BOAT WASHING STATIONS: JUST A LEAKY SIEVE

1
BOAT WASHING STATIONS JUST A LEAKY SIEVE?

• Douglas A. Jensen
• University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program
• 218.726.8712 or djensen1_at_d.umn.edu

Zebra Mussels and Other Alien Invaders
Seminar Galway, Ireland March 9, 2006
2
Background

• Overland transport of recreational boats poses
  significant risks for spreading harmful AIS to
  marine and freshwaters
• 12.7 million registered boaters in the U.S. use
  their watercraft frequently on different waters
• Boat wash stations have been proposed by
  agencies, organizations and communities to
  prevent and slow the spread of AIS
• Dozens of washing stations have been designed and
  constructed across the U.S. and Ontario

3
Risks of Watercraft Pathways

• Low/Moderate Movement of contaminated water in
  bait buckets livewells (veligers only)

• Moderate/High Overland transport by day users
  (on plants veligers)

• High Risk Moored/stored boats in infested waters
  for gt1 day, then moved to other waters (adults)

4
Methods

• Compiled information gathered from agencies and
  organizations in the Great Lakes region
  (1999-2002)
• Continued to keep abreast of situation
• Conducted Web search for information on boat
  washing stations (2006)
• Revised presentation based on this research

5
Methods

• Several boat wash stations have been built and
  constructed through 2006
• Applied under various conditions
• Permanent
• Portable
• Mandatory
• Volunteer
• They have issues in common
• Only one evaluated feasibility
• and efficacy of boat wash stations with
  consideration to a wide-scale
  prevention effort

6
Case Studies

• Permanent
• Owasco Lake, Auburn, New York
• Lake Minnetonka, Twin Cities, Minnesota
• Portable
• Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
• Twin Cities area, Minnesota

7
Case 1 Owasco Lake

• Permanent unit
• Municipal water source
• Mandatory boat cleaning
• Initial boater opposition
• Not 100 coverage (only one of
  several accesses)
• Infested with zebra mussels in 1997
• Delayed infestation? Maybe
• Did it hurt? No
• No efficacy trials conducted

8
Case 2 Lake Minnetonka

• Permanent unit
• Municipal water source
• Mandatory boat cleaning
• Initial boater opposition
• Not 100 coverage
• Expensive to staff
• ½ million boaters access lake annually
• Not infested as of 2006
• No efficacy trials conducted
• Hardly ever used so mostly discontinued

9
Case 3 Peterborough

• Portable unit operated by trained staff for 3
  seasons
• Crews operated high volume accesses, fishing
  tourneys, and other events
• Voluntary boat cleaning
• Used as an education tool w/displays,
  brochures, etc.
• Expensive to staff
• Discontinued in 1996
• No efficacy trials conducted

10
Case 4 Twin Cities Area

• Portable unit operated by trained DNR staff at 6
  sites on four weekends in 1995
• Voluntary boat cleaning following a watercraft
  inspection and survey
• Unit located in low traffic flow area
• Feasibility objectives
• Efficacy
• Boater acceptance

11
Case 4 Twin Cities Area

• 215 boats inspected
• 60 washed (n128)
• 40 refused (n87)
• Boater attitude as an
  effective method
• 63 yes
• 30 not sure
• 7 no
• Boater attitude toward mandatory vs.
  voluntary
• 63 agree washing should be
  mandatory on infested waters
• 37 agree washing should be
  encouraged, but voluntary

12
Case 4 Twin Cities Area

• Assessment of WTP (cont., n128)
• 45 would be WTP
• 30 not WTP
• 25 on the fence
• Of the WTP or OTF
• 64 would pay 1-2
• 29 would pay 3-4
• 7 would pay 5-6

13
Case 4 Twin Cities Area

• Assessment of willingness to spend time to have
  boat washed (n128)
• 69 _at_ 5 min
• 26 _at_ 10 min
• 5 _at_ 15 min

14
Case 4 Twin Cities AreaSummary

• WTP, cost recovery and time expectations were
  inconsistent with a mandatory program
• Lack of WTP (40) would hamper effectiveness of a
  wide scale boat washing program
• Costs would need to be heavily subsidized
• Popular sites will cause delays
• Delays will cause traffic safety problems
• Importantly, washing did not remove 100 of
  aquatic vegetation

15
Discussion

• Boat washing stations are poor substitutes for an
  AIS public education effort unless public
  acceptance, efficacy, subsidy-costs, physical
  constraints, time, safety, and liability issues
  can be overcome
• Based on survey results, a
  proactive education program
  or campaign is a more effective,
  cheaper, and a better
  long-term alternative
• Boat wasting stations are one
  tool that can accompany precautionary
  actions

16
Discussion

• BEFORE launchingBEFORE leaving
• Remove aquatic plants, animals and mud from boat,
  motor and trailer
• Drain lake or river water from motor, livewell,
  and bilge
• Dispose leftover live bait minnows and worms in
  trash
• Rinse boat and equipment with high pressure, hot
  water, especially if moored for more than a day,
  OR
• Dry everything for at least 5 days

17
Alternative
Map Showing Car Washes
18
Dougs Top Reasons
? Why boat washing is appropriate ?

• Portable units could be used as an educational
  tool in conjunction with educational program or
  campaign, especially outdoor events
• Permanent units are appropriate for use
• Marinas and private facilities
• Waterbodies with single or few accesses

19
Dougs Top 10 Reasons
? Why boat washing is not the solution ?

• Need stations at 100 of accesses on a waterbody
• Ineffective removal of all aquatic vegetation
• Untrained boaters would likely not use station
• Trained staff or volunteers need to operate 24/7
• Impractical for jurisdictions without state or
  local ordinances to make washing mandatory
• Public acceptance (effectiveness, time, and WTP)
• Costs for construction, operation and maintenance
• Safety and liability concerns
• Catchment and treatment of wastewater
• Physical access constraints

20

• Otherwise, its
• Just a Leaky Sieve

Acknowledgements Beth Brownson, Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters Greg Nybeck,
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Charles
ONeill, New York Sea Grant Program Jay Rendall,
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Citation Exotic Species Programs.
1995. Ecological Harmful Exotic Aquatic Plant
and Wild Animal Species in Minnesota. Annual
Report for 1995. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, St. Paul, MN