SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY ------In the Matter of
PORT OF OSWEGO AUTHORITY, PORT OF ALBANY COMMISSION, AMERICAN GREAT LAKES PORTS ASSOCIATION, CANFORNAV INC., FEDERAL AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID MARINE TERMINALS INC., POLSKA ZEGLUGA ADAMS MORSKA, CHAMBER OF MARINE COMMERCE, and CANADIAN SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and for Declaratory Relief Pursuant to CPLR Section 3001
-against- INDEX # 10296-08
PETE GRANNIS, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,
Respondents-Defendants ------
State of New York ) ) ss: County of Albany )
David Adams, an employee of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an ecologist in the Office of Invasive Species Coordination, and until recently have worked as a biologist, within the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(“Department” or “DEC”). I submit this affidavit in support of the New York State Clean Water
Act (“CWA”) Section 401 Certification (“Certification”) for the Vessel General Permit (“VGP”)
1 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and in support of the Department in the above-referenced CPLR Article 78/declaratory relief matter.
2. I am currently employed by DEC’s Office of Invasive Species Coordination in Albany, NY as an Ecologist II. I have held this position for 1 year, and have worked for the Department since
1992, previously as a Biologist I within the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources.
My responsibilities as an Ecologist have included analyzing legislation and policy, regulatory streamlining and developing new regulatory authority. As a Biologist my job duties included statewide coordination of management, monitoring and research projects with a focus on waterbird resources and invasive species. I received a B.A. in Biology from St. John Fisher
College in 1991 and a M.A. in biology from the State University of New York College at New
Paltz in 1999.
3. I was closely involved in the preparation of New York’s Section 401 Certification, and I make this affidavit based on my own personal knowledge, on knowledge gained from Department files and discussion with Department staff and other experts, and on my review of the reports, studies, and other sources cited herein.
4. In this affidavit, I explain that New York’s natural resources, including water quality and fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation, have been severely damaged by non-native aquatic invasive species (“AIS”), a form of biological pollution, and that AIS carried in ships’ ballast water are
2 responsible for a significant proportion of AIS releases in the Great Lakes. I also explain that direct discharge of non-native invasive species into New York waters is not a required condition for impairment by AIS, because movement of such species between connected waters, especially the Great Lakes, has severely impaired New York waters for their best usage in the past. In addition, future introductions of AIS via ballast water discharge into New York waters, or into adjacent, connected waters, will further damage the State’s natural resources and impair water quality. I also review the achievability of the numerical limits which the State, in its CWA 401
Certification, has specified as conditions needed to ensure that its water quality standards are not violated by such discharges. I show that the specification of such numeric limits is a routine regulatory/permit practice, and that such limits are often specified by regulatory agencies as
“performance-based” standards for which the regulated entity bears the primary responsibility of choosing an appropriate control technology that will meet the standard. I review the availability of ballast water control technologies or treatment systems that can substantially eliminate non- native invasive species from ballast water in accordance with the numeric limits, and I show that such treatment systems are feasible for shipboard installation and not cost-prohibitive. For chemical methods of ballast water treatment, I show that residual chemical pollution is already controlled by existing permit conditions or regulatory requirements. With respect to the practice of ballast water exchange or flushing, I explain that the practice has limited benefits but is both necessary and feasible in the near term for vessel coastal voyages, particularly for Atlantic coastal voyages that enter the Great Lakes.
3 New York’s natural resources, including water quality and fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation, have been damaged by non-native invasive species
5. As recognized by EPA,1 the predominant pathway for aquatic invasive species entry into the
Great Lakes is the discharge of ballast water from oceangoing ships.2 Ricciardi stated in 2006 that “65% of all invasions recorded since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 are attributable to ballast water release”3 and that the rate of invasion since 1960 has been “one new
invader discovered every 28 weeks.”4 See Exhibit A attached to my affidavit. As I recognize in the course of my work, AIS introduced into the Great Lakes from vessels’ untreated ballast water discharges have created serious, damaging impacts that threaten this important resource’s ecological and economic health.5 Such impacts – several of which are set forth as examples in
New York’s Certification (Return Item (“RI”) 21 at 9-13) – are widely recognized not only in
New York but nationwide and worldwide. Petitioners acknowledge in their petition and
complaint (“petition”) in this matter that “The introduction of aquatic invasive species is a
serious environmental issue. Aquatic invasive species are animals, plants, and microscopic
organisms that can cause serious problems outside their native range.” Petition, ¶ 31. Petitioners
further acknowledge that populations of invasive species may “grow rapidly, competing with and
negatively impacting the survival of organisms native to the Great Lakes, as well as other New
York water bodies.” Petition, ¶ 32.
Direct discharge of invasive species into New York waters is not a required condition for impairment by non-native invasive species
6. The ability of various invasive species to spread into adjacent, connected waters is well
known. In New York’s Certification, RI 21 at 9-11, the zebra mussel, round goby, and spiny
4 water flea are presented as three examples of species that have spread quickly into New York waters after being discharged elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Biologists and ecologists are very familiar with the phenomenon of rapid population growth and expansion, sometimes called population “explosion,” that occurs when new species are introduced into a favorable new environment. Populations expand outward into new territory that has not yet been colonized, thereby impacting not only the initial location where they were released but also adjacent areas.
Populations reaching immediately adjacent areas will in turn colonize more distant adjacent areas. In most cases, population expansion is limited only by physical barriers (such as land barriers between water bodies) or unfavorable environments (such as salty water which acts as a barrier to salt-intolerant species).
7. Outward expansion of populations in the Great Lakes is facilitated by active movement
(swimming) of certain organisms and by passive, wind- and current-driven transport of other organisms. Neither of these transport processes recognizes state or national boundaries, and the process of passive, current-driven transport inevitably brings populations from other Great Lakes locations into New York waters. The waters of the Great Lakes flow slowly toward the St.
Lawrence River, which serves as their outlet to the ocean. See Figure 1 attached to my affidavit.
Since New York’s waters are at the downstream end of the sequence of state waters within the
Great Lakes, they receive not only flow but also any passively transported organisms (including eggs and resting stages, etc.) from upstream waters. Although the rate of flow is comparatively slow through the upper Great Lakes, it is relatively fast in Lake Erie where New York’s waters abut the upstream waters of Pennsylvania and where the waters are also shared with Ohio,
5 Michigan, and Ontario.
8. The residence or retention time of water in Lake Erie is only about 2.6 years,6 meaning that
any water or any passively transported organisms entering the western end of Lake Erie from the
Detroit River will, on average, have passed through the waters of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York (and/or Ontario) before exiting Lake Erie into the Niagara River 2.6 years later.
The same water and passively transported organisms will continue through the Niagara River
into Lake Ontario (shared by New York and Ontario), where the residence or retention time is
about 6 years.7 Thus, for any ballast water discharged directly into Lake Erie, or for any water and passively transported organisms that enter Lake Erie from the upper three Great Lakes, the delivery time to New York waters is relatively short. Fish and other organisms capable of active movement may arrive even more quickly as they colonize previously uncolonized waters during their “population explosion” phase. This type of distribution mechanism – as illustrated by the zebra mussel, round goby, and spiny water flea, which served as examples in New York’s CWA
401 Certification – explains how New York waters are often affected by non-native organisms discharged elsewhere in the Great Lakes.
9. The large cargo vessels known as “lake freighters” or “lakers” which operate exclusively in the Great Lakes are another means by which non-native organisms discharged elsewhere in the
Great Lakes may be carried closer to, and in some cases discharged directly into, New York waters. U.S.-flagged and Canadian-flagged lake freighters carry large volumes of ballast water as they travel from port to port within the Great Lakes. Like other commercial vessels, they
6 typically discharge ballast water in harbors where they load cargo, and they take on ballast water
in harbors where they unload, thereby transferring ballast water (and living organisms, potentially
including non-native species) from lake to lake and port to port as they travel the Great Lakes.
Such transport of ballast water by lake freighters is likely to accelerate the colonization of New
York waters by non-native organisms discharged elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately,
lake freighters cannot be reasonably required to conduct mid-ocean exchange or flushing of ballast water since they operate entirely within the Great Lakes. They therefore cannot be required to meet Certification Condition No. 1 and cannot avail themselves of the near-term benefit of exchange or flushing to reduce the concentrations of viable organisms carried in their ballast water.8 Lake freighter voyages between ports on the upper lakes (e.g., Lake Michigan or
Lake Superior) and ports on Lake Erie are relatively common. Such voyages will tend to bring non-native organisms discharged elsewhere in the Great Lakes into Lake Erie, either directly into
New York waters or into other nearby Lake Erie waters from which the wind- and current-driven passive transport of organisms to New York waters is relatively fast.
10. In New York’s Certification, exemptions to the ballast water treatment requirements of
Condition Nos. 2 and 3 are provided for vessels that operate exclusively within specified water bodies such as Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, or the waters of New York Harbor and Long Island
Sound. Such an exemption achieves a reasonable balance between environmental protection and navigation in any such water body which functions as a single ecosystem or as a series of interrelated ecosystems linked by a common circulatory system. Natural circulation within such a water body, driven in part by wind, thermal gradients, and current associated with elevation
7 gradients and/or tides, will contribute to passive transport and dispersal of non-native organisms
within the individual water body regardless of regulatory efforts to contain them. For this reason,
regulatory controls are better focused on preventing introductions of non-native species to such
water bodies rather than trying to contain populations once they have been introduced. In
defining such water bodies (e.g., defining either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario as such a water body,
but not providing an exemption throughout the entire Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System
for purposes of Condition Nos. 2 and 3), New York has considered such factors as geographic
size, intralake versus interlake limnological characteristics, and the comparatively slow rate of
flow through the upper Great Lakes.
Future introductions of invasive species via ballast water discharge to New York waters, or adjacent, connected waters, will further damage the State’s natural resources and impair water quality
11. Based on my understanding of invasive species and their negative impacts which have already impaired New York’s water quality as described above, I expect future invasions to follow the same general trends as past invasions. I also expect ballast water to remain a major source of invasions unless it is properly managed in accordance with New York’s water quality
Certification conditions. For the Great Lakes, some reduction in historical invasion rates may
occur due to new ballast water rules imposed in 2008 by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation.9 These rules require ballast water exchange or flushing by all oceangoing vessels entering the Seaway from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Although the rules are enforced by inspection during each vessel’s first annual voyage into the Seaway, inspectors do not necessarily check every ballast tank on each vessel, and they do not necessarily check a
8 vessel at all during its second and subsequent voyages into the Seaway each year. Moreover,
ballast water exchange and flushing are considered useful but imperfect methods of eliminating
organisms from ballast water tanks.10 As such, ballast water exchange and flushing are widely understood to be stopgap measures that are needed until ballast water treatment is required, but they are not sufficient to halt new invasions that will further impair New York’s water quality.
Thus, the numeric limits set forth as conditions in the Department’s Certification are needed, both to reduce the unintentional discharge of invasive species, disease organisms, and other pollutants that have the potential to disrupt the ecological balance of New York’s waters and negatively impact fish and wildlife resources of the State, and to comply with duly adopted State water quality standards.
12. The discharge of untreated ballast water will continue to pose a high risk, not only when discharges are made directly to New York waters, but also when discharges are made to adjacent and/or upstream waters. Discharges into Ohio’s Lake Erie waters provide an example of the latter type, and are also known to occur frequently. In a recent analysis of ballast water discharge data from vessels entering the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway, EPA identified Canada and Western Europe as the predominant sources of most ballast water discharged to the Great
Lakes, and they also found that three Ohio ports on Lake Erie were among the top recipients of such ballast water discharges. EPA’s analysis and modeling found that Toledo, Ashtabula and
Sandusky, OH; Gary, IN; Duluth, MN; Milwaukee and Superior, WI; and Chicago, IL were the
Great Lakes ports at greatest risk for invasion by the fourteen species considered in the agency’s modeling of ballast water discharges.11 The same EPA study identified Lakes Erie and Ontario –
9 large portions of which are New York waters – as being suitable habitat for various non-native
species considered in the agency’s modeling of ballast water discharges.12
Achievability of the numeric limits which the State has specified as Certification Conditions to ensure that its water quality standards are not violated
13. The numeric limits in New York’s Certification Conditions are based on the best available
expert opinion and are achievable. I also consider the Certification’s compliance dates for
meeting the numeric limits to be achievable, but I recognize that vessels may request extensions
if properly justified. In pleadings filed by petitioners, I do not find clear and accurate
descriptions of the numeric limits and compliance dates. Petitioners claim that “NYSDEC
impermissibly relied on California findings and studies to support its new deadlines despite the
fact that those findings do not support NYSDEC’s conclusions,” and they also claim that
“NYSDEC accelerated the California deadlines.” Petitioners’ Brief (“Pet. Br.”) at 31. However, such claims confuse the requirements of New York’s Condition No. 2 with those of New York’s
Condition No. 3. These two conditions embody different standards and compliance dates, and apply to different categories of vessels, as shown in Table 1 attached to my affidavit. The distinction between the two conditions must be recognized in any discussion of their requirements and applicability.
14. An example is petitioners’ claim that “NYSDEC, however, ignored California’s deadlines for existing vessels by 2014 or 2016 and instead accelerated these deadlines by four years for large existing vessels, requiring compliance by 2012...” Pet. Br. at 31-32. This claim improperly
10 mixes New York’s deadline for existing vessels (Condition No. 2) with the standards for newly
constructed vessels set forth in Condition No. 3.
15. The standards for existing vessels in New York’s Condition No. 2 (see Table 1) are based on recommendations made by the International Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship
Vectors13 and are equivalent to those in Congressional bill H.R. 2830 which I understand the
shipping industry supported in 2007 and 2008.14 See Exhibits B and C attached to my affidavit.
The compliance date in New York’s Condition No. 2 is January 1, 2012, whereas the deadline or implementation schedule in H.R. 2830 was “beginning on the date of the first drydocking of the vessel after December 31, 2011, but not later than December 31, 2013.” H.R. 2830, July 16,
2008 version, at 29-30. Based on both the state of readiness and the rate of development of technology, I consider the Condition No. 2 compliance date to be achievable, but I also recognize that time extensions may be requested if justified.
16. My understanding of the rate of development of ballast water treatment technology is based in part on EPA’s statement in their recent Federal Register notice of availability of the VGP:
EPA notes that although ballast water treatment technologies are not currently available within the meaning of BAT [best available technology] under the CWA, such technologies are rapidly developing and might become “available” using a BAT standard within this permit term. EPA commits to continuing to review the evolution of ballast water treatment technologies and may, if appropriate, use the permit reopener in light of that evolution.
73 Fed. Reg. 79473 (December 29, 2008) at 79478-79; italics added. EPA considers ballast
11 water treatment technology to be developing so rapidly that EPA itself may reopen the VGP within its current 5-year permit term. New York considers ballast water treatment technology to be both rapidly developing and available by the VGP Certification’s compliance dates, but its
Certification provides for time extensions in the event that the technology is shown to be unavailable. In effect, these are two sides of the same coin.
17. My understanding of the state of readiness of ballast water treatment technology is based in part on recent comments submitted to EPA by a group of ballast water treatment inventors and developers known as the Clean Oceans Technology Coalition. In a letter dated July 28, 2008 which is posted in EPA’s VGP docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055), the Coalition expressed its preference for uniform federal regulation as opposed to state-by-state limits, and also provided the following assessment of the state of readiness of ballast water treatment technology under the heading “Effective Treatment Technologies Are Available.” The companies mentioned (Nutech
O3, Alfa Laval, and Echochlor) are members of Clean Oceans Technology Coalition which wrote the letter:
A. Nutech O3 has tested its ozone injection technology on board two British Petroleum oil tankers in regular operation, in addition to conducting extensive land based testing both at the University of Washington’s Merristone Test Facility in Puget Sound and at the La Que Institute for Corrosion Research in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.
Nutech O3 has conclusively proven that ozone is an effective means of killing ANS, which meets the proposed International Maritime Organization’s Ballast Water Treaty’s treatment standard as well as the far more stringent standard in the proposed ballast water legislation now being considered by the U.S. Congress. Testing has been conducted, over a 9 year period, by independent research scientists and engineers at the University of Maryland, the University of Washington, Iowa State University. the
12 Smithsonian Institution’s Environmental Research Center, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington and the University of California-Irvine.
The most recently conducted series of tests were completed in December 2007. These tests were conducted by Dr. David Wright of the University of Maryland and the accompanying report written by him and Dr Robert Gensemer of the University of Washington and Dr. Cooper of the University of California at Irvine. This report will be submitted by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to the U.S. Congress, later this summer. It proves that ozone is a safe, effective means of killing invasive species in ballast water.
The testing protocol that was used for these tests was developed in consultation with a NOAA established Advisory Panel. That Panel included representatives from EPA, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Coast Guard, the California State Lands Commission, an internationally recognized marine engineering firm – British Maritime Technologies – and the shipping industry.
Extensive research on the impact of ozone on the integrity of a ship's hull was conducted by the La Que Institute. It demonstrated that ozonated ballast water did not increase the rate of corrosion and may even slow it down. Nutech O3’s treatment technology was successfully tested in Puget Sound, Washington on board the British Petroleum oil tanker Prince William Sound, in late 2007. The test report is included in the attached CD Rom Disk. Nutech O3 completed testing of its technology in December 2007. A copy of Professor David Wright’s Report, which ahs [sic] been submitted to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration is annexed. Nutech O3 requests that this Report, which will be submitted to Congess by NOAA, in August, be made a part of the Rule Making record.
In addition to testing in the United States, this technology also tested by NK Co., Ltd., of Busan, Republic of Korea, Nutech’s partner in this project. NK Co. tested this technology both on a barge, in the Port of Busan and on a Hyundai cargo freighter. Ballast water was taken on in Busan, Singapore, Rotterdam, Netherlands and Hamburg, Germany. Thus, this technology has been proven effective in killing invasive species North America, North East Asia, South East Asia and Europe.
Later this month, GESAMP, the scientific advisory committee to the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee, is expected to approve Nutech’s ozone injection technology. That application was submitted to the IMO under the auspices of the Korean Government and Nutech’s Korean partner NK Co., Ltd. If that approval is granted, the MEPC is expected to grant final type approval for our technology at its October 2008 meeting.
B. Another member of the Coalition, Alfa Laval, has developed its own Advanced
13 Oxidation Technology which uses ultra violet light and titanium netting. It has also been found to be fully effective in meeting IMO treatment requirements. Alfa Laval’s technology will also be considered at the June GESAMP meeting and it, too, is expected to receive GESAMP’s approval as well as the MEPC’s approval, in October.
Another Coalition member, Echochlor, has also submitted its technology for GESAMP/IMO approval which is anticipated later this year, as well.
C. Beyond this, Lloyd’s Register published a report, in 2007, entitled Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. That report listed more than 20 companies, including members of this Coalition, who have treatment technologies in various stages of development. The single greatest barrier faced by all of these companies, in getting their respective technologies to the market, is the absence of a definitive treatment standard. It is difficult to develop technologies when one is not certain where the goal posts will be and it is even more difficult to attract financing when potential investors do not know, either.
Letter by Joel C. Mandelman on behalf of Clean Oceans Technology Coalition, July 21, 2008,
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0330; italics added. Note that the words I have italicized in this letter
(“the far more stringent standard in the proposed ballast water legislation now being considered by the U.S. Congress”) refer to the standard expressed in last year’s Congressional bill H.R.
2830, which the letter describes as achievable, and which is the same standard that New York has specified for existing vessels in Certification Condition No. 2.
18. The numeric limits for indicator microbes in Certification Condition Nos. 2 and 3 (see Table
1 attached to my addidavit) are equivalent to California’s standards and also match those in bill
H.R. 2830. For vibrio cholera, New York’s conditions are the same as the standards adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as shown below. For E. coli, New York’s conditions are stricter than the IMO standards by a factor of about 2, as shown below, and for intestinal enterococci they are stricter than the IMO standards by a factor of about 3. These are
14 comparatively small differences. Based on my understanding of the state of readiness of
technology, I consider the compliance dates for indicator microbe numeric limits in Certification
Condition Nos. 2 and 3 to be achievable, but I also recognize that time extensions may be
requested if justified.
IMO Convention NY Conditions #2 and #3
Vibrio cholera <1 cfu/100 ml <1 cfu/100 ml or or <1 cfu/g wet weight <1 cfu/g wet weight
E. coli <250 cfu/100 ml <126 cfu/100 ml
Intestinal enterococci <100 cfu/100 ml <33 cfu/100 ml
19. The Certification’s numeric limits for indicator microbes that differ from the IMO standards
(126 cfu per 100 ml for E. coli; 33 cfu per 100 ml for intestinal enterococci) are based on longstanding U.S. federal water quality criteria. Specifically, the E. coli and enterococci numeric
limits in Certification Condition Nos. 2 and 3 are identical to the federal water quality criteria
that have existed for decades for primary recreation (freshwater bathing beaches). See the listing
for “Bacteria” at www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/#gold and in the U.S. EPA report entitled “Quality Criteria for Water, 1986,” commonly called the “Gold Book,” EPA-440/5-86-
001 (www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf). These E. coli and enterococci standards were also part of the recommendation made by U.S. government representatives to the
IMO Ballast Water Convention in 2004.15 See Table 2 attached to my affidavit.
15 20. Some of petitioners’ arguments do not appear directly relevant. For example, they argue that, “Shipboard tests of the OceanSaver system, which has received final IMO approval for its ability to meet IMO Convention standards, nevertheless failed to demonstrate the ability to comply with five of seven California standards.” Pet. Br. at 36. In their footnote 19 which is attached to the above-quoted sentence, petitioners appear to state that while shipboard tests of the
OceanSaver system demonstrated the ability to comply with only two California standards (those two standards, dealing with organisms larger than 10 micrometers in minimum dimension, are equivalent to those in Certification Condition Nos. 3(A) and 3(B) in Table 1), the tests failed to demonstrate compliance with the remaining five standards. However, those remaining five standards include Vibrio cholera (for which the OceanSaver system must have already demonstrated compliance in order to receive IMO approval), E. coli, intestinal enterococci, bacteria, and viruses. These shipboard test results quoted by petitioners do demonstrate the difficulty of shipboard testing, an ongoing issue that is receiving much attention worldwide; however, it seems difficult on that basis to fault New York’s Certification’s numeric limits for microbial ballast water contaminants, especially since three of the standards are either the same as or roughly similar (within a factor of 3) to the IMO standards that various nations consider either reasonable or a bare minimum. As already noted, the Certification provides for time extensions in the event that technology is unavailable or cannot be installed due to other constraints. It should also be noted that the bacterial and viral standards (Condition Nos. 3(D) and 3(E) in Table 1), which some experts consider the most difficult to meet, apply only to newly constructed vessels, meaning vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2013. The Certification’s compliance date for those bacterial-viral standards is at least one year later than the compliance
16 deadlines for equivalent standards set by California and Pennsylvania for newly constructed vessels. No such requirement is imposed on existing vessels in New York’s certification. See
Table 2.
21. New York’s Certification compliance dates for all requirements of Condition No. 3 is at least one year later than the corresponding compliance dates set by California and Pennsylvania.
All three states have equivalent requirements for newly constructed vessels; however, New
York’s compliance date is later. California’s compliance date is either January 1, 2010 or
January 1, 2012, depending on the size of the vessel.16 Pennsylvania’s compliance date is
January 1, 2012.17 New York’s compliance date is January 1, 2013.18
22. Petitioners also criticize the basis or justification for New York’s Certification Conditions.
They claim, for example, that “The New York Legislature did not...authorize NYSDEC to rely on
the California statute to adopt its own standards.” Pet. Br. at 32. In fact, New York used
information from several sources in setting its numeric limits; these included the work of IMO’s
Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors and panels of experts convened by
California. One such panel was the Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards
(which included, among others, Gregory Ruiz of the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center, federal and state agency staff, environmental representatives, shipping interests, etc.19);
another was the California State Lands Commission Advisory Panel (which included, among
others, Ryan Albert of EPA, Richard Everett of the U.S. Coast Guard, Edward Lemieux of Naval
Research Laboratory, Gregory Ruiz of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, other
17 federal and state agency staff, environmental representatives, shipping interests, etc.20). In
addition, U.S. government representatives to the IMO Convention recommended in 2004 that
standards substantially equivalent to those in New York’s Certification Condition No. 3 be
adopted by IMO.21 See also New York’s Certification, RI 21 at 8-15, for discussion of the basis for Certification Conditions.
23. In paragraphs 38 through 46 of their petition, petitioners review the ballast water
Convention, the standard-setting process, and the ballast water standards of the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). Petitioners characterize the IMO process as “rigorous.” Petition,
¶ 42. The problem with IMO’s approach, as stated in New York’s Certification (RI 21 at 13), is that “the standards adopted by IMO would only be a marginal improvement on current management practices of ballast water exchange for the largest organisms (>50 :m) and may be
similar to unmanaged ballast water for the smaller organisms (<50 :m) (Table V-1, MEPC
49/2/12003) (Section VII ‘Scientific Considerations’).” 22 Specifically, IMO’s Study Group on
Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV) found in 2003 that the median concentration of the largest organisms (>50 :m, generally equivalent to zooplankton) in unmanaged ballast water
was 0.4 per liter or 400 per cubic meter, and they recommended a discharge standard three orders
of magnitude lower, i.e., 0.4 per cubic meter.23 However, as shown in Table 2 attached to my
affidavit, the standard ultimately adopted by IMO for organisms of this size was 10 per cubic
meter, which falls between the concentration in unmanaged ballast water and the IMO’s
SGBOSV recommendation. This IMO standard has thus been characterized as only “a marginal
improvement on current management practices of ballast water exchange.”24 Even worse, IMO’s
18 Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors found that the median concentration of the
smaller organisms (<50 :m, generally equivalent to phytoplankton) in unmanaged ballast water
was 13,300 per liter or 13.3 per milliliter. They recommended a discharge standard three orders
of magnitude lower, i.e., 0.0133 per milliliter,25 but the standard ultimately adopted by IMO for organisms of this size was 10 per milliliter, which is essentially the same as the concentration of
13.3 per milliliter in unmanaged ballast water. Given this evidence that the IMO standards are not adequately protective, their adoption as conditions in New York’s Certification would not meet the purpose of the Certification, which is to ensure that state water quality standards are met.
24. In paragraphs 47 through 57 of their petition, petitioners review the sequence of actions taken since 1990 to control invasions of U.S. waters by non-native species. Petitioners characterize these actions as the United States’ regulatory response to aquatic invasive species.
The problem with this set of federal actions has been its exceedingly slow pace and its lack of positive results. Ricciardi and other scientists have provided clear graphic evidence that the rate of non-native species introductions to the Great Lakes has actually increased during the period in
question.26 See Figure 2 attached to my affidavit; also Exhibit A attached to my affidavit. This increasing trend demonstrates that the federal actions cited by petitioners in petition paragraphs
47 through 57 have been ineffective. In order to certify that its water quality standards will be met, New York needs to set CWA Section 401 Certification Conditions that will be effective and timely. Based on the best available expert opinion, New York has established Conditions that it expects to be effective. The compliance dates for New York’s Certification Conditions, intended
19 to achieve effective, timely results, provide for time extensions if warranted.
25. In paragraphs 58 through 62 of their petition, petitioners review recent federal legislation
such as bill H.R. 2830 that was passed by the House, but not enacted into law, as a means of
controlling invasions of U.S. waters by non-native species. As discussed elsewhere in this
affidavit, the standards specified in H.R. 2830 are the same as the numeric limits for existing
vessels in New York’s Certification Condition No. 2; however, the compliance dates are
different. In the July 16, 2008 version of H.R. 2830, the compliance deadline was “beginning on
the date of the first drydocking of the vessel after December 31, 2011, but not later than
December 31, 2013.” However, petitioners’ petition paragraph 61 indicates that the federal
Administration, including the U.S. Coast Guard, prepared amendments to H.R. 2830 and the
corresponding Senate bill that would delay the compliance deadline for these particular standards
until nine years after enactment of the law. Thus, if H.R. 2830 had been enacted, it would have imposed the same standards set forth for existing vessels in New York’s Certification Condition
No. 2, yet the H.R. 2830 amendments would have postponed compliance for almost a decade.
New York has set a shorter compliance date of January 1, 2012, as needed to protect its water quality, but allows vessel owner/operators to request time extensions if properly justified.
26. In their petition, paragraph 94, petitioners make a baseless claim that ballast water discharged in accordance with New York’s Certification Condition No. 3 “would be essentially
equivalent to distillate water when discharged.” They make a similarly baseless claim in petition
paragraph 199 where they allege that DEC “failed to consider the impacts to existing aquatic
20 biota by requiring the discharge of ‘distillate water’ into New York water bodies.” The term
“distillate water” – an uncommon variant of “distilled water,” referring to water that has been distilled by evaporation – has no relevance here unless petitioners intend to use distillation as a novel method of ballast water treatment. Distillation is an energy-intensive and therefore costly process which has typically not been used by developers of ballast water treatment systems. It appears unlikely that petitioners would develop, purchase, or operate distillation methods of ballast water treatment.
“Performance-based” numeric limits or standards are part of a routine regulatory process which requires regulated entities to assume primary responsibility for choosing an appropriate control technology
27. The conditions in New York’s CWA Section 401 Certification of the VGP are, like many requirements set by regulatory agencies, “performance-based” rather than “prescriptive” requirements. The regulated entity is not told how to achieve the specified result but simply what the end result must be. Various types of industries now operate under such performance-based requirements which require cooperation between the industry and control-technology vendors:
Following passage of the nation’s environmental laws in the early 1970s, environmental regulations were very prescriptive, with specific requirements for technologies, management and operating practices. What, how and when were written in rule. These regulations were generally referred to as “command and control.” The regulator became the problem solver of last resort.
The benefit of “command and control” regulation is that everyone knows what is required. The downside is that it shifts the burden for choosing the method of compliance from the private sector to the public sector. Government agencies are very good at many things, but the trial and error of innovation is not generally among them. In contrast, trial and error innovation, competition and marketplace rewards are the hallmarks of our free
21 economy.
In recent years, there has been a growing move to replace the “command and control” approach with performance-based regulations that provide flexibility for the private sector. Using that flexibility, each permit holder may select methods and technologies appropriate to site and circumstance that will achieve our regulatory requirements and meet our rigorous environmental standards.27
28. In this type of performance-based regulatory environment, the responsibility for compliance
ultimately lies with the vessel owner/operator, who must consult with control-technology
vendors to ensure that an appropriate ballast water treatment system has been installed and that
its compliance has been verified. U.S. Coast Guard approval is not required for ballast water
treatment systems installed aboard vessels,28 but vessel owner/operators will typically need to
work with their classification societies to seek type approval for their vessel class. Equipment
vendors may find it useful to participate in EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
protocol which is being developed for ballast water treatment systems.29
Availability and cost of various technologies to treat ballast water prior to discharge to New York waters, or adjacent, connected waters
29. Petitioners express concern about the cost of compliance with New York’s certification
conditions, but such costs must be balanced against the damages incurred by introductions of
additional non-native invasive species into New York waters. The cost of installing a ballast
water treatment system is typically less than $1 million per vessel;30 operating costs are estimated
to be roughly $47 for every thousand cubic meters of water treated,31 which translates to a cost of a few hundred dollars or less for a typical voyage into the Great Lakes by an oceangoing vessel.32
22 Estimates of the costs incurred due to non-native species invasions vary widely, even for past invasions, ranging from at least $1 billion for the cumulative costs of zebra mussel cleanup since
198933 to $138 billion per year for all U.S. invasive species impacts combined, both aquatic and terrestrial.34 The Asian clam and European green crab are said to have had impacts of $1 billion/year and $44 million/year, respectively,35 and a Great-Lakes-specific study has produced an estimate of over $5 billion for the period from 1993 to 1999.36
30. In paragraph 135 of their petition, petitioners list annual sums (business revenue, personal income, taxes paid, and transportation-rate savings) ranging from $1.3 billion to $4.3 billion for maritime commerce on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System. Petitioners express concern that this maritime commerce is at risk due to costs of complying with New York’s CWA
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (e.g., see petition paragraphs 20, 129, 140, etc.).
However, if the expense of installing and operating ballast water treatment systems is considered as a cost of doing business, the one-time installation cost of approximately $1 million for each of the 373 vessels using the Seaway system in a typical year37 is not an unreasonable expense – especially if amortized over several years – when compared to the above-cited annual measures ranging from $1.3 billion to $4.3 billion for maritime commerce on the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Seaway System. Similar comparisons could be made, for example, for the 60 to 70 vessels per year that call at the Port of Albany, according to paragraph 143 of petitioners’ petition.
31. Ballast water treatment system suppliers such as Hyde Marine have discussed with myself
23 and others at DEC the availability, performance, and installation of their treatment systems. A
representative of Hyde Marine believes that their system will meet the California standards
(equivalent to New York’s Certification Condition No. 3) with the exception of the standard for viruses. The Hyde system would therefore be able to meet New York’s less stringent
Certification Condition No. 2 (see Table 2) which does not include a virus standard and which
will apply to existing vessels on January 1, 2012. As described by Hyde Marine, their system can
be installed in as little as 5 days and does not require drydocking of the vessel during installation.
Contracts for Hyde ballast water treatment systems have recently been awarded by the Royal
Navy for installation on two new British aircraft carriers (see Exhibit D attached to my affidavit).
Note that there is no inherent limit on the size of such treatment systems. As described by the
2008 edition of the Lloyd’s Register report on ballast water treatment technology:
Most of the technologies have been developed for a flow rate of about 250m3/hr, considered to be the flow rate required for the first phase of ships required to be equipped with ballast water treatment technology. Since the systems are largely modular in design (other than the gas injection type), there is no technical limit to the upper flow rate other than that imposed by size and/or cost. In some cases there are examples of systems already installed for flows above 5000 m3/hr.38
Whether the Hyde Marine system and other ballast water treatment systems will be sufficiently
improved to meet the virus limit and other requirements of New York’s Certification Condition
No. 3 will need to be determined by mid-2011, in order that any necessary time extension
requests may be made for newly constructed vessels (see Certification Condition No. 3, requiring
that time extensions based on unavailability of technology, etc., be made 18 months prior to the
January 1, 2013 compliance date for newly constructed vessels). The Hyde Marine system uses a
24 combination of filtration and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection.39 It does not use chemical treatment.
Existing controls on residual chemical pollution from certain ballast water treatment technologies
32. Some ballast water treatment technologies may employ active chemical methods (e.g., biocides) which have the potential to discharge chemical pollutants. Since such chemical pollutant discharges are already regulated under existing rules and/or permit conditions, there is no need for New York’s certification to include duplicative conditions to limit such discharges.
For the same reason, the impacts of such discharges are likewise limited and need not be reevaluated in the environmental review for New York’s certification.
33. In Part 5.8 and Appendix J of the VGP, EPA specifies requirements for vessels using biocides for ballast water treatment. For purposes of the initial five-year permit period, EPA declares that “any vessel employing a ballast treatment system which uses biocides to treat organisms in the ballast water is considered experimental” and that “[t]he requirements in Part
5.8 apply to ballast water discharges from vessels employing experimental ballast water treatment systems that make use of biocides.” RI 23 at 58. Part 5.8 of the VGP prohibits the use of biocides that are “pesticides” within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) unless they have been registered under the Act. Part 5.8 also sets requirements for analytical monitoring, whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. Appendix J of the VGP provides details of the WET testing requirements. Since all of these requirements are part of the federal permit structure within which New York’s
25 Certification operates, they govern biocide-related discharges of any biocide-based ballast water treatment system that may be used to meet New York’s Certification Conditions.
34. More generally, toxic discharges are regulated under both federal and state law. The federal
Clean Water Act, New York’s Environmental Conservation Law, and implementing regulations all serve to limit the allowable discharges of toxic materials.
Benefits and limits of ballast water exchange and flushing; problems associated with NOBOB vessels
35. As noted above, ballast water exchange and flushing are widely understood to be stopgap measures that are needed until ballast water treatment is required. Thus, ballast water exchange and flushing are needed in the near term but inadequate as long-term measures that can halt new invasions that will further impair New York’s water quality. New York’s Certification Condition
No. 1 requires ballast water exchange and flushing by certain vessels that enter New York waters on voyages originating inside the EEZ. New York’s Condition Nos. 2 and 3 impose numeric limits that will serve as more effective long-term measures for ensuring that New York’s water quality standards are met.
36. In recent years, the so-called “NOBOB” vessels that claim “No Ballast on Board” have been the greatest source of non-native species introduced into the Great Lakes. These vessels, which account for about 90% of the shipping traffic into the Seaway and Great Lakes, have not been required until recently to exchange or flush their ballast water.40 Johengen et al. recognized “a
26 pattern that has been developing since the early 1990s as a result of the economic realities of the
deep-sea trade into the Great Lakes, and lead us to conclude that in general, the best estimate is
that over 90% of the vessels entering the Great Lakes do so as NOBOBs.”41
37. One of the limitations of ballast water exchange is the variability in the amount of water
actually flushed from ballast tanks when they are emptied and refilled during mid-ocean
exchange. Johengen et al. ran tests on the Federal Progress, the Berge Nord, and one other ship
“to calculate ballast water exchange efficacy with regards to removing the original water mass
from the tanks. Overall, exchange efficacy with regard to the water mass was high among all
three vessels. Exchange efficacy based on salinity measurements ranged from 80.0% (Federal
Progress) to 100.1% (Berge Nord). Exchange efficacy based on rhodamine-dye ranged from
86.4% (Berge Nord) to 98.5%, (Federal Progress).”42 In a 2005 study for the Port of Oakland,
Ruiz et al. found that ballast water exchange “removed 88% of the initial water mass” on average, but the efficacy of exchange in different tests ranged “between 76% and 98%.”43
However, even an exchange efficacy of 76% or higher does not mean that at least 76% of AIS are
removed from a vessel’s ballast tanks. According to EPA, ballast water exchange “has been only
moderately effective in removing the risk of invasions by nonindigenous species.... Various
studies of ballast water tanks in actual field conditions have found that a 95 percent exchange of
the original water resulted in flushing of only 25 to 90 percent of the organisms studied.”44
38. One limitation of ballast water exchange (BWE) and flushing involves salt-resistant species
or life stages. For example, Reid et al. found that “diapausing invertebrate eggs may be largely
27 resistant to saltwater exposure, and that BWE may not mitigate the threat of species introductions
posed by this life stage.”45 The same authors found that:
Invertebrates from our experiments identified as salinity-tolerant species (34 ppt) include mysid shrimps, amphipods, isopods, harpacticoid copepods, bivalve veligers, and decapod zoea. Members of these taxonomic groups often experience dramatic fluctuations in salinity and temperature as part of their normal life histories and these factors have contributed to their ability to invade estuarine habitats. Of these estuarine animals, only a subset of salinity-tolerant species are capable of surviving and reproducing in a constant freshwater habitat such as the Great Lakes. Identifying species and populations with these characteristics from the port systems of the east coast of the U.S. and Canada, North Sea, and Baltic Sea is paramount for preventing problematic species from invading the Great Lakes region via the operations of commercial ships.46
39. Reid et al. also commented on the limited effectiveness of ballast water exchange for controlling enteric bacteria. As described by them, “fecal contamination was not predictably removed by at-sea exchange or other ballasting activities in both fresh and salt water. We suspect the bacteria, especially their resting stages, find ‘refuge’ from saltwater flushing in the residual sediments, or simply are not easily flushed out from tanks once established.”47
40. Despite such limitations, ballast water exchange and flushing are needed in the near term.
As described by Johengen et al., “Ballast water exchange is an imperfect, but generally beneficial
management practice in the absence of more effective and consistent management tools.”48
Necessity and feasibility of ballast water exchange for coastal voyages, particularly Atlantic coastal voyages that enter the Great Lakes
41. Petitioners ask the court to expand a ballast water exchange and flushing exemption, already
28 contained in New York’s Certification Condition No. 1 for the “Great Lakes - St. Lawrence
Seaway System,” to include “waters exclusively in the inland and internal waters of Canada and the United States from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Duluth in Lake Superior.” Petition at 47.
Because the exemption for Certification Condition No. 1 extends westward from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence (i.e., from Anticosti Island at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River) to Duluth in Lake
Superior, there should be no legitimate concern about this exemption to Condition No. 1 as currently provided. See Figure 1 attached to my affidavit.
42. Alternatively, petitioners’ request for an exemption that encompasses “waters exclusively in the inland and internal waters of Canada and the United States from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to
Duluth in Lake Superior” may be interpreted as a request to include the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and potentially the Canadian Maritime provinces as well, within the exempted area. Such an interpretation appears consistent with petitioners’ suggestion that voyages between Melford
Terminal, Nova Scotia and Oswego, NY should be exempt from ballast-water controls (Petition at 33-34). However, such an expanded exemption to Certification Condition No. 1 would not be environmentally protective. Any exemption allowing vessels from Nova Scotia and other
Canadian Maritime provinces to enter the Great Lakes without exchange or flushing or other ballast water controls would be unnecessarily broad and risky with respect to introductions of non-native species into New York’s Great Lakes waters. The risk is illustrated by recent evidence that the viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) entered the Great Lakes from
Canadian Maritime waters. The source of this virus, which has killed many fish of various species in New York waters in the past few years, has been studied by molecular analysis
29 techniques that indicate a likely link to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia waters:
While the molecular analysis has not revealed the exact origin of the virus or the mechanism of introduction, the Genotype IVb isolates obtained from fish in the Great Lakes are genetically most like isolates of VHSV recovered during 2000-2004 from mummichog and other diseased fish in rivers and near-shore areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada.... Thus, it appears likely that the VHSV strain in the Great Lakes may have had its origin among marine or estuarine fishes of the Atlantic seaboard of North America.49
This same study result is summarized in a U.S. Geological Survey news release, which indicates that genetic research by its scientists in cooperation with Canadian scientists has shown:
that this strain of the virus was probably introduced into the Great Lakes in the last 5 to 10 years, and that the fish die-offs occurring among different species and in different lakes should be considered as one large ongoing epidemic. The USGS genetic research also indicated that the Great Lakes’ strain of the virus was not from Europe, where three other strains of the virus occur, but more likely had its origin among marine or estuarine fish of the Atlantic seaboard of North America. The strain is genetically most like samples of VHSV recovered during 2000-2004 from diseased fish in areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada.50
43. There is no reasonable basis for exempting voyages between the Canadian Maritime provinces and the Great Lakes from the exchange-flushing requirement of New York’s
Certification Condition No. 1. Vessel safety is not an issue because Condition No. 1 grants a safety exemption, as needed, to the master of any vessel. Exchange or flushing in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence is a reasonably protective way for vessels en route between the Canadian Maritime provinces and the Great Lakes to meet the exchange-flushing requirement of Certification
30 Condition No. 1. The U.S. Coast Guard recognizes the value and feasibility of exchanging
ballast water in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, albeit in the slightly different context of oceangoing
vessels that have been unable to conduct mid-ocean exchange of ballast water. As described by
retired Commander Eric Reeves, the Coast Guard has allowed incoming vessels to use the Gulf
as an alternate exchange location:
The regulations also provide for approval of alternate exchange sites if vessels are having difficulty conducting exchanges within their loading parameters because of sea or weather conditions. As a matter of administrative practice, the relatively sheltered waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, east of the 63º west line of longitude have been customarily used as an alternate exchange site, based on advice that 63º west is the approximate area where the Gulf begins to be brackish. This provides an exchange in a distinct ecological area, but not an area which is as reliable a barrier as the open ocean zone beyond 200 miles.
E. Reeves, “Analysis of Laws & Policies Concerning Exotic Invasions of the Great Lakes,”
report published by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes,
1999, at 46-47; internal footnote omitted. A recent study by the Transportation Research Board
of the U.S. National Academies indicates that the use of this alternate exchange zone “is now
restricted to the beginning and end of the seaway navigation system because of concerns about
the effects of ballast water discharges on the ecosystem in the Gulf of St. Lawrence;”51 however,
any such concern would also apply to the effects of unexchanged ballast water discharged into
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Voyages between the Canadian Maritime provinces and the Great
Lakes should not be exempted from the exchange-flushing requirement of New York’s
Certification Condition No. 1.
31
33
Figure 1: Overview of New York and adjacent waters, including the Great Lakes (Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) and the St. Lawrence River which flows northeastward from Lake Ontario into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
New York’s Certification Condition No. 1 provides exemptions from the ballast water exchange/flushing requirement for vessels that remain within specified water bodies. For example, vessels that operate exclusively within waters of New York Harbor and Long Island Sound are exempt. Vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System (upstream of a line from Cap-des-Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and then to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River along a meridian of longitude 63 degrees West) are also exempt from Condition No. 1. A safety exemption is also available to all vessels under Condition No. 1.
The red line in Figure 1 shows the outer (eastern) limit of the Condition No. 1 exemption for vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System. The line (drawn from Cap-des-Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and then to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River along a meridian of longitude 63 degrees West) is at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, where the river flows into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Vessels that remain upstream of this line (as far westward as Duluth, Minnesota, on Lake Superior) are exempt from the ballast water exchange/flushing requirement of New York’s Certification Condition No. 1. (a) (b) Cumulative number of aquatic invasive Cumulative number of “ship-vectored” AIS species (AIS) that have entered the Great (meaning those brought by ships, especially in Lakes since 1840 ballast water) that have entered the Great Lakes since 1960
Figure 2: Two graphs showing increasing numbers (and increasing rate, where indicated by steepening curve) of aquatic invasive species (AIS) that have invaded the Great Lakes.
In Figure 2(a), which shows AIS that have invaded the Great Lakes by all pathways or “vectors” since 1840, note the increased rate of invasion (steeper curve) after the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened in 1959. Opening of the Seaway allowed oceangoing ships to enter the Great Lakes.
In Figure 2(b), which shows only the AIS brought into the Great Lakes by ships (especially by ships’ ballast water) since 1960, note that the rate of invasion has not declined in response to federal actions taken since 1990.
Graphs are from A. Ricciardi, “Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity,” 12 Diversity and Distributions 425 (2006) (attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A), Figure 1 (at 427) and Figure 5 (at 428).
34 Table 1: Comparison of New York’s Certification Condition Nos. 2 and 3
The “100x IMO” numeric limits in Condition No. 2 The “1000x IMO” numeric limits in Condition No. 3
2. By not later than January 1, 2012, each vessel 3. Each vessel constructed on or after January 1, covered under the VGP that operates in New 2013 that is covered under the VGP and operates York waters, shall have a ballast water treatment in New York waters, shall have a ballast water system that meets the following standards, treatment system that meets the following subject to the exceptions listed below. standards, subject to the exceptions listed below.
(A) Standard for organisms 50 or more (A) Standard for organisms 50 or more micrometers in minimum dimension: Any micrometers in minimum dimension: Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 1 ballast water discharged shall contain no living organism per 10 cubic meters. detectable living organisms.
(B) Standard for organisms less than 50 (B) Standard for organisms less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and micrometers in minimum dimension and more than 10 micrometers in minimum more than 10 micrometers in minimum dimension: Any ballast water discharged shall dimension: Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 1 living organism per 10 contain less than 0.01 living organism per milliliters. milliliter.
(C) Standards for indicator microbes: (C) Standards for indicator microbes: (i) Any ballast water discharged shall contain (i) Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 1 colony-forming unit of less than 1 colony-forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholera (serotypes O1 and toxicogenic Vibrio cholera (serotypes O1 and O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony-forming unit of that microbe per gram of colony-forming unit of that microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples; wet weight of zoological samples; (ii) Any ballast water discharged shall contain (ii) Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 126 colony-forming units of less than 126 colony-forming units of escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and (iii) Any ballast water discharged shall contain (iii) Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 33 colony-forming units of less than 33 colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters. intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters.
(D) Standard for bacteria: Any ballast water discharged shall contain less than 1,000 NOTE bacteria per 100 milliliters. This table shows only the numeric limits and compliance dates for Condition Nos. 2 and 3. (E) Standard for viruses: Any ballast water Both conditions contain exemptions and discharged shall contain less than 10,000 qualifications that are not included here. For viruses per 100 milliliters. the full text, see New York’s certification.
35 Table 2: Comparison of numerical limits or standards (living/viable organisms) Ballast water standard or basis vessels; same as Size or class of vessels; same as
organism Unmanaged ballast water IMO Study Group (SGBOSV) recommendation to IMO United States recommendation to IMO in 2004 United States primary recreational water quality criterion Ballast water standard adopted by IMO NY Condition No. 2 for existing House bill H.R. 2830 NY Condition No. 3 for new California standard Organisms >50 :m 400 <0.4 <0.01 -- <10 <0.1 None (zooplankton) detectable per m3
Organisms 10-50 :m (phyto- 13.3 <0.0133 <0.01 -- <10 <0.1 <0.01 plankton) per milliliter
Vibrio cholera: -- -- <1 -- <1 <1 <1 cfu per 100 milliliters E. coli: cfu per 100 -- -- <126 <126 <250 <126 <126 milliliters Intestinal enterococci: -- -- <33 <33 <100 <33 <33 cfu per 100 milliliters Bacteria per 100 83 million ------<1,000 milliliters Viruses 740 million per 100 (virus-like ------<10,000 milliliters particles) Information MEPC MEPC BWM/ EPA IMO First 2 lines converted to source 49/2/21 49/2/21 CONF/14 Gold D-2 per m3 and 2003 2003 2004 Book std. per milliliter
36 ENDNOTES:
1. U.S. EPA, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options, 4, 6 (September 10, 2001), identified at 66 Fed. Reg. 49381 (September 27, 2001); see also U.S. EPA, Predicting Future Introductions of Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/066F, November 2008, at 8 (Fig. 2).
2. E. Mills et al., “Exotic Species in the Great Lakes: A History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions,” 19 J. of Great Lakes Research 1 (1993).
3. A. Ricciardi, “Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity,” 12 Diversity and Distributions 425 (2006) (attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A), at 428.
4. Id. at 427.
5. See also 16 U.S.C. §4701(a).
6. U.S. EPA and Government of Canada, The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, Third Edition, 1995, at 4.
7. Id.
8. Lake freighters follow best management practices for their uptake of ballast water, but such practices are of limited value when populations of non-native organisms are already pervasive in ports where ballasting is done.
9. 33 CFR Part 401. For promulgation, see 73 Fed. Reg. 9950 (February 25, 2008).
10. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council of the U.S. National Academies, Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species (Washington, DC: Transportation Review Board, 2008), at 105 and 144-145; see also E. Reeves, “Analysis of Laws & Policies Concerning Exotic Invasions of the Great Lakes,” report published by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes, 1999, at 56.
11. U.S. EPA, Predicting future introductions of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/066F, November 2008, at ii and 2.
12. Id. at 34-47 (Figs. 8-21).
13. M. Falkner et al., “California State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California Waters,” California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division, January 2006, at 19.
14. For example, see the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force (GLMTF) April 24, 2008 news release on bill H.R. 2830, attached to this affidavit as Exhibit B, which quotes GLMTF president Patrick J. O’Hern as saying “This legislation is tough but fair – this problem is big enough that it needs a tough response.” The GLMTF is described in the news release as “an organization representing most shipping interests on the Great Lakes,” and its letterhead shows that petitioners Port of Oswego Authority and American Great
37 Lakes Ports Association are members of GLMTF. See also the Lake Carriers’ Association 2007 Annual Report, attached to this affidavit as Exhibit C, which refers to bills H.R. 2830 and S. 1578 and expresses concern that they were not enacted into law: “The Great Lakes lost big when the House and Senate bills stalled. Had they passed, they would have set a standard 100 times more protective than that endorsed by the International Maritime Organization. With a clear-cut standard in place, and consistent application of its requirements mandated by a Federal law, researchers and system designers would this day be developing ballast water treatment systems that would meet that specific standard. Instead, the debate goes on.”
15. Submission by the United States to IMO on Ballast Water Discharge Standards, Regulation D-2, document BWM/CONF/14 (2004). Note that the standards recommended by the United States in this 2004 submission did not prevail; IMO adopted weaker standards.
16. For California’s requirements and compliance dates for newly constructed vessels, see VGP version of February 5, 2009 at 62-64 and also California’s certification letter dated February 4, 2009, esp. Additional Condition #4 and Attachment 3. Both the VGP and California’s certification letter are available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.
17. For Pennsylvania’s requirements and compliance date for newly constructed vessels, see VGP version of February 5, 2009 at 99-102, esp. Condition #3 at 101-102. Both the VGP and Pennsylvania’s certification letter are available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.
18. For New York’s requirements and compliance date for newly constructed vessels, see VGP version of February 5, 2009 at 82-95, esp. Condition #3 at 87-88. Both the VGP and New York’s certification letter are available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.
19. See Ballast Water Discharge Standards: Report and Recommendation of the California Advisory Panel on Ballast Water Performance Standards, October 2005, Appendix 1, for full list of panel members.
20. N. Dobroski et al., Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters, California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division, December 2007, Appendix C.
21. Submission by the United States to IMO on Ballast Water Discharge Standards, Regulation D-2, document BWM/CONF/14 (2004). Note that the standards recommended by the United States in this 2004 submission did not prevail; IMO adopted weaker standards.
22. M. Falkner et al., op. cit., at 34.
23. IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee, Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors, “Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water: Comments on Draft Regulation E-2,” MEPC 49/2/21 (2003), Annex 1, Sections 8 and 15(a).
24. New York CWA 401 Certification (RI 21) at 13, quoting M. Falkner et al., op. cit., at 34, with respect to organisms larger than 50 micrometers (>50 :).
25. IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee, Study Group on Ballast Water and Other Ship Vectors, op. cit., Sections 9 and 15(b).
38 26. Ricciardi, op. cit. (attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A), Figures 1 and 5, at 427-428. See also K. Holeck et al., “Bridging Troubled Waters: Biological Invasions, Transoceanic Shipping, and the Laurentian Great Lakes,” 54 BioScience 919 (October 2004), Figure 5, at 922.
27. Comments of Ernesta Ballard, Alaska Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, Pacific States British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force Annual Meeting, July 20, 2004, available at www.dec.state.ak.us/commish/speeches/bctf%20071604%20final.pdf.
28. There may be some confusion between the Coast Guard approval needed under NISA to discontinue ballast water exchange (33 CFR 151.1510(a)(3)) and the lack of any approval needed from the Coast Guard to install equipment on ships.
29. The ETV program developed a draft protocol in 2004 for verifying the performance of ballast water treatment systems, and the program is ongoing. See www.epa.gov/etv/center-wqp.html.
30. Lloyd’s Register, Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status (London: Lloyd’s Register), September 2008, at 16, which shows capital costs in the neighborhood of either $380,000 or $875,000 (mean capital costs) for two different sizes of ballast water treatment systems: “Capital cost information is more widely available in 2008 compared to 2007, however, almost half of the suppliers regard this information as confidential. From the 14 sets of data provided, the capital cost of a 200 m3/h plant ranges from $145k to $780k, with a mean value of around $380k. For a 2000 m3/h plant, the equivalent values are $175k to $2000k with a mean of $875k.” Lake freighters may require somewhat larger ballast water treatment systems.
31. Id. at 15.
32. According to Transportation Research Board, op. cit., at 66, ballast water capacities of oceangoing vessels visiting the Great Lakes “range from 1,200 to 24,500 cubic meters.” Note that most such vessels that enter the Great Lakes, particularly the NOBOB vessels, are carrying only a small fraction of the capacity of their ballast water tanks.
33. Transportation Research Board, op. cit., at 9.
34. D. Pimentel et al., “Environmental and Economic Costs of Non-Indigenous Species in the United States,” 50 BioScience 53, 58 (2000).
35. C.L. Hazlewood, “Ballast Water Management: New International Standards and National Invasive Species Act Reauthorization,” Testimony before Congressional subcommittees on behalf of The Ocean Conservancy, Ballast Water Management Hearing, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, March 25, 2004, available at www.nemw.org/TOC-3-25-Testimony.pdf.
36. D.A. Ullrich, Testimony before Congressional subcommittees on behalf of Great Lakes Cities’ Initiative, Ballast Water Management Hearing, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, March 25, 2004, available at www.glslcities.org/documents/TestimonyBallastWaterInvasiveSpecies.pdf.
39 37. The estimate of 373 vessels operating in the Seaway system in a typical year is based on Transportation Research Board, op. cit., at 65-68 (up to 260 transoceanic vessels plus “almost 70” vessels of the Canadian domestic/coastal fleet plus 43 inland vessels, yielding a total of 373). Most of these vessels return to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System year after year, and some remain entirely within the System. As noted above, lake freighters may require larger ballast water treatment systems than oceangoing vessels.
38. Lloyd’s Register, September 2008, op. cit., at 15.
39. Id. at 24.
40. See 33 CFR Part 401 and 73 Fed. Reg. 9950 (February 25, 2008) for rules that now apply to entry into the Great Lakes through the Seaway.
41. T. Johengen et al., Final Report: Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Non-indigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes, Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research (University of Michigan) and NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, April 2005 (Revision 1, May 20, 2005), at iii.
42. Id. at xii; see also 5-56, 5-57, and 6-9.
43. G. Ruiz et al., Final report: Biological Study of Container Vessels at the Port of Oakland, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, 22 March 2005, at 4 and 80. Available at www.serc.si.edu/labs/marine_invasions/publications/PortOakfinalrep.pdf.
44. U.S. EPA, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options (September 10, 2001), op. cit., at 10. See also G. Ruiz et al., op. cit., at 80.
45. D.F. Reid et al., Final Report: Identifying, Verifying, and Establishing Options for Best Management Practices for NOBOB Vessels, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, June 2007 (Revised), at v; see also 64.
46. Id. at vi-vii; see also 95-96.
47. Id. at 32.
48. Johengen et al., op. cit., at 6-10. See generally at 5-58 through 5-65 and 6-8 through 6-10.
49. U.S. Geological Survey, “Molecular Epidemiology of the Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus in the Great Lakes Region,” USGS FS 2008-3003, January 11, 2008, at 3.
50. www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1856.
51. Transportation Research Board, op. cit., at 141.
40 EXHIBIT A
Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2006) 12, 425–433
Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian RESEARCH Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity Anthony Ricciardi
Redpath Museum and McGill School of ABSTRACT Environment, McGill University, Montreal, The Laurentian Great Lakes basin has been invaded by at least 182 non-indigenous Quebec, Canada species. A new invader is discovered every 28 weeks, which is the highest rate recorded for a freshwater ecosystem. Over the past century, invasions have occurred in phases linked to changes in the dominant vectors. The number of ship-vectored invaders recorded per decade is correlated with the intensity of vessel traffic within the basin. Ballast water release from ocean vessels is the putative vector for 65% of all invasions recorded since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. As a preventive measure, ocean vessels have been required since 1993 to exchange their freshwater or estuarine ballast with highly saline ocean water prior to entering the Great Lakes. However, this procedure has not prevented ship-vectored species introductions. Most ships visiting the Great Lakes declare ‘no ballast on board’ (NOBOB) and are exempt from the regulation, even though they carry residual water that is discharged into the Great Lakes during their activities of off-loading inbound cargo and loading outbound cargo. Recently introduced species consist predominantly of benthic invertebrates with broad salinity tolerance. Such species are most likely to survive in a ballast tank following ballast water exchange, as well as transport in the residual water and tank sediments of NOBOB ships. Thus, the Great Lakes remain at risk of being invaded by dozens of euryhaline invertebrates that have spread into Eurasian Correspondence, Anthony Ricciardi, Redpath ports from whence originates the bulk of foreign ships visiting the basin. Museum, 859 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Keywords Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada. Tel.: 514-398-4086 ext. 4089#; Fax: 514-398-3185; Ballast water, biological invasions, exotic species, invasion rate, Ponto-Caspian E-mail: [email protected] species.
patterns and rates of species invasions before and after the INTRODUCTION strategy’s implementation. The documented invasion history of Thousands of non-indigenous species of invertebrates, verte- the Great Lakes spans two centuries and implicates a broad array brates, plants, fungi, and bacteria have invaded most regions of of vectors, including ballast water release from ocean vessels, the planet (Vitousek et al., 1997). A small fraction but growing which is responsible for most invasions in modern times (Mills number of these invaders threatens biodiversity, ecosystem func- et al., 1993; Ricciardi, 2001; Holeck et al., 2004). Since May 1993, tioning, natural resources, and human health (Mack et al., 2000). ships have been required to exchange their freshwater or estuarine The vast majority of recent invasions are attributable to human ballast with highly saline oceanic water prior to entering the Great activities associated with international trade, which is accelerating Lakes (United States Coast Guard, 1993), a procedure termed the spread of organisms into new regions (Mack & Lonsdale, 2001; ‘ballast water exchange’ (BWE); the regulation was preceded by Levine & D’Antonio, 2003). As a result, invasions are apparently voluntary guidelines issued by Canada in 1989 (Locke et al., 1993) occurring over unprecedented temporal and spatial scales, and the USA in 1991. In theory, an open-ocean BWE should particularly in large aquatic ecosystems (Cohen & Carlton, 1998; greatly reduce the risk of invasion as freshwater organisms in Leppäkoski & Olenin, 2000; Ruiz et al., 2000). ballast tanks would be purged or killed by the highly saline water To prevent the spread of invasive species, management efforts and be replaced by marine organisms that cannot survive and must aim to control human vectors of dispersal (Ruiz & Carlton, reproduce if released into the Great Lakes. In practice, open- 2003). Apart from exceptional circumstances that permit direct ocean BWE does not remove all coastal and inland-water taxa measurement, the only objective method by which we can gauge from ballast tanks, although it may reduce the numbers of live the efficacy of a vector control strategy is to compare observed individuals (Locke et al., 1993; Niimi & Reid, 2003; Levings et al.,
© 2006 The Author DOI: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00262.x Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd www.blackwellpublishing.com/ddi 425
A. Ricciardi
2004). Furthermore, BWE often achieves only brackish salinities distribution is anomalously disjunct (i.e. contains widely because residual freshwater usually remains in the tanks, due to scattered and isolated populations); (5) its global distribution is the position of the pump intakes (Locke et al., 1993; Niimi & associated with human vectors of dispersal; and (6) the basin is Reid, 2003; Niimi, 2004). Therefore, conditions produced by isolated from regions possessing the most genetically and BWE might not be intolerable to organisms adapted to a broad morphologically similar species. salinity range. An ‘invader’ is defined here as an non-indigenous species that A further complication is that most ships entering the Great has established a reproducing population within the basin, as Lakes after 1993 are loaded with cargo and, thus, carry only residual inferred from multiple discoveries of adult and juvenile life stages water and tank sediments (Holeck et al., 2004); they declare ‘no over at least two consecutive years (following Ruiz et al., 2000). ballast on board’ and hence are called NOBOB ships. At the Given that successful establishment often requires multiple present time, NOBOB ships are not subject to regulation, even introductions of an invader (Kolar & Lodge, 2001), I deliberately though those entering the Great Lakes each year are collectively excluded records of discoveries of one or a few non-reproducing carrying at least 23,000 m3 of residual water (Niimi & Reid, 2003) individuals, whose occurrence may reflect merely transient species that may contain millions of living invertebrates (Duggan et al., or unsuccessful invasions (e.g. Manny et al., 1991; Fago, 1993). 2005). Moreover, NOBOB tank sediments typically harbour I have also excluded species that are indigenous to any part of cysts, spores, and resting eggs of algae and invertebrates that can the Great Lakes basin, even though they may have invaded other hatch or be placed in suspension when the ship re-ballasts, and areas of the basin (e.g. sea lamprey; Waldman et al., 2004). then are released at another port where the ship discharges water For each invader, I sought to identify the year of its discovery, before taking on new cargo (Bailey et al., 2003, 2005; Duggan et al., its endemic region, and the most plausible mechanism of its 2005). Residual ballast water and sediments have been found to introduction, which was usually provided in the published report contain crustacean species that have been discovered recently in of its discovery. I assigned each invader to one of the following the Great Lakes, as well as other freshwater invertebrates that vector categories: (1) shipping — transport by ballast water; have not yet been recorded (Duggan et al., 2005). Therefore, (2) shipping — transport by hull fouling; (3) deliberate release NOBOB ships may represent an active vector that plays a role in (for cultivation and stocking); (4) aquarium release; (5) accidental introducing benthic organisms, especially those with resting release (including ornamental escape, research escape, bait bucket stages. Such possibilities call into question the efficacy of BWE in release, and unintended release of parasites/pathogens through reducing invasions associated with transoceanic shipping. fish stocking); (6) canals, used as a dispersal corridor; and (7) This paper examines patterns and rates of invasion in the Great unknown or other vectors. In the case of multiple implicated Lakes basin in relation to changes in vector activity, particularly vectors, I chose the vector assumed responsible for the initial shipping. Using a new data set, I evaluate current evidence that introduction to the basin. Transoceanic shipping was assumed to BWE has influenced the recent invasion history of the Great be the vector for invertebrate and algal species whose nearest Lakes basin. The composition of invaders and their rate of potential source population was located overseas, with the excep- discovery are compared before and after BWE regulation, in tion of species associated with live trade, e.g. by the aquarium order to test the following hypotheses: (1) the rate of invasion in industry. Data were obtained from major reviews by Mills et al. the Great Lakes is correlated with shipping activity; (2) the rate of (1993), MacIsaac (1999), Cudmore-Vokey & Crossman (2000), invasion has been reduced following BWE; and (3) the composi- Duggan et al. (2003), Spencer & Hudson (2003), and Bronte tion and ecological traits of invaders in the Great Lakes have been et al. (2003), as well as through a search of Internet databases (e.g. altered since the time BWE was implemented. Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts; http://www.fao.org/fi/ asfa/asfa.asp). The complete data set is contained in Appendix S1 in Supplementary Material. METHODS Invasion rates were estimated by dividing the number of I compiled a comprehensive database of non-indigenous species established non-indigenous species discovered over a given time of vascular plants, algae, invertebrates, and fishes recorded as interval by the length of that time interval. Two intervals, ‘long- invaders in the Great Lakes basin (including each of the Great term’ (1840–2003) and ‘modern’ (1960–2003), were selected to Lakes and their drainages, as well as the upper St. Lawrence River allow comparison with other aquatic systems that have well- between the outflow of Lake Ontario and the Island of Montreal) documented invasion histories spanning several decades. Long- from the years 1840–2003. For the purposes of this paper, ‘non- term and modern rates in the Great Lakes were also compared to indigenous species’ are defined as species that have no previous prehistoric rates, which were estimated by calculating the numbers evolutionary history in the Great Lakes basin and were introduced of ‘native’ species (excluding endemics) that have become there since the beginning of European colonization. A species naturalized in the basin since glacial recession. The relationship whose evolutionary origins are poorly known was considered between the discovery rate and shipping activity in the Great ‘non-indigenous’ if it met at least three of the following criteria, Lakes per decade was tested by regression analysis of the net adapted from Chapman & Carlton (1991): (1) the species tonnage of cargo ships (both overseas and domestic vessels) appears suddenly where it has not been recorded previously; averaged over all years within each decade from 1900 to 1999; (2) it subsequently spreads within the basin; (3) its distribution in shipping data were obtained from the Lake Carriers’ Association the basin is restricted compared with native species; (4) its global (1999). In order to test whether the rate of discovery has been
© 2006 The Author 426 Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Patterns and rate of invasion in the Great Lakes
Figure 2 Vectors attributed to Great Lakes invasions since the year 1840. Data are in 30-year time intervals, except for the top bar that corresponds to the decade following ballast water regulation.
Figure 1 Cumulative number of invaders in the Great Lakes between 1840 and 2003. Line fitted by least-squares regression: y = 6.02 + 0.27x + 0.005x2, where x = years since 1840. The second-order equation (r2 = 0.997) provides a better fit than a straight line (r2 = 0.966).
altered by the implementation of BWE, I used piecewise regression (Toms & Lesperance, 2003) to identify any significant break points (sharp transitions) in the discovery record during the 1980s and 1990s; the significance of any apparent break point was determined by the Chow test using Proc AUTOREG in version 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Ecological characteristics of free-living (i.e. non-parasitic, non-pathogenic, non-commensal) invaders assumed to have been transported to the Great Lakes basin by ships were compared before (1960–88) and after (1994–2003) BWE regulation. These characteristics included (1) the invader’s endemic origin; (2) whether the adult stage and juvenile stage are benthic or pelagic; (3) whether the species possesses a resting stage; and (4) whether the species is euryhaline, as determined by its occurrence in both Figure 3 Number of free-living invaders presumed introduced by brackish-water and freshwater habitats. Fisher’s exact tests on ships vs. shipping activity in the Great Lakes. Shipping activity is categorical data were used to evaluate whether BWE and the measured in net tonnage (1 ton (Imperial) = 0.9842 t) of cargo ships increasing prevalence of NOBOB ships have imposed filters that (both overseas and domestic vessels) averaged over all years within are permeable to euryhaline benthic organisms with resting each decade. Line fitted by least-squares regression: y = 0.05x; r2 = 0.516, P < 0.019. Shipping data are from the Lake Carriers’ stages. Because voluntary guidelines were issued by Canada in Association (1999). 1989, although with reportedly high levels of compliance (Locke et al., 1993), I excluded the period 1989–93 from this analysis. discovered every 28 weeks. The relative abundance of invading plants, algae, invertebrates, and fishes has changed markedly RESULTS with time, largely in concordance with changes in vector activity. At least 182 non-indigenous species have invaded the Great Lakes Over the past 100 years, invasions caused by mechanisms of basin since the year 1840. Over 40% of these invaders were deliberate release (e.g. via fish stocking or plant cultivation) have discovered since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. declined, whereas shipping-related invasions and modes of Consequently, there has been a nonlinear accumulation of non- unintended release have increased (Fig. 2; see also Mills et al., indigenous species in the Great Lakes over the past two centuries 1993). Invasions attributable to shipping vectors have increased (Fig. 1). The long-term rate of invasion (inferred from the rate of with shipping activity during the 20th century (Fig. 3). Shipping discovery since 1840) is 1.1 species year−1, whereas the modern activity peaked during the latter half of the century, and during rate (since 1960) is 1.8 species year−1 — i.e. one new invader this time invasions by vascular plants diminished, while those of
© 2006 The Author Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 427
A. Ricciardi
Figure 4 Changes in the taxonomic composition of Great Lakes Figure 6 Proportions of Great Lakes invaders possessing attributes invaders since the year 1840. Data are in 30-year time intervals, hypothesized to affect their introduction under ballast water except for the top bar which corresponds to the decade following regulation. Results are shown for free-living species whose ballast water regulation. introduction is attributed to shipping from 1960 to 1988 (black bars) and 1994–2003 (grey bars), respectively. Two-tailed P-values from Fisher’s exact tests are shown. ns, not significant.
The composition of invaders appears to have changed after BWE regulation (Fig. 6), but the results must be interpreted with caution because of the relatively small number of invaders in the post-1993 comparison. There is no significant difference in the proportion of invaders with resting stages. However, invaders attributable to shipping after 1993 are more likely to be euryhaline organisms with benthic adult and juvenile lifestyles. Recent invaders are also more likely to be Ponto-Caspian in origin. Ponto- Caspian organisms comprise 10% (3/29) of all ballast-water- vectored invaders recorded between 1960 and 1988, but 69% (9/ 13) of all such invaders from 1994 to 2003. The percentages remain virtually unchanged if we consider only free-living species: 10% for 1960–88 vs. 70% for 1994–2003.
Figure 5 Cumulative number of ship-vectored, free-living invaders discovered in the Great Lakes since 1960. Line fitted by least-squares DISCUSSION regression: y = 0.95x + 2.75, where x = years since 1960 (r2 = 0.992). Apparent rates of invasion: modern, long-term, and prehistoric aquatic invertebrates and algae increased (Fig. 4); 65% of all invasions recorded since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in The long-term rates of invasion (since 1840) estimated for fishes 1959 are attributable to ballast water release. A linear accumulation and molluscs are nearly one order of magnitude higher than the of ship-vectored invaders is recorded from 1960 onwards (Fig. 5). prehistoric rates of invasion for these groups over the past 11,000 From 1960 to 1988, prior to the implementation of BWE, the years since the formation of the Great Lakes: 0.15 species year−1 mean rate of discovery of invaders attributable to shipping was vs. 0.017 species year−1 for fishes (Mandrak, 1989; Cudmore- 1.0 species year−1. Since 1993, the mean rate has been 1.2 species Vokey & Crossman, 2000), and 0.1 species year−1 vs. 0.011 species year−1 (0.9 species year−1 for free-living species), suggesting that year−1 for molluscs (Clarke, 1981). Genetic divergence can also be mandatory BWE has not prevented ship-vectored invasions. used to estimate the natural incidence of biotic exchange; this There is no significant change in the discovery rate after BWE method reveals that modern rates of establishment of European was implemented; piecewise regression found no break points in freshwater crustaceans (Cladocera) in the Great Lakes are c. 50,000 the cumulative discovery curve for free-living species during the times higher than prehistoric rates (Hebert & Cristescu, 2002). late-1980s or 1990s (Chow tests, P > 0.1 in all cases). Shipping The modern discovery rate of 1.8 species year−1 is higher than remains the most plausible vector responsible for 62% of that recorded for any other freshwater ecosystem for which long- non-indigenous species (84% of free-living species) discovered term data exist (cf. Biró, 1997; Mills et al., 1997; García-Berthou after 1993. & Moreno-Amich, 2000; Sytsma et al., 2004). A comparison of
© 2006 The Author 428 Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Patterns and rate of invasion in the Great Lakes
promote invasion by reducing competition and other forms of community resistance; it appears to be important for the success of introduced plants, but less so for animals (Lozon & MacIsaac, 1997). Much of the large-scale disturbance in the Great Lakes occurred during initial phases of channelization and canal building from the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries (Mills et al., 1993), and plant invaders were more prevalent during this period than at any other time. But vectors of plant introduction were also more prevalent during this period, creating unprecedented opportunities for invasion (Mills et al., 1993). Arguably, the most important factor contributing to the invasion rate is the frequency in which life-history stages capable of establishing a population are delivered to the basin, i.e. propagule pressure (Kolar & Lodge, 2001). A potential proxy vari- able for propagule pressure exerted by shipping activity is the net tonnage of cargo ships visiting Great Lakes ports; this variable explains more than half of the variation in the number of invaders Figure 7 Comparison of invasion rates for large aquatic systems. The modern rate is the rate of discovery of all non-indigenous (algae, fishes, and free-living invertebrates) presumed introduced plants, algae, invertebrates, and fishes since 1960. The long-term rate by ships. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 permitted is the rate of discovery since the earliest recorded introduction the influx of larger vessels carrying greater volumes of ballast (c. 150–200 years ago). Sources of data for systems other than the water and tank sediments into the Great Lakes, increasing the Great Lakes: Mills et al. (1997); Cohen & Carlton (1998); Thresher abundance and diversity of transported propagules (Holeck et al. (1999); Reise et al. (1999); Leppäkoski & Olenin (2000); et al., 2004). A concomitant increase in domestic vessel traffic has Fofonoff et al. (2003); Sytsma et al. (2004). served to spread these propagules between ports and connecting channels throughout the Great Lakes, thereby giving introduced species more opportunities to encounter hospitable habitat and discovery rates suggests that the Great Lakes basin is among the become established. Connecting channels, in particular, offer a most highly invaded aquatic ecosystems on the planet (Fig. 7). great diversity of lentic and lotic habitats as well as shallow areas The absolute number of Great Lakes invaders cannot be precisely where incipient populations are more focused and their gametes known because almost certainly there have been undetected and larvae are less likely to be diluted in the water column invasions (Taylor & Hebert, 1993; Kerfoot et al., 2004). The basin (Holeck et al., 2004). contains numerous Holarctic or cosmopolitan species whose It has been hypothesized that facilitation between non-indigenous endemic origins are unverifiable (‘cryptogenic species’ sensu species may also drive an increasing invasion rate. Through Carlton, 1996) and represent possible invaders (e.g. Onycho- direct and indirect positive (mutualistic and commensalistic) camptus mohammed, Daphnia retrocurva, Potamothrix bavaricus; interactions, one introduced species may facilitate the establish- Hudson et al., 1998; Spencer & Hudson, 2003; Kerfoot et al., ment of another introduced species by enhancing their survival 2004), which were excluded from this study. There are also several and population growth upon introduction (Simberloff & Von introduced species whose establishment could not be verified by Holle, 1999). Direct positive interactions are at least as common multiple records of collection, including the red alga Compsopogon as direct negative interactions among non-indigenous species in cf. coeruleus (Manny et al., 1991), the green algae Monostroma the Great Lakes (Ricciardi, 2001). While it seems plausible that wittrockii and Monostroma bullosum (Taft, 1964), skipjack some co-evolved Eurasian species contributed to each other’s herring Alosa chrysochloris (Fago, 1993), red shiner Cyprinella establishment, or have contributed to an invader’s rapid spread lutrensis (Fuller et al., 1999), and the oligochaete Psammoryctides within the basin, there is little evidence that facilitative interactions barbatus (Spencer & Hudson, 2003). have increased the rate of invasion in the Great Lakes. Facilitation more commonly enhances the abundance and ecological impact of aquatic invaders rather than their establishment (Ricciardi, Factors affecting the apparent rate of invasion 2005), which supports the view that aquatic invasions are The invasion rate is normally inferred from the rate of discovery governed more by dispersal opportunity and physical habitat of non-indigenous species, and an increasing discovery rate is conditions than by the composition of the recipient community interpreted to indicate that a region is becoming more invaded. (Moyle & Light, 1996). Multiple factors, environmental and artefactual, may generate a Additional factors may have confounded the results of this pattern of increasing discovery of invaders. Environmental distur- analysis. Variation and bias in detection effort affect both the rate bance, increased propagule pressure, and facilitation among non- and the taxonomic composition of invaders discovered (Duggan indigenous species might render an ecosystem more susceptible et al., 2003). For example, the discovery rate was increased by to invasion (Mack et al., 2000; Kolar & Lodge, 2001; Ricciardi, studies of the parasite fauna of two introduced fishes (round 2005). Disturbance (e.g. through habitat alteration) is thought to goby and Eurasian ruffe) in the early 1990s; the studies identified
© 2006 The Author Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 429
A. Ricciardi eight new non-indigenous parasites that were likely introduced did not appear in previous intensive surveys of benthic crusta- with their hosts (United States Department of the Interior, 1993; ceans in the lake (Hudson et al., 1998; Horvath et al., 2001). Pronin et al., 1997). In fact, since 1992 there has been a series of discoveries of parasites and pathogens from taxonomic groups Another line of evidence: records of introduced that were not previously recorded in the basin. It is not clear species that failed to invade whether these species represent a new phase in the Great Lakes’ invasion history, or are more easily detected now because of Since 1959, there have been multiple discoveries of brackish- advances in study methods; therefore, to reduce this potential bias, water benthic organisms that have failed to establish reproducing my analysis considers only free-living species. While the discovery populations in the Great Lakes. These discoveries have continued rate could also have been enhanced by greater awareness of invasion after BWE regulation, and include adult Chinese mitten crab vectors in recent years, most major floral and faunal surveys were Eriocheir sinensis in 1994, 1996, and 2005 (Leach, 2003; V. Lee, conducted decades ago (see References in Mills et al., 1993) and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, pers. comm.; P. Fuller, there is no coordinated monitoring system in place to detect new http://nas.er.usgs.gov/), European flounder Platichthys flesus in invasions. And even if monitoring efforts were greater in recent 1994, 1996, and 2000 (Leach, 2003; A. Niimi, Canada Centre for years, there is no reason why they should suddenly reveal a Inland Waters, pers. comm.), and the Ponto-Caspian amphipod conspicuous group of mussels, crustaceans, and fishes sharing crustacean Corophium mucronatum in 1997 (Grigorovich & a unique biogeographical origin; the unprecedented wave of MacIsaac, 1999). The most plausible vector responsible for the Ponto-Caspian invasions recorded since the 1980s is probably not introduction of each of these species is ballast water release from an artefact of detection bias, but instead may be a consequence of overseas shipping. European flounder and mitten crab are increasing opportunities to be vectored by ships originating from incapable of establishing reproducing populations in freshwater European ports (see succeeding text). (Gutt, 1985; Anger, 1991) and, indeed, no young-of-the-year individuals for either species have ever been reported from the Great Lakes. A European flounder collected from Lake Erie in the Were recently discovered invaders introduced by year 2000 was estimated to be c. 7 years old (A. Niimi, pers. ships prior to BWE? comm.), suggesting that it was introduced at the time BWE For less-conspicuous species, there may be a substantial time lag became mandatory. The lifespan of mitten crabs is < 5 years (Jin before detection. Time lags between introduction, population et al., 2002; Rudnick et al., 2005), so at least some of these growth, and subsequent detection can generate an increasing occurrences — such as in Lake Erie in March 2005 and in Lake rate of discovery, even when the actual rate of introduction and Superior in December 2005 — result from recent ship-vectored detection effort are held constant (Costello & Solow, 2003). It is introductions rather than an extensive time lag between not possible to determine the extent to which this phenomenon introduction and detection. has contributed to discovery rates in the Great Lakes and other highly invaded systems. The question considered here is whether Composition of invaders in relation to prevailing all ship-vectored invaders recorded during the past decade were vectors introduced before BWE regulation. A few species, namely, the amphipod Gammarus tigrinus and three rhizopods discovered in Changes in the type and volume of ship ballast have produced 2001 and 2002, may have remained undiscovered in the Great distinct phases in the Great Lakes’ invasion history. Before 1900, Lakes for several years because of taxonomic difficulties in dis- ships generally carried solid ballast such as rock, sand, or mud, tinguishing them from closely related native species (Nicholls which was unloaded at the destination port where the ships were & MacIsaac, 2004; Grigorovich et al., 2005). Time lags might also to receive cargo (Mills et al., 1993); most of the invaders recorded be extensive for species with resting stages that can remain dormant during this period were plants that may have been transported as in sediments for decades (e.g. diatoms). Conversely, the biological seeds or stem fragments in soil ballast. After ballast water became attributes and life history of certain species may predispose them widely used in the 20th century, particularly after the opening of to be detected early in their invasion — one example is the fish- St. Lawrence Seaway, numerous non-indigenous species of phyto- hook water flea Cercopagis pengoi, a Ponto-Caspian crustacean plankton and zooplankton became established. A more recent introduced by transoceanic shipping. Cercopagis was discovered phenomenon is the influx of Ponto-Caspian organisms that in Lake Ontario in 1998 (MacIsaac et al., 1999). Given its unique began in the mid-1980s and possibly reflects changes in the morphology, conspicuous behaviour in the open water, and its European donor region. Dozens of Ponto-Caspian species have rapid rate of reproduction, Cercopagis is unlikely to have resided invaded western European ports and these range expansions are in the Great Lakes for several years prior to being detected; it providing increased opportunities for transport to the Great probably represents a ship-vectored invasion that occurred well Lakes (Ricciardi & MacIsaac, 2000; Bij de Vaate et al., 2002), as after BWE regulation. Two additional crustaceans discovered in has occurred most recently with C. pengoi (Cristescu et al. 2001). nearshore sediments of Lake Michigan in the late-1990s, the This influx apparently continues after BWE regulation, possibly Ponto-Caspian copepod Schizopera borutzki and another copepod because many Ponto-Caspian species have evolved a broad toler- Heteropsyllus sp., are also considered to be recent invaders ance to salinity and to varying environmental conditions (Reid & because they dominated the areas in which they were found but Orlova, 2002) and thus may survive an incomplete BWE or
© 2006 The Author 430 Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Patterns and rate of invasion in the Great Lakes transport in the residual ballast of NOBOB vessels. The increasing vided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council rate of discovery of Ponto-Caspian species may have biased our of Canada and by FQRNT Quebec is gratefully acknowledged. comparison of euryhaline invaders pre- and post-1993. Regardless of the cause, the Great Lakes basin has entered a new phase in its inva- REFERENCES sion history characterized by euryhaline benthic invertebrates. Surprisingly, invaders discovered after 1993 were not more Anger, K. (1991) Effects of temperature and salinity on the larval predisposed to possessing a resting stage than invaders discovered development of the Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis in the period 1960–88 (Fig. 6). Resting stages (diapausing eggs) (Decapoda: Grapsidae). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 72, of several species of zooplankton have been found to survive 103–110. exposure to seawater (Gray et al., 2005). Conversely, a severely Bailey, S.A., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Jenkins, P. & MacIsaac, H.J. reduced hatching rate under brackish-water conditions has been (2003) Viability of invertebrate resting stages collected from observed for some species collected from tank sediments of ships residual ballast sediment of transoceanic vessels. Limnology entering the Great Lakes (Bailey et al., 2004), indicating that the and Oceanography, 48, 1701–1710. possession of a resting stage does not necessarily confer resistance Bailey, S.A., Duggan, I.C., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Johengen, T.H., to the broad salinities produced by BWE. Reid, D.F. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2004) Salinity tolerance of dia- pausing eggs of freshwater zooplankton. Freshwater Biology, 49, 286–295. Implications for vector management Bailey, S.A., Duggan, I.C., Jenkins, P.T. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2005) With regards to my original hypotheses, these results suggest that Invertebrate resting stages in residual ballast sediment of (1) the apparent rate of invasion in the Great Lakes is correlated transoceanic ships. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic with shipping activity; (2) the rate of invasion due to shipping Sciences, 62, 1090–1103. has not declined following BWE regulation; and (3) the composi- Bij de Vaate, A., Jazdzewski, K., Ketelaars, H.A.M., Gollasch, S. & tion of new invaders in the Great Lakes has shifted to euryhaline Van der Velde, G. (2002) Geographical patterns in the range benthic organisms following BWE regulation. The effectiveness extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in of BWE has been undermined by the increasing proportion of Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, inbound foreign vessels that are not subject to regulation. Rather 1159–1174. than eliminating the risk of invasion via transoceanic shipping, Biró, P. (1997) Temporal variation in Lake Balaton and its fish BWE, combined with the predominance of NOBOB ships, has populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 6, 196–216. apparently altered the composition of new invaders in the Great Bronte, C.R., Ebener, M.P., Schreiner, D.R., DeVault, D.S., Lakes by imposing a semipermeable filter. Consequently, unless Petzold, M.M., Jensen, D.A., Richards, C. & Lozano, S.J. (2003) management strategies are adopted to treat residual water and Fish community change in Lake Superior, 1970–2000. sediments in ballast tanks, the Great Lakes basin remains suscep- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60, tible to future ship-vectored invasions, particularly by Ponto- 1552–1574. Caspian invertebrates (Ricciardi & Rasmussen, 1998). This is Carlton, J.T. (1996) Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. significant because ports in western Europe continue to be invaded Ecology, 77, 1653–1655. by Ponto-Caspian species (e.g. Janas & Wysocki, 2005; Rodionova Chapman, J.W. & Carlton, J.T. (1991) A test of criteria for intro- et al., 2005) and because previous Ponto-Caspian invaders (such duced species: the global invasion by the isopod Synidotea as dreissenid mussels, the fish-hook water flea C. pengoi, and the laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 11, round goby Neogobius melanostomus) have demonstrated a propen- 386–400. sity for causing substantial ecological impacts in the Great Lakes Clarke, A.H. (1981) The freshwater mollusks of Canada. National and elsewhere (Ojaveer et al., 2002; Vanderploeg et al., 2002). Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario. Finally, it is remarkable that not a single non-indigenous Cohen, A.N. & Carlton, J.T. (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in species ever established in the Great Lakes basin is known to have a highly invaded estuary. Science, 279, 555–558. subsequently disappeared. Thus, there has been an accumula- Costello, C.J. & Solow, A.R. (2003) On the pattern of discovery of tion, rather than a turnover, of non-indigenous species in the introduced species. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences basin. Because non-indigenous species can interact in ways that USA, 100, 3321–3323. exacerbate each other’s impacts (e.g. interactions between Cristescu, M.E.A., Hebert, P.D.N., Witt, J.D.S., MacIsaac, H.J. & quagga mussels and round gobies have caused recurring Grigorovich, I.A. (2001) An invasion history for Cercopagis outbreaks of avian botulism in Lake Erie; see Ricciardi, 2005), pengoi based on mitochondrial gene sequences. Limnology and an accumulation of invaders may lead to a greater frequency of Oceanography, 46, 224–229. synergistic disruption. Cudmore-Vokey, B. & Crossman, E.J. (2000) Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sciences, No. 2550. I thank Greg Ruiz, Dave Reid, and Hugh MacIsaac for their valuable Duggan, I.C., Bailey, S.A., Colautti, R.I., Gray, D.K., Makarewicz, J.C. comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Funding pro- & MacIsaac, H.J. (2003) Biological invasions in Lake Ontario:
© 2006 The Author Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 431 A. Ricciardi
past, present and future. State of Lake Ontario: past, present and Kerfoot, W.C., Ma, X., Lorence, C.S. & Weider, L.J. (2004) future (ed. by M. Munawar), pp. 541–558. Backhuys Publish- Toward Resurrection Ecology: Daphnia mendotae and D. retro- ing, Leiden, the Netherlands. curva in the coastal region of Lake Superior, among the first Duggan, I.C., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Bailey, S.A., Jenkins, P.T., successful outside invaders? Journal of Great Lakes Research, 20 Limén, H. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2005) Invertebrates associated (Suppl. 1), 285–299. with residual ballast water and sediments of cargo carrying Kolar, C. & Lodge, D.M. (2001) Progress in invasion biology: ships entering the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 199– and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 2463–2464. 204. Fago, D. (1993) Skipjack herring, Alosa chrysochloris, expanding Lake Carriers’ Association (1999) Annual report. Lake Carriers’ its range into the Great Lakes. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 107, Association, Cleveland, Ohio. 352–353. Leach, J.H. (2003) Unusual invaders of Lake Erie. Point Pelee Fofonoff, P.W., Ruiz, G.M., Steves, B., Hines, A.H. & Carlton, J.T. Natural History News, 3 (1), 1–5. (2003) National exotic marine and estuarine species information sys- Leppäkoski, E. & Olenin, S. (2000) Non-native species and tem. http://invasions/si.edu/nemesis/. Access date: 4 August 2004. rates of spread: lessons from the brackish Baltic Sea. Biological Fuller, P.L., Nico, L.G. & Williams, J.D. (1999) Nonindigenous Invasions, 2, 151–163. fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. Levine, J.M. & D’Antonio, C.M. (2003) Forecasting biological American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, invasion with increasing international trade. Conservation Maryland. Biology, 17, 322–326. García-Berthou, E. & Moreno-Amich, R. (2000) Introduction of Levings, C.D., Cordell, J.R., Ong, S. & Piercey, G.E. (2004) The exotic fish into a Mediterranean lake over a 90-year period. origin and identity of invertebrate organisms being trans- Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 149, 271–284. ported to Canada’s Pacific coast by ballast water. Canadian Gray, D.K., Bailey, S.A., Duggan, I.C. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2005) Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61, 1–11. Viability of invertebrate diapausing eggs exposed to saltwater: Locke, A., Reid, D.M., van Leeuwen, H.C., Sprules, W.G. & implications for Great Lakes’ ship ballast management. Carlton, J.T. (1993) Ballast water exchange as a means of con- Biological Invasions, 7, 531–539. trolling dispersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Canadian Grigorovich, I.A., Kang, M. & Ciborowski, J.J.H. (2005) Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50, 2086–2093. Colonization of the Laurentian Great Lakes by the amphipod Lozon, J.D. & MacIsaac, H.J. (1997) Biological invasions: are they Gammarus tigrinus, a native of the North American Atlantic dependent on disturbance? Environmental Reviews, 5, 131–144. coast. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 31, 333–342. MacIsaac, H.J. (1999) Biological invasions in Lake Erie: past, Grigorovich, I.A. & MacIsaac, H.J. (1999) First record of present and future. State of Lake Erie: past, present and future Corophium mucronatum Sars (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in the (ed. by M. Munawar and T. Edall), pp. 305–322. Backhuys Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 25, 401–405. Publishing, Leiden, the Netherlands. Gutt, J. (1985) The growth of juvenile flounders (Platichthys MacIsaac, H.J., Grigorovich, I.A., Hoyle, J.A., Yan, N.D. & flesus L.) at salinities 0, 5, 15, and 35‰. Journal of Applied Panov, V.E. (1999) Invasion of Lake Ontario by the Ponto- Ichthyology, 1, 17–26. Caspian predatory cladoceran Cercopagis pengoi. Canadian Hebert, P.D.N. & Cristescu, M.E.A. (2002) Genetic perspectives Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56, 1–5. on invasions: the case of the Cladocera. Canadian Journal of Mack, R.N. & Lonsdale, W.M. (2001) Humans as global plant Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1229–1234. dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience, 51, Holeck, K., Mills, E.L., MacIsaac, H.J., Dochoda, M., Colautti, R.I. 95–102. & Ricciardi, A. (2004) Bridging troubled waters: understand- Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M. ing links between biological invasions, transoceanic shipping, & Bazzaz, F.A. (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, and other entry vectors in the Laurentian Great Lakes. global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications, 10, BioScience, 10, 919–929. 689–710. Horvath, T.G., Whitman, R.L. & Last, L.L. (2001) Establishment Mandrak, N.E. (1989) Potential invasion of the Great Lakes by of two exotic crustaceans (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) in fish species associated with climatic warming. Journal of Great the nearshore sands of Lake Michigan. Canadian Journal of Lakes Research, 15, 306–316. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 1261–1264. Manny, B.A., Edsall, T.A. & Wujek, D.E. (1991) Compsopogon cf. Hudson, P.L., Reid, J.W., Lesko, L.T. & Selgeby, J.H. (1998) coeruleus, a benthic red alga (Rhodophyta) new to the Laurentian Cyclopoid and harpactacoid copepods of the Laurentian Great Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Botany, 69, 1237–1240. Lakes. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin (New Series), 12 (2), 1–50. Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T. & Secor, C.L. (1993) Exotic Janas, U. & Wysocki, P. (2005) Hemimysis anomala G.O. Sars, species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and anthropo- 1907 (Crustacea, Mysidacea) — first record in the Gulf of genic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 19, 1–54. Gdansk. Oceanologia, 47, 405 –408. Mills, E.L., Scheuerell, M.D., Carlton, J.T. & Strayer, D.L. (1997) Jin, G., Xie, P. & Li, Z. (2002) The precocious Chinese mitten Biological invasions in the Hudson River basin: an inventory crab: changes of gonad, survival rate, and life span in a and historical analysis. New York State Museum Circular freshwater lake. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 22, 411–415. No. 57, 1–51.
© 2006 The Author 432 Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Patterns and rate of invasion in the Great Lakes
Moyle, P.B. & Light, T. (1996) Fish invasions in California: do Ruiz, G.M., Fofonoff, P.W., Carlton, J.T., Wonham, M.J. & abiotic factors determine success? Ecology, 77, 1666–1670. Hines, A.H. (2000) Invasion of coastal marine communities in Nicholls, K.H. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2004) Euryhaline, sand- North America: apparent patterns, processes, and biases. dwelling, testate rhizopods in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 481–531. Lakes Research, 30, 123–132. Simberloff, D. & Von Holle, B. (1999) Positive interactions Niimi, A.J. (2004) Role of container vessels in the introduction of of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological exotic species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, 778–782. Invasions, 1, 21–32. Niimi, A.J. & Reid, D.M. (2003) Low salinity residual ballast Spencer, D.R. & Hudson, P.L. (2003) The Oligochaeta (Annelida, discharge and exotic species introductions to the North Clitellata) of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes region: an update. American Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1334–1340. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29, 89–104. Ojaveer, H., Leppakoski, E., Olenin, S. & Ricciardi, A. (2002) Sytsma, M.D., Cordell, J.R., Chapman, J.W. & Draheim, R.C. (2004) Ecological impacts of alien species in the Baltic Sea and in the Lower Columbia River aquatic nonindigenous survey 2001–04. Great Lakes: an inter-ecosystem comparison. Invasive aquatic Final technical report prepared for the United States Coast species of Europe: distributions, impacts, and management (ed. Guard and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 78p. by E. Leppäkoski, S. Gollasch and S. Olenin), pp. 412–425. Taft, C.E. (1964) The occurrence of Monostroma and Enteromorpha Kluwer Scientific Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science, 64, 272–274. Pronin, N.M., Fleischer, G.W., Baldanova, D.R. & Pronina, S.V. Taylor, D.J. & Hebert, P.D.N. (1993) Cryptic intercontinental (1997) Parasites of the recently established round goby hybridization in Daphnia (Crustacea): the ghost of introduc- (Neogobius melanostomus) and tubenose goby (Proterorhinus tions past. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, marmoratus) (Cottidae) from the St. Clair River and Lake St. Biological Sciences, B 254, 163–168. Clair, Michigan, USA. Folia Parasitologica, 44, 1–6. Thresher, R.E., Hewitt, C.L. & Campbell, M.L. (1999) Synthesis: Reid, D.F. & Orlova, M.I. (2002) Geological and evolutionary introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay. underpinnings for the success of Ponto-Caspian species invasions Marine biological invasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria (ed. by in the Baltic Sea and North American Great Lakes. Canadian C.L. Hewitt, M.L. Campbell, R.E. Thresher and R.B. Martin), Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1144–1158. pp. 283–295. Centre for Research on Marine Pest, Technical Reise, K., Gollasch, S. & Wolff, W.J. (1999) Introduced marine Report No. 20. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tasmania. species of the North Sea coasts. Helgolander Meeresuntersuc- Toms, J.D. & Lesperance, M.L. (2003) Piecewise regression: a hungen, 52, 219–234. tool for identifying ecological thresholds. Ecology, 84, 2034– Ricciardi, A. (2001) Facilitative interactions among aquatic 2041. invaders: is an ‘invasional meltdown’ occurring in the Great United States Coast Guard (1993) Ballast water management for Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, vessels entering the Great Lakes. Code of Federal Regulations 2513–2525. 33-CFR Part 151.1510. Ricciardi, A. (2005) Facilitation and synergistic interactions United States Department of the Interior (1993) Ruffe parasites: among introduced aquatic species. Invasive alien species: a hitchhikers on invaders? Research Information Bulletin, new synthesis (ed. by H.A. Mooney, R.N. Mack, J. McNeely, No. 97. National Biological Survey, Ashland, Wisconsin. L.E. Neville, P.J. Schei and J.K. Waage), pp. 162–178. Island Vanderploeg, H.A., Nalepa, T.F., Jude, D.J., Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., Press, Washington, D.C. Liebig, J.R., Grigorovich, I.A. & Ojaveer, H. (2002) Dispersal Ricciardi, A. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2000) Recent mass invasion of the and emerging ecological impacts of Ponto-Caspian species in North American Great Lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and in Ecology & Evolution, 15, 62–65. Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1209–1228. Ricciardi, A. & Rasmussen, J.B. (1998) Predicting the identity Vitousek, P.M., D’Antonio, C.M., Loope, L.L., Rejmanek, M. & and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic Westbrooks, R. (1997) Introduced species: a significant com- resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and ponent of human caused global change. New Zealand Journal Aquatic Sciences, 55, 1759–1765. of Ecology, 21, 1–16. Rodionova, N.V., Krylov, P.I. & Panov, V.E. (2005) Invasion of Waldman, J.R., Grunwald, C., Roy, N.K. & Wirgin, I.I. (2004) the Ponto-Caspian predatory cladoceran Cornigerius maeoticus Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates sea lampreys are maeoticus (Pengo, 1879) into the Baltic Sea. Oceanologica, 45, indigenous to Lake Ontario. Transactions of the American 73–75. Fisheries Society, 133, 950–960. Rudnick, D., Veldhuizen, T., Tullis, R., Culver, C., Hieb, K. & Tsukimura, B. (2005) A life history model for the San Francisco SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Estuary population of the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis (Decapoda: Grapsoidea). Biological Invasions, 7, 333–350. The following material is available online at Ruiz, G.M. & Carlton, J.T. (2003) Invasion vectors: a conceptual http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/ddi. framework for management. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies (ed. by G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton), Appendix S1 List of non-indigenous species recorded in the pp. 459–504. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Great Lakes, and their vectors of introduction.
© 2006 The Author Diversity and Distributions, 12, 425–433, Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 433 EXHIBIT B OFFICERS OFFICERS President Third Vice President - Government Relations Patrick J. O'Hem John D. Baker • Bay Shipbuilding Company GREAT LAKES • Great Lakes District Council, ILA, AFL-CIO First Vice President- Positions & Resolutions Secretary Daniel L. Smith MARITIME Glen G. Nekvasil • American Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO • Lake Carriers' Association • Toledo Port Council, MID, AFL-CIO TASK FORCE Treasurer Second Vice President- Membership Maria Burgess James H. I. Weakley ONE MARITIME PLAZA ·3rd .FLOOR • TOLEDO, OHIO 43604 • Am erican Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO • Lake Carriers' Association Phone: (419) 255-3940 • Fax: (419) 255-2350 • www.glmtf.org
MEMBERS !l.!.!HQ!S Chicago Port Council CN Hannah Marine Corporation NEWS RELEASE Illinois International Port District fflAHA Central Marine Logistics, Inc. Ports of Indiana April 24, 2008 MICl:IKiAH CMS Energy Central Dock Company Detroit Edison "HISTORIC" BALLAST WATER BILL PASSES HOUSE Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority Durocher Marine Edw. C. Levy Co. Bill Contains Most Stringent Standards Ever The King Co., Inc. Lake Michigan Carferry Service, Inc. Lakes Pilots Association WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The House of Representatives today passed the Luedtke Engineering Company MCM Marine, Inc Michigan Maritime Trades Port Council O-N Minerals, Great Lakes Division world's toughest invasive species control measures. The bipartisan legislation, which Pere Marquette Shipping Company Ryba Marine Construction Co. Sargent Companies Seafarers International Union was endorsed by a broad cross section of Great Lakes organizations, creates a Soo Marine Supply, Inc. Wirt Stone Docks MINNESOTA Duluth Seaway Port Authority historic opportunity to address one of the most vexing issues facing the Great Lakes, Great Lakes Fleet, Inc./ Key Lakes, Inc. Hallett Dock Company Marine Tech, LLC and ou r Nation's waterways. NEWYORK American Steamship Company Gateway Trade Center, Inc. Port of Oswego Authori!Y. The legislation, H.R. 2830, sponsored by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), and St. Lawrence Seaway Pilot's Assn. Ol!IO American Maritime Officers, AFL-CIO supported by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), ranking Republican on the Coast Guard ArcelorMittal Steel Cleveland-Cliffs Inc Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority Corus subcommittee, was endorsed both by the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, an CSX Transportation, Toledo Docks Faulkner, Muskovitz & Phillips Flats Oxbow Association Grand River Navigation Company, Inc. association of shipping companies, labor organizations, shipyards and ports, plus a Great Lakes Distnct Council, ILA, AFL-CIO ILA Lake Erie Coal &Ore Dock Council ILA Local 1317 ILA Local 1768 coalition of environmental groups, including Great Lakes United, National Wildlife lnt'I Ofllanization of Masters, Mates &Pilots lnl'I Ship Masters Association The Interlake Steamship Company Lafarge North America Federation, Healing Our Waters Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Lake Carriers' Association Lorain Port Authority MidwestTerminalsotToledolnt'I Audubon Society, and The Nature Conservancy. Osborne Concrete & Stone Co. Pickands Mather Lake Seivices Company, Inc. Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority Toledo Port Council, MTD, AFL-CIO "This bipartisan bill is historic because it has passed the House overwhelmingly United Steelworkers, District 1 United Steelworkers, Local 5000 Wheeling &Lake Erie Railway Co. PENNSVLYANIA and because it is endorsed by a broad cross-section of Great Lakes interests, from Carmeuse Lime, Inc. Erie Shipbuilding, LLC US Steel Corp. shipping companies to environmental groups," said Patrick J. O'Hern , President of 'ilBlilNlA B+B Dredging Company Norfolk Southern Corporation WISCONSIN the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, an organization representing most shipping Bay Shipbuilding Company Brown County Port & Solid Waste Dept. City of Supenor Planning Dept. interests on the Great Lakes. "This legislation is tough but fair - this problem is big Midwest Energy Resources Company The Port of Miwaukee Western Great Lakes Pilots Association GREATER WASHINGTON enough that it needs a tough response." American Great Lakes Ports Association American Maritime Officers Service, AFL-CIO American Shipbuilding Association District No.1 - PCD, MEBA, AFL-CIO lnt'I Brotherhood of Boilermakers -more- Kirkpatrick &Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP Transportation Institute Great Lakes Maritime Task Force - News Release April 24, 2008
"The passage of this legislation is a watershed moment for the Great Lakes," said Dr. Marc Gaden,
Legislative Liaison for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the binational agency that manages many federal invasive species programs. "Most importantly, the bill is designed to protect the Great Lakes from new invaders introduced by ocean-going vessels. Building upon the initiative that Lakers-those ships that do not leave the Lakes-have taken voluntarily, this bill also provides for an emergency response to interlake movement of organisms. We urge the Senate to complete the job and pass its legislation immediately."
Among other requirements, the bill imposes the most stringent ballast water standards ever - standards that are 100 times tougher than existing international standards. An Environmental
Protection Agency official recently said that the standards in the bill are far tougher than what the Agency could impose under existing law.
The ballast water legislation is part of a comprehensive Coast Guard budget bill. It first passed a
House Committee more than a year ago but has been stalled over a range of issues, including disputes related to the ballast water title.
The Senate's Commerce, Transportation and Science Committee has approved roughly similar legislation (S. 1578), but that bill has yet to pass the full Senate. S. 1578 is sponsored by Senator Daniel
Inouye (D-HI), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
-30-
For more information contact: Glen G. Nekvasil, Secretary Great Lakes Maritime Task Force Phone: (216) 861-0592 E-mail: [email protected] EXHIBIT C Lake Carriers’Association
®
The Greatest Ships on the Great Lakes 2007 ANNUAL REPORT ©
Because of the dredging crisis U.S.-Flag Lakers left port with their cargo holds less than full thousands of times in 2007.
Photo: Todd Shorkey Lake Carriers’ Association Suite 915 • 614 West Superior Avenue • Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1383 • www.lcaships.com
Dear Friend of Great Lakes Shipping: The expression “in a nick of time” comes to mind when assessing 2007. The dredging crisis had reached epidemic proportions. U.S.-Flag Lakers were typically using less than 90 percent of their carrying capacity because of inadequate water depth in either the connecting channels or ports. In fact, as water levels fell at year’s end, some vessels were forfeiting 15 percent of their hauling power. Something had to give, or Great Lakes shipping was on the brink of becoming economically unviable. Thanks to the Great Lakes delegation in Washington, something did happen that points to a brighter future. The Great Lakes received their first significant increase in their dredging appropriation in decades. In FY08, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have nearly $140 million for operation and maintenance dredging on the Lakes. That sum is an increase of more than $45 million over the amount allocated to the Lakes in recent years. The additional funds will allow the Corps to begin to clear the backlog of dredging projects. However, this is no time for proclamations of victory. The situation reminds me of Winston Churchill’s reaction to the United States entering World War Two: “This is not the beginning of the end [for the Axis], but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.” Yes, we have started to take back the Lakes, but the campaign ahead of us will be long and challenging. The task facing us is truly daunting. It is estimated the Corps will need $230 million to clear the backlog. That $230 million is on top of the $140 million the Corps needs each year to just maintain the current condition of ports and waterways. We will need to battle for our fair share of dredging dollars for a number of years to come. I am optimistic about winning more Federal dollars in the future because of the way the Lakes maritime community has rallied behind this issue. I think one can safely say that never in the history of Great Lakes shipping have more diverse interests come together to achieve a common goal. Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, the coalition leading the dredging effort (I serve as an Officer of GLMTF) has grown so much that it soon will be impossible to include all members’ names on its letterhead! While dredging is the top priority for Lake Carriers’ Association, a long-term goal took a tremendous step toward reality in 2007. Congress authorized construction of a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, at full Federal expense. The lock was first authorized in 1986, but it took 21 years for Washington to acknowledge that this one chamber is indeed the single point of failure that will cripple Great Lakes shipping, and its twinning is a Federal responsibility. I could fill this entire report listing the names of legislators and regulators who have helped Great Lakes shipping in 2007 and previous years. Still, I must acknowledge the role of Congressman James L. Oberstar (D-MN) in winning full Federal funding for the lock. He has been a tireless advocate for the project and his persistence is a model we all should follow. I wish I could report some positive developments concerning ballast water and the war against non-indigenous species. Unfortunately, legislation that would launch a successful counterattack has been stalled by interests who are bent on employing the Clean Water Act, even though the U.S. EPA admits the law is ill-suited to this purpose. I don’t question the commitment of those who favor the Clean Water Act, but when the Federal agency charged with implementing a law warns that it doubts its effectiveness, isn’t it time to take a different approach? We could already have a Federal law that sets a standard 100 times more protective of U.S. waters than that set by the International Maritime Organization. I hope we don’t miss another opportunity in 2008. In closing, I want to return to the dredging crisis and thank the countless legislators and regulators who helped us turn the tide in 2007, in particular, Congressmen David R. Obey (D-WI) and Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN), and Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), George V. Voinovich (R-OH), and Herbert H. Kohl (D-WI). Victory is not yet ours. Conditions in some ports may worsen before they get better. Nonetheless, we’ve proved that by working together we can start to take back the Lakes. I’m excited just thinking about what we can accomplish in 2008. Respectfully,
James H.I. Weakley President LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION 2007 ANNUAL REPORT LCA OBJECTIVES 2008 And Beyond
Dredging Crisis going vessels entering the Lakes. LCA remains hopeful, but not optimistic, that 2008 will see a ballast water bill pass the House and Senate, so it can be signed into law. Nothing better illustrates the severity of the dredging crisis than the cargos It’s regrettable that some put legal claims and philosophical principals above the loaded in the closing days of 2007. Even though the largest U.S.-Flag Lakers can goal of stopping the influx of invasive species. This is a case where we need more carry more than 72,000 tons per trip, the final coal cargos barely topped 60,000 tons. regulation and less rhetoric. Let’s get this problem behind us! The iron ore trade suffered even more. Several cargos fell below 59,000 tons. The dredging crisis is sapping the strength from the U.S. economy. The Second Poe-Sized Lock Great Lakes basin is America’s industrial heartland. Every time a Great Lakes vessel pulls away from a loading dock with unused carrying capacity, the customer pays a The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directs the U.S. Army Corps double penalty. First, since the vessel is not fully loaded, there’s a shortfall in the of Engineers to build a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, at full delivery that can affect production, both current, and then in the Winter, when the Federal expense. Congress now must quickly appropriate the $341 million needed to Lakes are closed and operations are supported by stockpiled cargo. Second, since build the lock, for every day of delay puts the U.S. economy at risk. The Soo Locks the vessel cannot maximize its carrying capacity, the operator cannot offer the best are truly the aorta of Great Lakes shipping, and a blockage will cause a heart attack. freight rate. Manufacturing, power generation, and the construction industry are raw Consider these facts. The two operational Soo Locks typically handle 80 to materials intensive, so even a tenth of a cent per ton can really add up. 85 million tons of cargo per year. Included in that total are 70 percent of the iron ore For example, it takes anywhere between 1.3 and 1.5 tons of iron ore to moving on the Lakes, 52 percent of the coal, and 67 percent of the grain. produce a ton of steel, and a major steel mill can gobble up 15,000 tons in a day. A The problem is that one lock, the Poe, handles nearly 80 percent of all the large power plant can burn nearly 30,000 tons of coal every 24 hours. Construction traffic. And roughly 70 percent of the U.S.-Flag Great Lakes fleet is restricted to the of one mile of 4-lane highway requires 85,000 tons of aggregate (limestone). Such Poe Lock because of the vessels’ length and/or beam. If anything happens to the Poe volumes demand the best freight rate possible. Lock, the North American steel industry will quickly face raw material shortages. There’s hardly a port on the Lakes that isn’t suffering from the dredging The region’s power plants that have switched to clean-burning low sulfur coal will be crisis. At least one, Dunkirk, New York, has closed to commercial navigation because without fuel. Midwest farmers will be cut off from export markets worldwide. of inadequate depth in the harbor. 500,000 tons of coal that was delivered by ship Construction of a second Poe-sized lock could take 10 years. Therefore, it is now further crowds congested rail lines. imperative that Congress appropriate funds to initiate the project as quickly as possible. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates it needs approximately $230 Loss of the Poe Lock will cripple the economy and our national defense capabilities. million to clear the backlog of dredging projects on the Lakes. While on the one hand $230 million is a significant amount of money, it is also a tiny fraction of the U.S. Coast Guard Resources surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The bitter irony of the dredging The Ninth Coast Guard District must patrol more than 100 ports, three major crisis is that cargo moving on the Lakes (and other waterways) is taxed to pay for connecting channels, and 1,500-plus miles of international border on the Lakes. dredging, but instead of spending the funds to keep America’s waterways efficient, During periods of ice cover, Coast Guard icebreakers have to keep the shipping lanes the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is amassing a surplus (more than $3.5 billion as open to meet the needs of commerce. These vessels are also responsible for more of this writing). than 2,500 Aids to Navigation. It is to the credit of Coast Guard personnel that such Congress took a major step forward in 2007 by increasing the Lakes dredging daunting tasks are accomplished even though the Ninth District lacks the proper appropriation to nearly $140 million for FY08. Those additional dollars will help number and mix of vessels to accomplish these missions. remove some of the backlog. However, it will take several years of increased However, a number of the icebreaking tugs are at mid-life. As a result, during appropriations to fully restore the Great Lakes navigation system to meet the needs the 2006-2007 ice season, all but one of the Coast Guard’s icebreaking assets suffered of commerce. The FY08 appropriation will allow the Corps of Engineers to start some type of casualty, which in some instances resulted in significant downtime. The addressing the dredging crisis, but the nation will not be able to capitalize on the new Mackinaw was the only exception. The U.S.-Flag Great Lakes fleet can move efficiencies and advantages of Great Lakes shipping until every port and waterway is nearly 20 percent of its annual float during periods of ice cover. At a minimum, the returned to project dimensions and then properly maintained. District needs another 140-foot-long icebreaking tug to keep the shipping lanes open Ballast Water and Non-Indigenous Species and then perform other missions during the ice-free months. Ocean-going vessels have introduced a number of non-indigenous species The Jones Act to the Great Lakes since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959, but the problem The Jones Act requires cargo moving between U.S. ports be carried on vessels is not unique to the Lakes/Seaway system. Every U.S. waterway and port range that that are U.S.-owned, -built, and -crewed. The same principles govern the movement of participates in global commerce has experienced non-native species taking root. passengers and other maritime activities such as towing, dredging, and salvage. Contrary to what some proclaim, Congress has tried to address the issue. The Jones Act’s purpose is so the United States shall have a “merchant marine Two bills introduced in the 113th Congress languished in 2007 because environmental of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels to carry … its commerce and interests would not abandon their ill-advised preference for the Clean Water Act serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.” The (CWA). Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called H.R. 2830 and U.S.-Flag domestic fleet numbers more than 39,000 vessels and domestic waterborne S. 1578 “much more stringent” than a regulatory system based on the CWA, and commerce routinely tops 1 billion tons. The fleet has grown by nearly 60 percent since cautioned that using that vehicle to address ballast water would present challenges, 1965, and ranks among the largest in the world in terms of capacity. such as establishing technological standards, that could take years to overcome. The U.S.-Flag Great Lakes fleet is a pacesetter in many ways. The self-unloading The Great Lakes lost big when the House and Senate bills stalled. Had they vessel was invented and perfected by U.S-Flag Lakes operators. Not only are these passed, they would have set a standard 100 times more protective than that endorsed vessels able to discharge 70,000 tons of cargo in 10 hours or less, they require no shoreside by the International Maritime Organization. With a clear-cut standard in place, and personnel or equipment to be unloaded. The end result is virtually any waterside property consistent application of its requirements mandated by a Federal law, researchers and can become a working dock with little investment from shoreside enterprises. system designers would this day be developing ballast water treatment systems that There are safety and environmental benefits to the Jones Act. U.S.-Flag vessels would meet that specific standard. Instead, the debate goes on. are built and operated to the world’s highest safety standards. The mariners who crew Lake Carriers’ Association and its members have taken steps to minimize the Jones Act vessels are licensed and documented by the U.S. Coast Guard, and again, the potential for their ballast operations to spread non-indigenous species introduced by standards to which they are held are without peer. ocean-going vessels. (Lakers never leave the system, so have never introduced an The Jones Act also plays a critical role in our nation’s national defense alien.) In fact, LCA had a program in place to address Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia capabilities by ensuring the U.S. has the ships and mariners to supply our troops (VHS) even before the fleet set sail in March 2007. worldwide, and the shipyards and related industries to build and maintain that fleet. What will 2008 hold? More jockeying for position? More State initiatives For these reasons (and many, many more), every Administration and Congress has that could force vessel operators to comply with a jumble of differing, perhaps even supported the Jones Act since its enactment in 1920. conflicting regulations? If that is the case, more exotics will take root in the Lakes. The only viable solution is Federal regulation of the ballast water and tanks on ocean- LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION 2007 ANNUAL REPORT U.S.-FLAG SHIPMENTS OF IRON ORE, COAL, AND LIMESTONE 2006-2007 and 5-Year Average (tons in millions)
Iron Ore Coal Limestone
50
40
30
20
10
0 2006 2007 Avg. 2002-2006 LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION Suite 915 • 614 West Superior Ave. • Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1383 • Fax: 216-241-8262 • www.lcaships.com James H. I. Weakley President 216-861-0590 • [email protected] Glen G. Nekvasil Carol Ann Lane Vice President - Corporate Communications Secretary / Treasurer 216-861-0592 • [email protected] 216-861-0593 • [email protected] MEMBERS American Steamship Company Armstrong Steamship Company Bell Steamship Company Central Marine Logistics, Inc. GLF Great Lakes Fleet Corp. Grand River Navigation Company, Inc. Great Lakes Fleet, Inc. / Key Lakes, Inc. HMC Ship Management, Ltd. Inland Lakes Management, Inc. The Interlake Steamship Company KK Integrated Logistics Lake Michigan Carferry Service, Inc. Lakes Shipping Company, Inc. Pere Marquette Shipping Company Soo Marine Supply, Inc. Upper Lakes Towing Company, Inc. VanEnkevort Tug & Barge, Inc.
LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION 2007 ANNUAL REPORT EXHIBIT D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Tom Mackey Hyde Marine, Inc. (440) 871-8000, ext 112 [email protected]
Hyde Marine, Inc Receives Order for Hyde Guardian™ Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF) Program
Cleveland, Ohio – June 12, 2008 – Hyde Marine, Inc., a leading marine equipment supplier specializing in shipboard environmental and security systems, won a contract for six (6) Hyde Guardian™ ballast water treatment systems for the Royal Navy’s Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF) program on behalf of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. Delivery will take place in the fall of 2008.
Three BWT systems will be supplied for each of the two carriers to serve the three segregated ballast systems on each ship. The Hyde Guardian™ systems were chosen after an exhaustive study of all available technologies for BWT. The Hyde Guardian™ was chosen because of its compact, single skid mounted design and because of its demonstrated effectiveness and reliability. The system is fully automatic and will be integrated into the ship’s ballast control system.
The Hyde Guardian™ system is the result of experience gained and lessons learned from five full scale systems delivered by Hyde in 2000 and 2001 with capacities ranging from 200 to 350m3/hr. The first of the current Hyde Guardian™ systems was installed aboard the cruise ship “Coral Princess” in June 2003 and has operated trouble free for nearly five years. A second system was installed aboard the RCL Celebrity brand cruise ship “Mercury” in late 2006.
The Hyde Guardian™ aboard the “Coral Princess” is expected to be the first ship accepted into the US Coast Guard’s STEP program this spring. The system is also undergoing IMO type approval through the UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) in cooperation with Lloyds Register. Land based testing is being conducted at the NIOZ facility in Holland and shipboard testing aboard the “Coral Princess”. Previous testing aboard the “Coral Princess”, during a 17 day cruise in the fall of 2004, demonstrated the system’s ability to meet the requirements of the IMO Ballast Water Convention D-2 Standards and the requirements of STEP.
About the CVF program
The CVF carriers, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” and HMS “Prince of Wales”, will have a displacement of about 65,000 tons and a length of 284 meters. The hulls are planned for a 50-year service life and the ships will be built in modules by selected naval shipbuilding yards in the UK, with final assembly in Rosyth. Each ship will have a complement of typically 1450 including the air crews, and will support about 40 aircraft including the Joint Strike Fighter and Airborne Early Warning aircraft.
About Hyde Marine
Hyde Marine, Inc. is a major supplier of shipboard environmental equipment including both modular and skid mounted ballast water treatment systems and UV disinfection, waste water treatment, oil water separation, and ballast tank sediment control systems, as well as other types of shipboard machinery and equipment. Hyde has also developed technologies for shipboard security solutions including non-lethal, forceful deterrent systems using remotely controlled water cannons. Hyde Marine and its joint venture company, Lamor LLC, manufacture and market oil spill response equipment internationally and work with organizations to develop and enhance their response capabilities. Additional information is available at http://www.hydemarine.com and http://www.lamor.com, by telephone at (440) 871-8000, or via e-mail at [email protected]