1 / 29

Ballast Water and the Columbia River: Patterns and Reporting Compliance

Ballast Water and the Columbia River: Patterns and Reporting Compliance. Christina Simkanin and Mark Sytsma. Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute. Five Major Ports. Receives ≈ 1,700 arrivals a year . Vessel Arrivals Statistics . 51% from Domestic Ports.

akiva
Download Presentation

Ballast Water and the Columbia River: Patterns and Reporting Compliance

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ballast Water and the Columbia River: Patterns and Reporting Compliance Christina Simkanin and Mark Sytsma Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute

  2. Five Major Ports • Receives ≈ 1,700 arrivals a year

  3. Vessel Arrivals Statistics • 51% from Domestic Ports • 49% from Foreign Ports • Majority of arrivals are Bulk Carriers • Discharge ≈ 6,300,000 m3 a year • 22% of discharge from Domestic Ports • 78% of discharge from Foreign Ports

  4. Vessel Arrivals – last-port-of-call Arrivals from: 3 oceans, 6 continents, 366 ports, 66 countries From Dr. Ian Davidson, ABRPI

  5. Salinity of Ballast Water Source Port Figure from Noble et al., 2006

  6. Unexchanged Ballast Water Discharge • 91% of BW discharged is exchanged • ≈ 567,000 m3 of unexchanged water a year

  7. Lower Columbia River Survey • 81 organisms introduced to the LCR since mid 1800’s BW: 29 Invertebrates, 1 Aquatic Plant HF: 8 Invertebrates From Sytsma et al., 2004

  8. Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting National Invasive Species Act: Mandates Voluntary National BW Program for Foreign arrivals 1996 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

  9. Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting National BW Program Established: Exchange and Reporting Required for Foreign Arrivals 1996 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

  10. Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting Washington Ballast Water Program: Mandatory Exchange and Reporting for Foreign and Domestic Vessels (exchange exemption South of 50˚N to CR) 1996 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

  11. Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting Oregon Ballast Water Program: Mandatory Exchange and Reporting for Foreign and Domestic Arrivals (exchange exemption between 40˚N - 50˚N) 1996 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

  12. Columbia River BW Regulations: Management and Reporting USCG Mandatory BW Program: Fines for non-compliance, reporting for Foreign and Domestic arrivals- Exchange for Foreign arrivals only 1996 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06

  13. Reporting Requirements for CR Arrivals Foreign Arrivals Domestic/Coastal Arrivals USCG Regulations • 24 hrs. advance of arrival • USCG reporting form: electronic/hardcopy • National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) OR-WA Regulations • 24 hrs. advance of arrival • USCG reporting form: hardcopy • Merchants Exchange of Portland (PdxMex) Figure from Ruiz et al., 2001

  14. Ballast Water Management Reports • Vessels submit BW Reports to the NBIC and PdxMex • NBIC receives, processes, and analyzes National Ballast Water data. • PdxMex reports are forwarded to State Agencies: WDFW and ODEQ. Data is entered and analyzed by WDFW and PSU • Redundancy through duplication of effort between the Federal and State Programs

  15. Reporting Pilot Project Aim: To demonstrate that through Federal and State collaboration it’s possible to increase the quantity and quality of ballast water data received, and reduce the duplication of effort thereby increasing efficiency. • Utilize the already developed and standardized federal data management program (NBIC) • Utilize a regional contact (PSU) to follow-up on missing or erroneous reports and inform vessels/agents on reporting requirements. • Quantify the differences in compliance rates between the federal and state programs.

  16. Columbia River Reporting Rates: Local/State Level Data Collection • BW Reports from PdxMex • Vessel arrivals database • Agent Contact • Record Keeping • Quality Control *Keep in mind that this data includes all of the ports on the Columbia River, does not include Barges, and all state data before 2005 was collected by the WDFW.

  17. Increasing the Quantity of Data Reporting Compliance/State Level Arrivals Submitting Reports Arrivals Not Submitting Reports Pilot Project

  18. Increasing the Quality of Data Reporting Compliance/State Level Submitted No Report Late/Incomplete Pilot Project

  19. Effect of Local Follow-up with Agents Submitted Before Agent Contact Submitted After Agent Contact Not Submitted 2005 2006

  20. Columbia River Reporting Rates: Federal Level Daily Monitoring of Compliance: • Hardcopy Reports: Faxed • Web interface: Electronic Reporting • Currently vessels which do not report Federally are not contacted by the NBIC or PSU. • Federal legislation requires that BW data is collected from ships, or their agents, reporting directly to the NBIC and not via an intermediary. • Agents contacted for local follow-up are reminded of Federal reporting requirements.

  21. Web-Based System for Viewing Electronic Submissions to the NBIC

  22. Reducing Duplication: Increasing Data Efficiency Monthly Analysis of Compliance: • Comparison of reports received by the State and the NBIC • NBIC sends PSU monthly data records of the reports received, which are downloaded into a PSU database • Data not contained in these data records i.e. vessels which reported to the state but not the NBIC (includes data gained through local follow-up) are manually entered by PSU staff.

  23. Federal - State Comparison Pilot Project Began Contacting Agents for Follow-up USCG Increases Penalties, Establishes coastal reporting

  24. Federal - State Comparison: Increased Data Quality through Local Follow-up Total Ballast Water Discharged (m3) in the Columbia River Using Three Data Sources

  25. Results Summary: Collaboration between the State and Federal programs can lead to: • Increased quantity and quality of reports/data • Increased reporting compliance over time: State level: YES ? Federal level: • Increased data efficiency These results demonstrate the value of local/regional follow-up to BW data quality; and by decreasing the duplication of effort more time is available for analysis and dissemination of results.

  26. Conclusion • The Columbia River now has one of the most complete ballast water databases in the world (95% of vessels reporting in 2005). • Adds to the success of the other ballast water programs on the West Coast: • California in 2004, 97% of vessels reporting (Faulkner et al., 2005). • Washington, Puget Sound and WA Coastal ports, in 2005, 88% of vessels reporting (WDFW, 2006).

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

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

  29. Reducing Duplication: Increasing Data Efficiency Federal Compliance Reports Entered Manually into database Report Submitted

More Related