Upload
nadeauhannah
View
156
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
For credit, my group analyzed the UT DWR\'s current aquatic invasive species policy and presented three policy recommendations.
Citation preview
Protect Our Precious Waterways:Stopping the invasion
Introduction• Utah Society for Aquatic Protection (USAP)• Concerned about the future of Utah’s waterways• Presenting to the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources regarding Quagga and Zebra Mussels• Mussels cause significant damage to waterways
and threaten every potential water recreation activity
Quagga MusselsPhoto credit:USFWS
Zebra Mussels
Photo credit: USFWS
The history of the invasion
Context and Background
The Migration• Zebra and Quagga mussels were originally found
in Eurasia• Transported by boats and water equipment• Arrived in the US via infested ships in 1989• As an invasive species, they spread across the US
like wildfire• Some waterways in the Eastern US are now
contaminated beyond repair
The Damage• Mussels attach themselves to anything solid• They clog water intakes and cover boats, docks,
water shores, etc.• Removal is extremely expensive
Parker Dam Intake on the Colorado
Mussels on the Outdrive of a Vessel
Utah Aquatic Invasive Species Management
• The Utah Department of Wildlife Resources has found species in Utah• Sand Hollow Reservoir: Infested• Red Fleet Reservoir and Electric Lake: Detected
• Something must be done
The current situation
Description and Critique of the Pre-existing Policies or Programs
Current Policy• Utah’s current policy is very basic• Very basic prevention attitude• Monitoring• Education• Conservation officer training• Self-certification• Makes it illegal to transport invasive species between
bodies of water
Self-Certification• Recommends that all boaters clean, drain, dry,
and inspect their boats• Warns boaters to be prepared to fill out a
certification form that uses the honor system to show that a self inspection was completed
The Disadvantages• Self-certification is based on the honor system and
has little enforcement • Decontamination of boats is only highly
recommended – There is no law• Current policy is not aggressive • Mandates education, training, and monitoring• Does not mandate that the invasion is halted
Other State’s Policies• Potential action at Lake Pueblo in Colorado• Removing mussels by hand• Lake drawdown: lowering the level of water in the lake• These actions are not plausible
• Current Colorado policy calls for mandatory boat inspections, but it is too late to save Lake Pueblo from the invasion
• Virginia: Millbrook Quarry• Pumped 174,000 gallons of potassium into the lake• The action was effective, but…• Efficiency?• Cost?• Impacts?
The Consequences: What Works?• States with a policy similar to Utah’s say it does
not work• Education does little to halt the invasion• Water usage fees can possibly change the
attitudes of water users but they are not enough• Mandatory inspections only work if they are
restrictive and are accompanied by other methods• Lake Powell
How can we fix the problem?
The Alternatives
The Alternatives• Alternative A: Mandatory inspection stations• Alternative B: Tax for All• Alternative C: Widespread prevention, inspection
and education approach
Alternative A: Mandatory inspection stations• Create mandatory inspections for all vehicles
transporting water vessels at locations deemed necessary by the DWR
• Inspection stations would be free• Every station would have at least two inspectors• Data would be collected for every vessel and
would be used to track the vessel’s use on waterways across the US
Alternative A: Mandatory inspection stations
Advantages• Basic system• Studies have shown
this approach to be useful
Disadvantages• Basic system• Funding would be cut
from other programs• Could hinder the
formation of other programs by the DNR
Alternative B: Tax for All• Implement a water use tax for every citizen of
Utah• Taxes would be used to fund an inspection system• All Utah residents would be required to pay for
prevention• Infected waterways would be shut down• Boaters would be required to obtain a license • Demonstrate safe operation of a vessel• Demonstrate knowledge of invasive species prevention• Demonstrate proper decontamination and inspection of a
vessel
• As with Alternative A, water use data systems would be used
Alternative B: Tax for All
Advantages• Effective and funded
Disadvantages• Utahans would be
against a state-wide tax
• Boaters would resist licensing
Alternative C: Widespread prevention, inspection and education approach
• Tax usage for all individuals launching a vessel on Utah’s waterways
• Tax would be collected from the sale of vessel registration stickers
• Registration stickers would be tracked electronically by scanning a bar code to view vessel’s use on infected waters
• Data collected could also be used to monitor the effectiveness of the program
• Revenue from the tax would only be used to fund the zebra and quagga mussel prevention policy (education, mandatory inspections, etc.)
• Place inspectors and inspection stations at every waterway in Utah
• No watercraft may launch when the inspection stations are closed
Alternative C: Widespread prevention, inspection and education approach
Advantages• Comprehensive
program• Implements multiple
methods of prevention
Possible Disadvantages
• Requires recreationists to pay
Conclusion• Three alternatives• Alternative A: Mandatory inspection stations• Alternative B: Tax for All• Alternative C: Widespread prevention, inspection and
education approach
• Utah is in peril of losing water recreation abilities• Current policy is not effective• Policy must be amended • We recommend using Alternative C to implement a
cohesive and comprehensive policy that reverses the current predicament
• Change can not wait: we must halt the invasion now!
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!