# How to comply with new decontamination rules?



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

I appears that the western state are really trying to gear up and make a stand against invasive species. As an avid fisherman and recreational boater I want to do the right thing to help protect our rivers. But I am baffled about how to do this in a practical way.

Most of the literature I can find is focused on motor boats using lakes or reservoirs. The rules seem to be focused on emptying bilge tanks and bait wells. I can find no information on how these rules apply to moving water or guidelines on how to decontaminate inflatable watercraft that needs to be rolled for transport.

For example: Utah's guidelines suggest I need to dry my boat for seven days before I can qualify for 'self decontamination'. This seem impractical for most persons traveling from out of state. The option of using 'professional decontamination' is suggested, but these sites are all located at reservoirs hundreds of miles away from the whitewater take outs.

Colorado's new regulations will require mandatory inspections for all out-of state-water craft and all in-state watercraft that have been in contaminated waters. Again all of the inspection sites are located at major reservoirs not anywhere near the whitewater recreation sites. It is unclear how they can inspect a boat that is rolled up in back of my pickup. The state list of contaminated waters only lists still water. Should I assume that if Pueblo Reservoir is contaminated that the Arkansas River below the dam in infected as well? Or should I assume that since I only float moving water and no rivers are listed that I am exempt from the regulation? 

Does anyone know of a practical way to clean my boat between trips? 
Will I have to transport my boat fully inflated so it is available for inspections as I cross state lines? Can I get my boat inspected or cleaned by a certified professional without having to detour to a major reservoir?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

It seems we are going to need to approach each state and get documented recommendations. I am gonna call/email Utah DNR Monday but that will be the thoughts of one employee and not an official statement. Its likely best if we have an organization be a consistent voice in working for us but not sure who that should be.

As I have interacted with them in the past its largely focused on education and they hesitate to penalize anyone trying their best. That said it would be helpful to have the agencies decide a proper procedure for the various ways we transport rafts/kayaks (inflated, rolled, etc). Its a novel problem that deserves specific attention.

Phillip


----------



## JustinJam (Mar 18, 2009)

And would the rules be different if you floated across state lines? i.e. westwater


----------



## slamkal (Apr 8, 2009)

JustinJam said:


> And would the rules be different if you floated across state lines? i.e. westwater


How would your vessel be any different than the water that it travels in?


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Restrac2000, River Runners for Wilderness will help where we can on this. If there is a 7 day drying period before my Achilles bucket can cross state lines and I can go home, that seems problematic. Getting the agencies thoughts on this is first step, so please report back what you hear when you chat with them. That would be Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Nevada and Washington. Will be away the next week, but back after that. Thank you for your, Ken and Phillip's research into this. Yours, Tom

Tom Martin
Co-Director
River Runners For Wilderness
PO Box 30821
Flagstaff, AZ 86003-0821
Hm: 928-556-0742
Mobile: 928-856-9065
[email protected]
www.rrfw.org


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

In my internet research I have found several references with detailed cleaning procedures that might be useful to the rafter....

Recommendations for the Adirondacks region (see page 22, while this document may not apply directly to the new regulations in Western states it has a lot of detailed information and citations, including info on the impact of motorized vs non-motorized watercraft)
http://adkinvasives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Boat_Inspection_Decontamination_Adirondack_Recommendations_March-2014_.pdf

A detailed guide for prevention of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) by NOAA fisheries
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/best_management_practices/Cleaning%20of%20Watercraft%20and%20Equipment.pdf

Washing with high pressure water (1800 - 2500 psi) and high temperature (140 - 180 degrees F) seems to be the preferred method of prevention. I'm afraid this could be fatal to inflatable boats and would likely do permanent damage my wooden dory.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Here is a link to the rules. 
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-060.htm


----------



## BeaterBoater (Sep 29, 2014)

kengore said:


> In my internet research I have found several references with detailed cleaning procedures that might be useful to the rafter....
> 
> Recommendations for the Adirondacks region (see page 22, while this document may not apply directly to the new regulations in Western states it has a lot of detailed information and citations, including info on the impact of motorized vs non-motorized watercraft)
> http://adkinvasives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Boat_Inspection_Decontamination_Adirondack_Recommendations_March-2014_.pdf
> ...


Sounds like we just ban all rafts and dorys. WIN!


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Certification of decontamination is satisfied by:
(a) previously completing self-decontamination since the vessel and launching device were last in a water described in Subsection (1)(a) and *completely filling out and dating a decontamination certification form which can be obtained from the division*; or
(b) providing a signed and dated certificate by a division approved professional decontamination service verifying the vessel and launching device were professionally decontaminated since the vessel and launching device were last in a water described in Subsection (1)(a).
(3) Both the decontamination certification form and the professional decontamination certificate, where applicable, must be signed and placed in open view in the window of the launching vehicle prior to launching or placing the vessel in a body of water.
(4) It is unlawful under Section 76-8-504 to knowing falsify a decontamination certification form.

I can't seem to find the self decontamination certificate they speak of. I'm guessing you need one for each boat your transporting. Utah loves to stop and check me out...and I'm an old grey haired guy. I go on these High School trips to Deso and usually haul all the boats and gear. I've had them stop me and check the coolers for out of state beer......but we don't take things like that with us.  Last year I had three gear boats, three paddle boats, three ducks and a kayak.....plus a motor. Should be about the same load this year. Seven of the boats are not mine. Now I'm guessing I need a certificate for each boat and proof of who owns what. If I get to the put in and don't have the right paperwork from the border, do we get to launch? This is getting complicated fast..... 

Rec.gov better be able to give instructions on how this is going to work when you get your permit.....or there are going to be a lot of pissed off people at the put in. Good thing it's Winter and we have time to figure this out before we head to Utah.

From power boating experience, (mainly Utah and Colorado) when you pull your boat out of the water, they put a tag on a cable and attach it to the front of the boat and trailer. They attach it in a way that they can tell if the boat has been off the trailer. They also give you a pink slip that you keep with the boat and give it to the next inspector at the next lake you visit. Pretty cut and dry for single boats on trailers. When I left Pueblo Res. and headed for Powell, I had Pueblo decon me so we wouldn't have a problem launching. When we left Powell, they didn't have their decon station open and the ranger noted that on our pink slip, which means at the next lake we go to, we will have to have it deconed before we launch. No big deal....it's free here in Colorado.  You just need to plan accordingly.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*The Cost of Checkpoint Quagga*

What a farce. A bunch of state militias are being created to defend the Wrecked federal imprisonment of the Colorado River for the benefit of sprawl, agribusiness and coal mining. At what cost?

Meanwhile, the surveillance states and local police jump at any chance to ratchet down a click tighter on individual rights and freedoms under the guise of helping the feds keep the Colorado River imprisoned. At what cost?

Controlling mussels on a dammed Colorado will continue to fail ecologically and economically until the day the Colorado River flows free and its turbid waters clear itself of mussels and the Wrecked  federal dams. For an idea of the costs of absurd and oppressive attempts to control natural flows, ask some East Germans about their "symbol of state abuse cast in concrete" that "took millions of people to the limits of what is tolerable."

Until the concrete falls and reunifies the Colorado with gravity and freedom and sanity, vee mussen komply und zee goot booters vill keep zer Quagga paperz im order.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Here is a link to the Utah self decontamination certificate....
https://wildlife.utah.gov/mussels/PDF/self_certify.pdf

You will need documentation for each boat. Note: that you need to dry your boat for period of 7 to 30 days to qualify for 'self decontamination'. If you can't wait 7 days for the boat to dry out you are provided the 'professional decontamination' option where your boat is blasted with 1,800 psi water at 140 degrees for a min. of 10 seconds on all surfaces. This service is only offered at major reservoirs, estimated time for the decontamination procedure is 30 minute to 3 hours per boat. And you will be waiting in line with all of the motor boats that need to decontaminate as well. The decontamination is only provided during normal business hours, so you will need to plan your trip accordingly. 

In theory the breakable seal that connects the boat and trailer is accepted by neighboring states. As long as the seal is not broken they can accept that the boat has not been used and is still clean. You still have to stop at all check points, but can avoid another inspection by showing them the seal and it documentation. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work for boats that are not on trailers since there is no place to attach the seal that can insure the boat has not been used. 

Each state seems to have a different procedure for inspection and documentation. Utah allows you to sign the document mentioned above and claim 'self decontamination' while Colorado requires a physical inspection of each boat. Note: the Colorado inspection is void as soon as you cross in to another state, you will need a second inspection to re-enter. So if you are returning from Utah it appears that Colorado will only accept the professional decontamination with the seal.

If you travel through Nevada, Wyoming or Idaho you will also need to purchase an AIS (Aquatic Invasive Species) sticker that needs to be mounted on each boat. The average cost for an out of state boat is about $30. And you need one for each state.

I am also concerned that if you fail one of the port of entry inspections because your boat is not 'clean, drained and dry' they can impound the boat for 5 to 30 days. Considering how caked with mud my boat and trailer can get while driving the dirt road from the takeout I can only wonder how I can insure a clean boat when I encounter a random check point. Utah impounded 49 boats last year.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Also, if you have a motor that uses water cooling it must be flushed, inspected and certified AIS free. You will need to provide any fittings required to flush the motor. So in Caverdans example he would need to carry 11 sets of documentation and produce those at each port of entry and any random road checks.

So on his next Deso trip all he needs to do is drive to Eleven Mile State recreation area (closest inspection site to ColoSprings) during normal business hours, wait his turn with all of the motor boats that have mandatory decontamination requirements, have all eleven of his boats and motors inspected prior to heading the the put-in. Then after floating he can drive to either Glenn Canyon or Flaming gorge Reservoir and have all of them inspected again before returning to Colorado. Easy peasy 

Since some power boats will require over 3 hours to decontaminate I expect the wait times to be significant.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Inspection sites in Colorado....
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/ANS/WatercraftInspectionStationList.pdf


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

I just spoke with a state biologist from the Northern Region of Utah. 

At this time Utah DOES NOT have reciprocity with any other state and will not accept an inspection or certification that did not occur in Utah. They do have a task force working on this and hope to have an agreement with neighboring states within a year. 

If you arrive at a put-in in Utah and do not have the required certification you will not be allowed to launch.

If you are stopped at a check point and do not have certification for each boat you *will be* required to unload your trailer and assemble boats for inspection. If any water, vegetation or mud is found those boats are required to undergo 'professional decontamination' at the nearest reservoir or one of the 5 sites located in major cities in Utah before they can be legally launched.

If you are doing multiple day trips on the same river you only need to have certification for the first day of launch.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

I did find an attractive loophole/option in the Utah law. Complete the online Q&A found below and you get a certificate good for the whole calender year! No inspections required. I have been unable to verify if this program will still be in place for next season.


Multiple-use decontamination form

Complete the online Mussel-Aware Boater Program and receive a Decontamination Certification Form valid through the end of the calendar year.

https://dwrapps.utah.gov/wex/dbconnection.jsp?examnbr=507273


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

My biggest fear is they passed laws that affect us but have not considered the nuance and unique infrastructure that will be needed for the whitewater community. Many agency staff will be tolerant of us trying our best. However, they way the law is written, our best attempts within the existing system may not be enough for others and we could be seriously impacted by their interpretation. 

Even living in Utah the closest decontamination station is seasonal (often non-operational during the season I boat) and an hour away. As well, I am not comfortable with blasting my 30 year old Avon bucket with high pressure 140F+ water unless I know it can hold up to such abuse (such systems are designed for hard hulled boats). 

I am all for preventing the spread of these nasty creatures but I am not sure we are gonna have the means to do so despite legislation. In Utah, the listed waterways are exited at best by dirt ramps. No infrastructure. For someone like me who mostly rolls gear at the takeout there is no way my boat will be decontaminated and dried legally. I am likely looking at $100 per trip to pay for decontamination and gas to drive to said location. Unless its considered safe to wash at home into my local municipality's sewer system which seems contrary to the entire point of the laws. 

And then there is the interagency accountability and interaction needed for this to work. I mean it means education for river rangers on every river stretch, functionally discriminating and developing policy for people coming from different states (as a Utah resident I don't have to certify my boat for Deso for everyone else does), etc. 

That is the law at least. I will do my best to abide but to me the law doesn't overlap well with reality, human or river ecology. Deso doesn't seem to fit the parameters of mussel habitat. Westwater doesn't seem to fit; Cataract doesn't seem to fit; Escalante doesn't seem to fit; San Juan doesn't seem to fit. I can see where places in Utah below dams may be concerned, like sections of the Provo, flat water stretches of the Green (sections of B & C), etc. In all honesty I don't think the legislators and agencies personnel that helped develop this policy really thought about these nuances and how whitewater users fit into the conservation equation. I stick to my guns that they are primarily focused on hard hulled craft in lakes even though we stand a chance of affecting their spread. And in the interim we are in an awkward place of being legally bound to abide without really having the resources to do so.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

kengore said:


> I did find an attractive loophole/option in the Utah law. Complete the online Q&A found below and you get a certificate good for the whole calender year! No inspections required. I have been unable to verify if this program will still be in place for next season.
> 
> 
> Multiple-use decontamination form
> ...


The voluntary program and slideshow has to be done every year. And while yes it is a decontamination certificate for an entire year it does not mean you don't have to be inspected. It just means that you don't have to get individual certificates after each boating trip. So if you have this certificate and decontaminate properly after each trip it can expedite the inspection process. But if you have the certificate and don't decontaminate you are in violation of the law. 



> Your signature on the form certifies one of two things: your boat has not been used within the past 30 days on any body of water affected by quagga or zebra mussels, or your boat has been properly decontaminated. Failure to comply with the law--by fraudulently signing a Decontamination Certification Form or by possessing, transporting or introducing invasive mussels into Utah--is a violation of Utah Administrative Rule R657-60. You may be fined, imprisoned and held liable for impacts that result from violation of this law.


Not a loophole at all really. Its an voluntary way to get people more educated on the invasive issue.

Phillip


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

In my conversion with the state biologist I mentioned my concerns over high pressure washing of inflatable boats. She responded that high pressure is only required when there is visible contamination, such as encrusted mussel colonies in an anchor system (over 30 such identified last year!) Under most cases your boat only needs low pressure scalding water, 140 degrees or more. At this time the professional certified decontamination service is free, at least for non-motorized boats. I would like some clarification that those temps won't effect my glued seams.

So far my research indicates that if we keep our boats clean and dry between uses and appear to be trying to cooperate with the certification requirements we shouldn't have too many problems in Utah. The primary focus of concern for Utah is inspecting the bilges and anchor systems on motor boats heading to and from Powell.

On the other hand, if you show up at the launch without certification, or if the ranger thinks your boat is dirty you will be screwed.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks for clarification on pressure settings from the agency. Thanks for getting ahead of me on that one and letting us know. I might still contact them in the near future to see if the task force or working group meetings are open to the public. 

Clarification....your summary above, does it mean we can just use the river water on site for the "clean" part or do we need to go through the free professional or agency cleaning at the regional stations? The drain and dry part is easy enough at home and I have no problem adding another step to my derig if it helps. Coming home from the Grand aligns with hitting a cleaning station if we plan a little extra. Cataract Canyon is the crappiest scenario as it means going way out of my way for a station (if that is required). That said its not remotely ideal habitat and if we can "Clean" with river water to satisfy the law then we are good to go. I am assuming its on the list for motorboats who then have to exit at either Bullfrog or Wahweap which force the users into ideal habitat and infected waters. Only doing Cataract and exiting at Dirty Devil doesn't really seem to be an issue as I understand it. 

Living in Utah gives me the benefit of not having to decontaminate before/after a San Juan, Deso, Moab Daily or Westwater trip as long as my boat has not been on any other rivers. Simplifies part of my life as that is 95% of the boating I do.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

The entire situation makes me rethink renting equipment in the future for trips to Colorado (mostly the Arkansas) or down the Grand. Ecologically better and might just be simpler.

Phillip


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

The prescribed remedy is a Silkwood Shower? 

Silkwood Shower #1 - YouTube

Hilarious if it weren't so consistent with tactics used by threatened and dying regimes throughout history.

Also very handy for Utah Barney Fifes looking for an excuse to search out-of-state boaters.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

I outlined the clean at river vs clean at home scenario in our conversation. She saw no problem with cleaning the boat at the take-out, the sticky point is when you need to sign the 'self clean' affidavit and say that your boat had 7 days to dry. The 'professional clean' option was offered as a solution to those who couldn't wait.

I also asked about driving to the nearest town and running the boat through a car wash, she did not see that washing the boat at another location would increase the risk spreading contamination as long as the runoff was not going directly into a waterway.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Thanks Kengore for looking into this situation and talking to people. 

I must say that I have yet to have a bad experience with any of the agency people or decon procedures at the borders or lake put in's I have been to. (Wyoming has check points at the borders) They have been very helpful, friendly, and I have never had the feeling they were out to get me. (We visit a lot of lakes with our power boat ). The decon procedure goes fast too. It takes between 5 and 10 minutes to hook up to the engine and flood the compartments with hot water. They either dunk your ropes and anchor in hot water or run hot water over them. From a power boat perspective and lake user, the system is very painless and seamless to follow without much inconvenience. 

That said.....I don't think this new law........ will be will be as easy to implement or enforce as they think........ when it comes to the White Water Community.

If you look at the MOU, they are going to be setting these stations up at the borders and have the facilities to decon there. That's where you will get your certificate stating you are clean and ready to go. Colorado has it's check points at the lake put in's, so no worries there. In other words, I don't see CDOT stopping to check people coming into the state. It's not real clear to me in the MOU, that they are going to be stopping people leaving the state with boats. Wyoming checks you both ways so they might too.

Here is the last line of the MOU

_(8) Inspection stations shall be operated in a manner that minimizes the length of time of an inspection while ensuring that conveyances are free from the presence of Dreissena mussels._

So there I sit with 10 inflatables on a trailer, rolled and packaged for transport. I stop so they can inspect me as I head into their state. The inspectors are very friendly and full of information as usual. I tell them the boats have not been in the water in the past 30 days. I came over the passes in a snow storm. I stopped in Rifle to wash the Cal mag off. Every things wet when I show up at the border. Do they believe me that the boat have not been in water or decon me? Certify the boats and send me to the put in with all the paperwork I need to launch? If there is a chance of decon....I need to re plan my trip and give myself the time to have them do it. As you can tell, I'm more worried about getting on the river than getting home from it. 

As far as going home and leaving state..... If they are willing to help me wash my boats at their decon station.....I can plan around that.  After a big trip and a week with a group of High School students, I'm not afraid to roll my boats up dirty and clean them at home. If there is a place to clean them along the way, and help to do it...heck yea...they don't know what they are going to get themselves into. The question is.....How will they minimize my time at the inspection station. Hopefully I can sign something that I will do it at home and that will be that. 

Getting on the river is always the hard part with lots of hoops. These inspection stations will not be open 24-7. For me....getting home will be much easier.


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

Ugh, what a mess. With all due respect to those who work in the DOW, this just looks like a lot of bureaucratic wrangling for a prevention program that has so far been ineffective. Zebras and quaggas have been spreading for decades, despite these programs. I'm not convinced these programs are going to be any more effective by dragging kayakers, canoers, rafters or even tubers into an unworkable system of checkpoints and certified decontamination systems. This whole "containment" strategy is flawed because it is impossible to create and maintain a quarantine on an entire river basin. The quaggas are still going to find plenty of environmental vectors to carry them throughout these river basins. It's just like Ebola. You can't fix it with a quarantine. You have to treat the disease itself to contain the outbreak. I would much rather see money go to researching whatever pestilence they can engineer to wipe out the zebras or quaggas. It worked on the tammies, and this is no different. 

As for me, I'm willing to clean my boats to help stop the spread, but I'm not willing to drive 600 miles all over a state looking for some signature on a form on a monday between the hours of 8-5, nor am I willing to take a 30 day timeout every time one of my boats hits the water. That kind of bullshit is just going to piss people off and make them uncooperative.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I get the worry and concern. One thing to clarify, 30 days is only during the winter or if you don't get it professionally decontaminated. Most of the boating season (unless you like fringe season multi-days like me) is 7 days. It also all depends on how many different rivers you boat on as to the measures. I haven't read the Colorado law but its possible you don't have to decontaminate while visiting in-state rivers (that is the case for most of the rivers in Utah if I just stay here). And then I don't even need to decontaminate unless I visit certain rivers (even though at this point its likely I will air dry my rig 7 days after every trip). 

This is vastly different than the tamarisk bio-control attempts (and I have seen tamarisks rebudding in roadless corridors already, like the lower sections of Deso). The tamarisk beetle was cheap investment, is a passive biocontrol and didn't need to kill an extremely high percentage of the tamarisks to be deemed successful. The tamarisk only produce a couple thousands seeds per bush but a single female quagga produces upwards of one million eggs, a 200 to 1000-fold difference in scale. Finding a biocontrol or chemical to wipeout an organism that has the ability to reproduce a million juveniles (in some places multiple times a year) is one of the hardest concepts around. Even the successful programs in the midwest seem to require multiple year or even continuous treatment. If even 5% of the veligers survive then you have a strong chance of population survival, though it definitely slows them down. I think my managers and biologist would love to find a control technique but we are not likely to have any large scale success with that any time soon, especially considering how uncertain long term effects of both biocontrols and chemicals have on the ecosystems we introduce them into. And then how do you afford to introduce them into places like Powell, Mead, or the Great Lakes with any success? And even then the reality is we have to quarantine affected rivers in concert with those actions. As I understand it the best we can hope to do is limit the rate of spread to reservoirs, quarantine and hope the quaggas don't establish massive populations in our rivers. As of now the only river sections affected in the West are two sections of the Colorado River below dams, the rest are reservoirs. 

Considering quaggas have been in Colorado since at least 2008 I would say the quarantine has done pretty well and reducing the rate of spread. I mean in 6 years only a handful of reservoirs have been affected in that state (according to the USGS maps). And I would guess that is largely due to education which is the principle purpose of check stations and certificates. A few million spent on these programs to slow what quickly turns into hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in treatment, infrastructure and business loss seems like a fair investment to me. At this point its pennies on the dollars every year we stall their full potential.

Phillip


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

"At this point its pennies on the dollars" *Bullshit is called! * 

How about some data on mussel spending in the Colorado basin to back up the obsequious conclusion that Wrecked is doing good things by delaying the inevitable end of the Colorado dams regime? My guess is that Wrecked and the states are spending plenty to delay the inevitable and beneficial end of the Colorado River dams era. My guess is that accounting will show negative returns on mussel spending.

A good start would involve real numbers on mussel spending on the Colorado and then add in the various costs to individuals and businesses. The accounting needs to recognize that any beneficial return on investment is limited to a couple year delay in a mussel invasion that is accelerating the inevitable end to the Colorado River Storage Project madness. 

Last, figure in the increased costs of demolition caused by delaying the inevitable dam removal.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I fear you are trolling us from the type of odd language you use and the fact you don't disclose your name and location. That said even a peripheral effort to research shows:



> U.S. Congressional researchers estimated that an infestation of the closely-related zebra mussel in the Great Lakes area cost the power industry $3.1 billion in the 1993-1999 period, with an economic impact to industries, businesses, and communities of more than $5 billion.


Colorado State Parks operates roughly a $4 million dollar budget on the issue but I think that includes multiple invasive aquatic species. They would be the primary agency in Colorado. Lake Powell currently operates a $750,000 budget for both zebra and quaggas.

...hence, pennies on the dollar conclusion. Those billions of dollars in cleaning and restoration of power plants are passed onto citizens and consumers. 

I get you are against dams in the West. You insert that obvious position into multiple threads on the Buzz. Best of luck with that. Considering its not inherently relevant to the ecological or economic situation I don't engage or research the #s you demand as far as removal and restoration without them. Staging your platform the way you have is equivalent to accepting and applauding global warming because you don't like modern beach front property. And while I hate dam and support thoughtful removal I am also interested in addressing the ecological nightmares we create in the interim.

In general the onus is on those with contrary opinions to provide significant evidence when science and policy is well established on an issue. In this case ecology, economics and recreational experience is pretty clear cut that quagga mussels are devastating. As well, mussels have been established in the midwest for decades and it clearly shows that they maintain their dams while we lose recreational access and irreparably damage massive ecosystems.

I applaud you starting a separate thread instead of constantly thread jacking existing ones. I won't be able to respond for a week as I will be out on a hunting and fishing trip. 

Phillip


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

The opinion, stated as fact, was yours. I called bullshit. 

Look forward to some support for your assertion that mussel control on the Colorado generates a massive return on what you now admit are actually billions of pennies.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Frankly, I kind of like the idea of spending some money preventing beaches and rocks in the Colorado River from getting covered with billions of tiny razor blades, and think it's a worthwhile, if costly, endeavor.

-AH


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Me too Andy!


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

_Frankly, I kind of like the idea of spending some money preventing beaches and rocks in the Colorado River from getting covered with billions of tiny razor blades, and think it's a worthwhile, if costly, endeavor.

-AH

_Your Frankness poses a good question: Where to spend the money? 

Restrac2000s' promised numbers might show it is more effective to protect beaches and rocks by *removing the dams that create invasive habitat** for the invasive species *instead of pouring million$ per year into a losing war on mussels. 

If state and Wrecked spending were diverted away from Checkpoint Quaggas and toward bringing the dams down, there might be some chance the tiny razor blades do not establish and adapt in a flowing Colorado basin.

BTW - I see no problem spending money and putting Ebola-type quarantines on boats in the Great Lakes and areas where the introduction and spread of invasive bivalves poses a real ecological and economic crisis.


----------



## callum.mcmahon711 (Nov 4, 2014)

Hey man down here in NZ we have to do the same thing on our South Island when paddling on the rivers. We have a system called Check, Clean, Dry. All you do for this is check and remove any visible organisms then soak and maybe scrub the gear in the solution (if unable to soak you can spray the solution) then leave it do dry in the sun or use other methods to dry the gear until it's dry to the touch. Hopefully this spread should help with cleaning/ decontaminating gear! http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-survival-results-table-may-07.pdf


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Droboat said:


> The opinion, stated as fact, was yours. I called bullshit.
> 
> Look forward to some support for your assertion that mussel control on the Colorado generates a massive return on what you now admit are actually billions of pennies.


I was really looking forward to having my feet in the water and thinking more about trout and grouse than mussels but alas nasty weather shifted 100+ miles south through my camp so I bailed. So it goes in November and exploring alone (much more conservative with decisions since I married).

I did provide support. Ironically a billion pennies is cents on the dollar when compared to the amount of $$ mussels have caused to the Great Lakes basin. That is my comparison. 

An estimate I have found is that 113 power plants draw water for their facilities from the Great Lakes. If you divide the $3.1 billion (from 1993-1999) by 113 and then by 7 years (3.1billion/113)/(7) you get roughly $4million per facility per year (which agrees with the statistic found on page 4 here: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/QZAP/QZAP_FINAL_Feb2010.pdf). So take Lake Powell alone which operating on a $750k mussel budget and has one power plant to maintain. That would equate to roughly $.20 on the dollar when you compare prevention to incurred costs from full invasion. And that is comparing 1993-1999 dollars to 2014. According to inflation calculators that $4 million would be equivalent to $5.7 million dollars today (assuming the latest most conservative year of 1999). So that comparison drops to $.13 on the dollar.

And we are talking broadly. Municipalities of affected regions have incurred costs of $500,000 per year alone. And those numbers have little reflection on the costs to ecosystems. 

I think that explains my cents on the dollar comment. You may disagree with the sentiment because you hate Lake Powell but that isn't enough evidence to dispute 20 years of accumulating evidence. Congress, universities, resource agencies, states, and municipalities are all aligned with what I have presented. Your sentiment flies in the face of all of the evidence they have mounted to make the decision to prevent as much spread as possible. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

You are right....without the dams on the Colorado there would not be quagga mussels. Unfortunately, the dams are a reality.

Considering each of the agencies has a mandate that requires them to protect their resources they don't have the fairytale option to do nothing and watch the loss associated with invasive species.

Watching the animated map below puts my opinion in perspective:

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species

We aren't just talking about your nemesis Glen Canyon Dam. We are talking about the spread of mussels into every tributary and feeder of the rivers and lakes affected. Ecology doesn't oblige state and agency boundaries. You can see how broad the impact is from these two invasive species. The $800 million figure is in 1995 dollars and is only for the power plants affected in the Great Lakes at that point. The distribution of mussels from 1988 to now is impressive. You can see it works its way down the Mississippi basin and then into every major river from there. Its been working its way up the Arkansas Basin now for many years. Imagine what happens when a Colorado, Utah or Arizona boater (or for that matter someone along the Missouri basin) introduces them to Montana and Idaho. The $ Colorado, Utah and Arizona are now spending is drops in the bucket for what happens when all the major western waterways are affected.

We both hate Glen Canyon dam. I hate the tides in the Grand. I hate that beaches are shrinking. I hate that it buried some of the best slot canyons in Utah. I hate what it has done to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats above and below. I would love to be able to visit the old Cathedral in the Desert by oar power like Tad Nichols, Katie Lee and Frank Wright. I have walked to the reservoir line by foot multiple times in the Escalante region and have the visceral reminder of how much we can fuck up an environment every time. I paddled the length of Powell over two trips because I would prefer to experience it that way then by motor. 

But none of those experiences, sentiments or values trump my desire to learn from the past and try and stop future human damage. Tacitly and directly supporting the expansion of such a detrimental invasive aquatic species is to view the world in a local versus global perspective. The Colorado drainage is ecologically tied to a much broader environment, especially when you include human movement and use, than Lake Powell. As much as I would love to see Glen Canyon Dam thoughtfully removed and the river to flow free through that stretch unfortunately that is not part of the current equation. And trying to insert it here isn't going to lead to the outcome you want. 

The least I can do is stop at a few checkpoints and support resource agencies sincerely trying to do their best. We may hate what the BoR stands for historically and contemporarily but that pollution doesn't need to spread to agencies looking out for our habits (like recreation) or those solely invested in maintaining ecosystems. Having worked for just one I know the dauntless and thankless job they have in the face of crippled budgets and diverse stakeholder angst. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

To respect kangore's efforts I have moved any further discussion I have with DroBoat 

Here

Sorry for any role in threadjacking.

Phillip


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Thank you. Regardless of your opinion of dams I doubt any of them are going to be removed prior to the 2015 boating season. 

So that still leaves the question how do we comply with the new rules AND what can we do on our own to insure that we are not transporting AIS to our favorite waters.

To summarize my findings...

1. Regulations vary state to state, but all of them say you won't be allowed to launch if you are not in compliance. So do your research, esp. if your trip involves driving across state lines. Some states might also require you buy a special AIS sticker.

2. Keep your gear 'Clean, Drained and Dry' to avoid hassles AND because that is the best way to avoid transporting nasty critters.

3. The rules target motor boats on still waters. This is because scientific studies show that a motor boat is 40x more likely to harbor invasive species than a non-motorized boat. AND the studies show that ALL of the documented contamination started at lakes or reservoirs. So, while you may not see a mandatory inspection at the whitewater boat ramps you will see them at most lakes and reservoirs. And you will see them at state lines and at random road side check points.

4. These rules DO APPLY to rafts, kayaks, float tubes, catarafts, SUP, etc. If you see a check point you must stop and have them check you out. In most cases the inspection will be a simple Q&A or a quick visual inspection. The primary focus is to educate us not to bust us. So if you can honestly say 'It has been 30 days since this boat was in infested water' or ' I let the boat dry for 7 days' you are going to be fine. At the inspection point they can require that you unpack and inflate a rolled boat for inspection.

5. If you had the foresight to get your boat inspected prior to the trip, or if you filled out 'self decontamination' forms you should be able to show them the paper work at the check station and be done. Not all states have reciprocity, so do some research.

6. While at the check point or the boat launch, if your boat has visible vegetation, mud or standing water you will be required to get 'professional decontamination' prior to launching. This will probably require driving several hundred miles to a certified decontamination unit. So keep you boat clean and dry.

7. All of the states East of Colorado, including Colorado are considered infested water. So if you don't live West of the Rocky Mtn's be prepared for extra scrutiny.

8. All of my research indicates that the two most effective methods of decontamination are drying for 7 or more days or washing with scalding water. So if you want to keep these critters out of your favorite fishing spot it makes sense to put your boots, waders, etc into a big dry bag and rinse it well with very hot water. Stuff that is too big for the dry bag should get a good rinse at the car wash then be allowed to dry for 7-18 days. Most car washes use heated water, not as hot as the 155 degree nozzle temp recommended but close. As long as the car wash does not drain directly into a waterway there is a low risk of spread.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Thanks Kengore for summarizing your findings.

Rec.gov and the other web sites that you get permits from, will have to include some instructions on how to comply with these new laws and river stipulations. Hopefully they will address this new requirement when it comes time to apply this winter. 

Don't you think they will have to put in decon stations at the take outs in order to have any effect on controlling the little buggers? I'm thinking of places like Dirty Devil take out.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

With limited budgets to fight this huge problem they are going to focus resources where they are most cost effective. Placing a decon unit at Lake Powell where there is a supply of clean water and electricity is going to be cost effective. Setting up a similar unit at a whitewater take-out that does not have electricity or a non-contaminated source water is not, esp if we represent 1/40 of the risk.

I think the whitewater community is going to need to take care of this on our own. Decontamination is going to need to be part of a good wilderness ethic. Leave only footprints and wash your boat!

I hope rec.gov is able to disseminate the required info, however I feel they already do a horrible job of providing any info about existing ramp resources such potable water, RV dumps and electric power availability. I doubt this will make the radar.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Interagency education and involvement is the achilles heals of these laws. I am not sure how the BLM in Utah is going to proceed. Will the Rangers at Deso, Westwater and the San Juan (the only ones I am aware of in Utah that have put-in locations manned on a regular basis) be trained and empowered to actually deal with this issue? Utah State and the federal agencies don't exactly have a friendly working relationship right now. 

The Dirty Devil takeout is a worst case scenario for prevention standards. Its a dirt ramp with no infrastructure. Decontamination stations require boats to be trailered and ready to spray. The standard is for all water to be reclaimed in the process so they often line the area with some type of material. If Cataract Canyon and inflatable watercraft are enough of a concern and viable vector than that means investing in permanent ramps (not sure that is possible in the modern era of upper Lake Powell) and water facilities. It would likely be cheaper to rebuild the ramp at Hite to lower lake levels since they have existing infrastructure but the silt beds in that area aren't exactly friendly for such projects. Nor is the BoR or NPS committed to keeping the reservoir low enough for that option to be economically viable. As it stands the silty water there doesn't offer me much opportunity to "clean" my rig fully of mud and debris. As a Utah resident I can go home without a state line inspection but that is not an option for others (nor ideal for prevention). The spirit and letter of the laws as I understand prohibit out-of-state individuals from crossing back into their prospective states without decontaminating their rigs thoroughly. 

Diamond Creek in the Grand is another location of concern with added issue of native lands. I am not sure what the statistics are on where most people exit the Grand. Pearce Ferry offers options. This one is a greater concern for me as I will be required to have a fully cleaned rig before crossing back into Utah legally without having my rig quarantined or forced to go through a state line decontamination. For those of us who derig at Diamond (as the prospect of seeing Diamond Down is depressing) this likely means adding a half day extra to our trip to thoroughly clean our rafts and gear (ropes, life jackets, etc). 

Luckily, on the other end it is easy to leave Deso, Westwater and the Juan without decontaminating as they are not hosts to the invasives. Derig and go

At some point we are likely going to need to inventory the nuances of the whitewater community in regards to AIS issues and find representatives for each state to interact with the working groups and committees tasked with dealing with the laws and prevention. Many times they solicit stakeholder representatives to be thorough anyways but I am not sure how that is currently dealt with in AIS prevention. 

As it stands we likely need to have a representative for all of Colorado (since its geographically considered infected as a whole), Arizona (same as aforementioned reason), Grand Canyon NP, and Glen Canyon NRA. I would imagine we would need to educate involved agencies about our equipment and behaviors as a community but also be an avenue of education for our community. We would need representatives to advocate for policy and infrastructure that allows us to comply with the law in a manner that is not overly cumbersome. Realistically we are going to need to get the involved agencies to adapt their current systems to accommodate us as our situation doesn't align well with how they interact with motorized hard-hulled stakeholders. In the short term we can adapt if they are flexible to our needs (as it sounds they are) but if this is a long term effort then I think the above is important. Ease on the user only makes cooperation more likely. It would be great if we stay within an education and cooperation framework and don't transition to a compliance based relationship.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

It will have to be on their radar if the rangers at the put in require your boat to have the proper Decon paperwork from Utah DNR before you can launch. It will be interesting to see how this pans out this Spring. I'll need to do some planning if they want decon certificates for each boat I'm hauling when I encounter the border inspection stations. I'll have to call the number on the form and see who in Colorado is licensed to meet their standards. The only people I know doing it are Parks and Wildlife at the local reservoirs. I can see the look on their face when I roll in and start inflating 10 boats so they can certify them deconed and ready to go to Utah......


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Decontamination paperwork and state line inspection is an amazing resource for your situation. Could you imagine the impossible feat of showing up after driving 10-15 hours and then down 50 miles of dirt and trying to prove your boat is decontaminated at a place like Deso? 

And don't forget to decontaminate your trailer. Hope your Deso trips go as smoothly as possible. I imagine the next 2-3 years will be relatively awkward for everyone involved. Hopefully we can all work out the kinks together. 

Phillip


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

For me (and other out of staters) it's all about what it is going to take to satisify the Ranger at the put it. There is nothing more frustrating than being turned away at the launch because you didn't follow one of the rules or you forgot to do something.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Taking out the dams, takes out the mussels.*

Restrac2000's obsequious, irrational and strident defense of Wrecked's dying Colorado River dam regime might explain his lack of any numbers showing the benefits of free rivers and a free society. Lots of words providing little more than an emotional defense of dams based on manifest destiny and religious belief, not facts.

No real numbers on costs and benefits of returning the Colorado River system and individual rights to a pre-dam regime as compared to the costs of setting up Checkpoint Quaggas to extend the failing Wrecked status quo. Pennies on the dollar is indeed pure bullshit.

I get it. Admitting the folly of the Wrecked dams and accepting that a totalitarian response to mussels is futile and counterproductive is upsetting to a belief system based on conquest and control. I didn't expect a rational response when I called bullshit. Wrecked and its apologists will keep on believing in the benevolence and resilience of the Wrecked dams, without fact or numbers.

BTW - Although the inevitable demise of Glen Canyon Dam is a powerful symbol of the Wrecked oppression of free flowing rivers and people, the true benefits and costs of delaying the inevitable spread of invasive mussels throughout a dammed Colorado River basin is the question AH's post highlighted. Taking out the dams, takes out the mussels.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Has anyone on this forum ever found invasive mussels on their whitewater dory or hardshell kayak? Doesn't seem likely since they are rarely moored in the water but the conversation has left me curious. 

Phillip


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

About 6 years ago I have found what might have been pin head size juvenile zebra mussels while cleaning the drift boat. Too small for positive ID by a layperson, might have just been sand. Could have easily been transferred into the boat along with the mud on my boots.

Since the A section of the Green is known to be infected with zebra mussels it concerned me enough to rinse the boat with a gallon of 409 (this was a recommended method of cleaning wading boots at the time) then blast the heck out of it at the car wash. Followed by a week in the hot sun.

The mussels start out life as free swimming microscopic larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. This is why authorities are so concerned about draining and drying bilges, bait wells and motors. Kind of hard to defend against an invisible enemy.

What really got my attention during the research is that road side inspection in Utah last year found over 30 boats with visible mussel colonies on their anchor systems. About half of these were determined to be alive! Seems like there is a real need for education AND for the checkpoints..


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Did you mean Whirling Disease or mud snails for the Green River A Section? I hadn't heard or found any information on mussels there.

I do know one of the big concerns is the transportation of mussels from Powell to Flaming Gorge since boaters often move between both reservoirs. If the mussels made it through the penstocks at Glen Canyon (one of the theorized means) the implication is there for the Green River as well. What happens from the dam to Lees Ferry is unfortunately going to be a major test for how transmission can happen through the rest of the system. 

Phillip


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

Oops, I think I am confusing the zebra mussel with the new zealand mud snail. Thanks for the clarification. 

What I saw were little dark specs that seemed too consistent in shape, size and color to be random sand particles. About a half dozen of them, smaller than the head of a pin. I also recalled seeing an invasive species poster outside the fly shop at Flaming Gorge Lodge warning of AIS contamination. I didn't investigate further, just went into decon mode.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Back from a week of wanderinhg on the north side of Grand Canyon in the Kanab basin. On return, found out Quagga has been positively identified by Glen Canyon NRA staff from Glen Canyon Dam all the way to Lee's Ferry. No one looked below. I will in a few weeks. The habitat flow just flushed a lot of Quagga into Grand Canyon all the way to Mead where the Quagga are already well established. Will try to get to Lee's and walk a mile downriver and look at cobble in a few weeks and report back. The trouble will not be at the put-in, but on the drive home after the trip, as many have noted. Those folks leaving the Colorado River at Diamond Creek and Pearce Ferry, can now assume they very well may have quagga on-board. A 7 day dry-out "should" suffice, but you want to get home in two days. Will you be allowed to take your boat home and dry it out there? Phillip, do you have a thought on that one? Yours, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

It would be my understanding that crossing the AZ/UT state line without a fully decontaminated rig would be illegal. That would either mean clean and dried for 7 days or professionally done by a certified agency. But that is the interpretation from Kengore's post (he called DNR last Monday) and reading the October law.

How far they are going to take that? I don't know hence why I think we as a community may want to find some volunteers to participate with the agencies in some sort of official capacity. At a minimum it would be helpful to have the states recognize our unique circumstances and provide us uncomplicated (i.e. without legal hassle) access to free professional decontamination at the state line (specifically UT/AZ border along I-15 where they currently check rigs). That seems a lot more ideal than pushing us further into the state and obviously much better than failing to comply and being cited.

Its going to change the way out of state people travel after the Grand Canyon with personal rigs. We normally derigged and made it all the way home in one long day but that is no longer an option. It would seem it may be in everybody's interest to solicit the the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead officials to install a decontamination station at either Pearce Ferry or South Cove considering at this point we will have all used infested waters sometime along a GC trip. Those seem a more viable option politically and geographically than anything close to Diamond Creek.

Phillip


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*More Better info*

Hey Phillip, got some good beta today from Martina Reisman with the Oregon Dept Fish and Wildlife and Jordan Nielson with the Utah Division of Wildlife. They both noted that rafters DO NOT have to quarantine their boats at Diamond or Pearce, but can go on home as they normally do. 

They noted if a boat is stopped at an inspection station, it can be cleaned with warm water (not hot) under much less pressure, but for a longer wash time. They do this for wooden dories, where the high temps and pressure can strip paint and erode the wood surface. 

Both of these folks assumed river runners were not stopping at the inspection stations. If you don't stop at the inspection station, you need to:

*Clean* mud, plants, animals or other debris from your boat and equipment.​ 
​ *Drain* the footwell and flap areas that hold thwarts, if applicable.​ 
​ *Dry* (7 days summer, 18 days spring/fall and 30 days in the winter) or freeze (3 days of below 32F temps for the full 72 hours).
 
They both gave me a URL tool to help figure out how long your raft needs to dry.
 100th Meridian Initiative
 
Martina noted the key here is that river gear dry out completely between rivers. 
 
Jordon noted if you get home in Utah and do a quick turnaround to another river, you need to decontaminate the boat with hot water washing at a decontamination station.
 
Hope this helps, yours, Tom
 
 Tom Martin
 Co-Director
 River Runners For Wilderness
 PO Box 30821
 Flagstaff, AZ 86003-0821
 Hm: 928-556-0742
 Mobile: 928-856-9065
 [email protected]
 www.rrfw.org
 
 
​


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification and double checking. One question, are we legally required to stop at inspection stations when they are operable?

It seems like the agencies are currently focused on the spirit of the law which is great for all of us. 

Phillip


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Phillip, yes, we are "supposed to stop", but the agencies understand many folks do not. They said they most likely would be busy with a hard hull boat and would not even notice a truck with raft gear go by. They did say being caught with a mussel in a watercraft was a class A offense, but that self treatment is what they are hoping everyone does who blows by the inspection station. Otherwise, plan on the boats being near the tailgate so they can be unloaded and washed. We will need to be sure the person with the high pressure gun knows to tone the pressure and heat down. Yes, I was very happy they were keen on the spirit. We had great chats! Yours, tom


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

Is American Whitewater getting involved in any of this? It seems like an issue that is blowing up. Utah's rules in particular seem unfriendly to non-motorized boaters. There could be a lot of frustration at putins next year if some dialog doesn't get started soon.

Are there any low tech chemical methods of decontaminating boats? If so, could we push for that instead of the high tech power wash that isn't available at the takeout? The New Zealand document mentions washing with salt water as an option. Its makes sense that salt might kill them. Slugs don't do well in salt, and quaggas are evolved for freshwater. I could imagine rigging up a bucket of salt water and sponging down a boat at a takeout might be a lot easier than other decontamination methods being discussed here.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

I was also hoping for some easy chemical wash, but sorry no magic bullet. 

The scientific literature I found showed that three methods: hot water wash, drying for extended times, or freezing for extended times were significantly more effective than the chemical washes or any other treatment. 

For the chemicals to be effective they need long contact times, like over 30 minutes. Easy to do in a closed container like a bilge, not so easy for the exterior of a 18' raft. With out the long contact time the chemical washes were statistically just a little better than doing nothing. 

The other concern for the chemical wash is the disposal of the treated water. To prevent chemically treated water from getting into the river you need a catchment basin and drain system to collect and treat the run off water. Anything effective against invasive species would also kill the native ecosystem if allowed to run back into the water.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Thanks Tom for your input and help on these new rules. The question for me is what will the rangers require at the put in? Will each boat have to have a signed decon slip from the border in order to launch? I'm thinking Deso when I ask these questions. 

My thoughts are it's too early in the season to know the answer to these questions, but it's never too early to ask. I'm going to keep my eye on Rec.gov and see what they put on their web site when the permit sign up starts.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hey Ben, the Utah folks were very responsive to my questions, and appreciated the outreach. One thing that will go far is knowing about the issue, and knowing about Clean/Drain/Dry. 

Ken, That's right, the chemical isuues are far worse than the simple Clean/Drain/Dry. I asked one of the aquatics folks abuot a chlorine wash and they said just what you said. 

Dan, Good question. The Lee's Ferry Ranger's won't care, but the Utah folks sure will. If you tell them your gear has been out of the water and dry for 6 months, that should go a long way to getting you on the water at the ramp.

Yours, tom


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Tips for boating Utah Rivers*

The Utah Department of Natural Resources has a decontamination certification form that you would be wise to put on your dashboard at the put-in. The form requests information about your recent boating trips and decontamination efforts.

*Utah also has an* online Mussel-Aware Boater Program that will provide you with a Decontamination Certification Form valid through the end of the calendar year.


The Utah folks note "Your answers will help law enforcement personnel determine whether your boat needs to be professionally decontaminated. If you are asked to decontaminate your boat, please cooperate with onsite personnel and do your part to keep Utah's waters free of quagga and zebra mussels."
 

All the best, tom


----------

