Content uploaded by Tim Campbell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tim Campbell on Oct 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Management of Biological Invasions (2016) Volume 7 article in press
© 2016 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2016 REABIC
Open Access
Short Communication CORRECTED PROOF
Volume and contents of residual water in recreational watercraft ballast systems
Tim Campbell1,2*, Todd Verboomen3, Gary Montz4 and Titus Seilheimer5
1University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 1975 Willow Drive, Madison, WI 53706 USA
2University of Wisconsin Extension Environmental Resources Center, 445 Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706 USA
3East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 400 Ahnaip Street, Menasha, WI 54952 USA
4Minnesota Department of Natural resources – Division of Ecological and Water Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 USA
5University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 705 Viebahn St., Manitowoc, WI 54220 USA
*Corresponding author
E-mail: tim.campbell@wisc.edu
Received: 1 December 2015 / Accepted: 22 March 2016 / Published online: 18 April 2016
Handling editor: Justin McDonald
Abstract
Transient boaters are a known vector of aquatic invasive species. This has led to the establishment of prevention guidance to reduce the risk
of most boating activities. However, this guidance may not adequately reduce the risk of invasive species transport in wakeboard boats due to
the presence of ballast systems, which may be difficult or impossible for a boater to drain. We documented that these watercraft transport
relatively large volumes of residual water (mean water volume 31.7 L) even after drain pumps run dry and that live organisms can be found
in residual water for at least a week after use. The amount of residual water found in ballast tanks was variable (range of 1.0 L to 86.8 L),
indicating that there may be factors that would allow for more complete drainage of ballast tanks. Analyses of the invertebrate communities
from the residual water found that native zooplankton were common in the samples, with two of the watercraft transporting small numbers of
dreissinid veligers. Future efforts should identify factors that can reduce the amount of residual water and identify what other invasive
species may potentially be transported through this new pathway. Additionally, more effort should be made to better understand the boating
behaviors of wakeboard boat users.
Key words: aquatic invasive species, prevention, invasion pathways, boating, risk assessment
Introduction
Transient boaters can inadvertently transport vegetation,
water and debris between waterbodies and are known
vectors of aquatic invasive species (AIS; Johnson et
al. 2001). Vegetation fragments can be invasive, and
residual water on the boat can contain live organisms
(e.g., viruses and invertebrates) and potential
invasive species (Kelly et al. 2013). In the water-rich
Great Lakes region, there are many waterbodies with
multiple established invasive species where these
pathways could introduce AIS into un-invaded areas.
Simple actions, such as removing attached aquatic
vegetation and draining water, can greatly reduce the
risk of watercraft transporting these species
(Rothlisberger et al. 2010). These simple actions
have become the standard preventative actions for
the general boating public (e.g. Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers!). Many boaters across the country are
required to follow these steps to comply with
regulations designed to prevent the spread of invasive
species (e.g. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan).
While these general recommendations are easy to
perform on the majority of watercraft, there are
some types of watercraft, such as wakeboard boats,
where these recommendations may be more difficult
to implement and may not acceptably reduce the risk
of AIS transport.
Wakeboard boats are a relatively recent addition
to recreational boating, with the sport becoming
popular in the late 1980s, and the industry growing to
sell around 10,000 new boats each year (NMMA
2011). Wakeboard boats often have a ballast system
that is used to increase displacement to create a large
wake that is used as a launching point for a towed
rider to perform tricks behind the watercraft. These
watercraft can take on hundreds of liters of ballast and
T. Campbell et al.
Figure 1. While wakeboard boat
ballast systems are often custom and
can differ from boat to boat, a
common configuration is to have two
ballast bags in the back storage and
one in the center storage locker.
Water is typically drawn into the
system on the bottom through the hull
and it exits the system out of a
through-hull fitting on the bow.
have the potential to transport large volumes of
residual ballast water. The ballast systems are often
located in storage compartments and can be difficult,
if not impossible, for a boater to drain completely
(Figure 1). Anecdotal reports have indicated that
these boats have transported large amounts of water,
but until now it has never been verified.
In order to gain a better understanding of these
watercraft and to ultimately prescribe better preven-
tion actions, we undertook a study to determine if
wakeboard boats were transporting water, and if so,
how much water. We also quantified the types of
invertebrates that were being transported. This study
will provide the AIS and boating community with
additional understanding of this issue, which can
then be used to develop best practices to reduce the
risk of AIS transport.
Methods
Twenty-three wakeboard boats were sampled in
September and October of 2013 at Ft. Fremont
Marine in Fremont, Wisconsin. Wakeboard boats
were first identified from the pool of watercraft on
site and checked for ballast systems. If ballast systems
were present, then system type was identified. Only
boats with ballast bags (as opposed to hard ballast
tanks) were chosen for sampling given the difficulty
of sampling hard tanks, which are not easily
removable (Figure 2). Before the ballast bags were
removed for sampling, they were drained using the
existing pumps to ensure only water that could not be
drained was being measured. The ballast bags were
then removed and any residual water emptied into
buckets which were then weighed (kg) and converted
to a volume (L, 1.0 kg = 1.0 L). The residual ballast
water was then filtered through a 90 micron plankton
net and the contents preserved in 70% ethanol.
For the invertebrate analysis, the preserved
samples were filtered through 80 micron mesh in the
lab and diluted with distilled water. The entire
volume of each sample was analyzed by using
subsamples of 20–25 mL that were then transferred
to a gridded plate where veligers were then counted
using cross polarized light microscopy and normal
light was used to determine relative abundances of
all other invertebrates (Montz and Hirsch unpubl.
data). Sample processing was completed by
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staff.
Results
Out of the 23 wakeboard boats examined, five water-
craft had no ballast tanks while another five had hard
tanks that were inaccessible. The remaining thirteen
watercraft had bag ballast systems that could be
effectively removed and sampled. The mean residual
ballast water in the thirteen watercraft examined was
31.7 L (± 28.7 L) with a range of 1.0 L to 86.8 L
(Figure 3).
Nine of the thirteen watercraft with removable
ballast bags had viable organisms present in the residual
Volume and contents of residual wakeboard ballast
Figure 2. A ballast bag is pliable and
collapsible, and often has two connected
hoses in order to fill and drain the ballast
(left). It was observed that the hoses could
lift the drain connection above the lowest
part of the ballast bag, resulting in a
significant amount of residual water in the
ballast bag (right). A hard ballast tank
(bottom) fills an entire compartment, even
when not full, and is generally
inaccessible without tools. Photo credit:
Tim Campbell.
ballast water, with thirteen different families of zoo-
plankton and macroinvertebrate observed (Table 1).
The Chironomidae, Cladocera, and Copepoda were
the most commonly detected zooplankton families.
Dreissenid veligers were detected in two samples,
with 9 and 47 veligers (2.4 and 0.6 veligers/liter,
respectively) present in those samples.
Discussion
These results document the existence of residual
water and invertebrates, including dreissenid veligers,
in wakeboard boat ballast systems even after onboard
pumps indicate that the ballast water systems are
empty. This transport of water in ballast systems
creates risk of these watercraft transporting AIS and
makes watercraft with these types of ballast water
systems in violation of regulations prohibiting the
transport of lake and river water designed to prevent
the spread of AIS (e.g. Wisconsin Administrative
Code chapter NR 40, Minnesota state statute
Conservation Chapter 84D.09). The variability in the
volume of ballast water in a given watercraft suggests
that there may be certain situations or equipment
that are more effective at draining water than others.
Given the small number of watercraft we were able
to sample, no patterns emerged indicating what
systems or watercraft drained the most amount of
water. However, ballast systems are often aftermarket
additions to watercraft and can be added to many
places on a boat by any marine service center which
increases the variability in ballast system design.
This provides the opportunity to develop best
practices that minimize residual ballast water for both
ballast system design and installation, and for boater
behaviors. The less residual ballast water remaining
will make manual draining or other treatment options
easier and more efficient.
Given the results of this study, the simple actions
that drain water on other types of watercraft (e.g.
fishing boats, cruisers), such as pulling the drain
plug and emptying the bilge, will not achieve the same
risk reduction in wakeboard boats with ballast water
systems. Owners of wakeboard boats can manually
T. Campbell et al.
Figure 3. Liters of residual ballast water
documented in each watercraft that was
sampled. The striped bar is the mean (±1σ)
of all 13 watercraft.
Table 1. Invertebrate abundances for residual wakeboard ballast water. Native zooplankton were relatively common across the
samples. Dreissenid veligers were found in only two samples (2 and 12). Samples 1 and 7 were not analyzed due to sample collection
errors. Relative abundances per subsample are as follows: Rare (1–4), Present (5–9), Common (10–14), Abundant (15+).
Sample
Total ballast
volume (L)
Veligers
Veliger/liter
Bythotrephes
Amnicola
Amphipoda
Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Cladocera
Collembola
Copepoda
Diptera
Hydrachnida
Odanata
Oligochaera
Ostracoda
2 3.8 9 2.4 – – – – – – – – – – – – R
3 4.6 0 – – – – – – P – – – – – – P
4 10.3 0 – – – – – – R – R R – – – –
5 14.4 0 – – – – – – P – – – – – – P
6 18.6 0 – – – – R R A – R – – – A P
8 38.8 0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
9 39 0 – – – – – – – R – – – – P
10 45.9 0 – – – R – R A – C – R – A P
11 47.2 0 – – R – – C A – P – – R – A
12 84.3 47 0.6 – – – – – C – – – – – – P
13 86.8 0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
remove and drain some of the onboard ballast
systems, but this process took around five minutes
per ballast bag the course of this study, with most
watercraft having three ballast bags. The time and
effort required to take prevention actions are two
reasons anglers cite for not taking prevention actions
on their watercraft (Moy et al. 2014), so it is ques-
tionable as to whether boaters with more complex
watercraft would be willing to manually remove and
drain ballast bags, even with regulations that may
require it. More education and enforcement efforts
may be needed to get boaters to take these prevention
actions. Additionally, watercraft design is becoming
more complex and some ballast systems are placed
where they are inaccessible, making them difficult to
drain. One possible solution would be to attempt to
use the pumps to drain the ballast systems while on
an incline or a boat ramp so that more water reaches
the drain pump which often isn’t placed at the lowest
point of the watercraft. Alternatively, design features
Volume and contents of residual wakeboard ballast
that reduce AIS transportation risk without added
effort from the owner could be used something that
could be marketed to customers.
Allowing a watercraft to dry for five or more days
is also an often recommended prevention action
(ANSTF 2013). This is effective for many vessels
and potential AIS when all of the recommended
practices are completed. However the large amounts
of residual ballast water in wakeboard ballast systems
documented in this study undermine the potential
effectiveness of this guidance. The design of these
ballast systems prevents them from completely
draining, and the closed system would not allow any
amount of water to evaporate in even the thirty days
that some AIS prevention programs in the western
United States use as a standard quarantine time. Live
invertebrates were found in the residual ballast water
of watercraft examined in this study at least seven
days after the watercraft arrived at our sampling
location. It is possible that the organisms may have
survived longer than seven days since we only know
the day the watercraft arrive at the our sampling
location. The actual time organisms survived in
these ballast tanks was seven days plus the number of
unknown days it was unused before being delivered
for winterization. Future work could determine how
long organisms would be able to survive in
recreational ballast tanks. Recent work shows that
quagga mussel veligers can survive at least seven
days in small amounts of water (Snider et al. 2014),
and up to 27 days in less extreme conditions (Choi et
al. 2013). Another AIS of concern, the spiny water
flea (Bythotrephes longimanus), has a dormant resting
egg that has been noted to be viable after years of
dormancy, making it well suited to survive long
periods of time in residual ballast water provided the
ballast tanks do not desiccate or reach temperatures
above 50°C (Branstrator et al. 2013).
The presence of viable veligers confirms that this
is a potential invasion pathway for these highly
invasive mussels. The abundances counted in these
samples were low relative to a similar study of other
recreational watercraft (Montz and Hirsch unpubl.
data), but the watercraft in our study were sampled
out of convenience and might not accurately reflect
the risk of these watercraft transporting AIS. Since it
is unknown where the boats in this study originated
from, additional work should pair sampling of lake
water and residual ballast water at sites with known
populations of invasive species at times where their
abundances are high. This will help quantify the
highest densities of AIS that these systems can be
expected to retain and transport. An increased sample
size of wakeboard watercraft and craft details will
also help managers obtain a clearer picture of what
watercraft pose more of a risk than others and what
they might be transporting.
Little is known about the boating habits of
wakeboard boat owners. While each watercraft with
a ballast water system is likely transporting water, it
is important to note that wakeboard and ski boats
make up a small amount of the new boats sold each
year in the US, with around 10,000 new units sold
each year (NMMA 2011). Conversations with local
industry representatives suggest that many wakeboard
boats may pose a reduced risk of transporting potential
AIS to new waters given that they stay on the same
body of water and when they do travel, they often
visit many of the same locations repeatedly. However,
wakeboard boat owners may transport their
watercraft long distances for a vacation or competition.
Understanding these movement patterns and the
current prevention behaviors exhibited by wakeboard
boat owners will be important in assessing risk and
developing specific AIS prevention recommendations
for this portion of the boating market.
The wakeboard boat industry is aware of AIS
issues. The American Boat and Yacht Council hosted
an AIS Summit in Consideration of Watercraft
Design for Invasive Species Prevention in January of
2015. Both AIS professionals and members of the
boating industry attended and partnerships were
formed to begin to address AIS issues, including
design issues that would help all types of watercraft
drain more fully (ABYC 2015). Filtration devices
(e.g. the Wake Worx Mussel Mast’R) are a possible
solution that could prevent the transport of
organisms in wakeboard ballast. While they have
proven to be effective at preventing organisms from
entering ballast, they do not necessarily ensure that
these watercraft comply with all existing local
regulations. Collaboration between regulators and
industry will be needed to make sure that any techno-
logical solutions (i.e. filtration, chemical treatment)
are complementary in preserving access to water
bodies whilst protecting against AIS translocation
through compliance with local regulations.
Collaboration will also be needed so that industry
can continue to be aware of AIS issues and design
solutions into future model years.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Denny Fox and Fort Freemont Marine—their
willingness to partner with the authors to provide access to
watercraft made this project possible. The authors appreciate the
effort and comments of the reviewers. Their insights improved the
quality of this manuscript. This work was supported by the
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute and the University of
Wisconsin Extension Environmental Resources Center.
T. Campbell et al.
References
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) (2013) Voluntary
guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species: recreational activities. Technical document.
American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) (2015) Aquatic Invasive
Species Summit: Boat Design and Construction in
Consideration of Aquatic Invasive Species Meeting Minutes.
Las Vegas, NV.
Branstrator DK, Shannon LJ, Brown ME, Kitson MT (2013) Effects
of chemical and physical conditions on hatching success of
Bythotrephes longimanus resting eggs. Limnology and
Oceangraphy 58: 2171–2184, http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.2013.58.6.2171
Choi W, Gerstenberger S, McMahon RF, Wong W (2013)
Estimating survival rates of quagga mussel (Dreissena
rostriformis bugensis) veliger larvae under summer and autumn
temperature regimes in residual water on trailered watercraft at
Lake Mead, USA. Management of Biological Invasions 4: 61–
69, http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2013.4.1.08
Kelly NE, Wantola K, Weisz E, Yan ND (2013) Recreational boats
as a vector of secondary spread for aquatic invasive species and
native crustacean zooplankton. Biological Invasions 15: 509–
519, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0303-0
Johnson LE, Ricciardi A, Carlton JT (2001) Overland dispersal of
aquatic invasive species: A risk assessment of transient
recreational boating. Ecological Applications 11: 1789–1799,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3061096
Moy P, Jones J, Campbell T (2014) Train local groups to inspect and
wash fishing tourney boats. Technical report. University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. Madison, WI.
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) (2011)
Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract. Chicago, IL.
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: 121–132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-35.3.121
Snider JP, Moore JD, Volkoff MC, Byron SN (2014) Assessment of
quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) veliger survival under
thermal, temporal and emersion conditions simulating overland
transport. California Fish and Game 100(4): 640–651