged discharges were tankers (57.8%), containers (18.3%), and bulkers (13.8%). Other sources of unexchanged ballast water were Asia ( 13.0%) and Mexico (11.9%) (Figure VI. 21 ). Though unexchanged ballast water represents only 22.3% of noncompliant discharges, and only 2.7% of all discharges (compliant + noncompliant) by volume, this sub

- portion may represent a higher risk for introductio n to the State because there has be no attempt at ballast water management. In addition, because such a large proportion of this ballast water originates from other U.S West Coast areas, it indicates that there may be notable potential for NIS spread to C alifo rnia from other ports in other W est C oast states.

While the ability to determine the origin of noncompliant ballast water and types of vessels that discharge illegal water is important in assessing the risk of NIS introductions into California, it is important to remember that the overall volume of noncompliant ballast water discharged into California waters is relatively small and has been decreasing through time. Since July of 2006, noncompliant ballast waterSection VI. Data Analysis | 70

Figure VI. 21

. Sourc es of Noncompliant , Unexchanged Ballast Water ( BW ) Discharged in California

. ( MMT=million metric tons, a = January to June, b = July to December)

discharges have decreased 52% from 1,009,232 MT (2006b) to 490,416 MT (2010a), even though overall discharges have exhibited a fluctuating, but generally increasing trend. During the two

- year focus of this report, only 2 % of the 120 MMT of ballast water
carried into California did not properly comply with the State‟s management requirements. Furthermore, the vast majority of th e noncompliant ballast water discharged in State waters underwent some type of exchange, likely reducing the risk of
NIS introductions.

Similar to the trend of decreasing volumes of noncompliant ballast water discharge in California, the number of vessel arrivals in violation of ballast water management requirements has remained small and has experienced a modest decrease over the 2 year focus of this report , from 202 vessels (3.9% of all QVs) in 2008b to 144 vessels (3.2% of all QVs) in 2010a. This decre asing trend is a continuation of the same pattern evident on the longer timescale that begins after the coastal regulations went into effect in March of 2006 (Figure VI. 2 2 ). Though the number of qualifying voyages has alsoSection VI. Data Analysis | 71

decreased since 2006a, the fact t hat the proportion of arrivals out of compliance continues to decrease demonstrates that compliance on a vessel

- by

- vessel basis has continually improved.

Figure VI. 22

. Proportion s of Compliant and Noncompliant Discharging Arrivals Since Pacific Coast Region Requirements Went Into Effect (a = January to June, b = July to December)

Compliance through Field Inspections
Under PRC Section 71206, the Commission assesses compliance of any vessel subject to the Act through a vessel inspection program. The Commission has two field offices, one in Southern California, and the other in Northern California. Statewide, Marine Safety Inspectors boarded and inspected 22.5% (4340) qualifying voyages between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010. (Table VI.4).

During the inspection process, inspectors interview crew and review paperwork, including but not limited to Ballast Water Reporting Forms, ballast water logbooks and engine logbooks. If these items are not in order as required, the vessel is cited for an
adminis trative violation. A salinity sample is taken at the top, middle and bottom of a subset of tanks intended for discharge in California. Any tank with a salinity readingSection VI. Data Analysis | 72

Table VI.4

. Vessel I nspections and Violations

2006b 2007a 2007b 2008a 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a No. Qualifying Voyages 5645 5463 5541 5382 5253 4857 4579 4606 No. Inspections Conducted 818 897 969 1108 1053 1225 1061 1001

Total No. Violations Cited 148 114 82 66 59 50 20 22
No. Administrative 123 86 59 53 41 34 13 16 No. Ope rational 25 28 23 13 18 16 7 6

below 29 PPT (parts per thousand) serves as a flag for a potential violation and the Inspector more closely scrutinizes paperwork and re

- interviews vessel officer(s).

The majority of vessels inspected are found to comply with the Act. The majority of noted violations are associated with administrative components of the law (incomplete ballast water management plan, inaccurate ballast report forms, incomplete ballast tank logs, etc.). All inspected vessels found in viola tion of California law are cited. A copy of the citation is given to the vessel crew and a copy is retained by the Commission . In addition, a copy of the violation and an enforcement letter is sent to the vessel owner. The vessel is then targeted for re

- inspection upon its next visit to California waters.

Trends in Vessel Fouling

- Related Practices and Patterns
As illustrated in Figure VI.8
, about 8 4 % of the qualifying voyages into California manage
their ballast water retaining all ballast on board, a nd therefore pose „zero‟ risk of introducing NIS through the ballast water vector. However, through vessel fouling
, every vessel represents some level of risk. This is because all vessels have submerged surfaces that are susceptible to accumulating fouli ng organisms and fouling organisms cannot be completely contained or retained in port as they can be within an enclosed
ballast tank . In an effort to evaluate the risk of introducing NIS into California through vessel fouling, the Commission produced and presented a report titled “Commercial Vessel Fouling in California” (see Takata et al. 2006) to the State Legislature in April 2006. This report revealed large information gaps in our knowledge of the biology ofSection VI. Data Analysis | 73

fouling organisms associated with commercia l ships, as well as the husbandry and voyage characteristics of the fleet operating along the U.S. West C oast

. In response to
some of the recommendations made in that report, the State Legislature developed and passed Assembly Bill 740 (Chapter 370, Statut es of 2007), which was signed into law in October 2007. This legislation requires the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of a vessel arriving to a California port or place to submit, on an annual basis starting January 2008, fouling

- relat ed information via a reporting form to be developed by the Commission.

The Commission‟s Hull Husbandry Reporting Form (HHRF) was developed in consultation with a technical advisory group consisting of representatives from the shipping industry, scientif ic community, and local, state, federal, and international agencies. The form was distributed to the commercial fleet operating in California via shipping agents in January 2008. The HHRF is an eleven question survey that is
divided into two sections: on e addressing hull husbandry practices relating to submerged vessel surfaces, and the other relates to voyage characteristics that are thought to influence fouling accumulation and complexity.

Title 2, Section 2298 of the California Code of Regulations ( 2 CCR § 2298) requires annual submission of the HHRF from every vessel carrying, or capable of carrying, ballast water into the coastal waters of the state. During 2008, the first year of this reporting requirement, 74.4% of the vessels that operated in C alifornia submitted the form as required, with only five of the eight vessel types recording over 70% compliance ( Figure VI. 23 ). During the following year, the Commission utilized the monthly notification system already in place for delinquent ballast wa ter reporting forms and was able to increase the overall HHRF submission compliance rate to 92.9%, with seven of the eight vessel classes recording compliance rates above 90%.Section VI. Data Analysis | 74

Figure VI. 23

. Percent C ompliance for Hull Husbandry Reporting Form Com missi on By Vessel Type during 2008 and 2009. Dashed lines represent overall percent compliance for California fleet.

Overall, 1362 vessels in 2008 and 1722 vessels in 2009 submitted HHRFs. The population breakdown by vessel type was similar during both years ; with containerships (30.2

– 32.8% of the fleet) accounting for about a third of the unique vessels, followed by tankers (23.8

– 25.1%), bulkers (15.4

– 20.1%), auto carriers (11.1

– 14.1%), general cargo ships (7.2

– 9.1%), passenger vessels (2.8

– 3.4%) , unmanned barges (1.2

– 1.4%), and „other‟ vessels (0.8

– 1.5%; Figures VI. 2 4 a and b).

Because vessels are only required to submit the HHRF once each year they operate in California waters, the data collected in 2008 and 2009 represent two snapshots of vessel practices and voyage characteristics for the California fleet. Differences between 2008 and 2009 were minimal, as reflected in the population breakdown (Figure VI.24 a, b), and the 2009 dataset was much more complete and representative of the fl eet as a whole due to much higher submission compliance rates. For these reasons, most of the remaining data presented in this section will represent the 2009 dataset. However, bothSection VI. Data Analysis | 75

Figure VI. 2 4

. Population Breakdown of Unique Vessels S ubmitting Hull Husbandry

Reporting Forms in (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.Section VI. Data Analysis | 76

datasets will be presented when large differences between the two reporting years

occur r ed

.

Husbandry Practices of the Commercial Fleet in California One of the most common ways of reducing the amount of fouling organisms on the submerged surfaces of a vessel is to physically remove them. This usually occurs during a vessel‟s out

- of

- water dry dock, which is required at every 5

- 7.5 years by most classification societies. California law (PRC 7120 4(f)) also requires vessels to have fouling organisms removed from their submerged surfaces on a regular basis, with regular basis defined as no longer than 60 months since the vessel completed its last
out

- of

- water dry docking. As such , nearly the entire fleet (99.2%) has been either dry docked (and cleaned and treated with an antifouling coating) or delivered as new within the past five years ( Figure VI. 25 ) , with most (83.5 % ) dry docked even more recently within the last 3 years . Because of the y oung age of the antifouling coatings and reduced time for heavy colonization and succession, v essels which have been n ewly built (i.e. vessels built within past five years and which have not been dry docked
,

Figure VI. 2 5

. Total Number of Vessels (and Percent of Entire Fleet) Delivered as New or C leaned and C oated During D ry Dock W ithin Each of the P ast F ive Y ears.Section VI. Data Analysis | 77

approximately 33.1% of the fleet) or dry docked within the past two to three years are more likely to have fresher, more effective anti

- fouling coa tings and may pose a lower
risk for NIS introduction.

While nearly all of the vessels evaluated have been newly delivered or dry docked within the past five years, evaluating the average ( + Standard Deviation; SD) time since each type of vessel has been o ut of water (either during ship building or dry docking) provides more useful information on the practices among ship types. Although standard deviation was high among all groups, four vessel types (unmanned barges, auto carriers, bulkers, and „other‟ ves sels) averaged less than 1.5 years since their
underwater surfaces were last clean ed of fouling organisms, and none of the vessel types evaluated averaged more than 2.1 years since the last out of water cleaning or delivery. The overall average for the f leet was 1.7 years ( Figure VI. 26 ).

Figure VI. 26

. Average ( + standard deviation) Number of Y ears S ince V essels ‟ (by type)

Delivery ( New ) or Dry D ock. Dotted line represents overall average.Section VI. Data Analysis | 78

Physical removal of fouling organisms from submerged vessel sur faces can also take place while the vessel is in the water. In

- water cleaning is an option many vessel owners and operators utilize to remove fouling organisms during the time between dry dock cleanings (i.e. inter

- dry dock period) if fouling levels becom e elevated and noticeable drag is experienced. In

- water cleaning can include cleaning of many underwater areas on a vessel, or it can simply involve the cleaning of the propeller (i.e. propeller polishing). Overall, 19.1% of the fleet has conducted some sort of in

- water cleaning since delivery or dry dock, and about half of these have conducted propeller polishing only. Considering that nearly 84% of the fleet has been dry docked or delivered within the past three years, it is not surprising that only 9. 2% of the fleet has undergone in

- water cleaning to the hull and other submerged surfaces recently. Although there were many more individual tankers and containerships reporting in

water cleaning, the only vessel class that had more than 15% percent of t heir fleet undergoing this type of treatment were the passenger vessels (24.5%; Figure VI.2 7 ).

Figure VI. 27

. Percent of Vessels That H ave Conducted In

- W ater C leaning o n Submerged Surfaces Since Delivery or L ast D ry D ocking. IW=In

- WaterSection VI. Data Analysis | 79

About a quarte r of the vessels undergoing in

- water cleaning are doing so within the United States (26.4% of total; Figure VI

. 28 ), a trend not seen for dry docking (5.5% conducted within the U.S.). Of those vessels undergoing in

- water cleaning in the U.S.,
57% have been cleaned in California, nearly all within the Los Angeles and Long Beach
harbors.

Figure VI

. 28. Proportion of V essels Cleaned In

- Water by Geographic R egion.

Aside from physical removal of fouling organisms from vessels, vessel owners and operators also utilize preventative measures to keep levels of fouling to a minimum between required dry dockings. One of these preventative measures is the use of antifouling systems, with antifouling coatings as the most common type. Except in the rare case of dry docking for emergency repair, antifouling coatings are typically applied
while in dry dock or during the shipbuilding process. Therefore, the ages of these antifouling coatings applied to the commercial fleet in California mirror the amount of
time since these vessels were last out of water. Antifouling coatings generally fall into one of two categories

- those containing biocides and those that are biocide

- free.
Biocide

- based coatings usually contain toxic metals and ar e most frequently copper

based. O ver 86% of all coatings used in California during 2009 were biocide

- based.
Biocide

- free coatings are typically silicon or fluoropolymer

- based and rely on a fouling

release mechanism. Organisms are not expected to adhere tightly to these surfacesSection VI. Data Analysis | 80

and the refore „release‟ or fall off as the vessel is in transit. The majority of these
biocide

- free fouling

- release coatings are designed to be used with vessels that travel at speeds of 15 knots and above, although several recently introduced products claim to work on vessels transiting as slow as 8 knots.

The majority of the vessels operating in California utilize the biocide

- based antifouling strategy, with 86.1% using strictly biocide

- containing coatings ( Figure VI

. 29 ), while only 3.8% are using strictly b iocide

- free coatings. Another 3.7% are combining strategies, with most typically covering the sides of the hull (where high flow velocities are more likely) with biocide

- free treatments and using biocide

- containing coatings along the
bottom of the hull an d other niche areas (where flow velocities are likely to be reduced).

Figure VI

. 29

. N umber and Percent of Vessels U sing Various Antifouling Coating S trategies. “ Combination ” refers to application of both biocide

- based and biocide

- free

coatings to dif ferent areas on the same vessel.

Another type of antifouling system in use on the majority of vessels operating in California is a Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS). This type of system is placed within a vessels‟ sea chest to prevent fouling organi sms from accumulatingSection VI. Data Analysis | 81

within the sea chests and internal pipe network. Marine Growth Protection Systems typically operate by dispensing small doses of copper ions or hypochlorite into the sea chest, thereby inhibiting the growth of fouling organisms. Fro m an operational point of view, the vessel requires large volumes of water to flow through the sea chests for normal operations, thus keeping them free of fouling organisms is a priority. S ea chests have been recognized as a very important transport mecha nism (Coutts and Dodgshun 2007) and potential source for new invasion , even when the exposed hull of a vessel may be relatively free of organisms. MGPSs were installed on 50.6

– 65.7% of the fleet operating in California during 2009. The lack of specific ity for this figure is due to the
vague answers received on HHRF for this question, which limited the ability of Commission staff to verify the use of these systems for 15.1% of the fleet (white portion
of the bars in Figure VI

. 30 ). When considering only those vessels that reported verified MGPSs, only the auto carriers, container vessels, and tankers had this type of system installed in at least 50% of their fleet ( Figure VI

. 30 ).

Figure VI

. 30. Percent of Vessels That H ave a Marine G rowth Prevention Sys tem (MGPS) Installed Within the Sea C hest(s). “Likely MGPS” represents vessels reporting the installation of a MGPS but did not provide enough information on the manufacturer and model for verification.Section VI. Data Analysis | 82

Fouling

- Related Voyage Characteristics of the Commer cial Fleet in California
In addition to hull

- husbandry practices, c ertain voyage characteristics are believed to
influence the extent and diversity of vessel fouling. One of these characteristics is the speed at which a vessel travels, as slower moving ve ssels are thought to be more susceptible to accumulating and retaining fouling organisms because the force and stress placed on these organisms is reduced in comparison to forces experienced at elevated speeds. Overall, the average ( + S D) traveling speed o f the commercial fleet operating in California during 2009 was 16.1 + 3.5 knots ( Figure VI

. 31 ). However, only three vessel types travel at speeds greater than 15 knots, on average: container vessels (20.2 + 1.8 knots), auto carriers (17.2 + 1.3 knots) and passenger vessels (16.8 + 2.7

Figure VI

. 31. Average ( + standard deviation) T raveling S peed for Each V essel T ype

. Dotted line represents the average speed of the California fleet as a whole (16.1 knots).

knots). Three other vessel types travel at much slower speeds: bulk vessels (13.3 + 1.0 knots), „other‟ vessels (11.1 + 3.9 knots), and the unmanned barges (8.4 + 2.4 knots).

The amount of time that a vessel spends in port is also thought to influence fouling levels, as vessels that remain in port for extended periods of time may have more of anSection VI. Data Analysis | 83

opportunity to accumulate fouling organisms. As a whole, the California fleet averaged
2.3 ( + 3.0 standard deviation ) days in port per vessel, within the four months prior to submission of the HHRF ( Figure VI

. 3 2 ). However, individual vessel types exhibited widely varying average days in port . Three vessel types average about a day or less in port: auto carriers (1.06 + 2.29 days), container vessels (0.94 + 0.87 days), and passenger vessels (0.51 + 0.48 days). T hree vessel types averaged much longer amounts of time in port, over three days: bulk vessels (4.60 + 4.51 days), other vessels (3.24 + 3.70 days), and general cargo vessels (3.20 + 3.37 days).

Figure VI

. 32. Average ( + standard deviation) Port R esidenc y T ime for Each V essel T ype . Data was reported for four

- month period prior to submission of the Hull Husbandry Reporting Form. Dotted line represents overall average (2.3 days).

Although average vessel port stays ranged between a day and nearly 5 days in port depending on type
, there may be infrequent occurrences when vessels remain in port
for more extended periods of time. This has been especially true over recent years as the worldwide economic contraction has had a significant deleterious effect on mar itime trade, at one point forcing 10.6% of the worldwide containership fleet into extended layup (anchor) (Pacific Maritime Magazine 2009). E xtended layups are importantSection VI. Data Analysis | 84

because longer and more frequent idle periods represent a higher potential for foulin g organisms to colonize submerged vessel surfaces.

The occurrence of extended layups was dramatically different between the 2008 and
2009 HHRF datasets

. During the 2008 reporting year, 34.9% of the California fleet reported experiencing at least one lay up of ten or more days since their most recent dry docking or delivery (if newly built) . That number jumped to 43.4% of the fleet during the 2009 reporting year

. Several individual ships have also reported more than one
extended layup during this time, th erefore the total number of extended layups experienced by the fleet increased dramatically as well, by 21.6% on a per capita basis (i.e. number of layups normalized to number of vessels reporting). By vessel type , three
vessel types were disproportionate ly affected by extended layups: auto carriers (359% increase in layups reported on a per capita basis), unmanned barges (150% increase), and container vessels (84% increase; Figure VI

. 33 ). The remaining five vessel types
either remained neutral or had dec lines in the number of layups reported.

Figure VI

. 33

. Per Capita Percent Increase from 2008

- 2009 in Number of Extended Layups of 10 or More Days by V essel T ype

. L ayups may have occurred any time since

the vessels most recent dry docking or delivery if newly built.Section VI. Data Analysis | 85

Not only did the total number of extended layups increase during 2009 reporting, but the duration of the layups increased as well. The occurrence of layups spanning months and even over a year increased dramatically. The largest increase s, on a per capita basis, were observed for layups spanning 500 days or more (216% increase), 70

- 99 days (200% increase), and 60

- 69 days (177% increase; Figure VI

. 34 ).

Figure VI

. 3 4

. Per Capita Percent Increase in Number of Extended Layups from 2008 to 2009

. L ayups may have occurred any time since the vessels most recent dry docking or delivery if newly built.

The hull husbandry practices employed by the fleet of commercial vessels operating in
California indicates that vessels are complying with curr ent California law and are attempting to limit the amount of fouling organisms that can accumulate. The data presented suggest that the fleet is relatively young. One third of the California fleet in 2009 were newly built and delivered within the past five years , and over 70% of these new builds were delivered within the past three years. T herefore the majority have had comparatively less time to accumulate fouling organisms. The remainder of the vessels (66.9% of the fleet) appears to be physically removi ng fouling organisms regularly.Section VI. Data Analysis | 86

Overall, 83% of all vessels have been out of water (either newly built or dry docked) and coated with antifouling treatments within the past three years (99% within the past five years). Because of the relatively young age of these coatings and short amounts of time since dry docking or delivery, the physical removal of organisms while the vessels remain in water does not appear to be a major tool used fleet

- wide, as less than 10% of
all vessels conduct in

- water cleaning of the hull and other submerged surfaces. The application of antifouling coatings as a preventative measure is being conducted on a regular basis, typically during either the shipbuilding process or the last out

- of

- water dry dock. The majority (86.1%) of th e vessels operating in California are utilizing the
biocide

- based antifouling coating strategy, while 7.5% of the fleet are using biocide

- free antifouling coatings, either by themselves or in combination with biocide

- based paints.
In addition to antifouli ng coatings, a large fraction of the fleet (50.1

– 65.7%) has installed marine growth prevention systems to prevent fouling organisms from attaching
and accumulating on the surfaces of sea chests and internal piping.

Unlike the ballast water vector, all vessels pose some level of risk through the fouling vector. However, because fouling organisms are external, they are exposed to many more varying environmental conditions than sheltered ballast water organisms. These environmental conditions and voyage patterns are likely to influence the amount, complexity, and viability of fouling biota on the submerged surfaces of the commercial fleet. The normal operational voyage characteristics evaluated in this section (i.e. traveling speed and port residency time ) suggest a gradient of risk associated with the different vessel types. Auto carriers, container vessels, and passenger vessels exhibited behaviors that are thought to result in lower potential for fouling accumulation, at least for the exposed hull (i.e . not necessarily for certain „niche areas‟ that are protected from certain environmental variables). They all travel at elevated speeds in excess of 16 knots and they all spend an average of about a day or less in port. On the other hand, bulk vessels a nd the „other‟ vessel type both exhibited behaviors that are thought to result in greater potential for fouling accumulation. They both travel at slower speeds, 13.3 knots and below) and they both spend an average of at least 3.2 days in port.Section VI. Data Analysis | 87

In addit ion to the characteristics associated with normal operations, the occurrence of extended layups is also thought to influence fouling levels on the commercial fleet. The fleet experienced a 21.6 % increase in the total number of layups reported on their 20 09 reporting forms, on a per capita basis. The vessel types that were most affected by these layups were the auto carriers, the container vessels, and the unmanned barges. Thus, even though the auto carriers and the container vessels exhibited lower risk behaviors for the normal operational characteristics (i.e. traveling speed and port residency time), the drastic increase in the occurrence of layups of ten days or more points towards greater potential for fouling accumulation on these vessels, at least in the short term. Not only was there an increase in the total number of extended layups reported during 2009, but also large increases in the duration of these layups, with layups of 60

- 99 days and 500 days or greater experiencing the largest increase.

The information presented in this section along with other data that will be collected via the HHRF over the next few years will provide the Commission with valuable insight into the fouling

- related practices of the fleet as a whole. These data will be u sed in conjunction with biological data collected through fouling

- related research currently funded through the MISP (see Section VII ) to get a fuller picture on how the husbandry practices and voyage characteristics described in this section affect the qu antity and quality of fouling biota associating with vessels operating in California. Both sets of information will guide and inform the development of regulations to manage fouling for vessels operating in California, mandated by January 1, 2012.

Fee Su bmission Under PRC Section 71215, the Board of Equalization (BOE) collects a fee from the owner or operator of each vessel that arrives at a California port or place from a port of place outside of California. The Fees collected are deposited in the Mari ne Invasive Species Control Fund to support the State‟s Marine Invasive Species Program.Section VI. Data Analysis | 88

BOE receives daily reports from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Marine Exchange and San Francisco Marine Exchange listing all arrivals to California ports. An electronic record of this information is maintained for reference and use by the BOE staff. The reports are reviewed to determine which arrivals are qualifying voyages and subject to
the Fee. Vessel accounts are billed based on arrival information. Additional anal ysis is necessary to assign the correct account numbers to these arrivals.

There are currently 3,131 ballast accounts representing 8,561 vessels registered with the BOE. On average, 65 new vessel accounts are added per month. In addition, an
average o f 150 account maintenance items (address changes, adding vessels to existing accounts, etc.) are processed per month. Approximately six vessel accounts are closed out each month, and an average of 500 vessel billings are mailed per month. Compliance rate for fee submission exceeds 98% (Table VI.5)

.

Table VI.5. Summary of Marine Invasive Species Fee Program.

Year Voyages Billed Voyages

Reported 1 Total

Voyages Fees

Billed Fees

Reported 1 Total Fees Payments Recd. for Period 2

2000 5,870 5,870 2,735,134 2,735,134 2,724,072 2001 5,263 510 5,773 2,105,200 204,000 2,309,200 2,307,593 2002 4,599 921 5,520 1,376,600 277,200 1,653,800 1,645,350 2003 4,668 1,013 5,681 933,600 202,600 1,136,200 1,134,962 2004 5,858 1,123 6,981 2,788,000 535,100 3,323,100 3,2 96,523 2005 6,161 1,157 7,318 2,873,800 535,200 3,409,000 3,374,372 2006 6,247 1,161 7,408 2,498,800 464,400 2,963,200 2,956,348 2007 5,997 1,199 7,196 2,398,800 479,600 2,878,400 2,863,459 2008 5,578 1,133 6,711 2,753,750 557,825 3,311,575 3,273,822 2009 5,023 866 5,889 3,324,325 574,100 3,898,425 3,856,119 Through June 2010 3 2,475 280 2,755 2,103,750 238,000 2,341,750 2,072,397 TOTAL 57,739 11,558 64,627 23,790,764 5,933,775 27,856,034 29,774,370

1 Returns are due at the end of the month following the period of activity. 2 Actual cash received may exceed amount billed due to penalty and interest charges. 3 Amounts may be understated until return processing is complete.Section VII. Research | 89

VII. RESEARCH

Funded and Collaborative Research
PRC Section 71201 declares th at the purpose of the Marine Invasive Species Program is, “to move the state expeditiously toward elimination of the discharge of nonindigenous species into the waters of the state.” The MISP advances this goal through a comprehensive multi

- pronged approac h to vessel vector management including funding and coordination of targeted, applied research that advances the development of strategies to prevent the introduction of NIS from ballast water and vessel fouling. Specifically, PRC Section 71213 mandates t he Commission to :

“ . . .. identify and conduct any other research determined necessary to carry out the requirements of this division. The research may relate to the transport and release of nonindigenous species by vessels, the methods of sampling and monitoring of the nonindigenous species transported or released by vessels, the rate or risk of release or establishment of nonindigenous species in the waters of the state and resulting impacts, and the means by which to reduce or eliminate a release or establishment
. . ..”
In an effort to advance the goals of the MISP, the Commission has funded specific research addressing many of the NIS

- related issues for which information has been limited or lacking, including research related to emerging technologie s which may strengthen the Commission‟s ability to reduce or prevent the occurrence of NIS
introductions into California waters. This section summarizes the research that the Commission has funded and collaborated on during the previous two years.

Vesse l Fouling Research The Commission has been actively evaluating the risk of NIS introductions into California through both the ballast water and vessel fouling vectors over the past two years. As part of the evaluation of vessel fouling the MISP has funded research aimed at evaluating and understanding this vector more completely. This research is beingSection VII. Research | 90

conducted by the Aquatic Bioinvasions Research and Policy Institute (ABRPI), a joint collaboration between SERC and Portland State University. This research includes a variety of inter

- related projects, some of which have been completed and some of which are currently being investigated. A brief discussion of each of these studies is presented
below.

Recently Completed Fouling

- Related Research Ship Fouling : A Review of an Enduring Worldwide Vector of Nonindigenous Species (Davidson et al. 2009d

) The aim of this review was to provide a broad overview of the available literature on ship fouling, highlighting the diversity and numbers of organisms found on shi ps and identifying information gaps. The literature search revealed 36 papers and reports (grey literature) that had surveyed ships‟ submerged surfaces. Although there was a lot of variability in the data, the higher numbers of fouling species were found with longer
duration s since dry

- docking. T he authors also examined the relative contribution vessel fouling played in invasions at eight temperate locations where invasions have been well documented. Ship fouling was the sole or a possible vector for 73 % of the 553 species across these eight locations, and was considered the most important vector at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. This review also highlighted , t he fact that the condition, viability, and reproductive status of fouling organisms t hat arrive on ships‟ hulls have received little attention. Thus, future analyses of fouling communities on ships should strive to address knowledge gaps associated with organism condition as well as numbers arriving to specific locations

.

An Experimental Analysis of Salinity Shock on Biofouling Communities: A Pilot Study (Davidson et al. 2009 c

) The review on ship fouling conducted by Davidson et al. (2009a) highlighted the limited
amount of data available on how the conditions experienced by fouling organ isms during vessel movement from one place to another (i.e. salinity and temperature changes, shear forces, voyage duration, etc.) may affect them. This pilot study was designed to determine how abrupt and severe changes in salinity (salinity shock) affectSection VII. Research | 91

marine fouling organisms
, and whether immersion in freshwater for an amount of time that mimics passage through the Panama Canal might prevent or reduce invasion risk. Organisms accustomed to marine „salty‟ waters have problems regulating water
concentra tion in their cells with sudden freshwater exposure. This may result in organism death, and thus exposure of marine fouling organisms to freshwater (as would be experienced during a vessel passage through the Panama Canal) is considered one
stressor that m ay affect the development of fouling organisms on vessels.

Davidson et al. (2009b) performed an experiment to determine the effects of freshwater exposure on marine fouling organisms. Researchers collected fouling communities on settling plates from two sites along the Pacific coast of Panama , and placed into aquaria with either freshwater (treatment) or marine water (control) for 12 hours. Total numbers
of organism s decreased two

- fold and the numbers of species ( diversity ) decreased eight

- fold after tre atment with freshwater. Although not 100% effective, freshwater
immersion for 12 hours was lethal to most species groups and did disrupt fouling communities. However, there were also a few instances where certain species responded to the freshwater treat ment by releasing egg s or larvae. The major conclusions from this pilot study were that salinity shock can be a potential management option for treating many marine fouling organisms on commercial vessels,
and that passage through the Panama Canal may alt er their abundance and diversity.

Biofouling as a Vector of Marine Organisms on the U

. S

. West Coast: A Preliminary Evaluation of Barges and Cruise Ships (Davidson et al. 2009 a ) In an attempt to characterize vessel fouling patterns (organism abundance an d species composition) on vessels travelling on short coastal voyages within the U.S. Pacific West
C oast (coastwise) , the ABRPI conducted a number of SCUBA and dry dock surveys of several vessel types. They sampled seven barges and three tugs involved in Pacific coastwise trade, and five cruise ships also engaged in coastwise transits but some with previous ports

- of

- call elsewhere (e.g. Hawaii). An additional long ranging USCG c utter was also sampled in dry dock. As with previous studies, they found that fouling was unevenly distributed across vessel submerged surfaces, with areas sheltered fromSection VII. Research | 92

strong shear forces and areas lacking antifouling paint („niche‟ areas), acting as hotspots for organism accumulation.

Barges, had hotspots of fouling in ladde r holes and on dock block areas. Dock blocks are supports on which a vessel sits during dry docking. Fresh coats of antifouling paint cannot be applied to these areas, and fouling tends to accumulate more rapidly in these
locations. Cruise ships had cons iderable accumulations at thruster and stabilizer areas
as well as in recesses behind specialized propellers called „azipods‟ . There were also almost three times as many species in the sea chests of two vessels compared to the outer submerged surfaces of the same vessels. In contrast, exposed hull surfaces were generally free of fouling and cover was generally low (<10% of the surface area covered). This was not the case, however, for the US CG Cutter which had extensive fouling across all hull surfaces (8 0% cover). This was probably related to extended lay

up periods the vessel spent in the warm waters of Hawaii, where fouling is thought to

ac cumulate more quickly

.

The main findings from this report pointed towards two problematic areas: the heavily

fou led vessels encountered in many studies
, but compos ing a small minority of all vessels sampled in the literature, and fouling accumulation within certain protected „niche‟ areas. In some cases, fouling in niche areas results in tens of thousands of organi sms being transferred on a regular basis. The authors noted that policies which promote additional or more frequent maintenance attention to niche areas are likely to be effective in reducing organism delivery via vessel fouling

.

Ongoing Fouling

- Related Research Published, peer reviewed journal articles on the vessel fouling vector is dominated by studies measuring the identity and quantity of organisms

. Ho wever, studies on the condition, and reproductive status of organisms has been largely absent even though it
is an important indicator for the chances of a successful invasion

. M any fouling species are attached physically to vessel surfaces, and are generally unable to detach at will.Section VII. Research | 93

The ability of fouling organisms to release eggs or young in a reci pient port is therefore an important way that fouling organisms may be introduced in new locations

.

This study will evaluate organism condition (viability) more closely while also providing
measures of organism diversity and abundance on commercial vessel s arriving to the
U

. S

. West Coast. Specifically, the ABRPI will be conducting ship sampling with an added focus on the condition of organisms, their reproductive status
, and their parasite/pathogen loads.

Ballast Water Exchange Verification Research (Rec ently Completed) Verifying Ballast Water Exchange at Sea: A Full

- Scale Demonstration of its Application by Regulatory Agencies Currently the only practical method for determining if a vessel has conducted ballast water exchange is to examine the salinity of the water to be discharged. High salinities (over 30 par parts per thousand ( PPT )) are indicative of oceanic waters, and lower salinities are sometimes indicative of estuarine port waters. However many ports of the
world are in waters where the salinit y is above 30 PPT , and thus this approach to determining vessel compliance is problematic.

This study was aimed at evaluating a technique to verify that ballast water exchange has been conducted by vessels. Four aquatic chemical tracers that are expect ed to decline in concentration with increasing distance from land were examined in ballast
water: chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM), barium (Ba), phosphorous (P), and manganese (Mn). Additionally, a commercially

- available handheld instrument ( ballast exchange assurance meter; BEAM) developed by Dakota Technologies was tested by Commission staff onboard operating vessels during ballast water inspections. This device was designed to conduct rapid, on
- site measurements of CDOM
concentrations to p rovide real

- time determinations of ballast water exchange.

I nspectors from California (Commission Marine Safety Inspectors), Oregon, and Washington collected CDOM
, Ba, P and Mn data from 73 vessels. In addition,Section VII. Research | 94

Commission staff conducted field trials with the BEAM on 47 vessels in LA/Long Beach and San Francisco. Generally, the Ba, P, and Mn tests performed poorly, either being unable to discriminate between exchanged and unexchanged tanks or prone to contamination. Laboratory

- determined CDOM measurem ents generally agreed with BEAM measurements conducted onboard, indicating the potential for this device to be used as a quick verification tool during ballast water inspections.

Alternative Treatment Technology Pilot Projects
In addition to the mandate in PRC Section 71213 to conduct research necessary to carry out the requirements of the division, PRC Section 71210 specifically addresses the management of ballast water using alternative treatment technologies and requires
the Commission to:
“...sponsor p ilot programs for the purpose of evaluating alternatives for treating and otherwise managing ballast water. The goal of this effort shall be the reduction or elimination of the discharge of nonindigenous species into
the coastal waters of the state...Priorit y shall be given to projects to test and evaluate treatment technologies that can be used to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous aquatic species into coastal waters of the state by ship

- mediated vectors.”

To fulfill this mandate, Commiss ion staffSection VII. Research | 95

Matson

- Ecochlor In 2005, a portion of MISP funds was allocated to support the shipboard installation and biological evaluation of an experimental ballast water treatment technology onboard the Integrated Tug/Barge Moku Pahu, operated by Matson Navigation Inc. The funds were provided to assist in the installation and evaluation of a chlorine dioxide treatment system designed by Ecochlor Inc. Initial studies have shown this technology to effectively treat zooplankton, phytoplankton, and some microorganisms (Oviatt et al. 2002). The Commission finalized a funding contract and project timeline with Matson Navigation Inc. which required system evaluation according to the USCG‟s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). The Ecochlor s ystem was installed on the
Moku Pahu in 2005, and during the summer of 2006, Matson Navigation Inc. submitted an application to the STEP for the Moku Pahu

. Following a very lengthy USCG review of the STEP application the USCG released the draft Environmen tal Assessment (EA) necessary to evaluate the Moku Pahu for enrollment into STEP in 2008

. Matson and Ecochlor worked with USCG to address the comments received in response to the draft EA, and the vessel was accepted into STEP in November, 2008

– over two years after the application was submitted.

After being accepted into STEP, biological performance (efficacy) testing of the Ecochlor system on the Moku Pahu was delayed by the USCG as the STEP application procedures and protocols for conducting vessel pe rformance verification testing were revised. While the biological testing was delayed, the vessel and system manufacturer continued to treat ballast and conduct modifications of the system to optimize performance. Ecochlor added a filtration unit to the sy stem in 2009 based on the results
of land

- based system testing conducted at the Royal Netherland Institute for Sea
Research. As of November 2010, USCG has still not approved plans for shipboard testing according to STEP. Ecochlor initiated shipboard biolog ical efficacy testing forSection VII. Research | 96

IMO Type Approval purposes in the summer of 2010, but it is not known if these tests
will be acceptable for STEP purposes. Early results from the shipboard testing have been promising.

American President Lines (APL)
The Commissi on has also allocated funds for a ballast water treatment technology
installation and evaluation onboard the American Presidential Lines (APL) England

. This technology, developed by NEI Treatment Systems, treats ballast water through de

oxygenation using a low

- sulfur inert gas to displace the oxygen, thereby creating a hypoxic (low oxygen concentration) environment that significantly decreases the survival of NIS. This system also claims an added benefit of reducing corrosion within
ballast water tanks und er certain operating conditions (Tamburri et al. 2005). The project was initially approved for fundi ng from the Commission in 2006, however, the project was delayed while additional funds and agreements were obtained from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach . All funding was in place by 2008 , and
Commission staff and APL finalized the contract in October of that year . Work on the installation of the system began i n the fall of 2008 , and the vessel was accepted into the USCG STEP in May of 2010. Install ation was nearly complete at the end of June 2010, and biological testing is expected to begin in early

- mid 2011.

Glosten

– T/S Golden Bear In 2008, the Commission approved funding to support the development of a ballast water treatment technology testing and evaluation facility onboard the California Maritime Academy‟s Training Ship Golden Bear. The Commission funding augments federal funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Grant Ballast Water Management Demonstration Pro gram and the Maritime Administration (MARAD). The project establishes the first ballast water treatment technology testing and evaluation facility on the West Coast, and the only facility in the world capable of conducting both dock

- side (land

- based) and s hipboard testing. The
Commission

- funded modifications to the vessel were completed in May 2010.Section VII. Research | 97

The Golden Bear Facility was used for shipboard testing of the Severn Trent De Nora BalPure® Ballast Water Treatment System during the summer of 2010, and doc kside testing of the BalPure system will continue through the fall of 2010 . The Golden Bear Facility has recently entered into a contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s Environmental Technology Verification program to field test protocols for the verification of ballast water treatment technologies. This work will take place between
late

- 2010 and mid

- 2011.

Commission staff continues to collaborate with the staff from the Golden Bear Facility. The close proximity between Commission offices and the facility, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, will provide Commission staff with important vessel access necessary to beta test methods of verifying vessel compliance with California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. T his

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

- Bulk Plankton Viability Assay In 2010, the Commission approved funding to support research by Dr. Nicholas Welschmeyer, from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) , for the development of a rapid, bulk assay for plankton viabilit y. Ballast water treatment technologies are developing rapidly, but methods of verifying treatment performance have not kept pace. The goal of Dr. Welschmeyer‟s research is to develop a simple, rapid and reliable method to assess ballast water treatment pe rformance on board a ship. Dr. Welschmeyer intends to optimize a fluorescence

- based test for evaluating organism viability. He will then package the test into kits and distribute for peer

- review, with the ultimate goal of making the technique/test kit avai lable for use by the Commission‟s Marine Safety personnel to verify vessel compliance with California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Dr. Welschmeyer initiated the research in the summer of 2010, and intends to have a final repo rt available to the Commission by late

- 2012.Section VII. Research | 98

California Department of Fish and Game MISP Biological Monitoring Pursuant to the Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003, the California Department of Fish and Game ( CDFG ) monitors the location and geographic rang es of introduced species populations in the State‟s coastal and estuarine waters

. A baseline inventory development began under mandate by the Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act of 1999. The subsequent ongoing monitoring is i ntended as a means of detecting new introductions. The 2003 Marine Invasive Species Act expanded the ongoing monitoring program to include intertidal and nearshore subtidal habitats along the open coast.

The CDFG ‟s Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP ) submitted the report, “Introduced Aquatic Species in the Marine and Estuarine Waters of California,” to the Legislature in December 2008, detailing the results of five years of coastal non

- native species monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the MISP in controlling introductions from
vessel vectors. The next report will be submitted in December 2011. The overall program is intended to assess the effectiveness of ballast water controls implemented under current laws and regulations.

Beginning in 2009, the C DFG

- MISP, in partnership with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the Genomics Lab at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML), initiated a pilot non

- native species detection program in San Francisco Bay.
The two

- year pr ogram uses a “next

- generation” DNA sequencing process, known as massively parallel pyrosequencing (MPPS), to analyze the DNA extracted en masse from unsorted samples , containing many different organisms and species, collected from settling plates, field su rveys of hard substrate, and plankton tows. Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories will conduct molecular “probing,” whereby the identities of the organisms present in samples are determined by comparing the DNA found from MPPS against a voucher

- based reference set. If effective, this approach would be a rapid and
cost

- effective approach for widespread and frequent monitoring. Thus far, SERC has completed a full year of sampling and taxonomic identifications and MLML hasSection VII. Research | 99

extracted and sequenced the DNA from vo ucher specimens received. Whole

community samples collected to date are being readied for the first of two MPPS analyses scheduled for the fall of 2010 and 2011.

In 2010, the C DFG

- MISP resumed a four

- year cycle of large

- scale field surveys of NIS
in Cali fornia bays and harbors (including San Francisco Bay) and the open coast. Multiple habitats will be sampled in 9 major ports; 21 harbors, marinas, and bays; and 22 sites along the open coast from Oregon to the Mexican border. San Francisco Bay sampling wa s completed in the summer of 2010 and is currently undergoing taxonomic analysis.

The C DFG

- MISP staff collaborated with Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) staff on a journal article entitled “Marine invasion history and vector analysis of
Ca lifornia: a hotspot for western North America.” Results indicate that California, especially San Francisco Bay, plays a pivotal role in marine invasion s for western North America, providing an entry point from which many NIS spread. Of the 290 nonindigen ous marine species (excluding fish and vascular plants) with established populations in western North America, 81% were first recorded in California. Many (31

- 70%) nonindigenous species in adjacent states and provinces were first reported in California, s uggesting northward spread. Of 257 nonindigenous sp ecies established in California, 61% were first recorded in San Francisco Bay and 57% are known from multiple estuaries, also suggesting secondary spread. The manuscript has been submitted to the journal Diversity and Distributions and is currently in review. Future analysis will examine the issue of secondary spread on a finer scale.

C DFG is also involved with research projects aimed towards supplementing survey work with improved identification protoc ols for some species that are very difficult to identify. An MISP

- funded genetic study of “Breadcrumb” sponges (genus Halichondria) was completed by Dr. Jon Geller at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories . This group of sponges is among the most difficult to recognize, even by leading taxonomic experts, but was suspected to be composed of at least two invasive species in California.Section VII. Research | 100

Results revealed a new undescribed native species and two introduced species of Atlantic origin. The analysis found that none o f the genetically identified species correspond to the names previously used to describe these species and that species identification can be made only by genetic analysis.

Review of Current Vessel Vector Research PRC Section 71212(e) directs that the MI SP biennial report include a summary of ongoing research on the release of nonindigenous species by vessels. This section summarizes peer reviewed journal articles published between July 2008 and June 2010
that examine the release of NIS via vessel foulin g and ballast water

.

Organism Transfer in Ballast Water and the Efficacy of Ballast Water Exchange A fundamental understanding of how organisms are transported via ballast water is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of ballast water management th rough exchange, and for developing improved management tools. Several studies examined sub

components to this topic, including the quantity, condition, and community composition of organisms transported in ballast water.

Cordell et al. (2009) sampled 3 80 ballast tanks on ships arriving to the Puget Sound area of Washington to examine the quantity and composition of zooplankton (tiny free floating/swimming animals including crustaceans and fish larvae). The empty

- refill technique of ballast water exchan ge was more effective than the flow

- through method for reducing the number of higher

- risk zooplankton originating from nearshore (coastal) areas. However, large quantities of coastal zooplankton remained in tanks, whether or not the vessel reported condu cting exchange at legally required distances. Higher densities were found on shorter voyages that originated from nearby Canadian, Alaskan
or U

. S

. West C oast ports. Similarly, McCollin et al. (2008) found that while zooplankton
decreased with ballast wat er exchange on short voyages between the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands, many zooplankton from source areas remained. Authors of both papers suggest that the efficacy ballast water exchange may be inadequate for reducing NIS ri sk particularly on short, regional voyages, and CordellSection VII. Research | 101

et al. suggest that this may necessitate the implementation of ballast water treatment technologies to reduce the discharge of risky organisms.

As aquatic organisms grow and mature, many enter protec tive stages of development that increase survival during unfavorable environmental conditions. Diapausing (dormant) zooplankton eggs and the statoblasts (spores) of bryozoans (a type of aquatic/marine invertebrate) are two of these types of protect ive sta ges. Laboratory studies suggest that diapausing zooplankton eggs often found in the sediments of ballast tanks, can be resistant to saltwater exposure. Gray and MacIsaac (2009) placed containers with diapausing freshwater zooplankton eggs in ballast tan ks transiting from the Great Lakes to Europe, and found that there was no difference in viability between eggs exposed to mid

- ocean exchange and those that were not. Kipp et al. (2010) found the statoblasts of 11 species of freshwater bryozoans in the se diments of ballast tanks arriving to the Great Lakes from overseas, including 2 species not yet established in the region. Both authors indicate that the requirement for vessels that declare no
ballast on board to flush tanks in open

- ocean before entry to the St. Lawrence Seaway may reduce introductions of such organisms by purging sediments and organisms at sea and/or by exposing them to the shock of high salinity water.

Several papers examined the transport of bacteria and viruses in ballast tanks, incl uding those that cause disease. Sun et al. (2010) examined bacterial quantities on ships arriving to Vancouver, Canada. Bacterial abundances were lower on ships that exchanged greater than 200 nm from shore in comparison to those that did not exchange. There were also fewer bacteria per liter in ballast tanks in comparison to quantities found in recipient port waters . Seiden et al. (2010) examined bacterial population trends throughout a voyage from Japan to the west coast of Canada. Initially, bacteri al abundance increased and then began to decrease after 10 days. In contrast to findings of Sun et al. (2010), Seiden et al. (2010) found that bacterial abundance was not significantly reduced in exchanged tanks. Authors from both papers acknowledge that changes in bacterial community structure should be examined to determine if exchange is effective for reducing the movement of bacteria from oneSection VII. Research | 102

coastal environment to another. Tomaru et al. (2009) evaluated changes in abundance
as well as bacterial comm unity structure on a coal carrier in transit from Japan to Austraila. Genetic analyses indicated that coastal bacterial communities in

- tank did indeed change with mid

- ocean exchange . Bacterial communities from exchanged
ballast tanks exhibited a genetic signature similar to the open sea where exchange was
conducted , and less similar to the genetic signature of the Japanese source water

. Findings indicate that coastal bacteria were replaced with an open ocean community, reducing the risk for port

- to

- port transfer of microbes that can survive in coastal habitats

.

Disease

- causing microbes are also known to be transported via ballast water. Aguirrer

Macedo et al. (2008) found high concentrations of bacteria pathogenic to both humans
and corals in tanker ves sels discharging at a terminal near Cayo Arcas coral reef ( Gulf
of Mexico) . Bacteria included fecal coliform, Enterococcus spp., Vibrio cholerae 01
, Serratia marcescense and Sphingomoma spp.

Diatoms are algae with cell walls composed of silica, ranging in size from microscopic (2 μm) to 200 μm
, and include some species toxic to humans. Klein et al (2009) found 64 species of diatoms in ballast tanks on ships arriving to Vancouver, Canada, eleven of which had not yet been recorded in Canadian waters. As with other organism types, ballast water exchange appeared to decrease diatom densities, however, high numbers of live cells were still present upon arrival in Vancouver . Some of the species found are known to be toxi genic to humans ( Pseudo

- nitzchia, Skel etonema)

.

Importance of Intra

- Coastal Voyages : Evaluation of Potential Risk of NIS Introduction Via Ballast Water Using Ship Movement and Ballast Water Discharge Data Several analyses of regional shipping traffic patterns and ballast water discharge high light the potential importance of intra

- coastal or local vessel traffic for the regional spread of introduced species. Simkanin et al. (2009) utilized such data for the U

. S . West
C oast port systems of San F rancisco Bay, LA

- Long Beach (LA

- LB), Lower Columbi a River (OR) and Puget Sound (WA) to evaluate the potential for future invasion. Findings indicate that approximately 33.3% of vessel traffic is intra

- coastal (from one of the 4 portSection VII. Research | 103

systems examined), discharging 27% of all ballast water discharg ed during the study period. LA

- LB may be an important “stepping

- stone” for invasion due to its connectedness to Asian ports, large number of arrivals, and due to the large volume of
ball ast water that is moved from LA

- LB to the other West C oast port systems. In t he Great Lakes, approximately 68 million MT of ballast water is moved by “Laker” vessels, operating wholly within the Great Lakes system. Fifty eight ports showed overlap of discharge from overseas vessels and uptake by Lakers

. Lakers moved 20 times more ballast water than other vessels, highlighting the potential for secondary spread of NIS throughout the system (Rup et al. 2010). Lawrence and Cordell (2010) extrapolated composition and abundance data for zooplankton found in ballast tank samples to all arrivals to Puget Sound, WA to determine the relative NIS risk. Vessels arriving from the eastern Pacific that conducted ballast water exchange contained fewer coastal organisms than vessels arriving from other U

. S

. West C oast areas, regardless if exchang e was conducted. In this estimate, domestically travelling articulated tug

barges/integrated tug

- barges and tankers carrying unexchanged ballast delivered the vast majority of higher

- risk coastal organisms (70%), though they discharged only 18%
of ballast water by volume.

Dose

- Response: Inoculation Pressure and its Relationship to the Chances for a
Successful Invasion A central information gap for the selection of numeric performance standards that
minimize the risk for NIS establishment is the lack of un derstanding for the chances of a successful invasion given specific numbers of organisms introduced or “inoculated” into a new location via ballast water or vessel fouling (the “dose

- response” relationship)

. Bailey et al. (2009) developed a conservative ( risk minimizing) model for six Cladocera (water flea) species to evaluate the efficacy of proposed IMO BWM Convention performance standards (10 per m 3 ) for ballast water discharge. Their results indicate that implementation of the proposed standards could reduce invasion probabilities for some of the examined species threefold, however, for some species ballast water exchange is estimated to be equally as effective. To explore the dose

- response relationship for fouling communities, Clark and Johnston (200 9) investigated appliedSection VII. Research | 104

varying “doses” of larvae (the young, free

- swimming stage of some marine organisms)
of a successful marine fouling invader to existing fouling communities that had had various amounts of organisms removed

. This experiment was condu cted to investigate how various concentrations of larvae (doses) and how various levels of disturbance (organism removal) affected the successful establishment and persistence of a fouling
NIS. For successful establishment, fouling communities had to exper ience some disturbance as well as high dos ages (45 larvae per liter; L) for the establishment and persistence of the invader for 3 months or more. Though some settlement of larvae was observed at low (15 per L) and moderate (30 per L) doses initially, lon ger term
survival did not occur.

Vessel Fouling: Vessel Behavior and the Potential for NIS Transfer Certain vessel behaviors and maintenance practices are known to influence the quantity and condition of fouling organisms that accumulate on submerge d wett ed surfaces. Coutts et al. (2010) experimentally tested how various vessel speeds affect the survival
of fouling organisms common to Northern Tasmania. Lower speeds (5 and 10 knots) had little impact on the number of species present , but high speeds of 1 8 knots reduced the number of species by 50%. Percent cover decreased with increasing speeds, but was most pronounced at the highest tested speeds of 10 and 18 knots, resulting in a 24

- 85% reduction in cover. Organisms with low

- profile encrusting, hard, or flexible characteristics tended to survive better than soft bodied and protruding species. Such information can be used to help evaluate the risk of moving organisms from place to place in the fouling community of ships.

Vessel layup duration is al so known to influence fouling accumulation, with longer layups resulting in more extensive fouling communities. Floerl and Coutts (2009) note that the recent contraction of the global economy that began in 2008 has led to the inactivity of a large portion of the merchant fleet. For example, statistics ind icate that
10

- 35% of container ships have been laying at anchor in South East Asia, some for more than 3 months. When the economy recovers and such vessels are placed back inSection VII. Research | 105

operation, the authors warn they will have the potential to move extensive fouling communities if preventative maintenance is not conducted first.

Efficacy of In

- Water Cleaning to Control Fouling on Obsolete Vessels Vessels in the Maritime Administration‟s (MARAD) three reserve flee ts exhibit extreme characteristics conducive for heavy fouling accumulation. They have been stationary for extremely long periods (years to decades), have had little or no hull cleaning or hull maintenance, had have not had antifouling paints refreshed or reapplied in years

. Movement of these ships for c ongressionally mandated decommission ing and deconstruction represents a high risk for NIS transfer and release. Davidson et al. ( 2008 ) e xamined the utility of in

- water scrubbing to reduc e the fouling load on a MARAD vessel that had been stationary for 13 years in the James River ( Virginia ) fleet. Scrubbing significantly reduced overall organism extent and abundance, but only reduced organism diversity from 37 species to 30 species. It may be possible that scrubbing along with additional measures may improve invasion prevention, but further
assessments are needed to determine which additional measures m ight be effective

.

Quantity and Diversity of Fouling Organisms o n Vessels Several studies surveyed the ex tent and composition of fouling communities on various types of vessels, operating in various geographic locations to characterize the risk that may be present under differing circumstances. With short port durations and swift travelling speeds, 22 contai ner vessels visiting the Port of Oakland generally had little fouling across the extent of submerged surfaces (<1%). However, niche areas sheltered from strong shear water forces (e.g. inake pipes, behind bow thrusters, etc.) harbored a high diversity of species types
, with one vessel having over 20 species (Davidson et al. 2009 b ). At the opposite end of the spectrum, a slow

- moving semisubmersible oil platform that had layup periods ranging from 2 months to 9 years in locations including the South China S ea and California, was surveyed in drydock for decapods (e.g. prawns, crabs, lobsters) after 12 years in service. One

- hundred percent of the submerged surface area was covered with fouling, including 25 species of decapods some of which bore eggs. Thirte en species were NIS to Singapore where theSection VII. Research | 106

platform was transported for drydocking, and 2 were known to be invasive in other parts of the world (Yeo 2010). The authors warn that other slow

- moving or frequently stationary vessels such as barges or drydocks , are potential sources for similarly large assemblages of NIS.

Though introductions via ballast water have been the center of concern for the Great Lakes, the risk of fouling introductions to the region has received little study. Sylvester
and MacIssa c (2010) characterized the NIS on 20 vessels arriving to the Great Lakes during 2007 and 2008. Though 109 taxa were observed, 72% were already present in the Great Lakes, and 31% were not expected to be able to establish or survive in freshwater. Only on e individual of a freshwater NIS not yet reported in the Great Lakes
was found , but its very poor condition indicated it would not persist. Authors conclude that vessel fouling poses a low risk for invasion to the region.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 107

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FOR WARD

Through a variety of forward

- looking and innovative strategies, the Commission has continued to improve California‟s Marine Invasive Species Program over the past two years. Commission legislative reports and activities completed since 2008 (Dobrosk i et al. 2009, Falkner et al. 2009, California State Lands Commission 2010) have been instrumental in the development of regulations to stem the transport of NIS in California. During the last two years, activities have lead to the development of regulatio ns that: 1) implement California‟s performance standards for ballast water discharges; 2) reset the Fee amount that supports various MISP components, in light of the recent economic downturn; and 3) adopt forms to collect information on the use of ballast water treatment technologies onboard vessels. Furthermore, MISP continues to play a role in collaboration with other agencies and organizations to better address ship

- born NIS
issues.

MISP reports and collaborations with state, national and international agencies involved with the prevention of NIS release via vessels also highlighted challenges that the program will need to address over the next two years in order to fulfill legislative directives and to continue to “move the state expeditiously toward t he elimination of the discharge of nonindigenous species into the waters of the State”. To address these challenges, Commission staff is currently engaged in the following activities.

Improving c ompliance with ballast w ater m anagement r

egulations
Even t hough the total volume of ballast water discharged into California has been increasing over the past several years, the volume of noncompliant ballast water has
decreased. Over 98% of vessel

- reported ballast water carried into the state was managed in com pliance with California law. The majority of these vessels achieve compliance with California‟s requirements by retaining their ballast water onboard, representing zero risk for NIS introduction from this sub

- vector. Furthermore, noncompliant ballast wat er has accounted for a smaller and smaller proportion of all ballast water discharges through the years, from 31.7% of all noncompliant ballast waterSection VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 108

discharges in 2004a (Falkner et al. 2007), to 9.8% in the second half of 2010. Importantly, the vast majo rity of these noncompliant ballast water discharges underwent some type of exchange, reducing the risk of NIS introductions.

Though unexchanged ballast water represents only 2.7% of all discharges by volume, this ballast water may represent a potentiall y higher risk for introduction to the State because there has be no attempt at ballast water management. B ecause such a large proportion of this ballast water originates from other U.S West Coast areas, there may be notable potential for NIS spread to Cal ifornia from other ports in other W est C oast
states. In addition, s everal recent research papers have indicated that ballast water discharges from vessels engaged on short, intra

- coastal voyages may pose an elevated risk for transferring more coastal organ isms than other voyage types (Section VII)

. Commission staff plan on expanding and refocusing education, outreach, and inspection efforts to better target vessels in violation of ballast water management. This may involve developing specific outreach mat erials for problematic vessel types (e.g. tank vessels and bulk carriers) and distributing them to appropriate agents and owners and increasing inspections on vessel with problematic or higher

- risk profiles (e.g.
tankers and bulkers transiting from other W est C oast ports).

The noteworthy amount of noncompliant ballast water that was not exchanged attests to the pressing need for moving forward with the implementation of performance standards, where ballast water would undergo treatment before discharge. Be cause many ballast water treatment systems treat on uptake and/or discharge when a vessel is likely to be in the sheltered waters of a port, the use of technologies should allow vessels to reduce the risk of NIS introduction with significantly less concern for vessel and/or crew safety. Treatment technologies will be particularly effective for reducing invasion risk on vessels types for which exchange poses an elevated safety risk, such as on unmanned barges.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 109

Ballast Water Treatment and Performance Sta ndards As discussed in Section V (California‟s Marine Invasive Species Program), Commission
staff is actively involved in assessing ballast water treatment technologies to determine if systems will be available to meet California‟s performance standards fo r the discharge of ballast water. Commission staff work collaboratively with representatives from international, federal, regional and state governments and organizations as well as with the shipping industry and ballast water treatment sector to gather al l available information about treatment system performance and to advise and guide the development of performance standards around the country. Thus far, based on the Commission‟s reports and reviews of available treatment technologies, staff has moved
for ward with the implementation of California‟s standards. However, very recent internal and external discussions (see Section V) have made it clear that the path forward may not be as clear as once thought. While several treatment systems have demonstrated
t he potential to comply with California‟s performance standards (see California State Lands Commission 2010), at this time no system meets California‟s standards 100% of
the time. It will be necessary to balance the management and protection of California‟s resources from the introduction of nonindigenous species with the reality that systems do not yet clearly demonstrate the ability to meet California standards, particularly in time for the next implementation date on January 1, 2012. Therefore, Commission staff
believe s that the effective implementation of California‟s performance standards will require a change from the current course of action, which may include legislative or regulatory amendments.

Commission staff intends to convene a group of scient ific experts, including scientists involved with the original development of California‟s performance standards (see Falkner et al. 2006) to discuss the recent Great Lakes Collaborative and EPA meetings and to determine if changes are necessary to existing legislation or regulations so that the standards may be implemented both fairly and effectively. Possible avenues of discussion may include revisiting the standards themselves, the use of a best available technologies strategy until the existing standards may be met, or a novel approach to compliance assessment that could take into the account the fact that the precision ofSection VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 110

current evaluation methods is not sufficient to verify compliance with California‟s standards. Any of these changes would require acti on either by the L egislature or through regulatory adoption or amendment.

In addition, based on the aforementioned EPA discussions, Commission staff wishes to revisit California‟s final discharge standard of no detectable living organisms in any organism size classes by 2020. Scientific experts believe this standard will remain impossible to achieve, even though 10 years remain before the date of implementation. Commission staff will discuss possible options for the final discharge standard with a
scientif ic advisory panel, and wi ll make recommendations to the L egislature based on the outcome of these meetings.

Finally, Commission staff continue s to recognize that the assessment of available treatment technologies requires involvement and investment by th e shipping industry to install and test experimental treatment systems. Experimental installation of systems are essential to gather new data about system performance and to identify real

- time,
real

- world challenges associated with using these systems on w orking vessels. In addition, given the current recognition that treatment systems still do not clearly demonstrate the ability to meet California‟s performance standards consistently, continued investment in experimental systems is critical to foster the d evelopment of improved technologies, and to facilitate system evaluation. As mentioned in Section VII (Research), the USCG uses the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) to advance the development of treatment systems in the U.S. The Commission i s currently providing partial funding for the installation of treatment systems on two STEP vessels. These vessels receive benefits for engaging in experimental work by receiving an equivalency to future USCG performance standards. In California, installat ions of experimental treatment technologies, approved by the Commission prior to January 1, 2008, are deemed to be compliant with California‟s performance standards for a period not to exceed five years from the date of implementation of the standards. The restrictive nature of the January 1, 2008 approval deadline has hampered the ability of staff to allow vessels enrolled in STEP to continue to operate in California waters.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 111

Currently only 5 vessels operate in California under STEP. Staff believes that all owing additional STEP vessels, enrolled after January 1, 2008, to operate under the “grandfathering” clause will enhance the ability of both California and the federal government to better evaluate the performance of treatment technologies and closely
moni tor the installation, maintenance and use of these systems on operational vessels. Staff recommends that the PRC Section 71204.7 be amended to permit future STEP vessels to operate in California even if California‟s performance standards are not met.
The k nowledge gained from permitting the grandfathering of a small number of additional vessels under this important federal program greatly outweighs any risks involved with allowing them to discharge ballast potentially noncompliant with the
standards.

Comp ile and analyze d ata r elated to vessel h ull h usbandry Unlike the ballast water vector, all vessels pose some level of risk through the fouling vector. However, because fouling organisms are external, they are exposed to many more varying environmental cond itions than sheltered ballast water organisms. These environmental conditions and voyage patterns are likely to influence the amount, complexity, and viability of fouling biota on the submerged surfaces of the commercial fleet. In January 2008, Commission staff began collecting data, using a Hull Husbandry Reporting Form (HHRF), on the fouling

- related husbandry practices of the commercial vessel fleet visiting California waters. The data collected via the HHRF over the past two and a half years and into th e next few years will provide the Commission with valuable insight into the fouling

- related practices of the fleet as a whole. These data will be used in conjunction with the information learned through fouling

- related research currently funded through the Commission to get a better idea of how husbandry practices and voyage characteristics affect the quantity and quality of fouling biota associating with vessels operating in California. Both sets of information will guide and inform the development of regu lations on the management of fouling for vessels operating in California which the Commission is mandated to adopt by January 1, 2012.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 112

Develop r

egulations g overning the management of fouling for v essels o perating
in California As specified in PRC § 71204. 6, the Commission is required, by January 1, 2012, to develop and adopt regulations governing the management of hull fouling on vessels arriving to a California port or place. Commission staff has been collecting and analyzing data detailing fouling

- relat ed vessel practices and have been funding targeted research, all in an effort to provide insight and guide development of these regulations. Two areas of concern have emerged from these data gathering efforts: high

- risk stochastic vessels and protected ni che areas.

High

- risk, irregularly occurring vessels fall into two categories; 1) those vessels that are involved in irregular trade and have unusual and unpredictable voyage characteristics (e.g. crane barges, dredge barges, and oil platforms) and 2) re gularly trading vessels that are poorly maintained (small minority of the normally operated fleet) or that have undergone lengthy layups. These high

- risk vessels share characteristics associated with elevated levels of fouling accumulation, particularly l ong stationary periods in coastal environments and slow traveling speeds.

Niche areas are protected nook s and crann ies on a vessel, or areas not protec ted by antifouling paint, that facilitate the settlement and survival of fouling organisms

. Because the se areas do not experience the same harsh environmental conditions as the exposed hull, organisms may accumulate into very dense and diverse communities.
Commission staff believe s these two areas of concern are not adequately addressed by current requireme nts and therefore should be the focus of efforts to develop new regulations. To discuss and develop these regulations, Commission staff has convened a technical advisory group for two meetings during 2010 to begin discussions around the development of thes e regulations. Commission staff will continue consulting with this technical advisory group into early 2011 and will have a management strategy in place, including proposed regulations, by the statutory deadline of January 1, 2012.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 113

Develop Memoranda o f A greement (MOAs) with international agencies working in parallel with the Commission in d eveloping fouling management s trategies Over the past several years, the scientific and regulatory communities have become more aware of the important role of vessel fo uling in NIS introductions. Recognizing this relatively unaddressed risk, the California State Legislature has tasked the Commission with developing regulations governing the management of vessel fouling for ships operating in California. At the same tim e, many other countries, international agencies, and international organizations have been on a parallel path to protect their waters from NIS incursions via vessel fouling. Commission staff has been consulting with a number of these international agencie s in an attempt to teach and learn from each other and to maintain international consistency, where possible, in the development of management strategies. Part of this process involves the sharing of data with these international agencies. The hull husba ndry data the Commission has been compiling since January 2008 represents the largest, most complete dataset of its kind in the world, and staff has received data sharing requests by a number of agencies
from other stat es and countries. C ountries such as Australia and New Zealand have developed prototype tools for evaluating fouling risk vessels arriving to their waters.
Commission staff believe s formalizing MOA s would enable better communication, cooperation, and information sharing with these internation al agencies.

Support r

esearch promoting in

- water cleaning technology development Vessel owners and operators strive to maintain clean hulls in order to minimize fuel costs, maximize vessel speed, meet classification society requirements, and to help

en sure the structural integrity of their vessels. While complete cleaning and re

- coating of vessel hulls with antifouling paint may provide better long

- term antifouling protection
than in

- water cleaning, the dry dock facilities necessary to apply those paint s are limited and expensive. Most owners and operators therefore 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, because the a ctivity can knock physically attached organisms off a vessel that may not otherwise be able to detach. However, there is still much uncertainty surrounding the comparative invasionSection VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 114

risk associated with in

- water cleaning vs. not allowing in

- water cleaning. There are risks associated with both of these options, and both need to be taken into account when determining whether to allow either of them in State waters.

One strategy for high

- risk vessels under discussion at the international level is the practic e of „clean as you go.‟ Stochastic vessels would be expected to have fouling organisms removed after spending a lengthy amount of time in one area and before transiting to a new area. Commission staff is considering advancing this practice for
work vesse ls operating in California. In order to pursue this as a potential management strategy, California must permit some in

- water cleaning in state waters. A technology that can collect and contain (or otherwise prevent the release of) in

- water cleaning
debris and paint material would be a desirable tool to prevent NIS release during in

water cleaning, while also providing commercial operators an avenue to clean hulls without placing a vessel in dry dock. Such a technology could also serve to alleviate water qu ality concerns related to in

- water cleaning of vessels with biocidal antifouling coatings. The Commission should support the development of new technologies to
address this issue.

Support research addressing the efficacy of technologies to prevent marine fouling organisms from accumulating within protective „niche‟ areas The fouling literature, including research funded by the Commission, includes numerous examples of certain „niche‟ areas on ships ( nooks and crannies or areas without antifouling coatings that are protected from the harsh er conditions of the exposed hull)
that are heavily fouled, even when main portions of the exposed hull appear to be free of fouling organisms. Certain technologies have been developed to address fouling
accumulation with in some of these niche areas, but third party evaluations of the efficacy of these technologies have been limited. The Commission should support the development of new technologies to address and prevent fouling within vessel sea
chests and other niche ar eas, as well as independent assessments of these technologies to determine their usefulness as a tool to manage fouling on vessels operating within California.Section VIII. Conclusions and Looking Forward | 115

Continue to work with the Water Board to address the growing jurisdictional overlap related to NIS prevention and vessel discharges As described in Section III (United States Federal Regulations), federal authority to regulate ballast water discharges and certain hull

- related discharges in the United States recently shifted to include the U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA section 401 certification process, this authority extends to the state level, allowing state water quality authorities to impose additional restrictions to such discharge s in state waters. Discharge restrictions implemented for water quality purposes and those implemented for the purposes of reducing NIS introduction frequently overlap. For example, as part of the 401 certification process for the 2009 Vessel General Per mit, some water quality agencies in other states imposed their own performance standards for ballast water discharge, as
well as restrictions on in

- water cleaning activities for underwater vessel surfaces.

In 2013, the EPA will revise and reissue the Ve ssel General Permit, and state water quality agencies will have the opportunity to again implement state restriction on vessel discharges, including ballast water and hull fouling. Because the overlapping goals of water quality protection and NIS preventi on can often complement each other, but also have the potential to conflict, it will be important for Commission staff to remain abreast
and involved with CWA

- related developments within the California State Water
Resources Control Board. Commission staff will strive to maintain invitations for open communication with the Water Board, and continue to encourage their participation during the Commission‟s development of ship

- borne NIS regulations.Section IX. References | 116

IX. REFERENCES
Aguirre

- Macedo M.L., V.M. Vidal

- Martinez, J.A . Herrera

- Silveira, D.S. Valdes

- Lozano, M. Herrera

- Rodriguez, M.A. Olvera

- Novoa. 2008. Ballast water as a vector of coral pathogens in the Gulf of Mexico: The case of the Cayo Arcas coral reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1570

- 1577.

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. 2008. Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. March 31, 2008. 14 pp.
Bailey, S.A., L.A. Velez

- Espino, O.E. Johannsson, M.A. Koops, and C.J. Wiley. 2009. Estimating establishment probabilities of Cladocera introduced at low density: an evaluation of the proposed ballast water discharge standards. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 66: 261

- 276.
Biosecurity New Zealand. 2005. Import health standard for ships‟ ballast water from all coun tries. June 13, 2005. 4 pp.
Biosecurity New Zealand. 2010. Managing and controlling the risk posed to the marine environment from biofouling on arriving vessels. May 2010. 15 pp.
Brazil Maritime Authority. 2005. Maritime Authority Regulation for S hips‟ Ballast Water Management. NORMAM 2O/DPC.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. Quagga and Zebra Mussels. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel/ . Ac cessed: September 11, 2008.
California State Lands Commission. 2010. 2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislatur e. 141 pp.
Canadian Minister of Justice. 2006. Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations. SOR/2006

- 129. June 8, 2006.
Carlton, J.T. 1996. Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biological Conservation, 78(1

- 2): 97

- 106

. Carlton, J.T. 1999. The scale and ecological consequences of biological invasions in the world‟s oceans. Pp 195

- 212. In Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management. O. Sandulund, P. Schei, and A. Viken, eds. Kulwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Neth erlands.
Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. coastal waters: Environmental impacts and Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission. Arlington, VA. 28 pp.Section IX. References | 117

Chile Directorate General of the Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine. 2002. Legal Procedure DIRECTEMAR A

- 51/002. October 14, 2002
Choi, K

- H, W. Kimmerer, G. Smith, G.M. Ruiz, and K. Lion. 2005. Post

- exchange zooplankton in ballast water of ships entering the San Francisco Estuary. Journal of Plankton Research, 27: 707

- 714.
Clark, G .F. and E.L. Johnston. 2009. Propagule pressure and disturbance interact to overcome biotic resistance of marine invertebrate communities. Oikos. 118: 1679

- 1686.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Biological study. Non

- indigenous Aquatic Species in a Un ited States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, and National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut Sea Grant. NTIS No. PB96

- 166525.
Cohen, A.N. 1998. Ships‟ Ballast Water and the Introduction of Exotic Organisms into the San Francisco Estuary. Current status of the problem and options for management. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. 81 pp.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasi on rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science. 279: 555

- 558.
Cohen, A.N. and A. Weinstein. 1998. The potential distribution and abundance of zebra mussels in California. San Francisco Estuary Institute.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2009a. National biofoulin g management guidelines for commerical vessels. 16 pp.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2009b. National biofouling management guidance for
non
- trading vessels. 60 pp.
Cordell, J.R., D.J. Lawrence, N.C. Ferm, L.M. Tear, S.S. Smith, R.P. Herwig. 2009. Facto rs influencing densities of non

- indigenous species in the ballast water of ships arriving at port in Puget Sound, Washington, United States. Aquatic Convervation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 19: 322

- 343.
Coutts, A.D.M. 1999. Hull fouling as a m odern vector for marine biological invasions: investigation of merchant vessels visiting northern Tasmania. Thesis at Australian Maritime College.
Coutts, D.M., K.M. Moore, and C. Hewitt. 2003. Ships‟ sea

- chests: An overlooked transfer mechanism for non

- indigenous marine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 46: 1504

- 1515.Section IX. References | 118

Coutts, D.M. and M.D. Taylor. 2004. A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Fr eshwater Research. 38: 215

- 229.
Coutts, A.D.M. and T.J. Dodgshun, 2007. The nature and extent of organisms in vessel
sea
- chests: A protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 875

- 886.
Coutts, A.D.M., R.F. Piola, C.L. Hewi tt, S.D. Connell and J.P.A. Gardner. 2010. Effect of vessel voyage speed on survival of befouling organisms: implications for translocation of non

- indigenous marine species. Biofouling. 26: 1

- 13.
Davidson, I.C., L.D. McCann, M.D. Sytsma, and G.M. Ruiz . 2008. Interrupting a multi

species bioinvasion vector: The efficacy of in

- water cleaning for removing befouling on obsolete vessels. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 26: 1538

- 1544.
Davidson, I., G. Ashton, and G. Ruiz. 2009a. Biofouling as a vector of mar ine organisms on the US West Coast: a preliminary evaluation of barges and cruise ships. Aquatic Bioinvasion Research & Policy Institute. Draft report for California State Lands Commission. 20 pp.
Davidson, I., C.W. Brown, M.D. Sytsma, and G.M. Ruiz . 2009b. The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine befouling species. Biofouling. 25:645

- 655.
Davidson, I., M. Sytsma, and G. Ruiz. 2009c. An experimental analysis of salinity shock on biofouling communities: a pilot study. Aquatic Bioinvasion Research & Policy Institute. Draft report for California State Lands Commission. 22 pp.
Davidson, I., M. Sytsma, and G.Ruiz. 2009d. Ship Fouling: A Review of an Enduring Worldwide Vector of Nonindigenous Species. Aquatic Bioinvasions Res earch and Policy Institute. Prepared for the California State Lands Commission, Marine Invasive Species Program. 47pp.
Dobroski, N., L. Takata, C. Scianni and M. Falkner. 2007. Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ba llast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature. 107 pp.
Dobroski, N, C. Scianni, D. Gehringer, and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ball ast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature. 173 pp.
Eldredge, L.G. and J.T. Carlton. 2002. Hawaii marin e bioinvasions: A preliminary assessment. Pacific Science. 56: 211

- 212.Section IX. References | 119

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels (VGP). February 2, 2009. 158 pp.
Falkner, M.B. 2003. Report on the California Ballast Water Management Program. California State Lands Commis sion, Marine Facilities Division. 82 pp.
Falkner, M., L. Takata, and S. Gilmore. 2005. Report on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature. 44 pp.
Falkner, M., L. Takata, and S. Gilmore. 2006. Californi a State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California. Produced for the California State Legislature. 47 pp.
Falkner, M., L. Takata, S. Gilmore and N. Dobroski. 2007. Biennial Report on the California Marin e Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature. 79 pp.
Falkner, M., N. Dobroski, C. Scianni, D. Gehringer and L. Takata. 2009. Biennial Report on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California S tate Legislature. 100 pp.
Feyrer, F., H.B. Matern, and P.B. Moyle. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: Consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 67: 277

- 288.
Floerl, O., and A. Coutt s. Potential ramifications of the global economic crisis on human

mediated dispersal of marine non

- indigenous species. 2009. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1595

- 1598.
Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mec hanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts of North America. Pp. 152

- 181. In Invasive species, vectors and management strategies. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton eds. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Globallast. 2010. Ballast Water Mana gement Country Profile Database. http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=country_profiles/intro.asp . Accessed 5/12/2010.
Gollasch, S. 2002. The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling

. 18: 105

- 121.
Gray, D.K., and H.J. MacIsaac. 2010. Diapausing zooplankton eggs remain viable despite exposure to open

- ocean ballast water exchange: evidence from in situ expos ure experiments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 67: 417

- 426.Section IX. References | 120

Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative. 2010. Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative meeting: Duluth. July 20

- 21, 2010. EPA Mid

- Continent Ecology Division . Duluth, Minnesota. Prepared by Sharon Moen.
Hallegraeff G.M. 1998. Transport of toxic dinoflagellates via ships‟ ballast water: bioeconomic risk assessment and efficacy of possible ballast water management strategies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 16 8: 297

- 309.
Hooff, R. 2010. Oregon Task Force report on the shipping transport of aquatic invasive species. June 2010. 81 pp.
International Marine Coatings. 2006. TBT free antifoulings and foul release systems. Accessed October 15, 2005. http:// www.international

marine.com/newbuilding/brochures/AF_Range_Brochure.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2001. International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships, 2001. Adopted on 18 October 2001. AFS/CONF/26.

In ternational Maritime Organization (IMO). 2005. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, 138 pp.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2007. Resolution A.1005(25). Application of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. Adopted on 29 November 2007. A 25/Res.1005. 4 December 2007.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2010. Summary of Conventions as of 30 September 2008. Accessed: September 30, 2010. Website: http://www.imo.org

. Kipp, R., S.A. Bailey, H.J. MacIsaac, and A. Ricciardi. 2010. Transoceanic ships as vectors for nonindigenous freshwater bryo zoans. Diversity and Distributions. 16: 77

- 83.
Klein, G., K. MacIntosh, I. Kaxzmarska, J.M. Ehrman. 2010. Diatom survivorship in ballast water during trans

- Pacific crossings. Biological Invasions. 12: 1031

- 1044.
Lavoie, D.M., L.D. Smith, and G.M. Ruiz. 1999. The potential for intracoastal transfer of
non
- indigenous species in the ballast water of ships. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 48: 551

- 564.
Lawrence, D.J. and J.R. Cordell. 2010. Relative contributions of domestic and foreign sources ballas t water to propagule pressure in Puget Sound, Washington USA. Biological Conservation. 143:700

- 709.Section IX. References | 121

Lewis, J. 2002. Hull fouling as a vector for the translocation of marine organisms phase 3: The significance of the prospective ban on tributyltin antifo uling paints on the introduction and translocation of marine pests in Australia. Report No. 2 for the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

- Australia.
Lloyd‟s Register. 2009. National Ballast Water Management Requirements. May 2009. 23 pp. Lovell, S.J. and L.A. Drake2009. Tiny stowaways: Analyzing the economic benefits of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit regulating ballast water discharges. Environmenal Management. 43: 546

- 555.
MacIsaac, H.J., T.C. Robbins, and M.A. Le wis. 2002. Modeling ships‟ ballast water as invasion threats to the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 59: 1245

- 1256.
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). 2003. Comments on draft Regulation E

- 2. Concentrations of organisms delivered in ships' ballast water in the absence of any treatment: Establishing a baseline for consideration of treatment efficacy. Submitted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). MEPC 49/2/21. 23 May 2003.

Marine E nvironment Protection Committee (MEPC). 2009. Second Regional Steering Committee Meeting on Ballast Water Management

– Identification of ballast water exchange area outside the ROPME Sea Area. Submitted by ROMPE/MEMAC (Marine Emergency Mutual Aid C enter). MEPC 59/INF.3. February 2, 2009.
Martel, A.L., D.A. Pathy, J.B. Madill, C.B. Renaud, S.L. Dean, and S.J. Kerr. 2001. Decline and regional extirpation of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in a small river system invaded by Dreissena polymorpha: Th e Rideau River, 1993

- 2000. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79: 2181

- 2191.
McCollin, T., A.M. Shanks, and J. Dunn. 2008. Changes in zooplankton abundance and diversity after ballast water exchange in regional seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 56: 834

- 844

. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2006. Ballast water control general permit. Port operations and ballast water discharge. Permit No. MIG140000. Issued 11 October 2006.
Minchin, D., and S. Gollasch. 2003. Fouling and ships‟ hulls: How changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species. Biofouling. 19: 111

- 122.Section IX. References | 122

Minchin, E., S. Gollasch, A.N. Cohen, C.L. Hewitt, S. Olenin. 2009. Characterizing vectors of marine invasions. Pp. 109

- 116. In Biologi cal invasions in marine ecosystems: Ecological, management, and geographic perspectives. G. Rilov and J.A. Crooks eds. Springer. Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA ). 2008. Ballast water discharge general permit: FAQs for Vessel Owners and Operators. Water quality/Surface Water #8.03. October 2008.
Minton, M.S., E. Verling, A.W. Miller, and G. M. Ruiz. 2005. Reducing propagule supply and coastal invasions via ships: effects of emerging strategies. Frontiers in Ecolo gy and the Environment. 3(6): 304

- 308.
National Research Council. 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous species by ship‟s ballast water. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 141 pp.
Nehring, S. 2001. After the TBT era: a lternative anti

- fouling paints and their ecological risks. Senckenbergiana Maritime. 31: 341

- 351.
Nichols, F.H., J.K. Thompson, and L.E. Schemel. 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.
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. EPA, No. C 03

- 05760 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2006)
Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Moran, D. Outram, D. Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of Chlorine Dioxide to Ballast Water Flora and Fauna in Bench Scale Assays. Graduate School of Oceanography. University of Rhode Island. November 2002.

Pacific Maritime Magazine. 2009. More warnings for box sector. Pacific Maritime Magazine. July 2009. Page 8.
Panama Canal Authority. 2010. OP Notice to Shipping No. N

- 1

- 2010, Vessel Requirements. January 1, 2010. 61 pp.
Parsons, M.G. 1998. Flow

- through ballas t water exchange

. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers , Transactions. 106: 485

- 493.
Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien

- invasi ve species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52: 273

- 288.Section IX. References | 123

Pleus, A. (Personal communication, April 10, 2010)
Prefectura Naval Argentina. 1998. Regulation on Environmental Protection. Prevention of Pollution by Aquatic Organisms in the Ball ast Water of Ships Destined to Argentine Ports in the River Plate Basin. November 1998.
Reid, D.F., T.H. Johengen, H. MacIssac, F. Dobbs, M. Doblin, L. Drake, G. Ruiz, and P. Jenkins. 2007. Identifying, verifying and establishing options for best managem ent practices for NOBOB vessels. Prepared for: The Great Lakes Protection Fund, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 173 pp.
Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000a. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 481

- 531.
Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, S. Schoenfeld, A. Hug, and R.R. Colwell. 2000b. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature. 408: 49

- 50.
Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for management. Pp. 459

- 498. In Invasive species, vectors and management strategies. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton eds. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Ruiz, G.M. and D.F. Reid. 2007. Current State of Understanding about the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Ba y, USA: Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL

- 142
Rup, M.P., S.A. Bailey, C.J. Wiley, M.S. Minton, A.W. Miller, G.M. Ruiz., H.J. MacIsaac. 2010. Domestic ballast operations on the Great Lakes: potential importan ce of Lakers as a vector for introduction and spread of nonindigenous species. Canadian Journal of fisheries and Aquatic Science. 67: 256

- 268.
Seiden, J.M., C. Way. And R.B. Rivkin. 2010. Microbial hitchhikers: dynamics of bacterial populations in b allast water during a trans

- Pacific voyage of a bulk carrier. Aquatic Invasions (Online Journal). Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Simaknin, C., I. Davidson, M. Falkner, M. Sytsma, G. Ruiz. 2009. Intra

- coastal ballast water fluz and the potential for secondary sprea d of non

- native species on the US west coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 58: 366

- 374.Section IX. References | 124

Sommer, T., C. Armor, R. Baxter, R. Breuer, L. Brown, M. Chotkowski, s. Culberson, F. Feyrer, M. Gingras, B. Herbold, W. Kimmerer, A. Mueller

- Solger, M. Nobriga, K. Souza. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco estuary. Fisheries. 32: 270

- 277.
Spellman, M. (Personal communication, October 13, 2010)
Sun, B., R. Mouland, C. Way, and R.B. Rivkin. 2010. Redistribution of heterotrophic p rokaryotes through ballast water: A case study from the west coast of Canada. Aquatic Invasions (Online publication). Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Sylvester, F., and H.J. MacIsaac. 2010. Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great Lakes? Diversity and Distributions. 16: 132

- 143.
Takahashi, CK, Lourenco NGGS, Lopes, TF, Rall, VLM, Lopes, CAM. 2008. Ballast water: A review of the impact on the world public health. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases. 14: 393

- 408.

Takat a., L., M. Falkner, and S. Gilmore. 2006. California State Lands Commission Report on commercial vessel fouling in California: Analysis, evaluation, and recommendations to reduce nonindigenous species release from the non

- ballast water vector. 76 pp.

T amburri M., G. M. Ruiz, and P. D. McNulty. 2005. Shipboard Prototype Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping During Continuous Routine Vessel Operations. Phase IV: Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technology Field Tests in Conjunction with STEP . University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Draft Proposal for the California State Lands Commission.
The National Academies. 2010. Project Information. Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water. Accessed 4 Novemb er 2010. Website: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49224

. Tomaru, A., M. Kawachi, M., Demura, Y. Fukuyo. 2010. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis s hows and bacterial communities change with mid

- ocean ballast water exchange. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 60: 299

- 302.

United States Coast Guard. 2001. Report to Congress on the voluntary national guidelines for ballast water management. Appendix B: Status and trends of ballast water management in the United States. Biennial Report for the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. 45 pp.
Weigle, S.M., L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 2005. Assessing the risk of introducting exotic species vi a the live marine species trade. Conservation Biology. 19: 213

- 223.Section IX. References | 125

Wonham, M.J., W.C. Walton, G.M. Ruiz, A.M. Frese, and B.S. Galil. 2001. Going to the source: role of the invasion pathway in determining potential invaders. Marine Ecology Progress Seri es, 215: 1

- 12.
Woodfield, R. 2006. Invasive seaweed threatens California‟s coastline

– an update. Ballast Exchange: Newsletter of the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project. 6: 10

- 11.
Yeo, D.C.J., S.T. Ahyong, D.M. Lodge, P.K.L. Ng, T. Naruse and D.J.W. Lane. 2010. Semisubersible oil platforms: understudies and potentially major vectors of viofouling

- mediated invasions. Biofouling. 26: 179

- 186.
Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. Mid

- Ocean exchange of container vessel ballast water. 1: Seasonal facto rs affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 176: 243

- 251.