|
|
Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat
Waterfowl
| Since 2002, 15 national parks have completed site-specific environmental assessment studies and each has concluded that PWC present no unique environmental impact. Each of these studies has recommended that PWC use be allowed on waters that permit other motorized boats. |
| By design, PWC operate by water propulsion which means they do not have exposed propellers. For this reason, personal watercraft have less impact on marine life and underwater vegetation. |
According to a series of studies by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal watercraft have no greater significant impact on waterfowl than other motorized boats. A comparison of the flush distances, or minimum distance, required to disturb nesting birds, caused by personal watercraft and a two-stroke powered motorboat found personal watercraft are “relatively quiet to the point where [PWC] noise is not the factor, which causes the birds to flush….A fast moving motorboat heading directly at the birds…should produce a flushing response similar to that of a PWC being operated in a similar manner.”
Most importantly, only one out of 11 species in the study exhibited a larger flushing distance to the PWC than the motorboat. Five species flushed at farther distances when approached by the motorboat than by the PWC, and 11 species showed no significant difference in flushing distances based on the hull type of the boat approaching. Researchers suggest a single buffer zone for all watercraft should be developed to protect nesting waterfowl. Species type is more important than boat type when determining boundaries that should not be crossed by humans1.
Similarly, a separate study in Florida found an average greater flush distance in response to humans on foot than to approaching motorboats or canoes. As a result, the researchers recommended setting back distances for all human activity of 100 meters (328 feet) for wading birds and 180 meters (590 feet) for extremely skittish species such as skimmers and terns. The researchers also cited a report that found no significant effect on breeding success due to disturbance by boats or other methods2.
PWC have also been mentioned as a factor in the decline of the loon population in the Northern United States. However, there has been no comprehensive study on the plight of the loon, or the effect of boating and development on its populations. For instance, Sutcliffe (1979) is cited in one article as reporting a 50 percent decline in the loon population in New Hampshire from 1929-1979, prior to any PWC use!3
It is actually the loss of nesting habitat, increased human interaction, and increased predation by urban animals such as raccoons that have led to the decrease of many populations of birds around the country. In terms of mortality, there are very few reports of waterfowl death directly from motorboats, and no studies cite personal watercraft as the cause of waterfowl mortality4.
The regulation of one type of vessel does not address the overall issue that human development. In fact, one study found loons are disturbed more by human activity on lakes with no boating versus lakes with watercraft5.
Marine Mammals
In addition to loons, some critics have claimed PWC are a threat to manatees, dolphins, or other marine mammals. However, marine mammal injuries or fatalities attributable to PWC are non-existent. For example, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Protected Species
Management reported that a review of over 25 years of manatee mortality records indicated no PWC have ever been implicated in a manatee death or injury6. In fact, because of the lack of an exposed propeller, which could present a prop-related injury to a startled dolphin or manatee, PWC are regularly used by marine mammal research organizations such as Sea World, Mote Marine Laboratory, and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.
Seagrasses
Studies confirm PWC are not a threat to seagrasses. The only comprehensive test evaluating personal watercraft impact on seagrasses (conducted in 1997 in the Florida Keys) indicates personal watercraft use, as recommended by the manufacturers, does not affect seagrass beds or water turbidity, and does not cause scarring of the grassbeds7. Because PWC are powered by a water jet utilizing a shielded impeller, it cannot damage submerged aquatic vegetation in the manner that has been attributed to propeller driven vessels.
For more information on the studies referenced above, click here.
1 Rodgers, James A., Jr. and Schwikert, Stephen T., “Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbance by Personal Watercraft and Outboard-Powered Boats.” Conservation Biology, Volume 16, No. 1, February 2002.
2 Rodgers, James and Smith, Henry. Wildlife Research Laboratory, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. “Set-Back Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human Disturbance in Florida.” 1994.
3 Ballestero, Thomas, PhD., P.E., P.H. “Impact of Motor Boat and Personal Watercraft on the Environment: Bibliography.” Environmental Research Group, University of New Hampshire. August 1, 1990.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Letter from David W. Arnold, Chief of the Bureau of Protected Species Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to U.S. Representative David Weldon. March 16, 1999.
7 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., Effects of Personal Watercraft Operation on Shallow-Water Seagrass Communities in the Florida Keys, 1997.
|