Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast of North America: Developing a Regional Plan 2001 2

1
Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast
of North America Developing a Regional Plan
(2001- 2003)

• Karen McDowell
• San Francisco Estuary Project

2
Coastal Traffic

• Travels near-shore (unable to conduct open ocean
  exchange 200 nautical miles offshore)
• Concern for the coastwise transport of organisms
• Native and Non-native
• San Francisco Bay to Oregon and/or Washington,
  Mexico to California
• Short travel time/frequent discharge/repeat
  visits (high survival rate/repeat inoculations)
• Open Ocean Exchange Currently the only approved
  management tool.

3
Potential Solutions

• Shipboard Treatment Ultimate Solution
• Conduct a ballast water exchange without going
  200 nautical miles offshore in specific areas
  (only talking about water that originates from
  the West Coast of North America)
• Trade-offs
• Exchanging too close to shore could result in
  inoculating the coastline with ANS.
• Time and cost constraints for the vessels/carriers

4
Regulatory Programs (2000-2002)

• Transoceanic traffic
• Fairly Uniform
• Coastal Traffic
• Conflicts between the different state programs
• Maritime Industry wants a uniform program

5
Coastal Traffic (2000-2002)

• CA Program Did not have domestic coastal
  program until 2006.
• Washington Oregon - Mandatory requirements for
  ballast water exchange for coastwise traffic
  (domestic and foreign)
• WA (50 nautical miles offshore) Oregon (no
  distance offshore)

6
Regulations

• States/Provinces set up programs to try to
  protect their waters.
• Limitations in what they can do only have
  authority for ships discharging in their waters.
• Might protect state waters, but not be good for
  neighbors, or make sense on a regional basis
• Determine the best solution for the entire
  region, rather than a state by state approach.

7
Solving the Problem

• Examine the oceanography and biology to determine
  the best solution, taking into account the
  constraints of the shipping industry.
• Regional Approach
• Partners West Coast Ballast Outreach Project,
  Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission,
  Portland State University, California State Lands
  Commission, Washington Department of Fish and
  Game, and the Pacific Ballast Water Group, along
  with members from the maritime industry and
  environmental NGOs.

8
Time-Line

• March 2002 Oceanography Workshop
• Report West Coast Oceanography Implications
  for Ballast Water Exchange
• Follow-up workshop January 2003
• Stakeholders reviewed the oceanography report.
• April 2004 State Lands Commission held a
  workshop to discuss regulations for coastal
  traffic in California

9
Oceanography Workshop/Report

• Participants
• Barbara Hickey, University of Washington
• Jack Barth, Oregon State University
• Curtis Collins, Naval Postgraduate School
• Goal Compile the current information on coastal
  processes on the West Coast to enable informed
  decisions on how best to manage ballast water in
  coastal shipping to minimize the risk of ANS
  establishment.
• March 2002 December 2002 - Small budget

10
Recommendations

• 1 Retention Zones - Due to their retentive
  abilities, these areas should be considered as
  possible exclusion zones for ballast water
  exchange (from the shoreline to 50 nautical miles
  offshore).
• 2 1000m Isobath - Along all other areas of the
  coast, any ballast water discharged outside of
  the 1000 m isobath has a relatively low
  probability of reaching the shoreline.
• 3 Seasonal Fluctuations - Seasonal
  fluctuations should also be considered when
  determining when and where to exchange ballast
  water.

11
Retention Zones

• Strait of Juan de Fuca Eddy (4830N to 4740N)
• Heceta Bank (4500N to 4345N)
• Central California Retention Zone (Between Point
  Reyes and Sur)(3630N to 3850N)
• The Southern California Bight (3300N to
  3430N)
• The Columbia River Plume Retention Zone.
• In addition, other river or estuarine plumes,
  including those from Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
  in Washington, Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay (Newport)
  in Oregon, and San Francisco Bay in California
  have the capacity to pull water into the estuary
  within a few tens of kilometers of the mouth of
  each estuary on each tidal cycle.

12
(No Transcript)
13
Isobath lines Latitude vs. Distance Offshore
25NM (46.3 km)
50NM (92.6 km)
Figure created by Jack Barth
14
Coastal Exchange Workshop

• Stakeholders reviewed the oceanography report.
  (Marine Biology, Maritime Industry, Government,
  Environmental Groups)
• 50 participants
• Goal Outline potential regional plans for
  coastal ballast water exchange

15
Coastal Exchange Workshop Day 1

• Reviewed Coastal Ballast Water Exchange and the
  Oceanography Report (Dr. Curtis Collins).
• Broke into Working Groups (like groups)
• Biology We know that estuary to estuary
  transport is bad, so it is important to exchange
  on coastal voyages to reduce the risk of
  invasion. We are not sure how vulnerable the
  open coastline is to invasion, so for now the
  farther offshore the better.
• Shipping Industry willing to move further
  offshore in some regions.
• Government Agencies Regulations need to be
  enforceable, meaningful, understandable. Dont
  wait for certainty, coastal exchange as an
  interim measure.

16
Coastal Exchange Workshop Day 2

• Presenting findings from Day 1 Working Groups
• Broke into 3 mixed groups and came up with Draft
  regional plans for coastal ballast water exchange
  (all 3 groups came up with a similar plan)
• 50 nautical miles
• 15-25 nautical miles

17
Post Workshop

• Workshop Summary
• Planned to Review and refine plan
• Overlay draft plan again with shipping routes,
  isobaths (200m 1000m), and retention zones.
• Review and Revise
• February 2004 IMO passed Ballast Water
  Convention
• April 2004 State Lands Commission held a
  workshop to discuss regulations for coastal
  traffic in California

18
Summary

• Conflicting regulations were being set along the
  coast.
• Pulled together current knowledge and came up
  with best possible solution on a short time-line.
• Biologists - estuary to estuary transport is bad,
  so it is important to exchange on coastal voyages
  to reduce the risk of invasion (even though we
  are not sure how vulnerable the open coastline is
  to invasion).
• The farther offshore the better (since risk of
  open coastline is unknown).
• Used information from physical oceanographers to
  determine distance offshore.
• Uniform regulations for coastal traffic are now
  in place.

19
Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project 1515
Clay Street, Oakland, CA 510-622-2398 kmcdowell_at_wa
terboards.ca.gov