Alternative Ballast Water Exchange Areas Workshop June 20-22, 2006 Seattle, Washington Maurya B Falkner California State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Division State of California Alternative Ballast Water Exchange Areas Perspectives

California’s Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species  Passenger vessels from Mexican ports Alternative management as effective as mid-ocean BWE Develop plan to compare AEZ with mid-ocean waters Involved USCG, scientist, state regulatory agencies After 18 months of negotiations study never completed  Alternative request denied

Marine Invasive Species Act Mandates for the Coastal Regulation P.R.C. Section “…shall adopt regulations governing ballast water management for vessels arriving at a California port or place from a port or place within the Pacific Coast Region.” The commission / regulation shall… “…consider vessel design and voyage duration…” “…be based on the best available technology economically achievable…” “…be designed to protect the waters of the state.” “…include…restrictions or prohibitions on discharge…into areas…shown to have a capacity of retain organisms.”

Development of the Regulation: Workshops and Advisory Groups 2002 Workshop West Coast Oceanography: Implications for Ballast Exchange  Avoid “retention zones” (50 nm)  Avoid estuary and river plumes (15 nm)  Avoid waters shallower than 200 m 2003 Workshop West Coast Exchange  Participants (50 Total from CA, OR, WA): Maritime Industry, Environmental Groups, Biological Oceanographers, Regulators  Consensus points:  Consistency with federal/international regulations  Safety exemptions  Consider impacts to the merchant industry (economic)  Consider ballast exchange zones  No exchange 200 m or shallower  Should be enforceable, meaningful, and understandable NOAA / Biogeography Program Point Conception

Exclusion Zones

~=25NM (46.3 km) ~=50NM (92.6 km)

Development of the Regulation: Workshops and Advisory Groups 2004 CSLC Technical Advisory Group Meeting California Coastal Ballast Water Management  Participants (38 Total from CA, OR, WA): Industry, Regulators, Environmental Groups  Consensus Points  50 nm ballast water exchange  Designation of shared waters  Develop an alternatives process for vessels unable to comply 2005 California Rulemaking Process  Approved September 23, 2005  Effective March 22, 2006

QUESTIONS/ISSUES Biological/physical/chemical composition in AEZs Impact of BWE on AEZs Risk of onshore transport from discharges at AEZs Water movement on, off and along shore

RESEARCH NEEDS Chemical/physical/biological parameters? Site specificity? Local vs. regional vs. national? Oceanographic modeling?

MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS/ISSUES Need to establish AEZ Origin of vessel? Conditions necessary to utilize AEZ Onus on regulatory or regulated community? Applicability California versus West Coast versus National? Consistency Existing state and international requirements

CA Marine Invasive Species Program

Issues and Concerns Extreme safety issue (esp. tow barges) involved with exchange. Barge owner/operators can utilize: safety exemption petition for alternatives > 6-months before regulations go into effect Compliance may represent hardships not associated with safety petition for alternatives > 6-months before regulations go into effect

Issues and Concerns “Shared Water” designation best available information strongly indicates that transfer between CA ports should not occur. Lack of overlap of NIS LA-LB = Los Angeles-Long Beach Port Complex, SD = Port of San Diego, SF = Ports and places in San Francisco Bay/Delta area. Request to include “Undue delay or deviation” language insufficient language for a regulation requires definition and contingencies likely won’t meet Clarity Standard