html5-img
1 / 19

Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast of North America: Developing a Regional Plan (2001- 2003)

Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast of North America: Developing a Regional Plan (2001- 2003). Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project. Coastal Traffic. Travels near-shore (unable to conduct open ocean exchange 200 nautical miles offshore)

christoffer
Download Presentation

Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast of North America: Developing a Regional Plan (2001- 2003)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coastal Ballast Water Exchange on the West Coast of North America: Developing a Regional Plan (2001- 2003) Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project

  2. Coastal Traffic • Travels near-shore (unable to conduct open ocean exchange 200 nautical miles offshore) • Concern for the coastwise transport of organisms • Native and Non-native • San Francisco Bay to Oregon and/or Washington, Mexico to California • Short travel time/frequent discharge/repeat visits (high survival rate/repeat inoculations) • Open Ocean Exchange – Currently the only approved management tool.

  3. Potential Solutions • Shipboard Treatment – Ultimate Solution • Conduct a ballast water exchange without going 200 nautical miles offshore in specific areas (only talking about water that originates from the West Coast of North America) • Trade-offs • Exchanging too close to shore could result in inoculating the coastline with ANS. • Time and cost constraints for the vessels/carriers

  4. Regulatory Programs (2000-2002) • Transoceanic traffic • Fairly Uniform • Coastal Traffic • Conflicts between the different state programs • Maritime Industry wants a uniform program

  5. Coastal Traffic (2000-2002) • CA Program – Did not have domestic coastal program until 2006. • Washington & Oregon - Mandatory requirements for ballast water exchange for coastwise traffic (domestic and foreign) • WA (50 nautical miles offshore) & Oregon (no distance offshore)

  6. Regulations • States/Provinces set up programs to try to protect their waters. • Limitations in what they can do – only have authority for ships discharging in their waters. • Might protect state waters, but not be good for neighbors, or make sense on a regional basis • Determine the best solution for the entire region, rather than a state by state approach.

  7. Solving the Problem • Examine the oceanography and biology to determine the best solution, taking into account the constraints of the shipping industry. • Regional Approach • Partners: West Coast Ballast Outreach Project, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland State University, California State Lands Commission, Washington Department of Fish and Game, and the Pacific Ballast Water Group, along with members from the maritime industry and environmental NGO’s.

  8. Time-Line • March 2002 – Oceanography Workshop • Report – West Coast Oceanography: Implications for Ballast Water Exchange • Follow-up workshop January 2003 • Stakeholders reviewed the oceanography report. • April 2004 – State Lands Commission held a workshop to discuss regulations for coastal traffic in California

  9. Oceanography Workshop/Report • Participants • Barbara Hickey, University of Washington • Jack Barth, Oregon State University • Curtis Collins, Naval Postgraduate School • Goal: Compile the current information on coastal processes on the West Coast to enable informed decisions on how best to manage ballast water in coastal shipping to minimize the risk of ANS establishment. • March 2002 – December 2002 - Small budget

  10. Recommendations • #1 Retention Zones - Due to their retentive abilities, these areas should be considered as possible exclusion zones for ballast water exchange (from the shoreline to 50 nautical miles offshore). • #2 1000m Isobath - Along all other areas of the coast, any ballast water discharged outside of the 1000 m isobath has a relatively low probability of reaching the shoreline. • #3 – Seasonal Fluctuations - Seasonal fluctuations should also be considered when determining “when and where” to exchange ballast water.

  11. Retention Zones • Strait of Juan de Fuca Eddy (48’30”N to 47’40”N) • Heceta Bank (45’00”N to 43’45”N) • Central California Retention Zone (Between Point Reyes and Sur)(36’30”N to 38’50”N) • The Southern California Bight (33’00”N to 34’30”N) • The Columbia River Plume Retention Zone. • In addition, other river or estuarine plumes, including those from Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay in Washington, Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay (Newport) in Oregon, and San Francisco Bay in California have the capacity to pull water into the estuary within a few tens of kilometers of the mouth of each estuary on each tidal cycle.

  12. Isobath lines Latitude vs. Distance Offshore ~=25NM (46.3 km) ~=50NM (92.6 km) Figure created by Jack Barth

  13. Coastal Exchange Workshop • Stakeholders reviewed the oceanography report. (Marine Biology, Maritime Industry, Government, Environmental Groups) • 50 participants • Goal: Outline potential regional plans for coastal ballast water exchange

  14. Coastal Exchange Workshop: Day 1 • Reviewed Coastal Ballast Water Exchange and the Oceanography Report (Dr. Curtis Collins). • Broke into Working Groups (like groups) • Biology: We know that estuary to estuary transport is bad, so it is important to exchange on coastal voyages to reduce the risk of invasion. We are not sure how vulnerable the open coastline is to invasion, so for now the farther offshore the better. • Shipping Industry: willing to move further offshore in some regions. • Government Agencies: Regulations need to be enforceable, meaningful, & understandable. Don’t wait for certainty, coastal exchange as an interim measure.

  15. Coastal Exchange Workshop: Day 2 • Presenting findings from Day 1 Working Groups • Broke into 3 mixed groups and came up with Draft regional plans for coastal ballast water exchange (all 3 groups came up with a similar plan) • 50 nautical miles • 15-25 nautical miles

  16. Post Workshop • Workshop Summary • Planned to Review and refine plan • Overlay draft plan again with shipping routes, isobaths (200m & 1000m), and retention zones. • Review and Revise • February 2004 – IMO passed Ballast Water Convention • April 2004 –State Lands Commission held a workshop to discuss regulations for coastal traffic in California

  17. Summary • Conflicting regulations were being set along the coast. • Pulled together current knowledge and came up with best possible solution on a short time-line. • Biologists - estuary to estuary transport is bad, so it is important to exchange on coastal voyages to reduce the risk of invasion (even though we are not sure how vulnerable the open coastline is to invasion). • The farther offshore the better (since risk of open coastline is unknown). • Used information from physical oceanographers to determine distance offshore. • Uniform regulations for coastal traffic are now in place.

  18. Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 510-622-2398 kmcdowell@waterboards.ca.gov

More Related