A comparison of boat cleaning systems: invasive species removal, boater outreach and engagement, and cost

Figures & data

Figure 1. (A) A boater uses the vacuum tool of a waterless cleaning system (Credit: CD3 Systems). (B) A student uses the Michigan State University Mobile Boat Wash cleaning system, a high-pressure, hot water system. (Credit: J. Latimore).

Table 1. Affiliations of 12 total interviewees.

Affiliation	Number of interviewees
Lake association governance member	3
DNR (state Department of Natural Resources)	1
Private AIS management	1
Federally recognized tribes	3
Government AIS manager	1
University outreach	3

Figure 2. Reasons why boaters at 50 boating access sites throughout Michigan declined the offer of a free boat wash at outreach events held by the Michigan State University Mobile Boat Wash crew (n = 397). Note that some boaters gave more than one response. Survey data collected from 2017 to 2019.

Table 2. Approximate installation and operation/maintenance costs (in US$) of 15 boat cleaning systems in Michigan.

Organization or affiliation	Location	Type of cleaning system	Stationary or mobile	Purchase price and initial construction	Annual operation cost	Funding Source
MSU and EGLE	Statewide	Heated and high-pressure (2 systems)	Mobile (2 systems)	$15,000 each	$26,500* ($26,000 staffing)	EGLE and USFWS
Higgins Lake	North Higgins Lake, Crawford County	Unheated and high-pressure	Stationary	$60,000	$2000	HLPOA and the HLF
	South Higgins Lake, Roscommon County	Unheated and high-pressure	Stationary	$70,000	#	#
	North Higgins Lake, Crawford County	Waterless	Stationary	$12,500	$850 for software, $50 for tool repair/replacement	MDNR
	South Higgins Lake, Roscommon County	Waterless	Stationary	$10,735	#	#
	West Higgins Lake, Roscommon County	Waterless	Stationary	$28,450	#	#
Paradise Lake	Paradise Lake, Emmett County	Unheated and high-pressure	Stationary	$174,612	$340	GLRI grant
Glen Lake	Glen Lake, Leelanau County	Heated and high-pressure	Stationary	$12,000 (estimate)	$32,000* (estimate)	Glen Lake Association
Benzie Conserva­tion District	Multicounty	Heated and high-pressure (2 systems)	Mobile (2 systems)	$16,622.00 and $15,517.57	$12,470 total* ($11,500 staffing)	Michigan Invasive Species Grant Program
Gull Lake	Gull Lake, Kalamazoo County	Heated and high-pressure	Stationary	$62,402	$7000–$8000*	Prairieville Township ($10,000) and the Gull Lake Quality Organization ($52,402)
Gun Lake	Gun Lake, Barry County	Waterless (3 systems)	Stationary (3 systems)	$93,000 total including 2 years of software each	$5000* saved most years to replace the solar batteries (5–7 years)	Gun Lake Tribe—GLRI grant

Data collected via interviews. An “*” in the annual operation cost category indicates that the cost includes annual staff expenses; “#” indicates the same information as the box directly above. Acronyms include the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), the Higgins Lake Foundation (HLF), the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association (HLPOA), the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Michigan State University (MSU), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Figure 3. (A) A low-budget option for the equipment portion of a water-based cleaning station (Credit: M. Bleitz). (B) A low-budget waterless cleaning station combined with outreach. (Credit: K. Bockelman.)

Table 3. Considerations when choosing a boat cleaning system for prevention of AIS at a boating access site.

Category	Questions	Considerations
Space	How much space is available for the system, including infrastructure (e.g., drainage pad)?	Systems and the necessary infrastructure vary in size; space for safe operation and traffic flow is crucial.
	Is there space for boaters to move safely around their watercraft while cleaning it?
	Is there space for other vehicles to pass by safely while a boat is parked at the system?
	Are electricity, water, and drainage available at the site?	If not, choose a system that does not require them.
	Are electricity, water, and drainage located close enough to the system that the cost of construction to connect them is not an obstacle?
	How far from the waterbody will the system be placed?	Systems placed close to a waterbody pose a potential risk of organisms and contaminants washing back into the waterbody, so prevention measures must be in place, but systems can be more easily found by the boater if they are located near the boat launch location.
Cost	What is the total cost of the system, including infrastructure?	Both initial and ongoing maintenance and staffing costs must be considered to fund a cleaning system.
	What engineering or construction costs will be required (e.g., concrete pad, wastewater disposal, a shed for housing equipment, utilities)?
	Will paid staff be hired, and if yes, how many hours will the system be staffed each week?
	What are the estimated annual maintenance costs (e.g., mechanical, waste disposal, component replacement)?
	Will costs need to be shared with one or more organizations from other lakes?	A mobile system can be shared between lakes.
	Which outreach formats will be associated with this system?	Outreach costs should also be considered.
Environment	Are small-bodied AIS present in the waterbody on departing watercraft, such as invertebrates or invasive plant seeds?	Small-bodied organisms are more effectively removed by pressurized water than by waterless systems (Rothlisberger et al. 2010).
	Are plant fragments present on departing watercraft?	Fragments can be removed effectively by either water-based or waterless methods (Rothlisberger et al. 2010).
	Are encrusted mussels present on departing watercraft?	Most mussels can be killed by drying watercraft for >7 d in low humidity, or by using hot water spray >80 C for 1 s per the area of spray.
	Are boats likely to carry mud?	Water-based systems are recommended for mud removal.
	Have any particular AIS been recently discovered, or suspected to be in the area?	Outreach materials associated with the wash station should make boaters aware of these AIS and where to find them on a boat.
Traffic	Are most users likely to be waterfront property owners, or transient (travelers from other locations)?	Nontransient waterfront residents tend to use cleaning systems less often due to lower perceived risk, so outreach associated with the wash station should address the risks and behaviors for both transient and nontransient boaters.
	Are there likely to be more than 100 users of the system per day?	Solar-powered units or mobile units may not be able to keep up with high demand.

Rothlisberger JD, Chadderton WL, McNulty J, Lodge DM. 2010. Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35(3):121–132. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446-35.3.121.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar