2009 Summary Of Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Report

Feb 25: The U.S. Coast Guard has announced that the 2009 Summary of Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Management report compiled by the Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) is now available. The BWWG is comprised of representatives of the Coast Guard, Transport Canada - Marine Safety, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

    According to a brief announcement, "Preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes through stricter ballast water standards and a comprehensive enforcement policy is a top priority for the U. S. Coast Guard. In 2009, 100% of ships bound for the Great Lakes via the Seaway received a ballast tank exam. A total of 5450 ballast tanks onboard 295 different ships were sampled and had a 97.9% compliance rate. Ships that failed to properly manage their ballast tanks were required to either retain the ballast water and residuals on board, treat the ballast water in an environmentally sound and approved manner, or return to sea to conduct a ballast water exchange. The BWWG anticipates continued high ship compliance rates for the 2010 navigation season.

 

    The report indicates that, "Today, ballast water management requirements in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway System are among the most stringent in the world. Mandatory ballast water regulations that include saltwater flushing, detailed documentation requirements, increased inspections, and civil penalties provide a comprehensive regulatory enforcement regime to protect the Great Lakes Seaway System. USCG regulations, and the Seaway no ballast onboard (NOBOB) regulation, require all vessels destined for Seaway and Great Lakes ports from beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to exchange all their ballast tanks at sea. As a result, the risk of a ballast water mediated introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes has been mitigated to extremely low levels."

 

    Access the announcement (click here). Access the 13-page summary report (click here).

NY Appeals Court Upholds States' Ballast Regulations

Feb 4: A release from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlights a New York State appellate court ruling that dismissed a challenge brought by shipping interests against what they say are the State's tough new ballast water requirements, designed to limit the introduction of more invasive species into the Great Lakes. NRDC points out that this is the second time that the State, with help from intervening NGOs, has successfully defended the ballast water restrictions in court. Legal experts at NRDC and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) hailed the win as a huge victory for states in the region that have taken an aggressive stand to limit dumping of water containing biological pollution from ocean going vessels. They indicated that alien species have already cost the Great Lakes economy billions of dollars.

 

    Due to the incredible environmental threat posed by invasive species, lawyers from NRDC intervened in the shipping industry lawsuit alongside the State of New York, representing NWF. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, rejected shipping industry arguments that the New York ballast water regulations were illegal because they were stricter than the U.S. EPA's nationwide discharge permit. Marc Smith, Policy Manager with NWF said, "Today's court decision is an important victory in the ongoing saga to protect our majestic Great Lakes from invasive species. Requiring the shipping industry to install effective protections against these invaders is long over-due. Now more than ever do we need aggressive federal action to help reinforce New York's leadership to ensure a more comprehensive defense policy against invasive species."

 

    The New York court's ruling that states have authority to adopt ballast water rules that are more protective than Federal standards is consistent with the decision last year in a lower state court as well as the Sixth Circuit Federal appeals court in Cincinnati to uphold Michigan's ballast water rules against a similar shipping industry challenge. NRDC and NWF also intervened in those cases, along with other environmental groups, to defend the challenged rules. 

    Access a release from NRDC and link to the court ruling and related information (click here).

Groups Challenge Wisconsin Ballast Water Standards

Jan 15: The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation (WWF) announced they had filed a legal challenge that claims the State of Wisconsin’s new ballast water discharge permit violates State law and won’t prevent freighters from importing more invasive species, like zebra mussels, into the Great Lakes. Neil Kagan, senior attorney at NWF's Great Lakes Regional Center said, "Compliance with the Wisconsin ballast water discharge standards would not prevent invasive species from entering Wisconsin waters. Wisconsin officials have said prevention is the best way to protect the Great Lakes from new invasive species, but the state’s ballast water discharge standards won’t prevent new invasions. The state’s failure to follow its own laws to protect water quality is the basis of our lawsuit.”

NWF said Wisconsin released ballast water discharge standards in a permit in November. The permit, which is set to take effect February 1, would require ocean freighters to treat ballast water, but said "the discharge standards are too weak to be effective." They said the final permit is weaker than the draft version and contains a loophole that would allow ships to fall back to the weakest discharge standards. "The permit runs counter to a State law that prohibits degradation of Wisconsin’s waters."

The groups indicated that the Federal government has not enacted ballast water discharge standards despite numerous agencies working on the problem for the past two decades. The U.S. Coast Guard recently proposed national ballast water treatment standards [See WIMS 10/2/09; WIMS 8/31/09].

Access a lengthy release from NWF with additional information (click here). Access more information from NWF's Great Lakes Regional Center website (click here).

HOW Coalition Says Coast Guard Action On Invasive "Too Slow"

Oct 2: The U.S. Coast Guard is holding a hearing in Chicago, on a proposed rule to protect the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters from the introduction of aquatic invasive species via ballast water discharge. Hearings were also held in Seattle, WA (September 28) and New Orleans, LA (September 30). Additional hearings will be held in Washington, DC (October 8), Oakland, CA (October 27) and New York, NY (October 29). The comment period on the proposed rulemaking for Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters [74 FR 44631-44672, 8/28/09]; and a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the standards [74 FR 44673-44674, 8/28/09] ends on November 27, 2009.

Andy Buchsbaum, co-chair of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, commented on the proposed regulations and said, “Invasive species from ballast water have infected the Great Lakes like a cancer. We need strong medicine to stop this disease, and we need it fast. The Coast Guard rule could be that medicine -- but right now it’s too slow and it has too many loopholes. The Coast Guard has set a standard that is as environmentally protective as the toughest state law. That’s good. But the timeline for implementing the standard is weak. Ocean-going ships could avoid complying until after 2020. And there are loopholes that extend the deadline even farther. The Great Lakes will be irreparably damaged by that time.

Access a release from HOW (click here). Access the HOW website for more information (click here). Access the proposed rule FR announcement (click here). Access the draft PEIS FR announcement (click here). Access the combined docket USCG-2001-10486 for both actions for complete background and to submit and review comments (click here).

Proposed Rules & PEIS For Ballast Discharge Standards

Aug 28: The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters [74 FR 44631-44672, 8/28/09]; and a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the standards [74 FR 44673-44674, 8/28/09].

In the proposed rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations on ballast water management by establishing standards for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ships' ballast water discharged in U.S. waters. The Coast Guard also proposes to amend its regulations for approving engineering equipment by establishing an approval process for ballast water management systems. The Coast Guard says the new regulations would aid in controlling the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species from ships discharging ballast water in U.S. waters.

The availability of a Draft PEIS for the rulemaking provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed establishment of ballast water discharge standards. The standards would be used to approve alternative ballast water management methods that are effective in preventing or reducing the introduction of nonindigenous species via discharged ballast water into United States waters. Comments and related material on the proposed rules and the draft PEIS must be submitted on or before November 27, 2009.

Access the proposed rule FR announcement (click here). Access the draft PEIS FR announcement (click here). Access the combined docket USCG-2001-10486 for both actions (click here).

2008 Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Report

Apr 1: The Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) has released the Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Report. The BWWG report was compiled by the Great Lakes Seaway Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG), comprised of representatives of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), Transport Canada - Marine Safety (TCMS), and the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC).

The group’s mandate is to develop, enhance, and coordinate binational enforcement and compliance efforts to reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species via ballast water. The BWWG is actively engaged and providing an energetic response to calls for tougher ballast water regulation of ocean-going ships transiting the Seaway.

According to a release the report shows a notable increase in the number of ballast tank inspections of oceangoing commercial ships entering the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System from outside U.S. or Canadian waters. The 2008 report includes a marked improvement over the prior year's inspection program statistics in a number of areas, including ship compliance rates. Some of those highlights of the report: - 99% of ships bound for the Great Lakes Seaway received a ballast tank exam compared to 74% from 2007; - A total of 6704 ballast tanks, onboard 364 different ships, were sampled and had a 98.6% compliance rate compared to 95% in 2007; - In addition, 100% of ballast water reporting forms were screened to assess ballast water history, compliance, voyage information and proposed discharge location; and,

- Ships with non-compliant ballast tanks were required to take one of several options: (1) retain the ballast water and residuals on board, (2) treat the ballast water in an environmentally sound and approved manner, or (3) conduct a ballast water exchange at sea.

The report concludes, "For any regulatory regime to be effective, all the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway must be treated as a single system. The only way to ensure consistent ballast discharge regulations across the Great Lakes Seaway System is to have strong federally mandated standards managed by unified federal agency coordination between Canada and the U.S. A patchwork of state or province led regulatory ballast water regimes within the Great Lakes Seaway increases the legal, operational and administrative burden of inconsistent regulations and negatively impacts ship compliance and operation. Even worse, is that this suite of regulations would effectively deter ships from transiting or completing loading/unloading operations in some state waters. The current high effectiveness of ballast water exchange coupled with the BWWG’s aggressive enforcement of current regulations and the high industry compliance rate minimize the urgency for state involvement in ballast water regulation. Further impediments to ship trade will make the shipping industry and the associated economic stimulus even less viable in the future."

Access a release from the Coast Guard with links to the participating organizations (click here). Access the complete 14-page report (click here).

$1 Million In FY09 Budget For Invasive Species Program

Mar 12: According to a release from the Northeast-Midwest Institute (NEMW), the FY 09 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105), approved by Congress and signed by the President, includes nearly $1 million in new funds toward preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes. The funds go to the Great Ships Initiative (GSI), a collaborative effort to hasten shipping free of invasive species on the Great Lakes.

Managed and implemented cooperatively by the Northeast-Midwest Institute and the University of Wisconsin Superior, GSI generates much needed independent evaluations of proposed ballast treatments performance and toxicity in fresh water. As regulatory authorities gear up to require ballast treatment prior to discharge into natural waters, the research outcomes are of keen interest regionally, domestically and internationally. As a result of this broad interest, the GSI works collaboratively with state and Federal agencies in the United States to generate important information for regulatory decision-making, and with international maritime groups to evaluate treatment effectiveness.

Meanwhile, NEMW reports that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) set deadlines for treatment systems to be operated by ships to a numeric performance standard, but there has been little or no testing in fresh water. Proposed treatment systems include ozone, ultra violet irradiation, chemical additives, deoxygenation, and filtration, usually in some combination. The new funds will help the Great Ships Initiative evaluate promising treatments during the 2009 testing season.

Access a release from NEMW (click here). Access legislative details on H.R. 1105 (click here).

New Vessel General Permit Compliance Delayed Until Feb. 6

On December 18, U.S. EPA announced a new 2008 Vessel General Permit (VGP) that would reduce releases of 26 types of discharges from vessels operating in U.S. waters [See WIMS 12/19/08]. The regulation affects, approximately 61,000 domestically flagged commercial vessels and 8,000 foreign flagged vessels that will need to comply with the permit. The VGP was to take effect on December 19, 2008; however, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California signed an order providing that "the exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, contained in 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(a), is vacated as of February 6, 2009." Therefore, the regulated community need not comply with the terms of the new permit until February 6, 2009. More information on how the court order affects the "effective date" and other dates in the permit is available from the prepublication copies of the Federal Register Notices available from the website below.

Access extensive information on the Final Vessel General Permit including prepublication copies of the regulations and a fact sheet (click here).

EPA Announces New General Permit For Water Discharges

Dec 18: U.S. EPA announced a new general permit will reduce releases of 26 types of discharges from vessels operating in U.S. waters. Beginning December 19, approximately 61,000 domestically flagged commercial vessels and 8,000 foreign flagged vessels will need to comply with the permit. As a result of a court ruling, vessel owners and operators who have previously been exempt from Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements for the last 35 years will now require a permit starting December 19. EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles said, “EPA met the deadline and delivered a protective and practical permit to protect the nation’s waterways from ship-borne pollution and to avoid an environmental and economic shipwreck." EPA said without the permit, all shipping within U.S. waters could come to a halt because of liability risks.

The permit covers non-recreational vessels 79 feet in length or longer, such as cruise ships or oil and cargo tankers, but excludes fishing vessels of any length, unless they discharge ballast water. The new permit incorporates the Coast Guard’s mandatory ballast water management and exchange standards, and provides technology-based and water-quality-based effluent limits for other types of discharges, including deck runoff from rain or cleaning, ballast water used to stabilize ships and “gray water” from showers, sinks and laundry machines. It also establishes specific corrective actions, inspections and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Earlier in the year, Congress responded to the court ruling in part by enacting a law to exempt recreational vessels from the permitting requirement and requiring further analysis and action by EPA and the Coast Guard.

Access a brief release from EPA (click here). Access extensive information on the Final Vessel General Permit (click here).

Fednav et al., v. Steven E. Chester (MI DEQ)

Nov 21: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 07-2083. In the case of Fednav et al., v. Steven E. Chester, et al, the Appeals Court unanimously upheld the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division decision of Judge John Feikens [Case No. 07-11116, See WIMS 8/16/07] that ruled that Michigan's Ballast Water Statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(6), is constitutional. The case challenging the Michigan law was brought by nine shipping companies and associations. Defendants in the case were Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Director Steven Chester and Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox. Four environmental and conservation organizations intervened in the case supporting the State's position including: Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC); Alliance for the Great Lakes (Alliance); National Wildlife Federation (NWF); and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). . .

Access the complete article on the WIMS Environmental Appeals Court Blog (click here).

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Interim Regs Delayed

Oct 28: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Register notice [73 FR 63867] to delay the effective date of its interim regulations announced on September 9 [[73 FR 52173-52189, See WIMS 9/9/08] to restrict the interstate movement and importation into the United States of live fish that are susceptible to viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), the highly contagious disease of certain fresh and saltwater fish.

APHIS indicated that the interim rule which was scheduled to become effective on November 10, 2008, will be delayed until January 9, 2009. The delay will provide APHIS with time "to consider all comments and make some adjustments to the interim rule that may be necessary in order to successfully implement it."

In its notice to delay the effective date, APHIS said, "Since publication of the interim rule, we have received comments that address a variety of issues. These issues include the feasibility of the requirement in the interim rule for a visual inspection of regulated fish 72 hours prior to shipment, the provision that Interstate Certificates of Inspection allowing interstate movement of live fish will be valid for 30 days from the date of issuance, and the provision that laboratory testing is valid for 30 days from the date of sample collection for fish held in a water source that is not a secure water source.

"Based on our review of the comments received to date, we consider it advisable to delay the effective date of the interim rule from November 10, 2008, until January 9, 2009, while retaining November 10, 2008, as the close of the comment period for the interim rule and October 9, 2008, as the close of the comment period for the environmental assessment. This additional time will allow APHIS to consider all comments and make some adjustments to the interim rule that may be necessary in order to successfully implement it."

In its original Interim Rule announcement, APHIS indicated that ballast water is a potential pathway for VHS virus; however, APHIS said it "has neither the regulatory authority nor the technical expertise to safely regulate ballast water discharge. Therefore, we do not address ballast water in this interim rule. APHIS will assist the U.S. Coast Guard, which has clear regulatory authority for ballast water, in their development of ballast water discharge standards."

Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the docket for this action to review and submit comments and access documents including the EA and economic assessment (click here). Access a list of species regulated by the order (click here).

Regs To Control Spread Of VHS Warn Of Ballast Water Pathway

Sep 9: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Register notice [73 FR 52173-52189] establishing interim regulations to restrict the interstate movement and importation into the United States of live fish that are susceptible to viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), a highly contagious disease of certain fresh and saltwater fish. In 2005 and 2006, VHS was detected in freshwater fish in several of the Great Lakes and related tributaries. The disease has been responsible for several large-scale die-offs of wild fish in the Great Lakes region. APHIS said the action is necessary to prevent further introductions into, and dissemination within, the United States of VHS. The Interim Rule is scheduled to become effective November 10, 2008, and comments on the interim rule are due on or before November 10, 2008. Comments on the separate environmental assessment (EA) document are due on or before October 9, 2008.

On October 24, 2006, APHIS issued a Federal Order prohibiting the importation of VHS-susceptible species of live fish from two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) into the United States and the interstate movement of the same species of live fish from the eight States bordering the Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). At the time the Federal Order was issued, only three States (Michigan, New York, and Ohio) had been affected by VHS within the jurisdictional borders of their States. Following various meetings and consultations, a modified Federal Order was issued which established conditions under which VHS-susceptible species of live fish could be moved from the eight States bordering the Great Lakes.

On May 4, 2007, APHIS modified the Federal Order to allow for the catch-and-release of VHS-susceptible regulated fish in waters that cross State and international boundaries. On November 8, 2007, APHIS modified the Federal Order by revising the list of VHS-susceptible species -- 12 species were removed and 2 added. Currently, there are 28 separate species of fish listed. Finally, on April 2, 2008, APHIS modified the Federal Order to allow VHS-susceptible species of live non-salmonid fish from affected Canadian provinces to be imported into the United States for direct slaughter if accompanied by an APHIS permit.

APHIS indicates that the new interstate movement and importation requirements are discussed in detail in the Interim Rule. It also indicates, ". . . the AHPA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation or movement in interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock into or within the United States. Ballast water (i.e., water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list, draught, stability, or stresses of a ship) can be taken onto a ship in its port of origin and discharged into the water body of the ship's destination port, making it a potential pathway for VHS virus. APHIS has neither the regulatory authority nor the technical expertise to safely regulate ballast water discharge. Therefore, we do not address ballast water in this interim rule. APHIS will assist the U.S. Coast Guard, which has clear regulatory authority for ballast water, in their development of ballast water discharge standards."

Access the docket for this action to review and submit comments and access documents including the EA and economic assessment (click here). Access a list of species regulated by the order (click here).

Groups Want Senate Action On Ballast Water Controls

Aug 5: A number of major Great Lakes environmental and conservation organizations are calling on the U.S. Senate to quickly pass Federal legislation [The Coast Guard Authorization Act (H.R. 2830)] to address the serious and ongoing threat of invasive species. The groups indicate that the Great Lakes will remain vulnerable to aquatic invasive species if a weak EPA permit goes into effect. On April 24, by a vote of 395-7, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 2830 [See WIMS 4/28/08]; however, the Senate failed to act on the measure before leaving on its 5-week summer recess and will not return until September. Title V of the bill requires ships to begin installing ballast water treatment systems in 2009 to control the introduction of invasive species into U.S. ports and waterways. All ships would be required to have treatment systems installed by 2016.

EPA proposed its permit on June 17, following two court decisions finding that the agency has for more than 30 years illegally exempted ballast water discharges from its Clean Water Act discharge permit program [See WIMS 7/24/08]. Under the proposed permit ocean vessels entering U.S. waters would have to exchange their ballast or perform a saltwater flush of empty ballast tanks in the open ocean for the next five years. This practice is already in place for vessels entering the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River. The permit is set to go in to effect September 30.

Jennifer Nalbone, campaign director of navigation and invasive species for Great Lakes United said, “The EPA permit delays any serious solution to this problem for the foreseeable future. The quickest way to improve protections is by passing ballast water legislation currently stalled in the U.S. Senate. That legislation will require technology installation onboard vessels as early as next year.”

In written comments, the groups assert that the EPA needs to revise the permit to meet water quality standards. The groups also assert that the agency does not have the authority to issue a general permit. They say "EPA has delegated to the states the ability to administer Clean Water Act discharge permit program." While the groups maintain that the quickest way to gain new protections is through Congressional action, they nevertheless are pursuing all opportunities to put in place strong, national protections and want the EPA to revise the weak permit because the federal agency has not delegated authority to every state and a strong permit can serve as a model for state programs.

The groups include: Alliance for the Great Lakes; Great Lakes United; Indiana Wildlife Federation; League of Ohio Sportsmen; Michigan United Conservation Clubs; Minnesota Conservation Federation; National Wildlife Federation; Ohio Environmental Council; Prairie Rivers Network; Save The River; Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council; and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.

Access a lengthy release from the Great Lakes groups (click here). Access the groups' comments (click here). Access the EPA docket to review all comments and background information on the Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels (VGP) (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2830 (click here).

NRC Recommends Adoption Of IMO Standards To Control Invasive

Jul 16: A new report -- TRB Special Report 291: Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species -- from the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) says that the United States should follow Canada's lead and adopt standards identical to those proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to prevent invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. Both nations should ensure that only vessels adhering to these standards gain access to the lakes, and binational surveillance measures should be in place to monitor the presence of aquatic invasive species. These actions should be part of a suite of preventive measures designed to evolve over time in response to practical experience and technological advances. The committee that wrote the report also stated that many of its recommendations could be enacted within the next two to three years. Delaying beyond this time frame would leave the Great Lakes, which are already home to over 180 aquatic invasive species, in danger of future invasions.

Since the opening of the seaway, ballast water has been the source of 55 percent to 70 percent of the aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, including the zebra mussel, one of the most successful invaders to date. In addition, invasive species can enter the lakes via recreational boating, bait fishing, disposal from home aquariums, and many other avenues. Because there are so many ways that an invasive species can enter the lakes, even closing the St. Lawrence Seaway altogether would not stop future invasions, and closure of the seaway would not enhance regional trade. Therefore, the NRC report says, "the best option is to require ballast water management by all international ships entering the seaway as well as ships coming from the coasts of the U.S. or Canada."

Because the Great Lakes are a freshwater ecosystem, one method ships use to kill potential invaders is to either fill or flush out their ballast tanks with saltwater, which kills freshwater species. Another option is to use water treatment, such as filtering the ballast water or adding chemicals to it. Although the effectiveness of these water treatment systems is believed to be greater than that of saltwater, most of these technologies are currently either unproven or technically challenging onboard ship, said the committee.

A number of ballast water management regulations are already in place within the Great Lakes region. However, Canada and the United States have different requirements, and the United States allows states to set their own standards. Michigan has adopted specific requirements for ships accessing its ports, and other states are considering following suit. These inconsistencies can create confusion within the shipping industry and make monitoring compliance difficult. According to the committee, the entire Great Lakes region should have a uniform set of standards for combating invasive species. The United States should also adopt ballast water management standards identical to those proposed by the IMO, which require specific saltwater exchange or flushing protocols and monitoring for organisms after treatment. Canada adopted regulations identical to the IMO rules in 2006, but the United States is still considering legislation options.

Although there have been calls for the United States to follow standards even stricter than the IMO's, the committee noted that cost-effective, accurate tools do not yet exist to monitor effectiveness or compliance with standards beyond those of the IMO. The uncertain and inconsistent nature of the Great Lakes current regulatory environment might even hinder technological development of water treatment and monitoring compliance, said the committee. Adopting uniform requirements would remove that uncertainty, and innovative technology may develop more quickly if a clear market exists. Uniform ballast water standards in the Great Lakes could be the first step in converting a system currently fragmented between two nations and multiple agencies into a comprehensive, cooperative, and coherent binational system of governance.

Access a release from the Academies (click here). Access links to a number of Commissioned Papers on ballast water management issues (click here). Access a 4-page summary of the report (click here). Access the complete 148-page report (click here).

Senate Urged To Pass Coast Guard Act And Ballast Management

Jul 16: According to a release, preliminary data released by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, Center for Aquatic Conservation, estimates that invasive species that arrived in the ballast tanks of ocean-going vessels may cost the Great Lakes region upwards of $200 million dollars a year in losses to commercial fishing, sport fishing, and the area’s water supply. David Lodge, Director of the Center for Aquatic Conservation at the University of Notre Dame said, “We wanted to apply objective scientific research to one of the most pressing questions being asked today: what are the benefits and costs of shipping in the Great Lakes region? The distributions of losses we found with invasions from shipping may be the tip of the iceberg. There is much more economic information to uncover.” The estimated losses are for the U.S. alone, with comparable losses expected in Canada. The researchers said losses may also grow as these invaders spread from the source of invasion and across the country on boats, recreational equipment, or natural migration.

In a separate release from Great Lakes United (GLU), they said, "Time is running out on a solution to the Great Lakes invasive species problem, and the cost to the region has swelled to at least $200 million a year and is growing." GLU's Jennifer Nalbone said, “Before Congress adjourns for the elections, the Senate must agree to legislation already passed by the House of Representatives that puts in place protections against invasive species in the Great Lakes and all U.S. ports." She urged presidential candidates Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] and Senator John McCain [R-AZ] as well as all 16 Senators representing the Great Lakes states to reach out to other senators to make this a priority immediately.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act (H.R. 2830) would require ocean vessels coming to any U.S. port to install treatment technology to clean their ballast water by as early as next year. Scientists have cited ballast water from these ships as the cause of invasive species such as zebra mussels, quagga mussels, the Eurasian ruffe, round goby, and spiny water fleas, entering the Great Lakes.

On April 24, by a vote of 395-7, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 [See WIMS 4/28/08]. The bill increases the size of the Coast Guard, reorganizes the Service, and enhances the Coast Guard’s dual mission of homeland security and maritime safety. Among many other items, Title V the bill requires ships to begin installing ballast water treatment systems in 2009 to control the introduction of invasive species into U.S. ports and waterways -- a measure particularly important to Great Lakes interests. All ships will be required to have treatment systems installed by 2016. The bill was sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

Access a release on the research (click here). Access a fact sheet on the research and links to related information on the Great Lakes United website (click here). Access a release on passage of H.R. 2830 (click here).

Great Lakes & Mississippi River Panels To Meet

May 22: The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species will be meeting jointly with the Mississippi River Basin Panel in Milwaukee, WI on June 17-19, 2008. An important goal of this meeting is to provide a forum that will facilitate further communication and coordination among members of both Panels given the shared issues of concern existing within these interconnected watersheds. The meeting will focus on common priority issues, such as the transfer of species between basins, viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus, (VHS or VHSv) and ballast water. Detailed meeting information, including a preliminary agenda, registration information and other meeting materials are available.

Access the Great Lakes Panel meeting website for details (click here). Access the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species for more information (click here).

House Passes Ballast Management Legislation: Parties Pleased

Apr 24: By a vote of 395-7, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007. The bill increases the size of the Coast Guard, reorganizes the Service, and enhances the Coast Guard’s dual mission of homeland security and maritime safety. Among many other items, Title V the bill requires ships to begin installing ballast water treatment systems in 2009 to control the introduction of invasive species into U.S. ports and waterways -- a measure particularly important to Great Lakes interests. All ships will be required to have treatment systems installed by 2016. The bill was sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

Importantly, the bill apparently strikes a balance between states' rights and shippers concerns and has the support of the American Great Lakes Ports Association (AGLPA) and the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force (GLMTF). Various shipping interests, who have been opposed to individual state legislation such as that in place in Michigan, are supporting the legislation. Wisconsin and Minnesota have been considering similar legislation. GLMTF President Patrick O'Hern said, "This legislation is tough but fair -- this problem is big enough that it needs a tough response." GLMTF represents carriers, maritime unions, longshoremen, shipyards, dredging companies, and terminal operators.

Michigan Lt. Governor John D. Cherry Jr. who also serves as chairman of the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) praised House members for passing a bill. Cherry said, "This bill requires the federal government to accelerate actions that protect our Great Lakes and other waters nationwide. I urge members of the U.S. Senate to join in crafting a solution to stop aquatic invasive species from using ballast water as a pathway to the Great Lakes. As one of the few states to take strong independent action, I hope Congress will agree on a new federal law that Michigan and other states can strongly support."

The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species which includes the National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Great Lakes United, National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Areas Association, Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition (HOW), and The Nature Conservancy has endorsed the bill. The Coalition said the bill includes several key provisions which they have advocated, including an enhanced role for U.S. EPA to review and improve discharge standards, the addition of a provision allowing for citizens to petition the government, and the closure of a loophole that could have resulted in long-term delays in implementing onboard treatment. Additionally, they said the bill allows states to retain their ability to complement and strengthen the federal program.

The Coalition said the White House has cited the lack of clarification on how the ballast water title applies to recreational vessels among its concerns. The administration, which has threatened to veto the bill has indicated, however, that its main objection is not in Title V, but particular to Coast Guard requirements to protect liquefied natural gas terminals and vessels. The Union of Concerned Scientists says, “The House has already promised to address the White House’s concerns regarding recreational boaters separately. This strong demonstration of support in the House bodes well for withstanding the threat of a potential veto.”

On September 27, 2007, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) approved somewhat similar legislation in S. 1578, The Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 [See WIMS 10/1/07]. That bill provided states with the authority to develop programs to regulate invasive species from ships so long as the provisions did not conflict with the Federal program. Michigan's Attorney General Mike Cox opposed the provisions of the bill that would limit the ability of Michigan, other states and the EPA to protect the Great Lakes from harmful ballast water discharges. Cox and the Attorneys General of five other Great Lakes States -- Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- sent a joint letter to the Committee urging them not to approve parts of Senate Bill 1578.

Access a release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access a release from Lt. Governor Cherry (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2830 (click here). Access a release from GLMTF (click here). Access a release from the Invasive Species Coalition (click here). Access a separate release from the HOW Coalition (click here). Access a summary of some legislators actions in support of the bill (click here). Access the AGLPA website for additional information (click here).

Ending Ocean-Vessel Access Could Increase Jobs & More

Apr 9: In follow up research into transportation costs of ocean-vessel shipping on the Great Lakes [See WIMS 11/7/05], Grand Valley State University (GVSU) researchers have found that ending ocean-vessel access to the lakes would increase transportation sector jobs and have little impact to air quality or highway congestion. John Taylor, lead author from GVSU said, “Our ongoing work has been focused on presenting transportation scenarios that would both facilitate trade and address current problems on the Great Lakes. Such scenarios for moving freight have previously been ignored. Our recent report examines and refutes assertions that transhipment would destroy jobs, increase air pollution, and clog roads and rail lines. We hope this research provides an objective basis for public discourse and additional investigations. While we are not suggesting ocean ships be stopped to create domestic jobs, assertions that an end to ocean shipping on the Great Lakes would cost jobs are just plain wrong.”

The Phase II report addresses many of the questions raised by their first report, which found that a cessation of ocean-shipping on the Great Lakes would incur a $55 million cost increase by the use of alternative modes of transportation. The report marked a turning point in the public debate on what action to take to combat the introduction of aquatic invasive species to the Great Lakes by suggesting the use of alternative transportation modes as a solution. Ocean-vessel transportation is the main vector by which aquatic invaders like the zebra mussel have entered the Great Lakes in recent years. The researchers estimate of the costs of existing invasives range from $200 million to as high as $5 billion per year.

James Roach, president of the transportation consulting firm JLRoach Inc. said, “Critics argued that stopping ocean-vessels would cost jobs and drastically increase the number of trucks on the region’s highways -- we wanted to see if that was indeed the case. In fact our research found that over 1,300 new domestic jobs would be created in the U.S. and Canada, and the impact on our highways negligible.” The research finds many of these jobs would stay in the Great Lakes region, employing workers on lake vessels, barges, trains and trucks. Some jobs would re-locate to Canadian ports on the St. Lawrence River, and some to the east coast and Gulf of Mexico.

According to the study, truck traffic would increase by less than 1 per cent, and would only approach that on Highway 401 west of Montreal, where there would be an additional 89 trucks per day. The number of trucks would be far less on other routes. Shipping interests have stated that transhipment and the use of truck and rail to move the cargo currently transported on ocean-vessels would have a significant impact on air quality. Air emissions were compared across all three modes. But according to the study, for tonnage that does not move by alternative waterborne modes, the likely rail alternative is comparable to waterborne transportation on three pollutant categories, and the rail mode is actually significantly better than ocean on two pollutants.

As a result of the study, conservation and organized labor organizations issued a release saying they are reaffirming that, in the absence of stringent ballast water regulations, the cessation of ocean-vessel shipping on the Great Lakes can protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. Jennifer Nalbone, Campaign Director for Great Lakes United said, “Until the problem of aquatic hitchhikers is solved, ocean vessels do not belong on the world’s largest fresh water ecosystem. We will continue to work diligently in support of federal regulations, but research continues to emerge that shows the use of transportation alternatives and a cessation of ocean-shipping on the Great Lakes is a viable option.” The various interest groups issuing the release included: Great Lakes United; Canadian Auto Workers Local 1520; and the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition.

Access an announcement of the recent study (click here). Access links to both reports and related information (click here). Access a release from the interest groups (click here).

Minnesota Pursues Ballast Water Permit Program

Apr 8: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has scheduled two informational meetings to gather public input on a working draft of a permit to regulate ballast water discharges from commercial ships into Lake Superior. The meetings will be held at the MPCA St. Paul office board room on April 15 from 2 to 4 PM. The second meeting will be held at the MPCA Duluth office on April 16 from 10 AM to noon. MPCA said it is holding discussions as part of a larger, four-month public-input process resulting in a final ballast water permit that would be available by September 30, 2008.

The permit would require commercial ocean-going and Great Lakes-only vessels to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit prior to discharging ballast water into State waters. Minnesota and U. S. EPA NPDES/SDS permit rules currently exempt ballast water from permit requirements. The MPCA permit would likely require best management practices and specific performance standards for the discharges. For example, a ballast water performance standard might specify an allowable number of living detectable organisms per cubic meter of water. Currently, Federal law does not regulate ballast water discharges and existing Federal ballast water management requirements and policies have not been effective in preventing biological invasions in the Great Lakes.

Access a release with further details on the meetings (click here). Access the MPCA Vessel Discharge Program website for extensive information and background on the ballast water permit efforts (click here).

Great Lakes Attorneys General Support State Ballast Regulations

Mar 20: Six Great Lakes state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief defending the right of states to protect their natural resources from aquatic invasive species. The brief specifically voices support of the Michigan regulations for ocean-going ships. The rules, based on a 2005 law, are the focus of a federal lawsuit now being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A U.S. district court judge ruled in favor of the Michigan law last year. Legislation has been introduced in several Great Lakes states to follow Michigan's lead on ballast water regulations. In addition, state regulators in Minnesota and Wisconsin are considering the adoption of statewide ballast water rules. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, on February 26, 2008, led the coalition of six Great Lakes attorneys general in filing the brief.

Michigan issued its first 10 Ballast Water Control General Permits in February 2007, under its law that went into effect January 1, 2007, and is designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes. Under the controversial new law, oceangoing ships must obtain a permit from MDEQ in order to use Michigan ports. Permits are issued only if the applicant demonstrates that they will either not discharge ballast water or will use one of four approved environmentally sound technologies and methods to prevent the discharge of aquatic invasive species.

On August 15, 2007, in the case of Fednav et al., v. Steven E. Chester, et al (U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division, Case No. 07-cv-11116), U.S. District Judge John Feikens ruled that Michigan's Ballast Water Statute, (Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(6)), is constitutional and dismissed a lawsuit by nine shipping companies and associations that had challenged the new State law [See WIMS 8/16/07].

Access an release from the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus with links to Minnesota Attorney General announcement (click here). Access the complete 32-page opinion from Judge Feikens (click here). Access legislative details for PA 33 of 2005 (click here). Access the Michigan Ballast Water Reporting website for extensive background information (click here). Access a Sea Grant Law Center legal review white paper (click here).