Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
6 Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option for the Great Lakes Region The committee was asked to develop a range of practical and tech- nically feasible options that would meet the following two criteria: (a) enhance the potential for global trade in the Great Lakes region and (b) eliminate further introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species by vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway. After examining a wide range of candidate actions aimed at meeting these criteria, the committee concluded that the only way to satisfy the absolute requirement to eliminate further ship- vectored introductions of aquatic invasive species (AIS) would be to close the seaway to all vessel trafï¬c. Such action would elim- inate a trade route into and out of the Great Lakes and would not, therefore, enhance the Great Lakes regionâs potential for global trade. In the committeeâs judgment, moreover, such closure is not a realistic solution to the AIS problem since it is far from clear that both the Canadian Parliament and the U.S. Congress would pass the legislation that would be needed to close the binational water- way to trafï¬c. Hence, closure of the seaway to all vessels would not address the AIS issue in a timely manner. As noted in Chapter 5, such closure would also not prevent all further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes, given that 30 to 45 percent of such introduc- tions have historically been attributed to nonshipping vectors. In the absence of an ideal suite of actions that enables both project criteria to be met simultaneously, the committeeâs task became one 1 22
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 123 of selecting the most promising alternatives from among possible compromise options. After some brief comments about distinguish- ing features of these compromise options, this chapter discusses the committeeâs rationale for identifying practical and technically feasi- ble options for the Great Lakes region. Two alternativesâclosure of the seaway to transoceanic shipping and the technology-based approach recommended by the committeeâare then examined. The various components of the recommended approach are then discussed and the actions necessary to implement this approach are enumerated. After an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the recommended approach, the chapter concludes with brief remarks about future management of the waters of the Great Lakes. COMPROMISE OPTIONS The most important difference among the alternative compromise options lies in how to meet the requirement to eliminate further ship-vectored AIS introductions. As noted in Chapter 5, examina- tion of the candidate actions listed in Box 5-2 led the committee to conclude that there are two distinct approaches to eliminating fur- ther AIS introductions by vessels transiting the seaway: 1. Eliminate the shipping vector by removing or killing AIS carried by vessels. 2. Keep vessels that may be carrying AIS out of the Great Lakes. The ï¬rst approach would rely on a combination of technologies, regulation, enforcement, and monitoring. Prevention strategies would address all vessels transiting the seaway that pose a risk of in- troducing AIS into the Great Lakes. The most serious limitation of this approach is that current technologies cannot guarantee to kill or remove all potential invaders, although they offer the potential to reduce markedly the risk of further AIS introductions if they are rigorously implemented. Furthermore, improvements in the effec- tiveness of technologies are anticipated, particularly for new vessels.
1 24 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species As already discussed, the second approachâclosing the seaway to all vessel trafï¬câis not a realistic solution. The question remains whether closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels, which have his- torically been the main source of AIS introductions into the Great Lakes since the waterway opened, would be an effective and imple- mentable compromise. Such closure would not eliminate further ship-vectored AIS introductions by vessels transiting the seaway but would reduce substantially the risk of such introductions. The committeeâs conclusions with regard to both the above compromise options are discussed later. COMMITTEEâS RATIONALE In its efforts to identify practical and technically feasible options for meeting the two project criteria, the committee sought an approach that is the most robust among various alternatives because it â¢ Offers the potential to make progress toward the ultimate goals in a timely manner, â¢ Minimizes undesirable consequences, and â¢ Keeps options open for an uncertain future. Timeliness Timeliness was identiï¬ed as a critical consideration following the public meeting in Toronto in May 2007. One of the major messages that the committee took away from the meeting was the urgency of taking action to prevent further introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes. A wide range of stakeholders expressed the view that actions rather than words are needed, and they are needed now. This view derives not only from the observed impacts of AIS on the Great Lakes ecosystem and the costs incurred by public and private orga- nizations in managing a number of high-proï¬le invaders, such as the zebra mussel, but also from the continuing reports of new AIS discoveries in the Great Lakes. Chapter 3 indicated that a consider- able time may elapse between the introduction of a new AIS and re-
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 125 ports of its discovery. Nonetheless, the fact that new AIS continue to be reported argues strongly against any complacency in preven- tion efforts. Avoid Undesirable Consequences An acceptable solution to the problem of AIS introductions into the Great Lakes cannot be developed without consideration of its broad environmental and other consequences. Thus, a âsolutionâ that shifts the AIS problem to a different geographic location, such as ma- rine ports on the east coast of North America, would be unaccept- able. An approach that substitutes one environmental problem for another would also be unsatisfactory. For example, attempts to solve the AIS problem in the Great Lakes by shifting marine cargoes to al- ternative modes of transportation would need to take account not only of introductions of invasive species but also of other environ- mental impacts of transportation, including greenhouse gas emis- sions, criteria air contaminant emissions, accidents, and noise. Moreover, the possibility of shifting seaway cargoes to alternative land-based modes may raise questions about capacity and logistical constraints and the effects of trying to move even more freight on an already overburdened system. Thus, while shifting seaway cargoes to alternative routes or modes of transportation may be viable, the var- ious trade-offs would need to be evaluated carefully before advocat- ing such an approach to solving the AIS problem in the Great Lakes. Keep Options Open for an Uncertain Future The need to keep options open and retain ï¬exibility reï¬ects the un- certainties underlying the selection and implementation of actions aimed at meeting the two project criteria. For example, experts are not yet in a position to make quantitative estimates of how ef- fective ballast water management technologies will be when they are applied rigorously to all vessels posing a risk of AIS introduc- tions. Similarly, reliable forecasts of the direction, composition, and magnitude of global trade affecting the Great Lakes region are not possible. In addition, the extent to which the Great Lakes
1 26 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species ecosystem should be modeled as biologically fragile (easily subject to perturbation) or resilient is unclear, and there is no widely ac- cepted ethical calculus for weighing the interests of the different uses and users of the Great Lakes. One approach to decision making under such conditions of deep uncertainty is to develop sophisticated models with enhanced pre- dictive capabilities. In this case, the committee did not consider such an approach to be productive. Even experts are unable to create simulations of a complex and adaptive system (the Great Lakes economy), placed within a larger environment of other world economies, that will yield reliable predictive outputs. Large and well-reï¬ned macromodels are not entirely satisfactory in predict- ing even 1 year into the future, to say nothing of a decade or more. In this case, the objective is not to forecast the future but rather to understand (a) how changes in the future might affect the choice among alternative actions taken today and (b) how these actions, if taken, would affect the chances of meeting speciï¬ed goals in the fu- ture. If todayâs actions are to be chosen wisely in light of long-term objectives, the key question is not, What will happen? Rather, be- cause the future cannot be forecast accurately, we want to ascertain which actions taken today will both further our goals and preserve options that may be desirable later in light of improved under- standing. The committee sought to take account of such consider- ations in assessing candidate options for the Great Lakes region. The remainder of this chapter addresses two compromise options for meeting the project criteria. It gives the committeeâs assessment of whether the proposed approaches are timely, free of undesirable consequences, and ï¬exible in light of future uncertainties. CLOSURE OF THE SEAWAY TO TRANSOCEANIC SHIPPING As the following discussion illustrates, the committeeâs assessment of the effects of closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping was beset with uncertainties. The various economic, environmental, political,
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 127 and legal unknowns indicated to the committee that any decision to close the seaway to transoceanic vessels would be a high-risk strategyâeven in view of the uncertainty with regard to the future role of the seaway within the larger Great Lakes transportation sys- tem (see Chapter 2). The current limited understanding of the con- sequences of closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels is insufï¬cient to support a robust public policy decision about such closure. The committeeâs remarks about the economic impacts of closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping focus on their general direction and nature. The remarks are founded on economic principles and thus are compelling. However, no attempt was made to quantify the effects, and any attempt to do so would be subject to wide un- certainties. For example, individuals and organizations are adaptive in their responses to change, so the full nature of their responses is uncertain, as is the estimation of transportation costs for alterna- tive routes and modes (Taylor and Roach 2005). As discussed at some length in Appendix D, estimating the economic beneï¬ts of transoceanic shipping through the seaway is a challenging task. The committeeâs review of the literature suggests that partial answers are available to some of the relevant questions, but the compre- hensive analysis needed to quantify with conï¬dence the economic impacts of closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels is lacking. Permanent or Temporary Closure A few preliminary remarks about the two variants listed in Box 5-2â permanent and temporary closure of the seaway to transoceanic vesselsâare appropriate in the present context. Advocates of tem- porary closure (a moratorium) are careful to note that they are not calling for permanent closure. However, a prolonged moratorium could have serious ï¬nancial consequences for the seawayâs future because of the loss of Canadian toll revenues. These revenues are needed to support day-to-day operations of the seaway, as well as ongoing maintenance, which cannot be deferred without jeopar- dizing safety. Tolls, which made up more than 90 percent of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporationâs (SLSMCâs) total
1 28 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species revenue for 2006, are generally higher for the higher-value com- modities often carried by transoceanic vessels (see Chapter 2). A recent study examined the revenue impacts of a cessation of transoceanic shipping through the seaway on the seaway corpora- tions and concluded that, for the period 2002â2006, SLSMC would have incurred a loss in toll revenues of about $18 million annually (Taylor and Roach 2007).1 It has been suggested that the economic shortfall resulting from a loss of transoceanic trafï¬c through the seaway could be remedied either by increasing the tolls on domestic vessels or by increasing government subsidies (Taylor and Roach 2005). The committee did not explore either of these possibilities in detail. It noted, how- ever, that even small increases in freight rates for low-value bulk commodities of the type carried by many domestic laker vessels can make the difference between a carrier being proï¬table or un- proï¬table. In light of the aforementioned uncertainties about re- sponses to change, the effects of increased tolls on domestic vessels are unclear. Whether the Canadian government would increase its current subsidy to SLSMC to keep the seaway operating in the ab- sence of transoceanic trafï¬c is unknown. However, if revenues were insufï¬cient to ensure continuing maintenance of the water- wayâs infrastructureâa plausible consequence of a permanent or prolonged temporary closure to transoceanic shippingâthe sea- way could cease to be a viable transportation option and could end up closing to all vessel trafï¬c, not just to transoceanic vessels. Potential for Global Trade The Great Lakes regionâs trade with the rest of the world consists of far more than the movement of cargoes through the seaway. Much of this trade is carried to and from the region via other routes and by other modes of transportation. The actual value of 1 As noted in Chapter 2, tolls on the U.S. portion of the seaway were eliminated in 1986. The U.S. St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) relies almost exclusively on federal ap- propriations for its revenues and thus would not be directly affected by a loss of toll revenues from transoceanic vessels (Taylor and Roach 2007).
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 129 transoceanic shipping through the seaway has proved difï¬cult to specify, as discussed in Appendix D, but closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping could hardly serve to enhance the potential for global trade. Economic principles indicate that, in the absence of the seaway option, the costs of moving cargoes by alternative modes and routes would almost certainly increase. As noted earlier, the responses of individuals and organizations to such changes are subject to wide uncertainties. Some bulk commodities currently re- lying on the seaway might shift to rail, albeit at a higher cost, but in other cases the higher cost of movements could result in a curtail- ment of the enterprises generating the cargoes. Shipping companies (i.e., carriers) that have invested in specialized vessels for Great Lakes international trade would lose a key market if the seaway were closed to transoceanic shipping. While there may be opportunities to use such vessels elsewhere, companies that these carriers service may not be able to relocate and could go out of business. The committee endeavored to obtain estimates of the value of international seaway trade as a percentage of the Great Lakes re- gionâs trade in its entirety, by all modes and all routes. However, a literature search did not reveal any such estimates, perhaps because compiling the necessary data represents a major challenge. Taylor and Roach (2005) note that, in 2002, Great Lakes transoceanic shipping accounted for 10.9 percent of all Canadian grain exports and 21.4 percent of all Canadian steel imports in terms of tonnage. The corresponding data for the United States are 1.9 percent of all grain exports and 6.3 percent of all iron and steel imports. Available data suggest that it would be hard to posit the continued use of the seaway as vital to the economic health of North America. However, the seaway may be critical for the continued operation of certain industries in the Great Lakes region, particularly in a time of heightened international competitiveness. For speciï¬c communities, sectors, and port operators, closure of the seaway to transoceanic shipping would have serious and disruptive effects. For example, shippers would incur not only higher freight rates but also the expense of changes in their logistics infrastructure and practices. Although the full nature of responses to such changes is unclear,
1 30 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species some shippers and their supporting logistics providers might go out of business. Thus, the regionâs trade could be adversely affected, at least in the short term pending the development of alternative trans- portation options. Whether competitive transportation alternatives to transoceanic shipping through the seaway could be provided has not been demonstrated convincingly, although the absence of such evidence should not lead one to conclude that such alternatives do not exist or would not emerge in response to demand. The political and legal uncertainties surrounding any decision to close the seaway to transoceanic vessels (see below) would also hamper efforts to catalyze economic development in the Great Lakes region through investment in transportation options that are water based or multimodal with a water-based component. Timeliness Closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping would require leg- islative action by the Canadian Parliament and the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, recent litigation relating to the regulation of ballast water under the U.S. Clean Water Act and to Michiganâs ballast water permit requirement suggests that any action to initiate clo- sure of the seaway would bring the issue before the courts. Work- ing through the political and legal issues, particularly in a binational context, could be a protracted process, and the eventual outcome is not clear. Unforeseen circumstances, coalitions of political forces with asymmetric strength and inï¬uence, and unpredictable out- comes could result in no closureâor no resolution of the issue. In the committeeâs judgment, closure of the seaway to trans- oceanic shipping would require many years, if it could be carried out at all. Years could be lost awaiting uncertain legal and political outcomes, during which time AIS introductions would continue. The prolonged period of uncertainty could also adversely affect ef- forts to develop technological solutions to eliminate AIS from bal- last water. Few factors have a more deleterious effect on investment, innovation, and the ability of market mechanisms to alter behav- ior than a climate of uncertainty. While international efforts to
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 131 develop ballast water treatment systems are expected to continue regardless of the status of shipping on the seaway, uncertainties about the future market could stymie the development of treat- ment systems optimized for the Great Lakesâ freshwater environ- ment. Thus, valuable time that could have been spent pursuing technical solutions to the AIS problem would have been lost. In this respect, a decision to pursue closure of the seaway to transoceanic vessels could impede quick and comprehensive action with the po- tential to achieve the same end, namely, a signiï¬cant reduction in further ship-vectored AIS introductions into the Great Lakes. Environmental Consequences Closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels would be expected to eliminate further AIS introductions by such vessels and would ad- dress both the ballast water and hull fouling vectors. (As discussed in Chapter 3, the hull fouling vector is thought to play a minor role compared with the ballast water vector in introducing AIS into the freshwater ecosystem of the Great Lakes.) A variety of environmen- tal consequences would accompany the likely increase in trans- shipment of cargoes by rail (and possibly by truck2) resulting from closure of the seaway to transoceanic shipping. To estimate the en- vironmental impact of such modal shifts, the committee commis- sioned an expert paper on the environmental footprints of ship, rail, and truck modes of freight transportation (Lawson 2007). The paper led the committee to conclude that precise estimates and rig- orous quantitative comparisons of the environmental effects of freight transportation by ship and overland modes in hypothetical scenarios resulting from seaway closure are not currently possible because of data limitations. However, the paper provided general indications with regard to the effects of ship, rail, and truck modes on 13 environmental factors. The ship mode was found to have the 2 For relatively low-value bulk commodities moving on the seaway, many of which can be stock- piled if necessary, rail would be the most likely alternative mode. Truck is generally a more at- tractive option for medium- or high-value semiï¬nished or ï¬nished products for which inventories are low and short transit times are critical (see Table 2-1).
1 32 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species smallest and least undesirable footprint in 11 of the 13 environ- mental categories, and rail is preferable to truck in virtually every category. The two areas where the ship mode ranks unfavorably are AIS introduction and particulate matter emission.3 The com- mittee concluded, therefore, that shifts of cargoes to land-based modes (notably rail) that would result from closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping could result in increased environmental im- pacts in terms of fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, accidents, noise, congestion, and several other factors.4 Closure of the seaway to transoceanic vessels could also result in an increased number of such vessels discharging and loading car- goes at marine (i.e., saltwater) ports in Canada or the United States for transshipment by water- or land-based modes to and from lo- cations within the Great Lakes region. These marine ports could become more vulnerable to AIS introductions vectored by hull fouling. Thus, while closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels would reduce the risk of ship-vectored AIS introductions into the Great Lakes, it could increase the risk of such introductions elsewhere by diverting vessel trafï¬c to alternative destinations. Future Options A decision should not be made on the basis of sunk costsâcosts that have already been incurred. In the case of an infrastructure asset, such as the seaway, any decision about its future should not be prejudiced by considerations of the money that went into its creation and cannot now be unspent. The key question, from a purely economic perspective, is whether the asset has a future value (option value) that more than offsets the direct and indirect costs associated with maintaining it. 3 Lawson (2007) notes that anticipated reductions in the sulfur content of fuels are expected to reduce emission rates of sulfur oxides and particulate matter for all modes. 4 A recent study examines the likely air quality impacts of shifting seaway cargoes from transoceanic vessels to alternative modes, notably rail (Taylor and Roach 2007). In common with Lawson (2007), these authors comment on the difï¬culties of obtaining relevant emissions data. Their analysis, which is based on the single comprehensive data source they were able to ï¬nd, indicates that âthe cessation of ocean shipping into the Great Lakes would have no signiï¬cant impact on air qualityâ (p. 44).
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 133 The committee heard testimony that the continued existence of the seaway is of value and may prove to be of greater value as the years passâalthough forecasting domestic and international trade patterns is problematic because of its complexity and numerous uncertainties (see Chapter 2). Climate change, for example, is likely to be a mixed blessing for global trade and shipping on the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway (GLSLS) system (see Chapter 2 and Millerd 2007). On the basis of the evidence available to the committee, the net effect of factors such as global warming and the changing balance in stores of freshwater on the Great Lakes regionâs economy and global trade remains unclear. In addition, the energy savings in- herent in waterborne transport could prove to be of great impor- tance in the future. For example, Corbett and Winebrake (2007) note that environmental performance is motivating new models for selecting intermodal freight routes. Environmental parameters, such as carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption, are more likely to be considered in decision making, together with competing logistics constraints, such as time of delivery, cost, and distance. In addition, national emergencies on either side of the border may cause the seaway to assume greater importance than it has in the recent past.5 The committee concluded, therefore, that while the option value of maintaining the seaway cannot currently be calculated with certainty, it is almost certainly nonzero. Whether this option value outweighs the costs of operating and maintaining the seaway is a question for the future. The possibility of closing the seaway to international shipping also raises concern about reactions by trading partners, among others. Such closure could lead to similar decisions around the globe, thereby preventing international shipping from operat- ing into certain ports. As a result of such restrictions, both the Great Lakes regionâs and the worldâs trade would be adversely affected. 5 An early seaway concept envisaged the waterway as having strategic value for the United States by allowing the transport of vital commodities to and from the nationâs heartland.
1 34 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species Conclusion The committeeâs evaluation of the effects of closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping led it to conclude that this action would be not only high risk but also an impractical and unsatisfactory com- promise in terms of the two project criteria. Its main strengthâ a substantial reduction in the risk of further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes by vessels transiting the seawayâwould be out- weighed by a number of serious disadvantages, as follows: â¢ Closure of the seaway to transoceanic trafï¬c in a timely fashion appears extremely unlikely, if it could be achieved at all. â¢ Shifting seaway cargoes to alternative modes of transportation could well have adverse environmental impacts in terms of in- creased fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, accidents, and noise. â¢ The diversion of international vessel trafï¬c could render Cana- dian and U.S. saltwater ports more vulnerable to ship-vectored AIS introductions. â¢ The increased cost of moving goods would not be trade enhanc- ing, although the committee was unable to quantify the likely impact on the regionâs global trade. â¢ Closure of the seaway to international shipping could lead to copy- cat actions or other reprisals by trading partners of the United States and Canada, with resulting adverse impacts on all trade, not just that of the Great Lakes region. â¢ Closing the seaway to transoceanic vessels for any prolonged pe- riod could raise concerns about the ï¬nancial viability (and con- tinued operation) of a transportation asset that is likely to have value in the future, even though that value cannot currently be quantiï¬ed with any degree of certainty. COMMITTEEâS RECOMMENDED OPTION The committee concluded that using technological approaches to remove or kill organisms in shipsâ ballast water is the preferred strategy for reducing the risk of further ship-vectored AIS intro-
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 135 ductions into the Great Lakes. Keeping transoceanic vessels out of the Great Lakes is not a practical approach and could delay the de- velopment of effective ballast water treatment systems for the Great Lakes. A combination of technological solutions, enforcement, and monitoring offers the potential to reduce markedly the risk of AIS introductions by shipping. At the same time it retains the seaway as a transportation option for a future in which the impacts of global warming, the changing balance of stores of freshwater, and sectoral and regional changes affecting both global trade and the Great Lakes regionâs economy are all uncertain. As noted in Chapter 3, 55 to 70 percent of recorded AIS introductions into the Great Lakes since the opening of the seaway have been attributed to shipsâ ballast water. Other vectors collectively account for the remaining introductions. Thus, an important reduction in the risk of ballast-mediated intro- ductions would be expected to result in major reductions in both the total number of introductions and the proportion of these intro- ductions attributable to the ballast water vector. In parallel with the actions needed to implement the recom- mended technology-based approach, the committee sees great value in a change in perspective, with access to the Great Lakes through the seaway viewed as a privilege rather than a right. This privilege would be restricted to vessels meeting criteria designed to elimi- nate further introductions of AIS. The geographic pinch point at the entrance to the seaway provides an important opportunity to protect what lies within, and those responsible for the seawayâs management and operation would be viewed as the guardians of the resource represented by the Great Lakes. The seaway would welcome vessels conforming to the criteria necessary to prevent fur- ther AIS introductions. It would be incumbent on those seeking passage to provide assurances that they have taken the measures necessary to merit this welcome. The option recommended by the committee and summarized in Box 6-1 does not guarantee enhancement of the potential for global trade or elimination of further ship-mediated AIS introductions into the Great Lakes. It does constitute a practical and technically
BOX 6-1 Committeeâs Recommended Option Access to the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway should be restricted to vessels taking protective measures aimed at ensur- ing that they do not harbor living aquatic organisms. Such measures, which should be approved immediately by both Canadian and U.S. authorities, should form part of a comprehensive technology-based AIS control program targeting all vessels transiting the seaway. Al- though transoceanic vessels have been the primary focus of efforts to date to prevent further ballast-mediated introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes, vessels entering the Great Lakes from coastal areas of eastern North America may have played a role in some introduc- tions. Thus, the latter vessels should be required to take the same protective measures as transoceanic vessels. The AIS control program should incorporate the following features: â¢ A uniform set of effective and enforceable standards that form a basis for preventing the release of AIS into the Great Lakes basin; â¢ Monitoring for compliance with the standards, strict enforcement mechanisms, and remediation options for arriving vessels that do not immediately meet standards for entry; â¢ Surveillance of the Great Lakes ecosystem for early detection of new AIS from any source; â¢ Capabilities for containment, control, and possible subsequent eradication after the discovery of any new AIS; and â¢ Feedback mechanisms to ensure that lessons learned from practical experience with prevention measures, including any fail- ures of protective mechanisms, and knowledge gained through research are used to update and improve the control program over time. In this way, the control program would adapt to both new knowledge and experience with AIS introductions. The control program should emphasize the urgent need for action in preventing further introductions of AIS. It should also have a sound basis in science and incorporate the best available technologies. To avoid unacceptable delays, the recommended actions making up the control program should be undertaken by existing organiza- tions, in some cases with expanded mandates.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 137 feasible approach that goes a long way toward meeting the two project criteria. Furthermore, many of the actions recommended in the following sections of this chapter could be implemented within the next 2 to 3 years if Canada and the United States have the necessary political will. Thus, the proposed approach is re- sponsive to the calls for action by the many groups and individu- als concerned about continuing reports of new AIS introductions into the Great Lakes. The committee recognizes that some may view its recommended control and eradication program and adaptive process as being be- yond the scope of its charge, since they require actions to be taken after AIS have entered the Great Lakes. However, in light of the un- knowns and uncertainties discussed in earlier chapters, the com- mittee deemed it necessary to recommend an approach that aims not only to eliminate further ship-mediated AIS introductions but also to remedy possible deï¬ciencies in elimination strategies. The recommended approach focuses on vessels with a demon- strated risk of AIS introductionâtransoceanic and coastal vesselsâ and on the dominant vector for ship-mediated introductions into the Great Lakes (i.e., ballast water). If research were later to show that hull fouling is an important mechanism for AIS introductions into the Great Lakes, additional prevention measures would be needed. Similarly, if vessels operating exclusively within the inland waters of the GLSLS system were shown to be playing a role in in- troducing AIS, further preventive action would be required. The adaptive AIS management processes recommended by the com- mittee address such possibilities by providing for updates and im- provements that reï¬ect practical experience and knowledge gained through research. The following sections address ballast water management tech- nologies, a surveillance and control program for the Great Lakes ecosystem, and an adaptive process for strengthening prevention measures over time. After an assessment of the strengths and weak- nesses of the committeeâs recommended approach, the chapter concludes by considering brieï¬y a future approach to managing the waters of the Great Lakes.
1 38 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES Ballast water management (BWM) technologiesânotably ballast water exchange (BWE), saltwater ï¬ushing, and shipboard ballast water treatmentâcan kill or remove AIS in shipsâ ballast water. If they are rigorously applied and strictly monitored, these tech- nologies could reduce markedly the risk of further introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes by vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway. Furthermore, the efï¬cacy of BWM technologies is likely to increase over time as understanding of their advantages and lim- itations gained through practical experience leads to technological improvements. Much current BWM technology development is focused on ship- board treatment systems that aim to reduce the numbers of viable organisms in ballast water to the levels speciï¬ed in the International Maritime Organizationâs (IMOâs) proposed ballast water perfor- mance standard (IMO 2004). While this development is certainly important for vessels transiting the seaway, as discussed later, the freshwater nature of the Great Lakes means that BWE for ballasted vessels (BOBs) and saltwater ï¬ushing for vessels declaring no ballast on board (NOBOBs) can be effective techniques for killing or re- moving potential invaders when conducted properly. BWE and Saltwater Flushing The ballast tanks of both BOB and NOBOB vessels may harbor po- tentially invasive freshwater organisms taken on board during bal- lasting operations in freshwater areas outside of the Great Lakes ecosystem. If a vessel conducts open-ocean BWE or saltwater ï¬ush- ing, these freshwater organisms are subjected to a physiological shock due to the salinity change and a dilution effect due to tank purging. Recent research has demonstrated the practical effectiveness of BWE and saltwater ï¬ushing in reducing the numbers of viable freshwater organisms in the ballast tanks of vessels. Gray et al. (2007) assessed the efï¬cacy of BWE on six operational transoceanic vessels travel- ing across the North Atlantic and found the process to be highly effective in reducing the diversity and abundance of freshwater
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 139 invertebrates in ballast tanks. Concentrations of freshwater zoo- plankton were reduced by more than 99 percent, the recruitment of zooplankton from dipausing eggs present in ballast sediments was reduced dramatically, and benthic invertebrates showed nearly universal mortality. Reid et al. (2007) investigated BWM practices for NOBOBs and reported that the routine use of saltwater ï¬ush- ing for NOBOB tanks would greatly improve the level of protection for the Great Lakes against further AIS introductions. In addition, an analysis commissioned by the committee indicated that a num- ber of invasions of the Great Lakes, including those of the zebra mussel and the Eurasian ruffe, would have been prevented by BWE conducted in accordance with the proposed IMO BWE standard (Kelly and Kazumi 2007). For saltwater-tolerant species that survive the physiological saline shock associated with BWE, it is unclear whether the reduced den- sity of organisms in a vesselâs ballast tanks following 95 percent volumetric exchange as speciï¬ed by the proposed IMO standard would, when discharged into the Great Lakes, be sufï¬cient to re- sult in the establishment of a new population (Kelly and Kazumi 2007). However, the research cited above demonstrates that both BWE and saltwater ï¬ushing reduce the likelihood of introductions of AIS by reducing propagule pressureâa measure that depends on the number of introduction events, the number of propagules introduced per event, and the condition of the propagules on re- lease. The committee is not aware of any studies that assess the condition of organisms after BWE or ï¬ushing. It notes, however, that stirring of sediments associated with these processes would adversely affect many zooplankton, since these species typically perform poorly in water with high levels of suspended sediment (Hart 1988; Kirk 1991). Given the potential effectiveness of BWE and ï¬ushing in prevent- ing further introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes by vessels tran- siting the seaway, the committee concluded that (a) these methods should be used by all categories of vessel known to present a risk of AIS introduction and (b) future technological enhancements of these methods merit investigation.
1 40 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species Use of BWE and Flushing by Vessels Transiting the Seaway As indicated in Table 4-1, all transoceanic BOB vessels transiting the seaway and destined for Great Lakes ports are required to con- duct BWE or take alternative BWM measures. In addition, as of the beginning of the 2008 navigation season, all transoceanic NOBOB vessels transiting the seaway are required to conduct saltwater ï¬ushing. Such action by transoceanic NOBOB vessels destined for U.S. Great Lakes ports has been strongly encouraged by the U.S. Coast Guard since 2005 and required for vessels destined for Cana- dian Great Lakes ports since 2006.6 Because all transoceanic NOBOB vessels carry a risk of introducing AIS (see Chapter 4), the commit- tee considers it essential that all such vessels be subject to the same mandatory saltwater ï¬ushing requirement, regardless of their des- tination within the Great Lakes. As Table 4-1 shows, there is no consistent requirement for coastal vessels transiting the seaway after operating within the Canadian and U.S. exclusive economic zones (EEZs) to conduct BWE or ï¬ush- ing (or other BWM practices), even though such vessels are known to present a risk of introducing AIS (see Chapter 4). BOBs are re- quired to conduct BWE only if they move from one jurisdiction to another (U.S. to Canadian waters or vice versa), and NOBOBs are required to conduct saltwater ï¬ushing only if their voyage takes them from within the U.S. EEZ to a Canadian Great Lakes port. The great majority of coastal vessels transiting the seaway are Canadian, coming from within the Canadian EEZ and destined for Canadian Great Lakes ports. At present, such vessels are subject to the voluntary BWM practices issued by the Lake Carriersâ Associ- ation and the Canadian Shipowners Association (2001) but are not required to conduct either BWE (BOBs) or saltwater ï¬ushing (NOBOBs). To reduce the risk of AIS introduction associated with coastal vessels, the committee recommends that BWE and ï¬ushing requirements similar to those for transoceanic vessels be instituted 6 A notice of proposed rulemaking issued by SLSDC (2007) aimed to harmonize U.S. and Cana- dian requirements for saltwater ï¬ushing by transoceanic vessels operating in the binational wa- ters of the GLSLS system. In February 2008, the Seaway Practices and Procedures were updated to include the saltwater ï¬ushing requirement for transoceanic NOBOB vessels.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 141 for all vessels entering the Great Lakes from coastal areas of eastern North America. Recommendation: Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard should ensure that all vessels entering the Great Lakes after operating in coastal areas of eastern North America take protective measures similar to those required for transoceanic vessels, notably BWE for BOBs and salt- water ï¬ushing for NOBOBs. The committee recognizes that some vessels may face operational constraints (dangerous sea states, carriage of specialized project car- goes) that prevent them from safely conducting open-ocean BWE or saltwater ï¬ushing before transiting the seaway. In such cases, al- ternative BWM processes are needed to ensure that every vessel transiting the seaway after operating outside of the inland waters of the GLSLS system uses proven BWM methods to reduce the risk of introducing AIS through its ballasting operations. One possi- bility for some vessels is to conduct BWE or ï¬ushing in the alter- nate exchange zone in the Laurentian Channel. However, use of this zone is now restricted to the beginning and end of the seaway navigation season because of concerns about the effects of ballast water discharges on the ecosystem in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Thus, the use of approved methods for treating the ballast tanks of arriving vessels appears to be a preferred and more widely applica- ble approach. For example, a recent report explores the possibility of using sodium chloride brine to treat low-salinity tanks of ves- sels entering the GLSLS system (Jenkins 2007).7 Recommendation: Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard should not allow vessels unable to conduct open- ocean BWE or ï¬ushing for safety or other reasons to enter the Great Lakes until they have undertaken to perform alternative BWM measures. Such measures may include BWE or ï¬ushing in approved alternative discharge sites or 7 The salinity of water in the ballast tanks of a vessel that has conducted BWE or ï¬ushing is required to be at least 30 parts per thousand for the vessel to receive permission to enter the Great Lakes.
1 42 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species an approved type of shore-based treatment applied to each noncompliant tank before any contents of such tanks can be discharged into the waters of the Great Lakes. Future Enhancements Implementation of the above recommendations would result in a requirement for all vessels known to present a risk of introducing AIS to conduct BWE or ï¬ushing or to take alternative BWM mea- sures before permission to enter the Great Lakes is granted. If ac- companied by effective enforcement, this requirement would be an important step in ensuring that policies aimed at preventing further AIS introductions reï¬ect the best current understanding of aquatic invasion biology and proven BWM practices. In the future, opportunities to increase the effectiveness of BWE or flushing through improved monitoring systems and new vessel designs could lead to enhanced protection of the Great Lakes against further introductions of AIS. Monitoring for Compliance Evidence indicates that the proce- dures implemented by the agencies that inspect, test, and monitor the ballast water of vessels entering the GLSLS systemâTransport Canada Marine Safety, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the seaway corporationsâare effective in ensuring that all vessels required to conduct BWE or ï¬ushing before transiting the seaway have in fact done so (see Chapter 4 and U.S. Coast Guard 2007). However, the committee identiï¬ed future opportunities to use technology to enhance the inspection process and reduce the associated man- power needs for the inspection authorities. Knowing whether BWE or saltwater ï¬ushing has been performed and has been effective in raising the salinity of the water in the ves- selâs ballast tanks before a vessel enters the GLSLS system would be helpful in targeting additional prevention measures to high-risk vessels. The committee learned that automated shipboard moni- toring systems capable of recording water flows into and out of individual ballast tanks (i.e., ballasting operations) could become commercially available within the next few years, particularly if de-
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 143 mand for such systems were identiï¬ed. Such systems could also be used to measure the salinity of the water in individual tanks, al- though research would be needed to identify appropriate locations for the sensors. Transmission of information on ballasting opera- tions and tank salinities, together with Global Positioning System coordinates, to Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard would permit remote monitoring of a vesselâs compliance with BWE and ï¬ushing requirements. High-risk vessels could thus be identiï¬ed before their entry into the GLSLS system, thereby providing timely opportunities for remedial action. Further information is needed on retroï¬tting existing vessels to accommodate such monitoring systems and on manpower require- ments to operate and maintain them. The burden of installing, op- erating, and maintaining such shipboard ballast water monitoring systems on the shipping industry would need to be commensurate with the benefits in terms of more cost-effective inspection by enforcement agencies and more effective protection against AIS introductions. As discussed in Chapter 5, the rate at which BWE or flushing is superseded by shipboard ballast water treatment systems and associated ballast water discharge standards will be important in determining the overall cost-effectiveness of the auto- mated reporting option. Recommendation: Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard should explore the possibility of using a secure sys- tem of in-tank salinity monitors, location veriï¬cation, and telemetry to allow remote monitoring of a vesselâs compli- ance with BWE and ï¬ushing requirements prior to entry into the GLSLS system. Improved Vessel Designs The capacity, location, and ï¬exibility of use of ballast tanks are key features of ship design. Consideration of required drafts and trim, hull loading limitations, and required ver- tical center of gravity establishes the necessary ballast volume and location (NRC 1996). The designs of most current vessels are not optimized for BWM practices aimed at eliminating AIS. While there have been improvements in the outï¬tting of the new generation of
1 44 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species bulk carriers servicing the Great Lakes, there is still room for sub- stantial improvements in ship design and construction, with an emphasis on facilitating more effective and efï¬cient BWE and ï¬ush- ing and reducing the buildup of residuals in ballast tanks. Depending on a shipâs design and outï¬tting and the method of exchange selected, the system components or tank structure may preclude effective mixing within the tank during the exchange process or allow signiï¬cant volumes of unmixed residuals to remain throughout the ship. Many of the constraints associated with tank shape and plumbing could be eliminated by changes in design and modular construction methods for new-builds. Speciï¬cally, with respect to ï¬ow-through exchange, hydraulic structures within a ballast tank could be designed so that complete mixing occurs in the tank during the exchange process. This would ensure that the anticipated dilution actually takes place within ballast tanks during an exchange event. In addition, tank design could be modiï¬ed to minimize untreated residuals, and virtually all material in the bal- last tank would be removed during a pump-out process. Recommendation: Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard should require that all new vessels operating into the Great Lakes take full advantage of opportunities offered by revised designs and modular construction methods to fa- cilitate effective and efï¬cient management of ballast water and residuals. Shipboard Ballast Water Treatment BWE for ballasted vessels and saltwater ï¬ushing for NOBOBs are inexpensive and effective means of killing most of the freshwater organisms in ballast tanks. They do not, however, guarantee elim- ination of all potential invaders for several reasons. First, as noted in the preceding discussion, ship designs may re- sult in incomplete mixing within ballast tanks during the exchange or ï¬ushing process. Second, if there is signiï¬cant sediment accu- mulation, the efï¬cacy of BWE or ï¬ushing may well be reduced. A recent study of best management practices for NOBOBs (Reid et al.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 145 2007) found that saline water introduced into ballast tanks during the exchange process may not penetrate residual sediments. Thus, while BWE is highly effective in killing benthic invertebrates, indi- vidual organisms may survive below the sedimentâwater interface and could present an invasion risk if sediments were disturbed during subsequent ballasting operations (Gray et al. 2007). Third, species that are salinity tolerant or have salinity-tolerant life stages may survive the physiological saline shock associated with BWE or ï¬ushing. Finally, while prolonged exposure to ocean water is likely to reduce organismsâ survival rates and enhance the effectiveness of BWE and ï¬ushing, such exposure may not be practical. For ex- ample, a transoceanic vessel would ideally conduct BWE or ï¬ushing as early as possible during its voyage for maximum effectiveness, but weather conditions in the North Atlantic, particularly during the winter, may preclude this option. In addition, the shorter voy- ages (typically 2 to 3 days) undertaken by coastal vessels provide less opportunity for prolonged exposure to saltwater. Because of these limitations, shipboard ballast water treatment systems are widely regarded as potentially more desirable than BWE or ï¬ushing for eliminating aquatic organisms from ballast water. In addition to giving vessels greater ï¬exibility in managing their ballast water under a variety of operational conditions, such systems offer the promise of effective elimination of invasive organisms. An investigation of the peer-reviewed literature on ballast water treatment technologies commissioned by the committee (Kazumi 2007) indicates that filtration/physical removal systems, biocides, and a combination of technologies (notably filtration followed by the use of biocides or ultraviolet radiation to kill re- maining organisms) show promise for shipboard application. However, the freshwater environment of the Great Lakes poses unique challenges for shipboard ballast water treatment. Because the basin supplies drinking water for more than 30 million peo- ple, public health issues relating to the discharge of treated bal- last water require special attention. The proposed use of biocides, in particular, will require careful evaluation of the fate and tox- icity of any residuals.
1 46 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species The engineering challenges involved in redesigning and modi- fying land-based water treatment systems for shipboard use con- stitute a major challenge for the development and implementation of shipboard ballast water treatment systems. In some respects, these challenges are less demanding for seaway-size vessels than for the larger vessels in the world ï¬eet. Large tankers may carry in ex- cess of 200,000 m3 of ballast (NRC 1996), whereas the ballast ca- pacities of vessels transiting the seaway do not exceed 25,000 m3 (see Chapter 4). However, retroï¬tting existing vessels to accom- modate treatment systems is demanding and involves issues such as the availability of space on the vessel, power use, controls, and piping. In contrast, new vessels offer opportunities to incorporate innovative ballast water treatment systems more cost-effectively. Several large companies have become involved in the develop- ment of ballast water treatment technologies over the past 5 years.8 Assessment of commercially available systems is difï¬cult because available data may have been generated under different operating conditions and other data remain proprietary (Kazumi 2007). However, the establishment of the proposed IMO standards for BWM in 2004 (see below) and the resulting creation of a world- wide market have stimulated development activities. A recent re- port from Lloydâs Register (2007) indicates that shipboard ballast water treatment systems should be commercially available by 2009, with testing to IMO requirements conducted in 2007 and 2008, although the authors note that these estimates may be optimistic. At the time of writing, a number of treatment systems are going through the lengthy IMO approval process. This process aims to ensure that a system meets the proposed IMO ballast water per- formance standard, is sufï¬ciently robust for shipboard use, has minimal environmental impact, and is suitable for use in the speciï¬c shipboard environment where it is to be installed. The Lloydâs Register report notes that capital cost information for shipboard treatment systems is not widely available and that 8 As reported during a presentation to the committee from Richard Everett, U.S. Coast Guard, Toronto, Ontario, August 30, 2006.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 147 any prices quoted should be regarded as tentative, given the devel- opmental nature of the products (2007). Data provided indicate that the capital cost of a 200-m3/h plant ranges from $135,000 to $165,000. Estimated operating costs range from $0.01 to $0.35 per cubic meter of treated water. Role of Standards In February 2004, after more than 10 years of preparatory work, IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Shipsâ Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO 2004). An annex to the convention includes proposed technical standards for BWM, namely, a BWE standard and a ballast water performance standard (see Box 6-2). The convention will enter into force 1 year after it has been rati- ï¬ed by at least 30 nations representing at least 35 percent of the worldâs oceangoing commercial tonnage. As of May 31, 2008, only 14 nations representing less than 4 percent of the worldâs tonnage had ratiï¬ed the convention. Hence, it will be at least 2016 before all vessels are required to comply with the proposed D-2 ballast water performance standard, and some years will elapse before sufï¬cient data are available to assess the effectiveness of this standard in pre- venting AIS introductions.9 In addition, as noted in Chapter 3, this assessment will be further complicated by the time lag between the date of AIS introduction and the date of detection or reporting. An outstanding question is whether the proposed IMO stan- dards, and in particular the D-2 standard, are sufï¬ciently stringent to protect the Great Lakes against further AIS introductions by ves- sels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway. Some argue that more stringent standards are needed, although scientiï¬c evidence to sup- port this argument is lacking. The committeeâs arguments in favor of initially adopting a ballast water treatment standard (or dis- charge standard) equivalent to the proposed IMO D-2 standardâ 9 Although the convention notes that BWE could be used to meet the performance standard, it is widely acknowledged that ballast water treatment will likely be needed to meet the proposed D-2 standard.
1 48 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species BOX 6-2 Proposed IMO Standards for Ballast Water Managementa D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard Ships performing ballast water exchange shall do so with an efï¬- ciency of 95 percent volumetric exchange of ballast water. For ships exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through method, pump- ing through three times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to meet the standard described. D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard Ships conducting ballast water management shall discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter greater than or equal to 50 micrometers (microns) in minimum dimension and less than 10 viable organisms per milliliter less than 50 micrometers in mini- mum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension; and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the speciï¬ed concentrations. The indicator microbes, as a human health standard, include but are not to be limited to a. Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples; b. Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters; c. Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters. SOURCE: IMO 2004. aAlthough IMO has adopted BWM standards, these standards will not be in force until the entry into force of the convention itself. Thus, the IMO standards are described as âproposedâ in the present discussion. as opposed to a more stringent standardâare discussed in the following paragraphs. First, while the efï¬cacy of the proposed D-2 standard has not yet been demonstrated in practice, it combines scientiï¬c input and the results of engineering analyses (see, for example, Raaymakers 2001)
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 149 with practical considerations about technological options for bal- last water treatment. In common with most international stan- dards, it also represents a compromise reached through negotiation among the nations participating in its development. The IMO convention recognizes that additional standards may be needed for speciï¬c situations, including different geographical regions. In addition, experts in BWM and treatment agree that ï¬exibility must be retained to allow the standards âto be revised and updated over time as technology develops, knowledge increases and improved ballast water treatment biological effectiveness becomes possibleâ (Raaymakers 2001, 3). In the committeeâs judgment, however, revising and updating the proposed standards at this time for ves- sels operating into the Great Lakes would be premature, given that IMO-approved ballast water treatment systems have not yet en- tered service in the world ï¬eet. Second, evidence available to the committee makes it clear that routine, accurate, and cost-effective monitoring systems to verify compliance with any ballast water treatment standard do not exist. For example, the proposed IMO D-2 standard requires reliable monitoring of numbers and viability of the entire ambient micro- fauna before and after treatment, which is a daunting challenge. If even more stringent standards were adoptedâfor example, 1/100 as many viable organisms remaining as speciï¬ed in the proposed D-2 standardâenormous volumes of water and sediment would need to be analyzed, making monitoring for compliance even more difï¬cult.10 Thus, even if a standard more stringent than the 10 Gollasch et al. (2007) discuss some of the issues associated with ballast water sampling to demon- strate compliance or noncompliance with the proposed IMO D-2 standard. One issue concerns demonstration of noncompliance with the proposed D-2 standard as part of port state control measures. At present, the discharge limits deï¬ned in the proposed standard can be interpreted as applying either to concentrations of organisms averaged over the entire volume of ballast water discharged by a vessel or to concentrations of organisms measured for some smaller volume of the total discharge. This issue will need to be resolved before the proposed D-2 standard can be enforced by the relevant regulatory bodies. The committee notes that routine monitoring of treat- ment efï¬ciency may be facilitated by monitoring the performance of treatment equipment or the generation of a biocide residual. This approach has been used for many years in monitoring water and wastewater treatment systems, where it has proved to be an effective and safe procedure for assuring the desired water quality.
1 50 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species proposed IMO D-2 standard were established, it would at present be extremely difï¬cult to determine whether vessels were in com- pliance. Under such a scenario, gathering the data necessary to assess the efï¬cacy of the standard would not be possible, and the opportunity to develop robust knowledge about the levels of bal- last water âcleanlinessâ needed to protect the Great Lakes ecosys- tem would be lost. Finally, the committee notes that different Canadian and U.S. ballast water standards for the GLSLS system would add to the already complex array of BWM requirements (see Table 4-1), thereby further complicating compliance and adding to the costs of verifying compliance. While the Canada Shipping Act of 2006 mirrors the standards for BWM defined in the IMO convention, the United States is considering a ballast water performance standard that is 100 times more stringent than the proposed IMO D-2 standard. The implementation of more stringent stan- dards by either nation would reduce the overall risk of AIS introduction into the Great Lakes by reducing the propagule supply, although the degree of protection would be less than if both nations were to adopt the more stringent standard. How- ever, disparities between Canadian and U.S. standards would raise the possibility of a diversion of maritime trade away from the nation with more stringent standards, with vessels choosing to use ports with less demanding constraints on ballast water discharge. In the committeeâs view, common ballast water standards are needed for all vessels entering the Great Lakes. The proposed IMO standards, which represent a broad international consensus based on scientific input, expert judgment, and practical and political considerations, form a robust and pragmatic starting point. In the case of BWE, as noted earlier, a retroactive evalua- tion indicated that a number of invasions of the Great Lakes would have been prevented by the proposed IMO D-1 standard (Kelly and Kazumi 2007). In addition, adoption by the United States of a BWE standard for the Great Lakes equivalent to D-1
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 151 would harmonize U.S. and Canadian BWE standards and facili- tate compliance.11 A ballast water discharge standard for the Great Lakes equiva- lent to the proposed IMO D-2 standard would form a basis for or- ganizing data-gathering efforts to determine whether the speciï¬ed treatment levels are attainable in practice, thereby providing data to inform future policy decisions. In addition, establishing such a standard would remove current market and technical uncertain- ties and could, therefore, encourage investment by equipment manufacturers and shipowners in the development and demon- stration of ballast water treatment systems for vessels entering the Great Lakes (Hodgson 2007). In contrast, delays and uncertainties in the regulatory process could well delay the innovation process. The establishment of a standard as proposed would also provide a focal point for regulatory bodies to develop monitoring proce- dures and inspection protocols for demonstrating compliance (or noncompliance). The committee envisages that a risk-based ap- proach to monitoring and inspection could be useful in optimiz- ing enforcement of the standard. Recommendation: The United States should follow Canadaâs lead and take immediate action to adopt and implement BWE and performance standards for the Great Lakes that are identical to those speciï¬ed in IMOâs International Conven- tion for the Control and Management of Shipsâ Ballast Water and Sediments. Recommendation: Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard should develop certiï¬cation processes for shipboard treatment systems and for monitoring systems to verify compliance with ballast water quality standards identical to those proposed by IMO. 11 The committee did not consider the advantages and disadvantages for Canada and the United States of ratifying the IMO convention and has not taken a position on this issue. To avoid any unintended implications about ratiï¬cation, the discussion refers to ballast water standards iden- tical to those proposed by IMO rather than to the proposed IMO standards per se.
1 52 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL PROGRAM Even well-designed prevention programs and the rigorous enforce- ment of appropriate BWM procedures cannot guarantee that no further AIS will enter the Great Lakes via shipsâ ballast water. Thus, the committee concluded that a surveillance program to detect and identify new invaders should be a component of a comprehensive package of actions aimed at preventing further introductions of AIS by all vectors, routes, and pathways, including vessels transit- ing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Such a surveillance program would provide information both to assess the effectiveness of prevention policies and to enhance understanding of the full suite of invasion vectors, routes, and pathways. In addition, early detection of new AIS could form the basis for efforts to control, or possibly even eradicate, new invaders. The committee strongly endorses the view that preventing fur- ther AIS introductionsâas opposed to controlling or eradicating populations of new AIS following their establishmentâis the pre- ferred approach to managing AIS. Prevention should be the cor- nerstone of efforts to eliminate further introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes, and control or eradication should be backup mea- sures to be used only when prevention proves less than 100 percent effective. Furthermore, as discussed later, any deï¬ciencies in pre- vention measures should be examined carefully with a view to tak- ing corrective action. Thus, control or eradication strategies are supplements, rather than alternatives, to prevention. Surveillance A surveillance program designed to detect new AIS in the Great Lakes would inform efforts to prevent further introductions by any vector, route, or pathway, and not only by ships transiting the sea- way. If a new AIS were found, expert analysis would be needed to determine the likely introduction vector. Once such a determina- tion had been made, a prompt review of prevention strategies could then be undertaken to identify weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Pending this determination, efforts to control or
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 153 eradicate the new invader could be initiated. To increase the effec- tiveness of control and eradication efforts, early detection of new AIS would be critical, and the proposed surveillance program reï¬ects this requirement. Looking for new AIS in an ecosystem the size of the Great Lakes basin, with almost 300,000 square miles (more than three-quarters of a million square kilometers) of watershed and 10,000 miles (17,000 km) of shoreline, requires surveillance strategies that make the most effective use of all available resources through a targeted approach. Attempting to apply the same level of scrutiny through- out the entire ecosystem risks diluting the effort to such an extent that its overall effectiveness would be greatly reduced. Vander Zanden (2007) suggests targeting surveillance efforts on âhot species,â âhot moments,â and âhot spotsâ to increase the likelihood of early detection of new AIS. Such a strategy would use the results of risk assessments that identify potential invaders on the basis of in- formation about donor regions and invasion corridors. It would also make use of information about seasonal variations in the likelihood of invasion by different species and about locations most likely to be invaded. For example, researchers have found that 5 percent of the Great Lakesâ surface area supports more than half of recent AIS introductions and that invasion hot spots are approximately 20 times more highly invaded than other areas (Grigorovich et al. 2003). The committee proposes an AIS surveillance program that focuses on physical sampling of selected habitats (including coastal wet- lands) around the Great Lakes to monitor for the presence of new invaders. Dedicated lake teams would play the central role in surveillance efforts, conducting a variety of field surveys. The lake teams would coordinate their efforts with those of academic researchers, resource managers, and local citizens groups (Vander Zanden 2007). Leveraging ongoing monitoring activities, includ- ing the Sea Grant extension and outreach programs on invasive species, could help in establishing a scientiï¬cally robust and cost- effective AIS surveillance program for the Great Lakes. The pro- posed program would be a continuing science-based effort, separate
1 54 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species from any enforcement activities associated with measures to prevent further AIS introductions. It would emphasize traditional sample collection methods but could draw on newer techniques, such as remote sensing, rapid genetic detection, and the use of molecular markers, to address speciï¬c AIS questions. The committee explored the possibility of assigning responsi- bility for the binational AIS surveillance program to an existing or- ganization (or organizations), possibly through expansion of current mandates. The results of the committeeâs investigations are not conclusive, but they provide a basis for further examination of the options. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was iden- tiï¬ed as one candidate, in light of its binational status and its ex- perience with ï¬eld monitoring as part of the sea lamprey control program. Alternatively, two organizations, one in Canada and one in the United States, could jointly assume responsibility for the surveillance program. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was identified as the most appropriate organization in Canada. In the United States, there are several candidates, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationâs Great Lakes Research Laboratory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recommendation: A binational science-based surveillance program should be established to monitor for the presence of new AIS in the Great Lakes. The program should involve dedicated lake teams, as well as academic researchers, resource managers, and local citizens groups, and should leverage existing monitoring activities wherever possible. Control and Eradication An extensive literature addresses the control and eradication of invasive species in terrestrial environments, and some reported efforts achieved their targets (Vander Zanden 2007). In contrast, efforts to control or eradicate invasive species in aquatic habitats have been more limited and generally directed toward small isolated water bodies, with varying effectiveness. The most notable exception
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 155 is GLFCâs program to control the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Overall, this binational program has resulted in a 90 percent reduc- tion of sea lamprey populations in most areas of the Great Lakes. GLFC acknowledges, however, that eradicating the sea lamprey from the Great Lakes is impossible. Continuing control efforts are expected to keep populations at levels that lessen the impact on the Great Lakes ï¬shery, which is estimated to be worth up to $4 billion annually to Canada and the United States. The control program itself has cost more than $318 million since 1958, with average annual costs of $17 million over the past 3 years.12 Conditions favoring AIS eradication can be either biological or institutional (Vander Zanden 2007). From a biological perspec- tive, a new AIS introduction is most likely to be susceptible to erad- ication if the species is detectable at low densities before a large population has formed and is detected early in the invasion se- quence, if factors such as habitat type and life history make it pos- sible to remove individuals faster than they reproduce, and if there is a low likelihood of reinvasion. Thus, highly mobile organisms occupying open habitats and exhibiting high population growth rates and dormant resting stages would not be good candidates for eradication. In contrast, stationary organisms occupying isolated habitats, such as coastal wetlands, and exhibiting low population growth rates and no dormant resting stages could be susceptible to eradication. Institutional requirements favoring eradication include sufficient resources to carry the effort to its conclusion, clearly deï¬ned lines of authority with the lead organization able to take immediate action if necessary, broad support and public par- ticipation, and the knowledge base necessary to inform decisions. An eradication program would need to be closely linked to the recommended surveillance program. As soon as a new AIS was reported, the potential for its eradication would have to be evalu- ated from the biological and institutional perspectives. The costs of taking action or of inaction would also have to be estimated. A 12 As reported to the committee by John Dettmers, GLFC, during a presentation in Washington, D.C., on May 23, 2006.
1 56 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species formal process could help in reviewing and integrating the avail- able information, identifying and evaluating alternative options, and deciding whether to attempt eradication and, if so, how. Ad- vanced readiness preparations could also be madeâfor example, available control methods for each type of AIS could be compiled in a technical handbook; collateral impacts, such as damage to nontarget species, could be listed; and the organizations and indi- viduals who would have to be mobilized to implement the eradi- cation plan could be identiï¬ed. Targeting such preparations to species already identiï¬ed as likely invaders could help focus lim- ited resources on areas of greatest risk. Given the limited experience on which to draw, an AIS eradica- tion program for the Great Lakes would have to be at the forefront of developing and evaluating eradication methods. Because of un- certainties about its effectiveness, the program would likely be a secondary component of a broader program to minimize AIS im- pacts by controlling populations, as in the case of the sea lamprey. Responsibility for such a control and eradication program would be most effectively assigned to the organizations responsible for the recommended science-based surveillance program, given the knowledge and expertise needed and the strong links between the two activities. Recommendation: Efforts to limit the impacts of AIS in the Great Lakes should include a program aimed at developing capabilities for containment, control, and possible subse- quent eradication following the discovery of any new AIS. The program should be established as an adjunct to the rec- ommended binational surveillance program. AN ADAPTIVE PROCESS Progress in invasion biology has led to a greater understanding of which species are likely to invade and the risk factors for inva- sions. However, ongoing changes in donor regions, in vectors and pathways of introduction, and in the Great Lakes ecosystem itself
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 157 mean that combating further AIS introductions will require strategies that can adapt to such changes. For example, the vast majority of AIS introduced into the Great Lakes since 1959 via the ballast water of transoceanic vessels originated in Eurasia, with most coming from Europe and the Ponto-Caspian basin (Kelly 2007). The pathways of introduction for these species are gener- ally complex, may involve secondary invasions, and may change as a result of changes in the colonization pathway, as illustrated by the 1992 opening of the Main Canal connecting the Danube and Rhine River systems, which provided a new westward colo- nization pathway from the Black Sea basin. In the future, higher water temperatures resulting from global warming could increase the likelihood of invasions by increasing the probability of new AIS achieving minimum viable population sizes before growth and reproductive cycles are curtailed by the seasonal onset of cooler temperatures (see Chapter 3). Experience in attempting to prevent ship-vectored introduc- tions of AIS into the Great Lakes has also indicated the importance of updating prevention strategies in a timely fashion to take account of practical experience and knowledge gained through research. The recent change in the Seaway Practices and Procedures to reï¬ect improved understanding of the role of transoceanic NOBOB vessels in introducing AIS is a case in point. Since 1993, when BWE became mandatory for all transoceanic vessels entering the Great Lakes in ballast, a total of 19 new AIS have been reported in the Great Lakes, including the freshwater shrimp Echinogammarus ischnus in 1995, the waterï¬ea Cercopagis pengoi in 1998, and the mysid shrimp Hemimysis anomala in 2006. Notwithstanding the possibility that time lags between the dates of introduction and reporting may hinder determination of the efï¬cacy of BWE (Costello et al. 2007), the ongoing discovery of new AIS in the Great Lakes has drawn attention to the role of transoceanic NOBOB vessels as vectors for AIS introductions. Such vessels entering the Great Lakes were, until recently, exempt from BWM requirements because they carry no pumpable ballast water and were not, therefore, thought to present a risk of introducing AIS. However, research in recent
1 58 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species years has shown that transoceanic NOBOB vessels do indeed pose an invasion risk, as discussed in Chapter 4. In light of the ever-changing nature of the AIS problem and the lessons learned about transoceanic NOBOB vessels, the commit- tee considers it essential that an adaptive process be established to ensure that prevention strategies are as effective as possible and re- main so.13 This process would examine both individual AIS intro- ductions and the overall problem of AIS in the Great Lakes. Periodic review of ï¬eld surveillance data and vessel compliance data from Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard would be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of measures to prevent fur- ther introductions of AIS into the Great Lakes by vessels transiting the seaway. The discovery of a new AIS would trigger an expert re- view to determine possible and likely vectors of introduction and the possible date of entry. If the species was in all likelihood a re- cent introduction via ballast water, safeguards would have to be reviewed and possibly revised. Any changes in the relative importance of different AIS vectors and pathways over time would also be subject to periodic review. Such a review would form the basis for recommendations to the governments of Canada and the United States about changes needed in AIS prevention policies across the Great Lakes basin. For exam- ple, if the committeeâs recommendations are fully implemented, the relative importance of the ballast water vector for vessels tran- siting the seaway would be expected to decline signiï¬cantly over time. Greater effort could then be directed to other vectors and pathways, which would make up a greater proportion of the much smaller total number of introductions. In addition, the periodic expert review would be an occasion to assess lessons learned from recent research and to recommend new prevention measures, if needed. For example, if new research were to show that hull fouling is a more important mechanism for AIS 13 Ruiz and Carlton (2003) envisage a feedback loop similar to the adaptive process recommended by the committee to determine whether prevention strategies are working as designed.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 159 introductions into the Great Lakes than indicated by current evi- dence, measures to eliminate or control this vector could be iden- tiï¬ed by the review panel. Similarly, if new information on the role of the ballasting operations of inland vessels in spreading AIS within the Great Lakes indicated a need for greater protection, the review panel could identify revised BWM practices for such vessels. The committee envisages that a single organization would be re- sponsible for the adaptive process, including conduct of the expert reviews to examine and advise on prevention policies relating to individual AIS introductions and the overall issue of AIS in the Great Lakes. This organization would require a formal binational mandate, together with the appropriate resources, and should be widely perceived as independent and free from conï¬icts of inter- est. It should be in a position to draw on the advice of scientiï¬c and policy experts in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere in con- ducting its reviews and developing its recommendations. Two existing organizationsâthe International Joint Commis- sion (IJC) and GLFCâappear to be candidates. Both already have binational mandates from Canada and the United States and are widely viewed as independent agencies. However, their mandates would have to be revised to include the proposed adaptive process, and the necessary resources would have to be made available. From a scientiï¬c perspective, the adaptive process could be deemed an ex- tension of the current work of GLFC in invasive species control. Although IJC does not possess such hands-on experience, it has ex- tensive experience in convening groups of experts from Canada and the United States to serve on its study boards, which are anal- ogous to the expert review panels envisaged by the committee. Furthermore, the committee notes that a 2003 report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Canadian House of Commons recommended that Canada seek a permanent reference (i.e., a formal mandate) to IJC âto coordinate and har- monize binational efforts for action to counter the threat of AIS in the Great Lakes basinâ (Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans 2003, 27). The proposed adaptive process appears to fall within the scope of such a reference.
1 60 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species Recommendation: An adaptive process should be estab- lished to ensure that policy measures designed to prevent further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes are updated in a timely and periodic fashion to reï¬ect practical experi- ence and knowledge gained through research. The organi- zation responsible for this process should have a binational mandate; adequate resources to conduct its work; and the ability to draw on the advice of scientiï¬c and policy experts in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere as needed. It should also be widely perceived as independent and free from conï¬icts of interest. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES This section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the com- mitteeâs recommended suite of actions. While the proposed option is not a silver bullet, as noted earlier, it offers the potential to bring about progress toward the ultimate goals in a timely manner, to minimize undesirable consequences, and to keep options open for an uncertain future. Sources of funding for some of the actions will require further investigation if the committeeâs recommended ap- proach is to be fully implemented. Eliminating Further AIS Introductions Given the number, diversity, and distribution of vectors and path- ways for AIS introductions into the Great Lakes, the committee views elimination of all further invasions as unlikely. This view is reinforced by the observation that a number of potential invaders have robust survival strategies that make them particularly difï¬- cult to eliminate, such as the ability to reproduce asexually from a single individual (parthenogenesis) or to produce large numbers of highly resistant cysts (resting stages) that can survive hostile en- vironments for long periods until conditions are right for devel- opment and possible establishment of a new population.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 161 Despite the challenges of preventing further AIS introductions, the invasion vector and route that are the focus of this studyâvessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seawayâare, in the committeeâs view, easier to control than some other vectors, routes, and pathways. For example, angling and bait ï¬shing, home aquaria, and water gardens are widely distributed geographically, involve large num- bers of individual citizens, and are not highly regulated. In addi- tion, controlling these vectors and pathways requires changing human behavior, which many would argue is more difï¬cult to achieve than implementing technological solutions. In contrast, the geographic chokepoint at the entrance to the seaway provides an opportunity for Canada and the United States to enforce mea- sures aimed at preventing vessels from transporting AIS into the Great Lakes. Furthermore, the number of vessels using the seaway annually (approximately 30014) is small in absolute terms, and the shipping industry is already highly regulated. If vessels transiting the seaway were the only vector and route for introducing AIS into the Great Lakes, the committee could well have recommended a different suite of actions from among the possibilities identiï¬ed in Chapter 5. However, its examination of the shipping vector through the seaway in the broad context of all AIS introductions into the Great Lakes led it to conclude that a combination of technology, enforcement, and monitoring for com- pliance constitutes the most robust, practical, technically feasible, and effective approach, and the one that offers the most rapid response to the issue. The committee is optimistic that its recom- mended suite of actions, if fully implemented, would result in sub- stantial progress toward elimination of further introductions of AIS by vessels transiting the seaway and would reduce this vector/ route to a minor contributor to the overall problem of AIS intro- ductions into the Great Lakes. 14 As noted in Chapter 4, the number of transoceanic vessels using the seaway each year is approx- imately 230, and the Canadian domestic ï¬eet of coastal and inland vessels using the seaway com- prises about 70 ships.
1 62 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species Enhancing the Potential for Global Trade A recent report from the Brookings Institution observes that the Great Lakes and its waterways âoffer a tremendous opportunity for reinvigorating the economy of the regionâ (Austin et al. 2007, 10). Consistent with this observation, the committeeâs recommended suite of actions, and in particular the harmonization of Canadian and U.S. BWM standards for vessels entering the Great Lakes, could help create an environment conducive to enhancing the re- gionâs global trade by removing current regulatory uncertainties about the availability of waterborne freight transportation. In ad- dition, opposition to Great Lakes shipping from those concerned about the negative impacts of ship-vectored AIS introductions could be greatly reduced in the event of substantial progress toward eliminating such introductions. As a result, states and provinces would feel less constrained in promoting economy-enhancing ini- tiatives dependent on waterborne transportation. Possible seaway- dependent, economy-enhancing initiatives include container feeder services between Great Lakes ports and container ports in Nova Scotia, increased short-sea shipping to avoid the growing conges- tion on certain land-based transportation corridors, and cruise ship operations associated with ecotourism. While it is not clear which, if any, of these ventures will succeed, all have a common thread: the need for unhindered shipping via the St. Lawrence Seaway. In the current climate of uncertainty about future BWM regu- lations, shipping companies and their business partners have dif- ï¬culty in developing sound business plans for future initiatives and in generating the investment capital needed to modernize and ex- pand their capabilities. Speciï¬cally, shipowners are reluctant to in- vest in ballast water treatment systems for existing or new vessels when the goals of the treatment are unclear. Widespread frustration at the delays in updating the U.S. Na- tional Invasive Species Act of 1996 appears to have led some groups to take action themselves to address the AIS problem. For exam- ple, the state of Michigan has established its own ballast water leg- islation, and other Great Lakes states are considering following
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 163 suit. In addition, environmental groups are taking action through the courts to have ballast water discharges regulated under the U.S. Clean Water Act. The adoption by the United States of BWM standards equiva- lent to those of IMO, as recommended by the committee, would not necessarily halt other legislative initiatives, including those by individual states. However, it would remove much of the cur- rent uncertainty and result in greater consistency in BWM re- quirements for vessels using the binational GLSLS system. Many observers have noted that a complex patchwork of BWM require- ments would complicate compliance, and the committee concurs with this view. The committee envisages that the shipping industry would bear the costs of installing and operating ballast water treatment and re- mote monitoring systems on its vessels. It recognizes that these ad- ditional costs could result in some transoceanic vessels ceasing operations into the Great Lakesâprobably âtrampâ vessels that visit the lakes infrequently. However, its discussions with repre- sentatives of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes maritime industry, the creation of marine industry environmental initiatives such as the binational Green Marine program,15 and efforts by individual shipping companies to investigate and implement ballast water treatment systems led the committee to conclude that transoceanic shipping through the seaway would not cease as a result of the ad- ditional costs associated with the proposed AIS control program. Forecasting future seaway trafï¬c and associated trade is fraught with difï¬culties, as discussed in Chapter 2. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 5, economic development and ensuing trade are inï¬u- enced by myriad forces, of which policies aimed at preventing further AIS introductions are only one. Thus, the impact of the committeeâs proposed suite of measures on seaway trafï¬c and on the Great Lakes regionâs global trade in general is impossible to an- ticipate with certainty. By keeping the seaway open to vessels that 15 Information on the marine industry environmental partnership, Green Marine, is available at www.cmc-ccm.com/cmc/english/greenmarine.asp.
1 64 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species take appropriate measures to protect against further AIS intro- ductions, the proposed approach provides opportunities to develop a variety of seaway-dependent, economy-enhancing initiatives. Furthermore, it helps ensure the availability of a variety of trans- portation options (routes and modes) within the region, thereby resulting in competitive pricing, which may in turn facilitate trade. Robust Approach The committeeâs recommended approach has the advantage that many of the proposed actions, notably the changes in BWM regu- lations, could be implemented within the next 2 to 3 years. The committee anticipates that the surveillance program, the control and eradication program, and the adaptive process could also be established in at least a preliminary form in a similar time frame, with enhancements being implemented in later years. The recommended approach has the further advantage of help- ing to solve the AIS problem in the Great Lakes without transfer- ring it to other locations, such as marine ports on the east coast of Canada and the United States. It also avoids the replacement of one environmental problem with another. While eliminating fur- ther introductions of AIS is desirable, it is questionable whether achievement of this goal should be at the expense of increases in other adverse environmental impacts associated with transporta- tion, including greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air contaminant emissions, accidents, and noise. Although data limitations pre- clude detailed quantitative comparisons of the environmental im- pacts of different modes of freight transportation, the marine mode is in many respects more environmentally friendly than the rail alternative that could be used to move the relatively low-value bulk commodities shipped on the seaway (Lawson 2007). The committeeâs recommended approach does not preclude fu- ture options that may further enhance opportunities for global trade in the Great Lakes region, as discussed earlier. In particular, it rec- ognizes that the seaway has a future value as a component of the regionâs transportation network, even though that value cannot
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 165 currently be quantiï¬ed. In addition, it does not preclude the pos- sibility of strengthening measures to protect against further AIS in- troductions, if experience and improved knowledge indicate that such action is necessary. The recommended adaptive process aims to facilitate such revisions by establishing a formal mechanism whereby necessary changes to prevention policies would be iden- tiï¬ed and brought to the attention of the governments of Canada and the United States. Resource Requirements Experience has shown that solving environmental problems requires resources, and the present case is no exception. The committee anticipates that full implementation of its suite of recommended actions will require resources over and above those already de- voted to the prevention of further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes. In particular, the recommended surveillance, control and eradication, and adaptive management initiatives will require new dedicated and continuing funding to ensure that their objectives are met. Although limited opportunities exist to leverage ongoing monitoring efforts as part of the surveillance program, these efforts alone are insufï¬cient to ensure that the overall scope of the pro- posed program is sufï¬ciently comprehensive to detect new AIS in a timely fashion. The committee anticipates that the recommended actions to be taken by Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard would be sup- ported by federal funding, given that they are closely related to the two agenciesâ current regulatory activities. The question remains, however, as to what extent federal funding (i.e., taxpayer revenues) could (or should) cover some of the other recommended actions, no- tably the surveillance, control, and adaptive management initiatives. Application of the âuser paysâ principle is one approach to generating funds for AIS prevention measures. As noted earlier, the committee envisages that the shipping industry will bear the costs of installing and operating shipboard systems on its vessels. A further option could be to levy user fees on vessels transiting
1 66 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species the seaway to help cover the costs of the recommended surveil- lance, control, and adaptive management efforts. However, be- cause these proposed efforts address the whole gamut of vectors and pathways by which AIS enter the Great Lakes, and not just shipping through the seaway, additional sources of funding would be needed. Furthermore, the imposition of such user fees would raise a number of potentially divisive issues, including the effects of assessing environmental fees against one mode of trans- portation (shipping) and not others (rail, truck), and against marine carriers in the Great Lakes region but not in other geo- graphic regions. As noted in Chapter 5, the debate about the extent to which users of transportation services should pay for externalities, such as the environmental costs of transportation, is complicated (see, for example, TRB 1996) and well beyond the scope of this report. In view of these complexities and those inherent in other fund- ing approaches (see, for example, Stewart 2007), the committee notes that further investigation of funding sources will be needed to ensure full implementation of its recommended AIS control program. MANAGING THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKESâ A VISION FOR THE FUTURE In the committeeâs view, changes driven by nature and by human activities on the Great Lakes themselves and on the immense drainage basin call for collective management. The present system of Great Lakesâ governance is fragmented among agencies and of- ï¬ces of two federal governments; eight states; two provinces; and myriad municipalities, local governments, and aboriginal peoples. All manner of treaties, agreements, institutions, and organizations have been created to address activities relating to the quantity and quality of waters from the lakes, such as commerce, planning, and pollution control. While many of these endeavors are cooperative efforts between Canada and the United States, there is no compre-
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 167 hensive, coordinated, and coherent binational governance or man- agement structure that can identify shared societal goals and ensure that the Great Lakes are managed in such a way that desired values and uses are nurtured and sustained. During its work, the committee observed that discrepancies be- tween Canadian and U.S. approaches can complicate efforts to pre- vent further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes. For example, inconsistencies between Canadian and U.S. BWM regulations com- plicate compliance for vessels but do not provide a greater degree of protection against AIS introductions for the nation with more stringent requirements. In contrast, efforts by the two nations to work together in preventing further AIS introductions can opti- mize the use of available resources to ensure maximum effective- ness, as illustrated by the example of the binational Ballast Water Working Group, which was formed in 2006 to address inspection and enforcement procedures for vessels entering the GLSLS system (see Chapter 4). To avoid unacceptable delays, the committee proposes that its recommended actions be undertaken by existing organizations with the appropriate expertise. In the case of the surveillance, con- trol, and adaptive management initiatives, this approach will likely require an expansion of the existing mandates of relevant organizations. The committee recognizes that the issues of Great Lakes governance and environmental protection are far broader in scope than the subject of the present report. Nonetheless, it en- visions that, in the longer term, the recommended AIS control program might be implemented most effectively within the con- text of a revised governance structure, such as a new binational in- stitution charged with managing the waters of the Great Lakes. The new institutionâs mission would be to ensure that the Great Lakes support the values and uses important to society in a sustain- able manner, consistent with a vision proposed by Conservation Ontario (2006, 1): The Great Lakes Basin is a global treasure and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region is one where people, the environment, and the econ- omy are healthy and thrive for generations to come.
1 68 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species KEY POINTS â¢ The only way to eliminate further AIS introductions into the Great Lakes by vessels transiting the seaway would be to close the waterway to all vessel trafï¬c. Such action, which appears un- likely from a political perspective, would eliminate a trade route into and out of the Great Lakes and would not, therefore, enhance the regionâs potential for global trade. â¢ Closing the seaway to transoceanic shipping would reduce sub- stantially the risk of AIS introductions by vessels using the wa- terway. However, this action would not address the AIS problem in the Great Lakes in a timely fashion and would increase the cost of moving goods. It could also result in adverse environmental impacts associated with alternative transportation modes and routes, copycat actions or other reprisals by trading partners of the United States and Canada, and the elimination of future transportation options for the Great Lakes region. â¢ A comprehensive technology-based AIS program targeting all vessels transiting the seaway would constitute a practical and technically feasible approach that would go a long way toward eliminating further ship-vectored introductions into the Great Lakes and could help enhance the regionâs potential for global trade. â¢ A requirement for all transoceanic and coastal vessels transiting the seaway to conduct BWE or saltwater ï¬ushing, if combined with effective enforcement, would be an important step in en- suring that policies aimed at preventing further AIS introduc- tions into the Great Lakes reï¬ect the best current understanding of aquatic invasion biology and proven BWM practices. â¢ The adoption of a single set of ballast water standards for the Great Lakes equivalent to the proposed IMO BWM standards would provide a robust basis for evaluating the effectiveness of shipboard ballast water treatment systems and for informing fu- ture decisions about AIS prevention policies. This approach could also encourage investment by equipment manufacturers and shipowners in the development and demonstration of bal- last water treatment systems for vessels entering the Great Lakes.
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 169 â¢ A binational science-based surveillance program to monitor for the presence of new AIS in the Great Lakes would provide infor- mation that could be used to (a) investigate possible deï¬ciencies in prevention strategies and (b) develop capabilities for con- tainment, control, and possible subsequent eradication follow- ing the discovery of any new AIS. â¢ An adaptive process that takes account of new knowledge and lessons learned in preventing AIS introductions would ensure that the proposed technology-based AIS control program responds to the ever-changing challenges posed by AIS in the Great Lakes. REFERENCES Abbreviations IMO International Maritime Organization NRC National Research Council SLSDC St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation TRB Transportation Research Board Austin, J. C., S. Anderson, P. N. Courant, and R. E. Litan. 2007. Healthy Waters, Strong Economy: The Benefits of Restoring the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Brookings In- stitution, Washington, D.C. www.healthylakes.org/site_upload/upload/GrtLakesCost Beneï¬t.pdf. Conservation Ontario. 2006. Position on Great Lakes Sustainability. Dec. conservation- ontario.on.ca/policy-issues/CO_GL_position.pdf. Corbett, J. J., and J. J. Winebrake. 2007. Sustainable Goods Movement: Environmental Implications of Trucks, Trains, Ships, and Planes. Environmental Management, Nov., pp. 8â12. coast.cms.udel.edu/Papers/EMCorbettWinebrake2007.pdf. Costello, C., J. M. Drake, and D. M. Lodge. 2007. Evaluating an Invasive Species Policy: Ballast Water Exchange in the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, pp. 655â662. Gollasch, G., M. David, M. Voigt, E. Dragsund, C. Hewitt, and Y. Fukuyo. 2007. Critical Review of the IMO International Convention on the Management of Shipsâ Ballast Water and Sediments. Harmful Algae, Vol. 6, pp. 585â600. Gray, D. K., T. H. Johengen, D. F. Reid, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2007. Efï¬cacy of Open-Ocean Ballast Water Exchange as a Means of Preventing Invertebrate Invasions Between Freshwater Ports. Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 52, pp. 2386â2397.
1 70 Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species Grigorovich, I. A., A. V. Korniushin, D. K. Gray, I. C. Duggan, R. I. Colautti, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2003. Lake Superior: An Invasion Coldspot? Hydrobiologia, Vol. 499, pp. 191â210. Hart, R. C. 1988. Zooplankton Feeding Rates in Relation to Suspended Sediment Con- tent: Potential Inï¬uences on Community Structure in a Turbid Reservoir. Freshwater Biology, Vol. 19, pp. 123â139. Hodgson, J. R. 2007. Carrots and Sticks: Opportunities to Accelerate the Development and Adoption of Ballast Water Treatment Technologies for Vessels Operating into the Great Lakes. Hodgson and Associates, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April. IMO. 2004. International Convention for the Control and Management of Shipsâ Ballast Water and Sediments. London, United Kingdom. Jenkins, P. T. 2007. Brine as a Treatment Solution for the Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species Introductions into the Great Lakes by NOBOB Vessels. Prepared for Transport Canada Marine Safety by Philip T. Jenkins and Associates, Ltd., Fonthill, Ontario. Kazumi, J. 2007. Ballast Water Treatment Technologies and Their Application for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway. University of Miami, Fla., May. Kelly, D. W. 2007. Vectors and Pathways for Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the Great Lakes. Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand, June. Kelly, D. W., and J. Kazumi. 2007. Retroactive Evaluation of International Maritime Orga- nization Ballast Water Standards. Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand, and University of Miami, Fla., Sept. Kirk, K. L. 1991. Inorganic Particles Alter Competition in Grazing Plankton: The Role of Selective Feeding. Ecology, Vol. 72, pp. 915â923. Lake Carriersâ Association and Canadian Shipowners Association. 2001. Voluntary Man- agement Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping. Jan. 26. Lawson, J. 2007. The Environmental Footprint of Surface Freight Transportation. Lawson Economics Research, Inc., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, June. Lloydâs Register. 2007. Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. June. Millerd, F. 2007. Global Climate Change and Great Lakes International Shipping. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, May. NRC. 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Shipsâ Ballast Water. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Raaymakers, S. 2001. 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop. Global- last Monograph Series No. 4, Workshop Report, IMO, London, March 28â30. global- last.imo.org/monograph%204%20standards%20workshop.pdf. Reid, D. F., T. H. Joehengen, H. MacIsaac, F. Dobbs, M. Doblin, L. Drake, G. Ruiz, and P. Jenkins. 2007. Identifying, Verifying, and Establishing Options for Best Management
Committeeâs Conclusions and Recommended Option 171 Practices for NOBOB Vessels. Final report to the Great Lakes Protection Fund. www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task_rpts/2004/aisreid04-1.html. Ruiz, G. M., and J. T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion Vectors: A Conceptual Framework for Man- agement. In Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton, eds.), Island Press, pp. 459â504. SLSDC. 2007. Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 249, Dec. 31, pp. 74247â74250. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 2003. Aquatic Invasive Species: Uninvited Guests. House of Commons, Canada, May. Stewart, R. D. 2007. Do Institutional Mechanisms Exist to Set and Enforce Standards for the Great Lakes That Exceed the Ballast Water Performance and Exchange Standards Estab- lished by the International Maritime Organization? University of Wisconsin, Superior, June 11. Taylor, J. C., and J. L. Roach. 2005. Ocean Shipping in the Great Lakes: Transportation Cost Increases That Would Result from a Cessation of Ocean Vessel Shipping. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Mich., Aug. www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/C6D78A67- 0AEF-0264-A38619EC6FB0793A/OceanShippingReport091105.pdf. Taylor, J. C., and J. L. Roach. 2007. Ocean Shipping in the Great Lakes: An Analysis of Issues, Phase 2. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Mich., Oct. www.gvsu.edu/ business/index.cfm?id=11971F16-DBAF-2179-96B0680A95CC6F83. TRB. 1996. Special Report 246: Paying Our Way: Estimating Marginal Social Costs of Freight Transportation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. U.S. Coast Guard. 2007. 2006 Summary of Great Lakes Ballast Water Management Exams. Ninth District. Vander Zanden, M. J. 2007. Surveillance and Control of Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great Lakes. University of Wisconsin, Madison, June 15.