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 Division

January 2011
Executive 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 Program (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 commercial 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 Resources 

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 submit 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 state. 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 2008 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 report. 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 Pacific 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 other 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 is, 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 proportion 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 ballast 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. Approximately 1.1% of 
Executive 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 Husbandry 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 California 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 vessel 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 growth. 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, 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 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% utilize 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 chests 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 vessel 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 

periods) 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 in 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 

accumulation 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 evaluate 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 demonstrated that 

they have the potential to meet California‟s performance standards, and systems should 
Executive 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 expert 

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 as 

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 discharge 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 – the “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) as 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 should 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 preventative 

measures for reducing NIS release from ships, staff has received recent invitations to 
Executive 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 

Workgroup (Germany and Sweden), the State of Washington‟s Ballast Water Working 

Group, the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force (Oregon), the 

Minnesota 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 International 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 intends 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 performance 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 the United States Coast Guard 

Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP); (4) develop regulations to reduce 

NIS discharge via the vessel fouling vector; (5) develop Memoranda of Agreement 

(MOAs) with international agencies working in parallel with the Commission 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 wetted 

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 agencies to reduce 

the risks of biological invasions to California waters.
Table of Contents | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..................................................................... viii

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

II. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 2

Nonindigenous Species and Vehicles of Introduction – “Shipping Vectors”............. 2

NIS Impacts.............................................................................................. 3

Prevention Through Vector Management........................................................ 4

III. REGULATORY OVERVIEW: 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 – Fouling 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

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD................................................ 107

IX. REFERENCES........................................................................................ 116
Abbreviations and Acronyms | viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill

ABRPI Aquatic Bioinvasions Research and Policy Institute

Act Marine Invasive Species Act (Chapter 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 Management

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 Milliliter
Abbreviations and Acronyms | ix

MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (New Zealand)

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO)

MGPS Marine Growth Prevention System

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

NAS 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 Oregon 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 Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program

TAG Technical Advisory Group 
Abbreviations 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 Resources
Section I. Purpose | 1

I. PURPOSE

This report was prepared for the California State Legislature pursuant to Public 

Resources Code (PRC) Section 71212. According to statute, the California State Lands 

Commission (Commission) shall prepare and update biennially, a report that includes 

an analysis of ballast water and vessel fouling management practices reported 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 effectiveness 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 activities 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 document 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 known 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 

release, 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 

introduced into United State (U.S.) waters (Weigel et al. 2005, Minchin 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 et 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 vessels (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 such 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 transported 
Section 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 America, 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 invasions 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 Estuary (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 moving 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 costs 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 disruptions 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 localized 
Section II. Introduction | 4

extirpation of native species (Martel 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 southern 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 amurensis) 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 to 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 addition 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. 2000b), 

including the transport of the toxogenic Vibrio cholerae serotype O1 from Latin America 

to Mobile Bay, Alabama in 1991, 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 have 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 the microbial indicators for fecal contamination (E. coli and intestinal enterococci) 

(Reid et al. 2007). 

Prevention Through Vector Management

Attempts to eradicate NIS after they have become widely distributed are often 

unsuccessful and costly (Carlton 2001). Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was 
Section 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 extremely 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. 2010). 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 efficacy, 

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 water 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, however, 

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 port (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 short 
Section II. Introduction | 6

voyages, 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 agencies 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 of 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 

progress. 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 reason, 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 water 
Section 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 developing 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 vessel 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 management 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-target 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 Organization 

(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, though 

they are generally less effective and their longevity is shorter than TBT (Lewis 2002). In 

addition, bans and restrictions on copper-based paints are being considered in a 

number of places. Biocide-free silicon-based coatings are available, but are more costly 

to apply and are currently only practically effective for active, swift vessels (those that 
Section II. Introduction | 8

cruise over 15 knots) (Lewis 2002, International Marine Coatings 2006). These 

coatings produce a slippery surface making it difficult for many fouling organisms 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 transport 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 usually 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 surveys 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 dockings, 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 Water Quality Certification 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 transported 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 the 
Section II. Introduction | 9

outer surface of vessel hulls are treated with 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 worn or unpainted areas (Coutts et al. 2003, 

Minchin and Gollasch 2003, Coutts and Taylor 2004, Davidson et al. 2009a), 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 the 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 the 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 of 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 as 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) with 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 into 
Section 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 coli

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

< 103bacteria/100 ml

< 104 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 Implementation Schedule (Table III.2) for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim Performance 

Standards and IMO Ballast Water Performance Standards.

[2] Final discharge standard 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 bacterial 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 in1

< 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 

Convention 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 implementation 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), on 
Section 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 Outside 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 ballast 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 to 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 treatment 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 normal 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 concluded
Section 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 sea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine resources, stretching out to 200 nautical miles from its 

coast; BW=Ballast Water; BWE=Ballast Water Exchange; BWT=Ballast Water Treatment

Country Arrivals 

Affected General Requirements 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 requirements 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 waters 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 2nd 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 

From within the Justice, 2006.

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 2010
Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 14

Table III-3 (Continued): National Ballast Water Management Requirements for Non-U.S. Countries 

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. The sea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine resources, stretching out to 200 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

Israel

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 Lloyd‟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” ballast 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 ballast 

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, 2009
Section 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, 

Oman, 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 

been taken onboard within 24 hours 

and at least 12 miles from shore.

Reporting Lloyd‟s 

Register, 2009

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. The sea zone over which a nation has jurisdiction over use of marine resources, stretching out to 200 nautical miles from its 

coast; BW=Ballast Water; BWE=Ballast Water Exchange; BWT=Ballast Water Treatment
Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 16

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 

court. 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 existing 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 the sea zone over which a nation has 

jurisdiction over use of marine resources, 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 vessels 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 Coast of the U.S. These vessels are required to 

conduct ballast water exchange 50 nm from shore in waters 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 ballast 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 

ballast water performance standards and for a U.S. type approval process for ballast 

water treatment systems. The proposed rule would implement two different standards 
Section 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 

required 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 

Convention 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 proposed 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 permit (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 gathering 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) Ecological Processes and Effect Committee which has been augmented 

with panel members with expertise in ballast water management in order to assess the 
Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 18

availability of ballast water treatment technologies. The SAB has met several times in 

2010 and has been gathering 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 will 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 approaches 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 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows states to 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 specifically 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 the 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 utilize 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 water 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 conduct 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 

In 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 sediments 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 midocean (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 the 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 must 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 DEQ 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). Additionally, 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 than 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 at 
Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 21

least 2000 m deep. Oregon‟s legislation also established the 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 (Hooff 2010). Exchange is not required for ballast water originating 

from within the common waters of Oregon, between 40o N and 50o 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 

state‟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 

travel 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 approvals. 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 that discharge ballast in Wisconsin waters must comply 

with the General Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge 
Section III. Regulatory Overview: Ballast Water | 22

Elimination System. The permit was established by the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR) under authority provided 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 Standard 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 treatment 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 adopted 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 coatings 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 potential 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. Though 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 organotin 

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 federal 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 action 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 to 
Section IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 24

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

Convention. 

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 antifouling 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 with 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 encouraged for internal seawater systems and sea chests 

(underwater compartments 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 documents were distributed in mid-2010 
Section IV. Regulatory Overview: Vessel Fouling | 25

describing 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 

implementation; 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 General 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 

discharge of fouling organisms and antifouling hull coatings, and the cleaning of copperbased 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 

implementing 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 Board 
Section 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 aquatic 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, monitor 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 requirement for vessels 

transiting between ports wholly within the U.S. EEZ, despite evidence that “intracoastal” 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 Legislature (see Falkner 

2003). The Act reauthorized, enhanced, and renamed the State‟s ballast water 

management program, 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 logbook specific to the vessel. A ballast water reporting form detailing the 
Section 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 adopt 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 California (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 within 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 Commission, 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 panel 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 that 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 ballast 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 completed
Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 29

AK

British Columbia 

(Canada)

WA

OR

CA

Mexico

United States EEZ (AK)

Southern Limit of the

Pacific Coast Region 

Canadian EEZ

United States EEZ 

Mexican EEZ 

Northwestern Limit of the

Pacific Coast Region 

Figure V.1. Exclusive Economic Zones of Pacific North America (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 determined 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 meet 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 required 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 available 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 the performance standards and will be ready to begin 
Section 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 Compliance 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 meet 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 determined

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 (3rd

column).

The most recent technology assessment 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 standards 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 performance standards. Vessels for 
Section 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 available 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 staff will prepare an update to the August 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 assessment 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 and 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 stringent 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 (see 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 require 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 Lands 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 compliance 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 samples 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 water treatment 

systems, information on the installation and use of systems will be needed to monitor 

compliance with the performance standards. Based on recommendations in Dobroski 

et al. (2009), Assembly Bill 248 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 2009) was passed 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 

two 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 staff 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 ballast water discharge piping. Most 
Section 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 that 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 sampling 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). Sampling 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 submitted 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 Governor signed Assembly Bill 740 (Chapter 370, Statutes of 

2007) which incorporated the recommendations in Takata et al. (2006), and further 

amended the Act to include provisions requiring the removal of fouling organisms from 

vessel hulls, piping, propellers, 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 fouling 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 was identified in the 2006 report to the Legislature as 

a critical need to help inform the development of any future management action(s). In 
Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 35

consultation with a fouling-specific technical advisory group, the Commission developed 

and adopted the Hull Husbandry 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 

ecology 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 

meetings 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 Division 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 international events. 

MISP Data Management

MISP data management staff tracks 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 

Program Administration

• Write programmatic reports and updates

• Develop policy recommendations

• Identify, coordinate and fund targeted research 

• Participate on NIS advisory groups and 

committees

Outreach and Education

• Inform shipping industry of ballast water 

and fouling management requirements

• Correspond with owners and agents to 

verify compliance

• Convene technical advisory groups

• Attend and present at local, state, federal 

and international conferences

Data Management

• Track all vessel arrivals to 

California

• QA/QC all ballast water and 

hull husbandry report forms

• Notify vessel agents and 

owners of delinquent forms

Field Operations

• Board vessels, inspect 

ballast management records

• Collect and record field 

samples

• Issue citations when 

appropriate 

Figure V.2. MISP Components and Associated Functions

vessels that neglect to submit forms. Between July 2008 and June 2010, over 18,000 

ballast 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 

inspection boarding. Data management staff is continual contact with ship officers and 

agents, relaying information about MISP requirements. Staff coordinates information 

requests with field operations staff, so inspectors can ensure that crew receive needed 

information when boarding vessels.

MISP data management staff also tracks Hull Husbandry Reporting Form (HHRF) 

submission and compliance. Submitted forms are reviewed for inconsistencies and are 
Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 37

then entered into the MISP database. MISP administrative staff 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 central 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 personnel. 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 inquiries 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 samples ballast tanks when discharge is 

intended. The samples are analyzed for salinity (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 because coastal regions tend to have more freshwater 

runoff. Coastal regions often exhibit lower salinities than open ocean water, which 
Section 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 vessel 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 working 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 role 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 block 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 designed 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 Marine 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 within 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 reduce 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 maritime 
Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 39

industry to evaluate current knowledge and guide policy recommendations. 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 regulatory 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 assembles

Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) to discuss 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 international 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 science, 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, keeping 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 ballast 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 assessments 

of ballast water treatment technologies. 

Administrative staff also represents the MISP at state, national and international 

conferences, advisory panels, and committees related to invasive species science and 

management. Such participation is particularly 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, and 
Section V. California’s Marine Invasive Species Program | 40

effectiveness by sharing successes and failures 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 (ANS) Task Force (Washington D.C.), the 

National Invasive Species Council (Washington D.C.), the North Sea Ballast Water 

Opportunity Workgroup (Germany, Sweden), the State of Washington‟s Ballast Water 

Working Group, the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force 

(Oregon), The Minnesota Invasive Species Conference, and the Great Lakes Ballast 

Water Collaborative. Administrative staff has also given programmatic presentations at 

numerous local, state, national and international science and management conferences, 

including (but not limited to): the International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, the 

International Conference 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 for 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 each component of the program exchanging information 

with various external stakeholder groups (Figure V.3). Program administration staff 

interacts primarily with science, policy, and decision making representatives to 

coordinate and develop improved management policies. Data management staff 

consults 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 officers 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 • Owners

• Agents

Vessel Officers & 

Crew

• International/ 

Federal/State/ Local Govt.

• CA Legislature

• NGOs

• Shipping Assns.

Scientific 

Research 

Community

Program 

Administration

Data Management

Field Operations

Figure V.3. MISP Information Exchange 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 diverse 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

VI. 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 

gross 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 ballast 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 enable 

Commission staff to assess vessel compliance and efficacy use of various ballast water 

management practices. This information is assessed for both coastal (within the Pacific 

Coast Region, or PCR) and foreign (arriving from outside of the PCR) vessel traffic to 

California ports. The PCR extends from approximately Cooks Inlet, Alaska (154° west 

longitude) to 3⁄4 down the Baja Peninsula (25° north latitude) and 200 nm offshore (see 

Figure V.1). Reporting and ballast water management requirements are also assessed 

at two geographic scales: statewide and local port system. Through the original 
Section 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). 

Humboldt Bay

Richmond

Carquinez

Stockton

Redwood

Monterey

Oakland

San Francisco

Sacramento

Santa Barbara Port Hueneme

El Segundo

Los Angeles/Long Beach

Avalon/Catalina

San Diego

Moss Landing

Camp Pendleton

Carpinteria

Morro Bay

Figure VI.1. California Port Zones
Section 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 and 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).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 2004a 2004b 2005a 2005b 2006a 2006b 2007a 2007b 2008a 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a Number of Forms 

Year

Delinquent

Late

On Time

Figure VI.2. Compliance with requirement to submit 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 Forms, 

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 during 

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.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000 2004a 2004b 2005a 2005b 2006a 2006b 2007a 2007b 2008a 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a Number of Qualifying Voyages (QVs)

Year

Figure VI.3. Number of qualifying voyage (QV) arrivals to California ports

(a = January to June, b = July 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 of coastal to foreign vessel 

traffic for each port. As with previous years, the LA-LB Port Complex leads the state in 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 46

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800 Humboldt Sacramento Stockton Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Oakland Redwood Hueneme El Segundo LA-LB Avalon/Catalina San Diego Number of QVs

Coastal

Foreign

2008b

A

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800 Humboldt Sacramento Stockton Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Oakland Redwood Hueneme El Segundo LA-LB Avalon/Catalina San Diego Number of QVs

Arrival Port

Coastal

Foreign

2009a

B

Figure VI.4. Distribution of qualifying voyage (QV) arrivals by port. Coastal voyages 

originate from Pacific Coast Region (PCR) ports, foreign voyages originate from nonPCR ports (see Figure V.1 for map of PCR).
Section VI. Data Analysis | 47

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800 Humboldt Sacramento Stockton Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Oakland Redwood Hueneme El Segundo LA-LB Avalon/Catalina San Diego Number of QVs

Coastal

Foreign

2009b

C

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800 Humboldt Sacramento Stockton Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Oakland Redwood Hueneme El Segundo LA-LB Avalon/Catalina San Diego Number of QVs

Arrival Port

Coastal

Foreign

2010a

D

Figure VI.4 (contined). Distribution of qualifying voyage (QV) arrivals by port. Coastal 

voyages originate from Pacific Coast Region (PCR) ports, foreign voyages originate 

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 comparable 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, this 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 traffic 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 2006b2008a, 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 varies 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). Auto 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 49

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Percent of Total QVs

California

Auto

Bulk

Container

General

Other

Passenger

Tank

Unmanned Barge

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

LA-LB Oakland Average Number QVs Per Six Months

Arrival Port

Auto

Bulk

Container

General

Other

Passenger

Tank

Unmanned Barge

A

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450 Humboldt Sacramento Stockton Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Redwood Hueneme El Segundo Avalon/Catalina San Diego Average Number of QVs Per Six Months

Arrival Port

Auto

Bulk

Container

General

Other

Passenger

Tank

Unmanned Barge

B

Figure VI.6. Average Number of Arrivals per Six-Month Period by Vessel 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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% Percent of Total QVs

Last Port of Call

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

2010a)

Ballast 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, 

environmental 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 

frame 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 NIS 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 52

introduction risks 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 discharging) increased to a high of 86% in 2007, and since 2008 has leveled off at 

84% (Figure VI.8).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a Percent of Total QVs

Year

Discharge

Retain

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 

discharged 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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 2004a 2004b 2005a 2005b 2006a 2006b 2007a 2007b 2008a 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a Total Volume of Ballast Water Discharged (MMT)

Year

Figure VI.9. Total Volume Ballast Water Discharged (metric tons; MT)

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000 2004a 2004b 2005a 2005b 2006a 2006b 2007a 2007b 2008a 2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a Number of QVs Discharging Ballast Ave. Volume (MT) Ballast Water Discharged Per QV

Year

Ave. Volume 

Discharged Per QV

# QVs Discharging

Figure VI.10. Average volume (MT) of Ballast Water Discharged 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 volume 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 average, 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 California, 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 average 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 volumes 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 of QVs and Discharge Patterns by Vessel Type (2008b 

– 2010a). 

Vessel Type

Average 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.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000 Volume of Discharged Balalst Water (MT)

Vessel Type

2006b

2007a

2007b

2008a

2008b

2009a

2009b

2010a

Figure VI.11. Total Volume of Ballast Water (metric tons; MT) Discharged per SixMonth Period as a Function of Vessel Type. (a = January to June, b = July to 

December)

The data collected on the Ballast Water Reporting 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 expected 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 large 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 56

numbers of discharging vessels from both coastal 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 Origin 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 Foreign 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 14

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

The number of QVs discharging 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 less 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 coastal 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 Carquinez.

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 transport 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 potential for

intraregional transport of introduced species across 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 (biological, 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 = July 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

Percent 

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 Segundo 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% 5,066,737
Section 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 

intended 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 an 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 waters) 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-ocean 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 discharged 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 water 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 California 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.12). When examined over a longer

temporal 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 (Figure 

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 ballast 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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 2006b

2007a2007b2008a2008b2009a2009b2010a

Ballast Water Discharged

(Million MT)

Compliant

Noncompliant

Figure VI.12. Volume (million metric tons, MMT) of Compliant and Noncompliant 

Ballast Water (BW) Discharged by Six-Month Period Since July 2006. Includes only 

compliance of discharging 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 ballast 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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

Volume Noncompliant Ballast Water Discharged

(in Million Metric Tons)

Exchanged in Wrong Location

Did Not Exchange

Exchange Location Unknown

Figure VI.13. Volume (million metric tons; MMT) of Noncompliant Ballast Water (BW) 

Discharged by Violation 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 10 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 distance 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 ballast 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 noncompliant discharges. 

Excluding 2010a, bulkers accounted for between 32.8%-35.8% of noncompliant 
Section 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). Despite 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.12). 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

Volume of Noncompliant BW Discharged (in MMT)

Tank

Bulk

Container

General

Other

Passenger

Auto

Figure VI.14. Volumes of Noncompliant Ballast Water (BW) by Vessel Type (a = 

January to June, b = July 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 vessels 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 discharges 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 ballast 

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 was 

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 arrivals. 

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 noncompliant 

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 information 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 California
Section VI. Data Analysis | 65

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

Volume Noncompliant BW in MMT - Incl. Barges

Tank

Bulk

Barge**

Container

General

Other

Passenger

Auto

**

**

** **

Figure VI.15. Volumes 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)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Volume of Ballast Water Discharged by Barges

2008b 2009a 2009b 2010a

(MMT)

Compliant

Exchanged in the Wrong Location

Did Not Exchange 

Figure VI.16. Volumes (million metric tons, MMT) of All Ballast Water 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 Mexican EEZ. This proportion ranged from 61.3% (2009b) to 73.6% (2009a) of 

all ballast discharged. The relative dominance of these two 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 Coast), 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 VI.17 – VI.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 implementation 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 at 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 of
Section VI. Data Analysis | 67

Figure VI.17. Source of Noncompliant Ballast Water (2008b; July-December 2008). 

Numerals in parentheses denote number of vessels.

Figure VI.18. Source of Noncompliant Ballast Water (2009a; January-June 2009). 

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

Figure VI.19. Source 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 vessels

 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 69

noncompliant 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 slightly different source pattern. The U.S. West Coast accounted

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 California, 77.7% in 2009a, 74.2% in 2009b, and 64.0% in 2010a. 

During 2008a - 2010b, vessel 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 introduction 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 California from other ports in other West 

Coast 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 water
Section VI. Data Analysis | 70

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Alaska

Asia

Canada

Central 

America

Hawaii

Mexico

Other

Pacific

Russia

U.S. West 

Coast

Unknown

Volume Unexchange BW Discharged (in MMT)

2008b

2009a

2009b

2010a

Figure VI.21. Sources 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 the 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 decreasing 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.22). Though the number of qualifying voyages has also 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 71

decreased since 2006a, the fact that the proportion of arrivals out of compliance 

continues to decrease demonstrates that compliance on a vessel-by-vessel basis has 

continually improved. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006b2007a2007b2008a2008b2009a2009b2010a

Proportions of Compliant and 

Noncompliant Discharging Arrivals 

Compliant 

Dischargers

Noncompliant

Figure VI.22. Proportions 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 

administrative 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 reading
Section VI. Data Analysis | 72

Table VI.4. Vessel Inspections 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. Operational 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 violation 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 84% of the qualifying voyages into California manage 

their ballast water retaining all ballast on board, and 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 fouling 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 of 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 73

fouling organisms associated with commercial ships, as well as the husbandry and 

voyage characteristics of the fleet operating along the U.S. West Coast. In response to 

some of the recommendations made in that report, the State Legislature developed and 

passed Assembly Bill 740 (Chapter 370, Statutes 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-related 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, scientific 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: one 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 California 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 water 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 Compliance for Hull Husbandry Reporting Form Commission 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. 24 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 fleet 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, both
Section VI. Data Analysis | 75

Container

32.8%

Tank

25.1%

Bulk

15.4%

Auto

14.1%

General

7.2%

Passenger

3.4%

Unmanned Barge

1.2%

Other

0.8%

2008 Population of Vessels

(a)

Container

30.2%

Tank

23.8%

Bulk

20.1%

Auto

11.1%

General

9.1%

Passenger

2.8%

Unmanned Barge

1.4%

Other

1.5%

2009 Population of Vessels

(b)

Figure VI.24. Population Breakdown of Unique Vessels Submitting 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 

occurred. 

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 71204(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 young age of the antifouling coatings and 

reduced time for heavy colonization and succession, vessels which have been newly 

built (i.e. vessels built within past five years and which have not been dry docked, 

Figure VI.25. Total Number of Vessels (and Percent of Entire Fleet) Delivered as New 

or Cleaned and Coated During Dry Dock Within Each of the Past Five Years.
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 coatings 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 out 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‟ vessels) averaged less than 1.5 years since their 

underwater surfaces were last cleaned 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 fleet was 1.7 years (Figure VI.26).

Figure VI.26. Average (+ standard deviation) Number of Years Since Vessels‟ (by type) 

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

Physical removal of fouling organisms from submerged vessel surfaces 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 become 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 inwater cleaning, the only vessel class that had more than 15% percent of their fleet 

undergoing this type of treatment were the passenger vessels (24.5%; Figure VI.27).

Figure VI.27. Percent of Vessels That Have Conducted In-Water Cleaning on 

Submerged Surfaces Since Delivery or Last Dry Docking. IW=In-Water
Section VI. Data Analysis | 79

About a quarter 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 Vessels Cleaned In-Water by Geographic Region.

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 are most frequently copperbased. Over 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 foulingrelease mechanism. Organisms are not expected to adhere tightly to these surfaces 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 80

and therefore „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 biocide-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 and other niche areas (where flow velocities are likely to be reduced). 

Figure VI.29. Number and Percent of Vessels Using Various Antifouling Coating 

Strategies. “Combination” refers to application of both biocide-based and biocide-free 

coatings to different 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 organisms from accumulating 
Section 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. From 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. Sea chests 

have been recognized as a very important transport mechanism (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 specificity 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 Have a Marine Growth Prevention System 

(MGPS) Installed Within the Sea Chest(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 Commercial Fleet in California

In addition to hull-husbandry practices, certain 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 vessels 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 (+SD) traveling speed of 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) Traveling Speed for Each Vessel Type. 

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 an 
Section 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.32). 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). Three 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 Residency Time for Each Vessel 

Type. 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 maritime 

trade, at one point forcing 10.6% of the worldwide containership fleet into extended

layup (anchor) (Pacific Maritime Magazine 2009). Extended layups are important 
Section VI. Data Analysis | 84

because longer and more frequent idle periods represent a higher potential for fouling 

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 layup 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, therefore 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 disproportionately 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 declines 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 Vessel Type. Layups 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 increases, 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.34. Per Capita Percent Increase in Number of Extended Layups from 2008 to

2009. Layups 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 current 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. Therefore 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 removing 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 the 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 antifouling 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 and 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 addition 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 2009 

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 used 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 quantity 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 Submission 

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 Marine 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 analysis 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 of 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 

Reported1

Total 

Voyages

Fees 

Billed

Fees 

Reported1 Total Fees

Payments 

Recd. for 

Period2

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 3,296,523

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 20103

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

1Returns are due at the end of the month following the period of activity. 2Actual cash received may exceed amount billed 

due to penalty and interest charges. 3Amounts may be understated until return processing is complete. 
Section VII. Research | 89

VII. RESEARCH

Funded and Collaborative Research

PRC Section 71201 declares that 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 approach 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 the 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 technologies 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. 

Vessel 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 being 
Section 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 ships 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

durations since dry-docking. The 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, the fact that the 

condition, viability, and reproductive status of fouling organisms that 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. 2009c)

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 organisms 

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) affect
Section 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 

concentration 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 may 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 organisms decreased two-fold and the numbers of species (diversity) decreased 

eight-fold after treatment 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 treatment by releasing eggs 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 alter 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. 2009a)

In an attempt to characterize vessel fouling patterns (organism abundance and species 

composition) on vessels travelling on short coastal voyages within the U.S. Pacific West 

Coast (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 cutter 

was also sampled in dry dock. As with previous studies, they found that fouling was 

unevenly distributed across vessel submerged surfaces, with areas sheltered from 
Section 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 ladder 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 considerable 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 USCG Cutter which had extensive 

fouling across all hull surfaces (80% cover). This was probably related to extended layup periods the vessel spent in the warm waters of Hawaii, where fouling is thought to 

accumulate more quickly. 

The main findings from this report pointed towards two problematic areas: the heavilyfouled vessels encountered in many studies, but composing 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 

organisms 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. However, 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. Many 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 recipient 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 vessels 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 (Recently 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 salinity 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 expected 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 provide real-time determinations of ballast water exchange.

 

Inspectors 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 measurements 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 pilot 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...Priority 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, Commission staff 
Section 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 system 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 Environmental 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 performance 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 system 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 biological efficacy testing for 
Section 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 Commission 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 deoxygenation 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 under certain operating conditions (Tamburri et al. 2005). The 

project was initially approved for funding 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 in the fall of 2008, and the vessel was accepted into the 

USCG STEP in May of 2010. Installation 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 Program 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 shipboard 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 dockside 

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. This 

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 viability. 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 performance 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 available 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 report 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 ranges 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 intended 

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 CDFG-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 program 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 surveys 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 has 
Section VII. Research | 99

extracted and sequenced the DNA from voucher specimens received. Wholecommunity 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 CDFG-MISP resumed a four-year cycle of large-scale field surveys of NIS 

in California 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 was completed in the summer of 2010 and is currently undergoing taxonomic 

analysis.

The CDFG-MISP staff collaborated with Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

(SERC) staff on a journal article entitled “Marine invasion history and vector analysis of 

California: a hotspot for western North America.” Results indicate that California, 

especially San Francisco Bay, plays a pivotal role in marine invasions for western North 

America, providing an entry point from which many NIS spread. Of the 290 

nonindigenous 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, suggesting northward spread. Of 257 nonindigenous species 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.

CDFG is also involved with research projects aimed towards supplementing survey 

work with improved identification protocols 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 of 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 MISP 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 fouling 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 through exchange, 

and for developing improved management tools. Several studies examined subcomponents to this topic, including the quantity, condition, and community composition 

of organisms transported in ballast water. 

Cordell et al. (2009) sampled 380 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 exchange 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 conducting exchange at legally required distances. Higher 

densities were found on shorter voyages that originated from nearby Canadian, Alaskan 

or U.S. West Coast ports. Similarly, McCollin et al. (2008) found that while zooplankton 

decreased with ballast water 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 risk particularly on short, regional voyages, and Cordell 
Section 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 protective 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 protective stages. 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 tanks 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 sediments 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, including 

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, bacterial 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 one 
Section VII. Research | 102

coastal environment to another. Tomaru et al. (2009) evaluated changes in abundance 

as well as bacterial community 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. AguirrerMacedo et al. (2008) found high concentrations of bacteria pathogenic to both humans 

and corals in tanker vessels 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 toxigenic to humans (Pseudo-nitzchia, Skeletonema).

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 

highlight 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 

Coast port systems of San Francisco Bay, LA-Long Beach (LA-LB), Lower Columbia 

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 port 
Section VII. Research | 103

systems examined), discharging 27% of all ballast water discharged 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 

ballast water that is moved from LA-LB to the other West Coast port systems. In the 

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 Coast areas, regardless if 

exchange was conducted. In this estimate, domestically travelling articulated tugbarges/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 understanding 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 m3) 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 (2009) investigated applied 
Section 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 conducted 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 experience some

disturbance as well as high dosages (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, longer 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 submerged wetted 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 18 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 also 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 indicate 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 in 
Section 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 fleets 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 congressionally mandated decommissioning and 

deconstruction represents a high risk for NIS transfer and release. Davidson et al. 

(2008) examined the utility of in-water scrubbing to reduce 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 might be effective.

Quantity and Diversity of Fouling Organisms on Vessels

Several studies surveyed the extent 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 container 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. 2009b). 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 Sea 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. Thirteen species were NIS to Singapore where the 
Section 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 MacIssac (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 one 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 FORWARD

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 (Dobroski 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 regulations 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 the 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 compliance with ballast water management regulations

Even though 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 compliance 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 water has accounted for a smaller and smaller proportion of all 

ballast water discharges through the years, from 31.7% of all noncompliant ballast water 
Section 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 majority 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 potentially higher risk for introduction to the State 

because there has be no attempt at ballast water management. Because 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 California from other ports in other West Coast 

states. In addition, several 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 organisms 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 materials 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 West Coast 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. 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 

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 Standards

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 for 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 all 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 

forward 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 

the 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 

believes 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 scientific 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 of 
Section 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 action either by the Legislature 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 

scientific advisory panel, and will make recommendations to the Legislature based on 

the outcome of these meetings. 

Finally, Commission staff continues to recognize that the assessment of available 

treatment technologies requires involvement and investment by the 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 working 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 development 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 is 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, installations 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 allowing 

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 

monitor 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 knowledge 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. 

Compile and analyze data related to vessel hull husbandry

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. 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 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 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 regulations 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 regulations governing the management of fouling for vessels operating 

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-related 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 niche 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) regularly 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 long stationary periods in 

coastal environments and slow traveling speeds. 

Niche areas are protected nooks and crannies on a vessel, or areas not protected by 

antifouling paint, that facilitate the settlement and survival of fouling organisms.

Because these areas do not experience the same harsh environmental conditions as 

the exposed hull, organisms may accumulate into very dense and diverse communities.

Commission staff believes these two areas of concern are not adequately addressed by 

current requirements 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 these 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 of Agreement (MOAs) with international agencies working in 

parallel with the Commission in developing fouling management strategies

Over the past several years, the scientific and regulatory communities have become 

more aware of the important role of vessel fouling 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 time, 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 agencies 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 husbandry 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 states and countries. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have 

developed prototype tools for evaluating fouling risk vessels arriving to their waters. 

Commission staff believes formalizing MOAs would enable better communication, 

cooperation, and information sharing with these international agencies. 

Support research 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 

ensure 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 paints 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 activity 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 invasion 
Section 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 

practice 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 vessels 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 inwater 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 quality 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 harsher 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 within 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 areas, 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. Environmental 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 discharges 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 Permit, 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 Vessel 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 prevention 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 countries. 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 Ships‟ 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/. Accessed: 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 Legislature. 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, Netherlands. 

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 United 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 invasion 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 biofouling 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. 

Factors 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 modern 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 Freshwater 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. Hewitt, 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 multispecies 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 marine 

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 Research 

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 Ballast 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 Ballast 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 marine 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 Commission, 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. California 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 Marine 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 

State 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. Coutts. Potential ramifications of the global economic crisis on humanmediated 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? 

Mechanisms 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 Management 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 

exposure 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 168: 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.internationalmarine.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.

International 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 bryozoans. 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 ballast 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 antifouling 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. Lewis. 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 Environment 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 Center). 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: The 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 Biological 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 

Ecology 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: alternative 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 ballast 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-invasive 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 Ballast 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 

management 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 Bay, 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 importance 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 ballast 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 spread 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 

prokaryotes 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.

Takata., 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.

Tamburri 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 November 2010. Website: 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49224.

Tomaru, A., M. Kawachi, M., Demura, Y. Fukuyo. 2010. Denaturing gradient gel 

electrophoresis shows 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 via 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 Series, 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 factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and 

dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 176: 243-251.