Pacific-States-Marine-Fisheries-Commission-Dreissenids.pdf

Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs for Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States

UMPS III

Editors

Leah Elwell and Stephen Phillips

UMPS III | 2 0 1 6

Suggested citation: Elwell LC and S Phillips, editors. 2016. Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs for Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States (UMPS III). Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. Pp 53.

Original publication date of UMPS I: 2009 Revision and publication date of UMPS II: 2012

DISCLAIMER: The following protocols and standards are provided here to protect natural resources from the damage caused by aquatic invasive species.

COVER PHOTOS: Arizona Game and Fish Department and David Wong

Other photo credits:

American Casting & Manufacturing Corp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department California Department of Fish and Wildlife Idaho Department of Agriculture Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Bill Zook Quagga D LLC United States Bureau of Reclamation, Leonard Willet USDA Forest Service David Wong Wyoming Game and Fish Department

This document has been prepared by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to further the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 100th Meridian Initiative, the mission of the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, and fulfill priorities within the Quagga Zebra Action Plan. Support for this project was provided, in part, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 1 and 6.

Contents

PREFACE 4

INTRODUCTION 4

THE DEVELOPMENT AND METHODS OF UNIFORM

MINIMUM PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS 6

WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND

DECONTAMINATION PROGRAMS 7

Implementation 7

Coordination 7

Consistency 8

Economic Rationale 9

WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND

DECONTAMINATION TRAINING 10

THE SCIENCE OF DECONTAMINATION 12

Research on Decontamination Efficacy 12

Specifications for Decontamination Units 12

Alternative Technologies 12

PROGRAMMATIC GUIDELINES FOR WATERCRAFT

INSPECTION AND DECONTAMINATION 15

Program Levels 16

Self-Inspection 16

Screening for High-risk Watercraft and Equipment 17

Comprehensive 17

RECOMMENDED UNIFORM MINIMUM PROTOCOLS &

STANDARDS FOR WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND

DECONTAMINATION PROGRAMS 18

Self-Inspection 18

Screening for High-risk Watercraft 19

Comprehensive Watercraft, Trailer and Equipment Inspection 20

Inspection 21

Decontamination 23

Quarantine or Drying Time 28

Watercraft/Equipment Exclusion 30

Watercraft Sealing and Certification 31

Special Inspection Considerations – Unique Boat Design and Function 33

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER

TYPES OF WATERCRAFT 34

Commercial Watercraft and Equipment Haulers Recommendations 34

Seaplane Recommendations 34

Water-Based Equipment Recommendations 36

GLOSSARY 37

REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX A 43

Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Program Models in the Western United States

APPENDIX B 44

Specification Guidelines for Decontamination Units

APPENDIX C 50

Distributors and Manufacturers of Decontamination Units and Supplies

APPENDIX D 52

Watercraft Seal Descriptions in Western States

APPENDIX E

Sample Letter to Commercial Haulers 53

Since the original publication in 2009, UMPS has provided the current scientific information and minimum standards as a guideline for new or ongo-ing WID programs. The Student Training Curriculum for Watercraft Inspectors and Decontaminators to Prevent and Contain the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (Brown, 2015) incorporates the scientific information and minimum standards to provide step-by-step procedures for inspection and decontami-nation to reduce the risk of introduction of aquatic in-vasive species (AIS). The Trainer Manual for Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection and Decontamination Courses (Brown, 2015) provides consistent guidance to AIS trainers who are responsible for the certifica-tion of individuals to perform watercraft inspection and decontamination. UMPS, the student curriculum and the trainer manual together provide the neces-sary components to implement a WID program.

The protocols and standards recommended in this document are primarily directed at preventing the inadvertent transfer of dreissenid mussels from areas where they are currently present to unaffected waters on watercraft, seaplanes and water-based equipment. Further, the protocols and standards are effective for reducing the risk of overland transport of other AIS such as aquatic plants, fish, disease pathogens, plankton species and other AIS.

The primary goal of all watercraft inspection programs are to prevent the transfer of quagga and zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species (AIS) in order to safeguard natural resources, water supplies, recreation opportunities and other import-ant water dependent values. Further the primary objectives of an inspection program are to keep public and private waters open to recreational use to the greatest extent possible, and provide educa-tion to the boating public.

INTRODUCTION

Following the discovery of adult quagga mus-sels in the western United States at Lake Mead, Nevada in January 2007 and their subsequent detection downstream, many water and resource management agencies and organizations in the western United States initiated watercraft inspec-tion and decontamination (WID) programs to pre-vent the further expansion of dreissenid mussels.

Inspection programs are an important tool used by state, federal and other jurisdictions to address wa-tercraft and other high profile vectors in minimizing the spread of aquatic invasive species. These in-spection programs have been critical in slowing the spread of dreissenid mussels to other waterbodies.

Between 2012-2014 over 750 dreissenid-fouled wa-tercraft have been intercepted and decontaminated by WID programs throughout the Western states (Phillips, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commis-sion, personal communication).

The use of WID programs has become a major strategy to prevent the spread and introduction of dreissenid mussels throughout the Western states.

By implementing consistent and effective proto-cols, managers have realized success in identifying watercraft and other equipment that pose a risk.

Implementing regionally consistent watercraft inspection programs across the West does pose difficulties. With a large number of programs already in place and a wide range of agency and organiza-tion capacity to implement programs, consisten-cy across jurisdictional boundaries is difficult to achieve. Regardless, interjurisdictional coordination and cooperation will be the key to preventing the range expansion of dreissenid mussels in the west-ern United States.

PREFACE

The purpose of Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs for Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States (UMPS III) is to 1) provide the best possible recommendations for watercraft inspection and decontamination (WID) programs and 2) to provide the best standards, practical science and technology currently available for WID program consistency.

An inspection program is typically a component of a larger invasive species program which often also includes outreach and education, monitoring, con-trol and rapid response. Whether a novel or established inspection program, successful watercraft inspections contain common elements and are guided by robust sci-entific information. Uniform Minimum Standards and Protocols for Inspection and Decontamination Pro-grams for Dreissenid Mussels in United States (UMPS) provide the source of coordination and consistency to guide inspection programs across the West and beyond.

The recommended protocols and standards in this document reflect the current scientific research on dre-issenid mortality. For over a decade, scientific studies to determine mortality of dreissenid mussels under a variety of circumstances have shown that hot water and drying are highly effective tools. In general, the use of 140°F high pressure water for direct contact and 120°F for flushing are recommended for effective watercraft decontamination. Further, millions of inspection and de-contaminations conducted on boats throughout the West have informed current protocols and standards as well.

Researchers continue to explore methods to improve inspection processes.

The focus of resource agency WID programs have been on trailered watercraft, however natural resource managers recognize that other types of equipment and vehicles should be subject to inspection or decon-tamination. To adequately address the broad range of equipment types and vehicles, inspections and decon-taminations may require variations or additional details to address specific vectors. The subsequent sections are separated into major types to allow for ease of use and they include watercraft, commercially hauled watercraft, seaplanes and water-based equipment.

The need to apply consistent strategies across a wide geographic area improves boater relations, internal dialog and improved confidences in the quality of the inspection itself. The goal is to provide the best possible recommenda-tions for WID programs that benefits boaters and managers, and provides increased protection for our water resources.

!! Safety Alert !!

The protocols in this document should be conducted by trained individuals. Use extreme caution when han-dling hot water, decontamination equipment and working around vehicles to avoid serious human harm and to avoid damage to watercraft and watercraft equipment.

The use of best available science has been the strat-egy to guide the inspection and decontamination proto-cols and standards of UMPS. In some cases this scientific information has been in the form of unpublished data, but also as peer reviewed publications (See Table 1). For a decade, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) training program and many comprehensive WID programs have been established and in operation.

The information gathered from practical hands on experi-ences and as a result of nearly 100 Watercraft Inspection Training (WIT) classes taught has influenced the methods recommended in this manual.

The Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) for Western U.S. Waters (2010) summarizes current strategies to address the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in the West, and identifies and pri-oritizes the specific actions needed to comprehen-sively prevent the further spread of these mussels, respond to new infestations, and manage existing infestations. To address the growing quagga mussel problem, the authors of QZAP identified “Continue the Development of Effective Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Protocols and Standards” as a “Highest Priority Action.” UMPS III directly fulfils this Highest Priority Action item.

In 2014, the Western Regional Panel on Aquat-ic Nuisance Species (WRP) formed the Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Committee to de-velop the WIT curriculums, and oversee the devel-opment of UMPS III. Extensive review and discus-sion by this committee as well as open review by the WRP was part of this process. The protocols and standards recommended here are the products of:

1. An extensive literature search, review and surveys conducted in the 2009/2012 versions of UMPS and additional information collected in developing the current version of this document.

2. The experience and feedback gained from PSMFC watercraft inspection and decontami-nation trainings.

3. Information gathered through discussions and consensus building on WID programs.

The process to update this current publication engaged the Watercraft Inspection and Decon-tamination Committee of the WRP. The following individuals have contributed valuable professional feedback on the process to inspect and decontami-nate watercraft and other equipment.

Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Watercraft Inspection and Decontam-ination Committee Members:

Beth Bear, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Elizabeth Brown, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Committee Chair Dee Davis, Quagga D LLC Glenn Dolphin, Oregon State Marine Board James Dominguez, New Mexico Department of

Game and Fish Dominique Norton, California Department of

Fish and Wildlife Stephen Phillips, Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Commission Gene Seagle, Black Canyon of the Gunnison and

Curecanti National Recreation Area Kami Silverwood, Arizona Game and Fish De-partment Benjamin Smith, Lake Mead National Recre-ation Area

THE DEVELOPMENT AND METHODS OF UNIFORM MINIMUM PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS

UMPS III is a living document and will continue to evolve as new information becomes available. This version is updated from the original UMPS I and UMPS II (Zook and Phil-lips, 2009 & 2012), however basic principles and program elements remain effectively unchanged. As in previous revisions, a process to reconcile and adopt UMPS III protocols and standards was utilized to incorporate the best available science and information.

There are currently a range of programmatic inspections that can be encountered by boaters including, but not limited to, self-inspection, screening for high-risk watercraft, comprehensive inspection and decontamination, and quarantine.

This document provides the necessary details to understand the general implementation of these types of programs. By following the guidelines provided here, an effective watercraft inspection and decontamination program can be implemented that readily identifies and addresses high-risk watercraft to protect water resources.

The policies, protocols and standards used to establish and implement Western WID programs have utilized the UMPS document. Additionally, a majority of WID program staff and managers have attended the 100th Meridian Initiative and WRP certified watercraft inspection training conducted by PSMFC. Programs in many jurisdictions have now existed for a decade while others are now looking to create a program. The larger community of managers continues to share and expand on the current knowledge of inspection and decontamina-tion programs. The UMPS document and training have been primary drivers in creating consistency and serves as a continual source for information.

Coordination The members and partners of the WRP have recognized the need for better coordination and more consistency in the application of programs used to prevent the overland transport of dreissenid mussels and other AIS on watercraft. To address this need, the WRP Building Consensus Committee was created in 2012. This committee addresses a variety of action items and brings together a larger community of expertise with contributions from the National Sea Grant Law Center, attorneys general, state and federal law enforcement, as well as AIS managers. Numerous subcommittees of Building Consensus address work needs associated with wa-tercraft inspection and decontamination programs including: Legal Committee, Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Training Committee, Out-reach Committee, and Data Sharing Committee.

Each of these committees is a reflection of aspects of inspection programs where improved consisten-cy and clarification are a goal.

Continued information exchange, cooperation, communication and coordination among agencies and organizations engaged in WID programs in the western United States is necessary. Adopting uniform minimum protocols and standards for these programs is one step toward achieving that

WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND DECONTAMINATION PROGRAMS

Implementation A national inspection and decontamination training program has helped guide profes-sionals in creating programs, train staff and broaden resource professional knowledge.

The combination of watercraft inspection trained professionals and the application of protocols and standards found in UMPS have resulted in a coordinated effort that ef-fectively addresses the vector of watercraft. Consequently, throughout Western states watercraft inspection programs utilize similar components.

goal and increasing the overall effectiveness of these programs. When the many resource man-agement jurisdictions across the West undertake prevention efforts that include mutual support, consistency, and cooperation, the West will be saf-er from the damaging impacts of aquatic invasive species. Changes to regulations at the federal, state, local, and tribal level may be necessary to implement a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional program in the West.

Consistency In 2010, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) funding became available to implement portions of the QZAP. The goals of the QZAP, developed by the WRP and adopted by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) in 2010, were to summarize current strategies to address the invasion of quag-ga and zebra mussels in the West, and to identify and prioritize the specific actions that are needed to comprehensively prevent the further spread, respond to new infestations, and manage existing infestations. To address the growing quagga mussel problem, QZAP listed “Continue the Development of Effective Watercraft Inspection and Decontamina-tion Protocols and Standards” as one of its “Highest priority actions” needed. As a result, UMPS was developed and continues to fulfill this identified high priority.

Many WID programs in the western United States have adopted and implemented the protocols and standards recommended in earlier versions of UMPS (Zook and Phillips, 2009 & 2012). As a result, there are many similarities between WID programs currently being implemented in the western United States. However, variations in programs still exist due to local conditions, budgetary restrictions and differing regulations. Refer to Figure 1 for an over-view of Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs currently implemented in the western United States.

Figure 1. Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Program Models in the Western United States

Achieving a greater level of consistency in protocols and standards employed by WID programs across the western United States benefits water and resource managers and the boating public in a number of important ways, including:

• Increased effectiveness by ensuring that all programs utilize the best practical science and technology currently available to protect aquatic resources.

• Establishing a high level of quality and con-fidence in the effectiveness of programs and trust in the programs implemented by others.

• Reducing the amount of staff time and funding required of all programs by avoiding unnec-essary duplication of effort while increasing effectiveness and public acceptance.

• Making it easier for the boating public to un-derstand, anticipate and comply with water-craft inspection and prevention programs.

Not every agency or organization currently has the resources or authority to implement all of the protocols and standards identified here. In those cases where capacity is lacking, steps may be taken to obtain the regulatory authority and resources necessary to implement a robust program. Model legislative provisions (Otts and Nanjappa, 2014) have been developed through a process of consen-sus building among Western resource managers, legal professionals and law enforcement leaders via the WRP Building Consensus Committee. These model provisions can serve as a helpful tool in creat-ing or modifying watercraft inspection and decon-tamination programs.

Economic Rationale Since the discovery of dreissenid mussels in the Great Lakes in 1988, their economic impact has resulted in billions of dollars spent on control mea-sures for power producers, municipal water suppli-ers, agricultural producers and other water users.

The economic impact of quagga mussels since the 2007 Lake Mead discovery has also been signifi-cant. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at its Lower Colorado projects (Hoover, Parker and Davis Dams) spends approximately $1 million annually on quag-ga mussel control (Willett, U.S. Bureau of Reclama-tion, personal communication). The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California spent over $40 million between 2008 and 2014 for quagga mussel prevention related operations, maintenance and capital costs in the Colorado River Aqueduct and associated facilities (De Leon, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, personal communi-cation).

Establishing and implementing a comprehen-sive dreissenid mussel prevention program also comes at a considerable cost. State, federal, tribal and local agencies and organizations in the western United States spend tens of thousands to millions per jurisdiction annually on WID programs. These prevention programs may also include investments for risk assessment, education and outreach, early detection monitoring and response planning. WID is the highest cost item within these programs.

As dreissenid populations expand in the West, this will result in mitigation costs that far exceed the estimated costs required to implement the pre-vention efforts outlined in QZAP. Assessments by the Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB) (2010 & 2013) concluded that even if dreissenid mussels were to eventually become established in Western waters, there is great value in delaying es-tablishment. The annual cost saving for each year of delay would be substantial. Any delay would allow important scientific advances to occur which may help prevent an introduction, contain an introduc-tion or eradicate a newly established population.

In contrast, dreissenid mitigation costs would far exceed the cost of implementing a comprehensive prevention program as envisioned by QZAP.

Finally, while WID programs are an important public outreach and education tool in their own right, all agencies and organizations are encouraged to use other outreach strategies to engage sectors of the public in preventing the spread of AIS and what role they can play in those prevention efforts. A WID program by itself is not sufficient to gain public involvement, support and cooperation. Public out-reach and education should be the cornerstone of all state, federal and local AIS prevention programs.

When quagga mussels were discovered at Lake Mead in January of 2007, the WIT program un-derwent major reconfiguration. The program was expanded to a minimum of 8 hours of training (now called Level One WIT) with a hands-on component, and the target audience changed from boating law enforcement officials to state, federal, tribal and local water, land and wildlife resource management agencies and organizations. The WIT program offered an immediate opportunity for agencies and organizations to train their staff on the dreissenid mussel issue and included prevention strategies and watercraft inspection protocols and standards.

The Level One WIT course offered by the PSM- FC is highly recommended for anyone who will be directly involved in watercraft inspection.

In 2008, a Level Two WIT program was developed. Level Two WIT training is an intensive two-day training for 10-12 individuals typically held at Lake Mead, Nevada. This training, developed by PSMFC contractors, Wen Baldwin and Bill Zook, is designed for people who will be responsible for developing or managing WID programs for their agency, tribe or organization. The current training, now conducted by PSMFC contractor Quagga D LLC, focuses on hands-on inspection and decon-tamination of watercraft and equipment that is infested with live quagga mussels. To date over 50 Level Two classes have been conducted training over 600 agency attendees representing over one hundred agencies from nearly every Western state and Canadian province. Trainings have also been attended by commercial boat haulers, boat me-chanics, marina operators, boat sellers and others with a professional interest in boat inspection. The advanced training of Level Two should be taken by

WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND DECONTAMINATION TRAINING

In 2004, the PSMFC developed the Watercraft Inspection Training Program (WIT) with funding from the USFWS 100th Meridian Initiative and Bonneville Power Administra-tion. It was originally designed as a 90 minute training to enlist the voluntary help of boating law enforcement officers in the western United States to educate boaters and inspect high-risk watercraft during normal boater safety duties. The WIT program now includes three levels of training. Each level of training is designed to provide the neces-sary tools for watercraft inspection program staff to provide consistent information.

at least one agency or organization representative, engaged in or planning to become engaged in wa-tercraft inspection. The Level Two training provides the knowledge, tools and resources necessary to become a supervisor or an in-house trainer for Level One for their respective agency or organization.

In 2015, a Level Three Trainer Training pro-gram was created to train Level Two individuals to train others to conduct inspections and decontami-nations for AIS. Level Three is based on the Trainer Manual for Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection and Decontamination Courses (Brown, 2015) which was adapted from the Colorado WID Trainers Manual.

Since the original publication in 2009, UMPS has provided the current scientific information and minimum standards as a guideline for new or ongoing WID programs. The Student Training Curriculum for Watercraft Inspectors and Decon-taminators to Prevent and Contain the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (Brown, 2015) incorpo-rates the scientific information and minimum standards to provide step-by-step procedures for the inspection and decontamination to reduce the risk of introduction of aquatic invasive species (AIS). The Trainer Manual for Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection and Decontamination Courses (Brown, 2015) provides consistent guidance to AIS trainers who are responsible for the certification of individuals to perform watercraft inspection and decontamination. UMPS, the student curriculum and the training manual together provide the neces-sary components to implement a WID program.

THE SCIENCE OF DECONTAMINATION

Research on Decontamination Efficacy The published scientific research related to decontamination has focused on the efficacy of methods to achieve mortality of dreissenid mussels or other invasive species (Table 1). Further, the research provided here informs the UMPS recommendation to utilize lethal temperatures of water as the preferred decontamination method, as well as ap-propriate drying time. There continues to be a need for scientific exploration of the use of hot water for a variety of situations and equipment.

Dreissenid veligers

Specifications for Decontamination Units In order to properly perform decontaminations, the equipment must meet a suite of specifications;

the following provide basic needs that a decontam-ination unit must have. Additional information on guidelines and purchasing appropriate decontam-ination units are included (Appendix B and C).

The following are specifications for units used to perform decontaminations:

• Operating temperature recommendations are 120°F internal or 140°F engines/external at the point of contact to achieve effective decontamination. Note: Units are capable of a maximum burner temperature of 211°F degrees; operating temperatures must be constantly checked to ensure proper perfor-mance at the above specifications.

• Minimum 5 gallons/minute

• 3000 - 3500 pounds per square inch

• Proper attachment tools, including 40° tips

Alternative Technologies There is no shortage of alternative technologies and methods that have been explored to kill dreisse-nid mussels. These alternatives may be both phys-ical and chemical. By and large, the application of chemicals or other alternatives are not recommended for use in WID programs. Chemicals do kill mussels, but their use poses additional risks to the boats, boat owners and the environment. The use of physical alternatives has been limited primarily due to practi-cality. There are some circumstances where chemi-cal or physical alternatives may have appropriate ap-plications, (e.g. wildland firefighting equipment, field gear, etc.), but their use among watercraft owners is discouraged. The key difference between the WID programs and other situations that use chemicals (e.g. agency fish transfer) is the resident time avail-able for treatment. For example, fish stocking trucks effectively use chemicals for dreissenids and other AIS, but have unlimited time available for treatment.

Within WID programs, chemicals also have liability, warranty, disposal, permitting and correct use as per label aspects that must be considered. Finally, if alternative decontamination technologies are pur-sued as part of a WID program, additional research is recommended before widespread use.

Table 1. Published research on the mortality and decontamination efficacy of dreissenid mussel and other AIS.

Date Authors Title and Publication Results Summary 1995 Riccairdi A, R

Serrouya and FG Whoriskey.

Aerial exposure tolerance of zebra and quagga mussels (Bivalvia: Dreissenidae):

implications for overland dispersal. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

This study found that survivorship of mussels in air significantly increased with increasing relative humidity, decreasing temperature and increasing adult mussel size.

Out of water, large mus-sels may survive 5 days in typical temperate sum-mer conditions (20°C, 50% relative humidity);

and 10-15 days in cool conditions (10°C, 95% relative humidity)

1995 Ussery TA and RF McMahon.

Comparative Study of the Desiccation Resistance of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and Quagga Mussels (Dreissena bugen-sis). Center for Biological Macrofouling Research, Uni-versity of Texas at Arlington.

A direct result of this research was the development of a conversion table to determine the drying time required to kill all on-board mussels when exposed to air. The “Drying Time Calculator” determines how long watercraft and equipment must be out of the water (dried) in order to completely desiccate and render harmless all attached dreissenid mussels. The calculator can be found at http://www.100thmeridian.org/ emersion.asp.

Drying time to effectively kill mussels will vary based on geographic location, season and air temperature.

2009 Morse JT. Assessing the effects of application time and tem-perature on the efficacy of hot-water sprays to mitigate fouling by Dreissena polymor-pha (zebra mussels Pallas).

Biofouling.

This was the first published study to look at the efficacy of hot water sprays to mitigate dreissenid fouling. Morse found that zebra mussels required a 10 second spray time with 140°F water to achieve 100% mortal-ity. Morse noted that “it is of interest that quagga mussels (D. rostriformis bugensis) are reported to have thinner shells and less tightly sealing shell valves than zebra mussels which may make them more susceptible to hot water sprays. However, this supposition requires experimental confirmation.”

100% mortality of zebra mussel adults can be achieved with 10 second spray time of 140°F water.

2011 Comeau SR et al.

Susceptibility of quagga mus-sels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) to hot-water sprays as a mean of watercraft decontamination. Biofouling.

This study examined the efficacy of hot water sprays to decontaminate boats fouled with quagga mussels. Comeau et

al. recommended a spray temperature of 140°F for 5 seconds to mitigate fouling by quagga mussels.

100% mortality of quag-ga mussel adults can be achieved with 5 second spray time at 140°F.

2011 Bayer J et al. Acute Upper Thermal Limits of Three Aquatic Invasive Invertebrates: Hot Water Treatment to Prevent Up-stream Transport of Invasive Species. Environmental Management.

Bayer et al. found that for D. polymorpha, D. r. bugensis and Bythotrephes 100% mortality was achieved with exposure to 110°F hot water for 5 minutes.

100% mortality of adults dreissenid mussel can be achieved with 5 minutes exposure of 110°F water

2012 Jerde CL et al. Eurasian watermilfoil fitness loss and invasion potential following desiccation during simulated overland transport.

Aquatic Invasions.

This study examined survival rates follow-ing desiccation. Jerde et al. found that plant fragments that experienced desicca-tion for more than 24 hours had little risk of surviving.

Milfoil fragments showed decreased survival probability as the plant becomes desiccated under average summer conditions.

2013 Choi WJ et al. Estimating survival rates of quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) veliger larvae under summer and autumn temperature regimes in residual water of trailered watercraft at Lake Mead, USA. Management of Biologi-cal Invasions.

This study examined veliger survival follow-ing exposure to seasonal air temperatures.

Choi et al. found that veligers could survive up to 5 days of summer temperature conditions and up to 27 days of autumn temperature conditions at Lake Mead.

Veligers experience 100% mortality after 5 days under summer conditions and 27 days under autumn conditions.

2014 Snider JP et al. Assessment of quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) veliger survival under ther-mal, temporal and emersion conditions simulating over-land transport. California Fish and Game.

This study examined veliger survival under simulated conditions found on recreational watercraft and equipment and using small amounts of water.

There is a risk of trans-porting live immersed quagga veligers in small droplets of water when air temperatures up to 77°F for at least 7 days.

2015 Anderson LG et al.

Invaders in hot water: a sim-ple decontamination method to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic invasive non-native species. Biological Invasions.

This study examined the efficacy of killing a range of invasive species with hot water as well as drying. 113°F water for 15 minutes caused 99% mortality among species tested (e.g. zebra mussels, parrot’s feather and signal crayfish).

99% mortality across 7 AIS was achieved with 113°F within 1 hour of submerged treatment.

2015 Comeau S et al. Boat decontamination with hot water spray: Field vali-dation. Biology and Manage-ment of Invasive Quagga and Zebra Mussels in the Western United States.

This study examined the water temperature and exposure time needed for mortality of quagga mussels and further examined specific boat areas for the time needed to reach lethal levels.

Seasonal validation of live well, bait well and gimbals were conducted to determine the lethal time and temperature for quagga mussels.

PROGRAMMATIC GUIDELINES FOR WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND DECONTAMINATION

It is the responsibility of the managing agency to determine the level of acceptable risk and which type of watercraft inspection program most closely reflects the mission, values and capacity of their agency or organization. Many agencies and organizations do not have the capacity to implement a comprehensive watercraft and equipment inspection program. Funding, authority, and policies all play a role in determining the establishment of a watercraft inspection program and how extensive that program will

be. Carefully crafted outreach (e.g. “Clean, Drain and Dry”) that engages boaters in pre-venting the spread of invasive species is a critical component of all watercraft inspection programs.

The two most common approaches to imple-menting a WID station are at geographic borders (or roadsides) and at waterbodies (lakes or reservoirs).

Border (roadside) inspection stations are typically used to prevent AIS from entering a defined geo-graphic area. These programs use a series of in-spection stations placed at entries to an area and all watercraft passing the station are required to stop for an inspection. Stations at waterbodies utilize a WID station placed at the access point to a water-body and can further function in a prevention or containment scenario. An inspection program used for prevention would primarily conduct watercraft inspection prior to launch to prevent potentially high-risk boats from entering the water. A program used for containment would primarily conduct watercraft inspection for watercraft exiting a water-body known to have established dreissenids or other AIS. In some cases, WID stations at waterbodies perform inspections both entering and exiting.

Another important dynamic for WID program de-velopment are voluntary versus mandatory aspects.

Depending on the legal authorities of the managing agency there may be considerable variation in pro-grams. Voluntary and mandatory requirements can range from the ability to stop a vehicle to quarantine of that vehicle.

A helpful tool for an agency that manages multiple waterbodies that is interested in imple-menting a waterbody WID program is to conduct risk assessments on waterbodies and use that information to direct those limited resources to waters with the highest risk for and impact from mussel introduction and establishment. The exam-ination of several features of a waterbody should help determine if that waterbody is at a particular risk for dreissenid establishment (e.g. Whittier et al., 2008, Wells et al., 2010, Prescott and Claudi, 2012).

The following may be considered in a waterbody risk assessment:

• water quality parameters that support the sur-vival, growth and reproduction of dreissenid mussels (e.g. calcium, pH, salinity, conductivi-ty, food supply, water temperatures)

• amount, origin, and type of watercraft

• proximity to dreissenid positive or suspect waters

• the waterbody is a headwater, municipal water, power supply system or agricultural use

• supports species listed under the Endangered Species Act

• other waterbody parameters and uses (ac-cess, recreational uses, etc.)

Program Levels WID programs across the Western states will vary due to a range of factors. Three program levels have been identified here to characterize inspection activities found across the West. However, on the ground, a continuum of details within Western pro-grams is found. Program levels defined in this doc-ument are intended to be recommendations of best management practices in an ideal world. Variations of actual implementation are understood to be based on authority, resources and needs. To provide the best line of defense in protecting resources from the threat of invasive species, a comprehensive watercraft program that utilizes decontamination, quarantine, or exclusion is highly recommended.

Self-inspection and screening for high-risk wa-tercraft programs are options for local jurisdictions when the capacity to implement more aggressive and effective programs is lacking. These programs, however, do not provide the level of security re-quired for any type of cross-jurisdictional accep-tance because they do not offer any assurance that watercraft and/or equipment was actually inspected by an individual.

Self-Inspection: The self-inspection program is a relatively low cost program for low-risk waters or on higher risk waters where organization or physi-cal capacity prevents a more aggressive approach.

This type of program involves providing an inspec-tion form which can be made available at an entry station, kiosk or online with instructions for the watercraft or equipment operator to complete ques-tions and inspect all areas of watercraft, trailers and equipment. The form is then placed in the transport vehicle where it can be easily seen. If the program is mandatory, spot checks by enforcement person-nel can be used to reinforce compliance.

A continuum of inspection and decontamination programs exists on the ground. WID programs are a reflection of authority, resources and needs for each jurisdiction.

Self-inspection programs, whether voluntary or mandatory, offer a limited level of protection be-cause compliance and effectiveness are not guaran-teed. However, self-inspection programs can be an effective boater education tool, provide some level of protection for waters where implemented, and are cost-effective. If a higher level of protection is not available because of insufficient funding, physi-cal site limitations, lack of intervention authority or the sheer volume of waters needing coverage, this type of program may be considered as a minimal inspection tool or “off-hours” adjunct to a more com-prehensive program.

Self-inspection programs have limited effec-tiveness because they rely on self compliance and contaminated watercraft can still be launched by unknowing or irresponsible boaters. Self-inspection programs can be implemented relatively inexpen-sively for individual waterbodies. Including staff time for verifying and/or enforcing compliance, can add to both effectiveness and cost. Enforcement ac-tions aimed at ensuring compliance are a necessary tool to let the public know that agencies are serious about compliance. Mandatory programs work best if the authority to enforce provisions of the program (e.g., authority to require that all watercraft opera-tors complete and post self-certification form) is in place. In the absence of that authority, a voluntary program may be implemented.

Self-Inspection Program Example: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources utilizes self-in-spection at secondary risk waters in the state.

Screening for high-risk watercraft and equip-ment: This program includes a screening interview at a staffed entry-point to a waterbody to identify high-risk watercraft and/or equipment followed by a brief inspection to verify interview information of all watercraft. It maintains boating access for the ma-jority of low-risk watercraft. All watercraft that are not clean, drained and dry or those reported coming from dreissenid mussels waters within the last 30 days (unless watercraft has been decontaminated and has accompanying paperwork) are excluded from accessing that waterway. This program is rec-ommended for priority waterways where budget or other considerations prevent the implementation of a comprehensive program.

This type of program can often be incorporat-ed into an existing entry station operation that is set-up to collect access fees, confirm reservations or provide use information and regulations. Current entry station staff can be trained to conduct screen-ing interviews and verifying inspections, and the number of watercraft excluded would normally be expected to be low on waters where this type of program would be implemented. Because a rigorous inspection is not required and decontamination or quarantine facilities are not used, this is a relative-ly low cost protection option. If existing screening facilities and staff are available, the cost for such a program can be nominal. However, if those assets are not already in place, the cost can be consid-erably higher as there will be infrastructure and staffing needs.

Screening for High-risk Watercraft and Equipment Program Example: Lake County California, Invasive Mussel Prevention Pro-gram.

Comprehensive: A comprehensive program is recommended for providing the highest level of protection for natural resources. In general, a com-prehensive program is one that can inspect, de-contaminate and either quarantine or deny access to watercraft. A comprehensive program should include: screening interviews at the point of entry; a comprehensive watercraft or equipment inspection of all watercraft/equipment; the decontamination and/or quarantine or exclusion of watercraft and watercraft certification. When possible, inclusion of quality assurance is recommended. Only compre-hensive programs offer any opportunity for cross-jurisdictional reciprocity.

This type of program may require construction or modification of entry facilities, traffic patterns, parking lots or boat ramps, purchase of a hot water pressure wash and wastewater containment sys-tem, inspectors and decontamination operators, providing a safe and secure quarantine facility, a good working relationship with law enforcement authorities, and adequate laws and regulations.

Comprehensive programs (Appendix A) are implemented across the West by federal, state, local and tribal agencies and organizations, and are oper-ated at either waterbodies or on highway roadsides.

Costs will vary depending on the size of waterbody, the number of access points, type of equipment and facilities used, and hours of operation. Comprehen-sive programs cost between tens of thousands to millions depending on the geographic scope.

The authority to stop, inspect, decontaminate, quarantine and exclude watercraft or equipment varies between jurisdictions. Further there may be legal reporting requirements when encountering a mussel fouled watercraft. It is critical to understand your legal authority and exercise it according to the law with regard to search and seizure.

RECOMMENDED UNIFORM MINIMUM

PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS FOR

WATERCRAFT INSPECTION AND

DECONTAMINATION PROGRAMS:

These protocols and standards reflect the best currently available science, technol-ogy and understanding. However, water-craft inspection and decontamination is a rapidly evolving field and new information may affect these protocols and standards in the future. For in-depth coverage of step by step procedures for inspection and decontamination, refer to Student Training Curriculum for Watercraft Inspectors and Decontaminators to Prevent and Contain the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (Brown, 2015). The term “Uniform Min-imum Protocols and Standards” implies that all states, agencies and organizations should strive to adopt the information in this document as an integral component of their WID program.

Self-Inspection Self-inspection is implemented at a waterbody and can require voluntary or mandatory partici-pation from the watercraft operator. This program provides an inspection form (Figure 2) that is made available at an entry station, kiosk or online with instructions for the watercraft/equipment op-erator to complete questions and inspect all areas of watercraft, trailers and equipment. The form is then placed in the transport vehicle where it can be eas-ily seen. This program provides education to boat operators on AIS and boat inspection processes.

Protocols:

1. Provide a self-inspection form at the point of entry, kiosk, dedicated check-in area, or online and clear directions on how the boater can inspect their water-craft following the checklist.

You must complete and sign this form before launching your boat In the past 30 days, has your boat been used in any of the areas a�ected by zebra and quagga mussels listed below?

If you answered No to the above question, then simply sign this form, put the bottom portion in your launch vehicle and launch your boat!

If you answered Yes to any part of the question, you must decontami-nate your boat using one of the methods below:

Keep the top portion in your boat.

Utah: Electric Lake, Lake Powell, Red Fleet Reservoir and Sand Hollow Reservoir Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico or Arizona Waters in states east of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico Canada: Waters in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec Mexico Other: Waters established by the Wildlife Board in rule R657-60 and published on the DWR website at wildlife.utah.gov/rules.

Agent signatureDecontamination agency Date

Professional decontamination Seal # _____________ See the front of this form for help locating the nearest professional decontamination unit.

B

A Self-decontamination process See the front of this form for details.

Please take our online survey about your experi-ence with the Aquatic Invasive Species program at Wildlife.Utah.Gov/MusselSurvey

I have not used my boat in any waters listed at the top of this form, or I have decontaminated my boat and trailer as outlined at the bottom of this form.

Boater signature

Certifying false information on this form is unlawful (per Utah Administrative Rule R657-60).

Certi�cate of decontamination Keep the bottom portion in launch vehicle, with the signature side facing up on your dashboard.

Date (not valid unless signed and dated)

Figure 2. The Utah Division of Wildlife self-inspection form.

2. Require (with required authority) or request (without required authority) that the form be completed, signed, and posted in clear view on the dash of watercraft/equipment transport vehicle prior to launching.

3. Failure to complete and display a re-quired form can be a punishable crime.

Standards:

Before launching, boat operator must confirm that the following conditions have been met by sign-ing and displaying a completed self-inspection form.

1. Watercraft, trailer, and equipment have not been in any water known or sus-pected of having quagga/zebra mussels or other AIS in the past 30 days. Con-sider adding a checklist of those water-bodies of most concern in your area so boaters can indicate if they have been in any of those specific waters.

2. Watercraft, trailer and equipment are cleaned, and to the extent practical, drained and dried.

3. Watercraft, trailer and equipment have been visually inspected by the operator at the site prior to launching.

Screening for High-Risk Watercraft This program utilizes a screening interview which involves collecting information from the boat operator through a standard set of questions prior to launching or entry at a waterbody. These questions are designed to determine the level of risk posed by that watercraft based on its recent history of use (Figure 3). The screening inter-view should not rely completely on the responses given. The person conducting the interview should make sure that the responses given match the physical evidence available, which may require a brief confirmation inspection. This program pro-vides education to boat operators on AIS and boat inspection processes.

Protocols:

1. Develop and use a standard screening in-terview form that, at a minimum, includes the following questions:

• The home state or postal code where the watercraft or equipment is registered

• The specific waterbody where the water-craft or equipment was last used (and if possible a 30 day history)

• The date of the last use

Figure 3. Lake County, California, screening for high risk form.

• If the watercraft/equipment has been cleaned, drained and dried

2. Verify the responses by…