By Ralph Schwartz
This spring, Bellingham and Whatcom County are working in concert (you heard me right) to establish a new inspection program around Lake Whatcom, and a fee for most boaters on the lake.
The effort is aimed at keeping nasty quagga and zebra mussels out of the lake. They are encroaching on the western U.S., and once they take hold they take over. The rapidly spreading shellfish would threaten the water intakes for Bellingham’s water supply and generally make a mess of everything else they touch.
The problem is not just Whatcom County’s. No jurisdiction wants these things in their lake. So the state Legislature has proposed that boats entering the state have the proper papers, documenting they are invasive-species free.
This is a summary of the bill from Washington Votes:
Senate Bill 5702: Concerning aquatic invasive species
Passed 46 to 0 in the Senate on March 11, 2013, modifies current law to require a person who enters Washington by road and is transporting a watercraft used outside of the state to have documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species (AIS). This makes the documentation requirement apply to watercraft used in any area outside of Washington, not just those areas specifically identified by Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) rule. DFW must adopt rules to implement the documentation requirement, including identifying the types of allowable documentation. Language relating to DFW’s AIS check station authority is modified consistent with the changes to the documentation requirement. A new infraction is created for transporting watercraft into Washington by road without meeting the AIS documentation requirement. In addition to the changes to AIS documentation requirements, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Committee is abolished.
See Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No.”
Go to the state Legislature’s bill information page here.
Haven’t they made a silly decision that bypassed the info that the mussels got into Lake Padden on canoes, kayaks, and inflatables. I think creating separate classes carries legal issues. All boaters of all types need to pay the fee.
@Hank the City Council has reasoned that boats that can be carried into the water (such as you describe) should be exempt because they are at lower risk of being infested. I’ve heard council members say this is because they are typically carried on top of cars, where they dry completely between bodies of water.
I’m also curious what became of the volunteer efforts and why this takes a bureaucracy with a quarter million dollar budget, and the fees already projected to be falling short, to supply us with half the solution?
Also, Ralph, do you know how they plan to inspect sail boats and aluminum boats that are not on trailers and just stay in the lake.
@Hank your first paragraph = good questions. On the second, they might not enforce inspection requirements on boats that clearly never leave the lake. These boats would not be exposed to infestation. In all, this first year, when/if the city and the county both approve a program, will be a trial. Mistakes will be made, and the governments (city at least) say they will make improvements for next year.
What does being dry have to do with it. Any boat you drag for some miles before putting it in the water is going to dry. Point being, if they have to have a quarter million dollar budget to do what volunteers with grants have been doing, shouldn’t all recreational users pay the fee? Especially those outboards or canoes with small motors, the intake/
exhaust of which is most likely to hide something. How do they reason that they got in Padden then?
Since there are not at present quagga and zebra mussels in the state, would not successful implementation of the above plan (similar to other inspection plans proving effective at controlling the spread of gypsy moths) render the Lake Whatcom inspections moot? Since this is a regional threat, THAT solution makes sense. Hank’s point about an independent local bureaucracy with dubious chances of success in a lake with hundreds of access points is valid. The city and county are going to be charging the vast, vast majority of lake users, whose boats never leave the county $20 a pop to confirm what the owner already nows: No zebra or quagga mussels.
In BoatSpeak $50 won’t buy you new Topsiders,
fill your bait box with ice
or get you a nice boat cushion for your dory seat.
And, under their own power,
we might be safe forever from mussels and asian clams looking for a new intake to foul.
But those suckers take the freeway and travel incognito
and there’s no sign you have any until somebody stops to check.
So if you want to play boats in our public water fountain,
you’d be well advised to start saving your pennies for the permit
and be happy about the inspection service too.
Rubie, ignoring the point that boats that never “take to the freeway” are in no way prone to infection.
There are plenty of places to take your un-inspected boat that aren’t Lake Whatcom,
don’t stop you for a fee and don’t worry about invasive species.
But more to the point,
how the hello is an inspector to know where your boat has been?
it is all premature as there is no evidence any exist in the lake yet.
Dear Hank,
The proper time for precautions is before you have a problem.
Yours truly,
R. Begonia
Ralph, the city is promoting the fiction that boats that never leave the lake pose no risk. This would be true only if we had no invasive species in the lake. But we have Asian clam infestation and a number of invasive plant species. Boating only on the lake increases the risk of spreading the existing invasive species to new areas. For example, Asian clam larvae are easily spread, even by the waves generated from kayaks, creating risk of new clam colonies.
So far, the city has done nothing to address the existing Asian clam infestation, although the presence of clams makes mussel infestation more likely due to increasing calcium levels and creating substrate for mussels to attach to. (They are also a source of phosphorus and nitrogen and they increase algae blooms.) We need a management and control plan, which will be expensive and environmental damaging.
It is not coincidence that the city is dealing with an invasive species prevention program first… if people knew how costly and difficult it is to control clams once they are established, they might not be as willing to allow boats on the lake.
Wendy, you raise some good points, especially if you’re right about phosphorus. While the clams have been in Whatcom and Padden for years, we haven’t heard of any serious consequences. Then again, it’s worth asking city officials what ill effects of the clams if any have been observed.
Asian clams have plenty of predators in the lake who love to eat them
and so can easily keep populations in check at low densities.
It seems to require exceptionally high densities of individuals – well over 3000 per square meter according to some studies – before their poop breeds algae blooms.
Clams and burrowing animals of all types release phosphorus from the lake bed and again it seems to take high densities of infestation to make real trouble,
especially compared to septic systems and urban runoff.
Maybe that explains why the ‘problem’ is tolerated at the present time.