Maine Ballast Water Bill surfaces; will big shipping sink it (again)?

LD1693 An Act To Protect the Environment and Natural Resources of the State by Regulating the Discharge of Certain Substances into the Environment 

LD 1693 adds to Maine water pollution law. It  would  "prohibit ocean-going vessels from discharging ballast water that contains any detectable living organisms into the coastal waters of the State after January 1, 2021"

The bill proposes a two step affair:  Interim standards in effect from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2021, requiring ocean-going vessels to obtain a permit from Maine DEP to discharge ballast water that contains 

A.  Any detectable living organisms greater than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension;

B.  More than 0.01% living organisms that are between 10 and 50 micrometers in minimum dimension;

C.  For living organisms that are less than 10 micrometers in minimum dimension:

(1) More than 1,000 bacteria per 100 milliliters;

(2) More than 10,000 viruses per 100 milliliters; and

(3) Concentrations of microbes that constitute more than 125 colony-forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters

After  January 1, 2021, discharges of ballast water from ocean going ships would be outright banned, with a fine of up to $10,000.

A good idea and thus it is unlikely to pass, for reasons lawsuits by corporatings over interference with   interstate and global  commerce. But if it does, then 1: bravo! the state will be gathering data on what's in the ballast water and anchor lockers of ships, a good thing; and 2: MDEP will get a new revenue stream; always a plus in the eyes of the agency.

But the deep pockets they would like to tap by licensing ballast water pollution are deep enough to be unruffled by a  mere $10,000  cost of doing business  fine.   Except inasmuch as the ballast-belching vessel could lose its license to do so in state waters

Again, though, one can't help looking back to the earlier struggle Maine and Washington state lost over requiring tankers to meet state operating standards while in state waters.  The deep pockets of the  shipping industry  won the day in that case 

Penobscot Bay fish habitat -what sprawl, pollution and dredging does to it

A report quite relevant to the Sears Island Question came out earlier this year - feds and scientists finally taking a long hard look at the effects in New England waters that pollution, development, dams, ballast water discharge, dredging and the whole wretched mess of nonfishing impacts does to the homes and working places of our wild fishes.

The report: Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States, comes in a handy each-chapter-a-seperate-pdf-file format that lets you browse through it easily: (you'll have to click on the above link to read them)

Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are helpful in understanding what harm a port on Sears Island could do. Read 'em!

Chapter One: Technical Workshop on Impacts to Coastal Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities
Chapter Two: Coastal Development
Chapter Three: Energy-related Activities
Chapter Four: Alteration of Freshwater Systems
Chapter Five: Marine Transportation
Chapter Six: Offshore Dredging and Disposal Activities
Chapter Seven: Chemical Effects—Water Discharge Facilities
Chapter Eight: Physical Effects—Water Intake and Discharge Facilities
Chapter Nine: Agricultures and Silviculture
Chapter Ten: Introduced/Nuisance Species and Aquaculture
Chapter Eleven: Global Effects and Other Impacts
Chapter Twelve: Compensatory Mitigation

Conclusions and Recommendations

Invasive species solution - a look outside the box.

In addition to organisms stowing away in ballast water, ships transport aquatic and marine life on their submerged hulls. The environment created by such organisms as barnacles, sea squirts other 'fouling' organisms, serves as protective habitat for even more species.

When the vessel's hull is cleaned, the biofouling community is scraped off and may well find its way into the harbor, bringing a host of species native to elsewhere.

A SOLUTION? 'Paint' the hulls of vessels with a preselected mix of fouling organisms , of a sort that is non-invasive in nature, that is already globally ubiquitous, that nonetheless makes short shrift of any other species that tries to com aboard the hull to pull an aquatic hitchhike across the seas by fouling to the ship or to the boat.

"Go away! There's no room at the inn", the invader wannabe is told.

Thats the idea, anyway. Let's explore it further at a later time and date.

IMO punts on ballast water

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has decided to delay enforcement of a 2009 requirement for new ships to have ballast water treatment equipment,arguing that the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention has not yet entered into force, and, moreover that there is a lack of type-approved equipment.

Shipping Industry group ICS has been complaining that cost-effective ballast water treating equipment continues to fail to be available since the 2004 IMO Conference which adopted 2009 for its mandatory use by certain ships constructed after this date. IMO agreed.

Bad ballast water bill pulled from consideration!

Pressed by environmental activists, the US Senate Commerce Committee has pulled a foul amendment from consideration as part of S 1578: the "Ballast Water Management Act of 2007". The industry supported "Nelson Amendment" would have stripped states of the right under the federal clean water act to prevent invader species from being discharged into their lakes, rivers and coastal waters in ballast water. Recreational boating industry was a major part of the impetus to weaken state powers.

According to a Snowe staffer in Washington, the Nelson Amendment was withdrawn by its sponsor, after Sen Barbara Boxer introduced, then withdrew, her own amendment restoring the primacy of the Clean Water Act. So the bill never came up before the Senate Commerce Committee Thursday and will be worked on into the future. See a recent (August 07) news article detailing the POVs of S 1578's critics and supporters.

Nina Bell of Northwest Environmental Advocates organized marine activists around the nation's coasts into signing a joint letter to Commerce Committee members opposing the bill, and organized a call-in campaign to legislators. Maine's Olympia Snowe "laid low", according to one observer familiar with the hearing, and was neither in support or opposition. Other Senators on the Commerce Committee were concerned enough by the issues raising in the letter and calls to pressure its withdrawal from consideration.

Bill strips Maine of power to fend off marine invader species.

Dear Friends,

In the cause of environmental justice, please urge Senator Olympia Snowe to vote against a bill -- S 1578--the so-called "Ballast Water Management Act of 2007" The bill is coming up before the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow.

Please call the capital switchboard (202) 224-3121) ask for Olympia Snowe. NOTE THE COMMITTEE VOTE IS TOMORROW. Snowe's staffers are totting up how much interest there is, so please call!

Under the Clean Water Act, Maine Department of Environmental Protection can impose strict conditions on ballast water discharges into state waters and even bar it entirely.

This water, required to be pumped out of the ballast holds of oceangoing cargo ships to accomodate the weight of onloaded cargo and to pass through shallow areas, is typically found to be rich with exotic marine life, pathogens and pollutants from distant waters and ports around the globe.

With actual andf attempted increases in cargo and tanker ships and barges picking up and delivering cargo at ports in Casco, Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Bays, the state needs to retain its powers to protect its vital lobster industry and other coastal fisheries from ecological disasters from marine invader species introduction --granted it under the Clean Water Act-- more than ever.

The new bill S 1578--the "Ballast Water Management Act of 2007" would declare the Coast Guard to be "the sole Federal authority" to limit species' introduction by vessels. This would invalidate Maine and other states' ability to use the powers given to states under the Clean Water Act to restrict such discharges.

Pushing this mandate of marine biological management onto an ill-equipped and already-overburdened US Coast Guard takes the agency into a regulatory area it lacks both expertise and time to perform successfully.

Even worse, under the bill the Coast Guard could postpone indefinitely the date at which whatever standards it finally comes up with are enacted. In the politicized morass of the present administration that can mean "never".

As a letter sent to the Commerce Committee today by fortyfour environmental and conservation groups notes:

"Individually and in combination, the proposed provisions precluding States from taking their own actions, exempting ballast water discharges from the Clean Water Act, and curtailing the federal agencies’ actions, result in a bill that we fear will perpetuate the economic and environmental harm of invasive species for many years to come."

Senator Snowe needs to know that this bill is bad news for Maine's lobsters and lobster industry. Maine is much better positioned to identify and prevent discharges of marine invader species into its waters that could put its fisheries and public health at risk.

Please call Snowe's office and urge her vote against this a fast-moving industry bill. With increases in cargo and tanker ships and barges picking up and delivering cargo at ports in Casco, Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Bays, the state needs its powers to prevent ecological disasters from marine invader species --granted it under the Clean Water Act-- more than ever.

Call Senator Snow via the capital switchboard (202) 224-3121, and let her know you care about marine Maine.

Ron Huber
Penobscot BayWatch