Alien Invasive Species
IJC Recommendation
"The Parties should take the following measures to
deal with alien invasive species:
(i) adopt and implement the binational ballast water research
strategy and plan described in the 1996-1997 Binational Progress Report
on Protection of Great Lakes Water Quality,
(ii) give a Reference to the Commission to develop:
(a) binational standards that should be applied to discharges
of ballast water, and
(b) recommendations on the most appropriate methods for
implementing those standards including, for example, the possibility
of on-board treatment of ballast water and residual ballast sediment
and the possibility of establishing ballast water and residual ballast
sediment treatment facilities in the lower St. Lawrence River."
Response to Recommendation
Binational Research Strategy
The Tenth Biennial Report notes that the IJC has not received
a response to a November 1998 letter sent to both Parties on the adoption
of the ballast water research strategy and plan as outlined in the IJC's
1996-7 report on protection of Great Lakes water quality. In fact, the
binational research strategy has been adopted in one form or another by
a number of organizations.
Both countries have developed mechanisms to make progress on this issue.
The United States has established the Great Lakes Panel of the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force (set up under the authority of the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990). The Great Lakes
Panel formally adopted a slightly abbreviated form of the strategy in
February 1998. In March 2001, the panel released a policy statement on
ballast water management that makes recommendations with respect to standards,
coordination, and technological research needs for the Great Lakes basin.
The Canadian federal government and the Province of Ontario are represented
on the Great Lakes Panel.
In Canada, the binational research strategy was presented to the National
Working Group of the Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) in November
1997 and at subsequent meetings, and has been supported by that group.
Additionally, this research strategy has been presented to both subgroups
of the CMAC Great Lakes Ballast Water Working Group (GL and St. Lawrence).
In practice, this means that the various funding agencies have considered
the strategy in a fairly broad context when making grants specific to
the ballast water vector. Thus, since 1998 the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Seagrant
funding has in fact gone to projects that examine the tenets of the strategy.
Representatives of the Parties also sit on these grant-evaluation committees.
Studies have examined, for example, both the efficacy of ballast water
exchange with respect to safety and the field tests and protocols that
confirm ballast exchange has taken place at sea. While many of the studies
have not been specific to the Great Lakes, the results are fully applicable
to them. In its statement of requirements, the NOAA Seagrant program has
specifically required a focus on both the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay.
In Canada, representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) and Transport Canada (TC) provided data and information to Lloyds
Register for its study of the safety of sequential exchange. They also
assisted in communicating the study's findings in North America to CMAC
and the Tenth Annual Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference in Toronto in
February 2000, as well as to the International Maritime Organization.
The pathogen- human health issue was examined both by the Phase II
studies of the Great Lakes Demonstration Project and more recently by
researchers at the Smithsonian Institute. The results were published in
the periodical Nature and in the Globe and Mail [Toronto],
and were broadcast by CNN and CTV News.
The "no ballast on board" (NOBOB) issue is being examined by
a number of agencies and forums. The issue of sediment/mud is currently
being investigated by a binational study involving the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab (GLERL), the University of Windsor, and Canadian experts.
The DFO has funded a national ballast water project from the Environmental
Science Strategic Research Fund. It has also supported type testing of
Hydrocyclone/UV technology that could be applied to mitigate ballast water
uptake in ships.
Biocide studies currently underway at the University of Michigan (gluteraldehyde)
and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (chlorine) are both
expected to result in pilot projects in the upcoming year. Federal Commerce
and Navigation Ltd. has cooperated fully and has offered ship access and
time for these studies. The DFO has supported studies into organic acids
(juglone/periacetic acid/hydrogen peroxide) as has NOAA Seagrant.
Ongoing research as outlined in the strategy has been supported. The
Great Lakes Demonstration Project has been relocated for logistical reasons
to a facility in Duluth, and testing took place on secondary treatment
options (UV and Hydrocyclone /UV) this season. Representatives of the
Parties sit on the Steering and Technical Committees for the project.
They have also been very involved with the various forums chaired by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that are examining operational
possibilities for NOBOBs and biocides. Representatives of the Parties
have acted as Chairs of the Research Committee of the Great Lakes Panel
of the Aquatic Nuisance Task Force.
To date, one area that has not had any significant follow-up has been
the further examination of heat as a biocide (shoreside or shipboard).
Australian studies are continuing and a number of engine manufacturers¾
notably Wartsila¾ are looking at the issue; but there has been little
progress specific to the Great Lakes.
IJC Reference
Canada recognizes the value of having the IJC assume a coordinating role
to deal with alien invasive species in the Great Lakes, but does not support
the concept of an IJC reference at this time.
Canada's support is tempered, first, by the need to prioritize funding
for IJC studies and references and, second, by the fact that the Canadian
and U.S. governments are already working closely in this area and believe
that progress is being made. Canada has stated its intention to develop
ballast water management regulations for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River in 2002. These proposed regulations are being developed in consultation
with the USCG so that they will be harmonized with U.S. requirements.
Furthermore, both Canada and the United States are working through the
International Maritime Organization to develop international regulations
and standards. Again, progress is being made.
Both Parties have supported the need for standards with respect to the
discharge of ballast water. Indeed a number of forums hosted by the Parties
(USCG Ballast Water and Shipping Committee; Standards Forum¾ Tenth
ANS Conference Toronto) have examined how such standards could be applied.
There is considerable debate by experts on both sides of the border not
only about the standards that could be applied, but also about the form
that they would take and the way they could be applied physically and
legally. Some experts (e.g., Great Lakes Fishery Commission and DFO Science)
advocate biologically based discharge standards. Others (USCG Standards
Committee and the shipping industry in general) favour standards based
on "best available technology."
DFO Science is reviewing the economic, technological, and policy considerations
of establishing, in the coming months, a facility to treat ships located
in the St. Lawrence. An Environment Canada/Transport Canada study will
examine the impact of ballast water treatment both on the shipping industry
of the Great Lakes and on the environment. It is assumed that the outcome
of these studies will be useful in answering the IJC's concerns on this
issue.
|
