STATUS AND TRENDS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT...

STATUS AND TRENDS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES

THIRD BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL BALLAST INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE

(January 2004 to December 2005)

Submitted to the United States Coast Guard 01 May 2007

A.W. Miller, K. Lion, M.S. Minton, and G.M. Ruiz

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center P. O. Box 28

Edgewater, MD 21037 USA

U.S. Coast Guard Technical Advisor: R. A. Everett, United States Coast Guard (G-MSO-4), 2100 2nd Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20593 USA

2

LIST OF ABBEVIATIONS BOB Ballast On Board CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTPZ Captain of the Port Zone EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone KB Kilobyte LPOC Last Ports of Call MARAD Maritime Administration MT metric ton NABS National Ballast Survey NBIC National Ballast Information Clearinghouse NIS Nonindigenous Species NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996, P.L. 104-332 nm nautical mile NOBOB No Ballast On Board NVMC National Vessel Movement Center OMB Office of Management and Budget SERC Smithsonian Environmental Research Center USCG United States Coast Guard

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The legislative mandate of the National Ballast Clearinghouse was outlined in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332): (1) In general The Secretary shall develop and maintain, in consultation and cooperation with the Task Force and the Smithsonian Institution (acting through the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center), a clearinghouse of national data concerning— (A) ballasting practices; (B) compliance with the guidelines issued pursuant to section 4711 (c) of this title; and (C) any other information obtained by the Task Force under subsection (b) of this section. (2) Report In consultation and cooperation with the Task Force and the Smithsonian Institution (acting through the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center), the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Task Force and the Congress, on a biennial basis, a report that synthesizes and analyzes the data referred to in paragraph (1) relating to— (A) ballast water delivery and management; and (B) invasions of aquatic nuisance species resulting from ballast water.

BACKGROUND

1. Biological invasions by non-native, invasive species are having significant ecological and

economic impacts on the waters of the United States. The rate of new invasions is increasing (Ruiz et al. 2000).

2. The discharge of ballast water from ships is a leading mechanism for the transfer of non-native species between coastal ecosystems. Organisms are entrained in ballast water taken up in one port and subsequently released in other ports.

3. The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) directed the United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), to develop a National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). The primary purpose of the NBIC is to collect, manage, and analyze nationwide data on ballast water discharge and management and on coastal invasions.

4. Prior to the expanded reporting and recordkeeping regulations published in June 2004, only those vessels carrying ballast water entering the U.S. after operating beyond the EEZ were required to submit ballast water reports. Following the implementation of these new requirements, all vessels, both foreign and domestic, that are bound for ports or places of the U.S. and are equipped with ballast water tanks, must submit BWM reports, regardless of whether the vessel operated outside the U.S. EEZ. This includes those ships that declare NOBOB and ships not discharging ballast. The reports must be submitted for all voyages where a vessel enters a Captain of the Port Zone (COTPZ) to anchor or moor, whether from another COTPZ or from outside the EEZ; however, voyages to ports or places solely within a single COTP zone are exempted from reporting. Reports are also not required by vessels that enter other COTP zones, but only conduct ballast operations (e.g., ballast uptake and discharge) in a single COTP zone.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00004711----000-.html�

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00004711----000-.html#c�

4

5. Pursuant to 33 CFR §151.2041, all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks and bound for ports or places in the U.S. are required to submit the Ballast Water Reporting Form (OMB Control Number 1625-0069). For all transits to U.S. ports or places, except those in the Great Lakes or Hudson River after operating beyond the EEZ, the reports are to be submitted to NBIC at least 24 hours prior to arrival. Vessels transiting to the Great Lakes after operating beyond the U.S. EEZ are to submit the report to either the Coast Guard Detachment in Massena, NY or the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation at least 24 hours before arriving to Montreal, Quebec. Likewise, those vessels bound for the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, must submit their reports to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port New York. from foreign ports and places

6. Expanded ballast water management requirements, mandated within the June 2004 final rule, require each vessel transiting into U.S. waters after operating beyond the U.S. EEZ, which carries ballast water that was taken on within 200 nautical miles (nm) of any coast, to implement at least one of the following mandatory BWM practices:

• Perform complete mid-ocean ballast water exchange (BWE) on all tanks containing this ballast water before the ballast from these tanks are discharged into U.S. waters.

• Retain this ballast water on board the vessel while in U.S. waters; or • Prior to the vessel entering U.S. waters, use an alternative environmentally

sound method of BWM, that has been approved by the U.S. Coast Guard, to treat this ballast water.

7. Since July 1999, the NBIC and the USCG have managed a nationwide program to measure ballast water management and delivery patterns for commercial vessels that arrive to U.S. ports from outside the nation’s EEZ. Expanded regulation and penalties went into effect in the summer of 2004 and include mandatory reporting by domestic voyages and mandatory ballast water management practices by all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that arrive to the U.S. from outside the EEZ. The NBIC tracks and quantifies: (a) rates of reporting under mandatory ballast water reporting requirements, (b) rates of ballast water management under a mandatory program (formerly voluntary guidelines), (c) changes in the rate and patterns of ballast water delivery, and (d) reduction in the rate of ballast-mediated invasions.

8. To determine the rate of ballast water reporting , the NBIC compares the number of submitted Ballast Water Reporting Forms with the overall number of qualifying foreign arrivals and domestic arrivals, as reported by the USCG’s National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC). From 1999 to 2003, this comparison was made with data from the Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics maintained by the Maritime Administration (MARAD).

9. Currently there is no program that tracks all domestic arrivals in the Inland Waterways and

Great Lakes. For this reason, it is not yet possible to calculate rates of ballast water reporting in these regions of the U.S.

10. To determine the mid-ocean ballast water exchange rate for ships that have operated outside the

U.S. EEZ, the NBIC analyzes the submitted data and estimates the following: (a) the number of vessels reporting discharge of ballast water according to ballast management practices (i.e., no discharge, discharge with no exchange, discharge with some exchange, and discharge with

5

unknown exchange) and (b) the volume and proportion of ballast water discharged according to the above management practices as well as volumes of water that were retained onboard.

11. The biennial report is prepared to inform the United States Coast Guard, the Secretary of

Homeland Security, and the U.S. Congress of the current status and trends for nationwide ballast water reporting, delivery, and management.

RESULTS Mandatory Reporting Requirement 1. Nationwide, compliance with reporting regulations for foreign arrivals, increased significantly

during the 2004-05 reporting period. For this two-year time period, compliance increased by 32.9% (37.9 to 70.8%), to a total compliance rate of 79.3% by 2005. Newly required reporting for domestic voyages reached 60.8% by 2005.

2. Compliance by foreign arrivals increased for all coastal regions during 2004-05 except in

Hawaii: Alaska (57.2%, +34.4% over 2002-03), Caribbean (60.1%, + 40.6%), East Coast (70.2%, +28.7%), Guam/ American Samoa (24.1%, not assessed previously), Gulf of Mexico (68.9%, +44.8%), Hawaii (76.1%, -15.4%), West Coast (88.6%, +19.0%).

3. While reporting compliance remained highest on the West Coast where state regulations and

penalties have been in place for a number of years prior to the federal expanded regulations, the vast majority of COTPZs increased reporting compliance substantially following the announcement of penalties for non-compliance. In 2005, the national reporting compliance for all COTPZs, excluding the West Coast, was 76.0%, versus 79.3% when all COTPZs are included.

4. Following the announcement of expanded reporting requirements, with penalty provisions, for

domestic transits, reporting compliance by these arrivals to U.S. ports and places was quite variable at both the COTPZ and coastal region spatial scales.

5. Although compliance could not be reported for the Great Lakes, due to the absence of an

independent data source quantifying arrivals, the number of ballast water reports was high as was the volume of domestic water which is moved around the Great Lakes.

Mandatory Ballast Management Regulations 6. Increased reporting rates represented approximately 75% of the shipping population (i.e.,

foreign arrivals complying with reporting regulations) for the first time. In previous years, reporting rates were so low that robust assessments were not possible. While ballast water reporting continues to be a self-reporting system, the degree of confidence surrounding the data submitted has increased since the majority of foreign arrivals now participate.

7. Of the 38,800 valid ballast water reports submitted by foreign arrivals during 2005 alone, 81.1%

reported no intention to discharge (+1.5% from 2002-03), 7.2% indicated discharge with no exchange (-2.3%), and the remaining 11.7% indicated some or unknown exchange (+0.8%).

6

8. Nationwide, approximately 73.7 million metric tons of ballast water was reported discharged by foreign arrivals in 2004-05, an increase of 43.4% over that reported in 2002-03. Of this volume, 14.8 million MT was reported discharged without exchange and 57.2 million MT was reported discharged with some exchange.

9. With respect to the location of open-ocean ballast water exchange, spatial analyses indicated

that a significantly large number of vessels, mostly on short or coastal routes to the U.S., failed to meet the 200nm from shore requirement for mid-ocean BWE. This was evident at both the level of the individual tank as well as that of the ship/voyage. Of 53,503 reported exchanges (i.e., tanks), 18,250 (34.1%) were completed within 200 nautical miles of a landmass. (41.2% = 4,249 of 10,301 voyages).

Of 68,605 Ballast Water Reporting Forms submitted by foreign arrivals in 2004-05, 12,510 arrivals (18.2%) indicated no ballast on board (NOBOB) conditions. This represents a 4.8% increase in reported NOBOB frequency since 2002-03 (13.4%). As in 2002-03, the frequency of NOBOB arrivals varied substantially over space. The Gulf of Mexico had the highest frequency of NOBOB arrivals (30.2%); nearly twice that of the East Coast (16.0%) and more than three times that of the West Coast (8.9%). Note: NOBOB data from foreign arrivals to Great Lakes ports was not assessed here, since such data do not fall within the NBIC reporting program. Spatial Variability of Ballast Water Source, Discharge and Ship Composition 10. Mapping of last ports of call (LPOC) for all foreign arrivals illustrated the global nature of

commercial shipping to the U.S. There was substantial spatial variability with respect to arrival frequency from foreign last ports of call, and some geographic regions were clearly dominant.

11. When foreign sourced water was mapped, there was some correspondence with LPOC;

however, there appeared to be greater spatial variability with respect to source volumes from oceanic regions than was apparent from simply plotting LPOC.

12. When discharged ballast water was plotted by recipient coast, geographic source, and

management status clear differences in source diversity, volume, and management status among coasts became apparent.

13. The composition of ship types that arrived to ports and place of the United States (both foreign

and domestic arrivals) in 2004-05 differed strongly among the country’s coasts. Changes to Ballast Water Report Submission, Receipt, Processing, and Analysis 14. Through the continued development and refinement of Ballast Water Reporting methods, the

NBIC offers both electronic (e-mail attachments and online forms) and hard copy forms for faxing. During the past 3 to 4 years, the percentage of BW Reporting Forms submitted electronically has increased to ~90% of all submissions (~280 of 310 daily receipts).

15. Currently, the NBIC responds to every ballast water form submission received electronically.

For all e-mailed BW forms submissions senders are notified of any data errors or omissions, and are provided with a list of remedies. When necessary, the sender is requested to submit a corrected form.

7

CONCLUSIONS 1. Nationwide compliance with mandatory reporting requirements has doubled for foreign arrivals

since 2002-03 (from 37.9% to 79.3% in 2005). Domestic reporting was 60.8% in 2005. In theory, increased levels of reporting provide a more representative sample of the shipping population that serves the U.S.

2. Expanded reporting and ballast water management regulations and penalties during 2004 have

resulted in higher rates of reporting and lower rates of non-compliant discharge as a percentage of overall volume discharged.

3. As in 2002-03, the majority of BW Reporting forms indicated no discharge (81.1% in 2005) and

just 7.2% indicated discharge with no exchange, which was a decrease of 3.7% from 10.9% in 2002-03. The remainder underwent some degree of exchange prior to discharge in U.S. ports and places.

4. Only 58.8% of ships that reported conducting open-ocean ballast water exchange prior to

discharge in ports and places of the U.S. were compliant with exchange regulations. The remainder concluded their exchanges in coastal waters within 200 nm of a landmass.

5. U.S. coastal systems receive ballast water from all over the globe; however, different coasts are

served by different ship type combinations and accept water from vastly different geographic locations and in substantively different quantities.

6. The NBIC has developed sophisticated ballast water reporting, receipt, notification, and quality

control/ assurance measures for its collection and analysis of ballast water information.

8

INTRODUCTION

For more than 400 years ships have been bringing nonindigenous species from overseas to the North American continent and vice versa. During the last 120 years the commercial shipping industry has built ships that can carry water instead of solid (e.g., rock, sand, or brick) ballast. Ballast water is pumped or gravitated into specially designed tanks to help control a ship’s stability, thrust, and steering. In general, ships undergo the majority of ballasting and deballasting while in coastal waters, in close proximity to where cargo is off and on loaded. Depending on weather conditions and other important safety and navigational concerns, a ship may actively shift, uptake, and discharge ballast water, as needed almost anywhere. Importantly, as ships take on ballast water, large quantities of marine organisms (e.g., zooplankton, phytoplankton, bacteria, and viruses) are entrained and enter ballast tanks. These organisms are then moved from one coastal ecosystem to another, both along coasts and across oceans. Today ballast water from ships is a leading transfer mechanism by which marine organisms are moved around the globe. Nonindigenous species (NIS) can fundamentally change the structure and function of natural ecosystems. For the United States alone, estimated economic costs of biological invasions arguably exceed $100 billion per year (Pimentel 2001). Moreover, aquatic NIS in coastal marine and freshwater systems have mounting ecological and economic impacts on the country’s water bodies. If such invasions continue unabated, there is no reason to believe that ecological, economic, and public health threats will not increase substantively. As authorized by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), the USCG has advanced a national program to minimize the rate of transfers and invasions in coastal ecosystems that result from ships, including especially ballast water. Since 1999, this program has required mandatory reports on ballast water management and discharge by all ships arriving to U.S. ports from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This includes vessels transiting from one U.S. coast to another, where they must cross the U.S. EEZ or the Canadian equivalent (e.g., transiting from the west coast to the east coast). Throughout this report these arrivals are designated as foreign arrivals. Conversely, ships that arrive to U.S. ports and places from other locations in the U.S. and Canada, without transiting outside U.S. and Canadian EEZs, are termed “domestic” arrivals (Figure 1). Note: the terms foreign and domestic arrivals connote nothing about nationality or ownership of a vessel. The Coast Guard has also promoted voluntary ballast water treatment, as a congressionally-directed initial step to reduce the transfer of species in ballast water. More recently, in June 2004, the USCG extended the reporting requirement to include coastwise traffic (i.e., domestic arrivals) among U.S. regions (Captain of the Port Zones – Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2) and importantly, implemented a penalty for non-reporting. In July 2004, the USCG announced regulations that require mandatory ballast water management (treatment) prior to discharge for all foreign arrivals, also accompanied with penalty for non-compliance. Tracking and analysis of ballast water management and delivery patterns are critical for (a) understanding the forces that drive invasions and (b) developing effective management strategies to reduce the risk of future invasions. In particular, we need to know how ballast water delivery is changing in space and time, in response to our national policies. It is also critical to understand how changes in ships’ behavior (e.g., ballast water management and discharge patterns) affect the delivery and establishment of new organisms.

9

The National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) was established, as called for by NISA, as a joint program between the USCG and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) to provide analysis of ballast water management and invasion patterns on a national scale. The mandatory ballast water reports submitted by ships upon arrival (as above) are sent to the NBIC, for such analysis. NBIC provides regular and ongoing analyses to the USCG to measure the effects of changes in ships’ reporting and ballast management practices across the Nation. As called for by NISA, a biennial report is provided to USCG by NBIC, as a component of its biennial report to U.S. Congress. This is the third biennial report, and is based on data received from the period of January 2004 to December 2005.

ASSESSING RATES OF BALLAST WATER REPORTING AND MANAGEMENT Mandatory Ballast Water Reporting Requirement In the First and Second Biennial Reports of NBIC (1999-2001, 2002-2003) and pursuant to 33 CFR §151.2045, compliance with the mandatory ballast water reporting requirement was assessed by comparing the number of Ballast Water Reporting Forms received by NBIC with the number of “qualifying” arrivals as indicated by the U. S. Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics maintained by the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD). The MARAD database is composed of foreign and domestic arrivals to U.S. Ports. The NBIC used the foreign arrivals data from MARAD and applied a series of standardized queries to characterize the population of qualifying foreign arrivals (e.g., arrivals to U.S. ports from Canada are considered by USCG regulations, for this purpose, as domestic rather than foreign arrivals). In this, the Third Biennial Report (2004-2005), we report on both foreign and domestic ballast water reporting. While MARAD data have been sufficient for previous compliance assessments, the NBIC now uses the USCG’s Advanced Notice of Arrivals data, collected and maintained by the USCG National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC). These data track notices of arrival for vessels calling on ports and places in the United States. The National Vessel Movement Center was established by the Department of Transportation in connection with the United States Coast Guard (later in the Department of Homeland Security) to track all commercial vessel movements to and within U.S. waters. To assess the applicability of NVMC data, we directly compared MARAD and NVMC arrivals data across two years, 2004 and 2005. During 2004 and 2005, NVMC reported 48,269 ± 401 foreign arrivals annually (mean ± S.E). The difference between NVMC and the corresponding MARAD data was less than 1%. This agreement remained true when earlier MARAD data were averaged and compared, 48,457 ± 2805 foreign arrivals per year (mean ± S.E., 2000-2003). When both domestic and foreign arrival rates were compared for 2004-2005, NVMC indicated 2.2% more qualifying arrivals than MARAD (190,698 versus 186,531). Given the quality, extent, and availability of arrivals data from the NVMC, we have chosen to use them as the primary comparator for determining the total number of qualifying arrivals as well as for estimating reporting compliance rates. There are a number of reporting exemptions that apply to specific geographic regions and particular vessel classes, both under the NVMC notice of arrival program as well as the NBIC National Ballast Survey. Because these exemptions are not identical across programs, different subsets of

10

the NBIC data were used, depending on the analysis. (Related exemptions were taken into consideration when MARAD data were used in past Biennial Reports.) For the purposes of calculating reporting compliance rates, these exemptions are always taken into consideration to avoid spurious results. Table 1 highlights all reporting exemptions under the USCG NVMC and NBIC reporting programs, both by region and vessel class. Table 2 indicates the specific exemptions considered and the data used for compliance assessments. In certain instances when some sort of error or bias is suspected, we have chosen to use both the NVMC and MARAD data for further clarification, (e.g., when compliance of greater than 100% is indicated with NVMC data). Furthermore, a common deficiency of both data sets is their inability to separate qualifying arrivals to Wilmington, DE; Wilmington, NC; and Wilmington, CA. Because associated state information is not reported by either NVMC or MARAD, neither does a good job quantifying qualifying arrivals to these ports, and by extension, to their respective COTPZs. The expanded reporting requirements promulgated by the USCG in June 2004 mandated BW reporting by domestic coastwise and inland transits. The total numbers of BW reports received by the NBIC are compiled here. It should be noted that at present there is no comprehensive data source that describes domestic vessel movements and arrivals within inland waterways of the U.S.; however, only a subset of domestic arrivals to the Great Lakes are included in NVMC data. For this reason, BW reporting compliance rates cannot be calculated for inland waterways. Reporting and compliance rates are reported on a national scale, by coast and Captain of the Port Zone (COTPZ – see Table 1 and Figure 1). Ballast Water Management Regulations From 1999 until the summer of 2004, federal regulations requested that commercial ships follow voluntary guidelines for ballast water management to reduce the risk of nonindigenous species introductions. On June 2004 the USCG announced mandatory ballast water management requirements with accompanying penalties (see 33 CFR §151.2035(a) and (b)). We are able to detect strong differences in both rates of BW reporting and in the extent of ballast water management and delivery. Compliance with these ballast water management regulations was assessed by examining all Ballast Water Reporting Forms submitted by commercial vessels during the reporting period. For each report, arrivals were classified into one of four categories, based upon ballast water discharge and management: a) no ballast water discharged, b) ballast water discharged with no exchange, c) ballast water discharged with some exchange or d) ballast water discharged with unknown exchange. This final category contains those tanks where insufficient information (i.e., both a management location AND volume or percent exchanged) was provided to determine whether ballast water exchange was conducted. We estimated the frequency of arrivals in each category as well as the ballast water discharge volumes reported by category. This assessment was carried out at both the national and coastal scales for the two-year reporting period. Using only the BW Reporting form-based information, we also surveyed the quality of data reported by ships. We queried the data set (the National Ballast Survey) to look for internal consistency among tank and volume data fields within individual BW reporting forms. Internal inconsistencies suggest inaccurate reporting. Such internal inconsistency indicates diminished data quality.

11

To determine whether ships were following voluntary guidelines (and mandatory regulations) with regard to open-ocean ballast water exchange, individual ballast water exchange locations were mapped in relation to 200 nautical mile zones surrounding all coasts.

RESULTS

Under 33 CFR §151.2045, vessel masters are required to report specific information for discharged ballast water originating outside the United States’ EEZ, including (a) whether or not ballast water was exchanged or otherwise treated, and (b) specific details of ballast water management on a per-tank basis, providing volume, management method, and calculated percent exchange if ballast water underwent mid-ocean exchange. In addition, as of the expanded 2004 regulations/ penalties, ships were required to (c) conduct ballast water exchange in the open ocean in at least 200 nm from any coast. Below, we evaluate compliance with mandatory reporting and voluntary ballast water management. Compliance with Mandatory Ballast Water Reporting Requirement A. Foreign Arrivals 1. Nationwide Vessel Traffic – Foreign Arrivals The total number of qualifying foreign arrivals registered by the NVMC for the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005 was 96,521 in 2005. Foreign arrivals were distributed across U.S. coastal regions in fairly similar proportions to earlier reporting periods (Fig. 3a). The East Coast received the greatest number of foreign arrivals (39%), followed by the Gulf of Mexico (30%), the West Coast (16%), the Caribbean (11%), Hawaii (2%), Guam and American Samoa (1%), and Alaska (1%). Note: foreign arrivals to the Great Lakes do not fall under the regulatory purview of the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse and are thus not described in this or previous biennial reports. 2. Nationwide Reporting Compliance – Foreign Arrivals Following the implementation of penalties for non-compliance with mandatory reporting regulations, the number of Ballast Water Reporting Forms submitted by foreign arrivals increased markedly nationwide (Fig. 4). Ballast Water Reporting Forms were submitted by 17,420 foreign arrivals in 2002, followed by 19,824 in 2003. By contrast, ballast water report submissions increased to 29,722 and 38,575 in 2004 and 2005 respectively. The overall nationwide compliance rates for 2004 and 2005 were 62.1% and 79.3%, resulting in a two-year reporting compliance rate of 70.8% (Table 3). During the last six months of 2005 the compliance was above 80% (Fig. 4). Note: for the purposes of estimating compliance rates with mandatory ballast water reporting requirements, only ballast water forms that directly corresponded to the NVMC qualifying arrivals were included (see Table 2 for details). 3. Regional Reporting Compliance – Foreign Arrivals Between Jan 2004 and Dec 2005, BW reporting compliance was variable among coastal regions. With the exception of Hawaii, all other major coastal systems underwent significant increases in reporting compliance (Table 3). During 2005, compliance rates ranged from a high of 96.8% on the West Coast during 2005 to a low of 29.3% in Guam/ American Samoa (Table 3). There was a

12

minor increase in monthly reporting rates for qualifying foreign arrivals to Guam/ American Samoa (Fig 5a). Among the six coastal systems that receive the vast majority of shipping, compliance rates increased appreciably following the implementation of penalties (Table 3, Figs 5b – 5d). The East Coast has shown a steady increase in compliance, rising from 29.0% in 1999-2001 to 41.5% in 2002-2003, to 80.5% in 2005. The Gulf of Mexico showed modest changes from 1999 to 2003, but underwent a mean 44.8% increase in compliance during 2004-05, reaching a high of 77.2% in 2005 (Fig. 5b). The West Coast reached higher overall reporting rates than other coasts during 1999-2001 (66.5%) and remained high during 2001-2003 (69.6%); however by 2005 had reached 96.8% compliance (Fig. 5c). Alaska’s two-year reporting compliance increased from 20.5% to 22.8% between the first two reporting periods, but climbed substantially to 66.7% in 2005 (Fig. 5c). The Caribbean showed significant increases from 1999-2001 (16.6%) to 2005 (67.2%). Hawaii posted the greatest increase in reporting compliance of any coastal zone in the United States from 1999-01 to 2002-03 (a rise from 50.3% to 91.5 %), but has fallen to 77.4% in 2005 (Fig. 5d). 4. COTPZ Reporting Compliance – Foreign Arrivals At the Captain of the Port Zone level, the overall reporting compliance rate during 2004-2005 was 70.8%, but compliance was variable over space (Table 3). This compares to a 39.7% reporting rate by COTPZ in 2002-03. With the exception of the Prince William Sound COTPZ (VALMS), Hawaii (HONMS), and San Francisco (SFCMS), all other COTPZs increased reporting compliance during the 2004-2005 period over 2002-03. The national compliance increase was 32.9% (Table 3). In the case of VALMS, a total of 17 BW reports were received by NBIC in the 2004-05 National Ballast Survey, as compared with 36 NVMC notices of arrival. In 2002-03, the number of BW reports was even lower, but were scored as 142% compliance, since MARAD qualifying arrivals were even fewer (7 qualifying arrivals). The result is an apparent dramatic decline in reporting compliance; however, the actual change in reporting compliance is difficult to quantify precisely when the values of reports and arrivals are both so low. In Hawaii (HONMS), there was an apparent decrease in reporting compliance (-15.4%) between 2002-03 and 2004-05, but both the BW reports and qualifying arrivals were significantly greater during the latter period. MARAD reports for both Alaska and Hawaii have been incomplete in past years (see Biennial Report #1, 1999-2001), perhaps artificially inflating the true reporting rates in these locations previously. In the case of SFCMS, NVMC arrivals were significantly more than MARAD arrivals for 2004-05, suggesting that apparent declines in rates of compliance may be reflections of over-estimates in previous reports. There were three instances in 2005 where apparent reporting compliance rates exceeded 100%: NYCCP (100.1%, 2,701 BW forms vs. 2,699 NVMC arrivals), WNCMS (125.5%, 177 BW forms vs. 141 NVMC arrivals), LOSMS (105.4%, 3,960 BW forms vs. 3,758 NVMC arrivals – Table 3). When BW forms were compared with MARAD arrivals data for NYCCP and LOSMS, compliance estimates were both calculated as 94.6%. In the case of WNCMS, MARAD data did not substantively change the apparent >100% reporting rate. It is clear that neither NVMC nor MARAD data sets accurately designate “Wilmington, USA” arrivals to their proper COTPZ, thus confounding our ability to reliably report compliance rates for this port name, especially to WNCMS and PHIMS (see Table 3). Ballast Water Reporting Forms collected by NBIC are confounded by the same lack of resolution for these forms. B. Domestic Arrivals 1. Nationwide Vessel Traffic – Domestic Arrivals

13

The total number of qualifying domestic arrivals to U.S. ports and places, as reported to NVMC, was 80,206 during 2004 and 2005. Of these, 1,580 arrivals could not be linked definitively to a COTPZ (Table 4a). Domestic arrivals represent approximately 45% of all qualifying arrivals to U.S. ports and places. Figure 3b indicates how domestic arrivals were apportioned across coastal regions in the U.S. The East Coast and Gulf of Mexico dominate domestic shipping arrivals, followed by the West Coast; however, Alaska had 10,820 qualifying domestic arrivals, or nearly 16-fold the number of qualifying foreign arrivals to that region for the same time period (Tables 3 and 4a). It is important to note that U.S. flagged vessels involved in coastwise (i.e., domestic) crude oil trade are exempt from reporting to either NBIC or NVMC, as such the estimates of total domestic arrivals to Alaska are likely underestimated. Domestic shipping is known to be extensive within the Great Lakes, as evidenced by the number of BW reporting forms received by the NBIC (see below), but as mentioned previously, the NVMC data are not comprehensive for domestic shipping in the Great Lakes, Inland waterways, or Guam and American Samoa, so domestic reporting compliance cannot be calculated in these regions. 2. Nationwide Reporting Compliance – Domestic Arrivals Figure 6 tracks the number of submitted BW reporting forms and corresponding reporting compliance rates on a monthly basis from Jan 2004 to Dec 2005. In June 2004, the USCG announced expanded reporting requirements and penalties to include domestic transits within the United States. During 2004, reporting compliance was 37.6% for the nation (15,467 BW reports for 41,082 qualifying arrivals). Domestic reports received between Jan and June 2004 can be viewed as incidental, since at the time there were no federal regulations requiring BW reporting. In 2005, this rate increased to 60.8% (23,769 BW reports for 39,124 qualifying arrivals), undoubtedly due to expanded reporting regulations/penalties. Table 4a shows compliance rates for the nation, coasts, and COTPZs during 2004 and 2005. 3. Regional Reporting Compliance – Domestic Arrivals As noted, with the exception of a few arrival types, NVMC data do not include domestic voyages within the inland waterways. Likewise, with the exception of tank vessels, U.S. vessels operating solely between ports or places in the United States on the Great Lakes are exempt from reporting notices of arrival with the NVMC. Therefore, no compliance rates could be calculated in these inland regions. Instead, the total number of BW reports to COTPZs to inland waterways and the Great Lakes are presented (Table 4b). In both locations, domestic arrivals began reporting ballast water activities shortly after the expanded reporting requirements were put in place by the USCG (Fig. 7). When Ballast Water Reporting Form receipt is plotted by month, seasonal patterns of operation and reporting are suggested in the Great Lakes, but not in the inland waterways. For all other domestic voyages, NVMC collects notices of arrival, enabling the calculation of compliance rates (Table 4a). Figures 8a and b illustrate reporting compliance by month for the 6 busiest coastal regions. All show marked increases following the announcement of the domestic reporting requirement and penalties, but Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean (Fig. 8b) display lower overall compliance than do the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the West Coast (Fig. 8a). The West Coast shows a less pronounced increase, and higher overall compliance than other coasts, probably attributable to the existence of state regulations requiring domestic ballast water reporting prior to 2004. Unlike other coastal regions, Alaska shows cyclical changes in reporting compliance, perhaps reflective of seasonal shipping patterns there.

14

Compliance with the Ballast Water Management Regulations Under USCG regulations, during the summer of 2004 ballast water management for all foreign arrivals to U.S. ports shifted from a set of voluntary guidelines to mandatory practices, with penalty. The principal goal of this section is to synthesize the ballast behavior of ships, including whether ships discharged upon arrival, if vessels underwent open-ocean exchange prior to discharge, and if so, where ballast water management operations occurred. For these reasons, data are reported categorically as No Discharge, Discharge with Unknown Exchange (the extent of exchange or the location of exchange was not reported), Discharge with Some Exchange (exchange rates reported as 1% to >300%), and Discharge with No Exchange. Compliance rates are presented on a) an arrival basis (i.e., the percentage of BW Reporting Forms indicated compliance with guidelines or regulations) and b) according to volume. Also included is information on domestic voyage discharge practices. A. Compliance by Number of BW Reporting Forms 1. National Compliance – Foreign Arrivals Most ship arrivals reported no intention to discharge ballast water (80.7% and 81.1% in 2004 and 2005, Tables 5a, b). On a percentage basis, this is a slight increase from 79.6% reported in 2002-2003; however, the overall number of reports increased sharply from 37,245 to 68,553). Among all discharging vessels that submitted Ballast Water Reporting Forms, 7.8% (2,339) in 2004 and 7.3% (2,806) in 2005 indicated discharge with no exchange. Likewise, 10.9% (3,257) and 11.3% (4,380) noted some exchange prior to discharge and a small percentage of reports (0.6% and 0.4%) indicated an undetermined degree of exchange in 2004 and 2005 respectively. 2. Regional Compliance – Foreign Arrivals

During 2004-05, the number of foreign ballast water reports submitted by coast varied widely, as did their ballast management (Fig. 9a, Table 5a, b). The East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and West Coast each have relatively similar proportions of arrivals that reported no discharge (Fig 9a); however discharging vessels in each of these coastal regions behaved differently. In 2005 the West Coast had the highest proportion of ships that had undertaken open-ocean exchange prior to discharge (18.8%, 1,373 forms), followed by the Gulf of Mexico (13.3%, 1,513 forms), while the Caribbean and East Coast had 7.4% (292 forms) and 7.3% (1,064 forms), respectively, of arrivals that specified exchange prior to discharge (Table 5b). Of these regions, the East Coast had the highest percentage and number of non-exchanged discharges in 2005 (11.1%, 1,618 forms). The pattern of exchange and discharge in Alaska deviated from all other coasts (Fig 9a). In 2005, Alaska had the smallest percentage of non-dischargers (48.7%, 113 forms), and the largest percentage of ships that reported both discharge with previous exchange (36.6%, 85 forms) and discharge without exchange (12.9%, 30 forms). 3. COTPZ Compliance – Foreign Arrivals As indicated in Table 5b, during 2005 52.5% of all foreign BW Reporting Forms were submitted by arrivals to six COTPZs (Table 5b): MIAMS (13.1%, 5,079 forms), HOUCP (11.0%, 4,274 forms), SJPMS (10.2%, 3,962 forms), LOSMS (10.2%, 3,961 forms), and NEWMS (7.9%, 3,049 forms). Each of these COTPZs reported discharge with zero-exchange at rates that were lower than the national rate of 7.2%, except MIAMS that was higher than the national rate (17.4%, 883 forms). Of these most frequently visited COTPZs, LOSMS had the lowest zero-exchange discharge rate (1.3%,

15

51 forms). Overall, JACMS had the highest rates of discharge without exchange, while six others had zero-exchange discharge rates of 1.0% or less (JUNMS 0.0%, PROMS 1.0%, PORMS 0.5%, SDCMS 0.3%, and SFCMS 0.7%). 4. Domestic BW Reporting and Management Patterns Although there are no federal regulations in place that require ballast water management for domestic voyages, unless the ballast water is of foreign origin, discharge patterns are presented to describe geographic differences in ballast water delivery and discharge. With the exception of Alaska, all other coastal regions experienced fewer domestic than foreign arrivals (Figs. 9a, b). The majority of domestic arrivals reported no discharge in every coastal region but the Inland Waterways (Fig. 9b). In most cases, water that was discharged during domestic arrivals underwent no exchange; however, domestic arrivals in Hawaii reported discharge with some exchange more often than discharge with no exchange. The Great Lakes and Inland Waterways had far greater proportions of domestic arrivals reporting discharge with no exchange than did other coastal regions. B. Compliance with Mandatory BW Management Regulations Based on Percent Exchange by Volume Because ships are composed of multiple ballast water tanks and holds, the degree of ballast water management can be variable across tanks/holds for a single arrival. Therefore, volumetric analyses are performed at the tank level and scaled up to coastal region and national scales. As noted in earlier Biennial Reports, there still appears to be widespread confusion as to how percent ballast water exchange is calculated. Since tank/hold volume capacity is necessary in the calculation of percent ballast water exchange, but is not a required field on the current Ballast Water Reporting Form (OMB control number 1625-0069), there is currently no method for crosschecking reported values. For this reason, ballast water management was categorized as “Discharge with No Exchange”, “Discharge with Some Exchange”, and “Discharge with Unknown Exchange”. Additionally a “No Discharge” category is included which captures ships that hold their ballast. It should be noted that all ballast water discharge status designations and measurements were calculated across the entire reporting period (Jan 2004 to Dec 2005), and therefore include the portion of 2004 before ballast water exchange became mandatory for ballast water of foreign origin. For this reason, the values reported in this section do not indicate regulatory compliance in the legal sense, but rather reflect the behavior of ships arriving to the U.S. during the two-year period. 1. National Compliance During 2004-2005, approximately 73.7 million metric tons (MT) of ballast water were reported through the National Ballast Survey as discharged into waters of the United States (Fig. 10). Nationally, this is an increase of 32.0 million metric tons or 76.7% volumetrically from the 2002-2003 reporting period. Of this discharge, approximately 14.8 million MT (20.1% of all reported discharge) was reported as “Discharge with No Exchange” (Table 6). This represents an increase of approximately 5.5 million MT, but a proportional decrease (-2.2% volumetrically) from 2002-03. The volume of ballast water reported as “Discharge with Some Exchange” equaled 57.2 million MT (77.5% % of all reported discharge). This was a 25.2 million MT increase (+78.6%) in exchanged discharge over 2002-03. Finally, approximately 1.7 million MT (2.3% of all reported discharge) was categorized as “Discharge with Unknown Exchange”, representing a 416% increase from 416,500 MT during 2002-03.

16

During 2002-03, when national monthly discharge volumes were considered, there was a cyclical increase in average discharge volume during the periods from September through March of each year (approximately 450,000 MT more per month) compared with April through August time periods (see Fig. 10). This apparent seasonality may coincide with changing weather conditions whereby ships carry more ballast water during fall, winter, and early spring to ensure greater stability when weather is more extreme or variable. In 2004-05, cyclical patterns were less obvious, masked by significant increased reporting during the first winter following the announcement of expanded ballast water reporting and mandatory ballast water management regulations/ penalties. There is a steady increase in ballast water discharged during September through December 2005, further suggesting higher discharges occur during winter months. The mean monthly discharge in 2004-05 was 3.07 million ± 156,808 MT (mean ± 1 s.e.), a 76.8% increase per month (>1.3 million MT) from 2002-03. Despite a 286% increase in volume discharged without exchange per month (386,364 MT to 617,958 MT), the percentage of overall discharge in 2004-05 decreased slightly from 22.2% to 20.1% (Fig. 10). There was a minor increase in the percentage of overall discharge that underwent some exchange between the two time periods (76.7 to 77.5% per month), but given the much higher reporting rates in 2004-05, the associated volume increased from 1.3 million MT to 2.4 million MT per month. 2. Transoceanic versus Pan-American BW Management and Discharge Patterns Some interesting spatial aspects of ballast water discharge are revealed when the source of foreign ballast water is categorized as either “Transoceanic” or “Pan-American”. Transoceanic water is sourced from overseas and Pan-American water is sourced from North, Central, or South American waters, and the Caribbean, but is taken from areas outside the U.S. EEZ. Transoceanic water represented 66.6% of the total foreign discharge in 2004-2005 (49,117,005 MT). Of this discharge, 82.9% underwent some exchange, 15.2% underwent no exchange, and 1.9% underwent unknown exchange. Pan-American water comprised 33.4% of all foreign discharge (24,603,323 MT). Of Pan-American foreign ballast water discharge, 66.8% underwent some exchange, 29.8% underwent no exchange, and 3.4 % underwent unknown exchange. Table 7 summarizes these ballast water discharge volumes. 3. Regional Compliance Ballast water discharge by coastal region is illustrated in Fig. 11. The overall reported discharge volume was greatest on the West Coast (25.8 million MT), followed by the Gulf Coast (24.4 million MT), the East Coast (9.9 million MT), and the Caribbean (8.4 million MT). The combined total represents 93.4% of all foreign discharge to the U.S. (Fig. 11, Table 6). Alaska, Hawaii, Guam/American Samoa, and the Great Lakes receive much less ballast water from foreign locations. Note: foreign discharge into the Great Lakes is most certainly underestimated since the federal regulations for reporting by ships bound for the Great Lakes by way of the Saint Lawrence Seaway do not include direct submission of ballast water reports to the NBIC. 4. COTPZ Compliance The mean volume of discharge per COTPZ in the U.S. exceeded 1.9 million MT in 2004-05 (Table 6). The Caribbean, composed of a single COTPZ (SJPMS), received the greatest volume of discharge (>8.3 million MT). COTPZs averaged >5.1 million MT of discharge on the West Coast, >3.0 million MT in the Gulf of Mexico, >1.3 million MT in Alaska, 765,004 MT on the East Coast, and HONMS in Hawaii received 680,474 MT. Five COTPZs exceeded 1.0 million MT of discharge

17

with no exchange: SJPMS (>2.5 million MT, 29.9% of total discharge), HOUCP (>2.1 million MT, 32.0% of total discharge), ANCMS (>1.8 million MT, 53.5% of total discharge), NEWMS (>1.4 million MT, 12.7% of total discharge), and MIAMS (>1.1 million MT, 71.1% of total discharge). Among COTPZs with appreciable ballast water discharge (>1.0 million MT), PORMS had not only the highest total reported discharge (11,613,782 MT) but also the highest percentage (95.9%) which had undergone some exchange prior to discharge (Table 6). SEAMS received 5,366,385 MT of foreign sourced ballast water discharge, 95.7% of which was reported to have undergone some degree of ballast water exchange. BALMS also had both a relatively high volume of discharge (1,118,063 MT) and a high percentage of discharge that was claimed to have undergone some exchange prior to discharge. Also among high discharge volume COTPZs, those with the lowest reported percentages of exchange prior to discharge were MIAMS (1,653,080 MT discharge, 25.6%), ANCMS (3,369,442 MT discharge, 45.3%), and PATMS (2,072,639 MT, 51.5%). At the COTPZ level, the average percent volume of ballast water discharge that was reported to have undergone some exchange was 77.5% in 2004-05. 5. Domestic BW Management and Discharge Patterns In 2004-05 there was > 183.8 million MT of domestic ballast water discharged in ports and places of the U.S. (Table 8). The monthly rate of discharge is plotted in Figure 12 and indicates a rapid increase following the announcement of mandatory ballast water reporting in the summer of 2004. Following announcement of final penalties rule, the mean monthly discharge of domestic water was >10.1 million MT. There was a large decline in ballast discharge during the Jan – Mar 2005. Given the large volumes of domestic ballast water that are moved around inside the Great Lakes (>90.8 million MT = 49.4% of all domestic discharge in the U.S. during 2004-05), the decline in monthly discharge volumes is probably due in part to reduced shipping inside the Great Lakes during the winter months. Indeed, the Great Lakes leads all coastal regions in domestic ballast water discharge, followed by the Gulf of Mexico (>56.1 million MT), the West Coast (>17.5 million MT), the East Coast (>13.5 million MT), and Alaska (>4.7 million MT). Smaller volumes are reported in the Caribbean, the Inland Waterways, and Hawaii (Table 8). With no regulatory requirement for ballast water management, the vast majority of domestic ballast water discharge undergoes no open-ocean exchange prior to discharge. C. Mid-Ocean Ballast Water Exchange Operations Although formerly a voluntary practice, current regulations under 33 CFR 151.2035(b), require that each vessel transiting into U.S. waters after operating beyond the U.S. EEZ, which carry ballast water that was taken on within 200 nautical miles of any coast, must either complete mid-ocean ballast water exchange (BWE) in an area no less than 200 nm from shore prior to discharging in U.S. waters; or retain this ballast water on board the vessel while in U.S. waters. Ships must report the geographic endpoint (lat/long) of each mid-ocean exchange as part of their BW Report. Note, as indicated in 33 CFR 151.2037, vessels that cannot conduct mid-ocean BWE because their voyage does not take them 200 nm or greater from shore for a sufficient length of time, or because of safety concerns, are not prohibited from discharging the ballast water in areas other than the Great Lakes and Hudson River. However, the vessel must only discharge that amount operationally necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel for cargo operations. Therefore, vessels that transit on coastwise transits from North, Central, or South America, the Caribbean or on short transits outside the U.S. EEZ where complete exchange cannot be conducted are not necessarily required to conduct BWE.

18

When all mid-ocean exchange endpoint data were plotted on a global map, a high number of reported exchanges did not comply with either voluntary exchange guidelines (prior to summer 2004) or mandatory exchange regulations which state that all ships operating beyond the US EEZ must exchange ballast water at least 200 nm from any land mass. A total of 53,727 tank exchanges were reported by foreign arrivals during 2004-2005. Of these, 18,145 (33.8%) were performed partially or fully within 200 nm of a coast (Fig. 14). This represents a significant increase in non-compliance from the previous reporting period (28.4% non-compliance in 2002-2003), even with the removal of the ≥2000 m depth restriction, which was part of voluntary exchange guidelines. The most extensive and highest densities of non-compliant exchanges occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, but non-compliance was also frequent on the East and West Coasts of the United States (Fig. 14). Non-compliant exchanges occurred in coastal waters along a large coastal stretch of the Pacific Rim, forming a band from the Sea of Japan and western Pacific to the Sea of Okhotsk and Kamchatka Peninsula, the Bearing Sea and Aleutian Islands. Ballast exchange is apparently rare in much of the coastal waters of Gulf of Alaska to British Columbia, but non-compliant exchanges are extensive down the Pacific Coast from Washington State to the northern coast of Peru. In the western Atlantic, non-compliant exchanges ranged from Newfoundland through the Caribbean to Brazil. Many non-compliant exchanges clustered in the coastal waters of the Azores. Despite extensive shipping activities linking the US to the Baltic Sea as well as Northern and Western Europe, and the Mediterranean and Black Seas, non-compliance was uncommon. Likewise, exchanges were rare in coastal waters of Africa, the Indian Ocean and throughout Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand (Fig. 14). Geographic Origins of Foreign Arrivals and their Ballast Water When foreign arrivals, as determined from Ballast Water Reporting Forms submitted to the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, were examined for 2004-005, it is clear that ships arrive to U.S. ports and places from across the globe. Figure 15 plots the last ports of call (LPOC) for all such arrivals, according their geographic frequency. Many “foreign” LPOC are plotted in the U.S. because ships that cross non-contiguous coastal systems (e.g., East Coast to West Coast, West Coast to Hawaii, Hawaii to Alaska, and Caribbean to any other U.S. coastal region, etc.) are considered foreign arrivals. (Note: arrivals between coastal Canada and the U.S. are considered, by legislation (NISA 1996), as domestic transits, whereas those from Mexico to the continental U.S. are foreign.) LPOC in Mexico, Central, South America and the Caribbean are numerically dominant, as are arrivals from eastern Asia, especially from Japan, Taiwan, and China. LPOC were frequent, but fewer per location in northwestern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean. Other Middle Eastern arrivals (the Red Sea and Persian Gulf) are less frequent, and appear similar to the rates of arrivals from Eastern Australian and Indonesia. The Atlantic coast of Africa is connected to the U.S. via shipping to a much greater extent than is the Indian coast. Foreign ballast water volumes were plotted in a similar manner, according the location of the BW source. Composite volumes were calculated for 11 oceanic regions from which ballast water was sourced (see Fig. 16 for abbreviations). Shipping from northwestern Pacific (NWP, predominantly East Asian ports, but including Guam/American Samoa,) accounted for the greatest volume of foreign ballast water delivered to the U.S. (>27.9 million MT). The northwestern Atlantic (NWA), which includes the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and Western Atlantic, ranked second with as

19

volume of >25.2 million MT. The northeastern Atlantic (NEA) and Mediterranean Basin (MBS) accounted for >8.6 million MT and >3.7 million MT, respectively. The west coast of North America, Hawaii, and Alaska (NEP) account for >5.3 million MT of ballast water discharged. To better understand the way in which foreign ballast water was managed, volumes were plotted according to their U.S. coastal regions of discharge. Ballast water was partitioned by both its oceanic source and management status (Figs. 17a, b). The geographic diversity of ballast water sources is by far the greatest on the East Coast, receiving ballast sourced in both sides of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and to a lesser extent, the northeastern and northwestern Pacific, and West Indian oceans. An appreciable percentage of this water underwent no open-ocean exchange before discharge. Discharge volumes to the Gulf of Mexico were nearly 2.5 times those of the East Coast, yet are received from a somewhat less diverse set of geographic locations and underwent a higher degree of management prior to discharge. By contrast, the West Coast received a slightly greater volume of foreign ballast than the Gulf of Mexico (~25.8 million MT versus ~24.6 million MT), but this water was sourced almost entirely from the northwest Pacific (NWP). Furthermore, the vast majority of foreign ballast to West Coast was managed via open-ocean ballast water exchange (Figs. 17a). The Caribbean and Alaska also received ballast from a relatively small number of oceanic regions, yet the proportion of water discharged without exchange was far greater than on the West Coast. No Ballast On Board (NOBOB) Foreign BW Reports During 2004-05 68,605 BW Reporting Forms were submitted to the NBIC from foreign arrivals for which ballast condition could be determined. Of these, 56,095 (81.8%) reported having ballast water on board (BOB) and 12,510 (18.2%) reported a no ballast water on board condition (NOBOB – Table 10a). NOBOB reports increased by 4.8% from 2002-03 and BOBs decreased a similar percentage. Because ships that report as NOBOB may still contain biota in sediments and residual ballast water, especially if tanks have not undergone any sort of ballast water management, the arrival and subsequent ballasting practices of such ships are of interest. The arrival frequency of NOBOBs was greatest on the Gulf of Mexico coast (6,081, 48.6%) of all foreign NOBOB arrivals nationwide (Table 10a). Among arrivals to the Gulf of Mexico, 30.2% reported NOBOB conditions (Fig. 9a and Table 10a), which was similar to those of the 2002-03 reporting period (46.3% of all NOBOBS nationwide and 28.2% of reports to the Gulf of Mexico). NOBOB frequency varied considerably across coasts and COTPZs. The East Coast had 4,083 NOBOB reports of 21,366 (19.10%), the West Coast had 1,223 NOBOBs (8.9% of reports there), and the Caribbean had 790 NOBOB reports (12.1%) (Fig. 9a and Table 10a). Among COTPZs, POMMS on the East Coast, and MORMS and PATMS on the Gulf of Mexico reported the highest percentages of NOBOB reports (44.8%, 48.1%, and 52.5%, respectively). Domestic BW Reports During 2004-05 there were 71,761 Reporting Forms submitted to the NBIC from domestic arrivals for which ballast condition could be determined. Because domestic reporting only became mandatory during the summer of 2004, the overall number of domestic arrivals is underestimated. Of the reports submitted, 20.5% (14,683) were classified as NOBOB reports (Table 10b). As discussed above, the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico experienced the greatest frequencies of

20

domestic arrivals. In these locations, 4,098 were NOBOB arrivals to the East Coast (18.3%) and 4,485 (24.9%) were reported as NOBOB on the Gulf of Mexico. In the Great Lakes 30.0% of arrivals were classified as NOBOB (3,883 of 12,924 ballast water reports). The West Coast reported 10.6% NOBOB arrival frequency (1,260 of 11,930 domestic arrivals). At the level of COTPZ, domestic NOBOB arrivals varied greatly with location (Table 10b). Hawaii reported the lowest percentage of domestic NOBOB arrivals (2.3%) and Lake Michigan reported the highest (52.7%), but the East Coast appears to have the greatest variability across COTPZs. There are clear geographic differences in the number and proportion of NOBOB reports, both foreign and domestic, which almost certainly reflects differences in shipping and trade patterns throughout the United States. Coastal Arrival Patterns by Ship Type When the Ballast Water Reporting Forms from 2004-05 (both foreign and domestic) were partitioned by coast and ship type, striking differences emerged (Figs. 18a, b). Coastal regions were clearly served by different combinations of ship types. The following combinations accounted for 50% or more of the port calls reported to each coast: Alaska (56% Passenger), Gulf of Mexico (43% Tanker, 18% Bulk Carrier), East Coast (28% Container, 18% Tanker, 12% Roll-on/Roll-off), West Coast (39% Container, 15% Tanker), Caribbean (28% Passenger, 22% Tanker), Hawaii (36% Container, 28% Passenger), Guam/ American Samoa (38% Container, 30% Tanker). Ballast Water Reporting Form Submission, Receipt, and Processing Since mandatory ballast water reporting requirements went into place in July 1999, without penalty, the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse has continually developed and refined the available methods by which ships can submit reports. During the first several years of the National Ballast Survey, ballast water forms were submitted in hard copy form, either posted by mail or by fax. Over time, both online forms (web and PDF) and e-mail attachable forms (word and PDF) have been developed and distributed for use by the shipping industry. As of this writing, the NBIC receives an average of 310 BW Reporting Form submissions per day. Of these, approximately 10% are faxed hard copies, 81% are e-mail attachments, 6% are online PDF forms, and 3% are filled out and submitted via the World Wide Web. Figure 19 illustrates the current Ballast Water Report information flow by submission method. The NBIC archives original source files, regardless of format in a file archive. Copies of these source files are converted into Extensible Markup Language (XML), and are placed in an As Received Database. Following a series of quality control and quality assurance measures, the data are transferred to an Analytical Database for analyses. At present, the NBIC responds to each electronically submitted BW Reporting Form with a customized receipt. The receipts indicate the date and time of receipt, and include a listing of any critical omissions and/ or detectible errors within the form. When errors or omissions are detected, a request for a correction and resubmission is made. The NBIC has implemented an amended/duplicate form checking system by which initial and amended (i.e., corrected) forms are compared such that only a single qualifying “BW Reporting Form of record” is retained and entered into the analytical database.

21

CONCLUSIONS

Ballast Water Reporting and Management Compliance The rate of ballast water reporting compliance increased substantially between the 2002-03 reporting period and 2005. This coincides with the expansion of federal ballast water reporting regulations and penalties in the summer of 2004. Reporting compliance more than doubled for foreign arrivals (79.3%) and reached 60.8% for domestic arrivals by 2005. Nearly all coastal regions had increased reporting compliance rates for foreign arrivals during 2004-05, with an increase of +32.9% over 2002-03 rates nationally. In order to quantify the overall number of qualifying ship arrivals (both foreign and domestic) during 2004-05, the NBIC switched from the arrivals data compiled by MARAD to the USCG’s Nation Vessel Movement Center data set on advanced notice of arrival. Like MARAD, the NVMC data capture both foreign and domestic voyages to U.S. ports and places. Unfortunately, there is currently no program that collects comprehensive data on domestic shipping in the Inland Waterways (e.g., major rivers of the U.S.) or the Great Lakes. For this reason, compliance with reporting requirements could not be assessed for these important U.S. regions. Greater overall foreign ballast water discharge to the nation was reported in 2004-05 than in 2002-2003. Total ballast discharge of foreign water increased from 41.7 million MT to 73.7 million MT. Of this discharge, the volume of un-exchanged ballast water increased (likely due to increased reporting), but the percentage of overall discharge that was reported as un-exchanged decreased from 9.3 million MT (22.2% of discharge) to14.8 million MT (20.1% of discharge) in 2004-05. Most ships reported no discharge in 2004 and 2005 (80.7% and 81.1% all ships respectively). New domestic ballast water reporting regulations and penalties were announced in the summer of 2004 and resulted in the reporting of >183 million MT of ballast water discharge in U.S. ports and places by domestic arrivals. This value is approximately 2.5 times the volume of foreign ballast water discharge to the U.S. Nearly 50% (>90.6 million MT) of domestic discharge was reported by ships operating inside the Great Lakes. Discharge in the Gulf of Mexico accounted for 30.4% of domestic discharge, while the West Coast and East Coast received 9.5% and 7.3%, respectively, of the country’s domestic discharge. In spite of significant increases in both reporting and reported ballast water management compliance, a significant percentage of vessels arriving from overseas did not follow mandatory regulations when performing open-ocean ballast water exchanges. Nearly 42% of such ships completed at least part of their exchanges less than 200 nm from a landmass. A large number of these exchanges took place, at least in part, within 200 nm of U.S. coastlines; however, many violations occurred when exchange was performed in the coastal waters of other countries, continents, and islands. The majority (77.1%) of such non-compliant exchanges occurred in the waters of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, where the predominant shipping routes often preclude ships from transiting beyond 200 nm from any coast. There are clear differences in the volumes and geographic sources of ballast water arriving to coasts of the U.S. Furthermore, the extent of ballast water management occurring prior to discharge is quite different among coastal regions, as are the predominant ships types that operate in different

22

U.S. coastal regions. Such patterns likely have important implications for the relative risks posed by non-native species introductions associated with ballast water discharges into U.S. coastal ecosystems. Changes to Ballast Water Reporting, Receipt, Processing, and Analysis Through the design and implementation of various electronic Ballast Water Reporting Forms and submission options, the NBIC has increased the extent of electronic reporting to nearly 90% of all ballast water forms. Much of this increase has been the result of actions taken by the NBIC to acknowledge report receipt and communicate directly with reporting ships at the time of submission when possible. Major efforts by the USCG Environmental Standards Division during the past 4 years to educate the commercial shipping industry about the benefits of electronic reporting alternatives have increased this kind of reporting as well. Currently, all electronically submitted Ballast Water Reporting Forms receive immediate confirmation of their submission. Online submissions (web forms and direct internet submissions via PDF forms) receive instantaneous responses. E-mailed BW Reporting Forms receive an initial acknowledgement of receipt, followed by a detailed critique of the submitted form, which includes a list of errors and omissions, suggested remedies, and a request for correction and resubmission as necessary. By communicating directly with ship operators, agents, and others that submit Ballast Water Reporting Forms, the NBIC has been able to help educate members of the shipping industry about the proper procedures for filling out and submitting their ships’ ballast information. These efforts have resulted in the increased quality and completeness of Ballast Water Reporting Form submissions. The NBIC has also refined and expanded the set of methods used for receiving, archiving, standardizing, vetting, and analyzing ballast water information. By employing innovative technological approaches and applications, the NBIC Ballast Water Informatics System now supports and supplements the efforts of database managers with extensive automated standardization, error checking, and quality control/ assurance routines. For example, such tools allow duplicate ballast water report records to be accurately pared to a single Ballast Water Reporting Form of record, or enable the standardization of ship and port information via the use of alias tables that automatically recognize misspellings and alternate names. The NBIC is currently developing a scoring system to be applied to all submitted Ballast Water Reporting Forms. This system is a systematic and quantitative approach that scores a form based on its composite set of major and minor data errors and omissions. Moreover, the NBIC has developed a series of web-based interfaces that enable USCG personnel to access and query the Ballast Water Survey data through a password protected system. These web-based tools enable the Coast Guard to use the NBIC data directly to assist in them in enforcing ballast water regulations. Finally, the NBIC is revising its web interface and data release policy to enable ballast water data to be posted more frequently and thus more readily accessible to the public for browsing and download.

23

Figure 1. Arrivals to the U.S. ports and places are classified as either Foreign (F) or Domestic (D), depending on whether a ship has had to operate outside the U.S. or Canadian EEZs or not.

F

F

F

F

D

DD

D

D

D

24

Figure 2. Map of the Captain of the Port Zones, COTPZs, of the as designated by the USCG. Complete names and the abbreviations are provided in Table 2.

25

A. Foreign Arrivals

Caribbean11%

East39%

Guam1%

West16%

Alaska1%

Hawaii2%

Gulf of Mexico

30%

B. Domestic Arrivals

Caribbean5%

East35%

Gulf of Mexico

26%

Alaska14%

West17%

Hawaii3%

Figure 3. Percent qualifying foreign and domestic arrivals (n = 96,521 and n = 80,206, respectively) by coast over the two-year reporting period from January 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the NVMC database and exclude arrivals to the Great Lakes and inland waterways for both foreign and domestic arrivals and exclude Guam/American Samoa for domestic arrivals only.

26

United States - Foreign Arrivals

Jul-9

9A

ug-9

9S

ep-9

9O

ct-9

9N

ov-9

9D

ec-9

9Ja

n-00

Feb-

00M

ar-0

0Ap

r-00

May

-00

Jun-

00Ju

l-00

Aug

-00

Sep

-00

Oct

-00

Nov

-00

Dec

-00

Jan-

01Fe

b-01

Mar

-01

Apr-0

1M

ay-0

1Ju

n-01

Jul-0

1A

ug-0

1S

ep-0

1O

ct-0

1N

ov-0

1D

ec-0

1Ja

n-02

Feb-

02M

ar-0

2Ap

r-02

May

-02

Jun-

02Ju

l-02

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03Fe

b-03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3M

ay-0

3Ju

n-03

Jul-0

3A

ug-0

3S

ep-0

3O

ct-0

3N

ov-0

3D

ec-0

3Ja

n-04

Feb-

04M

ar-0

4Ap

r-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5M

ay-0

5Ju

n-05

Jul-0

5A

ug-0

5S

ep-0

5O

ct-0

5N

ov-0

5D

ec-0

5

NB

IC B

W Form

s Reported

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Perc

ent R

epor

ting

0

20

40

60

80

100

NBIC BW FormsPercent Reporting

Biennial Report #1 Biennial Report #2 Biennial Report #3

Penalties Final Rule

Figure 4. National monthly BW reporting (Foreign Arrivals) plotted as the number of BW forms and percent reporting (see below) from July 1999 to December 2005. National Ballast Survey data, excluding arrivals to the Great Lakes and inland rivers and waterways, are compared to MARAD arrivals data (1999-2003) and NVMC arrivals data (2004-2005). Vertical lines delineate the

three Biennial Reporting periods. %100##

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅

=⋅ArrivalsNVMCORMARAD

FormsBWNBICreportingPercent

27


Guam / American Samoa

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Perc

ent R

epor

ting

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 5a. Foreign monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for Guam and American Samoa from January 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey and NVMC arrivals data.

%100#

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅

=⋅ArrivalsNVMC


28

East CoastPe

rcen

t Rep

ortin

g

0

20

40

60

80

100Biennial Report #1 Biennial Report #2

Gulf of Mexico

Jul-9

9A

ug-9

9S

ep-9

9O

ct-9

9N

ov-9

9D

ec-9

9Ja

n-00

Feb-

00M

ar-0

0Ap

r-00

May

-00

Jun-

00Ju

l-00

Aug

-00

Sep

-00

Oct

-00

Nov

-00

Dec

-00

Jan-

01Fe

b-01

Mar

-01

Apr-

01M

ay-0

1Ju

n-01

Jul-0

1A

ug-0

1S

ep-0

1O

ct-0

1N

ov-0

1D

ec-0

1Ja

n-02

Feb-

02M

ar-0

2Ap

r-02

May

-02

Jun-

02Ju

l-02

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03Fe

b-03

Mar

-03

Apr-

03M

ay-0

3Ju

n-03

Jul-0

3A

ug-0

3S

ep-0

3O

ct-0

3N

ov-0

3D

ec-0

3Ja

n-04

Feb-

04M

ar-0

4Ap

r-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr-

05M

ay-0

5Ju

n-05

Jul-0

5A

ug-0

5S

ep-0

5O

ct-0

5N

ov-0

5D

ec-0

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Biennial Report #3


Figure 5b. Foreign monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for the East and Gulf of Mexico coasts from July 1999 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey, MARAD arrivals data (1999-2003), and NVMC arrivals data (2004-2005). Vertical lines delineate the three Biennial Reporting Periods.

%100##

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅



29

Alaska

Jul-9

9A

ug-9

9S

ep-9

9O

ct-9

9N

ov-9

9D

ec-9

9Ja

n-00

Feb-

00M

ar-0

0Ap

r-00

May

-00

Jun-

00Ju

l-00

Aug

-00

Sep

-00

Oct

-00

Nov

-00

Dec

-00

Jan-

01Fe

b-01

Mar

-01

Apr-

01M

ay-0

1Ju

n-01

Jul-0

1A

ug-0

1S

ep-0

1O

ct-0

1N

ov-0

1D

ec-0

1Ja

n-02

Feb-

02M

ar-0

2Ap

r-02

May

-02

Jun-

02Ju

l-02

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03Fe

b-03

Mar

-03

Apr-

03M

ay-0

3Ju

n-03

Jul-0

3A

ug-0

3S

ep-0

3O

ct-0

3N

ov-0

3D

ec-0

3Ja

n-04

Feb-

04M

ar-0

4Ap

r-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr-

05M

ay-0

5Ju

n-05

Jul-0

5A

ug-0

5S

ep-0

5O

ct-0

5N

ov-0

5D

ec-0

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

West CoastP

erce

nt R

epor

ting

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Biennial Report #1 Biennial Report #2 Biennial Report #3


Figure 5c. Foreign monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for the West coast and Alaska from July 1999 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey, MARAD arrivals data (1999-2003), and NVMC arrivals data (2004-2005). Vertical lines delineate the three Biennial Reporting Periods.

%100##

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅



30

Penalties Final RuleCaribbean

Jul-9

9A

ug-9

9S

ep-9

9O

ct-9

9N

ov-9

9D

ec-9

9Ja

n-00

Feb-

00M

ar-0

0Ap

r-00

May

-00

Jun-

00Ju

l-00

Aug

-00

Sep

-00

Oct

-00

Nov

-00

Dec

-00

Jan-

01Fe

b-01

Mar

-01

Apr-

01M

ay-0

1Ju

n-01

Jul-0

1A

ug-0

1S

ep-0

1O

ct-0

1N

ov-0

1D

ec-0

1Ja

n-02

Feb-

02M

ar-0

2Ap

r-02

May

-02

Jun-

02Ju

l-02

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03Fe

b-03

Mar

-03

Apr-

03M

ay-0

3Ju

n-03

Jul-0

3A

ug-0

3S

ep-0

3O

ct-0

3N

ov-0

3D

ec-0

3Ja

n-04

Feb-

04M

ar-0

4Ap

r-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr-

05M

ay-0

5Ju

n-05

Jul-0

5A

ug-0

5S

ep-0

5O

ct-0

5N

ov-0

5D

ec-0

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

HawaiiP

erce

nt R

epor

ting

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Biennial Report #1 Biennial Report #2 Biennial Report #3

Figure 5d. Foreign monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for Hawaii and the Caribbean from July 1999 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey, MARAD arrivals data (1999-2003), and NVMC arrivals data (2004-2005). Vertical lines delineate the three Biennial Reporting Periods.

%100##

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅



31

United States - Domestic Arrivals

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

NB

IC B

W Form

s Reported

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400P

erce

nt R

epor

ting

0

20

40

60

80

100

NBIC BW FormsPercent Reporting


Figure 6. National monthly BW reporting (Domestic Arrivals) plotted as the number of BW forms and the percent reporting (see below) from January 2004 – December 2005. National Ballast Survey Data (excluding arrivals to the Great Lakes, Guam/American Samoa, and the inland rivers and waterways) are compared to NVMC arrivals data.

%100#

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅

=⋅ArrivalsNVMC


32

Inland

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr-0

4

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Great LakesN

BIC

BW

For

ms

Rep

orte

d

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Figure 7. Number of BW reports submitted by domestic arrivals to the Great Lakes and Inland waterways from January 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey.

33

East CoastPe

rcen

t Rep

ortin

g

0

20

40

60

80

100

West Coast

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

0

20

40

60

80

100


Gulf of Mexico

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 8a. Domestic monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for the East coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the West coast from January 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey and NVMC arrivals data.

%100#

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅

=⋅ArrivalsNVMC


34

AlaskaPe

rcen

t Rep

ortin

g

0

20

40

60

80

100Penalties Final Rule

Hawaii

0

20

40

60

80

100

Caribbean

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 8b. Domestic monthly BW reporting rate (see below) for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean from January 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey and NVMC arrivals data.

%100#

#×⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⋅⋅⋅

=⋅ArrivalsNVMC


35

Discharge with No ExchangeDischarge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Unknown ExchangeNo Discharge - BOBNo Discharge - NOBOB

N = 399 BW FormsAlaska Caribbean

N = 6,536 BW FormsEast Coast

N = 25,718 BW Forms

Guam / Am Samoa HawaiiN = 370 BW Forms N = 1,651 BW Forms

West Coast

N = 1,961 BW Forms(23.9%)

N = 13,709 BW Forms

Foreign Arrivals - Discharge Status

Gulf of MexicoN = 20,217 BW Forms

Figure 9a. Reported foreign arrivals’ discharge and management status by coastal region. N is the total number of ballast water forms received by the National Ballast Survey (January 2004 to December 2005).

36

Domestic Arrivals - Discharge Status

Discharge with No ExchangeDischarge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Unknown ExchangeNo Discharge - BOB

No Discharge - NOBOB

N = 3,387 BW FormsAlaska Caribbean

N = 803 BW FormsEast Coast

N = 22,603 BW Forms

Great Lakes Gulf of Mexico Hawaii

N = 1,961 BW Forms(23.9%)

N = 18,075 BW Forms

N = 11,940 BW Forms

N = 12,991 BW Forms

InlandN = 1,360 BW Forms

West Coast

N = 607 BW Forms

Figure 9b. Reported domestic arrivals’ discharge and management status by coastal region. N is the total number of ballast water forms received by the National Ballast Survey (January 2004 to December 2005).

37

Foreign BW Discharge

Jan-

02Fe

b-02

Mar

-02

Apr

-02

May

-02

Jun-

02Ju

l-02

Aug-

02Se

p-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03Fe

b-03

Mar

-03

Apr

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03Ju

l-03

Aug-

03Se

p-03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Jan-

04Fe

b-04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug-

04Se

p-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05Ju

l-05

Aug-

05Se

p-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Dis

char

ge (m

t)

0

1x106

2x106

3x106

4x106

5x106

Discharge with No Exchange Discharge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Unknown Exchange

Biennial Report #2 Biennial Report #3Penalties Final Rule

Figure 10. National monthly reported discharge of foreign ballast water by management status. The total volume of foreign ballast water discharged from January 2004 to December 2005 was 73,720,328 MT and the mean monthly foreign discharge = 3,071,685 ± 156,808 MT (±1 s.e.). Data are from the National Ballast Survey (January 2002 to December 2005) and include all regions.

38

West

Alaska

Discharge with No ExchangeDischarge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Unknown Exchange

Caribbean East Coast

Great Lakes* Gulf of MexicoGuam / Am. Samoa

Total DischargedVolume =

4,017,432 MT


8,391,903 MT


10,019,632 MT


24,573,884 MT


25,854,010 MT

Hawaii

Total DischargedVolume = 37,995 MT


144,999 MT

Foreign Ballast Water Discharge


680,474 MT

Figure 11. Total reported foreign ballast water discharge, regardless of the last port of call (i.e., foreign water carried and discharged by foreign and domestic arrivals), by coastal region and management status. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005). * Federal regulations state that all ships bound for the Great Lakes are required to report to the US Coast Guard office in Massena, NY. Therefore this estimate does not include volumes that were reported to Massena.

39

Domestic BW Discharge

Jan-

04Fe

b-04

Mar

-04

Apr

-04

May

-04

Jun-

04Ju

l-04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jun-

05Ju

l-05

Aug

-05

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Dis

char

ge (m

t)

0

2x106

4x106

6x106

8x106

10x106

12x106

14x106



Figure 12. National monthly reported discharge of domestic ballast water by management status. The total volume of foreign ballast water discharged from January 2004 to December 2005 was 183,792,889 MT and the mean monthly foreign discharge following announcement of mandatory domestic reporting = 10,181,558 ± 513,776 MT (±1 s.e.) from August 2004 to December 2005. Data are from the National Ballast Survey and include all regions.

40

Alaska


Caribbean East Coast

Great Lakes Gulf Coast Hawaii


4,733,690 MT


718,275 MT


13,532,244 MT


90,888,536 MT


56,140,236 MT

Total DischargedVolume = 43,979 MT

West


17,550,561 MT

Inland


182,519 MT

Total Domestic Ballast Water Discharge

Figure 13. Total reported domestic ballast water discharge, regardless of the last port of call (i.e., domestic water carried and discharged by foreign and domestic arrivals), by coastal region and management status. Data are from the National Ballast Survey (January 2004 to December 2005).

41

Figure 14. Reported exchange locations (i.e., end-points of exchange) for ballast water of foreign origin from individual ballast water tanks that were discharged in the United States as reported to NBIC between January 2004 and December 2005. Yellow (n = 35,582 tanks) indicates exchange outside of 200 nautical miles from any coast. Red (n = 18,145 tanks) indicates exchange within 200 nautical miles of land. At the arrival level 6,052 arrivals exchanged all ballast at least 200 nautical miles from land, while 4,249 arrivals exchanged at least one ballast tank within 200 nautical miles of land.

42

Figure 15. Last ports of call of foreign arrivals to the United States scaled by the reported number of foreign arrivals. LPOC in the U.S. are deemed “foreign” when transits connect two non-contiguous coastal systems (e.g., East to West Coasts or West Coast to Hawaii). Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

43

Figure 16. Source locations of foreign ballast water scaled by the reported volume discharged in waters of the United States. Total volumes from the respective ocean basins are displayed in parentheses, while 427,152 MT could not be assigned to an ocean basin. Volumes sourced in the U.S. are deemed “foreign” when discharge was performed in a non-contiguous coastal system (e.g., East to West Coasts or West Coast to Hawaii). Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

44

Gulf of Mexico

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

P

SE

AS

EP

SW

AS

WP WI

Unk

now

n

Dis

char

ge (M

T)

0

2x106

4x106

6x106

8x106

10x106

12x106

14x106

16x106West

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

P

SE

AS

EP

SW

AS

WP WI

Unk

now

n0

5x106

10x106

15x106

20x106

25x106

Discharge with No ExchangeDischarge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Undetermined Exchange

Alaska

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

P

SE

AS

EP

SW

AS

WP WI

Unk

now

n

Dis

char

ge (M

T)

0

1x106

2x106

3x106

4x106East

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

P

SE

AS

EP

SW

AS

WP WI

Unk

now

n

0

1x106

2x106

3x106

4x106

Figure 17a. Reported source of foreign ballast water discharged to the Alaska, East, Gulf of Mexico, and West Coasts. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

45

Guam

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

PS

EA

SE

PS

WA

SW

P WI

Unk

now

n

Dis

char

ge (M

T)

0

20x103

40x103

60x103

80x103

100x103

120x103Hawaii

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

PS

EA

SE

PS

WA

SW

P WI

Unk

now

n0

100x103

200x103

300x103

400x103

500x103

Discharge with No ExchangeDischarge with Some ExchangeDischarge with Undetermined Exchange

Caribbean

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

PS

EA

SE

PS

WA

SW

P WI

Unk

now

n

Dis

char

ge (M

T)

0

2x106

4x106

6x106

8x106

10x106Great Lakes

EI

MB

SN

EA

NE

PN

WA

NW

PS

EA

SE

PS

WA

SW

P WI

Unk

now

n

0

5x103

10x103

15x103

20x103

25x103

Figure 17b. Reported source of foreign ballast water discharged to the Caribbean, the Great Lakes, Guam, and Hawaii. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

46

Alaska

Tanker12%

Bulker5%

Unknown0%

General Cargo

1%

Passenger56%

Container12%

Other8%Reefer

3%

RoRo3%

EastBulker

7%Tanker

18%

RoRo12%

Reefer2%

Other13%

Container28%

Passenger11%

General Cargo

8%

Unknown1%

Gulf of Mexico

Tanker43%

Bulker18%

Unknown0%

General Cargo

9%

Passenger5%

Container5%

Other16%Reefer

2%

RoRo2%

West

Tanker15%

Bulker13%

Unknown2%

General Cargo

6%

Passenger7%

Container39%

Other7%

Reefer2%

RoRo9%

Figure 18a. Distribution of the types of vessels of all arrivals to each U.S. coast. Data are from the National Ballast Survey (January 2004 to December 2005).

47

GuamBulker

0%

Tanker30%

RoRo6%

Reefer0%

Other8%

Container38%

Passenger3%

General Cargo15%

Unknown0%

Hawaii

Bulker3%

Tanker15%

Unknown0%

General Cargo

2%

Passenger28%

Container36%

Other10%

Reefer0%

RoRo6%

Figure 18b. Distribution of the types of vessels of all arrivals to each U.S. coast. Data are from the National Ballast Survey (January 2004 to December 2005).

48

Online E-Mail Fax Submission Method

Report Format as Received

NBIC Electronically Formatted File

Unformatted File

Automatically converted to

XML

Manually entered to

XML

Conversion to XML Format

XML representation of submitted report

Report in XML Format

Data QA/QC

Data QA/QC Processes

XML representation of reviewed report

Reviewed Report in XML Format

As Received Database

Analytical Database

Ballast Water Report Information Flow by Submission Method

Received data uploaded to database

Reviewed data uploaded to database

Figure 19. Receipt and processing of ballast water reports to the NBIC database. All raw data (i.e., unaltered, non-standardized, with no removal of duplicate ballast water forms) are maintained in the “As Received Database”. The Analytical Database has undergone quality control/ assurance measures, as well as standardization steps, and removal of duplicates ballast water reports.

49

Table 1. USCG Captain of the Port Zones included in this report.

U. S. Coast COTPZ

COTPZ Abbreviation

Alaska Western Alaska COTPZ ANCMS Southeast Alaska COTPZ JUNMS Prince William Sound COTPZ VALMS

Caribbean San Juan COTPZ SJPMS

East

Baltimore COTPZ BALMS Boston COTPZ BOSMS Charleston COTPZ CHAMS Hampton Roads COTPZ HMRMS Jacksonville COTPZ JACMS Long Island Sound COTPZ LISCP Miami COTPZ MIAMS New York COTPZ NYCCP Philadelphia COTPZ PHIMS Portland, Maine COTPZ POMMS Providence COTPZ PROMS Savannah COTPZ SAVMS Wilmington COTPZ WNCMS

Great Lakes

Buffalo COTPZ BUFMS Detroit COTPZ DETMS Duluth COTPZ DULMS Lake Michigan COTPZ LkMichgn Saulte Ste. Marie COTPZ SSMMS

Guam/American Samoa Guam COTPZ GUAD

Gulf of Mexico

Corpus Christi COTPZ CORMS Houston- Galveston COTPZ HOUCP Key West COTPZ KEYWEST Mobile COTPZ MOBMS Morgan City COTPZ MORMS New Orleans COTPZ NEWMS Port Arthur COTPZ PATMS Tampa COTPZ TAMMS

Hawaii Honolulu COTPZ HONMS

Inland

Huntington COTPZ HUMNS Louisville COTPZ LOUMS Memphis COTPZ MEMMS Paducah COTPZ PADMS Pittsburgh COTPZ PITMS St. Louis COTPZ STLMS

West

Los Angeles- Long Beach COTPZ LOSMS Portland, Oregon COTPZ PORMS San Diego COTPZ SDCMS Puget Sound COTPZ SEAMS San Francisco COTPZ SFCMS

Figure 19. Receipt and processing of ballast water reports to the NBIC database. All raw data (i.e., unaltered, non-standardized, with no removal of duplicate ballast water forms) are maintained in the “As Received Database”. The Analytical Database has undergone quality control/ assurance measures, as well as standardization steps, and removal of duplicates ballast water reports.

50

Table 2. Regions and vessel classes exempted from reporting to NBIC and NVMC. The table indicates how these data sets and exemptions factored into the analysis of reporting compliance and ballast water management activities (by volume). Reporting exemptions and those with incomplete reporting requirements are designated by “E” and “I”, respectively. Those regions or vessels that are excluded from the analysis for a particular table or figure are designated by X. Those vessel classes marked as “not evident” are not required to report to NVMC, but were not evident in either database and were not explicitly excluded.

Region and Vessel Classes NBIC –

Reporting Exemptions

NVMC – Reporting

Exemptions

NVMC – Reporting Compliance Analysis

(Figs. 1,2,3,4,6; Tables 3,4a)

NBIC – Reporting Compliance Analysis

(Figs. 2,3,4,5,6; Tables 3,4a,b)

NBIC – Ballast Water Analysis (Figs. 7,8,9,10;

Tables 5,6)

REGIONS Alaska Caribbean East Coast Great Lakes (Domestic) I X Great Lakes (Foreign) E X X X Guam and Am. Samoa (Domestic) I X Guam and Am. Samoa (Foreign) Gulf of Mexico Hawaii Inland Rivers and Waterways (Domestic) I X Inland Rivers and Waterways (Foreign) I I X X X West Coast

VESSEL CLASSES Crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade E E X X Offshore supply vessels E X X Oil spill recovery vessels E X X Recreational vessels E X X Tugs and barges traveling domestically E X X Vessels ≤300 GRT E X X Vessels operating exclusively in a single

COTPZ or between MORMS and NEWMS E E X X

Dept. of Defense and Coast Guard Vessels E E (Not Evident) (Not Evident) Public vessels E (Not Evident) (Not Evident) Vessels arriving under force majeure E (Not Evident) (Not Evident) Total Number of Forms or Arrivals Included 176,727 119,935 140,371

51

Table 3. Foreign arrival reporting rates by coast and COTPZ. Data are from National Ballast Survey and NVMC databases (January 2004 to December 2005). Data exclude the Great Lakes, inland waterways, and vessel classes that are not represented in NBIC and NVMC.

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

2004

- B

WR

For

ms

[#]

2004

NV

MC

Arr

ival

s

2004

- P

erce

nt R

epor

ting

Rat

e

2005

- B

WR

For

ms

[#]

2005

- N

VM

C A

rriva

ls

2005

- Pe

rcen

t Rep

ortin

g R

ate

Tota

l BW

R F

orm

s [#

]

Tota

l NV

MC

Arri

vals

Tota

l (2

Yea

r) P

erce

nt R

epor

ting

Rat

e

Rep

ortin

g R

ate

Cha

nge

(200

4-20

05)

- (20

02-2

003)

Alaska ANCMS 135 285 47.4% 201 290 69.3% 336 575 58.4% +38.0% Alaska JUNMS 22 40 55.0% 19 38 50.0% 41 78 52.6% +11.9% Alaska VALMS 5 16 31.3% 12 20 60.0% 17 36 47.2% -95.7% Alaska Subtotal 162 341 47.5% 232 348 66.7% 394 689 57.2% +34.4% Carib SJPMS 2,571 4,966 51.8% 3,949 5,875 67.2% 6,520 10,841 60.1% +40.6% East BALMS 564 829 68.0% 652 856 76.2% 1,216 1,685 72.2% +4.9% East BOSMS 244 335 72.8% 308 328 93.9% 552 663 83.3% +38.0% East CHAMS 579 997 58.1% 750 911 82.3% 1,329 1,908 69.7% +17.8% East HMRMS 284 853 33.3% 319 732 43.6% 603 1,585 38.0% +4.4% East JACMS 1,354 2,070 65.4% 1,890 1,906 99.2% 3,244 3,976 81.6% +28.8% East LISCP 122 241 50.6% 154 241 63.9% 276 482 57.3% +43.5% East MIAMS 3,464 6,619 52.3% 4,971 6,968 71.3% 8,435 13,587 62.1% +26.2% East NYCCP 2,045 2,765 74.0% 2,701 2,699 100.1% 4,746 5,464 86.9% +41.2% East PHIMS 1,066 1,538 69.3% 1,393 1,551 89.8% 2,459 3,089 79.6% +39.6% East POMMS 247 311 79.4% 262 328 79.9% 509 639 79.7% +28.8% East PROMS 155 226 68.6% 207 269 77.0% 362 495 73.1% +34.6% East SAVMS 543 1,080 50.3% 744 1,118 66.5% 1,287 2,198 58.6% +14.8% East WNCMS 100 137 73.0% 177 141 125.5% 277 278 99.6% +82.3% East Subtotal 10,767 18,001 59.8% 14,528 18,048 80.5% 25,295 36,049 70.2% +28.7% Guam GUAD 139 731 19.0% 210 716 29.3% 349 1,447 24.1% n/a G of M CORMS 605 1,095 55.3% 846 1,159 73.0% 1,451 2,254 64.4% +37.9% G of M HOUCP 2,917 4,963 58.8% 4,265 5,710 74.7% 7,182 10,673 67.3% +42.7% G of M KEYWEST 139 151 92.1% 139 186 74.7% 278 337 82.5% +82.5% G of M MOBMS 297 756 39.3% 580 880 65.9% 877 1,636 53.6% +36.2% G of M MORMS 324 459 70.6% 455 481 94.6% 779 940 82.9% +82.9% G of M NEWMS 2,942 4,376 67.3% 3,035 3,686 82.3% 5,977 8,062 74.1% +51.0% G of M PATMS 912 1,563 58.3% 1,144 1,517 75.4% 2,056 3,080 66.8% +43.7% G of M TAMMS 613 1,103 55.6% 848 1,037 81.8% 1,461 2,140 68.3% +31.9% G of M Subtotal 8,749 14,466 60.5% 11,312 14,656 77.2% 20,061 29,122 68.9% +44.8% Hawaii HONMS 784 1,049 74.7% 840 1,085 77.4% 1,624 2,134 76.1% -15.4% West LOSMS 3,768 4,099 91.9% 3,960 3,758 105.4% 7,728 7,857 98.4% +30.1% West PORMS 771 1,011 76.3% 811 947 85.6% 1,582 1,958 80.8% +12.7% West SDCMS 311 430 72.3% 394 447 88.1% 705 877 80.4% +44.0% West SEAMS 711 1,073 66.3% 1,085 1,132 95.8% 1,796 2,205 81.5% +4.0% West SFCMS 853 1,316 64.8% 1,030 1,240 83.1% 1,884 2,556 73.7% -24.5% West Subtotal 6,414 7,929 80.9% 7,280 7,524 96.8% 13,695 15,453 88.6% +19.0% Unknown COTPZ 132 380 n/a 223 406 n/a 355 786 n/a n/a Total 29,718 47,863 62.1% 38,574 48,658 79.3% 68,292 96,521 70.8% +32.9%

52

Table 4a. Domestic arrival reporting rates by coast and COTPZ. Data are from National Ballast Survey and NVMC databases (January 2004 to December 2005). Data exclude the Great Lakes, inland waterways, Guam/America Samoa, and vessel classes that are not represented in NBIC and NVMC.

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

2004

- B

WR

For

ms

[#]

2004

NV

MC

Arri

vals

2004

- P

erce

nt R

epor

ting

Rat

e

2005

- B

WR

For

ms

[#]

2005

- N

VM

C A

rriva

ls

2005

- P

erce

nt R

epor

ting

Rat

e

Tota

l BW

R F

orm

s [#

]

Tota

l NV

MC

Arri

vals

Tota

l (2

Yea

r) P

erce

nt

Rep

ortin

g R

ate

Alaska ANCMS 355 1,977 18.0% 483 1,685 28.7% 838 3,662 22.9% Alaska JUNMS 922 3,583 25.7% 1,121 3,215 34.9% 2,043 6,798 30.1% Alaska VALMS 5 203 2.5% 21 157 13.4% 26 360 7.2% Alaska Subtotal 1,282 5,763 22.2% 1,625 5,057 32.1% 2,907 10,820 26.9% Carib SJPMS 297 2,152 13.8% 366 1,873 19.5% 663 4,025 16.5% East BALMS 628 1,134 55.4% 865 1,079 80.2% 1,493 2,213 67.5% East BOSMS 162 369 43.9% 303 487 62.2% 465 856 54.3% East CHAMS 533 1,320 40.4% 1,023 1,225 83.5% 1,556 2,545 61.1% East HMRMS 881 1,723 51.1% 1,544 1,743 88.6% 2,425 3,466 70.0% East JACMS 369 1,206 30.6% 565 1,049 53.9% 934 2,255 41.4% East LISCP 70 173 40.5% 81 176 46.0% 151 349 43.3% East MIAMS 547 2,228 24.6% 1,040 2,023 51.4% 1,587 4,251 37.3% East NYCCP 1,229 2,328 52.8% 1,581 2,255 70.1% 2,810 4,583 61.3% East PHIMS 293 597 49.1% 489 580 84.3% 782 1,177 66.4% East POMMS 370 447 82.8% 286 483 59.2% 656 930 70.5% East PROMS 119 412 28.9% 177 552 32.1% 296 964 30.7% East SAVMS 661 1,523 43.4% 1,355 1,492 90.8% 2,016 3,015 66.9% East WNCMS 87 71 122.5% 232 56 414.3% 319 127 251.2% East Subtotal 5,949 13,531 44.0% 9,541 13,200 72.3% 15,490 26,731 57.9% G of M CORMS 253 968 26.1% 460 884 52.0% 713 1,852 38.5% G of M HOUCP 922 4,416 20.9% 1,804 4,152 43.4% 2,726 8,568 31.8% G of M KEYWEST 140 326 42.9% 256 342 74.9% 396 668 59.3% G of M MOBMS 193 517 37.3% 390 470 83.0% 583 987 59.1% G of M MORMS 62 109 56.9% 130 447 29.1% 192 556 34.5% G of M NEWMS 963 2,021 47.6% 1,773 1,491 118.9% 2,736 3,512 77.9% G of M PATMS 443 1,112 39.8% 980 931 105.3% 1,423 2,043 69.7% G of M TAMMS 374 1,226 30.5% 751 1,028 73.1% 1,125 2,254 49.9% G of M Subtotal 3,350 10,695 31.3% 6,544 9,745 67.2% 9,894 20,440 48.4% Hawaii HONMS 274 1,395 19.6% 315 1,282 24.6% 589 2,677 22.0% West LOSMS 1,027 1,416 72.5% 1,243 1,471 84.5% 2,270 2,887 78.6% West PORMS 466 890 52.4% 567 797 71.1% 1,033 1,687 61.2% West SDCMS 155 180 86.1% 148 210 70.5% 303 390 77.7% West SEAMS 910 2,663 34.2% 1,269 2,919 43.5% 2,179 5,582 39.0% West SFCMS 1,663 1,719 96.7% 1,962 1,740 112.8% 3,625 3,459 104.8% West Subtotal 4,221 6,868 61.5% 5,189 7,137 72.7% 9,410 14,005 67.2% Unknown COTPZ 94 678 n/a 189 830 n/a 283 1,508 n/a Total 15,467 41,082 37.6% 23,769 39,124 60.8% 39,236 80,206 48.9%

53

Table 4b. Number of domestic ballast water reports submitted for arrivals to ports or places in the Great Lakes and the inland waterways. Since the NVMC database is not comprehensive for these regions it is not possible to calculate reporting rates. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

U,S

, Coa

st

CO

TPZ

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

BW

R F

orm

s [#

] 200

4

BW

R F

orm

s [#

] 200

5

Great Lakes Buffalo COTPZ BUFMS 772 1,425 Great Lakes Detroit COTPZ DETMS 835 1,899 Great Lakes Duluth COTPZ DULMS 606 1,363 Great Lakes Lake Michigan COTPZ LkMichgn 875 1,987 Great Lakes Saulte Ste. Marie COTPZ SSMMS 1,015 2,152 Great Lakes Unknown COTPZ 4 58 Great Lakes Subtotal 4,107 8,884 Guam Guam COTPZ GUAD 2 6 Inland Huntington COTPZ HUNMS 40 236 Inland Louisville COTPZ LOUMS 9 65 Inland Memphis COTPZ MEMMS 47 170 Inland Paducah COTPZ PADMS 62 334 Inland Pittsburgh COTPZ PITMS 43 84 Inland St. Louis COTPZ STLMS 55 215 Inland Subtotal 256 1,104 Total 4,365 9,994

54

Table 5a. Compliance of foreign arrivals with ballast water management requirements for 2004, by coastal region and COTPZ. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2004).

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

2004

-BW

R F

orm

s [#

]

Zero

Dis

char

ge [#

]

% Z

ero

Dis

char

ge

Zero

Exc

hang

e [#

]

% Z

ero

Exc

hang

e

Som

e E

xcha

nge

[#]

% S

ome

Exc

hang

e

Und

eter

min

ed E

xcha

nge

[#]

% U

ndet

erm

ined

Ex

chan

ge

Alaska ANCMS 136 50 36.8% 34 25.0% 52 38.2% 0 0.0% Alaska JUNMS 22 3 13.6% 1 4.5% 18 81.8% 0 0.0% Alaska VALMS 6 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% Alaska Subtotal 164 58 35.4% 35 21.3% 71 43.3% 0 0.0% Carib SJPMS 2,574 2,195 85.3% 178 6.9% 179 7.0% 22 0.9% East BALMS 564 503 89.2% 10 1.8% 49 8.7% 2 0.4% East BOSMS 244 223 91.4% 13 5.3% 8 3.3% 0 0.0% East CHAMS 589 531 90.2% 12 2.0% 44 7.5% 2 0.3% East HMRMS 286 205 71.7% 10 3.5% 69 24.1% 2 0.7% East JACMS 1,362 977 71.7% 338 24.8% 40 2.9% 7 0.5% East LISCP 122 114 93.4% 1 0.8% 7 5.7% 0 0.0% East MIAMS 3,470 2,503 72.1% 782 22.5% 140 4.0% 45 1.3% East NYCCP 2,045 1,781 87.1% 126 6.2% 125 6.1% 13 0.6% East PHIMS 1,067 936 87.7% 45 4.2% 82 7.7% 4 0.4% East POMMS 247 239 96.8% 0 0.0% 8 3.2% 0 0.0% East PROMS 155 152 98.1% 1 0.6% 2 1.3% 0 0.0% East SAVMS 543 489 90.1% 7 1.3% 45 8.3% 2 0.4% East WNCMS 100 94 94.0% 0 0.0% 5 5.0% 1 1.0% East Subtotal 10,794 8,747 81.0% 1,345 12.5% 624 5.8% 78 0.7% Guam GUAD 148 136 91.9% 9 6.1% 3 2.0% 0 0.0% G of M CORMS 607 479 78.9% 58 9.6% 65 10.7% 5 0.8% G of M HOUCP 2,917 2,346 80.4% 178 6.1% 373 12.8% 20 0.7% G of M KEYWEST 140 127 90.7% 11 7.9% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% G of M MOBMS 305 248 81.3% 19 6.2% 38 12.5% 0 0.0% G of M MORMS 334 310 92.8% 9 2.7% 14 4.2% 1 0.3% G of M NEWMS 2,945 2,169 73.7% 212 7.2% 552 18.7% 12 0.4% G of M PATMS 921 798 86.6% 39 4.2% 79 8.6% 5 0.5% G of M TAMMS 613 424 69.2% 118 19.2% 70 11.4% 1 0.2% G of M Subtotal 8,782 6,901 78.6% 644 7.3% 1,192 13.6% 45 0.5% Hawaii HONMS 792 725 91.5% 33 4.2% 33 4.2% 1 0.1% West LOSMS 3,768 3,262 86.6% 54 1.4% 438 11.6% 14 0.4% West PORMS 771 330 42.8% 10 1.3% 428 55.5% 3 0.4% West SDCMS 311 307 98.7% 0 0.0% 3 1.0% 1 0.3% West SEAMS 712 550 77.2% 14 2.0% 145 20.4% 3 0.4% West SFCMS 853 709 83.1% 8 0.9% 131 15.3% 5 0.6% West Subtotal 6,415 5,158 80.4% 86 1.3% 1,145 17.8% 26 0.4% Unknown COTPZ 132 119 90.2% 5 3.8% 6 4.5% 2 1.5% National Total 29,800 24,038 80.7% 2,335 7.8% 3,253 10.9% 174 0.6%

55

Table 5b. Compliance of foreign arrivals with ballast water management requirements for 2005, by coastal region and COTPZ. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2005 to December 2005).

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

2005

-BW

R F

orm

s [#

]

Zero

Dis

char

ge [#

]

% Z

ero

Dis

char

ge

Zero

Exc

hang

e [#

]

% Z

ero

Exc

hang

e

Som

e E

xcha

nge

[#]

% S

ome

Exch

ange

Und

eter

min

ed

Exc

hang

e [#

]

% U

ndet

erm

ined

Ex

chan

ge

Alaska ANCMS 201 101 50.2% 28 13.9% 69 34.3% 3 1.5% Alaska JUNMS 19 5 26.3% 0 0.0% 14 73.7% 0 0.0% Alaska VALMS 12 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 2 16.7% 1 8.3% Alaska Subtotal 232 113 48.7% 30 12.9% 85 36.6% 4 1.7% Carib SJPMS 3,962 3,405 85.9% 245 6.2% 292 7.4% 20 0.5% East BALMS 653 611 93.6% 8 1.2% 33 5.1% 1 0.2% East BOSMS 308 284 92.2% 7 2.3% 16 5.2% 1 0.3% East CHAMS 757 671 88.6% 16 2.1% 70 9.2% 0 0.0% East HMRMS 321 230 71.7% 5 1.6% 85 26.5% 1 0.3% East JACMS 1,895 1,364 72.0% 480 25.3% 50 2.6% 1 0.1% East LISCP 154 140 90.9% 3 1.9% 11 7.1% 0 0.0% East MIAMS 5,079 3,815 75.1% 883 17.4% 336 6.6% 45 0.9% East NYCCP 2,701 2,331 86.3% 158 5.8% 204 7.6% 8 0.3% East PHIMS 1,395 1,197 85.8% 30 2.2% 166 11.9% 2 0.1% East POMMS 262 255 97.3% 1 0.4% 6 2.3% 0 0.0% East PROMS 207 202 97.6% 2 1.0% 3 1.4% 0 0.0% East SAVMS 744 651 87.5% 21 2.8% 70 9.4% 2 0.3% East WNCMS 177 159 89.8% 4 2.3% 14 7.9% 0 0.0% East Subtotal 14,653 11,910 81.3% 1,618 11.0% 1,064 7.3% 61 0.4% Guam GUAD 222 202 91.0% 12 5.4% 8 3.6% 0 0.0% G of M CORMS 851 687 80.7% 74 8.7% 89 10.5% 1 0.1% G of M HOUCP 4,274 3,384 79.2% 299 7.0% 571 13.4% 20 0.5% G of M KEYWEST 139 131 94.2% 5 3.6% 1 0.7% 2 1.4% G of M MOBMS 586 449 76.6% 60 10.2% 68 11.6% 9 1.5% G of M MORMS 463 443 95.7% 5 1.1% 14 3.0% 1 0.2% G of M NEWMS 3,049 2,311 75.8% 164 5.4% 564 18.5% 10 0.3% G of M PATMS 1,149 1,007 87.6% 40 3.5% 100 8.7% 2 0.2% G of M TAMMS 852 625 73.4% 120 14.1% 105 12.3% 2 0.2% G of M Subtotal 11,363 9,037 79.5% 767 6.7% 1,512 13.3% 47 0.4% Hawaii HONMS 859 769 89.5% 51 5.9% 38 4.4% 1 0.1% West LOSMS 3,961 3,461 87.4% 51 1.3% 444 11.2% 5 0.1% West PORMS 813 320 39.4% 4 0.5% 489 60.1% 0 0.0% West SDCMS 395 383 97.0% 1 0.3% 11 2.8% 0 0.0% West SEAMS 1,086 784 72.2% 15 1.4% 285 26.2% 2 0.2% West SFCMS 1,030 877 85.1% 7 0.7% 144 14.0% 2 0.2% West Subtotal 7,285 5,825 80.0% 78 1.1% 1,373 18.8% 9 0.1% Unknown COTPZ 223 203 91.0% 7 3.1% 13 5.8% 0 0.0% National Total 38,799 31,464 81.1% 2,808 7.2% 4,385 11.3% 142 0.4%

56

Table 6. Total reported volume of foreign ballast water discharged by COTPZ and discharge status. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

Coast COTPZ

Abbreviation

Discharge with No Exchange

(MT)

Discharge with Some

Exchange (MT)

Discharge with Undetermined Exchange (MT)

Total Discharge (MT)

Alaska VALMS 246,401 63,649 52,252 362,301Alaska JUNMS 24,352 235,871 14,576 274,799Alaska ANCMS 1,802,168 1,525,246 42,029 3,369,442Alaska Subtotal 2,072,920 1,824,766 108,857 4,006,543Carib SJPMS 2,512,033 5,539,196 340,674 8,391,903East BALMS 32,270 1,044,823 40,970 1,118,063East BOSMS 21,373 49,712 1,321 72,406East CHAMS 126,456 409,258 18,318 554,032East HMRMS 160,979 2,600,167 63,596 2,824,741East JACMS 607,499 90,630 3,521 701,650East LISCP 3,559 12,679 613 16,851East MIAMS 1,175,776 422,831 54,473 1,653,080East NYCCP 563,095 955,731 46,237 1,565,063East PHIMS 113,625 344,825 15,513 473,963East POMMS 4,177 100,786 17,165 122,128East PROMS 20,923 24,381 0 45,304East SAVMS 99,112 544,646 21,016 664,774East WNCMS 19,737 112,700 558 132,995East Subtotal 2,948,580 6,713,168 283,300 9,945,048Great Lakes BUFMS 650 235 0 885Great Lakes DETMS 0 21,881 49 21,930Great Lakes DULMS 500 10,728 0 11,228Great Lakes LkMichgn 0 3,952 0 3,952Great Lakes Subtotal 1,150 36,796 49 37,995Guam GUAD 73,242 71,756 0 144,999G of M CORMS 714,071 1,067,903 63,958 1,845,933G of M HOUCP 2,189,221 4,436,584 208,588 6,834,393G of M KEYWEST 11,097 68,183 0 79,279G of M MOBMS 135,726 911,921 3,552 1,051,199G of M MORMS 43,608 102,837 1,629 148,073G of M NEWMS 1,434,628 9,671,318 204,130 11,310,076G of M PATMS 968,484 1,067,416 36,739 2,072,639G of M TAMMS 219,363 827,989 36,930 1,084,281G of M Subtotal 5,716,197 18,154,151 555,526 24,425,874Hawaii HONMS 335,392 320,936 24,146 680,474West LOSMS 313,008 5,331,998 96,277 5,741,283West PORMS 311,975 11,132,749 169,058 11,613,782West SEAMS 152,673 5,135,056 78,657 5,366,385West SDCMS 20,306 90,177 2,342 112,825West SFCMS 331,821 2,592,253 51,578 2,975,652West Subtotal 1,129,783 24,282,232 397,912 25,809,927Unknown COTPZ 41,704 213,513 22,348 277,566National Total 14,831,003 57,156,514 1,732,812 73,720,328

57

Table 7. Reported foreign ballast water discharged by the management status and the origin of the ballast water. Ballast water is considered coastwise if it originated in North, South or Central America, the Caribbean, and their respective territorial waters, whereas Transoceanic BW originated in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and other oceanic islands and places. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

BW Origin No Exchange (mt) Some Exchange

(mt) Unknown Exchange

(mt) Total Discharge

(mt) Pan-American 7,345,355 16,423,678 834,291 24,603,323Transoceanic 7,485,648 40,732,836 898,521 49,117,005National 14,831,003 57,156,514 1,732,812 73,720,328

58

Table 8. Total reported volume of domestic ballast water discharged by COTPZ and discharge status. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

Coast COTPZ

Abbreviation

Discharge with No Exchange

(MT)

Discharge with Some

Exchange (MT)

Discharge with Undetermined Exchange (MT)

Total Discharge (MT)

Alaska VALMS 3,933,284 66,895 0 4,000,179Alaska JUNMS 37,817 7,224 551 45,592Alaska ANCMS 280,264 406,316 1,339 687,919Alaska Subtotal 4,251,365 480,435 1,890 4,733,690Carib SJPMS 653,437 38,647 26,192 718,275East BALMS 1,188,962 169,667 172,090 1,530,719East BOSMS 95,043 43,453 3,728 142,225East CHAMS 165,460 24,098 52,566 242,124East HMRMS 3,076,732 423,136 25,804 3,525,672East JACMS 170,433 2,933 281 173,647East LISCP 413,309 17,293 41,354 471,956East MIAMS 416,963 33,861 5,121 455,945East NYCCP 2,903,654 177,899 392,469 3,474,023East PHIMS 1,991,180 105,786 42,502 2,139,469East POMMS 84,358 27,874 727 112,958East PROMS 162,853 28,840 1,736 193,428East SAVMS 699,858 58,510 5,748 764,116East WNCMS 174,525 18,475 5,804 198,804East Subtotal 11,543,330 1,131,825 749,930 13,425,085Great Lakes BUFMS 6,449,351 0 307,396 6,756,747Great Lakes DETMS 8,845,705 0 392,748 9,238,453Great Lakes DULMS 44,033,215 11,134 375,002 44,419,351Great Lakes LkMichgn 2,900,725 0 64,137 2,964,862Great Lakes SSMMS 26,962,777 241,200 267,642 27,471,619Great Lakes Subtotal 89,191,772 252,334 1,406,925 90,851,031Guam GUAD 1,950 898 0 2,848G of M CORMS 4,123,827 292,138 217,456 4,633,421G of M HOUCP 13,864,444 866,232 1,433,001 16,163,677G of M KEYWEST 147,900 1,145 2,544 151,589G of M MOBMS 1,626,243 153,901 57,516 1,837,660G of M MORMS 3,162,921 147,239 627,888 3,938,047G of M NEWMS 16,343,923 2,090,670 600,102 19,034,696G of M PATMS 7,203,291 421,649 392,721 8,017,661G of M TAMMS 1,689,561 278,640 97,798 2,066,000G of M Subtotal 48,162,111 4,251,614 3,429,026 55,842,751Hawaii HONMS 20,009 19,946 4,023 43,979Inland HUMNS 14,382 0 1,813 16,195Inland LOUMS 9,156 0 602 9,758Inland MEMMS 55,756 0 8,045 63,802Inland PADMS 66,255 0 10,241 76,496Inland PITMS 2,275 0 45 2,320Inland STLMS 3,298 0 7,668 10,966Inland Subtotal 151,122 0 28,416 179,538West LOSMS 4,187,587 374,498 50,156 4,612,242West PORMS 676,594 824,348 24,818 1,525,760West SEAMS 1,223,113 2,187,244 125,119 3,535,476West SDCMS 3,401,542 50,835 0 3,452,378West SFCMS 3,998,344 339,714 40,992 4,379,050West Subtotal 13,487,181 3,776,640 241,085 17,504,906Unknown COTPZ 444,465 12,648 33,673 490,786National Total 167,906,743 9,964,986 5,921,160 183,792,889

59

Table 10a. Reported ballast condition (i.e., NOBOB and BOB) of foreign arrivals by COTPZ and coasts. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abbr

evia

tion

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

NO

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

Tota

l BW

For

ms

Per

cent

NO

BOB

(2

004-

2005

)

Alaska ANCMS 299 38 337 11.3% Alaska JUNMS 41 0 41 0.0% Alaska VALMS 18 0 18 0.0% Alaska Subtotal 358 38 396 9.6% Carib SJPMS 5,746 790 6,536 12.1% East BALMS 880 337 1,217 27.7% East BOSMS 410 142 552 25.7% East CHAMS 1,145 201 1,346 14.9% East HMRMS 510 97 607 16.0% East JACMS 2,747 510 3,257 15.7% East LISCP 166 110 276 39.9% East MIAMS 8,058 491 8,549 5.7% East NYCCP 4,032 714 4,746 15.0% East PHIMS 1,556 906 2,462 36.8% East POMMS 281 228 509 44.8% East PROMS 281 81 362 22.4% East SAVMS 1,105 182 1,287 14.1% East WNCMS 195 82 277 29.6% East Subtotal 21,366 4,081 25,447 16.0% Guam GUAD 353 17 370 4.6% G of M CORMS 974 484 1,458 33.2% G of M HOUCP 5,151 2,040 7,191 28.4% G of M KEYWEST 231 48 279 17.2% G of M MOBMS 662 229 891 25.7% G of M MORMS 414 383 797 48.1% G of M NEWMS 4,421 1,573 5,994 26.2% G of M PATMS 983 1,087 2,070 52.5% G of M TAMMS 1,229 236 1,465 16.1% G of M Subtotal 14,065 6,080 20,145 30.2% Hawaii HONMS 1,454 197 1,651 11.9% West LOSMS 7,082 647 7,729 8.4% West PORMS 1,466 118 1,584 7.4% West SDCMS 648 58 706 8.2% West SEAMS 1,707 91 1,798 5.1% West SFCMS 1,574 309 1,883 16.4% West Subtotal 12,477 1,223 13,700 8.9% Unknown COTPZ 274 81 355 22.8% National Total 56,093 12,506 68,599 18.2%

60

Table 10b. Reported ballast condition (e.g., NOBOB and BOB) of domestic arrivals by COTPZ and coasts. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

NO

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

Tota

l BW

For

ms

Per

cent

NO

BOB

(2

004-

2005

)

Alaska ANCMS 855 189 1,044 18.1% Alaska JUNMS 1,809 354 2,163 16.4% Alaska VALMS 150 21 171 12.3% Alaska Subtotal 2,814 564 3,378 16.7% Carib SJPMS 690 113 803 14.1% East BALMS 1,620 348 1,968 17.7% East BOSMS 594 191 785 24.3% East CHAMS 1,558 196 1,754 11.2% East HMRMS 2,960 279 3,239 8.6% East JACMS 935 146 1,081 13.5% East LISCP 499 418 917 45.6% East MIAMS 1,616 296 1,912 15.5% East NYCCP 3,813 1,089 4,902 22.2% East PHIMS 1,278 543 1,821 29.8% East POMMS 697 168 865 19.4% East PROMS 366 153 519 29.5% East SAVMS 1,998 112 2,110 5.3% East WNCMS 311 159 470 33.8% East Subtotal 18,245 4,098 22,343 18.3% G of M CORMS 900 314 1,214 25.9% G of M HOUCP 3,648 976 4,624 21.1% G of M KEYWEST 361 35 396 8.8% G of M MOBMS 631 290 921 31.5% G of M MORMS 666 312 978 31.9% G of M NEWMS 4,082 908 4,990 18.2% G of M PATMS 1,802 676 2,478 27.3% G of M TAMMS 1,450 974 2,424 40.2% G of M Subtotal 13,540 4,485 18,025 24.9% Great Lakes BUFMS 1,230 967 2,197 44.0% Great Lakes DETMS 1,736 998 2,734 36.5% Great Lakes DULMS 1,790 179 1,969 9.1% Great Lakes LkMichgn 1,352 1,510 2,862 52.8% Great Lakes SSMMS 2,935 232 3,167 7.3% Great Lakes Subtotal 9,043 3,886 12,929 30.1% Hawaii HONMS 593 14 607 2.3%

(Table Continued next page)

61

Table 10b cont.

U. S

. Coa

st

CO

TPZ

Abb

revi

atio

n

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

NO

BO

B B

W F

orm

s (2

004-

2005

)

Tota

l BW

For

ms

Per

cent

NO

BOB

(2

004-

2005

)

Inland HUMNS 248 28 276 10.1% Inland LOUMS 50 24 74 32.4% Inland MEMMS 161 56 217 25.8% Inland PADMS 372 24 396 6.1% Inland PITMS 112 15 127 11.8% Inland STLMS 206 64 270 23.7% Inland Subtotal 1,149 211 1,360 15.5% West LOSMS 2,680 314 2,994 10.5% West PORMS 1,083 134 1,217 11.0% West SDCMS 417 26 443 5.9% West SEAMS 2,499 419 2,918 14.4% West SFCMS 3,991 367 4,358 8.4% West Subtotal 10,670 1,260 11,930 10.6% Unknown COTPZ 336 55 391 14.1% National Total 57,080 14,686 71,766 20.5%

62

Table 11. Number of unique vessels, arrivals, and the reported ballast water discharge by the type of vessel and the vessel operations (i.e., Domestic Operator, Foreign Operator). A vessel was designated as a Domestic Operator if all locations (i.e., arrival, last, and next ports, and source and discharge locations) that were reported to NBIC were “domestic”. Data are from the National Ballast Survey database (January 2004 to December 2005).

Vessel Operations

Vessel Type

Unique Vessels

Domestic Arrivals

Foreign Arrivals

Unknown Arrivals

Domestic Discharge

(MT)

Foreign Discharge

(MT)

Domestic

Bulker 239 11,581 244 86,570,788 Container 33 427 1 10,409 General Cargo 38 380 1 94,528 Other 518 10,738 113 10,665,707 Passenger 4 7 0 0 Reefer 21 70 0 5,991 RoRo 21 321 0 240 Tanker 111 3,285 17 11,201,857 Total 985 26,809 376 108,549,520

Foreign

Bulker 2,758 4,430 9,595 120 19,884,420 39,010,369Container 1,178 12,052 15,746 140 1,503,614 6,498,507General Cargo 883 3,190 6,455 49 3,172,136 3,172,245Other 323 3,687 2,414 49 4,736,751 1,045,914Passenger 148 5,416 8,550 19 559,662 2,030,815Reefer 347 204 2,264 13 7,629 29,443RoRo 558 3,154 6,530 60 218,312 704,386Tanker 2,228 11,550 17,400 138 42,404,859 21,071,303Total 8,423 43,683 68,954 588 72,487,384 73,562,981

STATUS AND TRENDS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT...

Documents

Transcript of STATUS AND TRENDS OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT...