Things that catch on in California seem to spread to the rest of the country. Whether it is a new form of recreation like surfing in the '60s, rollerblading in the '90s, or a new regulation such as indoor smoking bans in restaurants, the West Coast often leads the East and everywhere in between.

One of the latest developments coming out of California is a regional ban of copper-based bottom paints. While this ban right now only applies to portions of San Diego Bay, the state board that approved the ban explicitly announced plans to expand the ban statewide in two years. In addition, the research on which these actions are based specifically mentions the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes and other prime boating areas as in need of future regulation.

The efforts of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to establish a limit on the amount of dissolved copper in the waters of the Shelter Island Yacht Basin are expected to be mimicked by other boards along the California coast. For boaters in harbors deemed "polluted" by copper, this could result in dramatically higher maintenance costs.

"The economic effects on boaters will be horrendous," says Jerry Lounsbury. Vice President South, of Recreational Boaters of California, a statewide advocacy group for California boaters that has been lighting the copper paint ban since 2003. "The average boater like me is going to drop out," says Lounsbury.

Anti-fouling paints keep marine organisms from growing on boat bottoms because they contain biocides, chemicals that hinder the growth of barnacles and other animals. Most contain copper compounds along with anti-slime boosters, chemicals that dissuade algae from growing by preventing photosynthesis. Copper compounds alone do not prevent algae growth.

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has established a daily limit on the total amount of dissolved copper allowed in the waters of the Shelter Island Yacht Basin, which is part of San Diego Bay. Without examining other potential sources of copper in San Diego Bay, the Board decided that recreational boaters, marinas and the Port Authority would bear the burden of lowering the amount of copper in the water, based on the assumption that recreational boats, and the copper-based anti-fouling paints on their hulls, are the major source of copper in the basin.

The board has laid out a 15-year plan to phase out the use of such paints in the Yacht Basin, which was recently approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. The long delay is designed to give boaters plenty of lead time to switch to non-toxic bottom paints and hopefully allow the paint manufacturers to develop effective alternatives.

The board's plan is drawing fire from concerned boaters. During a September meeting. "The water board confirmed that they don't have any science to show the effectiveness of alternatives," reported Joe Baiunco of RBOC after the hearing. "They only have anecdotal evidence from four or five boat owners who switched recently."

Lounsbury is equally miffed. "The state takes pride in driving the market towards cleaner alternatives, but they have yet to demonstrate any harmful effects specific to copper in Shelter Island Yacht Basin. If the water is so toxic why is Southwestern Yacht Club raising white sea bass fingerlings for the Department of Fish and Game in Shelter Island Yacht Basin?" he asks.

The Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) also has voiced skepticism about the proposal. Ron Flick, an oceanographer with DBW, testified that while the department supports the goal of reducing copper in the harbor, alternatives are not yet proven to be available or effective, no site-specific studies have been conducted that demonstrate ecological harm, and there is an absence of provisions for enforcement of the ban. But of greater concern to the average boater is the increased cost.

"We believe the costs to boaters will be higher than what is outlined in the water board plan," says Jerry Desmond Jr., RBOC Director of Government Relations.

The water board's desire to move recreational boaters towards non-toxic paints will cost boaters $700 more per-year just to keep their new hull paint clean, according to RBOC's economic analysis. The new hull paints must be scrubbed by divers more than twice as often as anti-fouling paints to prevent the build up of hard corals and barnacles. In addition, the cost of switching over to the new paint will run around $150 per-foot of boat length, because all the old copper-based anti-fouling paint must be stripped from the hull. That one-time cost would average around $5,000 dollars for a 35-footer.

"The guy on the street has been brain-washed into believing that this is a minor change, it won't cost him much money, and that he is helping the environment," says Lounsbury. "He's wrong."

The water board's plan is based on a study conducted by California Sea Grant on behalf of the Department of Boating and Waterways. Known as the "Carson Report" after its lead author, the report details the scope of the problem, number of boats and marinas potentially affected and offers many different cost comparisons based on several variables. The water board accepted the general finding of the Carson Report which suggested that the switch over would not cause economic hardship with three key assumptions: that the cost of non-toxic bottom paints would eventually decrease to about the same as current paints; non-toxic paints would last much longer than current paints; and that boat owners would opt to switch to non-toxics at the most economically convenient time, meaning when the boat needed all the paint stripped from the hull. But many boaters today use ablative bottom paints that don't require stripping. For most boaters, there is never a need to strip the bottom.

Under current conditions, the 7,000 or so boat owners who berth their vessels in San Diego Bay could collectively expect to pay out nearly $4.9 million dollars a year in additional costs, not counting the tens of millions of dollars necessary to switch over. And that's only if the new paints drop in price to the current costs of copper. Right now alternative paints cost nearly 70% more to apply.

But in the phase-out plan put forth by the water board, it is assumed that those optimistic conditions will come to pass and therefore boaters will only shoulder an additional $1 million cost. Even then, this estimate assumes that boaters could spread the significant costs of switching to non-toxics over a 15-year time span, but many boat owners only keep their boats for four to five years, as indicated by loan turnover times.

It is also unreasonable to expect owners to be able to recoup much, if any, of the $5,000 average cost of switching to non-toxic hull paint on the used-boat market, especially if the need for non-toxic bottom paint is limited to a small region. Boat owners often have a hard time recouping money invested in significant improvements to their boats such as repowering when selling their boats. It's hard to imagine a non-toxic bottom, which will increase yearly maintenance costs by around $700 a year, will improve a boat's resale value, particularly if the boat is destined to be moved away from San Diego.

Meanwhile, as the State Water Board moves towards eliminating a proven, effective method of preventing hull fouling in San Diego Harbor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has convened an Ocean Protection Council to improve the protection and management of California's coastal resources. One of the Council biggest priorities is preventing the spread of invasive species borne by traveling vessels either in ballast water or attached to the hull. The RBOC has met with the Ocean Protection Council staff and pointed out the inconsistency of attempting to curtail the threat of invasive species on one hand and banning the most effective hull treatments on the other.

"It seems counter-productive to try and reduce the spread of invasive species by eliminating the best means of limiting hull fouling," says Desmond.

For now, the copper paint ban must go to California's Office of Administrative Law and the federal Environmental Protection Agency for approval. If approved by both agencies, a separate plan for enforcement would need to go through public workshops, hearings, and regional board deliberations before becoming final. For more information and updates go to RBOC.org.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_6_10/ai_n15858063/pg_2

University of California Sea Grant Extension Program

See our Fact Sheet, Nontoxic Hull Coating Field Demonstration: Long-Term Performance, for results of the nontoxic coating field demonstration project

Introduction

Harmful levels of dissolved copper have been detected in boat basins in San Diego and Newport Bays. Oceanside Harbor and Marina Del Rey also have elevated levels of dissolved copper. Other crowded boat basins may experience this problem, too. According to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, and by the US EPA, high copper levels are primarily due to antifouling paints on boats. Nontoxic bottom paints are an option for boaters to help lower copper levels in these waters and protect the marine life that provide food for fish and birds.

Copper-based bottom paints are designed to release copper into surface waters to slow the growth of fouling organisms. Recreational boats spend much time at the slip so most of the copper in the bottom paint is released there. It builds up in the water column and sediments and may reach toxic levels. Scientific studies show that dissolved copper at concentrations found in areas of San Diego and Newport Bays affects growth, development, and reproduction of marine life such as mussels, oysters, scallops, sea urchins, and crustaceans. Regulations to reduce dissolved copper levels are being planned. Nontoxic antifouling strategies are an effective way to reduce copper pollution from boats.

Click here for the pdf “What You Need to Know About Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats” which gives an overview of the copper antifouling paints issue in San Diego and internationally as well as information on alternatives to copper-based antifouling paints.

Nontoxic Bottom Paint Demonstration Project

To help boat owners make decisions about nontoxic antifouling strategies, the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program (UCSGEP) conducted a field demonstration of nontoxic boat bottom paints. The demonstration is funded in part by the US EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board 319(h) program (Funding Acknowledgments and Affirmative Action Statement).

The project studied the performance of one silicone- and two epoxy-based coatings on six recreational boats in San Diego Bay. Underwater hull cleaners for the project boats reported on coating conditions, fouling growth levels, and diver effort each time the vessels were cleaned. These reports have been analyzed to determine coating performance throughout the year. Coating performance is affected by water temperature, regular vessel maintenance, cleaning methods used, and frequency of boat use. Results of the UC Sea Grant Extension Program’s demonstration project are providing boaters with vital information for choosing the best nontoxic antifouling strategy for their vessels, especially for those in southern California.

Download the preliminary results: UCSGEP-SD Fact Sheet 04-2 May 2004 - Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Demonstration Project

The booklet “Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats” presents a full analysis of the results of the demonstration project as well as an update on nontoxic alternatives available today. To request a copy of this publication please e-mail ltjohnson@ucdavis.edu

Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Economic Study

Senate Bill 315

The University of California Sea Grant Extension Program (UCSGEP) and the University of California, San Diego Department of Economics collaborated on an economic study mandated by Senate Bill 315. California Senator Alpert and former Assemblyman Howard Wayne introduced Senate Bill 315 which was passed by the Legislature in 2001. The Bill mandated a study to identify incentives for boaters to use nontoxic alternatives to metal-based antifouling hull coatings. The Legislation also established the San Diego Advisory Committee for Environmentally Superior Antifouling Paints to make recommendations and advise on the preparation of the study report.

The San Diego Advisory Committee for Environmentally Superior Antifouling Paints included representatives of the following organizations:

Voting members: San Diego Association of Yacht Clubs, San Diego Port Tenants Association, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego boatyard, marina, and recreational boater representatives, California Professional Divers Association, Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Boating and Waterways, University of California Sea Grant Extension Program. Non-voting members: The United States Navy, Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Economic Study Report

The UCSGEP and UCSD Department of Economics prepared the study report “Transitioning to Non-Metal Antifouling Paints On Marine Recreational Boats in San Diego Bay” (Richard Carson, Maria Damon, Leigh Johnson, Jamie Miller (Gonzalez)) which incorporated data from scientific and other literature. In addition, over 200 boat owners and numerous boat repair yard, underwater hull cleaning and paint/coating companies provided extensive technical and financial data that laid a foundation for the economic analysis. The report addresses the implications of potential policies to reduce the use of copper in hull coatings on recreational boats in San Diego Bay.

The booklet “Making Dollars and Sense of Nontoxic Antifouling Paints for Boats” summarizes the findings of the above economic study on nontoxic bottom paints and is available by contacting ltjohnson@ucdavis.edu

(Funding Acknowledgments and Affirmative Action Statement)

Download additional information: "UCSGEP-SD Fact Sheet 04-1 May 2004 - Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Economic Incentives Study"

On October 4, 2003, the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program (UCSGEP) held its second Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Field Day. The Field Day was hosted by the Shelter Island Boatyard where four of the six project boats were hauled for the public to view and inspect. A total of 80 people attended the Field Day including numerous individual boaters and people who represented 23 organizations.

Boat owners and industry representatives discussed their experiences with nontoxic boat bottom paints while UCSGEP representatives summarized their findings from inspecting the boats and insights from the diver report data that had been collected during the project. The UCSGEP presented the results of the demonstration project from the past year and boat owners, underwater hull cleaners, and boatyard representatives participating in the project were available for questions. Results from the economic study on incentives for boaters to use nontoxic antifouling strategies were also presented by the UCSGEP to the public.

The field day is part of the demonstration conducted by the UCSGEP on nontoxic bottom paints which are alternatives to traditional, copper-based bottom paints used by recreational boats. The build-up of copper from bottom paints is harmful to different life stages of mussels, oysters, scallops, sea urchins and crustaceans which are part of San Diego Bay's food chain.

Total Maximum Daily Load studies that were conducted by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego Bay and by the US EPA for Newport Bay found toxic levels of dissolved copper. Other areas with elevated levels of dissolved copper include other parts of San Diego Bay, Marina Del Rey and Oceanside Harbor.

The UCSGEP would like to help boaters learn about nontoxic antifouling strategies to prepare them for potential restrictions on copper-based bottom paints. Bringing awareness to the boating community about which nontoxic bottom paints are available and about the benefits of switching to them is a priority for the UCSGEP.

Field Day 2003 was a success! People who attended reported they learned about the copper pollution problem and about the alternatives to copper-based paints. In addition, 82% of those who completed an evaluation at the Field Day indicated that the event increased their interest in trying out nontoxic bottom paint. This is significant in that regulations on copper-based bottom paints may occur due to the elevated dissolved copper levels in some areas.

All contents Copyright © 1998 - 2007 — The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Funding Acknowledgements and Affirmative Action Statement

Funding for this program has been provided in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pursuant to assistance Agreement No. C9-989697-00-0 and any amendments thereto which has been awarded to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the USEPA or the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Funding for these programs has been provided in part by the California Department of Boating and Waterways under Agreement No. 01-106-068 and Agreement No. 02-106-087. The first award, mandated by Senate Bill 315, is now Chapter 469 of the California Water Code.

Funding for this program has been provided in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under NOAA Grant #NA06RG0142, project number A/EA-1, through the California Sea Grant College Program and in part by the California State Resources Agency, the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and Center for Pest, Management, Research and Extension, the Renewable Resources Extension Act, and the County of San Diego. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of these organizations.

The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized) in any of its programs or activities.

University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws.

Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3550, (510) 987-0096.