HB 2220
 A recent exchange on a popular fishing blog questioned the value and usefulness of invasive species prevention efforts and recently legislated fees in Oregon. The exchange was interesting because it highlights how much education must be done for people to really understand this issue. Link it with the politics of the day and it’s even more complicated. Try to find the reality in all the misinformation and no wonder people are confused. I’ll try to explain a couple things about how House Bill 2220 evolved and how the funds gained from the $5 boating tag will be used.
First, the reason the fees in HB 2220 were not proposed pre-session by the Marine Board is because, as Marine Board revenues have declined in recent years, the 5-member Board felt that a fee was an additional burden that boaters shouldn’t be saddled with. The legislature disagreed and in the waning hours of the session directed ODFW and the Marine Board to develop language to implement an Idaho-style package to fund a broader prevention effort. The legislature was guided on this by scientists, biologists, fishery advocates and others very familiar with the issue. If they hadn’t pushed, this wouldn’t have happened. Some of these people are the leaders of prominent fishing organizations. The Marine Board, for better or worse, did not ask for the fee increase.
ODFW and OSMB literally had 48 hours to assemble the language that became the primary substance of HB 2220. Fortunately, both agencies are heavily involved with the Oregon Invasive Species Council and are very familiar with what other states are doing, what’s working and what’s not, and we’ve been struggling to educate boaters and anglers for several years now. Both ODFW and OSMB helped develop the language, and the number one goal was to have a program that would further our efforts at invasive species prevention within the limitations we were presented.
What were the limitations? HB 2220 was originally a border inspection bill. However, the cost was high, there was no funding and we discovered in the process that mandatory boat inspections aren’t possible in Oregon due to our unique constitution. We simply can’t put a gate at the border and require people to stop – it’s unconstitutional. Because of that, HB 2220 in February became a watered-down voluntary stopping program.
 By the way, California, Idaho and Washington all have stopping authority – they have different constitutions. California’s inspection stations are how we find out about contaminated boats entering our state. We were notified just yesterday (July 19) of a pontoon boat, covered with quaggas, headed to Grants Pass. It was stopped and decontaminated and will be checked when it gets in Oregon. Thank you, again, California.
In states that have aggressive prevention programs (Minnesota, Maine, etc), the spread of zebra mussels have been greatly slowed compared to neighboring states. The payoff for prevention is large – what we invest now will save many times that money later, and will prevent widescale destruction or loss of habitat/ fishing opportunity later.
The comments that invasive species are good for the environment are way off base – fisheries are collapsing in the Great Lakes, related industries are closing, rate payers are paying the increased cost as stations go off-line to clean intakes and cooling systems, and waterfowl die-offs are widespread because of botulism related to the infestations.
Our own Diamond Lake is a window into that future – what can a few small bait fish do to a cherished fishery? Plenty, including the collapse of the fishery, toxic algae blooms dangerous to human health, and a $6 million clean-up cost. If that’s the future you want, then continue fighting the prevention efforts.
So, with little time to act, the legislature called upon agency staff to use their expertise to re-craft HB 2220 into a broader prevention effort. Yes, we’d have loved a good, long public input process and more forethought, and while we at the Marine Board aren’t thrilled with raising fees, the program is valid and we’ll do our level best to put that money on the ground to prevent invasive species infestations. Considering the limitations, I think the product is very good and will be far more effective than doing nothing.
We’re estimating revenues based on 180,000 power boats and under 100,000 paddle boats 10’ or longer. Why did we choose a 10’ minimum length? We didn’t want to go after dime-store boats and pool toys, and we wanted to be consistent, as we were directed to be, with Idaho. The 10’ length draws criticism, but there’d be a lot more if we required every thing from pool toys on up. Why not a hipwader tag – after all, they are known to spread New Zealand Mud Snails and other things. Namely, that wasn’t what we were asked to do. I would agree that others should be assisting in the funding – hydropower, irrigation, fishing, commercial shipping, etc. They’re all going to pay big-time if infestations occur, as will ratepayers and everyone else. It’s valid to say that recreational boaters didn’t bring these critters to the US, but we are the most likely vector now that they’re here, and that’s why the legislature looked to us for funding.
 HB 2220 creates a new fund specifically to administer this program. The fees do not go to general fund. The bulk of the funds will go to ODFW for regional, mobile inspection teams. Education and outreach will be a primary activity. These teams will have portable washing equipment, will work closely with law enforcement and local communities, and will spend time at busy boat ramps, tournaments, infestation sites and other priority areas. Four of the teams will be seasonal but one will be permanent and will spend the off-season working the boat and sport shows around the state. Again, education and outreach is a key priority here.
Details remain to be worked out. The program will be phased in as funds are available. Teams should be on the ground next spring. OSMB will also gain an AIS coordinator with this program that will work closely with ODFW and with OSP and county sheriff programs. Joint public/professional training sessions will continue, and outreach/education campaigns will be enhanced. Law enforcement officers will also receive funds, paying for increased training and supporting prevention efforts and monitoring of the new laws.
 HB 2583 also passed this session and prohibits launching a boat with any aquatic species on the hull, motor or trailer. These two laws will very much help prevent the constantly growing infestations we’re seeing instate (Eurasian watermilfoil, parrots feather, New Zealand Mud Snails, etc), and the threat from outside the state, such as zebra and quagga mussels and others.
I urge boaters to learn more about invasive species risks and prevention techniques. In the midst of major salmon recover efforts and all the fishery problems in the state, do we really want to just give up and let these invaders in? Or do we want to keep them out as long as we can? Is a zebra mussel infestation inevitable? Probably, but so is death, and I’d like to put mine off as long as possible. Every year we prevent zebra mussels from entering the Columbia Basin is $50 million saved by Columbia River hydropower dams alone.
Getting people to remove the vegetation from their boats will prevent or slow the spread of milfoil and other aquatic weeds in our lakes and rivers. Look at East and Paulina lakes near Bend – they already have tui chub in them, and now they have Eurasian watermilfoil which is great habitat for the chub. The balance shifts toward the chub, and away from trout and kokanee. If you like to catch and eat chub, then I guess we’re headed in the right direction.
Last year, two boats were stopped prior to launch at Diamond Lake that had weeds on them, and they’d just traveled in from East Lake. We’ve trained 500 professionals and volunteers in the last 3 years on invasive species prevention, and it was a campground host who had been through the training credited with those saves. We (Marine Board, ODFW and PSU) have trained at every Port of Entry, too, and many Forest Service, ODFW and community locations. Each year, OSMB mails the “Underway” publication to EVERY registered boater in the state with invasive species information featured inside. It’s been the primary focus of our boat and sport show displays for the last three years. We and other state agencies worked with OPB on the Silent Invasions documentary which drew high viewership and won national awards. We worked closely with the Salem Statesman Journal in 2008 on a series of articles that very specifically documented invasive species problems and solutions. We’ve worked with the Oregonian and numerous other newspapers and periodicals on similar articles. Our website has specific information, too, and we have invasive species billboards in something like 60 locations across the state right now.
True, we at OSMB are not biologists, but we do know boats, and we work closely with the people who do know the biology of these species. We’re trying to do what any responsible organization would do. We’re certainly not perfect, but we’re trying, and we’ve logged the miles and trainings and have the bruises to prove it.
So do we like the current funding structure? Not really, but it’s the only thing we have. Do we like the regional inspection team concept? Actually, yes, though boarder inspections would be more effective, but they’re just not in the cards without a constitutional amendment.
Last point – Is it better to sit back and complain about what’s being done? Or get involved and help steer it along? The Oregon Invasive Species Council has an advisory committee, and there are numerous watershed councils, fishing organizations and others who are very active in invasive species prevention efforts. They may not agree on certain details of the pathway to success, but there are many common themes and efforts that all add up to prevention. Get involved, and never launch a dirty boat.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this information.
-Randy Henry, Oregon State Marine Board
|
