BIOSECURITY - Only half the picture?

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Raw sewage from cities, well it's illegal but who's prosecuted? Nobody. Nor will anyone invest the money to fix it.

There's not nearly enough money to fix it, but at least some places have tried. Rochester built (years ago) massive underground storage tunnels that have made overflows a rare event (although they do occasionally still happen). In most heavy rains, the tunnels have sufficient capacity to store the excess water and allow the treatment plans to catch up after the rain.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

There's not nearly enough money to fix it, but at least some places have tried. Rochester built (years ago) massive underground storage tunnels that have made overflows a rare event (although they do occasionally still happen). In most heavy rains, the tunnels have sufficient capacity to store the excess water and allow the treatment plans to catch up after the rain.

May be true, but the problem of urban pollutants is still a top problem, far more than bottom paint.


The most important point of what I wrote is that the top issues vary geographically, and that a "one size fits all" solution is not as effective. It's quite clear that in crowded harbors overboard discharge can and will significantly impact the local ecology; agricultural runoff too can be minor or catastrophic, as evidenced not far from you: Sodus has a large watershed and is surrounded by farms, whereas Little Sodus (Fairhaven) is not, so it's far less of an issue.

Moving globally, is bottom paint an issue at all? Or is it an issue when compared to the real problems? I think we'd all be in a great place if bottom paint was the primary ecological destroyer; sadly we're not.

The thread title includes BIOSECURITY (not my caps) though OP drifted from that. I think we've not even realized the extent to which global trade (movement of goods accidentally spreading non-native flora and fauna) has damaged both land and waters. It often takes years before an introduced species is noticed, and then another decade before it's totally out of control. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

May be true, but the problem of urban pollutants is still a top problem, far more than bottom paint.


The most important point of what I wrote is that the top issues vary geographically, and that a "one size fits all" solution is not as effective. It's quite clear that in crowded harbors overboard discharge can and will significantly impact the local ecology; agricultural runoff too can be minor or catastrophic, as evidenced not far from you: Sodus has a large watershed and is surrounded by farms, whereas Little Sodus (Fairhaven) is not, so it's far less of an issue.

Moving globally, is bottom paint an issue at all? Or is it an issue when compared to the real problems? I think we'd all be in a great place if bottom paint was the primary ecological destroyer; sadly we're not.

The thread title includes BIOSECURITY (not my caps) though OP drifted from that. I think we've not even realized the extent to which global trade (movement of goods accidentally spreading non-native flora and fauna) has damaged both land and waters. It often takes years before an introduced species is noticed, and then another decade before it's totally out of control. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

I agree, there are a whole lot of problems and bottom paint is far from the biggest. At the same time, ignoring a problem just because something else is worse doesn't help anything. Ideally, we should all try to influence the problems we have some control over and then worry about the other problems we don't control.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

As I said the feedback I getting from the marina here is that antifoulinc removal will have to be limited to a specific containment area. This area will prevent runoff issues and groundwater contamination.

The issue of course is the containment area will be smaller then the number of boats looking to anti fouling and there are serious extra travel lift costs to move the boat there and back.

€€€€ for the yard , they seem to be happy.

Then they are doing it wrong

Almost every yard we have been in has a blast off area and containment pit directly in front of travel lift, you cant move the boat to the hardstand area without going across this area first.
Takes about an hour to blast our hull.

[Kurlie1]

Thanks for all your replies.


I see that the extent of bottom paint being a problem is largely dependent upon your location. I understand that NZ has the largest number of boats per capita and here in the Weiti river there are 2 clubs with pole moorings (pik attached) and my club is currently researching options to improve their environmental impact.


The local Council has hinted that the existance of our club is at stake. Hence my original reach-out to the community to find out what is happening globally. I have yet to hear from anyone who is using any type od drive-in boat wash like the one in the link I posted.


A bit more of context of my query ...



A couple of piks attached. The boat on the cleaning grid is under a number of Council imposed restrictions. (no colour in the water ... all removed growth must be collected .. etc. ) As draconian as you may think these "rules" are the intent is to clean up and restore the marine environment and restore the river. The river opens into a large (for NZ) gulf known as the Hauraki Gulf. NZ's largest and most protected nautical playground. There are about 14 marinas in the Gulf. It is being closely monitored in an attempt to recover it's once pristene echo-environment.

[skipperpete]

Hey Kurlie, my boat is in a marina in France with about 60 boats afloat and 1,000 in cradles on the hardstand. Antifouling is permitted to be removed on the hardstand BUT the ground under the boat has to be covered with heavy duty plastic sheeting to collect the scrapings or residue, no dust producing method of removal is allowed and outdoor spray painting is strictly forbidden ( even tented up)....... the rules are enforced rigorously.
There is about 100 hectares of shellfish “farms” not too far away but even in places where there are no mussel or oyster farms the same system seems to be prevalent.
Pete.

[Kurlie1]

Hi Pete. Yes. This seems to be the most common proceedure world-wide. Including in our club

The problem with this is the cost ... the time .... and the required room to haul.
When the boat fouls up as quickly as here this would need to be every 3 months. In fact the 3month time frame is what the marinas are requiring.
Cheers
Dave

[LakeSuperior]

When I was younger I recall being told not to be penny wise and pound foolish."

However, on the other hand I recognize "lots of little things add up to big things."

So just considering copper, can the pulses of copper runoff from a marina elevate the copper concentrations in the surrounding seawater sufficiently to be detrimental to marine plants and animals? Especially considering tides and currents?

Is there a body of research on this topic? Also recognize that copper is essential for life and there is a DC level dissolved copper in sea water.

[Bowdrie]

I've often considered that if I could afford to have a boat built to my specs that it would be well worth having it built in Cu-Ni.
It's a wonderful material.

https://www.copper.org/applications/...boat_hull.html

[RaymondR]

The hydrological cycle would introduce large amounts of various minerals into the oceans every year as part of the natural breakdown and transport of the materials constituting the lands into the sea. Is the relatively small amounts introduced by antifoul in any way significant?

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The hydrological cycle would introduce large amounts of various minerals into the oceans every year as part of the natural breakdown and transport of the materials constituting the lands into the sea. Is the relatively small amounts introduced by antifoul in any way significant?

Raymond, you are being sensible and logical, stop it I say, stop. Your position goes directly against the feel good green movement and its supporters.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Then they are doing it wrong

Almost every yard we have been in has a blast off area and containment pit directly in front of travel lift, you cant move the boat to the hardstand area without going across this area first.
Takes about an hour to blast our hull.

No this was in relation to subsequent anti fouling removal. The pressure wash issue is not yet seen as a containment issue. But the new marinas are putting in a dedicated power wash areas immediately adjacent to the lift out. This issue is not the problem as power washing is typically done in the straps. The issue is the antifouling renewal

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Kurlie1

Thanks for all your replies.

I have yet to hear from anyone who is using any type od drive-in boat wash like the one in the link I posted.

The nearest I have seen in the UK is a sea lift. Out of curiosity I asked them for a quote to cover lift, scrub and launch which they say will take 1 hour. Price for a 31ft yacht, £267. Any run off or weed goes straight over the side into the harbour.

Is this significant with some 5000 vessels moored in Portsmouth Harbour UK? Not really, Southern water were fined £90m last year and its not the first large fine they have been given. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57777935

We also have two very large aircraft carriers parked opposite us. Useful as the security for them encompasses us too.

I get you have a unique estuary worth protecting, but is there evidence that antifoul paint is the problem, or even a small part of the problem?

Pete

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Pete7

The nearest I have seen in the UK is a sea lift. Out of curiosity I asked them for a quote to cover lift, scrub and launch which they say will take 1 hour. Price for a 31ft yacht, £267. Any run off or weed goes straight over the side into the harbour.



Is this significant with some 5000 vessels moored in Portsmouth Harbour UK? Not really, Southern water were fined £90m last year and its not the first large fine they have been given. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57777935



We also have two very large aircraft carriers parked opposite us. Useful as the security for them encompasses us too.



I get you have a unique estuary worth protecting, but is there evidence that antifoul paint is the problem, or even a small part of the problem?



Pete

The issue is not the scale of the problem. Runoff is these days largely controlled by law or in the EU , directives which of course become national law. Hence businesses flout this at their peril. They might evade oversight but sooner or later these things can catch up with you.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No this was in relation to subsequent anti fouling removal. The pressure wash issue is not yet seen as a containment issue. But the new marinas are putting in a dedicated power wash areas immediately adjacent to the lift out. This issue is not the problem as power washing is typically done in the straps. The issue is the antifouling renewal

Ablative paint typically doesn't require removal, so the quick pressure wash is the extent (and I yell at the guy if he gets too aggressive as it's wasting paint).

Sanding/stripping hard bottom paint has required dust collection and tarping as long as we've had big boats.