Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Policy Context for Regulating Live Organisms in Ballast Discharge
2 Policy Context for Regulating Live Organisms in Ballast Discharge
Pages 35-54
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 35... ...
, have authority to directly regulate ballast water discharges to waters of the United States. How their programs developed, overlap, and complement one another is the subject of this chapter. STATUTORY BACKGROUND OF BALLAST MANAGEMENT The first United States law with regulatory jurisdiction over live organisms in ballast water discharge was, by a 2005 U.S.
|
From page 36... ...
NANPCA was the first federal law globally with the explicit purpose of regulating ballast discharges of aquatic invasive species. NANPCA required the USCG to issue voluntary guidelines within six months and regulations within two years of enactment to prevent new introductions of aquatic nonindigenous species by ships entering the Great Lakes.
|
From page 37... ...
Era of Ballast Water Exchange Invasions by aquatic nonindigenous species discovered subsequent to ballast water exchange requirements on ships entering the Great Lakes, such as by the fishhook water flea Cercopagis pengoi in Lake Ontario in 1998, suggested that the shipping vector was still transmitting nonindigenous aquatic species into the Great Lakes. One major cause of continued problems was likely incomplete application of ballast water exchange.
|
From page 38... ...
, the USCG, and the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) began commending ballast water treatment in lieu of ballast water exchange as the best long-term solution to ballast-mediated aquatic species invasions.
|
From page 39... ...
To make these goals and objectives operational, EPA and the states have developed water quality standards that address the pollutant limits needed to protect the natural resources of concern. These criteria reflect the latest scientific knowledge on "the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shore lines, beaches, aesthetics, and recreation which may be expected from the presence of pollutants…"; "the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, … through biological, physical, and chemical processes"; and "the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity, and stability...for varying types of receiving waters" [33 U.S.C.
|
From page 40... ...
to issue regulations specifically "to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes through the ballast water of vessels." "Aquatic nuisance species" are defined as "a nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational activities dependent on such waters." The voluntary national ballast management program created by NISA contained a similarly stated purpose: "to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species in waters of the United States by ballast water operations and other operations of vessels equipped with ballast water tanks." In contrast to the CWA, NANPCA and NISA do not require development of discharge standards. They instead require that ships undertake specific ship operations, namely ballast water exchange consistent with USCG requirements or environmentally sound ballast water treatment that the USCG approves as being at least as effective as ballast water exchange, among others options.
|
From page 41... ...
However, such standards are now necessary in order to operationalize the NANPCA and NISA requirements that ships be allowed to substitute environmentally sound ballast water treatment "at least as effective as ballast water exchange" at preventing introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species by ships. CURRENT INTERNATIONAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE STANDARDS The USCG's first exploration of standards for ballast water treatment occurred in the context of discussions at the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
|
From page 42... ...
. D-1 is a ballast water exchange standard, requiring at least 95 percent volumetric exchange for empty-refill-style exchange, and three times the tank volume for vessels that conduct flow-through exchange.
|
From page 43... ...
Policy Context for Regulating Live Organisms in Ballast Discharge 43 TABLE 2‐1 IMO D‐1 and D‐2 Ballast Water Performance Standards Standard Exchange Type Viable Organism Density Empty‐ ≥ 95% Refill exchange D‐1 N.A. Flow‐ 3x tank through volume Organism Concentration <10 m‐3 ≥50 μm MD <10 ml‐1 ≥10 μm MD and <50 μm MD <1 CFU 100 ml‐1 or D‐2 N.A. <1 g‐1 zooplankton wet Vibrio cholera weight <250 CFU 100 ml‐1 Escherichia coli <100 CFU 100 ml‐1 Intestinal enterococci N.A. = Not Applicable. MD = minimum dimension. CFU = colony forming unit. Vibrio cholerae refers to toxic strains O1 and O139. TABLE 2‐2 Timeline for implementation of IMO Ballast Water Management Regulations Note: Built refers to vessel build date. D1 refers to the need for vessels to conduct bal‐ last water management that at least meets the ballast water exchange standards, while D2 refers to ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water perfor‐ mance standard. SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from David and Gollasch (2008) . © 2008 by Stephan Gollasch.
|
From page 44... ...
The IMO Convention, which will come into force one year after not less than 30 States representing 35 percent of the world's merchant tonnage have ratified without reservation5, nonetheless provides a common basis for the EPA and USCG to pursue domestic standards. NISA-Related Requirements In 2009, five years after the IMO Convention was agreed upon, the USCG issued a notice of proposed rulemaking citing its authority through NISA, which contained an interim and final numeric standard for live organisms in ballast discharge (Federal Register / Vol.
|
From page 45... ...
EPA Vessel General Permit As noted above, the EPA has not yet developed numeric water quality criteria or identified best available technology economically achievable for live organisms in ballast water discharge.6 The EPA's Vessel General Permit issued in 6 While the federal component of the VGP contained no numeric limits on living organisms in bal‐ last discharge, the state component of the process, the CWA section 401 certifications, resulted in several ballast water discharge standards added to the permit (see discussion below)
|
From page 46... ...
46 Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water BOX 2‐1 Viruses in the Context of Invasion Risk from Ballast Water Aquatic viruses are very, very small; most range between 20 and 200 nanometers (1 nm = 10‐9 meter) . They also are very, very abundant; even in pristine coastal waters, their concentrations routinely range from 1010 to 1012 per liter. Suttle (2005)
|
From page 47... ...
waters that are federally protected wholly or in part for conservation purposes. Comparison of Regulatory Programs in EPA and USCG Some features of the current EPA and USCG regulatory programs over live organisms in ballast discharge are inherently similar to each other.
|
From page 48... ...
Wisconsin began regulating discharges of ballast water by ocean-going vessels in February 2010, requiring 100 times the IMO D-2 performance standards for existing vessels by 2014. A subsequent technology availability review led the State to roll the requirement back to IMO D-2 performance standards provided they are undertaken in combination with ballast water exchange in the open ocean (see http://dnr.wi.gov/news/mediakits/mk_ballast.asp)
|
From page 49... ...
California has a mandatory state ballast water management program that is supported by fees charged to vessel operators, and Washington State's program requires ballast water reporting and monitoring and establishes standards for ballast water treatment systems. Other Countries Transport Canada in the late 2000s amended the Canada Shipping Act to mandate ballast water exchange, treatment, and discharge to a reception facility, or retention on board for most foreign vessels arriving to Canada.8 NOBOB vessels arriving from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (> 200 nautical miles offshore in water ≥ 200m depth)
|
From page 50... ...
TABLE 2‐4 Summary of State Ballast Water Treatment Permit Requirements and U.S. Clean Water Act Certification Conditions as of 50 January 2011 Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water
|
From page 51... ...
Policy Context for Regulating Live Organisms in Ballast Discharge 51
|
From page 52... ...
. CONCLUSIONS The Clean Water Act and over 20 years of subsequent federal and state legislative activity explicitly addressing the problem of ship mediated introductions of invasive species have generated a complex domestic network of regulatory arrangements around ballast water discharge.
|
From page 53... ...
In: 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop Report. GloBallast Pro gramme, 2001.
|
From page 54... ...
In: 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Work shop Report. GloBallast Programme, 2001.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.