Ballast Water and the Columbia River: Patterns and Reporting Compliance

Christina Simkanin and Mark Sytsma

Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute

• Five Major Ports

• Receives ≈ 1,700 arrivals a year

Portland 59%Vancouver 16%Longview 12%Kalama 8%Astoria 4%Other 1%

• 51% from Domestic Ports

Vessel Arrivals Statistics

• Discharge ≈ 6,300,000 m3 a year

• Majority of arrivals are Bulk Carriers

• 49% from Foreign Ports

• 78% of discharge from Foreign Ports

• 22% of discharge from Domestic Ports

Vessel Type Percentage of Arrivals

Percentage of Total BW Discharge

Bulk Carrier 47 80 Vehicle Carrier 13 1 Barge 13 1 Container 10 7 General Cargo 8 9 Tanker 7 1 Other 2 0

Arrivals from: 3 oceans, 6 continents, 366 ports, 66 countries

Vessel Arrivals – last-port-of-call

From Dr. Ian Davidson, ABRPI

Salinity of Ballast Water Source Port

Estuarine19.60%

Riverine4.30%

Marine73.11%

Unknown2.99%

Figure from Noble et al., 2006

Unexchanged Ballast Water Discharge

• 91% of BW discharged is exchanged

• ≈ 567,000 m3 of unexchanged water a year

Not Required to Exchange 65%

CA 27%

Other 8%

Required to Exchange 35%

From Sytsma et al., 2004

• 81 organisms introduced to the LCR since mid 1800’s

Lower Columbia River Survey

BW: 29 Invertebrates,

1 Aquatic Plant

HF: 8 Invertebrates

Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting

1996 2000 0602 03 04 050197 98 99

National Invasive Species Act: Mandates Voluntary National BW Program for Foreign arrivals

Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting

1996 2000 0602 03 04 050197 98 99

National BW Program Established: Exchange and Reporting Required for Foreign Arrivals

Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting

1996 2000 0602 03 04 050197 98 99

Washington Ballast Water Program: Mandatory Exchange and Reporting for Foreign and Domestic Vessels (exchange exemption South of 50˚N to CR)

Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting

1996 2000 0602 03 04 050197 98 99

Oregon Ballast Water Program: Mandatory Exchange and Reporting for Foreign and Domestic Arrivals (exchange exemption between 40˚N - 50˚N)

Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting

1996 2000 0602 03 04 050197 98 99

USCG Mandatory BW Program: Fines for non-compliance, reporting for Foreign and Domestic arrivals- Exchange for Foreign arrivals only

Reporting Requirements for CR Arrivals

• 24 hrs. advance of arrival

USCG Regulations

• USCG reporting form: electronic/hardcopy

• National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC)

• 24 hrs. advance of arrival

OR-WA Regulations

• USCG reporting form: hardcopy

• Merchants Exchange of Portland (PdxMex)

Figure from Ruiz et al., 2001

Foreign Arrivals Domestic/Coastal Arrivals

Ballast Water Management Reports

•Vessels submit BW Reports to the NBIC and PdxMex

•PdxMex reports are forwarded to State Agencies: WDFW and ODEQ. Data is entered and analyzed by WDFW and PSU

•NBIC receives, processes, and analyzes National Ballast Water data.

•Redundancy through duplication of effort between the Federal and State Programs

Reporting Pilot Project

Aim: To demonstrate that through Federal and State collaboration it’s possible to increase the quantity and quality of ballast water data received, and reduce the duplication of effort thereby increasing efficiency.

•Utilize the already developed and standardized federal data management program (NBIC)

•Utilize a regional contact (PSU) to follow-up on missing or erroneous reports and inform vessels/agents on reporting requirements.

•Quantify the differences in compliance rates between the federal and state programs.

Columbia River Reporting Rates:

• BW Reports from PdxMex

Data Collection

• Vessel arrivals database

• Agent Contact

• Record Keeping

*Keep in mind that this data includes all of the ports on the Columbia River, does not include Barges, and all state data before 2005 was collected by the WDFW.

Local/State Level

• Quality Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2003 2004 2005 2006

Per

cen

tag

e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2003 2004 2005 2006

Per

cen

tag

e

Increasing the Quantity of Data

Arrivals Submitting Reports Arrivals Not Submitting Reports

Pilot Project

Reporting Compliance/State Level

Increasing the Quality of Data

Late/IncompleteNo ReportSubmitted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2003 2004 2005 2006

Per

cen

tag

e

Reporting Compliance/State Level

Pilot Project

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2003 2004 2005 2006

Effect of Local Follow-up with Agents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

2005 2006

Submitted Before Agent Contact

Submitted After Agent Contact

Not Submitted

Columbia River Reporting Rates:

Federal Level

• Web interface: Electronic Reporting

• Hardcopy Reports: Faxed

Daily Monitoring of Compliance:

• Currently vessels which do not report Federally are not contacted by the NBIC or PSU.

• Federal legislation requires that BW data is collected from ships, or their agents, reporting directly to the NBIC and not via an intermediary.

• Agents contacted for local follow-up are reminded of Federal reporting requirements.

Web-Based System for Viewing Electronic Submissions to the NBIC

•NBIC sends PSU monthly data records of the reports received, which are downloaded into a PSU database

Monthly Analysis of Compliance:

•Comparison of reports received by the State and the NBIC

•Data not contained in these data records i.e. vessels which reported to the state but not the NBIC (includes data gained through local follow-up) are manually entered by PSU staff.

Reducing Duplication: Increasing Data Efficiency

Federal - State Comparison

USCG Increases Penalties, Establishes coastal reporting

Pilot Project Began ContactingAgents for Follow-up

0

20

40

60

80

100

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

2003 2004 2005 2006

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Federal State State w/follow-up

Federal - State Comparison: Increased Data Quality through Local Follow-up

Total Ballast Water Discharged (m3) in the Columbia River Using Three Data Sources

Jan.-June July-Dec. Year

a Federal 2,585,583 3,394,478 5,980,061

b State before follow-up 3,439,860 4,297,677 7,737,537

c State after follow-up 3,892,077 4,636,237 8,528,314

Percent change from a to b (+) 33% (+) 27% (+) 29%

Percent change from a to c (+) 51% (+) 37% (+) 43%

2005

Results Summary:

• Increased quantity and quality of reports/data

Collaboration between the State and Federal programs can lead to:

State level:

• Increased reporting compliance over time:

Federal level:

YES

?

• Increased data efficiency

These results demonstrate the value of local/regional follow-up to BW data quality; and by decreasing the duplication of effort more time is available for analysis and dissemination of results.

Conclusion

•California in 2004, 97% of vessels reporting (Faulkner et al., 2005).

•The Columbia River now has one of the most complete ballast water databases in the world (95% of vessels reporting in 2005).

•Adds to the success of the other ballast water programs on the West Coast:

•Washington, Puget Sound and WA Coastal ports, in 2005, 88% of vessels reporting (WDFW, 2006).

For support and collaboration we thank:

This project is funded by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Assistance and cooperation has been granted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, The Merchants Exchange of Portland, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

For support and collaboration we thank:

This project is funded by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Assistance and cooperation has been granted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, The Merchants Exchange of Portland, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Reducing Duplication: Increasing Data Efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan

Feb Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb Mar

2004 2004 2005 2006

Per

cen

tag

e

Report Submitted

Federal Compliance

Reports Entered Manually into database

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan

Feb Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb Mar

2004 2004 2005 2006

Per

cen

tag

e