In June 1999, the Port of Oakland became the first major US West Coast container port to restrict the discharge of ballast water originating in foreign ports, a measure taken to decrease the introduction of potentially invasive, non-native species to the waters of San Francisco Bay (see March/April 2000 issue). At the same time, the Port was undertaking a multi-stage expansion, designed in part to bring more and larger ships into the Bay (see May/June 1998 issue).
The Port's regulation of ballast water discharge was one means of addressing the concern that increased Port traffic could also mean an increased risk of introducing invasive species into the Bay. One of the first lines of defense against non-native species is to cut off the stream of ballast water carrying them into the Bay. Ballast water is used by ships to provide stability and to compensate for cargo loads. It is often taken on in a port or coastal region, where the water may contain many organisms. It may be released at sea, along a coast, or in another port. If conditions are right, the organisms may transplant themselves to the new habitat and flourish where they are not wanted.
San Francisco Bay already has a substantial number of non-native species, many of which arrived in ballast water or on hulls and anchors of ships. Conditions in the Bay are much more favorable than the open sea for these "hitchhikers" from other ports, while organisms contained in the ocean water are less likely to survive being transferred to the Bay environment. By requiring ships to discharge water at sea from locations other than the West Coast and exchange it with water from the deep ocean, the Port regulation substantially decreased the risk that any invasive organisms would be in ballast water subsequently discharged into the Bay.
Some environmental organizations were concerned that the Port expansion would overwhelm the effects of the exchange requirement, and increase the risk of ballast water impacts. The Port's 50 Foot Dredging Project was planned to accommodate new container ships which are deeper and wider than "Panamax class" vessels, which must be relatively narrow to navigate the Panama canal. With a 50 foot channel and deeper berths, the new vessels could come into port without reducing cargo to ride higher in the water or waiting for favorable tide conditions. The Berths 55-59 Project, part of the Port's modernizing effort, also included new container terminals.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is partially funding the dredging project, and issued a permit for the new berths project because part of the work was done on submerged lands. As part of the environmental review for the permits, the Corps consulted with both the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Two organizations, San Francisco Baykeeper and the Center for Marine Conservation, sued the federal regulatory agencies —the Corps, FWS and NMFS—over approval of the 50 Foot Dredging Project and the Berths 55-59 Project. The suit focused on whether these agencies had adequately examined the risks of invasive species introductions which could be posed by ballast water discharges when the two projects are completed.
The environmental documents prepared for the two projects, beginning in May 1998 and concluding in September 1999, determined that the dredging project would not increase vessel traffic to the Port. In fact, because of the larger size of the post-Panamax ships, cargo volume would increase slightly but the number of ships entering the Port would decrease. The berths project would increase the number of ships, and the volume of ballast water discharged would increase by 5%. The combined effect of the two projects would be a decrease in the anticipated net volume of ballast water discharged. Another factor is that the different dimensions of the post-Panamax ships add stability and mean that less ballast water is usually carried and discharged from these vessels. Together with the Port's regulation prohibiting discharge of un-exchanged ballast water, the result would be a lower risk of impact from invasive species introductions after the projects were complete. In August 2002, the court upheld the agencies' analysis and dismissed the suit.
The Port's ballast water exchange regulation was reinforced and largely superseded by passage of a similar state law in 1999 which required ballast water exchange for all ships calling at California ports from outside the US; similar laws now exist in other West Coast states although they are not entirely consistent. The California law expires in December 2003 and renewal is anticipated. At the federal level, the Coast Guard has just recommended that voluntary ballast water controls become mandatory; the federal law on invasive species is due for renewal next year, which may present other opportunities to standardize ballast water management throughout the country. The International Maritime Organization is working on a draft plan for control of ballast water and sediments to be considered in 2003.
Although many groups, including those which sued over the Port projects, would like to see new controls include some form of ballast water treatment, there are still problems in determining the effectiveness of the many treatment methods now being tried. Any successful treatment technology will probably need to operate on board ship rather than onshore, for reasons of economy, since offloading water to an onshore treatment facility could slow turnaround time in port, and ships sometimes need to discharge ballast water before arriving at the terminal. While ballast water exchange can be up to 85-95% effective at removing undesired organisms under ideal circumstances, variations in size, configuration and equipment of various types of ships make it difficult to obtain accurate results. The same factors affect tests for treatment methods. In addition, many treatment methods work well on some organisms and less well on others; standards must be developed for which organisms are of most concern, and which can serve as indicators for the overall efficacy of a given treatment.
The Port is currently researching the effectiveness of ballast water exchange for container ships, which have received less attention than bulk cargo carriers and oil tankers. This research is being performed by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, with a portion of the work occurring at the Romberg Tiburon Center of San Francisco State University. The research will also look at organisms which are transported on ship hulls. In addition, the Port has funded work by the State Lands Commission to install and test an experimental ballast water treatment system on a container ship. This work should be completed within the next year.
Ballast water is not the only way that non-native species find their way into San Francisco Bay—other culprits include private recreational vessels, bait fisheries, intentional introductions, and aquarium dumping—but it is a primary source of invasive organisms. The Port has been an important part of a cooperative effort by the maritime industry, regulators, researchers, and environmental groups to protect the environmental integrity of the Bay through trend-setting regulation and other measures. All the interested parties now face the challenge of designing and funding the research needed to add effective treatment methods to the existing ballast water exchange programs.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Jody Zaitlin, Port of Oakland, 510-627-1179; jzaitlin@portoakland.com
Karen McDowell, California Sea Grant, 510-622-2398; kdhart@ucdavis.edu
West Coast Ballast Outreach Project, http://ballast-outreach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu/