staying afloat with nontoxic antifouling strategies for · pdf filestaying afloat with...
TRANSCRIPT
Staying Afloat withNontoxic AntifoulingStrategies for Boats
Staying Afloat withNontoxic AntifoulingStrategies for Boats
© University of California, November 2004California Sea Grant College Program Report No. T-054© University of California, November 2004California Sea Grant College Program Report No. T-054
Authors:Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor Jamie Anne Gonzalez, Program RepresentativeSea Grant Extension Program UC Cooperative Extension County of San Diego MS-O18 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123(858) 694-2845
Authors:Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor Jamie Anne Gonzalez, Program RepresentativeSea Grant Extension Program UC Cooperative Extension County of San Diego MS-O18 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123(858) 694-2845
Kristof Adam, Subsea Industries, Antwerp, BelgiumDennis & Laura Allen, Armored Hull Marine Products, San Diego, CAJohn Blocker, County Department of Agriculture, Weight & Measures, San
Diego, CARobin Briggs, Bottom Liner, Long Beach, CARichard Carson, University of California, San Diego Economics Department, La
Jolla, CAAndy Chan, AirBerth, Queensland, AustraliaKen Draper, American Marine Coatings, Seattle, WATom Driscoll, Driscoll Boatworks, San Diego, CABill Dysart, Dysart & Dubick, San Diego, CAJim Fawcett, USC Sea Grant, Los Angeles, CAJim Gibson, Adsil Corporation, Palm Coast, FLMarco Gonzalez, Coast Law Group LLP, Encinitas, CAJeff Grovhoug, US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CASandra Harrell, US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CASarah Higgins, Freecom Inc., Big Spring, TXFaisal Huda, CSL Silicones Inc., Ontario, CanadaBarth Hudiburgh, Proline Paint Company, San Diego, CA Dr. John Kelly, International Paint, Houston, TXPaul & Terry Jordan, Miracle Cover, Inc., Huntington Beach, CAKeith Kent, Kiss-Cote Inc., Tampa, FLRichard Kittar, Aurora Marine Industries, Ontario, CanadaTerry Koehler, Koehler Kraft, San Diego, CAMick Kronman, Santa Barbara Harbor Operations, Santa Barbara, CATim Leathers, Cabrillo Isle Marina, San Diego, CABill Lewis, Silver Gate Yacht Club, San Diego, CANora Lynn, Senator Alpert’s Capitol Office, Sacramento, CAAl Martin, Convair Sailing Club, San Diego, CARon Martin, HydroHoist International Inc., Claremore, OKShaun McMahon, Shelter Cove Marina, San Diego, CA
Vikki McMillan, Southwestern Yacht Club, San Diego, CARachel Miller, Oceanside Yacht Club, Oceanside, CABill Milne, Alex Milne Associates Ltd., Ontario, Canada Tom Nielsen, Nielsen Beaumont Marine, San Diego, CADuncan Norris, BoatScrubber Marine Ltd, Portsmouth, United KingdomSuzanne Paisley, UC ANR Communication Services, Davis, CANick Patenaude, Eccotech Inc., Mechanicville, NYPat Patterson, International Paint, San Pedro, CADeborah Pennell, Shelter Island Marina, San Diego, CANancy Pierson, Sound Specialty Coatings, Burton, WAMargaret Podlich, Boat US Foundation, Annapolis, MDRon Presley, Presley Precision Diving Inc., San Diego, CASandy Purdon, Shelter Cove Marina, San Diego, CABill Raschick, Alpha One Diving, San Diego, CADr. Dan Rittschof, Duke University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NCKen Schiff, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CAGuy Seabrook, Magellan Companies Inc., Mt. Pleasant, SCBruce Sifton, 21st Century Coatings, British Columbia, CanadaNan Singhasemanon, State Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CARick Smith, Galva-Foam Marine Industries, Lodi, CAErnie Soeterik, Proline Paint Company, San Diego, CAGabriel Solmer, San Diego BayKeeper, San Diego, CADr. Geoffrey Swain, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FLFrank Szafranski, US Paint Corporation, St Louis, MOBoud Van Rompay, Subsea Industries, Antwerp, BelgiumNora Varner, City of San Diego Environmental Services Dept., San Diego, CAGeorge Vehanen, Knight & Carver YachtCenter, National City, CADr. Dean Wendt, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CADr. Neil Willits, UC Davis Statistics Laboratory, Davis, CANeil Wilson, Driscoll Boatworks, San Diego, CARichard Xavier, International Paint Company, San Diego, CA
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 anyamendments thereto which has been awarded to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Thecontents 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 endorsementor recommendation for use.
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 AtmosphericAdministration 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, theCalifornia Department of Boating and Waterways, the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and Center for Pest, Management, Research and Extension, the RenewableResources 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, sexualorientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who servedon 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 tothe 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.
AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the following people who have been instrumental in our nontoxic antifouling strategies project since its inception in1999. Our efforts to assist California boaters and boating businesses to improve coastal water quality and protect marine life while sustaining boating, itself,would not have been possible without their vision, cooperation and support!
John Robertus, Peter Michael, Deborah Jayne, Julie Chan, Lesley Dobalian and Christina Arias of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,San Diego Region, as well as Janie Mitsuhashi and John Richards of the California State Water Resources Control Board;
Raynor Tsuneyoshi (Director), Dave Johnson, Steve Watanabe, Dr. Reinhart (Ron) Flick, Megan Standard and Holly Celico-Lee of California Departmentof Boating and Waterways;
Russ Moll, Dolores Wesson, Marsha Gear and Joanne Furse of California Sea Grant College Program;Diane Wallace, Terry Salmon, Refugio (Cuco) Gonzalez, Carol Berman and their staff at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and
Cooperative Extension;Bill Roberts and Wayne Morrison of Shelter Island Boat Yard, Marlan Hoffman and Simo Orlich of California Marine Services, Bill Rocco of Aquarius
Yacht Services, Bruce McLeod of Omni Precision Diving Services, Mike Simmons of Barnacle Buzz;Wes Bachman and other members of Convair Sailing Club, Daniel Brown, Dick Cloward, Dennis Pennell, Carl Smith and Todd Schwede;John Witherspoon and Joan Kelly-Longhauser of Coronado Yacht Club, Bill Kraus of San Diego Yacht Club, Cleve Hardaker and Robert Dicus of
Silvergate Yacht Club, Jim Wachtler, Jim Lonergan and Jeff Wheeler of Southwestern Yacht Club, Ann Miller of Bay Club/Half Moon Marina, Mike Sukel andDoug Asher of Chula Vista Marina, Eric Leslie of Harbor Island West Marina, Mary Kuhn of San Diego Marriott Marina, Scott MacLaggan of Sunroad ResortMarina, Frank Quan of Oceanside Harbor District, David Merk and Paul Brown of San Diego Unified Port District;
Ted Warburton (Brisbane Marina) of the California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains, Mariann Timms of Marina Recreation Association,and Brad Oliver (San Diego Yacht Club) of San Diego Dockmasters Group, Dick Cloward and Sharon Cloward of San Diego Port Tenants Association;
Peter Seligman of US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center; and Laura Hunter and Albert Huang of Environmental Health Coalition.
Special thanks to Carol Anderson for her talented support of our website, publications and programs!
We also wish to thank the following people for their advice, review, assistance and encouragement:
This report does not necessarily reflect the views of persons acknowledged.
New Solutions to an Old Problem
More boaters are considering switching to
nontoxic antifouling strategies as they
learn about the harmful effects of copper-based
antifouling paints. Boat repair yards and hull
cleaners are gaining experience with nontoxic
coatings and their performance capabilities.
Different vessels require different antifouling
strategies, depending on their type and on where
and how they are used and stored. The University
of California Cooperative Extension – Sea Grant
Extension Program has produced this report to
provide boaters, boating and coating businesses,
government, environmental organizations and
others with the best available information on
nontoxic antifouling strategies.
New Solutions to an Old Problem
More boaters are considering switching to
nontoxic antifouling strategies as they
learn about the harmful effects of copper-based
antifouling paints. Boat repair yards and hull
cleaners are gaining experience with nontoxic
coatings and their performance capabilities.
Different vessels require different antifouling
strategies, depending on their type and on where
and how they are used and stored. The University
of California Cooperative Extension – Sea Grant
Extension Program has produced this report to
provide boaters, boating and coating businesses,
government, environmental organizations and
others with the best available information on
nontoxic antifouling strategies.
Why Control Fouling Growth?Every sailor knows that algae, barnacles and otherfouling growth love to hitch a ride on boat bottoms.These fellow travelers create enough friction, or “drag,”to slow sailboats and increase fuel consumption by powerboats, in some cases by 30% (Younqlood et al. 2003).Reducing drag is so important that, during the Age ofExploration, mariners careened their ships on distantshores to expose the hull. This dangerous processenabled them to scrape away fouling growth and performother maintenance.
Why Control Fouling Growth?Every sailor knows that algae, barnacles and otherfouling growth love to hitch a ride on boat bottoms.These fellow travelers create enough friction, or “drag,”to slow sailboats and increase fuel consumption by powerboats, in some cases by 30% (Younqlood et al. 2003).Reducing drag is so important that, during the Age ofExploration, mariners careened their ships on distantshores to expose the hull. This dangerous processenabled them to scrape away fouling growth and performother maintenance.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 1Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 1
Careening a sailboat Caution: Don’t try this yourself! Go to a boat repair yard, instead.
Careening a sailboat Caution: Don’t try this yourself! Go to a boat repair yard, instead.
(Rep
rinte
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on fr
om L
es &
Dia
ne @
SailN
et.c
om)
What’s the Problem with Recent Fouling Control Methods?In modern times antifouling paints with heavy metals,such as tin and copper, have been used widely. Althoughthey slow fouling growth, they do not prevent it. Thesemetals leach out of antifouling paints and accumulate inthe water of crowded and poorly flushed boat basins tolevels that scientific research has shown to harm marinelife. As a result, the International Maritime Organizationhas begun a phased ban on tributyl tin-based, antifoulingpaints that will be completed by 2008. Now, regulatoryagencies are investigating copper levels in the water ofsouthern California boat basins. Restrictions on copper-based, antifouling paints have been proposed for theShelter Island Yacht Basin of northern San Diego Bay.
How Else Can You Control Fouling Growth?Recreational boaters will still need to control foulinggrowth if copper-based antifouling paints are restricted orbanned. With the goal of educating boat owners andboating businesses on cost effective options for controllingfouling growth and protecting marine life, the Universityof California Cooperative Extension – Sea GrantExtension Program (UCSGEP) has been investigatingnontoxic antifouling strategies and sharing their findingssince 1999.
This booklet, Staying Afloat with NontoxicAntifouling Strategies for Boats, is the third in ourseries. It includes:
How fouling growth colonizes a boat’s hull;How copper from antifouling paints affects marinelife;Antifouling policy developments in the UnitedStates and Europe;Introduction to nontoxic antifouling strategies;Highlights of our 2002 economic study;
Results of our field demonstration of three,nontoxic boat bottom coatings;Outreach and impacts report;A view to the future; and More resources that you can find at:http://seagrant.ucdavis.edu;Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Sampler updatedfor 2004.
How Does Fouling Grow?Many factors influence where fouling growth chooses tosettle. These include the availability of nutrients, thetexture of the surface, the chemical reactions takingplace on it, and the movement of surrounding currents(Crisp 1974; Hudon et al. 1983; Rittschof et al. 1984;Clare et al. 1992; Rittschof 1993). The fouling on a boatbottom sometimes proceeds by stages beginning with theattachment of bacteria (Clare et al. 1992). Immediatelyfollowing this stage, a slimy “biofilm” of bacteria,protozoans, and microscopic algae attaches to the hull(Characklis & Cooksey 1983). Various scientists havefound that this slime layer has varying effects on thenext generation of fouling organisms (Mimh et al. 1981;Maki et al. 1988)! In fact, some scientists have foundthat “whatever gets there first is what attaches first”(Rittschof 2004, pers. comm.).
In addition to microscopic organisms, such asbacteria, diatoms, and algae, fouling growth includeslarger organisms such as mollusks, sea squirts, sponges,sea anemones, tube worms, polychaetes and barnacles.Other factors influencing fouling growth include salinity,temperature range, sunlight, and water movement.Although species vary widely in their settlement seasons,most fouling organisms spawn in spring and summerwhen sea water temperature rises. (Parliament ofVictoria 1996; Keough 1983)
If left unattended, fouling growth can increase theroughness of the hull, thereby decreasing the vessel’smaneuverability and increasing drag. Eventually, foulinggrowth leads to damage of the hull and to the vessel’sdeterioration (Rolland & DeSimone 2003). Because ofthis, San Diego area hull cleaners recommend that boathulls be cleaned regularly to prevent damage to thecoating and potential damage to the hull by foulingorganisms. Thus, besides hampering the efficiency of avessel’s performance, accumulated fouling can eventuallypenetrate the coating itself, causing paint loss andrequiring more aggressive cleaning. Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) recommended by professional hullcleaners include cleaning frequently and using the leastabrasive cleaning methods. (CPDA 2003)
What Are Antifouling Paints?Antifouling paints contain materials that slow thedevelopment of fouling growth. Tributyl tin is a very
2 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Fouling Growth on Boat Bottom
toxic antifoulant that has been banned for pleasure craftfor many years. The International MaritimeOrganization has begun a phased ban of this chemicalfor all vessels making international voyages; the ban willbe completed in 2008. (IMO 2004; CDPR 2004)
Today, bottom paints with cuprous oxide are the mostpopular antifouling agents for recreational boats. Althoughthey retard fouling growth, they do not prevent italtogether. They are designed to continuously leach smallamounts of copper into the water. These paints typicallycontain 67% – 76% cuprous oxide. Paints with 20% – 45%cuprous oxide are available, but more coats are needed orthey must be reapplied more often to deter fouling growth(pers. comms.: Hall 2002; Soeterik 2002; Nicely 2002;Storfer 2002). Thus, copper tends to accumulate in thewater of crowded and poorly flushed boat basins.
Why Are High Dissolved Copper Levels a Problem?Reflecting the latest scientific knowledge, the CaliforniaToxics Rule (CTR) (USEPA 2000) defines levels ofpollution that are low enough to protect marine life.These standards are based on many scientific studies andthey are designed to protect marine life.
The CTR concentration levels for dissolved copperare the same as those in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) National RecommendedWater Quality Criteria (USEPA 1999). The federal andstate standard for total dissolved copper in marine watersis 3.1 parts per billion (ppb); the USEPA is consideringchanging the standard to 1.9 ppb (USEPA 2004).
When the level of dissolved copper in the waterexceeds this standard, it is harmful to marine life such asmussels, oysters, scallops, sea urchins and crustaceans. Italso changes the types of phytoplankton that are able tothrive in boat basins. (Calabrese et al.1984; Coglianese& Martin 1981; Gould et al. 1988; Katz 1998; KrettLane 1980; Krishnakumar et al. 1990; Lee & Xu 1984;Lussier et al.1985; MacDonald et al. 1988; Martin et al.1981; Redpath 1985; Redpath & Davenport 1988;Stromgren & Nielsen 1991; VanderWeele 1996)
There is much debate about the extent to which organicmatter in the water can bind copper and protect marinelife. That debate is beyond the scope of this booklet.
What’s in the Policy Pipeline? Copper-based boat bottom paints are legally registeredpesticides (CDPR 2004) that are likely to face newrestrictions. For example Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) regulatory studies have been completed inShelter Island Yacht Basin of San Diego Bay and inNewport Bay (CRWQCB, SDR 2003; USEPA 2002). ATMDL study is underway in Marina Del Rey. OceansideHarbor and various parts of San Diego Bay have elevatedlevels of dissolved copper (CSWRCB 2003). Dry-dock
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 3
Crowded Boat Basin
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Marine Life Protected By California Toxics Rule(S
uzan
ne P
aisl
ey, U
C AN
R Co
mm
unic
atio
n Se
rvic
es)
discharges in Santa Barbara Harbor are under scrutiny(Kronman 2004, pers. comm.).
The TMDL studies found copper levels as high as 8.0ppb in San Diego Bay and as high as 29.0 ppb inNewport Bay (CRWQCB, SDR 2003; USEPA 2002).Another study found that as much as 90% of the copperin the boat basins comes from bottom paints (Schiff etal. 2003). As a result of these studies, restrictions oncopper-based bottom paints have already been proposedfor Shelter Island Yacht Basin in north San Diego Bay.
Dissolved copper exceeds levels allowed by state lawsin marinas and harbors of the Chesapeake Bay inMaryland, of Port Canaveral and Indian River Lagoon inFlorida, and in areas of Washington (Hall et al. 1988;Sheffield Engineering 1998; Trocine and Trefry 1996;Washington State Department of Ecology 1999).
Under the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC)implemented in March 2000, the European Commissionis reviewing all biocides used in antifouling paints sold inthe European Union (EU). Products containing“unacceptable” biocides will be removed from the EU
4 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
What Costs and Other Factors Should You Consider in Deciding Whether to Try a Nontoxic Coating?New coatings and companion strategies have differentcost profiles than copper-based paints. The following is ageneral comparison of copper-based and nontoxiccoatings resulting from research that we conducted inSan Diego Bay with the University of California, SanDiego Department of Economics (Carson et al. 2002).
When deciding whether to switch to a nontoxiccoating, boat owners should consider:
Whether a nontoxic coating is required where theboat is kept;Whether the copper-based coating needs to bestripped before the nontoxic coating is applied; Cost to buy and apply the nontoxic coating;The most cost-effective timing for making theswitch (when the boat is new and unpainted orwhen the copper-based paint needs to be stripped);The cost of maintaining the nontoxic coating;The boat’s remaining useful life and where it will be stored;Where, how and how often the boat will beoperated;Whether a ban on copper-based paints is likely tobe imposed in the area where the boat is kept; and The environmental benefits of reducing copper pollution.
For more information and a worksheet for calculatingcosts of using nontoxic versus copper-based boat bottompaints, see our publication Making Dollars and Sense ofNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats that isdescribed at the end of this report.
Copper-based Nontoxic epoxy Nontoxic siliconebottom paints bottom paints bottom paints
Initially less Initially more Initially moreexpensive to apply expensive to apply expensive to apply
Do not need to be Need to be cleaned Most fouling can becleaned as often more often removed by vessel
use (at 20 knots)
Need to be Do not need to be Need to be re-appliedreapplied more reapplied very often more often foroften best performance
Hydro-Washing at Boat Repair Yard
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Before choosing a product, boat owners should consider
how they use their boat, carefully evaluate manufacturers’
statements and ask for referrals to boat owners, boat repair
yards and hull cleaning companies that have experience
with each product in the local area or one with similar
water temperatures, species of fouling growth, tidal
flushing in the marina, and other conditions.
market. Several European countries are monitoringdissolved copper in boat basins. Antifouling coatingsapplied in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands,Belgium, Finland, and Austria must be registered undercurrent pesticide laws. (International Coatings Ltd UKand International Paint Inc 2004; EC 1998).
Copper-based bottom paints have been banned forpleasure craft on the east coast of Sweden and arerestricted on the west coast of Sweden and in Denmarkdepending on cuprous oxide leach rates and vessel size.Copper-based antifouling paints have been banned inthe Netherlands for recreational boats since 1999.(Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate 2004; Ministry of theEnvironment Danish Environmental Protection Agency2003; The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment 2004; College ToelatingBestrijdingsmiddelen 2004)
What Are Your Options If Copper Paints Are Banned or Restricted?Recreational boaters will still need to control foulinggrowth, if copper-based antifouling paints are banned orrestricted. Replacing copper with another, toxic agentthat harmed marine life would not solve the problem.Thus, the University of California CooperativeExtension – Sea Grant Extension Program has beenstudying nontoxic antifouling strategies since 1999.
Nontoxic antifouling strategies combine a nontoxicboat bottom coating with a companion strategy.Examples of companion strategies include:
Frequently cleaning the coating, Storing the boat out of water; and Surrounding the boat with a slip liner and addingfreshwater to discourage marine fouling growth.
Although epoxy coatings should be scrubbed often,most of the larger fouling growth may be removed fromsilicone coatings by a water spray or light brush (Meyeret al. 1994; Callow et al. 1988; Swain and Schultz 1996)
Demonstration Project MethodsTo help boat owners make decisions about nontoxicantifouling strategies, the University of CaliforniaCooperative Extension – Sea Grant Extension Program(UCSGEP) conducted a field demonstration of nontoxicboat bottom coatings in 2002-2003. The demonstrationwas funded in part by the USEPA and the CaliforniaState Water Resources Control Board 319(h) Program.
We tracked the performance of three types ofnontoxic bottom coatings:
Epoxy; Ceramic-epoxy; and Silicone-rubber
on six recreational boats in San Diego Bay for over ayear. Each coating was placed on one sailboat and onepowerboat:
The two-part epoxy coating, Aquaply M,® was placedon a powerboat for the demonstration and it wasmonitored on a sailboat that had received it in Januaryof 1999. We received hull cleaning data on the sailboatfor July, 1999 through September, 2003. This providedan opportunity to assess longer-term performance ofAquaply M.®
The ceramic-epoxy coating, CeRam-Kote 54,® wasplaced on a sailboat and a diesel-electric launch. A
newer formulation, CeRam-Kote Marine,® was placed onthe sailboat partway through the project.
The silicone-rubber coating, Miracle Cover,® wasreplaced by an updated formulation, Miracle CoverMarine,® partway through the demonstration period.
Professional, underwater hull-cleaning divers reportedon the following factors twice a month for epoxycoatings and more often for silicone coatings each timethe vessels were cleaned:
Fouling growth level;Coating condition;Cleaning tool aggressivenessDiver effort;Cleaning time;Days since last cleaning; Hand or powered tool used.
The first four factors were rated on a five-point scaledeveloped in cooperation with members of theCalifornia Professional Divers Association. The scale isexplained in Table 1.
Daily water temperatures from near the Navy andBroadway Piers in San Diego Bay were obtained fromthe NOAA/NOS Center for Operational OceanographicProducts and Services. They provided a record ofrelative temperatures experienced by fouling growth onthe boats in the demonstration project.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 5
Boat Coating
28-foot Powerboat AquaPly M®
35-foot Sailboat AquaPly M®
30-foot Powerboat CeRam-Kote 54®
21-foot Sailboat CeRam-Kote 54®
CeRam-Kote Marine®
42-foot Powerboat Miracle Cover®
Miracle Cover Marine®
46-foot Sailboat Miracle Cover®
Miracle Cover Marine®
Nontoxic Boat Bottom PaintDemonstration Project
Coatings used inDemonstration
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
consultation with Bill Roberts of Shelter Island BoatYard and Marlan Hoffman of California Marine Services.
All of the coatings were still in good condition or better,including the nearly five-year old epoxy coating on one ofthe sailboats. Boat owners’ comments on the performanceof the coatings are discussed later in this report.
Detailed results are presented in Table 2. Theceramic-epoxy coating shown in the photograph,“Evaluating Ceramic-Epoxy Coating,” is five months old.The coating’s condition is 1.5 – a little past New, Slickand Shiny. The level of fouling growth is 1.5 – a littlemore than Light Silting – and it reflects two weeks ofgrowth since the most recent cleaning.
Hull Cleaner DataPlease note that the results reported here cover only ourfindings for the three products in our demonstration onsix boats in northern San Diego Bay. The relationshipbetween fouling growth and cleaning interval for allmonths for which we received data is summarized inTable 3. (Table 3 is based on data collected during the
6 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
TABLE 1. FIVE-POINT SCALE FOR DIVER REPORTS
* Coating Condition Fouling Growth Cleaning Tool***, **** Diver Effort
1 New, slick finish, still shiny Light silting (looks like dust) that Use for Level 1 Fouling Growth: Light pressure: very easyif appropriate to type of can be brushed off with a piece a. Carpet, soft, medium to to remove growth with one wipecoating of carpet. Some plumes long shag
of discoloration. b. White pad, softc. Soft nylon bristle brush,bristle thickness .028-.032d. Soft polypropylene brush,bristle thickness .022-.032
2 Shine is gone or surface is Moderate silting (a solid, Use for Level 2 Fouling Growth: Light to medium pressure: still easylightly etched on all of discernible, physical layer) that a. Green pad, medium to remove growth but may requirecoating, no physical must be removed with a soft b. Nylon bristle brush, medium, two or more passes in someblemishes or defects brush or green 3M® pad. bristle thickness .040 areas to remove growth
3 Some blemishes or defects Dark algae impregnation. Use for Level 3 Fouling Growth: Light scrub, firm effort: firm wipein coating on up to 20% Algae must be scrubbed off; a. Purple pad, medium and/or multiple wipes or passesof boat bottom can’t just wipe it off. b. Nylon bristle brush, medium, with brush to remove growth
bristle thickness .050
4 Some blemishes or defects Hard growth. Need heavier Use for Level 4 Fouling Growth: Firm scrub, hard effort: firm scrubin coating on 20%-50% of tools, such as steel wool, a. Brown pad, coarse and continuous passes requiredboat bottom plastic and metal scrapers. b. Black pad, coarse to remove fouling growth
c. Stainless steel row bristle brush
5 Blemishes or defects on Lengthy, soft algae and hard, Use for Level 5 Fouling Growth: Hard scrub, very hard effort:over 50% of boat bottom tube worms and possibly a. Steel pad, abrasive even with hard physical effort,
barnacles impregnating the b. Flat wire bristle brush, very growth presented a challengecoatings. Coral** growth can coarse to remove with pad or brushbe seen to extend out from the c. Whirlaway® tool, very abrasivehull. Clean with metal scrapersand stainless steel brushes.
* 1 is best condition; 5 is worst condition** Coral is the local name for limestone tubes of worms that grow on the coating’s surface.
*** Carpet and pads are hand operated tools; brushes and Whirlaway® are powered tools. **** In practice, choice of tool did not always correspond to fouling growth level.
TABLE 1. FIVE-POINT SCALE FOR DIVER REPORTS
Evaluating Ceramic-Epoxy Coating
(Lei
gh T
aylo
r Joh
nson
)
Visual Evaluation of CoatingsThe six boats were hauled in early October 2003 andtheir coating conditions were visually evaluated in
project for all six boats plus three more years of historicaldata on the sailboat with the epoxy coating.) Datameans (averages) for the 13-month period during whichwe collected data on all six boats are presented in Table4. All four years of data for the sailboat with the epoxycoating are graphed in Figure 1.
Table 3 shows the means (averages) for fouling growthlevels for each boat and coating as reported by theunderwater hull cleaners each time a boat was cleaned.Note that 1 is the best rating and 5 is worst on our scale.The table also shows the mean and the range of intervalsbetween cleanings.
Comparing results for the four boats with epoxycoatings to results for the two boats with silicone-rubbercoating shows that more frequent cleaning of thesilicone-rubber coating prevented fouling growth fromreaching a higher level. [Table 3 is based on all of thedata available for each boat.]
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 7
Evaluating Epoxy Coating
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
TABLE 2. VISUAL EVALUATION OF COATINGS AT FINAL HAULOUT (OCTOBER 2003)
Boat Coating Application MethodNo. Boat Type (Length) Visual Evaluation and Future Plans for Coating
1 AquaPly M® After a little over 15 months the coating surface was lightly etched and worn on edges of the(two-part epoxy) chines due to cleaning.Coating rolled on. Coating appeared new with little wear. Power (28 feet) Owner will continue with coating.
2 AquaPly M® After almost 5 years old the coating was in good condition.(two-part epoxy) Some coral scarring and blistering were present.Coating rolled on. Edges on the hull and through-hull fittings were worn due to cleaning.Sail (35 feet) Overall, coating was smoother due to wear from cleaning.
Boatyard and hull cleaner estimated the coating will last another two years.Owner will continue with coating.
3 CeRam-Kote® After almost 14 months the coating appeared in new condition with little wear.(ceramic epoxy) Coating had a sheen but no shine.Coating rolled on Coral scarring and algae impregnation were present. Power (30 feet) Owner will continue with coating
4 CeRam-Kote® and After about 9 months the new, improved formula of CeRam-Kote® (CeRam-Kote Marine®)CeRam-Kote Marine® was applied at the owners’ request.(ceramic epoxy) Overall coating condition improved with the new formula, but fouling growth increased,Coating sprayed on likely due to seasonal changes. Sail (21 feet) Light, but normal, etching was present at end of project.
Owner will continue with coating (new formula); may cover with copper paint.
5 Miracle Cover® and After a little more than 13 months the new formula of Miracle Cover® (Miracle Cover Marine®) Miracle Cover Marine® was applied. (silicone-rubber) Older layers of Miracle Cover were sanded down and the boatyard appliedCoating sprayed on one coat of the new formula, Miracle Cover Marine.®
Power (42 feet) After three days the coating was still tacky, so three layers of the original Miracle Cover were applied over the one coat of Miracle Cover Marine.®
According to the manufacturer, the silicone-rubber coating should last for five years before a new coating is required. After the project, the owner changed to E Paint, a zinc-based coating, recommended by the boatyard.
6 Miracle Cover® and After a little over 12 months the owner decided to try the new formula of Miracle Cover®
Miracle Cover Marine® (Miracle Cover Marine®).(silicone-rubber) The performance of the coating improved with the new formula.Coating sprayed on According to the manufacturer, the silicone-rubber coating should last forSail (46 feet) five years before a new coating is required.
Owner has replaced boat.
TABLE 2. VISUAL EVALUATION OF COATINGS AT FINAL HAULOUT (OCTOBER 2003)
TABLE 3. FOULING GROWTH VERSUS CLEANING INTERVAL
Dates on Which Vessel/Coating Means Are Based Mean Fouling Growth ** Cleaning Interval (days)
Powerboat July 2, 2002 – October 6, 2003 3.25 Mean = 16AquaPly M (15.2 months) Range: 11-23(epoxy)
Sailboat July 7, 1999 – Sept 30, 2003 3 Mean = 15AquaPly M (50.5 months) Range: 7-28(epoxy)
Powerboat August 9, 2002 – October 6, 2003 3.5 Mean = 15 CeRam-Kote 54 (13.9 months) Range: 8-24 (ceramic epoxy)
Sailboat July 3, 2002 – April 15, 2003 3.5 Mean = 15CeRam-Kote 54 (9.4 months) Range: 8-21 (ceramic epoxy)
CeRam-Kote Marine April 24, 2003 – September 30, 2003 4* Mean = 18(ceramic-epoxy) (5.2 months) Range: 14-21
Powerboat May 16, 2002 – June 27, 2003 2.8 Mean = 12Miracle Cover (13.4 months) Range: 5-30(silicone-rubber)
Miracle Cover Marine July 9, 2003 – September 26, 2003 2 Mean = 8(silicone-rubber) (2.6 months) Range: 7-15
Sailboat May 23, 2002 – May 30, 2003 2.5 Mean = 8Miracle Cover (12.2 months) Range: 7-14(silicone)
Miracle Cover Marine July 11, 2003 – September 26, 2003 2 Mean = 7(silicone) (2.5 months) Range: 7-9
TABLE 3. FOULING GROWTH VERSUS CLEANING INTERVAL
* High fouling growth mean is due in part to additional time between cleanings and warmer water temperature in summermonths when it was measured. This new formula was only evaluated in summer months.
** Disregards first cleaning interval because it is typical to refrain from cleaning for some time after coating is applied.
Table 4 shows the means (averages) of the coatingconditions, fouling growth levels, cleaning tools, anddiver effort levels as rated by the underwater hullcleaners each time a boat was cleaned. Note that a levelof 1 is best while a level of 5 is worst for each scale. SeeTable 1 for rating scale details. Three boats received newformulas of the same paints during the project.
[Table 4 is based on the 13-month period when datawere collected on all of the boats and it is the sameperiod on which the statistical analysis was based.Restricting the time period used in the statistical analysisallowed us to take seasonal changes into account. Wewill discuss the results of the statistical analysis later inthis report. Note that means differ somewhat from Table3 which is based on all of the data collected for eachboat.]
The average coating conditions for all demonstrationproject boats were good (scale level of less than 3)throughout the project. This was to be expected becausefive of the six boats had new or almost new coatings.However, the 5-year old epoxy coating on the sailboatwas also in good condition during the project.
8 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
The fouling growth means were the highest for theboats with the ceramic-epoxy coating and the lowest forboats with the silicone-rubber coating. Fouling growthmeans for the ceramic epoxy coating were in the rangeof levels 3 to 4 while those for the epoxy coating were inthe lower level 3 range. In other words, on average theceramic-epoxy coating had a little more fouling growththan the epoxy coating. (The new formula of ceramic-epoxy was applied just before summer, so its means arehigher than for the other coatings because most of itsreports were made when the water temperature waswarm.) The fouling growth means for the siliconecoatings were in the level 2 range, reflecting the factthat they were cleaned more often than the epoxycoatings.
The means for the cleaning tool type and diver effortlevel generally reflect the fouling growth means for eachcoating. That is, on average more fouling growth meanta more aggressive cleaning tool and more effort wereneeded. Diver effort level increased when new epoxy andceramic-epoxy coatings were applied; perhaps diverstried to keep them pristine.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 9
TABLE 4. DIVER REPORT DATA SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR AUGUST 2002-SEPTEMBER 2003
Coating/Vessel Coating Condition Fouling Growth Cleaning Tool Type Diver Effort Coating Age (months)
EpoxyPowerboat Mean = 1.7 Mean = 3.3 Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.8 15.2 Sailboat Mean = 2.6 Mean = 3.0 Mean = 3.1 Mean = 3.2 56.5
Ceramic-EpoxyPowerboat Mean = 2.0 Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.7 Mean = 3.8 13.9Sailboat Mean = 2.9 Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.8 Mean = 3.6 9.4Sailboat New Formula* Mean = 2.0 Mean = 4.0 Mean = 4.0 Mean = 4.0 5.2
Silicone-RubberPowerboat Mean = 2.4 Mean = 2.8 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 3.0 13.4 Powerboat New Formula Mean = 1.6 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 2.6 2.6 Sailboat Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 2.7 12.2 Sailboat New Formula Mean = 1.5 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.3 2.5
* High fouling growth, cleaning tool type and diver effort means are due in part to additional time between cleanings and warmer watertemperature in summer months when they were measured. This new formula was only evaluated in summer months.
TABLE 4. DIVER REPORT DATA SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR AUGUST 2002-SEPTEMBER 2003
FIGURE 1. FOUR-YEAR, DATA SUMMARY FOR SAILBOAT WITH EPOXY COATINGFIGURE 1. FOUR-YEAR, DATA SUMMARY FOR SAILBOAT WITH EPOXY COATING
One Bar = OneCleaning Event
Sailboat - Epoxy - Diver Report DataJuly 1999–September 2003
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0Fouling Level Pad or Brush Type Effort Level Coating Condition
Data on Fouling Level, Pad or Brush Type, EffortLevel, and Coating Condition during July 1999 throughSeptember 2003 were obtained for the sailboat with theepoxy bottom coating. Each bar on the graph in Figure 1represents the data for one cleaning event. Fouling Levelshows the influence of seasonal temperature changes.Pad or Brush Type and Effort Level show a generalincrease in aggressiveness over time. In other words, overthe first few years the divers had to use increasinglyaggressive tools and work increasingly harder to cleanthe hull. Coating Condition slowly deteriorated overthe years (higher level is worse on the five-point scale).Pad or Brush Type, Effort Level and Coating Conditionleveled off at about mid-range on the scale.
Introduction to Data AnalysisThe objective of nontoxic antifouling strategies is tocontrol fouling growth while protecting the environmentand the boat’s bottom coating. To be sustainable, thestrategies also need to be cost effective. Extending coatinglife and controlling the cost of each cleaning may enable aboat owner to offset the generally higher costs of buying,applying and frequently cleaning a nontoxic coating.Therefore, we were particularly interested in the effect ofBMPs on coating life and cleaning effort and time.
Based on ecological principles and our discussionswith boat owners, hull cleaners, and boat repair yardoperators, we made the following assumptions:
Warmth, sunlight and a longer interval betweencleanings promote fouling growth;Divers work longer and harder to clean heavierfouling growth and if they use hand tools; BMPs, such as cleaning frequently and using thegentlest possible tool, can extend the life of a coating.
Data collected by the professional hull cleaners in ourdemonstration project provided an opportunity to testthese assumptions.
We worked with Dr. Neil Willits of the UC DavisStatistical Laboratory to examine the relationship of:
fouling growth;nontoxic coatings; hull cleaning by experienced divers using BMPs;and environmental factors, such as seasonal changes inwater temperature and light.
This report is intended for a diverse audience, so we willreport only general findings and conclusions. However, alengthy statistical analysis using multiple and logisticalregressions was conducted to reach these conclusions.
We eliminated extreme data that were due to specialcircumstances, for example when divers spent extensivetime cleaning boats before they were hauled for displayat our field day. Because 23 divers representing threecompanies reported data, the influence of individualperceptions on our findings was minimized.
Although we used a 5-point scale to rate fouling growth,aggressiveness of the cleaning tool, how much effort thediver used to clean the boat and the condition of thecoating, the hull cleaners never reported a level of 5 on anyof the scales. We asked four, experienced, professional hullcleaners the reason. They explained that BMPs, such asfrequent cleaning, prevent fouling growth from reaching anextreme level. This way, the most aggressive type of cleaningtool and level of effort are unnecessary. BMPs also includeusing gentler tools and less pressure. Hand and poweredtools were used, both of which can vary in aggressiveness.
The hull cleaners we surveyed reported that epoxycoatings should be replaced when the condition exceedsa level of 3 and that silicone coatings should be replacedwhen the condition exceeds a level of 2. The reason isthat the coating condition affects time and effort neededto clean the hull. (pers. comm. Rocco 2004; Presley2004; Orlich 2004; Hoffman 2004) None of the coatingsin our study exceeded those conditions.
Boats are cleaned according to a schedule set by theirowners in consultation with their hull cleaningcompanies. In our study, the boats with epoxy orceramic-epoxy coatings were cleaned on average every15–18 days; the boats with the silicone-rubber coatingwere cleaned on average every 7–12 days.
Longer cleaning intervals allowed more foulinggrowth to develop, so we were able to study the effect ofdifferent intervals between cleanings when the statisticalprogram considered all of the boats together. On theother hand, more frequent cleanings can mask the effectsof some factors, so we also had the statistical programconsider the effects for each type of coating.
We received over four years of data for one of thesailboats that had had an epoxy coating for almost fiveyears by the end of the demonstration. This allowed usto study the effects of coating age and of BMPs inextending the life of a durable coating.
Sailboat-Ceramic Epoxy (5 months): Cleaning with Soft Rag
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
10 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
Sailboat-Epoxy (after first 5 years)
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Powerboat-Ceramic-Epoxy (14 months): With Tubeworm Remnants
(Lei
gh T
aylo
r Joh
nson
)
Powered Cleaning Tools for Nontoxic Coatings
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Hull Cleaner Data AnalysisFouling growth was heavier when:
Water was warmer;Interval between cleanings was longer.
The two most important influences on coatingcondition were:
Age of the coating; Aggressiveness of cleaning tools.
Using a gentler cleaning tool is the most importantfactor in extending the life of a coating.
A more aggressive cleaning tool was used when:Fouling growth was heavier;Cleaning interval was longer;Coating condition was worse;Hand cleaning tool was used.
Coating life can be extended by frequent cleaning,especially when water is warmer. This is because frequentcleaning prevents fouling growth from reaching higherlevels that require more aggressive tools to remove.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 11
Thus, powered, cleaning tools may be an important,ergonomic consideration for maintaining a nontoxic hullcoating.
Figure 1 shows changes over 4 years in fouling growth,coating condition, cleaning tool aggressiveness andcleaning time for the sailboat with the 5-year old, epoxycoating. It confirms the statistical finding that foulinggrowth levels reflected seasonal changes in watertemperature and that the coating condition deterioratedover time.
In contrast to the smoothness noted in the visualassessment, Figure 1 shows that more aggressive cleaningtools and longer cleaning times were needed as thecoating aged and its condition became worse. Allreached a level of 3 on the 5-point scale by the end ofthe demonstration.
Further, a more aggressive level of tool was needed ifthe diver used a hand tool. Thus, using powered, rotarytools may allow divers to use a less aggressive tool andhelp to extend the life of the coating.
Divers took longer to clean when:Fouling growth was heavier;Cleaning interval was longer; Water was warmer.
Frequent cleaning may reduce cleaning time andrelated cleaning cost, especially when the water iswarmer.
Divers worked harder to clean when: Fouling growth was heavier;Water was warmer;Coating was older;Coating was in worse condition.
Divers exerted less effort when using a powered, rotarybrush than when cleaning with a hand tool. Repetitivestress injuries are an occupational hazard for hull cleaners.
Conclusions from Data AnalysisThe cost of maintaining a boat bottom coating isaffected by how often it must be replaced and how oftenit must be cleaned. Because nontoxic coatings do notslow fouling growth, an important part of the project wasto examine how fouling growth and best managementpractices affected coating life.
Hull cleaners and boat owners expect more fouling tooccur when the water is warmer and the intervalbetween cleanings is longer; our findings confirmed theirexpectations. When fouling is heavy, divers need to usea more aggressive cleaning tool and they must workharder and longer to clean the hull. They also use amore aggressive level of tool when using hand, instead ofpower, tools.
Using a gentler tool is the most important factor inextending the life of a coating, so BMPs that allowdivers to use less aggressive tools are important.
Although we cannot change the water temperature orprevent a coating from aging, we can control theinterval between cleanings. Cleaning more frequentlyprevents fouling growth from accumulating to highlevels. This is especially important when water iswarmer.
In turn, this allows divers to use less aggressivecleaning tools, spend less time cleaning, and exert lesseffort. Frequent cleaning may thus be expected to extendthe life of the coating, reduce the cost of each cleaningand reduce wear and tear on hull cleaners.
Using a power cleaning tool also allows divers to use aless aggressive tool and exert less effort. Visual inspectionfound that a 5-year old, epoxy coating which had beencleaned with powered tools had become smoother.
The epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings have thepotential to last many more years than copper-basedcoatings and the silicone-rubber coating that was used inour demonstration. Our survey of 200 San Diego Bayboaters (Carson et al. 2002) found that copper-basedpaints are replaced, on average, every 2 1⁄2 years. Thesilicone-rubber coating in our demonstration had to bereplaced annually. Yet, the epoxy coating that was 5years old by the end of the demonstration project wasexpected to last at least 2 more years. The ceramic-epoxycoating appeared likely to have similar durability. Theseproducts may perform differently in other areas.
The silicone-rubber coating was preferred by boatowners who liked to race and were willing to invest invery frequent cleaning and annual replacement. Theepoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings appear to be a good
choice for boat owners who want a nontoxic coatingthat may last long enough to compensate for costsincurred in more frequent cleaning and converting froma copper-based coating.
Nontoxic antifouling strategies are a viable alternativeto copper-based boat bottom paints. Boat owners shouldconsider how they intend to use the boat and their budgetin selecting a coating. They will need to ensure that thehull cleaner uses BMPs that may extend the life of thecoating, such as cleaning frequently and using the gentlesttool that is appropriate. Hull cleaning companies will needto learn and use BMPs that are suitable for the coating, thegeographic area, and how the boat is used and stored.
Powerboat-Silicone-Rubber Prepped to Receive New Formula
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Powerboat-Epoxy (15 months) with Wearing on Edges of Chines
(Lei
gh T
aylo
r Joh
nson
)
Frequent cleaning with gentle tools can be expected
to extend the life of a coating.
Epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings appear to last enough
to compensate for costs of frequent cleaning
and converting from a copper-based coating.
12 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
How Did Demonstration Project BoatOwners React to the Nontoxic Coatings?A year after the demonstration ended, we asked projectboat owners about their experiences with the nontoxiccoatings. All who had used epoxy and ceramic-epoxycoatings reported that they were good, durable, barrier(to water) coats.
The boat owner who has now had an epoxy coatingon his sailboat for six years reported that by the end ofthe fifth year, he had begun to realize cost savingscompared to using a copper-based paint. His boat hadbecome faster in races than when the coating was new.Our visual evaluation in 2003 noted that the hull’ssurface had become smoother over time, possibly due tofrequent cleaning with powered, rotary brushes.
The other three boat owners with epoxy or ceramic-epoxy coatings now have a little more than two years ofexperience with them. One has an out-drive style enginethat requires annual maintenance in the boat repairyard. Thus, he would not be able to make up for frequenthull cleaning costs by extending the time betweenhaulouts. He has used a slip liner for a few months andhas realized savings on hull cleaning.
Another has asked his hull cleaner to clean thecoating just until the surface is smooth without trying toremove all the fouling from pits and grooves. He issatisfied with the coating.
The third was concerned about cleaning costs andperceived slowness during races. However, during thedemonstration he reported that the sailboat had wonsome races with the nontoxic coating. He is considering:
a. switching from a service that uses hand-cleaningtools to one that uses powered, rotary brushes to reducecleaning time; or
b. applying a copper-based paint over the ceramic-epoxy coating.
Another boat owner would recommend the silicone-rubber coating to serious, sailboat racers, but not to thetypical, weekend racer, due to the high maintenance cost.
These results confirm the findings of our economicstudy (Carson et al. 2002; Johnson and Miller 2003). Inother words nontoxic, epoxy or ceramic-epoxy coatingsmay be cost effective in the long-term, if the boat doesnot need to be hauled frequently for other maintenancepurposes. In the short-term, copper paints are more cost-effective.
Silicone-rubber coatings that are cleaned very oftenperform well in races. Racing performance of epoxy andceramic-epoxy coatings may suffer somewhat in theshort-term. Frequent cleaning with powered brushes maysmooth an epoxy coating and restore its racingperformance in the long-term.
Although our demonstration included a small numberof boats, the results suggest that nontoxic coatings canbe a good choice for some boat owners. The epoxy and
Sailboat-Silicone-Rubber (1 year)
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
ceramic-epoxy coatings may serve other boat owners asdurable, barrier coats. New coatings that are still indevelopment may prove to be suitable for those whowish or are required to use environmentally-friendlyalternatives to copper-based, antifouling paints.
How Did We Share Our Results and What Difference Did It Make?The UC Sea Grant Extension Program presentedinformation about the results from the nontoxic boatbottom paint demonstration project and economicincentives study in a series of 16 seminars, 7 conferences,4 booth events and 2 Field Days. Over 1800 boat ownersand representatives of boating and coating industries,government agencies and environmental organizationsattended.
The events:explained the field demonstration;presented reports and photographs from the visualassessments at the end of the field demonstration;
Presenting Demonstration Project Results
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 13
provided simple statistics such as means and ranges;andpresented findings from the economic study thatwould be useful to boat owners in deciding whetherto switch to nontoxic antifouling strategies.
The Field Days also featured live, underwater hull clean-ing via an underwater video camera, a chance to inspectproject boats after they were hauled out of the water at theend of the demonstration and speak with participants.
Of those who completed an evaluation after theseminars, conferences, and Field Days:
65% learned about the elevated copper levels inSan Diego Bay, Newport Bay, and Marina Del Rey; 63% learned about the effects of elevated copperlevels on marine organisms; 70% learned that as much as 90% of the copper inSan Diego Bay comes from boat bottom paints;77% learned that nontoxic coatings must becleaned about twice as often as copper-basedantifouling paints;72% learned that epoxy coatings may last severalyears longer than copper-based antifouling paints;67% learned that nontoxic paints will not adhereto existing, copper-based paints;64% learned that unpainted hulls and hulls thatneed to have old paint layers stripped are the mostcost-effective candidates for nontoxic coatings; 81% learned that phasing out copper antifoulingpaints on recreational boats in San Diego Bay over7 years could cost $20 million, but only $1 millionif they were phased out over 15 years;79% would switch to a nontoxic paint if it wasrequired by law; and49% would switch to a nontoxic paint if it was notrequired by law.
Two booklets, What You Need to Know aboutNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats (October2002) and Making Dollars and Sense of NontoxicAntifouling Strategies for Boats (November 2003), weredisseminated at the seminars and Field Days that tookplace after their publishing date. Another 5000 copieswere mailed to boat owners and representatives ofboating and coating industries, government agencies andenvironmental organizations. They are described at theend of this report.
Readers reported in the evaluations that:What You Need to Know… provided a commonfoundation of knowledge about nontoxicantifouling strategies, antifouling policies and theeffects of copper pollution; andMaking Dollars and Sense… provided newinformation on the economics of nontoxiccoatings, particularly with regard to switching to anontoxic epoxy coating and important policyimplications.
What Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Are On the Market?The field of alternative bottom coatings has expandedsince our first booklet was published in 2002. Morecoatings are reaching the market and every major paintcompany is studying biocide-free paints (Kettlewell2000).
Consult the Nontoxic Antifouling StrategiesSampler in this booklet to learn about nontoxic coatingsand companion strategies that are already available. Itwas compiled to assist boat owners in learning about avariety of products. Note that we have not tested themand inclusion in the Sampler is not an endorsement orrecommendation of any kind. Information in theSampler was provided by manufacturers. Consult localboat repair yards and hull cleaning companies forrecommendations on products and cleaning schedulesthat have proved successful in the area.
Paint and coating companies continue to developinnovative, antifouling approaches to meet the expectedneed for alternatives to copper-based boat bottom paints.Some act as repellents and others use a toxic agent otherthan copper. They are beyond the scope of this booklet,but boat owners should be aware that many newproducts are on the market and more can be expected incoming years.
What’s on the Horizon?Several years ago, tributyl tin-based antifouling paintswere banned for use on recreational boats. Now,restrictions on copper-based paints have been proposedfor recreational boats in San Diego Bay and have beenimposed in some parts of Europe. If many boat ownersswitch to a new, toxic antifoulant that accumulates in
Independent Studies on Nontoxic Bottom Coatings Are Needed in a Variety of Locations under Various Operating Conditions
(Car
ol A
nder
son)
14 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
boat basins, a new problem will likely be created and yetanother change in antifouling strategies will be needed.
The goal of the UC Cooperative Extension – SeaGrant Extension Program is to help boat owners andboating businesses protect marine life and prepare forrestrictions on copper-based antifoulants in a cost-effective fashion by providing the best availableinformation on nontoxic antifouling strategies.
Our field demonstration of three types of nontoxiccoatings for one year in San Diego Bay and the related,economic research found that they show promise assustainable solutions. Other nontoxic products and otheralternatives to copper-based paints may also be viablechoices.
We briefly tracked a fourth coating that hadperformed well on commercial vessels in northernEurope. Unfortunately, a local tubeworm fouled thiscoating very quickly and heavily in San Diego Bay.
Clearly, the types of fouling growth present in eacharea, how the boat is used and stored, and local climateaffect which antifouling strategy is best for each boat.Further, new and developing, nontoxic and other,alternative antifouling strategies work in various ways.As a result:
No single, nontoxic or other, alternativeantifouling strategy will suit every boat; and Independent studies of new strategies are needed indifferent geographic areas and on different types ofboats. Boat owners should investigate carefully todetermine which coating best suits their situation!
Our evaluations indicate that compared to five yearsago:
More boaters are considering switching to nontoxicbottom coatings;More boat repair yards and hull cleaning companiesare gaining experience with these coatings andtheir performance capabilities; and Marinas and yacht clubs in San Diego Bay areconsidering ways to comply with proposedrestrictions on discharges of copper from tenantboats.
Our work will not be the final word in newantifouling strategies. It is just the first chapter in thestory of a revolution in sustainable, antifoulingstrategies!
Where Can You Learn More about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies?The University of California Cooperative Extension –Sea Grant Extension Program has produced fact sheets,two other booklets and a television documentary. Ourfact sheets and the first booklet in our series, What You
Need to Know about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategiesfor Boats, can be downloaded from our Internet site athttp://seagrant.ucdavis.edu.
The second booklet in our series, Making Dollars andSense of Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats,summarizes results from our study of economic incentivesfor boat owners to switch to nontoxic boat bottomcoatings (Carson et al. 2002). It also includes a boatowners’ worksheet for calculating costs of using copper-based and nontoxic coatings. Visit our Internet site tolearn how to obtain a copy.
The television documentary, Time for a Change –Alternatives to Copper-Based Boat Bottom Paint, canbe viewed in streaming format on our Internet site. Itpresents an overview of the issue and comments byrepresentatives of: boat owners; marinas; a port; boatrepair yard, hull cleaning and coating companies; anenvironmental organization; and a regulatory agency. Itis also available in DVD format with English andSpanish programs; visit our Internet site to learn how toobtain a copy.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 15
Surveying Recreational Boat Owner
(Jam
ie A
nne
Gonz
alez
)
DedicationWe want to express our deep appreciation to
Carol S. Anderson whose skills as an artist, computer
whiz, and organizer have helped us stay afloat
throughout this project. We wish her a wonderful
retirement doing whatever strikes her fancy!
16 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
EPO
XYRo
ll on
2 c
oats
; Woo
d, m
etal
, Us
e so
ft clo
th, b
rush
or b
urla
pCo
atin
g is
slipp
ery;
Use
cau
tion
Long
evity
: 14
year
s and
coa
ting
Aqua
Ply
M®
(In
UC d
emo
proj
ect)
fiber
glas
s;to
rem
ove
grow
thw
hen
plac
ing
boat
in sl
ings
or o
n is
still
in g
ood
cond
ition
; Can
Soun
d Sp
ecia
lty C
oatin
gs
Do n
ot a
pply
over
old
cop
per p
aint
;bl
ocks
; Osm
otic
blist
er b
arrie
r coa
t;be
add
ed in
mol
d fo
r new
boa
ts2
part
epox
yCa
n be
reap
plie
d w
ithou
t rem
oval
Coat
ing
smoo
ths o
ut w
ith w
ear
$280
/2 g
allo
ns45
0 sq
ft/2
gal
lons
http
://w
ww
.soun
dspe
cialty
coat
ings
.com
CERA
MIC
-EPO
XY2
coat
s @ 5
mils
eac
h; F
iber
glas
s,Cl
ean
ever
y 2
wee
ks in
sum
mer
Ab
rasio
n an
d co
rrosio
n re
sista
nt;
Long
evity
: 10+
yea
rs; N
ew fo
rmul
a Ce
Ram
-Kot
e M
arin
e®st
eel,
or a
lum
inum
; Do
not a
pply
and
ever
y 3–
4 w
eeks
in w
inte
r,
Prot
ects
aga
inst
osm
otic
blist
erin
g;
has t
ight
er m
olec
ular
cro
ss li
nkin
g(In
UC
dem
o pr
ojec
t)ov
er o
ld c
oppe
r pai
nt; C
an b
e fie
ldac
cord
ing
to lo
cal c
ondi
tions
Coef
ficie
nt o
f fric
tion
simila
r to
crea
ting
a ha
rder
surfa
ce th
at is
Free
com
, Inc
.re
paire
d an
d re
appl
ied
with
out
Teflo
n, th
us e
nhan
cing
spee
d at
ea
sier t
o sc
rub
Cera
mic
epox
y bi
nds c
eram
ic re
mov
al
sam
e RP
Ms
parti
cles i
n re
sin sy
stem
$108
/gal
lon
120
sq ft
/gal
lon
http
://w
ww
.cer
am-k
ote.
com
Ecos
peed
®Sp
ray
on fi
berg
lass
, ste
el, a
lum
inum
;M
aint
enan
ce a
s nee
ded;
Lev
els o
f G
lass
-flak
e pa
int c
onst
ruct
s a la
yere
dLo
ngev
ity: E
stim
ated
to b
e lif
etim
e of
Su
bsea
Indu
strie
s; Be
lgiu
mCa
n be
bru
shed
on
for s
mal
l fo
ulin
g gr
owth
of u
p to
10
cm h
ave
barri
er th
at re
mai
ns st
able
for l
ong
vess
el; H
ydro
dyna
mic
prof
ile c
anG
lass
par
ticle
s in
mat
rix o
f res
ins
spot
repa
irsbe
en re
mov
ed a
fter o
ne y
ear w
ithou
tpe
riods
of t
ime
in c
orro
sive
give
bet
ter e
fficie
ncy
to th
e ve
ssel
;cu
res i
n vin
yl es
ter c
oatin
g to
da
mag
e to
coa
ting
envir
onm
ents
Easy
mai
nten
ance
: hul
l cle
anin
gscr
eate
pow
erfu
l bon
d to
subs
trate
poss
ible
with
out d
amag
ing
coat
ing
ww
w.e
cosp
eed.
besm
ooth
ness
NOT
ON
CALIF
ORN
IA M
ARKE
T Ju
ly 04
Non
toxi
c A
ntifo
ulin
g St
rate
gies
Sam
pler
Alt
houg
h no
ntox
ic c
oati
ngs
will
not
slo
w g
row
th, t
hey
can
be e
ffect
ive
whe
n us
ed in
a s
trat
egic
com
bina
tion
wit
h ot
her
met
hods
. Non
toxi
c an
tifo
ulin
gst
rate
gies
may
com
bine
non
toxi
c co
atin
gs w
ith
mec
hani
cal h
ull c
lean
ing,
slip
line
rs, o
r bo
at li
fts.
Pri
ces
and
info
rmat
ion
liste
d ar
e ef
fect
ive
as o
f Ju
ly 2
004.
Follo
w m
anuf
actu
rers
’ ins
truc
tion
s re
gard
ing
appl
icat
ion
and
mai
nten
ance
. Mos
t co
atin
gs a
re n
ot c
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
exis
ting
one
s. M
any
coat
ings
req
uire
prof
essi
onal
app
licat
ion!
The
se p
rodu
cts
are
rela
tive
ly n
ew a
nd e
xper
ienc
e w
ith
them
is li
mit
ed. I
ndep
ende
nt e
valu
atio
ns o
f lon
g-te
rm c
osts
, ben
efit
s, an
dpe
rfor
man
ce o
f pro
duct
s ar
e ne
eded
. Inv
esti
gate
pro
duct
s ca
refu
lly!
Ask
man
ufac
ture
rs fo
r co
pies
of i
ndep
ende
nt t
ests
of t
heir
pro
duct
s an
d re
fere
nces
to
othe
rsw
ho h
ave
purc
hase
d th
em in
you
r ar
ea.
Som
e of
the
mai
nten
ance
info
rmat
ion
pres
ente
d he
re is
pro
vide
d by
San
Die
go a
rea
boat
rep
air
yard
s an
d un
derw
ater
hul
l cle
aner
s. A
sk lo
cal b
oat
repa
irya
rds
and
hull
clea
ning
ser
vice
s w
hich
coa
ting
s ha
ve p
erfo
rmed
wel
l and
wha
t m
aint
enan
ce is
nee
ded
in y
our
area
. Che
ck lo
cal a
ir a
nd w
ater
qua
lity
regu
lati
ons
befo
re s
elec
ting
a p
aint
.T
his
info
rmat
ion
on n
onto
xic
alte
rnat
ives
to
copp
er-b
ased
ant
ifou
ling
pain
ts is
inte
nded
for
edu
cati
onal
pur
pose
s on
ly a
nd d
oes
not
cons
titu
te a
nen
dors
emen
t or
rec
omm
enda
tion
by
the
Uni
vers
ity
of C
alif
orni
a or
any
of
the
orga
niza
tion
s th
at f
unde
d th
e de
mon
stra
tion
pro
ject
or
this
pub
licat
ion.
Coa
ting
info
rmat
ion
is c
ompi
led
from
man
ufac
ture
rs’ d
ata
and
has
not
been
ver
ifie
d by
the
aut
hors
. ©
Cop
yrig
ht 2
004,
Reg
ents
of
the
Uni
vers
ity
of C
alif
orni
a.
Non
toxi
c An
tifou
ling
St
rate
gy P
rodu
ct E
xam
ples
Reco
mm
ende
d U
seM
aint
enan
ce*
Coat
ing
Char
acte
ristic
sLo
ngev
ity
*Mai
nten
ance
of c
oati
ngs
depe
nds
on v
esse
l loc
atio
n an
d ac
tivi
ty a
nd d
iver
ava
ilabi
lity.
Gen
eral
ly c
oati
ngs
are
mor
e di
fficu
lt t
o cl
ean
the
long
er t
he t
ime
betw
een
clea
ning
s. In
the
San
Die
go a
rea,
dive
rs r
ecom
men
d cl
eani
ng n
onto
xic
coat
ings
eve
ry 1
-2 w
eeks
in s
umm
er a
nd 2
to
3 w
eeks
in w
inte
r.
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 17
Non
toxi
c An
tifou
ling
St
rate
gy P
rodu
ct E
xam
ples
Reco
mm
ende
d U
seM
aint
enan
ce*
Coat
ing
Char
acte
ristic
sLo
ngev
ity
SILI
CON
EAp
ply
epox
y ba
rrier
coa
t; Ti
e co
atDe
pend
s on
usag
e; D
esig
ned
for
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting
Coat
ing
may
dam
age
easil
y if
bum
ped
Inte
rsle
ek®
425
and
finish
coa
t by
airle
ss sp
ray
for a
llhi
gh sp
eed
(30
knot
s) ve
ssel
s; or
scra
ped
or sc
rubb
ed h
ard
Inte
rnat
iona
l Pai
nt C
ompa
nyve
ssel
s; Do
not
app
ly ov
er o
ldLe
ss m
aint
enan
ce n
eede
d if
used
Si
licon
e ba
sed
foul
rele
ase
coat
ing
copp
er p
aint
mor
e of
ten
$250
/gal
lon
125
sq ft
/gal
lon
http
://w
ww
.inte
rnat
iona
l-mar
ine.
com
Si-C
OAT
™ F
oulin
g Re
leas
e Co
atin
g1
coat
prim
erle
ss sy
stem
; Fib
ergl
ass,
Foul
ing
rele
ases
whe
n ve
ssel
mov
es;
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting;
New
form
ula
for b
ette
r sur
face
fini
sh,
CSL
Silic
ones
, Inc
.st
eel,
alum
inum
, and
woo
dAs
ves
sel a
ppro
ache
s 5 k
nots
, fou
ling
100%
solid
s and
VO
C fre
ebe
tter a
dhes
ion,
and
mor
e du
rabi
lity
Silic
one
coat
ing
loos
ens;
As v
esse
l exc
eeds
13
knot
s,ht
tp://
ww
w.c
slsilic
ones
.com
foul
ing
clear
s† ; Low
pre
ssur
e w
ashi
ng† In
depe
nden
t stu
dies
of s
ilicon
e NO
T O
N CA
LIFO
RNIA
MAR
KET
may
also
be
used
to re
leas
e fo
ulin
gco
atin
gs su
gges
t tha
t fou
ling
begi
nsJU
LY 2
004
to sl
ide
off a
t 20
knot
s
Mira
cle C
over
Mar
ine®
1 co
at;
Appl
y to
cle
an su
rface
with
Foul
ing
rele
ases
as v
esse
l mov
es; U
seCa
utio
n: S
lippe
ry c
oatin
g;Pr
oduc
t has
bee
n on
fish
ing
boat
s for
(In U
C de
mo
proj
ect)
brus
h, ro
ller,
spra
yer o
r mix
into
oil
nylo
n br
ush,
soft
cloth
as n
eede
dRe
duce
s dra
g al
low
ing
an in
crea
se
5 ye
ars w
ithou
t rea
pplic
atio
n;M
iracle
Cov
er, I
nc.
and
wat
er-b
ased
coa
tings
; Do
not
in sp
eed;
Abr
asio
n w
ill w
ear t
heSt
retc
hes t
o ac
com
mod
ate
stru
ctur
alW
ater
bas
ed si
licon
e-ru
bber
ap
ply
over
old
cop
per p
aint
; co
atin
g an
d th
e m
ore
the
boat
ism
ovem
ent u
p to
300
%liq
uid
seal
erCa
n be
reap
plie
d w
ithou
t rem
oval
used
, the
mor
e ab
rasio
n w
ill oc
cur
$40/
gallo
n an
d $1
90/5
gal
lons
175
sq ft
/gal
lon
ww
w.te
rryjo
rdan
.com
Wea
rlon®
Supe
r F1-
M1
coat
for w
ood,
alu
min
um,
Self
clean
ing
with
mor
e us
age;
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting;
Long
evity
: 2 to
3 se
ason
s dep
endi
ngEc
cote
ch, I
nc.
fiber
glas
s, st
eel;
Best
spra
yed
on
Reco
mm
ende
d fo
r boa
ts th
atIn
here
nt lu
brici
ty im
prov
es fu
elon
usa
ge; A
bras
ion
lead
s to
mor
eSi
licon
e ep
oxy
wat
er b
ased
coa
ting
for u
nifo
rm fi
nish
; Adh
eres
to
are
in fr
eque
nt u
se; F
oul-r
elea
se,
econ
omy
and
incr
ease
s spe
edw
earin
g$1
89/g
allo
nm
ost b
arrie
r and
prim
er c
oats
low
-ene
rgy
surfa
ce(w
hen
clean
);Ela
stic
mod
ules
25
0 to
275
sq ft
/gal
lon
enab
le it
to d
efor
m a
nd re
sist
http
://w
ww
.wea
rlon.
com
impa
ct d
amag
e
SILO
XAN
ETh
inne
r coa
ting
wor
ks b
est;
Soft
cloth
or w
ater
to c
lean
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting;
Lo
ngev
ity d
epen
ds o
n su
bstra
te;
Meg
aGua
rd®
Liqui
Cote
Mol
ecul
ar la
yer f
ollo
ws c
onto
urs o
fIm
prov
es sp
eed
and
redu
ces f
uel
Redu
ces d
rag
and
surfa
ce fr
ictio
nKI
SS-C
OTE
su
rface
; Can
be
appl
ied
over
cons
umpt
ion;
Pre
vent
s cor
rosio
nan
d cr
eate
s wat
er re
pelle
nt fi
nish
Silo
xane
coa
ting;
ge
l coa
t or d
ilute
d ve
rsio
n ov
erSe
lf-bo
ndin
g po
lymer
sex
istin
g bo
ttom
pai
nt$1
75/4
oz
4 oz
cov
ers 2
000
sq ft
http
://w
ww
.kiss
-cot
e.co
m/a
pps/
mar
ine.
htm
*Mai
nten
ance
of c
oati
ngs
depe
nds
on v
esse
l loc
atio
n an
d ac
tivi
ty a
nd d
iver
ava
ilabi
lity.
Gen
eral
ly c
oati
ngs
are
mor
e di
fficu
lt t
o cl
ean
the
long
er t
he t
ime
betw
een
clea
ning
s. In
the
San
Die
go a
rea,
dive
rs r
ecom
men
d cl
eani
ng n
onto
xic
coat
ings
eve
ry 1
-2 w
eeks
in s
umm
er a
nd 2
to
3 w
eeks
in w
inte
r.
Non
toxi
c A
ntifo
ulin
g St
rate
gies
Sam
pler
18 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
FOU
L-RE
LEAS
E PO
LYU
RETH
ANE
Min
imum
of 1
coa
t;Lo
w su
rface
ene
rgy
crea
tes s
lick
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting
Long
evity
: 6 to
7 y
ears
; No
leac
hing
No-To
x™ F
oulin
g Re
leas
e Co
ntro
lAm
bien
t cur
ed sp
ray
appl
icabl
esu
rface
that
wip
es e
asily
with
FP
U®51
NT15
0™
for a
ll pl
easu
re c
raft;
Do
not
spon
ge21
st C
entu
ry C
oatin
gsap
ply
over
old
cop
per p
aint
Hard
, non
abla
tive,
fluo
rinat
ed
polyu
reth
ane
coat
ing
$400
/gal
lon
250
sq ft
/gal
lon
http
://w
ww
.21s
t-cen
tury
coat
ings
cana
da.c
om/M
arin
e.ht
m
WAT
ER-B
ASED
URE
THAN
EAp
ply
by b
rush
, spo
nge
or ro
ller;
Clea
n as
nee
ded
Caut
ion:
bec
omes
slip
pery
whe
n Lo
ngev
ity: 8
to 1
2 m
onth
s;Se
a-Sl
ide®
Antif
oulin
g pa
ints
will
func
tion
wet
; Wat
er b
ased
pol
yure
than
e Dr
ag-re
ducin
g ov
erco
atin
gAm
erica
n M
arin
e Co
atin
gsno
rmal
ly w
hen
used
und
erre
sin th
at d
ries t
o a
clear
, har
d W
ater
bas
ed u
reth
ane
over
coat
ing
Sea-
Slid
e®fin
ish$4
9.95
/qua
rt co
vers
mos
t 25
foot
ves
sels
http
://w
ww
.cop
perp
oxy.c
om/
new
files
/seas
lide.
htm
l
BOTT
OM
WAX
Appl
ies e
asily
with
a so
ft clo
th;
Clea
n as
requ
ired
or w
hen
fuzz
Caut
ion:
Slip
pery
coa
ting;
Seas
onal
coa
ting;
Cle
ar, s
oft m
ovab
leEa
sy O
n®Bo
ttom
Wax
The
thin
ner i
t is a
pplie
d, th
ede
velo
ps w
ith sp
onge
, dec
k br
ush
For f
ull s
easo
n fre
shw
ater
and
surfa
ce; R
epel
s wat
er fr
om h
ull;
Alex
Miln
e As
socia
tes L
tdbe
tter i
t wor
ks; F
or fi
berg
lass
or w
hite
abr
asive
pad
; Cle
anin
term
itten
t sal
twat
er u
se; I
deal
for
Incr
ease
s top
end
spee
d an
d re
duce
sFo
ul re
leas
e bo
ttom
wax
coa
ting
and
alum
inum
boa
ts; C
an b
esu
rface
as a
bove
and
app
ly th
inra
cked
and
trai
lere
d bo
ats,
pont
oon,
fuel
con
sum
ptio
n; C
an b
e co
ated
on
$34.
95CD
N/45
0ml t
reat
s up
appl
ied
over
old
exis
ting
over
coat
eac
h se
ason
; Can
be
sail,
pow
er, i
nfla
tabl
esou
tdriv
es a
nd e
lect
roni
c se
nsor
s;to
24
ft bo
atan
tifou
ling
pain
tto
tally
rem
oved
with
hig
h Ph
He
lps p
reve
nt o
smos
isht
tp://
ww
w.a
lexm
ilne.
com
clean
erw
ww
.mar
inet
ex.c
om
H.P.
Botto
m W
ax®
with
VS7
21Ap
plie
s with
dam
p sp
onge
;Re
gula
r use
self-
clean
s hul
l;Ca
utio
n: S
lippe
ry c
oatin
g; In
ert,
Seas
onal
coa
ting;
Dur
abilit
y: C
oatin
g Au
rora
Mar
ine
Indu
strie
s Inc
.2
coat
s to
fiber
glas
s, al
umin
um,
For s
tatio
nary
and
ligh
t use
boa
ts
clear
, shi
ny b
arrie
r pol
ymer
coa
ting
stay
ed o
n ra
ce b
oats
up
to 1
45 m
ph
Supe
r hyd
roph
obic
bio
rele
ase
hard
pai
nted
surfa
ces;
Do n
ot a
pply
in h
igh
grow
th a
reas
cle
an e
very
redu
ces s
urfa
ce fr
ictio
n on
hul
l;w
ith n
o de
grad
atio
n; S
ailb
oats
repo
rt ba
rrier
coa
ting
over
exis
ting
antif
oulin
g pa
int
4 to
8 w
eeks
by
wip
ing
off s
lime
Seal
s fib
ergl
ass t
o pr
even
t osm
osis
spee
d in
crea
ses u
p to
2 m
ph45
0 m
ls/$3
1.49
with
spon
geco
vers
400
sq ft
http
://w
ww
.aur
oram
arin
e.co
m
POLY
MER
For i
nfla
tabl
e bo
ats;
2 co
ats t
o Re
gula
r use
self-
clean
s hul
l; Fo
rCa
utio
n: S
lippe
ry c
oatin
g; In
ert,
Seas
onal
coa
ting;
Red
uces
atta
chm
ent
Repe
lin®
Hypa
lon,
PVC
, fib
ergl
ass,
alum
inum
,st
atio
nary
and
ligh
t use
boa
ts in
cle
ar, s
hiny
bar
rier p
olym
er c
oatin
gof
exh
aust
soot
and
die
sel s
tain
sAu
rora
Mar
ine
Indu
strie
s Inc
.ha
rd p
aint
ed su
rface
s;hi
gh g
row
th a
reas
cle
an e
very
redu
ces s
urfa
ce fr
ictio
n on
hul
l;an
d fa
cilita
tes r
emov
alSu
per h
ydro
phob
ic bi
o re
leas
e Us
e Po
ly G
uard
as p
rote
ctive
bar
rier
4 to
8 w
eeks
by
wip
ing
off s
lime
Redu
ced
fuel
con
sum
ptio
n;ba
rrier
coa
ting
for H
ypal
on a
nd P
VC; A
pply
with
spon
geHi
gher
spee
d; S
eals
fiber
glas
s22
0 m
l/$18
.95
dire
ct to
oth
er su
bsta
nces
to p
reve
nt o
smos
isco
vers
200
sq ft
http
://w
ww
.aur
oram
arin
e.co
m
Non
toxi
c An
tifou
ling
St
rate
gy P
rodu
ct E
xam
ples
Reco
mm
ende
d U
seM
aint
enan
ce*
Coat
ing
Char
acte
ristic
sLo
ngev
ity
*Mai
nten
ance
of c
oati
ngs
depe
nds
on v
esse
l loc
atio
n an
d ac
tivi
ty a
nd d
iver
ava
ilabi
lity.
Gen
eral
ly c
oati
ngs
are
mor
e di
fficu
lt t
o cl
ean
the
long
er t
he t
ime
betw
een
clea
ning
s. In
the
San
Die
go a
rea,
dive
rs r
ecom
men
d cl
eani
ng n
onto
xic
coat
ings
eve
ry 1
-2 w
eeks
in s
umm
er a
nd 2
to
3 w
eeks
in w
inte
r.
Non
toxi
c A
ntifo
ulin
g St
rate
gies
Sam
pler
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 19
BOAT
LIFT
S
AirB
erth
®Bo
at L
ifts
Elim
inat
es n
eed
for a
ntifo
ulin
g pa
int a
nd u
nder
wat
er h
ull c
lean
ing
if bo
at is
alw
ays r
etur
ned
to li
ftht
tp://
ww
w.a
irber
th.c
omW
ide
rang
e of
mod
els a
vaila
ble
to fi
t var
iety
of b
oats
and
doc
k ap
plica
tions
Gal
va-F
oam
®M
arin
e In
dust
ries B
oat L
ifts
Note
: May
not
be
allo
wed
in so
me
mar
inas
http
://w
ww
.shor
emas
ter.c
om/g
alva
foam
Hydr
oHoi
st®
Inte
rnat
iona
l, In
c. B
oat L
ifts
http
://w
ww
.boa
tlift.
com
Boat
Lift
®Di
strib
utor
sht
tp://
ww
w.b
oatli
ftdist
ribut
ors.c
om
BOAT
SCR
UBB
ING
SYS
TEM
S
Boat
Scru
bber
®Ec
oAnt
ifoul
ing™
syst
em c
ombi
nes r
egul
ar sc
rubs
with
non
toxic
pai
ntht
tp://
ww
w.b
oats
crub
ber.c
omTh
roug
h re
gula
r cle
anin
g w
ithou
t nee
d fo
r che
mica
ls, c
an e
limin
ate
need
for t
oxic
antif
oulin
g co
atin
gs a
nd fu
el e
fficie
ncy
impr
oves
Ente
red
US m
arke
t in
2004
; Not
yet
ava
ilabl
e in
all
stat
es in
cludi
ng C
alifo
rnia
as o
f Jul
y 20
04.
SLIP
LIN
ERS
Botto
m L
iner
®Ch
arac
teris
tics
$104
0 fo
r 25
ft ve
ssel
Elim
inat
es n
eed
for a
ntifo
ulin
g pa
int a
nd u
nder
wat
er h
ull c
lean
ing
if bo
at is
alw
ays r
etur
ned
to li
ner
UV in
hibi
ted
vinyl
coat
ed li
ner w
ith fo
am
Add
fresh
wat
er in
to sl
ip e
nclo
sure
to re
duce
foul
ing
(che
ck lo
cal r
egul
atio
ns)
flota
tion
colla
rLin
er w
ill co
ntai
n an
y sp
ills fr
om v
esse
l at s
lipht
tp://
ww
w.b
otto
mlin
er.c
om
Out
side
of li
ner m
ust b
e m
aint
aine
d
Arm
ored
Hul
l™ li
ner
Caut
ion:
Lin
es th
at su
spen
d lin
er m
ay st
retc
h an
d sa
g
Arm
ored
Hul
l™ A
ir-ga
te™
syst
em lo
wer
s and
raise
s w
ith v
alve
and
han
d pu
mp
so th
at li
nes o
r rop
es
are
unne
cess
ary
UN
DER
WAT
ER H
ULL
CLE
ANIN
G S
ERVI
CES
Mec
hani
cal c
lean
ing
by h
and
or w
ith p
ower
tool
sCl
eani
ng fr
eque
ncy
and
type
of c
lean
ing
tool
dep
ends
on
wat
er te
mpe
ratu
re, t
ype
of p
aint
, fre
quen
cy a
nd sp
eed
of b
oat u
se
Ple
ase
see
our
web
site
at
http
://s
eagr
ant.
ucda
vis.
edu
for
mor
e in
form
atio
n on
alt
erna
tive
s to
cop
per-
base
d an
tifo
ulin
g pa
ints
.
Non
toxi
c A
ntifo
ulin
g St
rate
gies
Sam
pler
Boat
Lift
s, Bo
at S
crub
bing
Sys
tem
s, Sl
ip L
iner
s, an
d U
nder
wate
r Hul
l Cle
anin
g Se
rvic
es
Calabrese, A., J.R. MacInnes, D.A. Nelson, R.A. Greig and P. P.Yevich. 1984. Effects of Long-term Exposure to Silver or Copperon Growth, Bioaccumulation and Histopathology in the BlueMussel Mytilus edulis. Marine Environmental Research. 11:253-274.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2004. CaliforniaCode of Regulations (Title 3. Food and Agriculture) Division 6.Pesticides and Pest Control.http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/inhouse/calcode/020101.html
California Professional Divers Association. 2003. Hull CleaningBest Management Practices Certification Manual, Version1.3/Revision 3. Document provided by partnership between SantaMonica Bay Restoration Foundation and California ProfessionalDivers Association.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San DiegoRegion. 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Copper inShelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego Bay, Public Review Draft.http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/tmdls/tmdl_files/shelter%20island/SIYB%20Staff%20Report.pdf
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. TheSection 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. 2002Monitoring List: Region 9 approved by USEPA 2003: (OceansideHarbor and in San Diego Bay: America’s Cup Harbor, HarborIsland (west and east basins). Laurel Street, Marriott Marina,North Island Aircraft Platform)http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/2002_mon_list_020403.pdf
Callow, M.E., R.A. Pitchers, and R. Santos. 1988. Non-biocidalAntifouling Coatings. In: Biodeterioration 7, (eds.) D.R. Houghton,R.N. Smith, and H.O.W. Eggins. Elsevier Applied Science, Oxford,pp.43-48.
Carson, R., M. Damon, L. Johnson, and J. Miller. 2002.Transitioning to Non-Metal Antifouling Paints on MarineRecreational Boats in San Diego Bay. Pursuant to Senate Bill 315passed in 2001; submitted to California Department of Boatingand Waterways in 2002. 130 p.
Characklis, W.G. and K.E. Cooksey. 1983. Biofilms and MicrobialFouling. Advances in Applied Microbiology, 29:93-138.
Clare, A.S., D. Rittschof, D.J. Gerhart, and J.S. Maki. 1992.Molecular Approaches to Non-toxic Antifouling. InvertebrateReproduction and Development, 22:67-76.
Coglianese, M. P., and M. Martin. 1981. Individual and InteractiveEffects of Environmental Stress on the Embryonic Development ofthe Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea gigas. I. The Toxicity of Copper andSilver. Marine Environmental Research, 5:13-27.
College Toelating Bestrijdingsmiddelen. 2004. www.ctb-wageningen.nl
Crisp, D. J. 1974. Factors Influencing the Settlement of MarineInvertebrate Larvae. In: Chemoreception in marine organisms,edited by P.T. Grant and A.M. Mackie, Academic Press, New York,pp. 117-265.
European Commission. 1998. Biocidal Products Directive (8/98/EC)http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/biocides/
Gould, E., R.J. Thompson, L.J. Buckley, D. Rusanowsky, and G.R.Sennefelder. 1988. Uptake and Effect of Copper and Cadmium onthe Gonad of the Scallop Placopecten magellanicus: ConcurrentMetal Exposure. Marine Biology, 97:217-223.
Hall, N. 2002. US Paint, personal communication.
Hall, W.S., S.J. Bushong, L.W. Hall, Jr., M.J. Lenkevich and A.E.Pinkey. 1988. Monitoring Dissolved Copper Concentrations inChesapeake Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,11:33-42.
Hoffman, M. 2004. California Marine Services, personalcommunication.
Hudon, C., E. Bourget and P. Legendre. 1983. An IntegratedStudy of the Factors Influencing the Choice of the Settling Site ofBalanus crenatus Cyprid Larvae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, 40:1186-1194.
International Coatings Ltd UK and International Paint Inc. 2004.http://www.yachtpaint.com/superyacht/sy/pdf/antifouling_legislation.pdf
International Maritime Organization. 2004. http://www.imo.org/Marine Environment: Antifouling Strategies.
Johnson, L.T. and J.A. Miller. 2003. Making Dollars and Sense ofNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats. Californian Sea GrantCollege Program Technical Report No. T-052. 13 p.
Katz, C. 1998. Seawater Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons andCopper in San Diego Bay. Technical Report 1768. Space and NavalSystems Center (SPAWAR). San Diego, CA.
Keough, M.J. 1983. Patterns of Recruitment of SessileInvertebrates in Two Subtidal Habitats. Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology and Ecology, 66:213-245.
Kettlewell, J.J. 2000. “Marine Paint Marketers Change the Pitch.”Boating Industry International Online http://www.boating-industry.com/
Krett Lane, S. M. 1980. Productivity and Diversity ofPhytoplankton in Relation to Copper in San Diego Bay. TechnicalReport 533. Naval Oceans Systems Center.
Krishnakumar, P. K., P.K. Asokan, and V. K. Pillai. 1990. (Abstract)Physiological and Cellular-Responses to Copper and Mercury inthe Green Mussel Perna-Viridis (Linnaeus). Aquatic Toxicology,18(3):163-173.
Kronman, M. 2004. Santa Barbara Harbor Operations Manager,personal communication.
Lee, H. H. and C. H. Xu. 1984. Effects of Metals on Sea UrchinDevelopment: A Rapid Bioassay. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 15:18-21.
Lussier, S. M., J. H. Gentile, and J. Walker. 1985. Acute andChronic Effects of Heavy Metals and Cyanide on Mysidopsis bahia(Crustacea: Mysidacea). Aquatic Toxicology, 7:25-35.
MacDonald J.M., J.D. Shields, and R. K. Zimmer-Faust. 1988.Acute Toxicities of Eleven Metals to Early Life-history Stages of theYellow Crab Cancer anthonyi. Marine Biology, 98:201-207.
20 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats
References Cited
Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 21
Maki, J.S., D. Rittschof, J.D. Costlow and R. Mitchell. 1988.Inhibition of Attachment of Larval Barnacles, Balanus amphitrite,by Bacterial Surface Films. Marine Biology, 97:199-206.
Martin, M., K.E. Osborn, P. Billig, and N. Glickstein. 1981.Toxicities of Ten Metals to Crassostrea gigas and Mytilus edulisEmbryos and Cancer magister Larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin,12:305-308.
Meyer, A.E., R.E. Baier, and R.L. Forsberg. 1994. Field Trials ofNontoxic Fouling-release Coatings. Proc 4th International ZebraMussel Conf, Report No. TR-104029 published by Electric PowerResearch Institute, Palo Alto, CA. pp. 273-290.
Mihm, J.W., W.C. Banta and G.I. Loeb. 1981. Effects of AdsorbedOrganic and Primary Fouling Films on Bryozoan Settlement.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology, 54:167-179.
Ministry of the Environment Danish Environmental ProtectionAgency. September 2003 http://www.mst.dk/activi/01060000.htm
The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment. 2004. http://www2.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=4802
Nicely, C. 2002. Interlux Yacht Paints, personal communication.
Orlich, S. 2004. California Marine Services, personalcommunication.
Parliament of Victoria. Environment and Natural ResourcesCommittee. 1996. Report on Ballast Water and Hull Fouling inVictoria. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc%5Fold/ballast/default.htm#TopOfPage
Presley, R. 2004. Presley Precision Diving, Inc., personalcommunication.
Redpath, K. J. and J. Davenport. 1988. The Effect of Copper, Zinc,and Cadmium in the Pumping Rate of Mytilus edulis L. AquaticToxicology, 13:217-226.
Redpath, K. J. 1985. Growth Inhibition and Recovery in Mussels(Mytilus edulis) Exposed to Low Copper Concentrations. Journal ofthe Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom,65(2):421-31.
Rittschof, D. 1993. Body Odors and Neutral-basic Peptide Mimics:A Review of Responses by Marine Organisms. American Zoology,33:487-493.
Rittschof, D., E.S. Branscomb and J.D. Costlow. 1984. Settlementand Behavior in Relation to Flow and Surface in Larval Barnacles,Balanus amphitrite (Darwin). Journal of Experimental MarineBiology and Ecology, 82:131-146.
Rittschof, D. 2004. Professor, Duke University Marine Laboratory,personal communication.
Rocco, B. 2004. Aquarius Yacht Services, personalcommunication.
Rolland, J.P. and J.M. DeSimone. 2003. Synthesis andCharacterization of Perfluoropolyether Graft Terpolymers forBiofouling Applications. Polymeric Materials Science andEngineering, 88:606-607.
Schiff, K., D. Diehl and A. Valkirs. 2003. Copper Emissions fromAntifouling Paint on Recreational Vessels. SCCWRP TechnicalReport #405. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,Westminster, CA.
Sheffield Engineering. 1998. Sediment Analysis of CanaveralHarbor under sponsorship of the Port Authority.
Soeterik, E. 2002. Proline Paint Company, personalcommunication.
Storfer, A. 2002. Kop-Coat, personal communication.
Stromgren, T. and V. Nielsen. 1991. Spawning Frequency, Growth,and Mortality of Mytilus edulis Larvae, Exposed to Copper andDiesel Oil. Aquatic Toxicology, 21:171-180.
Swain, G.W. and M.P Schultz. 1996. The Testing and Evaluationof Non-toxic Antifouling Coatings. Biofouling 10 (1-3):187-197.
Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate. 2004.http://www.kemi.se/lang/english/index.html
Trocine, R.P. and J.H Trefry. 1996. Metal Concentrations inSediment, Water and Clams From the Indian River Lagoon,Florida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32(10):754-759.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Draft Updated Water Quality Criteria for Copper Fact Sheet. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/draftupdatefs.htm
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Total Maximum DailyLoads for Toxic Pollutants: San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, CA.U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA.http://www.epa.gov/Region9/water/tmdl/nbay/summary0602.pdf
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Establishment ofNumeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants for the State of California;California Toxics Rule.http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/ctrindex.html
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. NationalRecommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. USEPA. Office of Water. EPA 822-Z-99-001.
VanderWeele, D.A. 1996. The Effects of Copper Pollution on theBivalve, Mytilus edulis and the Amphipod, Grandidierella japonicain the Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego Bay, California. M.S.Thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Ship Shape.Single Industry Campaign: Summary Report. Publication No. 99-16. Prepared by Paul Stasch and Donna Lynch. WashingtonState Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program.
Younqlood, J.P., L. Andruzzi, W. Senaratne, C.K. Ober, J.A.Callow, J.A. Finlay, M.E. Callow. 2003. New Materials for MarineBiofouling Resistance and Release: Semi-fluorinated and PegylatedBlock Copolymer Bilayer Coatings. Polymeric Materials Science andEngineering, 88:608-609.
Publication Design by Chris O’Connor
EVALUATION: STAYING AFLOAT WITH NONTOXIC ANTIFOULING STRATEGIES FOR BOATS
Would you please help us to evaluate the effectiveness of our booklet by completing and returning the evaluation form? Thank you!
Please put an X by all of the groups to which you belong: _____ Recreational Boat Owner _____ Boating Association _____ Marina or Yacht Club Manager _____ Trade Association Manager _____ Boat Repair Yard Company _____ Environmental Organization _____ Paint/Coating Company _____ Underwater Hull Cleaning Company _____ Port or Harbor Authority Commissioner _____ Port or Harbor Authority Staff _____ Other Elected/Appointed Official _____ Other Government Agency Staff _____ University Researcher _____ Consultant _____ Other:________________________________________________________________ Please circle the number that indicates how much you agree with the following statements, using this rating system: 1 = Do not agree, 2 = Agree slightly, 3 = Agree somewhat, 4 = Agree very much, 5 = Agree extremely 1 2 3 4 5 The information in the booklet will be USEFUL TO ME in understanding and making decisions about antifouling STRATEGIES for recreational boats. 1 2 3 4 5 The information in the booklet will be USEFUL TO ME in understanding and making decisions about antifouling POLICIES for recreational boats.
Please place an X beside each topic in the booklet that provided you with NEW information: _____Copper-based antifouling paints can create a problem for marine life in boat basins. _____Nontoxic antifouling strategies include a nontoxic coating and a companion strategy. _____The availability of nutrients, the texture of the surface, the chemical reactions taking place on it, and the movement of surrounding currents influence where fouling growth settles. _____TMDL studies are being completed in Southern California for dissolved copper. _____Several European countries are monitoring dissolved copper in boat basins and copper-based bottom paints have been banned or restricted in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. _____The objective of nontoxic antifouling strategies is to control fouling growth while protecting the environment and the boat’s bottom coating. _____ Nontoxic coatings must be cleaned about twice as often as copper-based antifouling paints. _____ Most nontoxic bottom paints will not adhere to existing, copper-based paints. _____The most cost-effective time for switching to a nontoxic coating is when the boat is new and unpainted or when the copper-based coating needs to be stripped. Please continue on next page……
_____Best Management Practices, such as cleaning frequently and using the gentlest possible tool, can extend the life of a coating. _____In our demonstration project, the epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings have the potential to last many more years than copper-based coatings and the silicone coating. _____ In our demonstration project, the silicone coating was preferred by boat owners who like to race and were willing to invest in very frequent cleaning and annual replacement. _____In our demonstration project, the epoxy and ceramic -epoxy coatings appear to be a good choice for boat owners who want a nontoxic coating that may last long enough to compensate for costs incurred in more frequent cleaning and converting from a copper-based coating. _____Our field demonstration of three types of nontoxic coatings for one year in San Diego Bay and the related economic research found that they show promise as sustainable solutions.
Please put an X by each topic with which you agree: *Would you switch to nontoxic bottom paint: _____ If required by law? _____ If not required by law? *If so, which type would you prefer? ____ Epoxy/Ceramic-Epoxy _____Silicone ____Other:_________________ * Why?_____________________________________________________________________________
Did you attend our Nontoxic Bottom Paints Field Day: _____ At the Southwestern Yacht Club in San Diego in 2002? _____ At the Shelter Island Boatyard in San Diego in 2003? _____ Have you read our booklet What You Need to Know about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats? _____ Have you read our booklet Making Dollars and Sense of Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats?
_____ Have you read any articles about our nontoxic boat bottom paint project in a newspaper, newsletter or magazine? If so, which one(s)?__________________________________________________________________________ Did you participate in the Sea Grant Extension Program and UCSD Department of Economics economic study on incentives to switch to nontoxic paints? YES NO Please comment or suggest other antifouling related information that would be useful to you:
Would you like to receive information on our new project to prevent transport of aquatic invasive species on boat and ship hulls? YES NO
Thank you for helping us to evaluate the effectiveness of our research and education programs!! Please fax or mail the completed evaluation to: Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension Sea Grant Extension Program, County of San Diego MS O-18, 5555 Overland Avenue Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123 Phone (858) 694-2852 FAX (858) 694-2849 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://seagrant.ucdavis.edu