Types of vessels arriving at the different SFE...
1
Risky business: Comparative nonindigenous species risk from vessels at Bay Delta ports Raya Nedelcheva*, Jonathan Thompson, and Nicole Dobroski Marine Invasive Species Program, California State Lands Commission, 100 Howe Ave., Suite 100 South, Sacramento, CA 95825 [email protected] INTRODUCTION In North America, the rate of reported nonindigenous species (NIS) introductions in marine and estuarine waters has increased exponentially over the last 200 years (Ruiz et al. 2000, 2011). One of the primary factors leading to the increase of new introductions has been the vast expansion of global trade during the past 50 years. Commercial ships transport species in ballast water and biofouling. These two mechanisms contribute up to 79.5% of introductions in North America (Fofonoff et al. 2003) and up to 81% in California (Ruiz et al. 2011). The San Francisco Bay-Delta (SFBD) is one of the most severely invaded coastal water bodies in the world (Cohen and Carlton 1995). About 65% of California’s established marine invasive species were first recorded within the SFBD (Ruiz et al. 2011). The seven commercial port zones in the SFBD receive a large number of vessel arrivals, contributing to heavy traffic loads in the estuary, and making it an important commercial shipping destination. This study examined the commercial shipping activities at all seven SFBD port zones and includes an evaluation of vessel arrivals, their ballast water management strategies, and their biofouling management patterns. METHODS ❖ The California State Lands Commission (Commission) collects ballast water and biofouling management data on vessels 300 gross registered tons or greater arriving at California ports. ❖ Ballast water management data has been collected through vessel-submitted Ballast Water Management Reports (BWMR) for every vessel arrival since 2000. ❖ Biofouling management data has been collected through annual vessel- submitted Hull Husbandry Reporting Forms (HHRF) since 2008. ❖ The Ballast Water data analyzed in this study are from 2008 to 2016. ❖ The Biofouling data analyzed in this study are from 2008 to 2015. Figure 2a. Types of vessels arriving at the different SFE ports. (represented by the red diamond) and total number of vessels submitting HHRFs (represented by the grey bar). Data reported from 2008 to 2015. Figure 4. Average (± Standard Deviation) Coating Ages for Vessels Operating in California from 2008 through 2015. The data is normalized to the number of submitting vessels. BIOFOULING RESULTS BALLAST WATER RESULTS REFERENCES ❖ Cohen, A. N. and J. T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 246 pgs. ❖ Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts of North America. Pp. 152-181. In Invasive species, vectors and management strategies. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton eds. Island Press, Washington D.C., ❖ Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531. ❖ Ruiz, G. M., P.W.Fofonoff, B. Steves, S.F. Foss, and S.N. Shiba. 2011. Marine invasion history and vector analysis of California: a hotspot for western North America. Diversity and Distributions 17, 362-373. ❖ Scianni, C., C. Brown, A. Newsom, R. Nedelcheva, M. Falkner, N. Dobroski. 2013. 2013 Biennial report on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature. 157 pp. ❖The Port of Oakland receives the most vessel arrivals in the SFBD. Arrivals are primarily container vessels, of which 96% retain their ballast water. ❖Redwood City receives mostly bulk vessels; 32% of arriving vessels discharge ballast water. ❖Bulk and tank vessels make up 81% of all Stockton arrivals. About 56% of the bulk arrivals discharge ballast water. DISCUSSION ❖ SFBD ports received approximately 32,400 vessel arrivals from 2008 to 2016. The large number of arrivals makes the SFBD a commercially active water body with several types of commercial vessels conducting business in its ports. ❖ Overall, 82% of all vessels arriving to SFBD ports retained their ballast water for the period between 2008 and 2016. ❖ Ballast water discharges are influenced by vessel type, with bulk and tank vessels the most numerous dischargers in SFBD. ❖ The ballast water that is discharged can be further evaluated as compliant and noncompliant with California’s laws (see Brown et al. 2015). Noncompliant ballast water discharges present greater risk of NIS introductions. ❖ The recent age of coatings applied on vessels arriving at SFBD ports indicates many of the arriving vessels are putting effort into maintaining up-to-date coatings, which may reduce the risk of NIS introductions via the biofouling vector. However, this is only one of the biofouling components that need to be evaluated to determine the risk of NIS introductions in SFBD. ❖ In order to reduce the risk of NIS introductions from commercial shipping activities in the SFBD and the rest of California, Commission staff is working on increasing compliance with current management practices and developing novel management strategies. Discharging vs. Retaining Types of vessels that arrive at each port Discharging vs. Retaining Sacramento Stockton San Francisco Redwood City Oakland Carquinez Richmond Types of vessels that arrive at each port Figure 1a. Total number of vessel arrivals and the number that are discharging/retaining ballast water for the time period from 2008 to 2016. Figure 1b. Total number of vessel arrivals and the number that are discharging/retaining ballast water for the time period from 2008 to 2016. Figure 2a. Types of vessels arriving at SFBD ports. Figure 2b. Types of vessels arriving at SFBD ports. 2000 2500 10000 250 100 120 Tank Total Vessel Arrivals 250 300 Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Tank Barge ❖The number of individual vessels arriving at SFBD Ports has been stable during the period 2008-2012. ❖HHRF submission compliance has been increasing, from 72% in 2008 to the highest submission compliance of 94% in 2015. ❖The majority of vessels that arrive in SFBD have coatings that less than 2 years old. 2000 2500 Total Vessel Arrivals Carquinez Richmond Sacramento Stockton Why? We examine the number of vessels discharging versus the number of vessels retaining because ballast water discharges pose some level of risk of NIS introductions, while retention eliminates the risk posed by ballast water. Why? We examine the number of vessels complying with hull husbandry requirements of California Law. Additionally we look at the anti-fouling coating ages as reported by vessels. Coating age is important because coating effectiveness may decrease with age and present greater risk of NIS introductions. Carquinez Richmond San Francisco Sacramento Oakland Stockton Redwood 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total HHRF Submissions Unique Vessel 72% 91% 93% 93% 93% 94% 89% 91% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 <1 1 - < 2 2 - < 3 3 - < 4 4 - < 5 5+ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Carquinez 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals San Francisco 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Oakland 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Richmond 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Total Vessel Arrivals Sacramento 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Stockton 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Auto Bulk Container General Other Passenger Tank Barge Total Vessel Arrivals Redwood City Individual Vessel Arrivals Agenda Item 8 - Poster Handout Meeting Date: October 26, 2017
Transcript of Types of vessels arriving at the different SFE...
Risky business: Comparative nonindigenous species risk from vessels at Bay Delta ports
Raya Nedelcheva*, Jonathan Thompson, and Nicole DobroskiMarine Invasive Species Program, California State Lands Commission, 100 Howe Ave., Suite 100 South, Sacramento, CA 95825
INTRODUCTIONIn North America, the rate of reported nonindigenous species (NIS) introductions in marine and estuarine waters has
increased exponentially over the last 200 years (Ruiz et al. 2000, 2011). One of the primary factors leading to the increase of new introductions has been the vast expansion of global trade during the past 50 years. Commercial ships transport species inballast water and biofouling. These two mechanisms contribute up to 79.5% of introductions in North America (Fofonoff et al. 2003) and up to 81% in California (Ruiz et al. 2011).
The San Francisco Bay-Delta (SFBD) is one of the most severely invaded coastal water bodies in the world (Cohen and Carlton 1995). About 65% of California’s established marine invasive species were first recorded within the SFBD (Ruiz et al.2011). The seven commercial port zones in the SFBD receive a large number of vessel arrivals, contributing to heavy traffic loads in the estuary, and making it an important commercial shipping destination.
This study examined the commercial shipping activities at all seven SFBD port zones and includes an evaluation of vesselarrivals, their ballast water management strategies, and their biofouling management patterns.
METHODS❖ The California State Lands Commission (Commission) collects ballast water and
biofouling management data on vessels 300 gross registered tons or greater arriving at California ports.
❖ Ballast water management data has been collected through vessel-submitted Ballast Water Management Reports (BWMR) for every vessel arrival since 2000.
❖ Biofouling management data has been collected through annual vessel-submitted Hull Husbandry Reporting Forms (HHRF) since 2008.
❖ The Ballast Water data analyzed in this study are from 2008 to 2016.
❖ The Biofouling data analyzed in this study are from 2008 to 2015.
Figure 2a. Types of vessels arriving at the different SFE ports.
Figure 3. Number of individual vessels calling ports in California (represented by the red diamond) and total number of vessels submitting HHRFs (represented by the grey bar). Data reported from 2008 to 2015.
Figure 4. Average (± Standard Deviation) Coating Ages for Vessels Operating in California from 2008 through 2015. The data is normalized to the number of submitting vessels.
BIOFOULING RESULTS
BALLAST WATER RESULTS
REFERENCES❖Cohen, A. N. and J. T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 246 pgs.
❖ Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts of North America. Pp. 152-181. In Invasive species, vectors and management strategies. G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton eds. Island Press, Washington D.C.,
❖Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531.
❖Ruiz, G. M., P.W.Fofonoff, B. Steves, S.F. Foss, and S.N. Shiba. 2011. Marine invasion history and vector analysis of California: a hotspot for western North America. Diversity and Distributions 17, 362-373.
❖ Scianni, C., C. Brown, A. Newsom, R. Nedelcheva, M. Falkner, N. Dobroski. 2013. 2013 Biennial report on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature. 157 pp.
❖The Port of Oakland receives the most vessel arrivals in the SFBD. Arrivals are primarily container vessels, of which 96% retain their ballast water.
❖Redwood City receives mostly bulk vessels; 32% of arriving vessels discharge ballast water.
❖Bulk and tank vessels make up 81% of all Stockton arrivals. About 56% of the bulk arrivals discharge ballast water.
DISCUSSION
❖ SFBD ports received approximately 32,400 vessel arrivals from 2008 to 2016. The large number of arrivals makes the SFBD a commercially active water body with several types of commercial vessels conducting business in its ports.
❖ Overall, 82% of all vessels arriving to SFBD ports retained their ballast water for the period between 2008 and 2016.
❖ Ballast water discharges are influenced by vessel type, with bulk and tank vessels the most numerous dischargers in SFBD.
❖ The ballast water that is discharged can be further evaluated as compliant and noncompliant with California’s laws (see Brown et al. 2015). Noncompliant ballast water discharges present greater risk of NIS introductions.
❖ The recent age of coatings applied on vessels arriving at SFBD ports indicates many of the arriving vessels are putting effort into maintaining up-to-date coatings, which may reduce the risk of NIS introductions via the biofouling vector. However, this is only one of the biofouling components that need to be evaluated to determine the risk of NIS introductions in SFBD.
❖ In order to reduce the risk of NIS introductions from commercial shipping activities in the SFBD and the rest of California, Commission staff is working on increasing compliance with current management practices and developing novel management strategies.
Discharging vs. RetainingTypes of vessels
that arrive at each port
Discharging vs. Retaining
Sacramento
Stockton
San Francisco
Redwood City
Oakland
Carquinez
Richmond
Types of vessels that arrive at
each port
Figure 1a. Total number of vessel arrivals and the number that are discharging/retaining ballast water for the time period from 2008 to 2016.
Figure 1b. Total number of vessel arrivals and the number that are discharging/retaining ballast water for the time period from 2008 to 2016.
Figure 2a. Types of vessels arriving at SFBD ports.
Figure 2b.Types of vessels arriving at SFBD ports.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
❖The number of individual vessels arriving at SFBD Ports has been stable during the period 2008-2012.
❖HHRF submission compliance has been increasing, from 72% in 2008 to the highest submission compliance of 94% in 2015.
❖The majority of vessels that arrive in SFBD have coatings that less than 2 years old.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
Carquinez Richmond
San Francisco Oakland
Sacramento Stockton
Redwood City
Why? We examine the number of vessels discharging versus the number of vessels retaining because ballast water discharges pose some level of risk of NIS introductions, while retention eliminates the risk posed by ballast water.
Why? We examine the number of vessels complying with hull husbandry requirements of California Law. Additionally we look at the anti-fouling coating ages as reported by vessels. Coating age is important because coating effectiveness may decrease with age and present greater risk of NIS introductions.
Carquinez
Richmond
San Francisco
Sacramento
Oakland
Stockton
Redwood
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total HHRFSubmissions
Unique VesselArrivals
72%
91% 93% 93% 93%
94%
89% 91%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
<1 1 - < 2 2 - < 3 3 - < 4 4 - < 5 5+
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s Carquinez
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s San Francisco
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s Oakland
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s Richmond
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
Sacramento
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s
Stockton
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Au
to
Bu
lk
Co
nta
iner
Gen
eral
Oth
er
Pas
sen
ger
Tan
k
Bar
ge
Tota
l Ve
sse
l Arr
ival
s Redwood City
Individual Vessel Arrivals
Agenda Item 8 - Poster Handout Meeting Date: October 26, 2017
