Clean Boats Only

Clean Boats OnlyThe case for a pro-active and mandatory boat inspection and decontamination program for Lake George to prevent new aquatic invasive species infestations

FOCUS ON THE WATERSHED: A RESEARCH SERIES ON THE CHALLENGES FACING LAKE GEORGE

Above: Brochure as part of the public education campaign aimed at boaters who use Lake Tahoe about its new mandatory boat inspection program. This effort encourages boat owners to arrive with boats clean, drained and dry. This places responsibility on boat owners to clean their boats before transporting them.

Cover: clockwise from the top left quagga mussel shells washed onto a beach on the Great Lakes, hydrilla consuming a lake area, Asian clam beds and algae in Lake Tahoe, and water chestnut in Lake Champlain.

Right: Sign at a boat launch at Lake Tahoe about its boat inspection program.


by Peter Bauer, Kathy Bozony, Chris Navitsky and Emily Oswald

Published as part of the FOCUS ON THE WATERSHED Research Series organized by the FUND for Lake George. Published in April 2012.Copyright (c) 2012 FUND for Lake George. All rights reserved.Any copying of materials herein, in whole or in part, and by any means without written permission is prohibited. Requests for such permission must be sent to the FUND for Lake George.

PO Box 352 2199a State Route 9 Lake George, NY 12845Telephone: 518–668–9700Email: [email protected]

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................5

Aquatic Invasive Species Infestation: An Acute Threat to Lake George..................8

Aquatic Invasive Species Management for Lake George.............................................15

Prevention vs. Management....................................................................................................24

Case Study: The Lake Tahoe Program.................................................................................26

Perspectives from Marinas and Resorts on Lake Tahoe Program...........................36

Main Elements for a Successful Boat Inspection Program for Lake George.......38

Relevant Features from Other State Boat Inspection Programs....................................45

Q&A with Ted Thayer, TRPA Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager..........53

Sources.............................................................................................................................................61

Resolution from the FUND for Lake George.....................................................................62

Focus on the Watershed Research Series...........................................................................64

FUND for Lake George Mission & Acknowledgements.................inside back cover

Board of Trustees and Staff....................................................................................back cover

4 CLEAN BOATS ONLY: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY BOAT INSPECTION PROGRAM FOR LAKE GEORGE


5FOCUS ON THE WATERSHED: A RESEARCH SERIES ON THE CHALLENGES FACING LAKE GEORGE

Executive Summary

The two biggest threats to the water quality and public enjoyment of Lake George are stormwater pollution and aquatic invasive species infestations. These challenges must be met head on by local communities and responsible state agencies. These problems are changing the lake, in some places dramatically and in other places more subtly, but both have the potential to cause enormous long-term harm.

This report focuses on the need to significantly improve protection of Lake George from aquatic invasive species by making the case for a new mandatory boat inspection and decontamination program. Such a program should be managed by the NYS Lake George Park Commission and cover all points of entry to the lake. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks are too great, to continue to take a chance on allowing dirty and contaminated boats to enter the lake and spread new infestations of aquatic invasives.

Aquatic invasive species have caused major problems and disruptions to lakes across the Adirondack Park, New York and in states around New York in the mid-Atlantic and New England regions. Lake George is currently infested with four aquatic invasive spe-cies -- two aquatic plants Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) and two mollusks zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) -- and millions of dollars have been spent on direct management and control efforts by the State of New York and Lake George community over the past 25 years.

By comparison, the Great Lakes have 186 non-native species, the majority of which are classified as “invasive.” Lake Champlain has 49 non-native species, the Hudson River 91 and the St. Lawrence River has 87. Lake George is surrounded by water bodies infested

with various aquatic invasive species and the threats grow greater each year.

Aquatic invasive species are spread from water body to water body primarily by boats and by bringing in live fishing bait from outside the area. There have been a handful of cases where animals have spread invasive species, but thousands of cases where they have been introduced by boats. Boats are the primary vector for spread-ing aquatic invasive species. Around Lake George, the Lake George Park Commission and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation as well as private organizations have engaged in various public education activities for more than two decades. These actions have been highly visible, yet it remains a voluntary action on behalf of a boat owner to inspect their boat for aquatic invasive species and take precautions against spread.

Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed have infested Lake George for more than 25 years and have been the focus of aggressive management over the past eight years. Zebra mussels were first found in Lake George in 1999 and while they have been controlled they have not been eradicated. Asian clams were found in the lake in 2010 and are actively being managed, but are far from eradicated. The sheer number of aquatic invasive species infesting waterbodies across New York and the Northeast as well as the high volume of boats launched on the lake from outside the area make Lake George extremely vulnerable to new infestations.

The threat of new infestations is not a remote possibility, but rather a question of when. Aquatic invasive species that have become fully entrenched in nearby water-bodies would raise havoc in Lake George, including water chestnut (Trapa natans) in Lake Champlain, water hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in Cayuga Lake, quagga mus-sels (Dreissena bugensis) in the Great Lakes, spiny water flea (Bythotrephes longimanus) in the Great Sacandaga Reservoir, and Didymo (Didymosphenia geminate) in rivers in the Catskills, to name just a few. The quagga mussel represents the biggest threat and would be devastating to Lake George.

The cost of an infestation is enormous. Millions of dollars have been spent on control efforts over the past 25 years for Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), which was found in the mid-1980s and by the early 1990s had spread through the lake. It took 25 years and millions of dollars to get to a position where it may be possible, if man-agement is sustained, to control Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake George. Treatment of the


new Asian clam infestation will top $1.5 million in the first half of 2012.The recent Asian clam infestation also shows the Lake George community the porous-ness of the current system to interdict aquatic invasive species. This system relies on education efforts by the state and private local groups as well as on the Lake Stewards Program, where trained interns check boats at boat launches and educate boaters, administered by the state and Lake George Association. No site on the lake received more focus over the past six years than the Norowal Marina, yet this site is now infest-ed with Asian clams. The three other sites infested with Asian clam each include pri-vate boat launches, yet are too small to have a Lake Steward.

The Asian clam was most likely transported during its microscopic juvenile stage in the waters of the engine or live wells. The only way to decontaminate these systems is through a thorough treatment with hot water in a controlled area where the discharge is contained.

In this report we look at a variety of mandatory inspection and decontamination pro-grams. The one that we see as a model for Lake George is the successful program that’s in place around Lake Tahoe. This program deals with a similar boating population as Lake George. The program manages boats for many different use groups, from the “Tahoe Only” boats that are resident on the lake for the entire season, to “Tahoe In & Out” boats that are regular users but stored on a trailer and may be used in other waterbodies in between use, to managing the variety of public, private and commercial boat launches.

It’s clear that a mandatory inspection and decontamination program would change the ways that boaters access Lake George. What’s also clear from the Lake Tahoe program is that with some advance planning and good communication disruptions to residents and visitors can be minimal, while benefits to Lake George could be quite large.

A mandatory inspection and decontamination program will do a great deal to preserve the Lake George experience as we know it today. Lake George is one of the most beau-tiful and extraordinary landscapes in the world. This great lake deserves a great protec-tion program to save it from further invasive species infestations. Such a program can-not be implemented overnight, but it can be put together in the next year or two.

Peter Bauer, Executive Director, FUND for Lake George



Aquatic Invasive Species Infestation: An Acute and Growing Threat to Lake George

Each year that passes bring new non-native and aquatic invasive species closer to Lake George. The sheer numbers of aquatic invasive species that could harm Lake George grows each year as plants and mollusks and fish are transported by boats from states surrounding New York or from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Some aquatic invasive species could be absorbed by the lake and pose minor disruptions, but many others could overwhelm beach, dock and popular boating areas, or change the Lake George fishery forever.

In 2012, the Lake George community has an opportunity to preserve Lake George and to pass on a lake that in one respect is in better shape than it was previously. We can significantly improve protections against aquatic invasive species with a new program that pro-actively focuses on pre-vention through mandatory boat inspections and decontaminations. The Lake George community has been fortunate to a certain extent because we’ve only seen four invasive species infestations, yet we have struggled with control efforts for the past 25 years. None of the four known aquatic invasive species has been eradicated.

The costs of aquatic invasive species are huge. In terms of dollars spent, the Lake George com-munity has spent over $6 million on total management efforts. Major investments have also been made in public education over the past two decades. The damage to the lake’s natural resources has not been quantified. Nor has the potential damage been quantified on lake property values from failure to control known aquatic invasives or the failure to prevent future infestations. Nor has the cost been calculated of the lost time and energy by the Lake George Park Commission that aquatic invasive species has costs, which has prevented progress in other protection areas, such as mitigating stormwater pollution.

If the status quo around Lake George is maintained, new infestations will occur, many of which are much worse than the four we’re already trying to manage. The next six pages detail seven potential new aquatic invasive species that are found in nearby waterbodies and will likely infest Lake George in the next few years or decades.


Quagga mussel could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) are a nonnative nuisance species first introduced to the Great Lakes in 1989 from the Caspian Sea. Today, quagga mussels inhabit regions in all states bordering the infested Great Lakes, including the St. Lawrence River and a few inland water bodies in New York, as well as areas along the Gulf of Mexico and in the west where quagga mussels have spread from California ports.

The quagga mussel is a small striped bivalve approximately the size of a thumbnail (20mm) with the stripes fading out about ¾ of the way down its rounded shell. Unlike its close relative the zebra mussel, the quagga mussel poses a greater threat if infestation occurs because it is able to colonize in a wide range of environmental conditions, including temperature extremes, depths over 100 feet and a variety of substrates, including a sandy lake bottom. These invasive mussels can live for three to five years.

Quagga mussels can disrupt aquatic food chains by filtering large quantities of phytoplankton, competing with fish and other organisms for food. Microscopic veligers (released at a rate of one million per mature female each year) are highly mobile in the water column and can survive in live wells, bait buckets, ballast tanks, bilge or engine cooling waters. Quagga mussels are generally transported while in their microscopic juvenile phase.

Coming soon to Lake George: Quagga Mussels


Hydrilla could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is an invasive aquatic plant native to Africa, Australia and parts of Asia. It is thought to have been introduced to the United States as an aquarium plant in the 1950s and accidentally released into the wild in Florida. Hydrilla is now considered one of the most problematic aquatic plants in the United States as it is adaptable to a variety of habitats, temperatures and nutrient levels, and is very difficult to control once a viable population is established. Hydrilla was recently identified in Cayuga Lake.

Hydrilla typically occurs in dense rooted stands or in floating mats in three to 20 feet of water and can grow very rapidly, about 2 cm per day. Hydrilla has visibly toothed leaves that grow in whorls of 3-8 with the underside of the leaves having one or more spines. Hydrilla sprouts from overwintering tubers, turions (overwintering buds), and rhizomes or can reproduce rapidly from stem and root fragments. The tubers can remain dormant for several years and can withstand ice cover, drying, ingestion and herbicides.

Hydrilla is an invisible menace until it fills the lake or river that it infests, shading other submersed plants with its thick mats. It is incredibly disruptive to swimming, boating and fishing. It has been confirmed that this invasive has spread throughout the northeast, including Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and as of 2008 New York State. It is spread by boat transport.

Coming soon to Lake George: Hydrilla


Didymo could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Didymo (Didymosphenia geminata), also known as Rock Snot, is a single celled algae that is native to Europe and parts of China. Didymo has been identified just outside the Adirondack Park within Washington County’s Battenkill River and Vermont’s Connecticut River.

When didymo blooms in late summer it covers the substrate of streams in large mats and can alter the biological and physical properties of a stream, negatively impacting fish, invertebrates, and tourism that rely on streams or rivers for recreational activities, fishing and paddling.

Human activity is the main method of introduction. A single drop of water containing didymo cells can easily spread it to a new waterbody, with cells viable for up to 40 days when kept in a cool, damp, dark location. Any fishing equipment (felt-soled waders in particular), boats, canoes, kayaks, flotation devices, paddles, clothing, irrigation systems, or any damp item that comes into contact with infected waters can transport didymo. Felt-soled wading boots are prohibited in Vermont waters as of April 1, 2011.

Coming soon to Streams around Lake George: Didymo

12 CLEAR CHOICE: THE NEED FOR STREAM BUFFERS IN THE LAKE GEORGE WATERSHED

Brittle naiad could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Brittle naiad (Najas minor) is native to Europe and western Asia and was introduced to the United States. Brittle naiad can form dense mats that out compete native species and can interfere with recreational activities such as boating, swimming, and fishing. Brittle naiad is an annual aquatic submersed plant with slender branching leaves that are 1 to 2 inches long, toothed, stiff, and appear to be in a whorl at the tip. Although it is usually compact and relatively bushy, the highly branched stems can grow up to 4 feet in length and fragment easily.

Brittle naiad is spread by both seed and plant fragments, and because it is very brittle and easily breaks, the plant spreads to new locations with little effort. Brittle naiad seeds mature in summer and late fall and germinate the following spring.

Coming soon to Lake George: Brittle Naiad

Fanwort could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Fanwort (Cabomba carolinian) is native to South America and some southern areas of North America. Fanwort is a submerged aquatic perennial plant with one to two inch thin, flat segmented leaves that appear to look like a fan with petioles opposite on the stem, which can grow up to thirty feet in length.

Fanwort is highly competitive, forming a dense growth from short rhizomes with fibrous roots. Like many invasive aquatic plants, fanwort can also reproduce from small fragments as the plant becomes brittle in late summer. In relatively shallow lakes and ponds, fanwort can colonize the entire water body. Dense infestations of fanwort can alter species relationships, affect fish habitat, and impede swimming and boating. Once established, fanwort is extremely difficult to eradicate. Control has often been unsuccessful with water level manipulations, mechanical controls and herbicides.

Coming soon to Lake George: Fanwort


Water chestnut could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Water chestnut (Trapa natans) is an annual plant that is visible above and below the water surface, dies back each fall and grows in marshy areas, preferably slow moving waters such as ponds, lakes and streams. This highly competitive invasive species is rapidly spreading throughout the Northeast and exists in Lake Champlain. A native to Europe, Asia and Africa, the water chestnut was first found in Massachusetts in 1859.

The main plant is typically small, yet numerous branching stems result in plants that can reach 16 feet in length. The leaves from the water chestnut are triangular in shape with an air bladder in the stem. Single, small white flowers with four petals in the center of the rosette bloom in mid to late July with nuts (seeds) ripening two months later. A single seed can produce 300 new seeds in a year, equating to enough seeds in one acre of water chestnuts able to cover 100 acres the following year. Rosettes separated from the plant by boats or other activity may be carried with its maturing nuts to new locations for seed distribution and long distance spreading of this invasive.

Coming soon to Lake George: Water Chestnut


Spiny waterflea could be the next aquatic invasive to infest Lake George. Spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes longimanus), despite its diminutive size, is an invasive species first discovered in Lake Ontario in 1982 and has since invaded all of the Great Lakes. In 2008, spiny waterflea was confirmed in the Great Sacandaga Lake in New York, which connects to the Hudson River and the Glens Falls Feeder canal, posing a direct threat to Lake Champlain which is fed by the feeder canal. Spiny waterflea can impact aquatic ecosystems by outcompeting native fish for zooplankton, which can have a dramatic impact on the overall productivity of a fishery.

Adult spiny water flea are approximately ½ inch in length, have a long tail that has three sets of barbs on it (which protect it from predators), one large eye and four pairs of legs. A majority of the population is female and capable of asexual reproduction, releasing 10 offspring every two weeks during warm summer conditions. Eggs can remain dormant for long periods of time, over wintering and hatching in the spring.

Numerous adults resemble a gelatinous mass on equipment, fishing lines, nets and anchor ropes, and are easily spread from contaminated equipment, water in live wells, bait buckets and bilge.

Coming soon to Lake George: Spiny waterflea


The State of Aquatic Invasive Species Management for Lake George

The Lake George community has been living with aquatic invasive species since Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) was first found in the lake in 1985. By the time the full magnitude of this infestation was understood, Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) had already spread throughout the lake. A series of control efforts by a variety of partners has played a game of catch up for more than two decades.

The EWM infestation was soon followed by introduction of curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogetum crispus). This plant occupies a similar niche and has grown abundant in areas infested with EWM. Efforts to control EWM have also supported the control of curlyleaf pondweed.

In 1999, the first zebra mussels were found living in Lake George in a major infestation at the south end of the lake. Since 1999, 10 other areas were found to be infested and are under treat-ment. During these years a lakewide survey of high priority areas was undertaken. It is believed that these 11 areas constitute the only infestations in the lake and that zebra mussels have been largely contained.

In 2010, a 5-acre infestation of Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) was found in Lake George Village. In 2011, three other infested areas were found in the Town of Bolton. A lakewide sur-vey was undertaken and it is believed that the four known sites, which total 15 acres, constitutes the area of infestation at this time. All four sites are currently under treatment.

The Lake George community has invested millions of dollars in the control of aquatic invasive species. Over $4.5 million has been spent on EWM control, $800,000 on zebra mussels, and by early 2012 Asian clam treatments will top $1.5 million. Education and interdiction efforts to date have topped $500,000.


Here is a summary of the major parts of Lake George’s ad hoc efforts to manage aquatic inva-sive species.

Zebra mussel management: Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) were first found in Lake George in 1999 at the south end in Lake George Village near King Neptune’s along its seawalls and docks. The RPI Darrin Fresh Water Institute (DFWI), which has managed a series of long-term research projects on the native mollusks in Lake George, was contacted and it coordinated the response and management effort.

DFWI organized a hand-harvesting effort at the King Neptune’s site in the spring of 2000 where over 19,000 clams were initially removed from various underwater docks, pilings, posts and seawalls, among other features. The initial infestation covered about .35 acres. The site was revisited twice annually from 2000 – 2008 with several hundred mussels removed each year. After that the site was treated once annually and in that time just a few dozen mussels have been found. DFWI believes that the zebra mussels are not a self-sustaining population and eradication is possible at this site.

Since 1999, other sites were reported to DFWI by the public. DFWI also undertook a survey of

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)


potential high risk areas in the lake. Today, 12 sites are under management where zebra mussels are hand-harvested and populations are steadily diminishing, including Treasure Cove, Yankee Marina, Castaway Marina, a site on Cleverdale as well as the state Mossy Point and Rogers Rock boat launches. With the exception of Mossy Point all other sites have responded well to treatment with total numbers decreasing each year. The Mossy Point site has proven the most difficult to control as mucky conditions make it difficult for divers to work and the site is sub-ject to re-infestations by boats as nearby Lake Champlain is fully infested with zebra mussels.

The direct cost of management efforts has topped $800,000 by the DFWI. This does not include the voluminous in-kind diving and coordination services provided by DFWI or volunteers work-ing with them. The divers associated with the Bateaux Below organization have provided exten-sive volunteer support for this effort.

New infestations of zebra mussels remain a risk to the lake as populations continue to grow across New York and surrounding states. The most common form of spread of zebra mussels is via boats where they cling to boat hulls, trailers, and engines, among other hard surfaces, and they can also be spread through live wells and bait buckets. Zebra mussels can usually be found as part of a visual inspection, but this can be difficult at times depending on the size of the mus-sels and the type of boat or trailer. Boats with visible zebra mussels can be denied entry to Lake George by the Lake George Park Commission.

Eurasian watermilfoil management: At the end of the 2011 season, a total of 191 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) sites had been identified in Lake George, eight more than documented in 2010. Of these, 173 sites were cleared of Eurasian watermilfoil through manage-ment actions of hand-harvesting and installation of benthic barrier.

Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) was first documented in Lake George in 1985. Physical plant management of EWM began in 1986 through volunteer hand-harvesting and the placement of benthic barrier. In 1989, suction harvesting was incorporated into the management program with the support of local, state, and federal funding. Federal support for EWM management ended in 1993. The Lake George Park Commission (LGPC) began EWM control activities in 1986 with hand-harvesting and benthic barrier installation. From 1989-1993 the Darrin Fresh Water Institute (DFWI) managed the control program using hand-harvesting and benthic barriers under an agreement with the NYSDEC. Starting in 1994, the LGPC took over active management and DFWI provided contract services until 2001.

Between 1994 and 2002, the EWM program was managed by the LGPC with funding from its general fund as well as the FUND for Lake George and in kind service support from DFWI. Efforts were inconsistent from year-to-year and EWM sites continued to grow. Beginning in 2002, Lycott Environmental was contracted by the LGPC to administer the hand-harvesting and benthic barrier placement and has continued through 2011. The LGPC secured a general permit


from the APA for EWM control activities. Additionally, beginning in 2009 the FUND for Lake George contracted with Aquatic Invasive Management for EWM control work through large-scale hand-harvesting effort at specific dense bed sites and worked to remove scattered plants over wide geographic areas.

By the end of the 2011 season a total of 191 EWM sites had been identified throughout Lake George and 173 had been cleared. Dense beds of EWM persist in the Village of Lake George, Huddle Bay, Harris Bay and Dunham’s Bay. In the north basin, moderate beds of EWM exist near Huletts Landing, Putnam, Hague and throughout the area around Mossy Point and near the outlet.

Management activities in Lake George have had a positive effect on the control of many EWM sites. However, seven sites remain with dense EWM beds and eleven sites have moderately-dense growth. A significant and sustained effort is required to fully bring this plant under con-trol. Work to date has not been cheap. All efforts combined have cost over $4.5 million.

Diver hand-harvesting Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and a standing bed of mature plants.


Despite clearing over 150 EWM sites on Lake George, the slow response and overall failure to control EWM, combined with the great popularity of Lake George for public boating, saw EWM spread from the Lake George to other water bodies across the Adirondack Park and the state.

Today, EWM interdiction is facilitated through public education, both through improved public awareness about removing plants visibly hanging from boats, trailers, and engines, as well as from active educa-tion and interdiction efforts by the Lake George Stewards program administered by the LGPC, Lake George Association and Lake George Watershed Coalition.

EWM currently has a self propagating population through the lake. EWM spreads by auto-fragmentation, so the current stock of plants in the lake is largely the source of new plants.

Curlyleaf pondweed management: This aquatic invasive plant was first recorded in the lake as part of scientific surveys in the 1970s, but was documented at multiple locations during EWM control activities. While curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) occupies a similar niche to EWM, it does not propagate or outcompete native plant species with the same domi-nating force. Curlyleaf pondweed has been managed since the late-1980s incidental to EWM management.

Like EWM, curlyleaf pondweed also grows in the lake’s littoral zone and seems to prefer sandy and silty soils. It can grow in extremely shallow areas, but also grow to 12-20 feet in height in deeper water in high nutrient areas. It propagates through turion formation that drop and drift before anchoring to the lake bottom and starting new plants. Generally, this plant grows in areas colonized by EWM, but is not nearly as pervasive as EWM in the lake. There is no active specialized management program for this plant, but it is removed commensurate with EWM treatment.

Asian clam management: In 2010, a 5-acre infested area in the Village of Lake George was found to be infested with Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea). An ambitious effort was undertak-en to treat this mollusk in the spring of 2011 through use of benthic barriers under permits to the FUND for Lake George from the Adirondack Park Agency, Department of Environmental Conservation and US Army Corps of Engineers.

Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton Crispus)


In July another 5-acre infested area was found in Boon Bay in the Town of Bolton. In August two other areas were found to be infested at the Norowal Marina in South Sawmill Bay and Beckley’s Marina on Middleworth Bay. A lakewide survey was undertaken in September 2011 of over 170 high risk areas. This followed a 2010 survey of 40 sites at the south end of the lake.

In the fall of 2011 a 3.5-acre area in the Village of Lake George received its second treatment with benthic barriers. 2.5 acres at the Norowal Marina received treatment with benthic barriers. One acre in Middleworth Bay received treatment with suction harvesting. Planning is currently underway for treatment of all four sites totalling 15 acres in 2012. It is expected that sustained efforts will be required over several years at each of these sites to fully control the Asian clam in Lake George. In 2011, over $650,000 was expended on the three treatment efforts. A similar amount is expected to be expended in 2012 and it’s quite likely that eradication will require sus-tained activities for several years.

All planning and management was undertaken by the Lake George Asian Clam Rapid Response Task Force, which is a coalition of private organizations, state and federal agencies, private individuals and scientific organizations.

Early detection: Currently there is no systematic early detection program for aquatic invasive species organized for Lake George. Early detection coupled with a rapid response is a critical piece of a comprehensive and aggressive management program. The Lake George community would be well served by an annual survey of the entire 4,500-acre littoral zone (areas of 20 feet in depth or less) of Lake George.

There are partial measures by various community partners, but no comprehensive effort. Since 1999, DFWI has managed a program to control zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) at a dozen locations around Lake George. DFWI has surveyed high risk areas around the lake for

High density Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) beds in Lake Tahoe.

Shelving Rock Brook, Fort Ann


the presence of zebra mussels as part of this work. DFWI researchers also visit dozens of sites in the lake as part of its long-term study of native mussels. Similarly, the Lake George Asian Clam Rapid Response Task Force surveyed nearly 200 high risk and high habitat viability areas around the lake for the presence of Asian clams in 2010-2011. Ongoing work by Lycott Environmental, managed by the Lake George Park Commission, visits over 150 locations each year in the lake as part of its Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) control program. Lycott’s work has been augmented since 2009 by an additional EWM control effort organized by the FUND for Lake George that has covered extensive areas on the lake (this work by Aquatic Invasive Management found the second major infestation of Asian clams in the lake). DFWI also con-ducts aquatic plant surveys at dozens of locations each year.

While all of these efforts are admirable and can help to identify new locations of invasive spe-cies, this work does not constitute a comprehensive survey of the entire lake’s littoral zone, a total of 4,500 acres, where invasive species are most likely to colonize. Identification of other invasive species is purely incidental to these various surveys.

Education: A vital part of a comprehensive aquatic invasive species management program is a public education campaign. There are many things that individual boat owners and those that manage boat launches can do to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species.

Various efforts have been undertaken by the Lake George Park Commission (LGPC) over the years. The LGPC mails renewal letters for boat and docks registrations to private and commer-cial owners. These letters have periodically included educational literature about the hazards

Divers install benthic barrier in Lake George Village as part of Asian clam treatment in 2011.


and threats of aquatic invasive species. Other education materials developed by the LGPC, in partnership at times with local organizations, are also distributed at the LGPC office and various other locations around the lake. The LGPC also developed and distributed materials to educate marina managers and operators about the risks on aquatic invasive species.

Private not-for-profit groups, such as the Lake George Association (LGA) and the FUND for Lake George have undertaken a variety of educational activities. Public forums have been held, information is provided on websites, and fact sheets and informational publications have been developed and posted. Starting in 2008, the LGA took over day-to-day management of the Lake Steward program that was started by the Lake George Watershed Coalition. This program has since expanded with support provided by the LGA, local governments and the Lake George Park Commission.

The work of the Lake Stewards has shown considerable success with education of repeat users of the lake. A high number of boaters who come to one of the sites where the Lake Stewards are posted state that they have previously been educated by a Lake Steward. The Stewards have also been very successful at removing visible aquatic invasive species from boats coming in and exiting the lake.

Public education about the threats of aquatic invasive species to Lake George.

Costs to Lake George Community for Aquatic Invasive Species Control 1988-2012

Eurasian watermilfoil control, 1988-2011 $4.5 million

Zebra mussel control efforts $800,000

Asian Clam control efforts, 2010-2012 $1.5 million

Public education and prevention efforts, 1990-2011 $500,000

Total $7.3 million


Educational programs have real limits because boater actions are voluntary and because Lake George has numerous points of entry. While most boaters are conscientious and do not want to harm the lake, direct education efforts like the Lake Stewards relies on visible inspections in limited high traffic areas where it makes financial sense to post a Steward. The recent Asian clam infestations, and the zebra mussel infestations before that, show the limits of this approach as Norowal Marina, the site of the most intensive Steward effort over the past five years, became infested with the Asian clam during that time and the three other infested areas did not have high enough traffic to merit the cost of posting a Steward.

Prevention and interdiction: Lake managers have found an emphasis on prevention and inter-diction to benefit a lake protection program in two ways. First, it’s generally cheaper than work-ing to remove an aquatic invasive species once it’s established. Second, it’s much better for the ecological health of a lake not to undergo the disruptions of colonization and removal of an aquatic invasive species.

The downside is that an emphasis on prevention and interdiction relies on more stringent man-agement of public access and use. Oftentimes, lake managers are risk averse and will emphasize direct treatment, which while more expensive and exposing a lake to new infestations, often enjoys widespread public support, more so than a program that is perceived to limit or change public recreational use. A stringent prevention and interdiction program relies upon greater regulation of public use.

The costs of control are always significantly higher than the costs of prevention and interdic-tion. We’re seeing this on Lake George where we’ve spent over $4.5 million to contain Eurasian watermilfoil, over $800,000 on zebra mussels and will soon have spent over $1.5 million on Asian clam control efforts.

Coordination and planning: Lake George is fortunate that it has a number of active and inter-ested partners in aquatic invasive species control and management. Different actions have been undertaken by various groups, including the Lake George Park Commission, Lake George Association, Rensselaer’s Darrin Fresh Water Institute, Lake George Watershed Coalition and FUND for Lake George. Lake George would benefit from centralized management as currently there is not a single point of responsibility for the overall planning and management of aquatic invasive species for the lake.

Major new public education effort being used across U.S. focuses on “Clean, Drain & Dry” boats. This effort also supports boat inspection programs.


Prevention vs. Management: The benefits of proactive intervention to prevent new infestations compared with reactive management

Lake George has experienced four infestations of aquatic invasive species over the past 25 years. While over $7 million has been spent to manage these invasive species, none of them have been eradicated. Complete elimination is rarely attained in open lake systems and in many cases infestations are irreversible. Under the present management system around Lake George, it’s highly likely, if not a certainty, that new infestations of even more pernicious aquatic inva-sive species, such as hydrilla and quagga mussels, will occur.

Aquatic invasive species management has evolved over the past two decades as many state and federal environmental regulatory agencies administer invasive species management offices and have invasive species coordinator positions and job titles. One standard that has emerged in recent years among this new professional field is that a focus on prevention and interdiction is preferable over active management once an infestation has occurred.

Total spending to control invasive species in the United States has dramatically increased in the last two decades. Work on Lake George mirrors this national trend. The management of inva-sive species has traditionally been handled through prevention, eradication or control, with the later being the favored management approach by administrators. However, as adverse economic and ecological impacts from potential high impact invasive species intensifies, new management strategies are being developed that focus heavily on prevention.

Recent studies tell us that unless current aquatic invasive species, and the boats that transport and spread them, are more effectively controlled, lakes, ponds and rivers across the U.S. will continue to receive and be impacted by aquatic invasive species. A good example of this is the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River system and the case of the high impact invasive species zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). In the 1980s a study that found juvenile zebra mussels in ship ballast waters predicted the introduction and subsequent establishment of zebra mussels in the Great Lake waterways; a warning that was dismissed by managers until it was too late. Today, Congressional researchers estimated that an infestation of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes


area cost the power industry $3.1 billion between 1993-1999, with an economic impact to indus-tries, businesses and communities of more than $5 billion. Millions of dollars are spent annually on the management of thousands of zebra mussel infestations. The zebra mussel infestation in the Great Lakes could have been avoided if a comprehensive prevention and interdiction pro-gram was put in place at the time the threat was first found. While the costs of a prevention pro-gram would have been high, it would not have been over $5 billion. The Great Lakes example shows the benefit of pro-active prevention actions to stop aquatic invasive species.

Current literature finds that economic, ecological and social disruptions would be reduced with managers investing more resources toward prevention. However, many managers take a risk-adverse approach, investing resources to control existing problems and attempting to limit damages, rather than on prevention efforts that may be deemed as disruptive or seek to change business as usual for boat management. New management strategies suggest that when potential high impact invasive species have been identified, resources are most cost effective if applied to prevention.

Professionals who have studied this issue prefer prevention over control of biological invaders. They detail methods to cost-effectively manage adverse economic, ecological and social impacts caused by invasive species. Prevention is now emerging as the main invasive species manage-ment tool, with control being used only if necessary. It was concluded that allocating resources toward the prevention of identified high impact invasive species lowers costs, increases social welfare and decreases the likelihood of an established infestation. Whereas allocating the major-ity of resources to control strategies increases the probability of invasive species introduction, thereby increasing costs and damages, and reducing social welfare.

Invasive species will continue to be a threat to the ecological and economic welfare of Lake George for years to come and the Lake George Park Commission has control over how resources are allocated to reduce the establishment of invasive species, reduce damages incurred and minimize social and economic impacts. Rather than a reactionary approach to controlling invasive species once established, pro-active resource managers are allocating resources to pre-vention, implementing early detection and rapid response plans, and immediately applying con-tainment and control strategies when a high risk species has become established.

Lake George has managed an infestation of Eurasian watermilfoil since the mid-1980s with no hope of attaining eradication. Zebra mussels have been managed since 1999 and while overall numbers have been significantly reduced, eradication remains elusive. The Asian clam infesta-tion has been under active management for one year and while eradication remains the goal, it is highly likely that a long-term program will be necessary to keep this population in check.

Given the immense threats to Lake George from aquatic invasive species such as hydrilla and quagga mussels, a major new program needs to focus on prevention.


Lake Tahoe’s new mandatory boat inspection and de-contamination program. This program was organized because the cost of failure is “way too high.”

A comprehensive management program is now in its third year around Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada. This program is managed under the statutes and regulatory authority of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and is administered by a number of partners. This program is based on mandatory inspections and decontamination, if necessary, at an official station. The program is flexible to effectively manage the different boating users on the lake, from permanent boaters at the various commercial facilities and among home owners, to transient boaters who come for short periods of time, to day-users, to working with homeowner associations and the needs of different commercial marinas.

The program has been successful at stopping new infestations of aquatic invasive species over the past two years. The TRPA and many throughout the Tahoe community are working to make sure that the lake is not infested with quagga mussels or zebra mussels, which have recently infested many waterbodies in California and the western U.S. and are causing immense harm and disruptions. The Tahoe community acted to build a strong prevention program, in part, after experiencing a major infestation of Asian clams, which now cover over 200 acres in the lake and will never be eradicated.

The TRPA was succinct in its reasoning for this program in its educational literature:

“Watercraft are the largest source for spreading aquatic invasive species (AIS) into new waterways. Inspections are an essential part of preventing this inadver-tent transport of alien species into the pristine waters of Lake Tahoe. Invasive species have devastating environmental and economic impacts on industries, communities, and native species populations. Most invasive species do not have predators to keep their populations in balance and, once introduced, are difficult if not impossible to eradicate. Mandatory inspections will stop aquatic invasive spe-cies, such as quagga mussels, BEFORE they enter the water. Please do your part to protect Lake Tahoe and plan ahead for mandatory boat inspections.”


2012 Lake Tahoe inspection fees schedule.

The new program that was successfully implemented for Lake Tahoe serves as a viable model in many ways for regulators and the general public around Lake George. It’s a simple, yet effec-tive set of new regulations. It’s mandatory, yet flexible. It’s been modified in the last two years as the realities of actual implementation have forced improvements and efficiencies. It is based on a series of cooperative agreements to meet the needs of various stakeholders, such as commercial marinas, businesses, and homeowner associations. It is backed by an aggressive public education and outreach effort that emphasizes that boaters “clean, drain & dry” their boats before launching on Lake Tahoe.

Here are the main features of the successful program for Lake Tahoe.

Mandatory Inspections: The TRPA passed regulations that made it illegal for a boater to launch


a boat on Lake Tahoe that has not been inspected as well as illegal for a launch operator to launch a boat that has not passed inspection. This law changed business as usual around Lake Tahoe as all boat launches are now required to verify inspections. Depending on the type of boat launches involved different protocols have been established. In ad-dition to the mandatory inspections for every boat seeking to launch onto the lake, boat launches that were publicly or commercially acces-sible are closed if no personnel is available to verify a boat has been inspected. While all boaters had been required to obtain a permit to operate a boat on Lake Tahoe, much like Lake George, this new law required for the first time that only inspected boats are allowed to be launched onto Lake Tahoe. Some boat launches that were open every day all day (24 hours/7 days) had to change to set hours of operation with the boat launch closed during off hours. This was a big change to boating on Lake Tahoe.

A major change around Lake Tahoe was that commercial and public boats launches had to close when they were not staffed with inspectors. This created set hours of operations at these facilities and day-use boaters had to be off the lake by a set time in order to ensure an open ramp.

“The TRPA passed regulations that made it illegal for a boater to launch a boat on Lake Tahoe that has not been inspected as well as illegal for a launch operator to launch a boat that has not been inspected.”


A series of cooperative arrangements have been made by the TRPA to effectively implement these protective regulations:

• Commercial Marinas: The TRPA made a major effort to work with commercial ma-rina operators. Marina must verify that every boat launched has been inspected and has an inspection sticker or a seal.

1. “Tahoe Only Boats:” There are three types of inspection stickers for boats that pass inspection. First, there is the “Tahoe Only” inspection sticker. This sticker is for the resident fleet of boats, of which in 2011 there were 9,600. These are the commer-cial boats that are used exclusively on Lake Tahoe or private boats used exclusively on Lake Tahoe. These stickers are issued to boats that have proved a chain of custody whereby they are never used in any other waterbody. These boats are registered with the TRPA, whether they are stored by a pri-vate landowner or by a commercial marina. No new inspections or decontaminations are required year to year for these boats because they have not been used elsewhere. The only requirement is the annual registration and inspection sticker fees, unless conditions change and they are used in other waterbodies. The marinas are required to track the boats that they launch. Each sticker has a registration number that can be copied or scanned.

2. “Tahoe In & Out” Boats:“Tahoe In & Out” are regulated separately and special boat in-spection stickers designate transitory boats making a visit to the lake, boats used by people who are vacationing for a period of time, or people who regularly boat on Lake Tahoe, but store their boat at an off-lake location in between use. Commercial marinas also launch boats for these users. Importantly, all “Tahoe In & Out” boats can obtain an inspection seal that connects the boat to its trailer when it exits from the lake. If the seal remains unbroken, the Tahoe In & Out boat can be launched again without an additional inspection or decontamina-tion. The seal will be verified by a seal inspector at a public boat launch or a trained inspector at a commercial marina.

An entrance to a boat launch in Lake Tahoe advertis-es that all boats are subject to mandatory inspections.


All of the boats that utilize “Tahoe In & Out” boat inspec-tion stickers are verified by a seal inspectors at a launch site or launched at a facility where only “sealed” boats can be launched. As mentioned above, all “Tahoe In & Out” boats that exit the lake can request a seal that links the boat to the trailer. Each seal has a number that is recorded with the boat reg-istration. Boats with unbroken seals can be put back in the lake at any open launch location without having to be inspected or decontaminated. If the seal is broken, the boat is required to undergo a new inspection. If the boat fails inspection, it must be decontaminated.

3. The third sticker is a “Tahoe 7-Day Launch” pass de-signed for use during one consecutive week and requires an inspection and possible decontamination.

• Public Boat Launches: All public launches had to develop programs to comply with the law. Seal inspectors were orga-nized to work at all major public launches. Smaller launches were closed down. The Tahoe Regional Conservation Dis-

Sample of the seals provided for boats exiting the lake. Boats with unbroken seals can be launched on the lake without an inspection or decontamination.

Top picture shows a Lake Tahoe decontamination facility.


trict took the lead in organizing a seal inspector’s program for the major public launches with funding from various federal sources as well as from inspection fees. Some public launch ar-eas have started to charge parking fees to help finance the seal inspectors and provide longer hours of operation. Times when no inspector is present the boat launches are closed. Some boat launches have been equipped with 1-way devices so that boats can be removed after hours, but not launched.

• Private Launches in Residential Areas: While not a major factor in the total boat fleet on Lake Tahoe, private launches are prohibited from launching boats that have not been in-spected. To limit disruptions to the use of these facilities, the TRPA has developed a program where Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are written that detail how these launches will comply with the law. Generally, the MOU identifies an individual who is responsible for oversight at the private launch and the number of boats that are expected to use this launch. If boats are Tahoe In & Out boats they must pass inspection and decontamination if needed or be launched with an unbroken seal. If boats are Tahoe Only the MOU describes a chain of custody that ensures the boats are not used on other water bodies. Launches must be closed when not in use.

• Private Launches with Resort Businesses: Just as with the private launches in residential areas, these private launches are governed by an MOU. These launches are not high-traffic

A personal watercraft is cleaned at a Lake Tahoe decontamination station.

continued on page 34


Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regulations for Aquatic Invasive Species Management

A boat with a “Tahoe Only” registration and inspection sticker,


Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regulations for Aquatic Invasive Species Management (continued)

CLEAR CHOICE: THE NEED FOR STREAM BUFFERS IN THE LAKE GEORGE WATERSHED 34

commercial areas, but where a private resort may provide boat launching and dock space for its guests. Here too, boats must secure inspections/and or decontaminations at an inspec-tion station and the private launch or resort is required to verify that only inspected boats are launched at its facility.

Boats That Fail Inspections are Required to Undergo Decontamination at Approved Facili-ties: Any boat that arrives in Lake Tahoe and fails an inspection will be required to undergo an official decontamination. Once a decontamination is completed a boat is then sealed and can be launched onto the lake at an official location.

In the last year, five inspection/decontamination facilities were operated around Lake Tahoe in areas away from boat launches. Lake Tahoe officials found that conducting inspections for aquatic invasive species at boat launches caused too much congestion. They combined inspec-tion and decontamination systems at the same location. These facilities were moved to roadside locations away from the lake that are easy to reach for boaters and are geographically distributed. Lake Tahoe is 26 miles long and six miles wide, very comparable to Lake George in size.

The decontaminations involve flushing the engine, the bilge, live well, and ballast tanks with 140 degree water for 10 seconds to kill any living organisms. In 2012, a $25 fee will be charged for decontaminations with ballast tanks costing an additional $10.

The TRPA utilizes one permanent and four mobile decontamination facilities. The TRPA worked with other partners to finance the equipment for the various inspection/decontamination facilities. The Tahoe Regional Conservation District organizes the day-to-day management of inspection/ decontamination stations and staffing. Funding is provided by federal programs that support the TRPA as well as by boater fees.

Tahoe Program Places Emphasis on Boaters Being Prepared: The Lake Tahoe program is now placing a heavy emphasis in advertising and public education campaigns on the importance for boaters to arrive in Lake Tahoe with their boats in a “clean, drain & dry” condition. An active “Clean, Drain & Dry” campaign is underway in many areas in the western U.S. with state envi-ronmental agencies adopting it as a major management priority to stop the spread of damaging aquatic invasive species. The program is aimed specifically at boat owners.

“Clean, Drain & Dry” provides a check list for boat owners to clean and dry their boats after the boat is removed from a waterbody. The boat owner should drain the bilge, ballast tanks, live wells and storage compartments, clean up any oil, dirt or debris inside bilges and storage com-partments, and remove all items inside these compartments. Anchor ropes and other equipment must be dry. No plants or animals or soils should be clinging to any part of the boat or trailer. Aquatic invasive species can be transported in wet areas or surfaces, therefore the boat must be clean and dry throughout.

continued from page 31

FOCUS ON THE WATERSHED: A RESEARCH SERIES ON THE CHALLENGES FACING LAKE GEORGE 35

Financial Support for the Lake Tahoe Program: The TRPA worked with other partners to finance the decontamination facilities. The Tahoe Regional Conservation District organized the management of inspection/decontamination stations and works with boat launch owners. TRPA staff manages the various MOUs with the various private boat launches and other facilities and prepares the annual registration/inspection materials.

The Tahoe Resource Conservation District (TRCD) staffs and manages the inspection/decontam-ination facilities. Funding is provided to the TRCD from various federal programs that support the TRPA as well as revenues from annual boat inspection sticker fees.

Enforcement is the last major piece of the Lake Tahoe program. The marine patrol in Lake Ta-hoe now inspects boats on the lake for inspection compliance.

An inspection at an inspection and decontamination site in Lake Tahoe.

CLEAR CHOICE: THE NEED FOR STREAM BUFFERS IN THE LAKE GEORGE WATERSHED 36

Perspectives from Marinas and Resort Operators on the Lake Tahoe Program

The North Shore Marina in Tahoe Vista, California manages 300 “Lake Tahoe Only” boats each year. Kari Kankaanpaa said the marina “sells Tahoe ONLY stickers and keep the fees from sticker sales for the 300 boats. He said the “first year was difficult, but that often is true. Last year went smoothly with no issues.” He stated that the marina does not perform inspections due to “liability concerns.”

The North Shore Marina does a limited amount of launching of boats that are not housed at the marina. “If a boat arrives to launch and is not sealed, it is sent to an offsite facility for inspec-tion. After they learn about the program and witness the extensive inspection process the major-ity are ok with it.”

Kankaanpaa added that the Lake Tahoe aquatic invasive species control program of mandatory boat inspection and decontamination “is very beneficial to the lake. 85% of the residents sup-port the program, the other 15% feel that they shouldn’t have to pay fees.”

Joanne Kilburn works at Obexer’s Marina and Boat Launch in Homewood, California. She said in the “first year the marina did inspections on site with training for staff done by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Tahoe Regional Conservation District. This was overwhelm-ing for staff and confusing.” The marina now launches Tahoe Only or sealed boats and refers boats that are not sealed and need inspections to an official inspection station.

“This past year in the beginning of the season, the TRPA inspectors were onsite prior to the inspections stations opening.” She said that now during the season “All boats are sealed when they arrive at the marina because the TRPA has done a fantastic job educating boaters.”

The system has developed over its first few years. Kilburn credits the TRPA with excellent outreach and information for boaters and marinas. “When an aspect of the program is ready to go live there are very few blips because the TRPA has prepared us and anticipated all of the

FOCUS ON THE WATERSHED: A RESEARCH SERIES ON THE CHALLENGES FACING LAKE GEORGE 37

issues.” Kilburn said that initially the data from forms from boat inspections and launches were compiled by the marina staff, but that this was “overwhelming” and the TRPA took over this function. Marina operators are now responsible to send forms to the TRPA for data input.

Kilburn noted that the program has been further improved by the TRPA providing scanners to the boat launch operators. “Now the boats are scanned in and out. The last two years of boat information is now in the system, so when a Tahoe ONLY boat comes in for its 2012 sticker, the CF number is entered and the boat’s information comes up. Then the new 2012 sticker number will be entered.” This makes it easier for the marina as well as for TRPA recordkeep-ing.

Kilburn said that “all boats are sealed and scanned when they are hauled out unless they are housed on the property. The majority of boats are not housed onsite; therefore boats need to be sealed when hauled out.”

Ed Porras of Meeks Bay Resort in Tahoma Bay, California said “All boats must arrive sealed before launch. Non-motorized boats are inspected at the marina by a Marina Master who is licensed to do the inspection.” While Meeks Bay Resort is authorized to inspect non-motorized boats, all motorized boats are inspected at one of the formal inspection stations. “Most boats are inspected before they get to the marina because they are stopped along the way.” He said that “Fees are a concern, however boaters have participated without too much noise. Boaters care about the lake.” He also said that enforcement is vital to “properly operate such a program”

Other marinas stated that many people who come to Lake Tahoe have heard about the program and are planning ahead. “A lot of boaters have heard about the program, therefore they call the marina before arriving.” Just as the TRPA has worked to make the program more effective and less burdensome, the marinas have changed how they operate to “make the program work.” As one marina staff member stated “Here at Lake Tahoe, people are environmental and are very protective of the lake and are definitely willing to make it work.”


The Main Elements of a New Mandatory Boat Inspection and Decontamination Program for Lake George

An aquatic invasive species management program that focuses on prevention can take many forms. The main purpose of a prevention program is to minimize risk of new infestations. Since the transport of aquatic invasive species sometimes involves high numbers of microscopic juve-niles residing in standing water, the margin of error is very small. Prevention has been found to lower risk by erring on the side of caution and implementing a variety of features that protect a lake by stopping uncontrolled and easy access of boats that may be contaminated and carrying aquatic invasive species.

There are a number of prevention features that could be organized to build an effective new aquatic invasive species prevention program for Lake George. These features should be consid-ered and evaluated by the Lake George Park Commission (LGPC), Department of Environmen-tal Conservation (DEC), local governments, commercial facilities, businesses, policy leaders, organizations and the residents throughout the Lake George watershed.

The next wave of aquatic invasive species, particularly quagga mussels and hydrilla, will be much more devastating to Lake George than the first wave of aquatic invasive species has been. Lake George has been fortunate to have only experienced infestations from four aquatic inva-sives species at a time when other nearby water bodies are infested with far greater numbers. But luck is not a viable long-term management program. The small number of infestations and the high costs to public agencies and the Lake George community from direct control and manage-ment operations for aquatic invasive species make a strong case for action now.

There are a number of features of a comprehensive prevention program that should be evalu-ated as the LGPC and area stakeholders evaluate and develop a new program. Based on a review of other programs around the country the following list provides the most effective elements, adapted for the Lake George area, that should be considered.


Clear regulation that prohibits boat owners and boat launch operators from launching un-certifiedboatsintoLakeGeorge:Strong and clear regulation that institutes three new principal requirements is vital to a successful program:

• No boat may be launched on Lake George that is not certified as a clean boat, free of aquatic invasive species. All boat owners are prohibited from launching a boat on Lake George that has not been certified as free of aquatic invasive species. All boat launch owners and opera-tors, whether commercial or private, are prohibited from launching a boat that has not been certified as free of aquatic invasive species;

• A boat should be defined as any boat that is transported on a trailer and/or has a motor.

• All boats on Lake George should be managed in a comprehensive program that ensures all boats on the lake have been certified as free of aquatic invasive species.

Current LGPC statute only requires registration for boats of any length with an outboard engine over 10 horsepower or any boat over 18 feet in length. A mandatory boat inspection and decon-tamination program should at a minimum cover all boats of any length that use a motor and/or trailer. A program for cartop boats, such as canoes, kayaks and guide-boats also be examined.

An annual certification fee schedule should be set each year by the LGPC for boat fees to help this program. Current fees for day use are $7.50 and $11.25 per week; these are a bargain. This will provide the LGPC with the authority to increase or decrease the fee schedule accordingly. Current LGPC boat registration fees support the annual marine patrol and other organizational functions. Fees will need to be increased to fund invasive species control efforts as well as sup-port extended marine patrol presence in the spring and fall to monitor aquatic invasive species certifications.

Mandatorycertifications:All boats entering Lake George must be inspected and certified that they are free of aquatic invasive species. Given the variety of facilities where a boat can be launched on Lake George, a certification program will need to be flexible and adaptive. Below are some possibilities to consider:

• Clean, Drain & Dry should be a central education campaign for all boats coming to Lake George. The inspection protocol should verify if a boat is clean, drained, and dry, with no vegetation on the boat or trailer and no standing water on the boat or trailer and all equip-ment on board is clean and dry. The clean, drain & dry approach is used across the U.S. to lower the risk of accidental transport, but also to place the responsibility on the boat owner to perform their own inspections prior to transporting their boats. Other places in the U.S. have found that the clean, drain & dry approach was easily understandable by boat owners. Any boat that is not clean, drained and dry should not pass an inspection and need to be decon-


Platform of a permanent decontamination station in Lake Tahoe that captures all water used.

taminated. Clean, drain & dry also allows a boat owner to clean his boat beforehand and thus avoid the decontamination fees and inconvenience.

• The Lake Tahoe experience for combining inspection and decontamination functions in a location away from boat launch areas is compelling. This should be considered for Lake George. While some areas, such as Mossy Point, may be able to facilitate inspection and de-contamination systems in an area associated with a boat launch, most other boat launch areas will not be able to accomplish this during their busiest times. Off-lake inspection and decon-tamination centers should be evaluated.

• Verificationofcertificationatboatlaunches.The Lake Tahoe model sought to limit inter-ference at boat launches. In Lake Tahoe, all boats that wish to launch must first be inspected at a facility located away from launch areas. If this feature was followed on Lake George, then staff at private and public boat launches would verify boat certifications, not perform boat inspections. Once boats obtain aquatic invasive species certification after undergoing


Boat use, inspection and decontamination statistics from Lake Tahoe and Lake George

Lake Tahoe

Number of launch facilities with trained seal inspectors in summer months 12-15

Number of launch facilities with trained seal inspectors in winter months 2-3

Number of inspection/decontamination stations in summer months 5

Number of inspection/decontamination stations in winter months 2

Number of boats inspected in 2011 7,673

Number of decontaminations performed in 2011 4,800

Number of Tahoe Only boats in 2011 6,900

Number of Tahoe In & Out boats in 2011 4,300

Number of 7-Day pass holders boats in 2011 2750

Lake George

Number of public boat launches 3

Number of commercial private boat launches 39

Number of registered boats for the season in 2011 10,387

Number of registered boats for 1 day/1 week in 2011 5,559

Number of Lake Steward inspections in 2011 8,593

inspection and, if necessary, decontamination, they would be free to launch on Lake George provided they were not used in another waterbody. A “seal” system similar to that used for Lake Tahoe could also be used for Lake George.

• Mandatory decontamination for any boats that fail inspection. Any boat that fails inspec-tion will not be certified and must be decontaminated. All boats that have undergone formal decontamination would not be subject to inspection as long as its seal remained intact. De-contaminations should follow a protocol and be undertaken at a facility managed and staffed by the LGPC or by another entity under contract with the LGPC to perform inspections/de-contaminations.


Sign at a public boat launch on Lake Tahoe that only sealed boats will be allowed to launch.

Inspection and decontamination centers should be easily accessible and maintain set hours of operation. Boat owners that arrive in Lake George whose boats are not in a clean, drain & dry condition should expect that they will need to be decontaminated. Visitors to Lake George should be encouraged to plan ahead in order to budget the time necessary to travel to an in-spection and decontamination center prior to launching their boat. Inspection and decontamination centers are needed at the south and north ends of the lake as well as at locations on the east and west sides of the lake. While these centers should be fully staffed during the peak summer season, provision will need to be made for early and late sea-son inspection and decontaminations. The Mayor of the Village of Lake George has offered a site near Exit 21 on the Northway at the south end of the lake for an inspection and decon-tamination facility. An inspection and decontamination facility at Mossy Point makes sense for the north end, yet logistical and legal issues will have to be worked out with the Depart-ment of Environmental Conservation. Sites in the Town of Bolton, Hague, and at a location along Route 22 on the east side of Lake George also make sense. It may be that in the future, once the program is operational and lake boaters have learned about the new program and plan ahead, that fewer inspection/decontamination facilities are needed.

• CertificationforLakeGeorgeOnlyboats. The majority of boats on Lake George are resi-


dent boats that are only used on Lake George. All Lake George Only boats would register with the LGPC in order to receive its annual certification. Registration should include winter storage information. The main objective is to limit interference with the management of this boat fleet, while at the same time ensuring that boats have not been used in other waterbod-ies.

• MemorandumsofUnderstandingforLakeGeorgeOnlyboats between the LGPC and private boat launch operators, be they large commercial marinas, homeowner associations, resorts or other ownership types, could be effectuated that detail boats under their care and custody. There are many facilities that store large numbers of boats over the winter. The majority of these boats are likely to be certified as Lake George Only boats and the annual certification process should be streamlined.

• MemorandumsofUnderstandingforLakeGeorgeOnlyboats between the LGPC and private boat launch operators could be completed for boats that are not cared for by a profes-sional service during the winter, but stored locally by the owner or in a boat house. As long as these boats are not used on other waterbodies, certification as a Lake George Only boat should not be cumbersome.

• Certificationfortransitoryboatsneeds to be mandatory and effective. All boats, whether for day-use or 1-week, must pass mandatory inspections and be certified as free of aquatic invasive species before launching on Lake George.

• LakeGeorgeIn&OutBoatsCertification is designed for boats that operate on Lake George for a short period of time and are then removed, whether day use, a week, or some other period of time. These boats must be inspected and certified as free of aquatic invasive species. When these boats are removed from the lake, owners should be given the oppor-tunity to have a “seal” that links their boat to the trailer. Boats with intact “seals” will au-tomatically be eligible for re-launching to the lake at a later point without further fees or inspections. This provision follows a successful effort in Lake Tahoe to limit the burden on frequent users of the lake who do not store their boat on the lake and who do not frequent other waterbodies. Such a provision balances protection with minor disruptions to regular users. If the boat is used on another waterbody, then the seal is broken. This boat will need to undergo a new inspection and possible decontamination.

• Certificationsatcommercialboatlaunches. All commercial boat launches will be required to verify that all boats they launch are certified. Commercial boat launches should be encour-aged to provide a trained and certified inspector among its staff. The LGPC should develop a program whereby private inspectors receive training. To recoup costs for the time that the inspection takes, the private launch operator should be allowed to keep part of the inspection fee. Any uncertified boat arriving at a private launch that does not have a private inspector will need to undergo inspection and certification at another location.


• Unsupervised public launches should be closed or controlled. Any public boat launch that is accessible to the public will need to be closed when a staff is not present to verify aquatic invasive species certification.

• Live bait must be purchased locally. Live bait wells and bait buckets have been found to be leading sources for the transport of aquatic invasive species. The LGPC should evaluate the possibility of banning all live bait purchased from outside locations other than those regis-tered and certified with the LGPC as free of aquatic invasive species. The number of local live bait facilities are not numerous. All bait would need to be purchased from one of these registered facilities and boaters arriving at a launch with live bait would need to have docu-mentation of local purchase.

• Spring and fall public launching at locations such as Million Dollar Beach, Rogers Rock, Mossy Point, Town of Hague and Northwest Bay, among others, will need to be managed. Since it’s unlikely that boat inspection/decontamination will be provided during winter months, as Lake George largely closes down in the winter, measures will need to be under-taken for ensuring that only certified boats are launched during cold weather months.

• Cartop boats: The efficacy of developing a mandatory program for all non-motorized, cartop boats should be evaluated. At the very least an educational campaign should be devel-oped aimed at these lake users.


Case Studies: Relevant Features from Other State Mandatory Boat Inspection and Decontamination Programs.

Aquatic invasive species boat inspection programs exist throughout the U.S. with varying degrees of oversight. The imminent threat of new and more harmful aquatic invasive species has risen with the possibility of quagga mussel and hydrilla infestations in particular. The pro-longed costs of management have taken a toll, with many communities turning their focus on prevention. Though these programs have been set up to deal with a wide variety of aquatic invasive species, prevention programs are conducting public education campaigns that empha-size “Clean, Drain & Dry” maintenance programs for all boat owners as they transport their boats.

Aquatic invasive species boat inspection programs vary depending on the size of the involved watersheds or whether they are statewide programs.

The quality of state programs depends on resources and enforcement. In Colorado, it is the law that boat owners are required to go to a state authorized inspection location and receive docu-mentation of the inspection prior to launching their boat in any water of the state “…if the ves-sel or other floating device has been in another state’s waters in the last 30 days, or if your boat is not registered in Colorado.” The state of Idaho requires an invasive species sticker purchased at a state inspection station. In Oregon, the registration permit can be purchased online, but boat owners will be fined if they launch their boat without an inspection.

With most of the programs, boat owners need to be prepared for an inspection, and therefore boats must be clean, drained and dry during transport and upon arrival to be launched. Programs implemented in Lake Tahoe, the East Bay Regional Park District in San Francisco and in Oregon require that boats are physically sealed via a zip-tie or wire to the trailer after being inspected. This seal is not broken until launch, which ensures that ALL launches have been inspected for invasive species.


Inspectors set up a mobile decontamination station in Lake Tahoe.

Inspection programs are customized for the intended users, as one approach does not work for all scenarios. In many locations, water bodies are closed after September when staffing is not available. During the busy summer season, launch ramps have hours of operation. In Massachusetts, watercraft inspection is free when scheduled and completed in the wintertime, leaving enough cold weather before boating season to kill any invasives species that may be present. In all invasive species inspection programs, prevention through education of boaters is the most crucial component.

The main features of aquatic invasive species prevention programs that focus on boat inspection and decontamination are detailed below.


Oregon: In August 2011, a new state law was passed to start mandatory boat inspections on Memorial Day 2012. Here are the main features of Oregon’s law:

• Inspection stations will be set up at roadsides and boat launches throughout the state and indicated using an orange “Boat Inspection Ahead” sign (at ports of entry, roadsides and boat ramps). All vehicles carrying motorized and non-motorized boats are required to stop and undergo an inspection.

• Failure to stop at a boat inspection station could result in $142 fine.

• If the inspection finds quagga or zebra mussels and a decontamination is performed on the spot, the boat owner is not charged a fee.

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provides boat inspectors and enforce-ment and is assisted by Oregon State Police.

• Zip-tie is connected from the boat to the trailer as proof that the boat has been inspected and is clean to launch. An inspection form is given to all vessels and must be carried in zip lock plastic on board. Zip-tie is removed by the boat owner when launching.

• Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Program is self-supported by sale of Aquatic Inva-sive Species Permits. All boats are required to purchase this permit.

• A $5 fee is added to registered motorboat owners to cover costs of the Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Program.

• Non-resident motorboat annual permits $22 ($20 permit and $2 agent fee) are available through ODFW online, at ODFW license sales agents and ODFW offices.

Portable decontamination station sign and public notification sign about inspection at Lake Tahoe.


Many states have mandatory inspection and decontamination programs. Top: a roadside invasive species protection station in Arizona. Middle (left to right): inspection in Colorado, Oregon invasive species permit, inspection station in Colorado. Bottom (left to right): roadside inspection in Idaho, Arizona public education, Idaho permit.


• Non-motorized craft annual permits $7 ($5 permit and $2 agent fee).

• “Clean, Drain, Dry” is promoted.

California: There is no statewide law in California, but many local laws are in effect, which require advance planning by boaters.

• Mandatory boat inspections are required for specific water bodies in California (Crowley Lake in Los Angeles and East Bay Regional Park District around San Francisco, as well as Lake Tahoe, to name a few).

• In order to pass a boat inspection, the boat and all accessories must be absolutely clean and dry (including motor, deck, hull, bilge, bait wells, ropes, lines, fishing equipment, trailer, rear of vehicle and personal flotation devices). Trailered vessels not passing in-spection because the boat is not clean and dry will be subject to five-day quarantine.

• $7 fee for motorized (future charge waived if banding with a plastic tie is in place) and $4 for car-top inspection good for 30 days (must be inspected at each launch). Fees partially offset the cost of the inspection program.

Colorado: State of Colorado Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Regulations were approved by the Colorado State Parks Board in February 2009.

• All persons transporting a vessel or other floating device must go to a state authorized inspection location and submit to an inspection and receive documentation prior to launching in any water of the state if the vessel or other floating device has been in another state’s waters in the last 30 days, or if the boat are not registered in Colorado.

• Proof of decontamination will consist of a receipt using the form “ANS Documenta-tion and Vessel Decontamination Form” provided by the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Such forms shall document the reasons for the decontamination, any aquatic nuisance species found, the date and location of the decontamination, and the method(s) of decontamination used. Authorized agents, private decontaminators, or qualified peace officers may also apply a Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination (WID) seal to document the decontamination procedure.

• All vessels entering Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir must be inspected. Launches at both have hours of operation and are closed when no staffing is available.

Massachusetts: There is no statewide law in Massachusetts, but many local laws are in effect, which require advance planning by boaters.

• In July 2009, the Quabbin Reservoir was closed for 45 days as the waterbody was


inspected for zebra mussels (found in nearby Laurel Lake). None were identified, but it was considered a necessary inconvenience to boaters.

• Beginning April 17, 2010 the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Resources established two boat certification options for the Quabbin Reservoir: 1) Free inspec-tion scheduled before February 5 as a ‘cold-weather quarantine program’ to seal boat to trailer for nine weeks (a time period sufficient to kill and aquatic invasive species); or 2) A certification beginning in early April that will inspect, clean and seal the boat at an approved washing site. No additional inspection is necessary if the boat and seal is intact when launched.

Idaho: A statewide law was passed in 2009.

• Mandatory watercraft inspection stations began in spring 2009 with road side inspection stations operated by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. Inspection stations are open 7 a.m. - 7 p.m., seven days per week, during summer months and closed in September.

• The inspection and decontamination program is funded by fees from sales of Invasive Species Stickers (resident motorboat permits $22 and all non-motorized craft annual per-mits $7). Boats registered in Idaho do not need a separate Invasive Species Sticker.

• Law states that anyone transporting a watercraft must stop at a boat inspection station. All boaters in Idaho should plan to be inspected at a roadside facility.

• Idaho program emphasizes “Clean, Drain & Dry.”

Wyoming: A statewide law made inspections of all boats mandatory. This law began in June 2011.

• Beginning in June 2011 all boats are required to be inspected for invasive species. The Wyoming Game and Wildlife Department manages boat inspection stations. Boat inspection stations are set up along routes to major boating destinations in the state.

• An Invasive Species sticker is required on all watercraft longer than 10 feet (motorized $10/non-motorized $5 and out-of-state $30/$15).

Montana: The State of Montana manages a voluntary program for boat inspections and a public education effort to raise awareness and promote voluntary decontamination by boat owners.

• In 2010, the state launched an “Inspect, Clean, Dry” public education campaign.


• The Montana Department of Agriculture manages roving invasive species inspection stations on major highways and entry points throughout the state from May through Sep-tember (Friday-Sunday, 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.).

• Early detection and watercraft inspection included a campaign with billboards, signs, radio, TV and paid advertisements, and direct mailings as well as websites.

New Mexico: The State of New Mexico operates periodic inspections of boats and an active public education effort to raise awareness about aquatic invasive species.

• During major holidays in 2010 the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, together with New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and the New Mexico State Parks Division, initiated Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) roadblock inspec-tion stations around the state. The Public was advised to be prepared to be inspected and advised to maintain boats and gear in a clean and dry condition.

• The state also manages an active “Clean, Drain, Dry, Every time” public education effort.

Arizona: The State of Arizona provides authority to state agencies for inspections, but they are not mandatory.

• State regulations passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2009 provided the Arizona Game and Fish Department the authority to establish conditions for moving watercraft.

• Quagga mussels were found in Lake Mead in January 2007 and have spread wildly. This stimulated action to focus efforts to prevent further infestations.

• Boaters in Arizona are encouraged to practice “clean, drain and dry” boat maintenance along with waiting five days before visiting another lake. Tom McMahon, invasive spe-cies coordinator with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, stated “Now Arizona has Directors Orders in effect requiring boaters to follow those practices at lakes known to have quagga mussels.”

Minnesota: A statewide program was created in 1992 and strengthened authority with legisla-tion in 2011.

• The Watercraft Inspection Program was created in 1992 in response to legislation pro-posed by the DNR, Minnesota Lakes Association and angling groups.


• In 2011, legislation aimed at strengthening Minnesota’s ability to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species was signed into law. As a result of this legisla-tion, the DNR could give watercraft inspectors new authorities.

• DNR authorized inspectors can prohibit the launching or operation of water-relat-ed equipment if a person refuses to allow an inspection, or doesn’t remove water or aquatic invasive species. Authorized inspectors can also require a watercraft to be decontaminated prior to launching into Minnesota waters.

• In 2012 the Watercraft Inspection Program will be delivered regionally with approximately 100 Level 1 Watercraft Inspector Interns who will be trained to inspect watercraft, and 46 Level 2 Watercraft Inspectors who will be trained to inspect and decontaminate watercraft.

• Inspectors will be placed at a number of locations across the state based on risk, high-use, zebra mussel infested waters and DNR Enforcement checkpoints on roads near waterbodies. Because there are not enough resources to have inspec-tors everywhere, boaters must practice Clean, Drain, and Dry and inspect their own boats.

• Citizens who are interested in informing the public about aquatic invasive species and how to slow their spread can receive AIS volunteer training from the Water-craft Inspection Program staff.

Questions and Answers with Ted Thayer, Invasive Species Coordinator with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

When did the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency begin its mandatory boat inspection and decontamination program?

The program started on a volunteer basis in 2007 with the Tahoe Resource Conservation District inspecting boats at a couple of ramps on the busiest times of year, busy weekends, etc. But it didn’t become mandatory until the summer of 2008 when boats were subject to inspection by TRPA code. Then in the fall of 2008, we took the step to require that all launch facilities have an inspector present to inspect boats or verify inspection occurred elsewhere prior to launch. The program that we have now began in 2009.

With all of the potential controversy, what were the reasons that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency made the decision to implement a mandatory boat inspection and decon-tamination program?

It came down to protecting the natural resources that we have here. Lake Tahoe is a very impor-tant, national/international treasure. It is the focus of our recreational based economy in the region as well. When we look at the potential risk of further invasion, particularly by quagga and zebra mussels, we determined that despite the controversy it is worth the risk because we have such a beautiful place to protect. We also had to act to protect our local economy.

Has this program been successful?

This program has been successful primarily because of the partnerships that are mandated and were created initially. The Tahoe Resource Conservation District started this as a voluntary pro-gram, which the TRPA then was able to assist with code requirements to make it mandatory. So the TRPA has a partnership with the Tahoe Resource Conservation District, but we also have


great partnerships with private marinas who actually launch these boats, as well as other pub-lic agencies around the lake that operate launch facilities, as well as the boaters. It is the fact that it is a strong partnership and we are all will-ing to look at any given challenge and try and create the best solution for everyone that we’ve been able to be so successful.

What were the challenges when you started to create this mandatory program?

One of the jobs we had when we started to cre-ate this program was to bring all of the launch facilities on board, both private and public. It was not as difficult as we had anticipated getting them to participate, but definitely as the years have gone on, their participation has grown and their partnership has become stronger. But that was one of the things that if we hadn’t been able to at least get them to cooperate, if not actually collaborate which they are doing now, we would have had a very difficult time to try and get this program going solely through regulatory authori-ty. It wouldn’t have worked here very well. That was one of the biggest challenges.

Another challenge that we continually face is trying to balance being protective. We have to look at the risk that various boats present in terms of bringing in different invasive species and how we can reduce that risk to a point that is satis-factory, knowing that there is no such thing as zero risk. Reducing risk while maintaining boat-ing recreational activities to ensure that we still have a diverse economy based on recreation is a bit of a challenge from time to time, but so far I think we’re doing a pretty good job of it.

How does this program impact private homeowners who may have private boat launches on their properties or within the homeowner association property?

It depends on what type of launch you’re talking about. If you group into launches things like boat lifts and marine rail-ways or if the system to launch and recover the boat does not allow the boat to be removed from property and taken to another lake, it does not affect them all. People can use boat lifts and marine rail way systems as much as they want without having any concern

Ted Thayer talks with one of the staff about use of different equipment at a roadside boat deconamina-tion station near Lake Tahoe.


or contact with our program other than when they first launch into the lake from another launch facility. If the homeowners and homeowners associations (HOAs) actually have a boat ramp, then we engage with them to sign a Memorandum of Understanding that they will not launch boats that have not been previously inspected. They need to have someone on staff that we train as a seal inspector, that is very minimal training, so that they understand how to remove seals from boats. They need to have an MOU and inspector – which states that they will not launch boats that have not been previously inspected. There are very few of those around the lake in terms of private properties. And HOAs generally have some sort of maintenance person that can fill that role.

When the boat is sealed after inspection, the number on the blue clip gets logged in with the date and registration number. What happens when the boat is launched into the water?

When a boat is inspected, it is sealed to the trailer with a wire and a blue clip. Prior to launch-ing, the wire is cut and the number on the blue chip is recorded on the data sheet with the date, boat registration number, the inspection sticker number and the inspectors initials. When the boat is pulled from the water, a wire attaches the boat to the trailer and the same information is recorded on the haul out data sheet with the new blue clip number. We don’t track the boat from here to there; each individual boat is not tracked. It’s more having this in place with these numbers so that if we do an audit and see something wrong it can be followed up. This system also provides the potential for us to pursue a civil violation against someone messing with the system, who somehow figured out how to use the same seal over and over again.

How does this program impact the private commercial marinas that launch boats on the lake?

As little as we possibly can and still meet our goals of having a rigorous program. Basically, these private commercial marinas and launch ramps participate in the program by MOU or contract. If they have a forklift or gantry they only really have one impact, as they don’t really need additional staff to implement this program. We compensate them for data reporting on the boats that they launch, but they don’t actually do inspections. They only check for previously sealed boats and keep track that the boats they are launching have only been in their possession. Because we consider any boat that remains in the possession of one of our MOU marinas as never having left Lake Tahoe, they don’t need a new inspection.

For facilities that have boat ramps, we have found that depending on how busy the ramp is they may need to bring on additional staff. So through the sales of our inspection stickers, we com-pensate them for those additional staff. We also have worked with them and encouraged them to come up with logistical solutions to make it as easy as possible. We take their advice because obviously we don’t run the marinas, so we go to them and say “...here are your side boards we


want to make sure every boat is inspected prior to launch. We also don’t want to adversely affect your business. So, help us Mr. Marina Owner (who knows your marina far better than we as regulators do), what’s the best way we can do this?” So it varies from marina to marina what their procedures are, but the bottom line is they check boats to make sure they have been inspected prior to launch.

Again, it’s cooperation to have them come up with their own ideas to make it work for them. We evaluate their ideas and if it meets the requirements of insuring that these boats have been inspected and don’t pose a threat, we go with it.

How does the program impact the public boat launches?

There are seven public boat launches that are run by either public agencies or local public util-ity districts. At one point earlier in the program they were doing inspections, but we found that when we moved to roadside inspection stations, it was so much easier for us in the way our road network are to just have inspection stations at those locations. This past year, we did have Tahoe city staff at one public ramp at the northeast corner of the lake because we were not able to provide a location for a roadside inspection station and we were concerned about people having to drive too far to get inspected. We ended up not inspecting many boats; most were already sealed anyway so we’re reconsidering if we do that again. It’s so much smoother for everyone concerned if the public launch facility is operated just like the private ones and hire their own staff. They don’t have to coordinate with someone else when they want to open. Just like the private marinas, we compensate them for that with the inspection sticker sales.

Who staff the boat launches during the winter months?

Lake Tahoe does not ice over and there is year round boating. In winter it is dramatically reduced with primarily local fishermen. We have two public boat launches that remain open and are staffed by TRCD at the ramps. We do not have roadside inspection stations as there isn’t the business to warrant it.

What was the experience on Lake Tahoe for boaters when new rules were put into place establishing hours of operation at the boat launches, mandatory inspection and decontami-nation of boats and the fact that some of these public boat launches that may have been open 24/7 are now locked down at 8 p.m. in summer or 4 p.m. in the winter?

Some of the public launches that had been open 24 hours 7 days a week now have opening and closing times, and that was the biggest change. Other than initially, until we worked out some of the kinks, having inspections in the summer at some of these private/commercial and public launch facilities, really logistically didn’t work very well. Especially on weekends, we ended up creating longer waits at the launches than necessary. So we brought inspections out to roadside


locations so you’re not trying to launch boats and inspect at the same line. The biggest thing was the limited ramp hours where they had been unlimited hours before, that was where we had the biggest challenge with the boating public themselves, primarily the fishing community.

When we went to the public launch facilities and said “...what time do we need to open and how long during the day do we need to be opened?” We looked at when most of the boats come and go. For most of the boaters it didn’t really change much, but for those who liked to fish earlier on the lake, there were issues with that. We also left it up to the launch facilities if they could come up with a solution. For example, the public ramp on the north shore changed their own fee structure. They used to have fees just for parking and not launch fees and they changed this to include a launch fee to generate more revenue and decided to use that revenue to stay open until 11 p.m. at night in the summer. Because they were concerned that there were a lot of boating restaurants on that part of the lake and that they wanted to be sure that day use without moor-ings people were out there eating dinner and would be able to get back off of the lake. We have looked at ways to make it as easy as possible. That was one of the biggest challenges that these public launches had been free to launch at any time day or night.

It’s great to hear these creative solutions to some of the challenges because everywhere on the lake is a little different.

It is, we have a boat launch facility that actually has their gate at the road so their entry drive-way is gated when the inspectors leave at 8 p.m. at night and their exit has a tire ripper so it’s one way. Boats cannot launch after hours, but boats can haul out late at night. If they do this, they can’t get sealed and will have to come back during hours to be inspected, but it gives people an option. The additional inspection doesn’t cost them anything other than their time because we have annual inspection fees. If they do need decontamination, we just got through our governing board a new fee structure that charges for the decontamination. There is still a yearly, annual sticker for unlimited inspections. If you don’t show up clean, drained and dry, and decontamination is required because you have standing water on your boat, or you have invasive species on your boat, or it’s so filthy dirty we can’t tell if your boat has invasive spe-cies on it, then there is an additional charge for that decontamination.

The new decontamination fees makes sense. It seems like the other program with unlim-ited decontaminations included with the inspection sticker was not going to be sustainable.

No, we did 4,800 decontaminations last year. 63% of all boats inspected needed to be decon-taminated, we couldn’t sustain that. The two reasons to do this is; 1) have more cost recovery for the more expensive part of the program. The more decontaminations you do, the more staff you have to have because decontamination takes longer and takes more staff, and also uses more resources such as fuel and water; and 2) we’re hoping this will help encourage people to show up clean, drained and dry and reduce the number of decontaminations that are necessary.


That’s really a proactive approach even though people will be hit with a little bit more of a fee, but it’s that education, clean, drained and dry that is critical.

Boaters that need decontamination will be hit with a little bit more of a fee if they don’t take the necessary steps prior to inspection. We’re going through a lot of outreach to be sure people understand what clean, drain and dry means. If boaters show up clean, drained and dry, they won’t need decontamination and won’t incur that additional charge.

Does clean, drained and dry also include a waiting period since your boat was in another body of water, or if your boat is clean, drained and dry you’re all set? Some other pro-grams require that a boat has to be out of the water 5 days.

We have done that in the past. This year we eliminated that. The rationale is that it conflicts with the message of clean, drained and dry. For instance, they show up clean, drained and dry but haven’t been 5 days out of another body of water and would then still need to be decontami-nated. The most important thing is for people to show up clean, drained and dry. Yes, certainly the days out of the waterbody does make a difference in terms of the risk of a boat, but we feel that if inspectors are giving it a thorough inspection, that becomes less of an issue. If they find anything then it will be decontaminated anyway. The other thing we’ve found is that relying on the boating public to relay how long the boat has been out of the waterbody is not perfect. Even those that are really being honest, they don’t exactly remember how long it was.

Would you please give us a quick synopsis on how the program has evolved and changed?

It started out as a volunteer program, like Lake George has currently, and then it transitioned through code requirements by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to become a mandatory program. We have made changes from doing all of our inspections at the ramps themselves and charging per inspection to moving those inspections away from the ramps to roadside stations and charging an annual fee. This was done to make it as cost effective and the least impact to boaters as possible. The program is just as rigorous if we do inspections at the ramps or on the roadside, but we chose to do inspection and decontamination on the roadside and the reason we did it on the roadside, it is more efficient so that everybody wins. We started as a voluntary program on the ramps and then went to a mandatory program on the ramps and then moved the actual inspections and decontamination services to the roadside stations. Only the seal inspectors are now at the ramps.

How has this program been funded and what are the future plans for funding?

Up until this year, through 2011, it has been funded primarily by federal funds that we’ve received through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. These are federal funds from the sale of Bureau of Land Management lands in Clark County Nevada. These funds are


available to Nevada and Lake Tahoe region for various environmentally pertinent projects from forest to aquatic invasive species control and inspection. So that has been the majority of our funding. We also received some appropriation funds from US Fish and Wildlife a couple years ago. We’re about 2/3 federally funded and 1/3 funded through our inspection fees with the deci-sion by the TRPA Board this month (January 2012) to increase the fees including the addition of a decontamination fee, and change the fee structure to be about 47% funded by fees, with the remainder federal funds. The long term is to perhaps, if necessary, raise the boat fees slightly more, but we’re going to be looking for other sources of funding because there are a lot of groups in the Lake Tahoe region that benefit from having this program. We’re looking at a ben-efit based program where perhaps a lot of purveyors and the resort community also contribute some funds to the running of this program. At the same time we’re constantly looking for ways to reduce the costs of this program. And I hope that through our changes in the fee structure and promoting ‘clean, drain, dry’ we will be able to do fewer decontaminations to reduce the costs. The costs will go down and revenue from various sources will go up, and we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.

What advice do you have for other communities that are discussing similar mandatory inspectionanddecontaminationprogramssuchasLakeGeorge?

The biggest advice that I would give is really three things. First of all, don’t let ‘perfect’ be the enemy in the good. You can look at a program like the Tahoe program (where we’ve had the luxury of an independent funding source that’s funded us very well) and say we need to do exactly what they’re doing. But, that may not be possible. Doing anything to reduce the risk is better than doing nothing to reduce the risk. This is not an all or nothing proposition and so do anything you can do, of course the more you can do the better.

The second thing is to emphasize partnerships because that is the one thing that does make this program successful. Build partnerships, not just with other agencies but also with non-profits and the private sector. If you do that, I think it’s important to remember that we all benefit from a program like this. We all approach it a little differently, and for example, when dealing with the private marinas you have to understand that they are a business and their bottom-line is important to them both in the short term and the long term. Acknowledging, that when you have partnerships, you do not always get exactly what you want. You can see that you’re moving in the right direction. That’s what you need to do.

Third, I think it’s important that we continue to have discussions like we’ve had, and that our two lakes are having. Talking about what works and what doesn’t and looking at broader regional approaches for Lake George as part of the Lake Champlain basin, with resources and coordination available through the Lake Champlain Basin Program. And make sure that if Lake George has a rigorous program, but that there other lakes in that basin that can’t participate and work together to address the larger issue, that’s certainly something that’s important.


Looking at this for the entire Adirondack Park and the Northeast, we should be able to begin the same campaign out there for clean, drained, and dry boats. A dry boat has less opportunity to spread invasives and is therefore a safer boat. If we can just get every boater to start understanding that that’s the expectation before you launch into any body of water, we’re ahead of the game.

Exactly, and it becomes just common practice for most people to do that which solves a lot of the problem. A common analogy is the use of seat belts, you don’t have every person going down the street in every car constantly being stopped by police officers to verify that they’re wearing seat belts. They have campaigns, they go out to be sure that people know that if they are pulled over and you don’t have a seat belt you’re going to get ticketed. If your boat is not clean, drained and dry and you come to a facility that has inspectors they’re going to decon-taminate your vessel. But I think that it becomes just a part of standard operating procedures like wearing your seat belt. Hopefully it will just become standard operating procedure for people to clean, drain and dry your boat. Not only does it help prevent invasive species, it also helps maintain the boat. You don’t want to have standing water inside your boat where things can grow and you want to make sure your boat is nice and clean, so hopefully it will become standard practice and then even other lakes that don’t have an inspection program can benefit by having people just getting used to doing it.

Interview with Ted Thayer was conducted by Kathy Bozony, Natural Resources Specialist with the Lake George Waterkeeper, on January 27, 2012. Ted Thayer is the Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.



Sources

Journal Articles

Finoff, D., Shogren, J., Leung, B., Lodge, C. (2006). Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics, 216-222.

Kim, C.S., Lubowksi, R., Lewandrowski, J., Eiswerth, M. (2006). Prevention or Control: Optimal Government Policies for Invasive species Management. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29-40.

Mehta, S., et al. (2007). Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species manage-ment. Ecological Economics, 237-245.

Horan, R., et al. (2002). Biological Pollution Prevention Strategies Under Ignorance: The Case of Invasive Species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1303-1310.

Finnoff, D., Shogren, J., Leung, D., Lodge, D. (2005). The importance of bioeconomic feedback in invasive species management. Ecological Economics, 367-381.

Leung, B., et al. (2002). An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. The Royal Society, 2407-2413.

Ricciardi, A., Rasmussen, J. (1998). Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. NRC Canada, 1759-1765.

Interviews

Ted Thayer, Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, January 27, 2012.

Kari Kankaanpaa, The North Shore Marina, Tahoe Vista, California, March 14, 2012

Joanne Kilburn, Obexer’s Marina and Boat Launch, Homewood, California, March 14, 2012

Ed Porras, Meeks Bay Resort, Tahoma Bay, California, March 12, 2012 Kim Boyd,Invasive Species Project Manager, Tahoe Regional Conservation District, numerous con-tacts October 2011-March 2012t

Dave Roberts,District Manager, Tahoe Regional Conservation Distric, numerous contact October 2011, March 2012

Keith Fish, Lake George Park Commission boats data

Laws and Regulations

Aquatic Invasive Species Management, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regulations.

New York State Lake George Park Commission, Subparts 645 and 646 of Title 6, New York State Compilation of Rules and Regulations

New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 43 Lake George Park Commission



FUND for Lake George Resolution Calling for the Lake George Park Commission to Adopt a New Program for Mandatory Boat Inspection and Decontamination

Whereas Lake George currently is experiencing infestations of four aquatic invasive species; and,

Whereas aquatic invasive species infestations pose a serious threat to the eco-logical health of Lake George; and

Whereas over $7 million has been spent to try to remove and control the four known aquatic invasive species established in Lake George; and,

Whereas the tourist industry is a vital part of the local economy and is largely dependent upon on the lake’s clean water; and,

Whereas interdiction and prevention have been found to be the best ways to contain and control aquatic invasive species; and,

Whereas Lake George faces a grave threat from aquatic invasive species, such as quagga mussels, that are spread by boats in engine waters, bilge and ballast waters as well as live bait containers, during the time the mussel is in its juvenile microscopic period and is highly transportable; and,

Whereas around Lake George interdiction currently relies exclusively on public education and voluntary compliance to check for visible plants and animals; and,

Whereas the Norowal Marina in Bolton is currently experiencing a major infesta-tion of the invasive Asian clam despite being the site of the most intensive public educational efforts over the past six years; and,

Whereas a viable mandatory boat inspection and decontamination program has been successfully established for Lake Tahoe, a large and highly popular lake with numerous public and private points of entry; and,

Whereas a centralized program is needed for Lake George, which is bordered by eight towns, one village and three counties; and,

Whereas the Lake George Park Commission has been invested by State law to restrict and manage all aspects of boat operation on Lake George; and,

Therefore, be it now resolved that the FUND for Lake George supports the creation of a new mandatory boat inspection and decontamination program for Lake George by the Lake George Park Commission in order to protect the water quality and public enjoyment of Lake George to the maximum extent practicable by pro-actively preventing the introduction of new aquatic invasive species.

Focus on the Watershed: A Research Series on the Challenges Facing Lake George

The FUND for Lake George publishes Focus on the Watershed: A Research Series on the Challenges Facing Lake George to bring information to public officials, local and state agencies, landowners, residents, organizations and all who are concerned about the future of Lake George throughout its watershed and beyond. All reports are available for download on www.fundforlakegeorge.org. Reports published include:

Altering Our Natural Streams: A Study of the Effectiveness and impacts of construction of instream sediment basins in Lake George Streams for the Removal of Pollutants (2011)

2010 Rainbow Smelt Report (2010)

2009 Rainbow Smelt Report (2009)

2007-2009 Stream Assessment Report (2010)

2008 Stream Assessment Report (2009)

2007 Stream Assessment Report (2008)

Clear Choice: The Need for Stream Buffers in the Lake George Watershed (2008)


Mission and Vision

The FUND for Lake George, formed in 1980, is a not-for-profit, privately funded organization dedicated to the protection of Lake George and its nine surrounding communities.

Vision

The vision for the FUND for Lake George is:

• To stabilize or enhance the water quality of Lake George;• To create an effective state and local environmental regulatory infrastructure

for the protection of Lake George;• To improve development practices and regulatory review in the nine

communities around Lake George;• To support responsible economic and development projects that mitigate

environmental impacts and maintain the scenic beauty of Lake George; and,• To preserve the fundamental Lake George experience that has been cherished

by seasonal and year-round residents and visitors for generations.

Mission

The FUND for Lake George will use lake and watershed monitoring and scientific best practices to:

• Continuously benchmark the water quality of Lake George;• Support and monitor municipalities and state agencies in decision making

and regulating land use; and,• To develop advocacy and educational programs.

PO Box 352 2199a State Route 9 Lake George, NY 12845518–668–9700 [email protected]

Jeff Killeen, ChairJames Wolitarsky, Vice-ChairBetty Spinelli, SecretaryBob Bailey, TreasurerRobert Dickson, PhDElinor FraserGena Lindyberg

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

John Macionis, PhDDon Rice Margaret Schadler, PhDEdmund ScheiberTom WestSusan WeberWendy Whalen

STAFF

Peter Bauer Executive Director

Kathy Bozony Natural Resource Specialist

Chris Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper

Emily Oswald Administrative Coordinator

Documents

Clean Boats Only