Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on
the West Coast of North America:
Developing a Regional Plan
(2001- 2003)
Karen McDowell
San Francisco Estuary Project
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.
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
Regulatory Programs (2000-2002)

Transoceanic traffic


Coastal Traffic


Fairly Uniform
Conflicts between the different state programs
Maritime Industry wants a uniform
program
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)
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.
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 NGO’s.
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
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
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.
Retention Zones






Strait of Juan de Fuca Eddy (48’30”N to 47’40”N)
Heceta Bank (45’00”N to 43’45”N)
Central California Retention Zone (Between Point Reyes
and Sur)(36’30”N to 38’50”N)
The Southern California Bight (33’00”N to 34’30”N)
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.
Isobath lines
Latitude vs. Distance Offshore
~=25NM (46.3 km)
~=50NM (92.6 km)
Figure created by Jack Barth
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
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. Don’t wait for certainty, coastal
exchange as an interim measure.
Coastal Exchange Workshop: Day 2
► Presenting
Groups
findings from Day 1 Working
► 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
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
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.
Karen McDowell
San Francisco Estuary Project
1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
510-622-2398
kmcdowell@waterboards.ca.gov