Order Code RL32344
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Ballast Water Management to Combat
Invasive Species
April 8, 2004
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Ballast Water Management to Combat Invasive Species
Summary
In recent years, many people have become increasingly aware that the
globalization of trade, the increased speed of travel, the massive volume of cargo
shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of accidental
introductions of foreign species into the United States. Aquatic species arrive
through a variety of mechanisms — unintentionally when attached to vessel hulls or
carried in vessel ballast water and intentionally when imported for aquaria display,
as live seafood for human consumption, or as a transplant to increase sport fishing
opportunities.
The arrival of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes and their subsequent damage to
city water supplies and electric utilities has focused significant attention on ballast
water discharge by cargo ships as a high-risk mechanism for species invasion. New
management efforts attempt to address this concern. Congress is considering
legislative proposals to amend and reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act,
including specific provisions that would modify how ballast water is managed. This
report provides background on various approaches to ballast water management and
reviews current ballast water management laws and programs. This report will be
updated as this issue evolves.
Contents
Ballast Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current U.S. Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Agency Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
International Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ballast Water Management to Combat
Invasive Species
With increases in the number of people traveling, the speed and methods of
travel, the types and volume of trade, the ability to move living plants and animals
so that more of them survive the journey, and the different modes of transport for
hitch-hiking organisms, invasive species have become a global concern. Although
there are many ways in which species may invade,1 this report focuses on ballast
water discharge by cargo ships as one of the more significant mechanisms for biotic
invasion of coastal and estuarine habitats as well as inland navigable waters.
The arrival of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes in the late 1980s and their
subsequent damage to city water supplies and electric utilities2 focused initial
attention on ballast water as a source of invasive species. Reflecting the scope of the
problem, the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem is considered to be one of the most
disrupted aquatic ecosystems in the United States, with colonization by more than
230 non-native species.3 Compounding the problem, species that invaded via other
mechanisms (e.g., mitten crabs that are believed to have been an illegal seafood
introduction) may be further spread through ballast water transport and vice versa
(e.g., zebra mussels are spreading to new drainages via boats transported on trailers).
In the Gulf of Mexico, ballast water has been implicated in the contamination of
commercial oyster beds4 and the arrival of the Australian spotted jellyfish.5 Globally,
it is estimated that more than 10,000 marine species each day may be transported
across the oceans in the ballast water of cargo ships.6 The ctenophore Mnemiopsis
1 For an in-depth discussion of invasive species and their various mechanisms of invasion,
see CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for
Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Eugene H. Buck, Jean Rawson, Alex Segarra, and Eric
Fischer. Zebra mussels and other species arriving in ballast water are specifically discussed
in “A Gallery of Harmful Non-Native Plants and Animals” in that report.
2 Colonies of zebra mussels accumulate and block water-intake pipes and screens of drinking
water facilities, industrial facilities, power-generating plants, golf course irrigation pipes,
and cooling systems of boat engines.
3 Information from the Natural Resources Defense Council webpage at
[http://www.nrdc.org/greengate/wildlife/invasivef.asp], viewed on Apr. 7, 2004.
4 Fred C. Dobbs and Mounir Laroussi, “Microorganisms in Ships’ Ballast Water and
Strategies for Their Control,” Sustainable Development International, v. 4 (April 2001), pp.
203-206.
5 Ben Raines, “New Jellyfish in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,” Mobile Register, Sept. 3,
2000, p. 1, viewed at [http://nas.er.usgs.gov/coelenterates/phyllorhiza.html] on Mar. 2, 2004.
6 G. Tracy Mehan, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
(continued...)
CRS-2
leidyi was transported in ballast water from estuaries along the Atlantic coast of
North America to the Black Sea, where it is blamed for a massive collapse of the
commercial fish harvest. Around 1978, the American jack-knife clam Ensis directus
was introduced through ballast water in the German Bight and has spread rapidly
over the North Sea coast, where it has become one of the most common bivalves,
replacing many native species.
The economic, social, recreational, and ecological losses/costs attributable to
aquatic invasive species are difficult to quantify. While some costs have been
estimated, such as the $5 billion in damages to water pipes, boat hulls, and other hard
surfaces by zebra mussels in the Great Lakes (§1001(a)(4) of the National Invasive
Species Act (NISA); P.L. 104-332; 16 U.S.C. §§4701), others, such as the losses of
native species and environment restoration to pre-invasion quality, are unknown.
Congress is considering legislative proposals to reauthorize and amend NISA,
including specific provisions that would modify how ballast water is managed.
Ballast Water Management
Ballast water is held in the ballast tanks and cargo holds of ships to provide
stability and maneuverability during a voyage when ships are not carrying cargo, are
not carrying heavy enough cargo, or require more stability due to rough seas.7 Ballast
water may be either fresh or saline. Ballast water may also be carried so that a ship
rides low enough in the water to pass under bridges and other structures. Ballast
water management (BWM) for vessels includes all measures that aim to prevent
unwanted aquatic nuisance species from being transported from foreign ports to U.S.
waters in the ballast. Seaports in which ships exchange ballast water daily are at
severe risk of invasions. Organisms transported to U.S. ports from foreign harbors
with similar physiochemical characteristics (e.g., water temperatures, salinity
regimes) pose an especially high risk of invasion. Even if only a tiny proportion of
newly arriving non-native species survive in new habitats, such as San Francisco
Bay, Chesapeake Bay, or Boston Harbor, the actual number of successful invasive
species can be very large.
There are several different ways of managing ballast water. Currently, the most
widely used is ballast water exchange. Ballast water exchange means that ships on
their way to the next port release the lower-salinity coastal water they brought aboard
and replace it with higher-salinity open-ocean water. Although this measure is not
perfect, it reduces the number of potentially invasive species in the ballast tanks and
replaces them with oceanic organisms that are less likely to survive in the lower-
6 (...continued)
Agency, testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, June 17, 2003.
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant, Marine Bioinvasions Fact Sheet: Ballast
Water, Cambridge, MA, Dec. 4, 2002; viewed on Apr. 7, 2004, at [http://massbay.mit.edu/
exoticspecies/ballast/fact.html].
CRS-3
salinity near-shore waters of the ship’s next port.8 However, organisms with a wide
tolerance for differing salinities may survive ballast water exchange, especially any
such organisms that may reside in the unpumpable residual water and sediment
remaining in the tanks during any ballast water exchange.
Another approach to BWM is treatment.9 Ballast water treatment is the subject
of extensive current research and development, and several technologies and
methodologies have been proposed. These include mechanical methods (e.g.,
filtration and separation), physical methods (e.g., sterilization by ultraviolet light,
ozone, heat, electric current, or ultrasound), and chemical methods (using biocides).
In addition, treatment may combine several of these methods.10
Treatment may be an appropriate management option on occasions when vessels
temporarily operate without ballast — a “no-ballast-on-board” (NOBOB) situation.
When a ship is carrying no ballast water, it presents unique treatment problems
because large numbers of organisms can reside in the unpumpable residual water and
sediment remaining in the ballast tanks. Few of the tested methodologies have been
applied to the control of organisms in NOBOB situations. The treatment option
favored by many ship operators because of its intrinsic simplicity and relatively low
cost is the biocide approach, whereby chemical agents are added to the ballast water
to minimize the number of (i.e., kill) viable organisms. This approach also has the
potential to address the NOBOB condition.11 Concerns remain relating to
establishing and enforcing standards for the appropriate disposal of biocide-treated
ballast water and sediments.
Although estimates of the costs of ballast treatment may be imprecise and vary
from vessel to vessel, there is some general agreement on average costs. It may cost
an estimated $400,000 per vessel for modification of container/bulk vessels to use
onshore ballast water treatment facilities at California ports.12 More generally, the
cost of retrofitting vessels to treat ballast water has been estimated at between
8 Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Invasive Species; viewed on Apr. 7, 2004,
at [http://www.serc.si.edu/watershed/may2001/invasivespecies.htm].
9 A detailed discussion and evaluation of various ballast water treatment options is presented
in Chapter 4 (“Shipboard Treatment Options”) of Commission on Engineering and
Technical Systems, Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species
by Ships’ Ballast Water, National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: 1996), 141 pp.
10 For example, Australian researchers established a pilot plant to sterilize ballast water
using a combination of filtration, ultraviolet light, and sonic disintegration. For more
information, see David Salt, “Shipboard Pests get Sterile Treatment,” ABC Science Online,
Sept. 30, 2003; viewed at [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_
956770.htm] on Jan. 23, 2004.
11 David T. Stocks, Ballast Water Research at Fleet Technology Limited, BMT Fleet
Technology Limited (Kanata, Ontario, Canada: undated), 4 pp.; viewed on Apr. 7, 2004, at
[http://www.fleetech.com/Ballast_Water/Ballast_Water_Research.pdf].
12 URS/Dames & Moore, Feasibility of Onshore Ballast Water Treatment at California
Ports, study conducted on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities (San
Francisco, CA: Sept. 2000), Table 4.1, available on Mar. 8, 2004, at [http://www.epa.gov/
owow/mts/capareport/41.html].
CRS-4
$200,000 and $310,000 per vessel for mechanical treatment and around $300,000 for
chemical treatment.13 Most of this expense will be borne by foreign shipping
companies, as the U.S. flag fleet is a small percentage of the global fleet,14 and by
consumers of products imported by ship. The likelihood of compliance by the
foreign flag fleet was increased by the February 2004 conclusion of an international
agreement on ballast water management. (See “International Efforts,” below.)
Current U.S. Law
Attempts to address ballast water concerns in the United States began with the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA;
Title I of P.L. 101-646; 16 U.S.C. §§4701, et seq.), which established a federal
program to prevent the introduction and to control the spread of unintentionally
introduced aquatic nuisance species. The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Army Corps of
Engineers, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shared
responsibilities for implementing this effort, acting cooperatively as members of an
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force to conduct studies and report to
Congress to (1) identify areas where ballast water exchange can take place without
causing environmental damage; and (2) determine the need for controls on vessels
entering U.S. waters other than the Great Lakes. Under §1101 of NANPCA, a Great
Lakes BWM program (voluntary in its first two years) became mandatory in 1992.
This section directed the Coast Guard to issue regulations (33 CFR Part 151) to
prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes
through the ballast water of vessels and established civil and criminal penalties for
violating these regulations. The act also encourages the Secretary of Transportation
(but now the Secretary of Homeland Security) to negotiate with foreign countries,
through the International Maritime Organization, to prevent and control the
unintentional introduction of aquatic nuisance species.
In 1996, the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) amended NANPCA to create
a national ballast management program modeled after the Great Lakes program
wherein all ships entering U.S. waters (after operating outside the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone) are directed to undertake high seas (i.e., mid-ocean) ballast
exchange or alternative measures pre-approved by the Coast Guard as equally or
more effective. While not initially enforced on a ship-by-ship basis, this national
program was to have become mandatory within three years of the date the Coast
Guard issued its voluntary guidelines15 if ships did not show adequate compliance
13 Frans J. Tjallingii, Market Opportunities for Ballast Water Treatment, Royal Haskoning,
International Ballast Technology Investment Fair, Chicago, IL, Sept. 21, 2001, available at
[http://www.nemw.org/fairtjallingii.pdf] on Mar. 8, 2004.
14 As of July 2003, U.S. flag vessels comprised 1.65% of the global merchant fleet tonnage,
according to statistics from U.S. Maritime Administration, viewed on Mar. 10, 2004, at
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/mfw-7-03.htm].
15 64 Fed. Reg. 26672-26690 (May 17, 1999). These voluntary guideline regulations were
effective July 1, 1999.
CRS-5
with the program16 in the absence of enforcement. The National Ballast Information
Clearinghouse (NBIC) was developed jointly by the Coast Guard and the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to synthesize, analyze, and interpret
national data concerning BWM. During the first two years (July 1999 through June
2001), the NBIC found that nationwide compliance with ballast exchange reporting
requirements was low, with only 30.4% of vessels entering the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) filing reports with the NBIC.17 On March 4, 2002, the Coast
Guard published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, seeking comments on
development of a ballast water treatment goal and an interim ballast water treatment
standard as part of regulations that would make guidelines for ballast exchange
mandatory.18 (See “Recent Developments,” below.)
NISA encouraged negotiations with foreign governments to develop and
implement an international program for preventing the introduction and spread of
invasive species in ballast water. This act required a Coast Guard study and report
to the Congress on the effectiveness of existing shoreside ballast water facilities used
by crude oil tankers in the coastal trade off Alaska, as well as studies of Lake
Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Honolulu Harbor, the Columbia
River system, and estuaries of national significance.19 Under NISA, a Ballast Water
Management Demonstration Program was established to promote the research and
development of technological alternatives to ballast water exchange.
NISA has been criticized as inadequate and faulted for several alleged
shortcomings, including agency weakness or delay in implementing some of its
provisions.20 Since NISA exempted most coastwise vessel traffic from ballast water
exchange guidelines, vessels traveling short distances between U.S. ports (e.g., from
San Francisco Bay, which is highly invaded, to Puget Sound, which is less so) are
exempt from controls. Others are critical of the provisions of 16 U.S.C.
§4711(k)(2)(A) giving the vessel owner a blanket exemption to ignore any mandatory
regulations if the master determines that the vessel might not be able to safely
conduct a ballast water exchange on the open ocean. Whereas earlier provisions
applicable to the Great Lakes provided a safety exemption, the master/captain of a
vessel was required to report the problem to the Coast Guard and conduct alternate
BWM measures, often negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Critics believe the NISA
language has eliminated any incentive to change ballast water piping systems or
adopt other management or treatment options to deal with the problem safely.
16 If the voluntary program did not result in sufficient compliance, reporting of BWM
practices would become mandatory for nearly all vessels entering U.S. waters (33 CFR
151.2040).
17 G. M. Ruiz, et al., Status and Trends of Ballast Water Management in the United States:
First Biennial Report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (Edgewater, MD:
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Nov. 16, 2001), p. 4.
18 67 Fed. Reg. 9632-9638 (Mar. 4, 2002).
19 As defined for the National Estuary Program in 33 U.S.C. §1330.
20 Letter of Feb. 11, 1999, to Hon. Carol Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, from Representatives George Miller, Jim Saxton, and 16 other Members
of the U.S. House of Representatives.
CRS-6
Finally, NISA has been criticized for its apparent failure to actually prevent
additional introductions of damaging organisms into the Great Lakes, despite this
being the one area where the requirements for managing ballast water have been the
most stringent for the longest time.21
Agency Programs
Under NANPCA, the Coast Guard is responsible for developing and
implementing a BWM program to prevent the unintentional introduction and
dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic species into waters of the United States from ship
ballast water. This is presently accomplished through a mandatory BWM program
for the Great Lakes ecosystem and voluntary guidelines for the remainder of U.S.
waters. Relevant regulations, published at 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D, went
into effect in 1993. As stated in the Secretary of Transportation’s November 2001
United States Coast Guard Report to Congress on the Voluntary National Guidelines
for Ballast Water Management,22 the Coast Guard plans to develop regulations
requiring active BWM of all ships that enter U.S. waters after operating beyond the
EEZ, and will establish sanctions for failure to comply. The Coast Guard will also
continue its efforts to establish a quantitative ballast water treatment performance
standard; protocols for testing, verifying, and reporting on treatment technologies;
and a program to facilitate experimental shipboard installation and operation of
promising technologies.
Currently, the Coast Guard enforces mandatory requirements for ballast water
management only for the Great Lakes. Ballast water reporting data for inbound
vessels must be submitted via fax either directly to the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Buffalo or U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Detachment (MSD) Massena, or via the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) to MSD Massena at
least 24 hours before arrival (33 CFR 151.2040). Compliance with these
requirements is essentially 100%. Every vessel that reports that it is carrying ballast
water on board (BOB) while transiting to the Great Lakes undergoes ballast water
inspections by either MSD Massena at the locks in Massena, NY, or by the SLSDC
in Montreal. Compliance with the mandatory ballast water requirements has
averaged approximately 92% over the past five years for those vessels declaring
BOB. Those vessels found to not have conducted proper exchange are ordered not
to discharge ballast water in the Lakes. For these vessels, or if the vessel declares
that it intends to retain its ballast water on board while in the Great Lakes system,
then MSD Massena will again board the vessel after it has made port calls in the
Lakes and passed the lock in Massena on its outbound transit to ensure the vessel has
21 Union of Concerned Scientists, The National Invasive Species Act: An Information
Update (Cambridge, MA: August 2002); available at [http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/
nisa.pdf], viewed on Jan. 16, 2004.
22 This report was available at [http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf84/211672_web.pdf] on
Apr. 7, 2004.
CRS-7
not discharged while in the Lakes. To date, all vessels have complied with the order
not to discharge.23
The Department of State negotiated with the International Maritime
Organization to develop an international convention to control the spread of invasive
species from the exchange of ships’ ballast water. (See “International Efforts,”
below.)
Through both the National Sea Grant College program and a BWM technology
development program, NOAA has funded research on alternatives to ballast water
exchange as methods of BWM.24 NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab
(GLERL) targets prevention and control to stop the inflow and spread of new aquatic
organisms, with particular emphasis on ship ballast. GLERL, with combined funding
from NOAA and several other agencies, developed and provides leadership for the
Great Lakes NOBOB and Ballast Exchange research program, focusing on the
biological assessment of ballast tank residuals and the experimental determination
of effectiveness of ballast exchange. In this program, GLERL scientists collaborate
with scientists at several universities and the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center. In a related project, scientists at GLERL and the University of Michigan are
evaluating two chemicals for use on residuals in NOBOB tanks. In FY2003, GLERL
started a new project to develop a model of ballast tank flow during ballast tank
exchange.
The Department of Defense (DOD) is promulgating joint regulations with the
EPA covering discharges from DOD vessels (40 CFR 1700) to implement §312(n)
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1322(n)). When complete, they will set
discharge standards for vessel ballast water to address the environmental effect of
non-native species introduction via that ballast water (as well as addressing chemical
pollution from other Armed Forces vessel discharges). The regulations are being
developed in three phases. The first, completed in May 1999, determined which
ballast water discharges would require control. The second, currently in progress,
will set performance standards, and the third will promulgate regulations for meeting
those standards.
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center performs research to examine
patterns of ballast water delivery and measures species transfer associated with
shipping. In cooperation with the Coast Guard, the center established the National
Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC)25 to measure the changing patterns of
ballast water delivery and management for vessels arriving in U.S. ports and to
synthesize national data on patterns and impacts of alien species in coastal
ecosystems.
23 Personal communication with Jill R. Teixeira, Lieutenant Junior Grade, U.S. Coast Guard,
Office of Congressional & Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC, Mar. 30, 2004.
24 The most recent request for proposals for ballast water treatment technology testing and
demonstration projects was published by NOAA at 69 Fed. Reg. 2577-2579 (Jan. 16, 2004).
25 For more information on the NBIC, see [http://invasions.si.edu/NBIC/ballast.html],
viewed on Apr. 7, 2004.
CRS-8
In addition to federal programs and sometimes in response to perceived
deficiencies in federal regulation, several states have chosen to regulate aspects of
ballast water management, including Maryland,26 California,27 Oregon,28 and
Washington.29
International Efforts
In July 1991, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Marine
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) issued voluntary International
Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and
Pathogens for Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges, adopted in Resolution
(50) 31 by a diplomatic conference of the IMO in November 1993. IMO members
were requested to follow these guidelines, which also called for exchange of ballast
water in the open ocean (to reduce transfer of species from port to port). A review
conducted by Australia in 1993 revealed that few countries had implemented the
guidelines. In 1994, the MEPC established a ballast water working group to draft
regulations for the control and management of ships’ ballast water. These draft
regulations were debated at the November 1998 and June 1999 MEPC meetings.
IMO subsequently proposed these management protocols as a formal IMO
instrument. This instrument requires all ratifying member nations to follow the
regulations, which would include open-ocean exchange.
On February 13, 2004, an International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted at the International
Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships in London, England. This
Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 nations,
representing 35% of the world merchant shipping tonnage. The United States was
one of the major proponents of this convention, which will require all ships to
implement a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan. In addition, all ships
must carry a Ballast Water Record Book and will be required to conduct BWM
procedures in conformity with a specified standard. These standards will be phased
in for various vessels, depending upon when they were constructed.30 Resistence by
vessel owners to the new international requirements for ballast water treatment is
tempered by their interest in global standards under the IMO Convention as opposed
to the increasing number of national ballast water programs developed around
different approaches for addressing this concern.
26 See [http://www.mde.state.md.us/businessinfocenter/pollutionprevention/ballast%20water
%20management/index.asp] for details on Maryland’s program, viewed on Apr. 8, 2004.
27 See [http://www.slc.ca.gov/Division_Pages/MFD/MFD_Programs/Ballast_Water/
Documents/KeyCompAB433Rvs.pdf], viewed on Apr. 8, 2004, for details on California’s
program.
28 See [http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/factsheets/Ballast_Water_Management.pdf],
viewed on Apr. 8, 2004, for details on Oregon’s program.
29 See [http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/nuisance/ballast.htm], viewed on Apr. 8, 2004, for
details on Washington’s program.
30 Details on this new Convention were available on Mar. 1, 2004, at [http://
globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=mepc.htm&menu=true].
CRS-9
Bilaterally with Canada, the United States is cooperating through the North
American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC),31 the Great Lakes
Commission, and the International Joint Commission to better understand,
coordinate, and address ballast water management concerns. Improved ballast water
management is one component of the CEC’s project on “Closing the Pathways of
Aquatic Invasive Species across North America.”32 The Great Lakes Commission
convened the “Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species” in late 1991 to
coordinate efforts, including ballast water management.33 In addition, the
International Joint Commission (IJC) views invasive species management as an
important component of water quality.34
Recent Developments
On January 6, 2003, the Coast Guard proposed penalties for those who fail to
submit ballast water management reports.35 BWM reports are required by 33 U.S.C.
§151 Subpart D for most vessels entering U.S. waters. The June 2002 Coast Guard
Report to Congress had concluded that reporting compliance was insufficient to
allow an accurate assessment of voluntary BWM. The Coast Guard anticipates
publication of final regulations in the spring of 2004.36
On July 30, 2003, the Coast Guard proposed mandatory BWM practices for all
vessels with ballast tanks bound for ports or places within the United States or
entering U.S. waters, but excluding domestic port-to-port voyages.37 These
regulations would extend BWM requirements already in place for vessels entering
the Great Lakes and Hudson River to all U.S. ports and waters. Comments were
accepted on this proposal through October 28, 2003. The Coast Guard anticipates
publication of final regulations in the summer of 2004.38
On September 9, 2003, the EPA announced that it was denying a 1999 petition
by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Center for Marine Conservation, San
Francisco Bay Keeper, and a number of other concerned groups to require regulation
31 Established under the authority of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
32 Additional information on this project was available at [http://www.cec.org/
programs_projects/conserv_biodiv/project/index.cfm?projectID=20&varlan=english] on
Jan. 13, 2004.
33 Additional information on this panel was available at [http://www.glc.org/ans/] on Jan.
13, 2004.
34 Additional information on these concerns was available from the IJC’s annual report,
available at [http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/11br/english/report/chapter3/] on Jan.
13, 2004.
35 68 Fed. Reg. 523-530 (Jan. 6, 2003).
36 Telephone conversation with Bivan Patnaik, Environmental Standards Division, U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, DC, on Mar. 10, 2004.
37 68 Fed. Reg. 44691-44696 (July 30, 2003).
38 Telephone conversation with Bivan Patnaik, Environmental Standards Division, U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, DC, on Mar. 10, 2004.
CRS-10
of vessel ballast water discharges through Clean Water Act permits, arguing that the
Coast Guard was the more appropriate regulatory agency.39 This decision does not
alter the development and implementation of the joint EPA-DOD regulations
covering discharges from DOD vessels discussed above because this DOD effort is
specifically authorized in statute. In late December 2003, three Pacific Coast
environmental groups filed suit, seeking to force the EPA to regulate ballast water
discharges under the Clean Water Act.40
On September 26, 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard announced its intent to prepare
a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for proposed regulatory action to
establish a ballast water discharge standard.41 The standard would establish the
required level of environmental protection necessary to prevent introductions and
combat the spread off invasive species from ballast water discharges. Comments
were accepted on this proposal through December 26, 2003.
On January 8, 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard announced the beginning of a
program to facilitate the installation of experimental shipboard ballast water
treatment systems on both foreign and domestic vessels. This Shipboard Technology
Evaluation Program (STEP) aims to promote research and development of shipboard
ballast water treatment systems through regulatory incentives, creating more options
for vessel owners seeking alternatives to ballast water exchange. Regulatory
incentives would grant conditional equivalencies for accepted vessels in the STEP
that might not meet discharge standards mandated by future regulations.
Congressional Action
Congressional hearings on ballast water issues and implementation of NISA
have been held in both the 107th and 108th Congresses.42 Certain testimony at these
39 68 Fed. Reg. 53165-53166 (Sept. 9, 2003). A copy of the EPA decision was available at
[http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ballast_report_petition_response.pdf], viewed on Apr. 7,
2004.
40 Cathy Zollo, “Environmental Groups Seek EPA Rules for Ballast Water,” Naples Daily
News, Dec. 24, 2003, viewed on Jan. 14, 2004, at [http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/news/
article/0,2071,NPDN_14940_2527955,00.html].
41 68 Fed. Reg. 55559-55563 (Sept. 26, 2003).
42 U.S. Congress, Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans and Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards, H.R. 5395 and H.R. 5396, Joint legislative hearing, 107th Cong.,
2d sess., (Washington, DC: Nov. 14, 2002), 80 pp.; U.S. Congress, Committee on
Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, and
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, The Growing Problem of
Invasive Species, joint legislative hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: Apr. 29,
2003), 133 pp.; an as-yet-unpublished hearing of June 17, 2003, by the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, on S.
525 to reauthorize NISA; and an as-yet-unpublished joint hearing of Mar. 25, 2004, by the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittees on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation and on Water Resources and Environment, on Ballast Water
(continued...)
CRS-11
hearings has been particularly critical of the slow progress in promulgating
regulations to implement NISA. In the 108th Congress, a number of bills address
various BWM issues. Updated information on these bills can be found in CRS Issue
Brief IB10109, Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 108th
Congress, by Eugene H. Buck, under the “Invasive Species” heading.
42 (...continued)
Management: New International Standards and National Invasive Species Act
Reauthorization.