Hilbrich Capstone

DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CLEAN BOATS CREW: AN
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM AIMED AT PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
BY
DANIELLE J. HILBRICH
CAPSTONE PROJECT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Sciences in Natural Resources and Environmental Science
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015
Urbana, Illinois
Master’s Committee:
Adjunct Associate Professor Craig Miller, Research Director
Piper Hodson Director
Assistant Professor Carena van Riper
ABSTRACT
Aquatic invasive species can cause major problems in freshwater ecosystems. Transient
boaters and anglers are one of the main reasons aquatic invasive species spread from one body of
water to another. The Illinois and Indiana Clean Boats Crew education and outreach program
aims to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species by communicating preventative messaging
to recreational boaters and anglers at boat ramps. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the
Clean Boats Crew program by surveying recreational boaters and anglers at four boat ramps in
Lake County, Illinois. In addition, the study also sought to determine whether preventative
behaviors are related to one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species, and whether the number of
years the Clean Boats Crew program was present at a particular boat launch was related to one’s
awareness of aquatic invasive species and preventative behaviors. From the 311 surveys
collected, it was determined that 85.5% of respondents were aware of aquatic invasive species
and 92% of aware individuals took preventative steps to stop the spread of aquatic invasive
species. Furthermore, the longevity of the Clean Boats Crew program at a particular boat launch
was not significant with awareness of aquatic invasive species. In addition, preventative
behaviors were statistically significant with the longevity of the Clean Boats Crew program at a
particular boat launch. The study reported a small percentage of respondents having been
approached by the Clean Boats Crew program; however, 90% of individuals approached
reported that they were willing to take further action against aquatic invasive species.
Keywords: Aquatic Invasive Species, Boaters, Anglers, Survey, Recreationists, Clean Boats
Crew, Education and Outreach, Evaluation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………1
HYPOTHESES ………………………………………………………………………………...…4
LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………………...4
JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES...………………………………………………………...9
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES ………………………………………………………….11
METHODS ……………………………………………………………………………………...12
RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………………….20
DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………...41
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………….51
APPENDIX A: ………………………………………………………………………………..…57
APPENDIX B: ………………………………………………………………………………..…59
APPENDIX C: …………………………………………………………………………………..60
iii
BACKGROUND
The Clean Boats Crew is an aquatic invasive species environmental education and
outreach program that “promotes healthy ecosystems and a healthy economy by actively
involving individuals in preventing the spread of harmful aquatic invasive species” (McGlynn et
al. 2015). Clean Boats Crew is an education and outreach program aimed at preventing the
spread of aquatic invasive species in Illinois and Indiana waterways. The program is
collaboratively operated by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Illinois Natural History Survey, and the
Northeast Illinois Invasive Plant Partnership. The program’s mission is to “promote water
resource stewardship by actively involving individuals in preventing the spread of harmful
aquatic invasive species” (McGlynn et al. 2015). One goal of the program is to get people
invested in their local waters by talking with boaters and anglers at marinas and boat launches in
an effort to educate them about aquatic invasive species prevention. Kolar and Lodge (2000),
suggest that educating recreational boaters about the harm of releasing of aquatic invasive
species is an important strategy to prevent the continued spread of these organisms.
Clean Boats Crew site leaders and volunteers work to educate the public (recreational
boaters and anglers) about preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species by using a simple
watercraft checklist and removing aquatic plants and animals from boats and other recreational
equipment. Site leaders and volunteers also conduct watercraft inspections demonstrations,
communicate with the public about invasive species laws, distribute educational materials, and
respond to public concern about aquatic invasive species.
The Illinois and Indiana Clean Boats Crew program is modeled on other programs in
Great Lakes’ states. Both Wisconsin and Michigan have long-standing programs called “Clean
1
Boats Clean Waters” that have proven to be successful through program evaluations and
effectively operate with the assistance of many volunteers. For example, Wisconsin’s Clean
Boats Clean Waters is a program that has operated statewide since 2004. During 2004,
Wisconsin’s program contacted over 11,000 people and inspected over 6,000 boats. The program
has grown significantly since 2004; program staff contacted over 257,000 people and inspected
over 123,368 boats during the summer season of 2014. Furthermore, the program has shown that
100% of boaters contacted were aware of Wisconsin’s aquatic invasive species laws including
their boat transportation and bait laws (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2014 a.).
Findings from past research suggest 89% of boaters took preventive steps by inspecting their
boats and trailers, and 81% removed aquatic plants and animals (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources 2014 b.).
Illinois and Indiana’s Clean Boats Crew program is a relatively small, young program
compared to those of Michigan and Wisconsin. The Illinois and Indiana program operates in four
Lake Michigan counties: two in Illinois and two in Indiana. The program has existed for four
boating seasons, with the fourth season completed during summer 2014. During the first three
seasons, the program has struggled to recruit consistent volunteers and experimented with a
variety of locations, including both Lake Michigan as well as inland lake locations. Despite these
challenges, the program seems to be reaching more people. Throughout its first year (2011) the
program operated only during the weekends in July, visiting four locations and making contact
with 147 people. During 2012, the program expanded and operated in Lake and Cook Counties
and Northwest Indiana. Six hundred and eighty-one people were contacted in Lake County
alone, with an additional 1,140 in Cook County and 720 people in Indiana. In 2013, the program
was not as successful as only 1,013 people were contacted in all locations. During the 2014
2
season, the program gained additional success reaching a total of 3,519 people at six locations
(including two locations in Indiana).
Although the Illinois and Indiana Clean Boat Crew education and outreach program has
reached a broad audience, there is a limited understanding of whether the program has increased
public awareness of aquatic invasive species, whether self-reported behaviors result from
different levels of awareness, and whether the amount of time the Clean Boat Crew program
spends at different boat launches impacts one’s awareness and self-reported behaviors. In this
study, awareness is defined as one’s knowledge and perception of a specific topic or idea.
Awareness is conceptualized as an antecedent to self-reported behavior, which is defined as
intent-oriented “behavior that is undertaken with the intention to change (normally, to benefit)
the environment” (Stern 2000; van Riper and Kyle 2014).
Other scholars have assessed awareness and self-reported behavior in similar ways. For
example, Davenport et al. (2010) examined recreational boaters’ beliefs and practices in relation
to aquatic invasive species and Pasternak and Zack (2013) evaluated recreational boaters’ actions
in response to outreach efforts. These authors provided a foundation for my conceptualization of
self-reported behavior. Despite a large body of research conducted on public awareness of
aquatic invasive species and the resultant actions (Davenport et al. 2010; Seekamp 2012;
Pasternak and Zack 2013; Williams 2014; and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2014
a.), these ideas have not yet been applied to the Clean Boats Crew program.
3
HYPOTHESES
• Self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors will be related to awareness
of aquatic invasive species (Project Objective 3).
• The number of years the Clean Boat Crew program is present at a particular boat launch
will be related to the awareness of aquatic invasive species (Project Objective 4).
• The number of years the Clean Boat Crew program is present at a particular boat launch
will be related to self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors (Project
Objective 5).
LITERATURE REVIEW
By 2000, an estimated 50,000 nonindigenous species were introduced into the United
States (Pimentel et al. 2000; Pimentel et al. 2004) and “at least 4,500 species of foreign origin
have established free-living populations” (OTA 1993). Introductions of nonindigenous species,
as well as risks associated with them, have increased over the past several years due to human
population growth, rapid movements (e.g., travel) of people, and alteration of the environment
(Pimentel et al. 2000). Moreover, economic damages associated with these species have also
increased, costing the United States approximately $120 billion dollars annually (Pimentel et al.
2004).
Locally, over 180 nonindigenous species have become established in the Great Lakes
Basin since the early 1800s (Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Ricciardi 2006; GLANSIS 2014).
The estimated long-term invasion rate is 1.1 species per year; however, since 1960 the estimated
4
rate has increased to 1.8 (Ricciardi 2006). This rate equates to a new invasive species introduced
into the Great Lakes every 28 weeks and is the highest invasion rate recorded for a freshwater
ecosystem (Ricciardi 2006).
Aquatic invasive species have also been shown to be one of the main reasons for
ecological changes within the Great Lakes Basin and occur at almost every level in the food
chain (Mills et al. 1993). They can also cause many impacts to the ecosystem including the
decline of native biodiversity, changes in the food web, altered nutrient and contaminants
cycling, as well as shifts in ecosystem productivity (Mills et al. 1993; Mills et al. 1994; and
Ricciardi 2001). Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of numerous aquatic invasive species in
the Great Lakes Basin have ultimately impacted the biological integrity of the Great Lakes (Mills
et al. 1994). Aquatic invasive species also further impact recreational boaters and anglers,
commercial fishermen, charter captains, and many other groups of people who work and recreate
on the Lakes.
High impact aquatic invasive species have become more frequent over the past few
decades (Pagnucco et al. 2015) and will subject the ecosystem to many ecological changes. For
example, the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha and the quagga mussel Dreissena bugensis
have had numerous ecosystem level impacts across the Great Lakes Basin as well as throughout
the country. Zebra mussels were first found in the Lake St. Clair between 1985 and 1986, and
they were mostly likely introduced into the Great Lakes via ballast water discharge (Snyder et al.
1997). The quagga mussel was identified as a different species in 1991 (United States Geological
Survey 2014). These mussels impact the Great Lakes ecosystem by changing the aquatic food
web, outcompeting the native species for food and habitat, increasing water clarity, and altering
nutrient and contaminate cycling in the Lakes (GLEAM Project n.d.). They are also very costly
5
to control at industrial facilities and water treatment plants by colonizing intake pipes. They can
be easily transported via transient boaters and have spread beyond the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Basins. These species has caused many ecological and economic damages, and
they are very difficult to control.
The societal costs of aquatic invasive species are often difficult to measure; however,
they are undeniably impacting the economy of the Great Lakes Basin (Pagnucco et al. 2015).
Industries, consumers, governments, and even individual households incur costs due to the
introductions of aquatic invasive species. The Anderson Economic Group conducted a study in
2012 and concluded that an overall aggregate of costs used to control aquatic invasive species in
the Great Lakes Basin is likely to be significantly over $100 million per year (Rosaen et al.
2012). These costs included losses in sports and commercial fishing revenues, losses in
recreational and tourism revenues, cost associated with disruption of water supply from
municipal facilities, impacts to power plants and other industrial facilities, as well as the ever
growing cost to control these organisms (Rosaen et al. 2012). Furthermore, it was estimated that
the 4.3 million registered boaters in 2003, in all of the Great Lakes states, had a direct economic
impact on the region that was $22 billion dollars per year (Great Lakes Commission 2003).
These expenses included $11.5 billion in annual sales, $4 billion in personal income, and $6.4
billion in value-added impacts (Great Lakes Commission 2003). The cost incurred to control the
invasions of aquatic invasive species will directly impact the value-added benefit brought to the
region by Great Lakes boaters.
Aquatic invasive species can rapidly move throughout the Great Lakes Basin and the
country through multiple vectors such as recreational boaters and anglers, hobbyists groups such
as aquarium owners and water gardeners, and commercial transportation. Overland
6
transportation of trailered boats, for instance, is one of the ways aquatic invasive species are
spread to inland bodies of water (Rothlisberger et al. 2010) from the Great Lakes. In addition, it
is also found to be “one of the largest unregulated vectors” of the spread aquatic invasive species
(Pagnucco et al. 2015). According to Rothlisberger et al. (2010), “every time a boat is
transported overland after use in an invaded waterway there is the possibility that it will transfer
aquatic invasive species to uninvaded waterways”. Rothlisberger et al. (2010) conducted a study
that found on average 37.2 organisms, both plant and animal, were transported on boats and
trailers. Furthermore, they discovered 34% of Michigan and Wisconsin transient boaters never
cleaned their boats before traveling to another body of water. Also, 68% of these transient
boaters “did not always wash or dry their boat when moving it overland among waterways” and
27% of transient boaters did not always remove aquatic weeds when they saw them attached to
their boat or trailer. This research further highlights the associated risks of introducing aquatic
invasive species into new uninvaded waters by transient boaters.
Ecosystem impacts and associated costs with aquatic invasive species are often
unavoidable once a highly invasive organism has invaded a new ecosystem. Reactive
management such as trying to remove a well-established non-native organism from a large
ecosystem is an enormous, not typically attempted task that rarely leads to a successful
eradication of the species (Pagnucco et al. 2015). In addition, the increased frequency of aquatic
invasive species invasions creates an ecosystem that is more susceptible to future invasions
(Ricciardi 2001).
Therefore, it is necessary to work to reduce the number of invasions (Ricciardi 2001).
Pimentel et al. (2000) states that a variety of strategies will be needed to prevent further damage
to an ecosystem as a result of an aquatic invasive species invasion. Furthermore, it has been
7
shown that proactive investments in aquatic invasive species prevention, as well as early
detection, can substantially reduce both ecological and economic costs associated with an
invasion (Leung et al. 2002; Vander Zanden et al. 2010).
Aquatic invasive species public education and outreach campaigns are one of the many
ways that are recommended to help reduce invasions and the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Annex six of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (2012), further recommends
implementing education and outreach efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic
invasive species. These education and outreach efforts are also crucial in creating awareness
about the risks and associated costs of aquatic invasive species invading a new ecosystem.
Rosaen et al. (2012) and Pagnucco et al. (2015), have noted that there has been an increased
effort “to educate and engage the public in preventing the spread of invasive species across the
Great Lake Basin” (Pagnucco et al. 2015). Bjorkland and Pringle (2001) also found that
educating the public about a healthy environment is vital for the protection of the ecosystem. In
addition, they noted that “conservation of our aquatic resources depends on education of the
public, and educational strategies need to be broad-based and incorporate citizen participation to
be effective”. Education and outreach efforts also create support for aquatic invasive species
management by educating the public and special interest groups about the value of prevention,
early detection, and rapid response (Vander Zanden et al. 2010). Environmental education and
outreach efforts, especially ones that involved the public through active volunteering, are
essential to keeping the public educated about aquatic invasive species and their associated risk
as well as preventing their spread.
8
JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES
The effectiveness of the Illinois and Indiana Clean Boat Crew program has not yet been
determined, and currently, there are not any built-in evaluation techniques to measure the success
of the program. This lack of evaluation is preventing organization staff from understanding
whether or not the preventive message of the program is successfully reaching the public through
this type of education and outreach effort. An analysis of the program and self-reported
behaviors will be useful to determine how the public comprehends the preventative aquatic
invasive species message.
Furthermore, there are no studies that quantify the effectiveness of these types of
education and outreach efforts on slowing the spread of these aquatic organisms (Rothlisberger
et al. 2010). The other Great Lakes programs (Michigan and Wisconsin) upon which the Illinois
and Indiana program was modeled, already have built in techniques that continually evaluate the
program. The Wisconsin’s Clean Boats Clean Waters program has trained watercraft inspectors
that complete short evaluation forms with recreationists using boat launches. The trained
inspectors have asked questions and evaluated how well recreationists know and understand the
steps that are required by law when leaving a boat launch. By completing this type of evaluation,
program managers have gained insight on how attune the recreationists are about existing
policies. This type of component is lacking in the Illinois and Indiana Clean Boats Crew
program.
Evaluation is a very important component of any type of environmental education and
outreach program. Patton (2008) describes program evaluation as “the systematic collection of
information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgments about
9
the program, improve or further develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about future
programming and/or increase understanding”. An extremely important role of evaluations can be
to measure whether a program is working towards or meeting the program’s mission, and
furthermore, whether it’s creating long-term credibility of meeting the mission and goals of the
larger organization or agency (Heimlich 2010). Completing a program evaluation and having
access to data that indicate the effectiveness of a program is important. Countless environmental
education and outreach programs rely on government grants (Rosaen et al. 2012), some of which
are competitive. Having a program evaluation that holds an organization accountable for their
goals can also provide support and justification for resources needed to run the program
(Carleton-Hug and Hug 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to show the effectiveness and
accountability of environmental education programs and how such projects impact the public and
the overall conservation issues at hand. The inability to successfully evaluate the program and its
impacts could result in the relinquishment of grant funds that would ultimately suspend the
program.
Determining effectiveness of outreach programs can answer many important questions.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant and the other organizers and managers of the Clean Boats Crew
program are interested in learning how the public responds to the message, whether or not they
are taking action to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, and if they are aware of the
newly amended Illinois Aquatic Transport Act. The Illinois’ Boat Registration and Safety Act
(aka Illinois Aquatic Transport Act) was amended to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic
plants and animals by boats, trailers and vehicles (Zack and Charlebois 2013). Having this
information can assist the organizers to allocate resources more effectively as funding can often
10
be limited. In addition, this information also allows organizers to continue to develop the
program so information can be dispersed more efficiently.
In addition, self-reported preventative behaviors will also be analyzed in the survey.
The preventative behaviors that will be analyzed were developed by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
and are widely used in their aquatic invasive species outreach campaigns. There were three
preventative behaviors of interest: 1) remove plants, animals, and mud for all equipment; 2)
drain all water from boats and gear and 3) dry everything thoroughly with a towel.
The Illinois organizers would also like to show success of the program to the State of
Indiana. Thus far, the State of Indiana has had minimal involvement in the program despite two
locations with one in Porter County and the other in Lake County, Indiana. The state of Illinois
would like to use this evaluation to demonstrate the value of the Clean Boats Crew program to
encourage Indiana to become more involved in organizing the program fiscally and
managerially.
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1. Explore the understanding of aquatic invasive species by recreationists accessing waters
in Lake County, Illinois.
2. Investigate recreationist’s awareness of the Illinois and Indiana Clean Boats Crew
program and their messaging.
3. Examine self-reported behaviors in relation to awareness of aquatic invasive species.
4. Compare the number of years the Clean Boats Crews program has been present at boat
launches to recreationist’s awareness of aquatic invasive species.
11
5. Compare the number of years the Clean Boats Crews program has been present at boat
launches to recreationist’s self-reported preventative behaviors.
METHODS
Upon assessing the number of people reached by the Clean Boats Crew program,
gathered from 2011-2014 from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, it was determined that Lake County,
Illinois was the best location for the Clean Boats Crew survey. This area was the most frequently
visited county by the program. This study specifically focused on recreationists using public boat
launches in Lake County, Illinois.
Study Context
Lake County, Illinois is the northeastern-most county in Illinois with Lake Michigan to
the east and Wisconsin to the north. It is also equidistance between downtown Chicago which is
to the south and Milwaukee, Wisconsin that is due north. Lake County is home to over 703,000
people (United States Census Data 2013) and occupies 1,368 square miles (Lake County
Government n.d.). Interestingly, only 448 square miles are land the other 920 square miles are
water. As previously mentioned, the eastern side of the county backs up to Lake Michigan;
however, there are also an additional 170 inland lakes and rivers with over 400 miles of streams
(Lake County Government n.d.). The county also has about 30,000 acres of protected Forest
Preserve lands.
The Illinois part of the Clean Boats Crew program started in Lake County in 2011 before
adding Cook County in the following year (2012). The program has visited a total of 12 locations
12
in Lake County, Illinois over the past four years/summer seasons. Some of these locations have
been visited by the program multiple years (two, three and four years) while some locations were
only visited one summer season. These locations include both inland and Lake Michigan
locations. The previously visited boat launches in Lake County, Illinois including Bangs Lake
(inland), Big and Little Bear Lakes (inland), Chain O’ Lakes (inland), Diamond Lake (inland),
Fox River Preserve (inland), Gages Lake (inland), North Point Marina (Lake Michigan), Park
Avenue Beach (Lake Michigan), Round Lake Beach (inland), Sterling Lake (inland), Waukegan
Harbor (Lake Michigan), and West Loon Lake (inland).
Site Selection
All previously visited Lake County, Illinois Clean Boats Crew locations were considered
for this study. Careful consideration was made to choose both inland and Lake Michigan
locations while excluding any riverine locations. Furthermore, sampling locations were selected
based on the number of years/summer seasons visited by the Clean Boats Crew program (one,
two, three, and four summer seasons). Four previously visited boat launch locations were
selected (the location of boat ramps are listed in order of the number of seasons visited from least
visited (one year) to most visited (four years)): 1) Round Lake Beach, 2) Waukegan Harbor, 3)
Chain O’ Lakes, and 4) North Point Marina.
The first site selected was the North Point Marina boat launch. This location was visited
by the program all four years it has been in operation. North Point Marina is located on Lake
Michigan in Winthrop Harbor, Illinois. North Point Marina is one of the largest marinas on Lake
Michigan with 1,500 boat slips and located equidistance between Milwaukee, Wisconsin and
Chicago, Illinois (Illinois Department of Natural Resources n.d.). The North Point Marina boat
13
launch was the largest launch visited having the ability to have ten boats launching or retrieving
their boats at a single time. Additional amenities are available including boat parking, trailer
parking, launching preparation area, trailer preparation area, a fish cleaning station, and
restrooms. There is no fee to launch a boat at this location.
The Chain O’ Lakes was the second most frequently visited location by the Clean Boats
Crew program occurring over a three-year period from 2012-2014. The Chain O’ Lakes boat
launch is located in the Chain O’ Lakes State Park in Spring Grove, Illinois. The State Park
encompasses a little less than 3,000 acres (Illinois Department of Natural Resources n.d.). The
park itself is located along three lakes include Lake Marie, Nippersink Lake, and Grass Lake.
These lakes connect to a larger chain of lakes with 15 total lakes as well as 45 miles of Fox River
riverfront (Acro 2013). In totality, the Chain O’ Lakes include 7,000 acres of water with nine
large lakes and six smaller lakes (Acro 2013).
The Chain O’ Lake State Park boat launch has a total of four launches. Amenities
included at this site are launch preparation area, trailer parking, boat parking, trailer preparation
area, non-motorized boat rentals, snack shop and restrooms. The Chain O’ Lakes is a very busy
body of water with over 30,000 boaters on summer weekends and almost 100,000 boaters during
holiday weekends (Acro 2013). There is no fee to launch a boat at this location; however there is
a user fee. The Fox Waterway Agency (2013) requires that all users purchase a sticker that must
be displayed on the watercraft. Fees range from $10.00 for small non-motorized boats to $175
for large boats that are greater than 30 feet with 15 or more horsepower (Fox Waterway Agency
2013). There are also one-day and ten-day permits available.
Waukegan Harbor was visited by the Clean Boat Crew education and outreach program
over a two year period 2011-2012, and it’s located on Lake Michigan in Waukegan, Illinois. The
14
boat launch is operated by the Waukegan Port District and also contains the Waukegan Marina.
The Marina hosts numerous boat slips as well as a fleet of fishing charter boats. This boat launch
was the second largest with seven launches. There are several amenities at this boat launch
including trailer parking, fish cleaning station, bait shop, ice cream shop, sandwich shop, and full
bathrooms with showers (Waukegan Port District n.d.). The Waukegan Harbor boat launch is
also a short walk from the Metra train station. However, there is a boat launching fee of $20.00
per launch or boaters can purchase a season pass from April 1 to November 1 for $220.
Round Lake Beach was selected as it was only visited once by the Clean Boats Crew
program during the summer season of 2011. The Round Lake Beach boat launch is located on an
inland body of water (Round Lake) in Round Lake, Illinois. Round Lake Beach has a single
shallow boat launch with no launching fees. The Lake consists of 230 acres with 4.5 miles of
shoreline and an average depth of 30.4 feet (Adam et al. 2009). There are additional amenities in
the vicinity at the Lakefront Park that include trailer parking, picnic shelters, playground, beach
and bathrooms (Village of Round Lake Beach n.d.).
Years/Summer Seasons the Clean Boats Crew Program Present at Boat Launch
• 1 Year - Round Lake Beach (Inland)
• 2 Years - Waukegan Harbor (Lake Michigan)
• 3 Years - Chain O’ Lakes (Inland)
• 4 Years - North Point Marina (Lake Michigan)
15
Data Collection
On-site intercept surveying occurred during the summer season of 2014 on weekend days
Friday-Sunday over a period of nine weeks from August-September. Weekend sampling days
were chosen to specifically target recreationists that might have seen the Clean Boats Crew
program, as it is only present at the boat launches during the weekends. It was important to visit
each site on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday during the study period as the program would rotate
site locations throughout the summer. Furthermore, the months of August and September were
chosen to avoid significant overlap with the program’s outreach efforts. Sampling days were
carefully selected at North Point Marina and Chain O’ Lakes as the program was active at these
locations in early August. Surveying was dependent upon weather conditions as well as lake
conditions including wave height.
The field researcher obtained permission to be present at all four boat launches from the
boat launch owners and/or managers before commencing the survey. Adult recreationists, over
the age of 18, were approached by a trained field researcher, explained the purpose of the study
and asked if they were willing to participate in the study by taking a short survey. If individuals
provided verbal consent the field researcher read the survey aloud and captured the individual’s
responses. This method was chosen to decrease the burden to the recreationists. There was a
significant effort made by the field researcher to approach as many recreationists as possible at
each boat ramp. This effort was made to an attempt to reach the entire population of
recreationists that visited these ramps during the weekends.
Recreationists were sampled as they launched their watercraft into the water, when
exiting the water, while they were docked either waiting for the trailer to be parked or retrieved,
or when they were preparing to trailer the watercraft. Careful consideration was made when the
16
field researcher approached the recreationists as it was important not to interfere with the
watercraft launch or retrieval. After completion of the survey participants were compensated for
their efforts with a Be a Hero Transport Zero waterproof sticker produced by Illinois-Indiana Sea
Grant, and a Be a Hero Transport Zero floating keychain also produced by Illinois-Indiana Sea
Grant (Appendix C).
Each location was visited a minimum of four days including one Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday during the study period and had at least 20.6 hours of active sampling time at each boat
launch. The Chain O’ Lakes was visited four days for a total of 23.5 active survey hours, Round
Lake Beach was visited five days for a total of 22.5 active survey hours, Waukegan Harbor was
visited four days with a total of 20.7 hours, and North Point Marina was visited five days with a
total of 20.6 sampling hours (Appendix B for complete survey schedule). In total, 311
recreationists were surveyed at all four public boat launches.
Survey Design
Before the survey was developed, Clean Boats Crew organizers and managers (Illinois-
Indiana Sea Grant, Illinois Natural History Survey and Northeastern Invasive Plant Partnership)
were consulted to gain information on what the organizers were interested in learning from the
survey. Further assistance was sought from Dr. Craig Miller the Program Leader for Human
Dimensions with the Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, and the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to develop the questionnaire.
Socio-demographic information was collected to determine the primary recreation
audience in the Lake County, Illinois area. County residence (Question 1) was asked to have the
17
ability to filter responses by location and determine whether survey responses were associated
with place of residence.
Boating locations (Question 2) were chosen to see how extensively the recreation
audience travels with their equipment. As we know from Rothlisberger et al. 2010, “every time a
boat is transported overland after use in an invaded waterway there is the possibility that it will
transfer aquatic invasive species to uninvaded waterways”. Question two was adapted from the
Illinois Boaters’ Beliefs and Practices Associated with Fish Diseases and Aquatic Invasive
Species Survey (Davenport 2010).
Recreationist’s awareness of aquatic invasive species was analyzed in questions three,
four, and nine. Clean Boat Crew organizers were interested in learning whether recreationists
could identify the definition of an aquatic invasive species. In addition, they were interested in
learning if the general recreationist was aware of the newly amended Illinois Boat Registration
and Safety Act. Similar questions regarding one’s knowledge about aquatic invasive species
were adapted from the Illinois Boaters’ Beliefs and Practices Associated with Fish Diseases and
Aquatic Invasive Species Survey (Davenport 2010), as well as Evaluation of AIS and
Recreational Water User Outreach efforts in the Southern Lake Michigan Watershed: Summer
2012 Survey (Pasternak and Zack 2013).
The self-reported behavior assessment section in the survey (Questions 5 and 6) focused
on Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant’s recommended preventative behaviors outlined in their Be a Hero
Transport Zero campaign (Appendix C (Be a Hero Transport Zero Sticker and Floating
Keychain)). These recommended preventative behaviors were developed in response to focus
groups and a survey conducted by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant as well as expert opinion (Seekamp
2012; Pasternak, L. and Zack, S. 2013; and Zack, S. personal communication, January 24, 2015).
18
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant’s Be a Hero Transport Zero campaign focuses on three
preventative, self-reported behaviors. These three preventative behaviors are: 1) remove plants,
animals, and mud for all equipment; 2) drain all water from your boat and gear and 3) dry
everything thoroughly with a towel. The survey questions were adapted from another survey
analysis entitled Be a Hero Transport Zero Survey Report (Williams 2014), as well as, the
Illinois Boaters’ Beliefs and Practices Associated with Fish Diseases and Aquatic Invasive
Species Survey (Davenport 2010).
Individual’s personal experiences with aquatic invasive species, as well as their future
expectations of invasive species interactions were addressed in questions seven and eight. These
questions were added to gain an understanding of particular species causing problems for
recreationists in the areas where the Clean Boats Crew program was present.
Finally, the last section of the survey focused on the Clean Boats Crew program
(Questions 10-14). These series of questions focused on asking respondents of their awareness
and familiarity with the Clean Boats Crew program. Before the survey was developed, the Clean
Boats Crew organizers expressed interest and the need for understanding the recreationist’s
perception of the program. They wanted to know whether individuals were aware of the program
and whether they understood the message.
The complete Clean Boats Crew Survey is found in Appendix A and Survey Giveaways
are found in Appendix C.
Analysis
Survey data were coded into an Excel spreadsheet and later moved into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics and Chi-Squared tests were
19
completed to address the three hypotheses. The first Chi-squared test analyzed the relationship
between three self-reported preventative behaviors (1) remove plants, animals and mud from all
equipment; 2) drain all water from your boat and gear; and 3) dry everything thoroughly with a
towel) to one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. An additional Chi-squared test was
completed to analyze the relationship between the number of years/summer seasons the Clean
Boats Crew program was present at a particular launch (one, two, three and four years/summer
seasons) to one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. Finally, the relationship between the
number of years/summer seasons the Clean Boats Crew program was present at a particular
launch (one, two, three, and four years/summer seasons) to the three self-reported preventative
behaviors (1) remove plants, animals and mud from all equipment; 2) drain all water from your
boat and gear and 3) dry everything thoroughly with a towel) was examined.
RESULTS
Survey Summary Statistics
In total, 311 completed questionnaires were collected at the four public boat launches in
Lake County, Illinois. Forty-five surveys were collected at the Round Lake Beach boat launch,
63 at the Waukegan Harbor boat launch, 89 at the Chain O’ Lakes boat launch, and 114 at the
North Point Harbor boat launch (Table 1). A majority of respondents were male totaling 76.5%
with 23.5% respectively female (Table 2). Approximately half of respondents were Lake County,
Illinois residents (49.2%) while 50.8% of respondents were not Lake County, Illinois residents
(Table 3). Respondents came from five different states (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, California,
and Missouri) with a majority of respondents originating from Illinois and Wisconsin (Table 4).
20
Eleven Illinois counties were represented in the survey including Boone, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage,
Kane, Kendall, LaSalle, McHenry, Monroe, Ogle and Will; while five Wisconsin counties were
represented including Kenosha, Racine, Shawano, Walworth and Winnebago. It was a relatively
equal split between respondents who always boated at the same location and respondents who
boated elsewhere (51.1% Yes; 48.9% No) (Table 5). A list of all the locations respondents listed
as other places they boated could be found in Table 6.
Table 1. Number of Surveys Collected at Each Public Boat Launch.

Number of Surveys per Location N Percent
Round Lake Beach 45 14.5%
Waukegan Harbor 63 20.3%
Chain O' Lakes 89 28.6%
North Point Harbor 114 36.7%
Table 2. Respondents’ Gender.

Sex N Percent
Male 238 76.5%
Female 73 23.5%
Table 3. Respondents’ Residences of Lake County, Illinois.

Lake County, Illinois Resident N Percent
Yes 153 49.2%
No 158 50.8%
21
Table 4. Respondents’ Residences excluding Lake County, Illinois.
What county are you from?
N Percent
Other Illinois Counties
136 86.1%
Boone 4 2.5%
Cook 56 35.4%
DeKalb 1 0.6%
DuPage 15 9.5%
Kane 14 8.9%
Kendall 1 0.6%
LaSalle 1 0.6%
McHenry 38 24.1%
Monroe 1 0.6%
Ogle 2 1.3%
Will 3 1.9%
N Percent
Wisconsin Counties
19 12.0%
Kenosha 13 8.2%
Racine 2 1.3%
Shawano 1 0.6%
Walworth 2 1.3%
Winnebago 1 0.6%
N Percent
Other States
3 1.9%
Missouri 1 0.6%
California 1 0.6%
Indiana 1 0.6%
Table 5. Respondents’ Boating Location.

Always Boat at this Location N Percent
Yes 159 51.1%
No 152 48.9%
22
Table 6. Respondents’ Previously Visited Boating Locations Excluding their Current Location.
*Note: Respondents were able to list numerous locations.
If No, where else do you boat? N Percent
Alabama Lakes 1 0.4%
All over the Midwest 1 0.4%
Arkansas Lakes 3 1.2%
California Lakes 1 0.4%
Canadian Lakes 2 0.8%
Everywhere 1 0.4%
Everywhere in a 300 miles radius 1 0.4%
Florida Lakes 1 0.4%
Great Lakes 2 0.8%
Indiana Lakes 2 0.8%
Kentucky Lakes 3 1.2%
Michigan Lakes 3 1.2%
Lake Erie 1 0.4%
Lake Michigan 15 5.9%
Lake Superior 2 0.8%
Illinois Lakes 3 1.2%
Bangs Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Barrington, Illinois 1 0.4%
Bloomington, IL State Park, Illinois 1 0.4%
Busse Woods, Illinois 1 0.4%
Carlyle Reservoir, Illinois 1 0.4%
Chain O' Lakes, Illinois 46 18.2%
Clinton Lake, Illinois 2 0.8%
Deer Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Des Plaines River, Illinois 2 0.8%
Diamond Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Fox Lake, Illinois 2 0.8%
Fox River, Illinois 7 2.8%
Gages Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Grass Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Illinois River 6 2.4%
Lake Elizabeth, Illinois 2 0.8%
Lake Mary, Illinois 1 0.4%
Lake Shelbyville, Illinois 2 0.8%
Long Lake, Illinois 3 1.2%
Loon Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Mill Creek, Illinois 2 0.8%
Nippersink Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Ponds in Grayslake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Rock River, Illinois 1 0.4%
23
Table 6 Continued.
If No, where else do you boat? N Percent
Sand Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Skokie Lagoons, Illinois 2 0.8%
Sterling Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Wonder Lake, Illinois 1 0.4%
Lake Gogebic, Michigan 1 0.4%
Upper Peninsula of Michigan 1 0.4%
Minnesota Lakes 5 2.0%
Mississippi River 6 2.4%
Missouri Lakes 2 0.8%
Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri 2 0.8%
Oceans 2 0.8%
Wisconsin Lakes 36 14.2%
Camp Lake, Wisconsin 3 1.2%
Castle Rock Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Eagle Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Green Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Lake Delavan, Wisconsin 10 4.0%
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin 33 13.0%
Lake St. Croix (Wisconsin/ Minnesota) 1 0.4%
Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Minocqua Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Otter Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Powers Lake, Wisconsin 1 0.4%
Silver Lake, Wisconsin 4 1.6%
Twin Lakes, Wisconsin 2 0.8%
Wisconsin River 3 1.2%
Approximately 48% (47.9%) of respondents correctly identified the definition of an
aquatic invasive species (Table 7). It was further identified that 85.5% of respondents were
“aware” of aquatic invasive species (Table 8) by selecting any survey response other than “I am
not sure what an aquatic invasive species is.” Thirty-eight percent (38.3%) of respondents
thought aquatic invasive species were a moderate problem in Lake County, Illinois while 27%
thought aquatic invasive species were a serious issue (Table 9). Only 9.6% of respondents, felt
aquatic invasive species were not a problem with 12.5% of respondents as a slight problem, and
24
12.5% were unsure of whether aquatic invasive species were an issue in Lake County, Illinois
area (Table 9).
Table 7. Respondents’ Description of Aquatic Invasive Species.

In your opinion, what best describes aquatic invasive species? N Percent
Non-native species that may cause environmental or economic harm. 149 47.9%
Species that are not native to Illinois. 47 15.1%
Any species that reproduce rapidly and crowd out other species. 70 22.5%
I am not sure what an aquatic invasive species is. 45 14.5%
Table 8. Respondents’ Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species.

*Note: Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species includes all definitions of aquatic invasive
species expect “I am not sure.”
Aware of Aquatic Invasive Species N Percent
Yes 266 85.5%
No 45 14.5%
Table 9. Respondents’ Opinion of Aquatic Invasive Species in Lake County, Illinois.

To what extent do you believe aquatic invasive species are a problem in Lake
N Percent
County, IL?
Not a problem 30 9.6%
Slight problem 39 12.5%
Moderate problem 119 38.3%
Serious Problem 84 27.0%
Unsure 39 12.5%
Approximately, 70% (69.5%) of respondents said they took preventative steps to stop the
spread of aquatic invasive species (Table 10). When respondent were asked about the specific
preventative behaviors such as removing plant, animals, and mud from all equipment, 77.2%
said they always performed this behavior with 11.6-11.9% of respondents stating they had never
performed this behavior (Table 11). When asked if respondents drained water from boat (e.g.
live well and bilge) 72.7% reported always performing this behavior while 19.9% had never
performed this behavior (Table 11). If asked specifically about draining water from any
25
recreational gear (e.g. bait buckets), only 37% reported always performing this behavior with
59.8% never performing this behavior. Finally, when respondent were asked if they dried
everything thoroughly with a towel, only 37% always performed this behavior, and 50.2% had
never performed this preventative behavior (Table 11).
Table 10. Respondents’ Self-Reported Participation in Aquatic Invasive Species Preventative

Behaviors.
Do you take preventative steps to stop the spread of aquatic invasive
N Percent
species?
Yes 216 69.5%
No 95 30.5%
Table 11. Frequency of Self-Reported Aquatic Invasive Species Preventative Behaviors.

Please state how often you do Always Usually Rarely Never
each of the following if they
apply. N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent
- Remove plants from all
equipment (e.g. trailer, 240 77.2% 21 6.8% 13 4.2% 37 11.9%
propeller, etc.)
- Remove animals from all
propeller, etc.)
- Remove mud from all
propeller, etc.)
- Drain water from boat (e.g.
226 72.7% 12 3.9% 11 3.5% 62 19.9%
Live well, bilge)
- Drain water from any
recreational gear (e.g. bait 115 37.0% 8 2.6% 2 0.6% 186 59.8%
buckets)
- Dry everything thoroughly
115 37.0% 22 7.1% 18 5.8% 156 50.2%
with a towel
A majority (64.3%) of respondents said they didn’t experience any problems with aquatic
invasive species interfering with their recreational activities (Table 12). However, 68.2% of
respondents expected aquatic invasive species would interfere with their recreational activities in
26
the future (Table 13). In addition, a majority of respondents 71.7% were also aware of the
Illinois’ Boat Registration and Safety Act which states that it is now illegal to enter or leave a
waterbody with aquatic plants or animals attached to your boat or trailer in addition to
prohibiting travel on an Illinois highways with aquatic plants or animals attached (Table 14).
Table 12. Respondents’ Recreational Activities Impacted by Aquatic Invasive Species.

Have you personally experienced any problems related to aquatic invasive
N Percent
species that have interfered with your recreational activities?
Yes 111 35.7%
No 200 64.3%
Table 13. Respondents’ Opinion of Recreational Activities Impacted in the Future by Aquatic
Invasive Species.
Do you think you aquatic invasive species will interfere with your recreational
activities in the future?
N Percent
Yes 212 68.2%
No 99 31.8%
Table 14. Respondents’ Awareness of the Amended Illinois’ Boat Registration and Safety Act.
Are you aware of the amended Illinois’ Boat Registration and Safety Act (Jan.
2013) which states that it is now illegal to enter or leave a waterbody with
aquatic plants or animals attached to your boat or trailer in addition to N Percent
prohibiting travel on an Illinois highways with aquatic plants or animals
attached?
Yes 223 71.7%
No 88 28.3%
For the Clean Boats Crew program, only 26.4% of respondents had seen and were
approached by program representatives (Table 15). Out of the respondents that had seen and/or
been approached by the program, 48.4% had seen them at North Point Marina, with 19.8% at
Chain O’ Lakes, and 4.4% at Waukegan Harbor (Table 16). In addition, many respondents also
reported seeing similar types of programs in other states such as Wisconsin (19.8%), Michigan
27
(2.2%) and Minnesota (1.1%) (Table 16). A majority of respondents (71.9%) reported that they
received educational outreach materials from the program (Table 17). Interestingly, a majority
90.6% reported they were likely to take future actions to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive
species after speaking with a member of the Clean Boats Crew program (Table 18). However,
only 3.9% of respondents reported seeing them on every trip while 6.8% reported seeing them on
most trips, with 10.3% seeing the program on some trips (Table 19). In addition, 66.2% of
respondents reported that the Clean Boats Crew program was extremely important with only
1.9% reporting it was not at all important (Table 20). Finally, 82.6% of respondents were able to
correctly identify the message of the program (Table 21). At the end of the survey, respondents
were asked if they had any suggestions for the Clean Boats Crew program. Table 22 includes a
compilation of all of the Clean Boats Crew suggestions provided by respondents.
Table 15. Respondents’ Awareness of the Clean Boats Crew Program.
Before today, have you ever been approached by the Clean Boats Crew at any
N Percent
public boat launches in Lake County, Illinois?
Yes 82 26.4%
No 229 73.6%
Table 16. Location Where Respondent Saw the Clean Boats Crew Program.
If Yes, where have you seen them before? N Percent
North Point Marina 44 48.4%
Chain O’ Lakes 18 19.8%
Waukegan Harbor 4 4.4%
Skokie Lagoons 1 1.1%
Diversey Harbor 2 2.2%
Round Lake 1 1.1%
Wisconsin 18 19.8%
Michigan 2 2.2%
Minnesota 1 1.1%
28
Table 17. Materials Received from the Clean Boats Crew.
If Yes, have you received any educational materials from Clean Boats Crew? N Percent
Yes 46 71.9%
No 18 28.1%
Table 18. Respondents’ Likelihood to Take Further Action to Prevent the Spread of Aquatic
Invasive Species.
If yes, after speaking with Clean Boats Crew are you likely to take any future
N Percent
action to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species?
Yes 58 90.6%
No 6 9.4%
Table 19. Respondents’ Frequency of Encounter with the Clean Boats Crew.
How often would you estimate that you have encountered the Clean Boats
N Percent
Crew at boat launches in Lake County?
On every trip 12 3.9%
On most trips 21 6.8%
On some trips 32 10.3%
I have never seen them 246 79.1%
Table 20. Respondents’ Opinion of the Importance of the Clean Boats Crew.
Do you think an education and outreach program like the Clean Boats Crew is
important to help spread the word about aquatic invasive species in Lake N Percent
County?
Extremely 206 66.2%
Somewhat 99 31.8%
Not at all 6 1.9%
Table 21. Respondents’ Awareness of the Clean Boats Crew Message.

Which of the following best describes the message of the Clean Boats Crew? N Percent
- To help people clean their boats and equipment at public boat launches. 30 9.6%
- To take regulatory action against boaters and anglers. 17 5.5%
- To educate people about aquatic invasive species and how to prevent their
spread. 257 82.6%
- I do not know what the message of the program is. 7 2.3%
29
Table 22. Suggestions for the Clean Boats Crew Program.
Please identify
• Great. Fine. Good program.
• Someone should be at the boat ramps all the time.
• A booklet or separate sheet of paper in state registration (yearly).
• Make more people aware of this problem.
• Keep doing it! Great job!
• Limit the amount of boats on the waterway.
• Hand materials out. (They didn’t receive any materials from the program.)
• Bigger signs at the boat ramps.
• Boating washing station or hose at boat ramps.
• More signs at the boat ramps.
• More education and outreach. More presence. Demonstrate proper clean techniques.
• Hose to rinse off the boat.
• Targeted education and outreach to minors.
• Presence at the boat launches and ticket violators.
• Flyers and pamphlets at ramps.
• Boat washing station.
• Hand out materials in safe boating classes.
• Classes on aquatic invasive species and more signage at boat ramps.
• More signs and brochures at boat ramps.
• Have picture of the invasive species at the boat ramps.
• More visibility on the rivers and in magazines.
• Presence at boat ramps every weekend.
• Seminars.
• More signs and billboards.
• More visibility to create public awareness.
• More signage at the boat ramps with photos of the invasive species. Billboards.
• More people talking to boaters at ramps and larger signs.
• Mark live well with note to drain every time.
• More ticketing for violations. Have brooms stationed at the boat launches to help clean the
boats and trailers.
• The issue needs more awareness. Laws need to be posted at the boat launches. Signs should
be posted at the entrance of the boat ramps.
• Billboards with photos of the main (important) species and the state laws listed. Signs not to
throw the Round Gobies back into the Lake.
• More signs at the boat ramps with steps on what to do. Boat washing stations.
• More signs with the rules and regulations posted at the boat ramps.
• Sign posting rules and regulations.
• Brochures and pamphlets at the ramps.
• Better signage, larger signs, with better placement of the signs.
• More signs at the ramps with photos of the invasive species to help get people to understand
why this is a problem.
30
Table 22 Continued.
Please identify
• People to help clean your boats at the ramps
• Photos and signs of what can happen if these species invade. “A photo is worth 1000 words."
• More people at ramps talking with people about AIS.
• More signs at the boat ramps. Have signs that face the lake so when you pull into the slips at
the ramp you see them. Or have note painted right onto the docks telling people about AIS.
• More signs on what to look out for and how to prevent it.
• More presence at the boat ramps.
• Boat washing stations or pressure washers at the boat ramps. In addition, to more signage.
• More signs and signs instructing people on how to clean their boats.
• More signs and better location of the signs. Have them “more in your face.”
• Photos of what the AIS look like. Boat cleaning station with equipment to clean off your boats
including brushes and brooms on racks.
• More signs showing what can happen to the ecosystem after AIS has invaded an ecosystem.
• More signs and classes about AIS.
• Multi-lingual signs at the boat ramps.
• More signs with steps on what to do.
• Multi-lingual signs in Spanish, Polish, Russian, and English at the boat ramps.
Hypothesis One Results:
Self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors will be dependent on
awareness of aquatic invasive species (Project Objective 3).
Two hundred and sixteen respondents (69.5%) reported that they took preventative steps
to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species (Table 23). Out of the 216 respondents, 115
(77.2%) were able to correctly identify the definition of aquatic invasive species (Table 23) (X2 =
25.871; p < .001; Cramer’s V = .288). Furthermore, when analyzing respondents combined
aquatic invasive species awareness, 199 individuals (92.1%) reported taking preventative steps
(X2 =24.882; p < .001; Cramer’s V = .283) (Table 24).
31
Table 23. Individuals Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species compared with their Self-Reported
Preventative Steps.
What best describes aquatic Preventative Steps
Total
invasive species? No Yes
Non-native species that may cause
environmental or economic harm. 34 22.8% 115 77.2% 149 100.0%
Species that are not native to
Illinois. 14 29.8% 33 70.2% 47 100.0%
Any species that reproduce rapidly
and crowd out other species. 19 27.1% 51 37.8% 70 100.0%
I am not sure what an aquatic
invasive species is. 28 62.2% 17 37.8% 45 100.0%
Total 95 30.5% 216 69.5% 311 100.0%
2
(X = 25.871; p < .001; V = .288)
Table 24. Individuals Combined Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species to their Self-Reported
Preventative Steps.
Aquatic Invasive Species Preventive Steps
Total
Awareness No Yes
Not aware of aquatic invasive
species. 28 62.2% 17 37.8% 45 100.0%
Aware of aquatic invasive species. 67 25.2% 199 74.8% 266 100.0%
Total 95 30.5% 216 69.5% 311 100.0%
(X2 = 24.882; p < .001; V = .283)
When analyzing specific self-reported behaviors such as remove of plants from all
equipment with combined awareness, 221 respondents (83.1%) always performed this behavior
while only 22 (8.3%) of individuals who were aware of aquatic invasive species never performed
this behavior (Usually 5.3% and rarely 3.4%) (X2 = 34.477; p < .001; Cramer’s V = .347) (Table
25). Similarly, 221 aware respondents (83.1%) reported always performing this behavior of
removing animals from all equipment with 22 individuals (8.3%) reported never performing this
behavior (Usually 5.3% and rarely 3.4%) (X2 = 34.477; p < .001; Cramer’s V = .347) (Table 26).
For removal of mud from all equipment, 220 aware individuals (82.7%) always performed this
behavior with 22 respondents (8.3%) never performing this behavior (Usually 5.6% and rarely
32
3.4%) (X2 =32.789; p < .001; Cramer’s V = .325) (Table 27). When aware individuals were
asked about draining water from boat including their bilge and live wells, 202 individuals
reported always performing this behavior (75.9%) with 16.5% (44 respondents) never
performing this behavior (Usually 3.8% and rarely 3.8%) (X2 =13.635; p = .003; Cramer’s V =
.209) (Table 28). In regards to draining water from any recreational gear (e.g. bait buckets), 106
aware individuals (39.8%) always performed this behavior and 152 individuals (57.1%) never
performed this behavior (Usually 2.3% and rarely 0.8%) (X2 = 7.338; p = .062; Cramer’s V =
.154) (Table 29). The self-reported behavior of drying everything thoroughly with a towel, 91 of
aware respondents (34.2%) always performed this behavior with 136 individuals reported never
performing this behavior (Usually 8.3% and rarely 6.4%) (X2 = 9.026; p = .029; Cramer’s V =
.170) (Table 30).
Table 25. Individuals Combined Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species with their Self-Reported
Behavior of Remove Plants from All Equipment.
Aquatic Invasive Remove Plants From All Equipment
Species Total
Always Usually Rarely Never
Awareness
Not aware of
aquatic invasive 19 42.2% 7 15.6% 4 8.9% 15 33.3% 45 100%
species.
Aware of aquatic
221 83.1% 14 5.3% 9 3.4% 22 8.3% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 240 77.2% 21 6.8% 13 4.2% 37 11.9% 311 100%
(X2 = 37.477; p < .001; V = .347)
33
Behavior of Remove Animals from All Equipment.
Aquatic Invasive Remove Animals From All Equipment
Species Total
Awareness
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
221 83.1% 14 5.3% 9 3.4% 22 8.3% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 240 77.2% 21 6.8% 13 4.2% 37 11.9% 311 100%
2
(X = 37.477; p < .001; V = .347)
Behavior of Remove Mud from All Equipment.
Aquatic Invasive Remove Mud From All Equipment
Species Total
Awareness
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
220 82.7% 15 5.6% 9 3.4% 22 8.3% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 240 77.2% 22 7.1% 13 4.2% 36 11.6% 311 100%
(X2 = 32.789; p < .001; V = .325)
Behavior of Drain Water from Boat.
Aquatic Invasive Drain Water From Boat
Species Total
Awareness
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
202 75.9% 10 3.8% 10 3.8% 44 16.5% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 226 72.7% 12 3.9% 11 3.5% 62 19.9% 311 100%
2
(X = 13.635; p = .003; V = .209)
34
Behavior of Drain Water from Any Recreational Gear.
Aquatic Invasive Drain Water From Any Recreational Gear
Species Total
Awareness
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
106 39.8% 6 2.3% 2 0.8% 152 57.1% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 115 37.0% 8 2.6% 2 0.6% 186 59.8% 311 100%
2
(X =7.338; p = .062; V = .154)
Behavior of Dry Everything Thoroughly with a Towel.
Aquatic Invasive Dry Everything Thoroughly With A Towel
Species Total
Awareness
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
91 34.2% 22 8.3% 17 6.4% 136 51.1% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 115 37.0% 22 7.1% 18 5.8% 156 50.2% 311 100%
(X2 = 9.026; p = .029; V = .170)
Hypothesis Two Results:
The second hypothesis was that the number of years the Clean Boat Crew program was
present at a particular boat launch would be related to the awareness of aquatic invasive species
(Project Objective 4).
Round Lake Beach was the least visited boat launch (1 year) and had the least number of
aware individuals totally 13.9% of respondents (37 individuals). Waukegan Harbor had the
second lowest awareness level with 18.8% of respondents (50 individuals) and was visited by the
program two years. Chain O’ Lakes had second highest awareness level at 30.5% with 81
individuals and was visited by the program three years. Finally, North Point Marina, had the
35
highest awareness level with 98 individuals totaling 36.8% of aware individuals with visits
occurring over a four year period (X2 = 4.511; p = .211; Cramer’s V = .120) (Table 31 and Figure
1).
Table 31. Individuals Combined Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species with the Number of
Years the Clean Boats Crew Program was Present at a Location.
Aquatic Invasive Years Present at a Boat Launch
Species Round Waukegan Chain O' North Point
Total
Awareness Lake Beach Harbor Lakes Marina
Years 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years
Not aware of
species.
Aware of aquatic
37 13.9% 50 18.8% 81 30.5% 98 36.8% 266 100%
invasive species.
Total 45 14.5% 89 28.6% 63 20.3% 114 36.7% 311 100%
2
(X = 4.511; p = .211; V = .120)
Figure 1. Aquatic Invasive Species Awareness at the Four Boat Ramps.

120
98
100
36.8%
81
80
30.5%
Awareness 60
50
37 18.8%
40
13.9%
20
36
Hypothesis Three Results:
The third hypothesis suggested the number of years the Clean Boat Crew program was
present at a particular boat launch would be related to self-reported aquatic invasive species
preventative behaviors (Project Objective 5).
When comparing the number of years the Clean Boats Crew program was present at a
particular boat launch with self-reported steps, North Point Marina, which was visited by the
program four years, had the highest percentage of individuals taking preventative steps 77.2%.
Round Lake Beach boat launch, visited by the program one year, had the least amount of
individuals reporting they took preventative step totaling 60% including 27 individuals
(Waukegan Harbor 54% and Chain O’ Lakes 75.3%) (X2 = 13.659; p = .003; Cramer’s V = .210)
(Table 32). For remove plants from all equipment, Round Lake Beach had 80% of individuals
always performing this behavior with only three individuals (6.7%) never doing this. Waukegan
Harbor had 68.3% of individuals always performing this behavior with 15.9% never removing
plants. Chain O’ Lakes had 77.5% of respondents always removing plants with only 11.2%
never, and finally, North Point Marina had 80.7% of individuals always performing this task
with 12.3% not doing it (X2 = 7.370; p = .599; Cramer’s V = .154) (Table 33).
Round Lake Beach had the second highest percentage of individuals always removing
animals from all equipment (80%) with North Point Marina as the highest with 80.7%
(Waukegan Harbor 68.3% and Chain O’ Lakes 77.5%) (X2 =7.370; p = .599; Cramer’s V = .154)
(Table 34). Similar percentages were seen for always remove mud from all equipment; Round
Lake Beach 80%, Waukegan Harbor, 69.8%, Chain O’ Lakes 76.4%, and North Point Marina
80.7% (X2 = 6.714; p = .667; Cramer’s V = .085) (Table 35). Chain O’ Lakes had the highest
percent of individuals always draining water from their boat with 76.4% and 68 individuals
37
(Round Lake Beach 62.2%, Waukegan Harbor 69.8% and North Point Marina 75.4%) (X2 =
5.714; p = .768; Cramer’s V = .078) (Table 36). When analyzing always drain water from any
recreational gear (e.g. bait buckets) the majority of respondents never completed this task with
71.1% in Round Lake, 66.7% in Waukegan Harbor, 65.2% in the Chain O’ Lakes, and 47.4% at
North Point Marina (X2 = 26.214; p = .002; Cramer’s V = .290) (Table 37). In addition, the self-
reported behavior of dry everything thoroughly with a towel more respondents never performed
this behavior than always performed this behavior (Round Lake Beach 46.7%, Waukegan Harbor
60.3%, Chain O’ Lakes 41.6%, and North Point Marina 52.6%) (X2 = 11.721; p = .229; Cramer’s
V = .194) (Table 38).
Table 32. Number of Years the Clean Boats Crew Program was Present at a Location with
Individuals Self-Reported Preventative Steps.
Years Present at a Boat Preventative Steps
Total
Launch No Yes
Round Lake
1 Year
Beach 18 40.0% 27 60.0% 45 100%
Waukegan 2
Harbor Years 29 46.0% 34 54.0% 63 100%
3
Chain O' Lakes
Years 22 24.7% 67 75.3% 89 100%
North Point 4
Marina Years 26 22.8% 88 77.2% 114 100%
Total 95 30.5% 216 69.5% 311 100%
2
(X = 13.659; p = .003; V = .210)
38
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Remove Plants from All Equipment.
Years Present at a Remove Plants From All Equipment
Total
Boat Launch Always Usually Rarely Never
Round Lake 1
36 80.0% 4 8.9% 2 4.4% 3 6.7% 45 100%
Beach Year
Waukegan 2
43 68.3% 5 7.9% 5 7.9% 10 15.9% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
69 77.5% 6 6.7% 4 4.5% 10 11.2% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
92 80.7% 6 5.3% 2 1.8% 14 12.3% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 240 77.2% 21 6.8% 13 4.2% 37 11.9% 311 100%
(X2 = 7.370; p = .599; V = .089)
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Remove Animals from All Equipment.
Years Present at a Boat Remove Animals From All Equipment
Total
Launch Always Usually Rarely Never
Round Lake
1 Year 36 80.0% 4 8.9% 2 4.4% 3 6.7% 45 100%
Beach
Waukegan 2
43 68.3% 5 7.9% 5 7.9% 10 15.9% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
69 77.5% 6 6.7% 4 4.5% 10 11.2% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
92 80.7% 6 5.3% 2 1.8% 14 12.3% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 240 77.2% 21 6.8% 13 4.2% 37 11.9% 311 100%
2
(X = 7.370; p = .599; V = .089)
39
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Remove Mud from All Equipment.
Years Present at a Remove Mud From All Equipment
Total
Round Lake 1
36 80.0% 4 8.9% 2 4.4% 3 6.7% 45 100%
Beach Year
Waukegan 2
44 69.8% 5 7.9% 5 7.9% 9 14.3% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
68 76.4% 7 7.9% 4 4.5% 10 11.2% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
92 80.7% 6 5.3% 2 1.8% 14 12.3% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 240 77.2% 22 7.1% 13 4.2% 36 11.6% 311 100%
(X2 = 6.714; p = .667; V = .085)
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Drain Water from Boat.
Years Present at a Drain Water From Boat
Total
Round Lake
1 Year 28 62.2% 2 4.4% 2 4.4% 13 28.9% 45 100%
Beach
Waukegan 2
44 69.8% 3 4.8% 1 1.6% 15 23.8% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
68 76.4% 3 3.4% 4 4.5% 14 15.7% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
86 75.4% 4 3.5% 4 3.5% 20 17.5% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 226 72.7% 12 3.9% 11 3.5% 62 19.9% 311 100%
2
(X = 5.714; p = .768; V = .078)
40
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Drain Water from Any Recreational Gear.
Years Present at a Drain Water From Any Recreational Gear
Total
Round Lake
1 Year 10 22.2% 1 2.2% 2 4.4% 32 71.1% 45 100%
Beach
Waukegan 2
20 31.7% 1 1.6% 0 0.0% 42 66.7% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
28 31.5% 3 3.4% 0 0.0% 58 65.2% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
57 50.0% 3 2.6% 0 0.0% 54 47.4% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 115 37.0% 8 2.6% 2 0.6% 186 59.8% 311 100%
(X2 = 26.214; p = .002; V = .168)
Individuals Self-Reported Behavior of Dry Everything Thoroughly with a Towel.
Years Present at a Dry Everything Thoroughly With A Towel
Total
Round Lake 1
17 37.8% 4 8.9% 3 6.7% 21 46.7% 45 100%
Beach Year
Waukegan 2
15 23.8% 4 6.3% 6 9.5% 38 60.3% 63 100%
Harbor Years
Chain O' 3
38 42.7% 8 9.0% 6 6.7% 37 41.6% 89 100%
Lakes Years
North Point 4
45 39.5% 6 5.3% 3 2.6% 60 52.6% 114 100%
Marina Years
Total 115 37.0% 22 7.1% 18 5.8% 156 50.2% 311 100%
2
(X = 11.721; p = .229; V = .112)
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the Clean Boats Crew education and
outreach program and to further understand aquatic invasive species awareness and preventative
behaviors performed by recreational boaters and anglers in the Lake County, Illinois area. This
evaluation will provide managers with insight into the behavior of recreational boaters and
anglers at Lake County, Illinois boat ramps relative to aquatic invasive species. Results of this
41
study showed that 90% of individuals approached by the Illinois and Indiana Clean Boat Crew
education and outreach program were willing to take further action against aquatic invasive
species. In addition, 85.5% of respondents were aware of aquatic invasive species and 92% of
aware individuals took preventative steps to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Discussion of Hypotheses
Hypothesis one was self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors were
dependent upon the awareness of aquatic invasive species (Project Objective 3). Further
analyzing specific preventative steps such as remove plants, animals, and mud from all
equipment, drain water from boat and dry everything thoroughly with a towel were also
dependent upon one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. However, draining water from any
recreational gear was not dependent upon one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. This
result may be due to respondents not having any recreational gear to drain or that they didn’t
have water in their gear to drain. Thus, respondents may have reported that they rarely or never
performed this behavior due to the lack of equipment.
Hypothesis two (Projective Objective 4) was not supported. The number of years the
Clean Boats Crew program was present at a particular boat launch was not related to
respondent’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. There was no significance in awareness of
aquatic invasive species the longer the program was present at a particular boat launch. However,
a trend was observed (Figure 1). The least amount of aware individuals, those who are aware of
aquatic invasive species, were seen at Round Lake Beach with the highest amount of aware
individuals were seen at North Point Marina. This trend shows that there was an increase in
awareness with an increase in the number of years the program was present at a particular boat
42
launch. Further analysis will be necessary to determine whether this trend is statistically
significant or whether other factors were involved.
Hypothesis three (Projective Objective 5) was only partially supported. When
respondents were asked whether they took preventative steps, there was a statistically significant
difference when the Clean Boats Crew program was present at the boat ramps for a longer
period. However, these results were non-significant when analyzing particular behaviors such as
removal of plants, animals and mud from all equipment, draining water from boat, and drying
everything thoroughly with a towel. Similar to hypothesis one (Projective Objective 3) draining
water from any recreational gear was also significantly different than the other preventative
steps. Draining water from any recreational gear was significant for a majority of respondents
never having performed this behavior. As mentioned above, this is thought to be related to
respondents not always having recreational gear to drain.
Clean Boats Crew Discussion
The study showed that a low percentage of respondents reported being approached by
Illinois and Indiana Clean Boats Crew program. In further analysis of the respondents that were
approached by the program, an overwhelming majority received educational materials with over
90% of respondents willing to take action against aquatic invasive species after communicating
with a member from the Clean Boats Crew program. In addition, a majority of respondents
thought it was extremely important to have an education and outreach program to spread the
word about aquatic invasive species. Overall, approached respondents were pleased with the
program and very likely to take action to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
43
Survey findings indicated it may not be necessary for the Clean Boats Crew program to
stay at a particular boat ramp for many years. It would be useful for the Clean Boats Crew
program to choose boat ramp locations that are busy and have a large number of boaters and
anglers. This would allow the Clean Boats Crew program to reach a large audience. The more
people that are aware of aquatic invasive species, the more people participate in preventative
behaviors. In addition, it would also be useful for the program to target areas that have a
population of boaters and anglers that travel to other boat ramps. By reaching out to this group of
recreationists the Clean Boats Crew program would be able to reach a large audience that have
the potential to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species moving from one body of water to
another.
Interestingly, respondents reported seeing the program in Wisconsin, Michigan and
Minnesota. There is not a Clean Boats Crew program in these states. However, these three states
do have similar aquatic invasive species outreach and regulatory programs that are also located at
boat ramps. These results could suggest a few things. As we know, numerous respondents stated
they traveled to many other lakes which increases the possibility of recreationists receiving the
preventative message from other programs, campaigns and organizations. In addition,
recreationists may not distinguish the difference between the various groups and organizations
that contacted them about aquatic invasive species prevention. Essentially, these organizations
could be view as one of the same among recreationists using public boat launches.
General Survey Discussion
During the survey, the field researcher unknowingly approached individuals who had
already completed the questionnaire. This occurred on more than one occasion at multiple boat
44
launches in the study. Due to these occurrences, it could be interpreted that a significant amount
of the population or perhaps a saturation point had been reach in the study. However, this cannot
be determined as a response rate was not calculated.
Specifically, at Waukegan Harbor and the Round Lake Beach boat launches there were
language barriers with some of the survey respondents. Due to this language barrier many
potential survey respondents were unable to communicate with the field researcher and thus not
able to participate in the survey. Respondents that were able unable to communicate with the
field researcher appeared to be of Eastern European descent or Hispanic. These populations are
underserved as they do not have access to aquatic invasive species education and outreach
information. Therefore, it may be beneficial for the Clean Boats Crew managers to develop
educational products and materials in multiple languages so that these populations can have
access to materials.
The field researcher also noted the populations at the boat ramps began to change during
the survey period. In August, the population consisted of recreational boaters and anglers.
However, as the survey continued on into September, the population changed to a more specific
population including sports fishermen and hunters. At the Lake Michigan boat launches
(Waukegan Harbor and North Point Marina) the majority of respondents were salmon fishermen
and at the Chain O’ Lakes boat launch the population shifted to include waterfowl hunters with
their blinds. Due to the period of time the survey was conducted the study may include other
recreationists that are typically not reached by the Clean Boats Crew program.
It was also noted during the study that not all people riding in the boat or participating in
the recreational activity were aware of the practices the boat captain or owner took to prevent the
spread of aquatic invasive species. Frequently, the field research would approach the person
45
holding the boat at the dock while someone parked or retrieved the boat trailer. On more than
one occasion, while the field researcher was conducting the study, the other person with the
trailer would return to the boat and provide different answers to the survey questions. Often these
survey respondents would change responses to favor more preventative aquatic invasive species
behaviors. It was an interesting finding as it was assumed that passengers would have assisted in
the preventative behaviors or perhaps observed the boat owner completing them. This study
highlights that not all recreationists participating in the activity are aware of the preventative
steps the boat owner or captain may take to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Behavior Barriers
When analyzing the self-reported behaviors about 70% of respondents stated that they
took preventative steps to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species. Further analyzing the
frequencies that respondents always did the respective preventative behaviors was also around
70% for all behaviors studied except two. Draining water from any recreational gear and drying
everything thoroughly with a towel were two preventative steps that respondents rarely or never
completed.
Specifically, draining water from any recreational gear was a preventative step that not
every individual respondent could complete. Many respondents did not participate in a
recreational activity that required draining water (e.g. bait bucket). As far as drying everything
thoroughly with a towel, 50% of the respondents never performed this behavior.
In support of hypothesis one, it was determined that one’s behavior was dependent upon
one’s awareness. Therefore, this study suggests increasing audience awareness would be
necessary to change behavior. By increasing awareness of the recreational boaters and anglers,
46
we would expect to see preventative behaviors increase. Respondents offered many suggestions
for the Clean Boats Crew program within the survey. Some of the most frequently mentioned
suggestions were to increase awareness through a larger presence at the boat ramps, construct
larger and more visible signage, and maintain boat washing/cleaning stations with brushes to
clean equipment.
In addition, the ease of completing the suggested steps could also be a barrier for
individuals. During the study respondents anecdotally reported that it was a burden to dry their
boat with a towel. Some reported they dried their boat when they arrived at home, or left it to dry
on its own by either driving down the road or by sitting on a trailer for days. The ease of
completing a preventative behavior affects whether recreational boaters and anglers chose to do
it. Furthermore, respondents seem to be more willing to follow these steps if there are designated
cleaning stations or areas with tools or brushes available to help them complete the preventative
steps.
Study Limitations
One limitation is that a contact log was not used by the field researcher to calculate a
response rate. Therefore it is difficult to conclude whether these results accurately represent the
entire Lake County, Illinois boat ramp population. Also, user demographics at these particular
boat launches were unavailable. Specifically, data presented in this study represented
recreational boaters and anglers using only four of several boat ramps in the county: North Point
Marina, Chain O’ Lakes, Waukegan Harbor, and Round Lake Beach. The study also assumes
that respondents have gained aquatic invasive species knowledge from the Clean Boats Crew
47
program at the four public boat launches studied. However, respondents are also equally likely to
have gained aquatic invasive species knowledge from other organizations and outreach efforts.
Results are also not representative of the entire geographic region the Illinois and Indiana
Clean Boat Crew program operates within, as only a single county was selected for evaluation.
The study period, which was towards the end of the boating season, may have also limited the
available respondents able to participate in the study. However, this period was specifically
chosen to avoid overlap with the Clean Boats Crew program. In addition, weather and lake
condition may also have impacted the available respondents able to partake in the study.
Management Implications
There are many ways that this study can inform management of aquatic invasive species
outreach and the Clean Boats Crew program. This study indicated that preventative behaviors
were related to one’s awareness of aquatic invasive species. Therefore, increased awareness can
lead to an increase in recreationists participating in preventative behaviors. Additional ways to
increase awareness of aquatic invasive species and the visibility of the program at boat ramps
would be to increase signage. Signage at some of the boat ramps was minimal while others boat
ramps had better signage. However, at all the boat ramps in the study there was adequate
signage, though the signs were small and typically located in a place where recreationists were
not focusing their attention. Working with boat ramp managers and owners to determine
placement of signage would be useful and perhaps increase awareness of aquatic invasive
species. It was suggested by survey respondents to place signs or write directly on the boat
docks. Therefore, while recreationists are waiting to retrieve their trailer they can read the
signage. In addition to the location of the signage, increasing the size of the signage would also
48
be beneficial. Many respondents questioned the small signage if aquatic invasive species was
such an important topic. Creating aquatic invasive species outreach materials in numerous
languages, such as Spanish, Russian and Polish, would allow for an increase in awareness of
aquatic invasive species in underserved communities. During the study, there were potential
survey respondents that the field researcher could not communicate with due to language
barriers. Finally, an increased presence of the Clean Boats Crew program at the boat ramps
would further increase the visibility of the program and the issue of aquatic invasive species
prevention. If managers and organizers of the Clean Boats Crew program can work to
acknowledge and implement these suggestions, there is potential to increase awareness and
increase preventative behaviors.
Future Research
Further research is necessary to overcome these study limitations. By expanding the
study area to include a larger geographic region including the entire area in which the Clean
Boats Crew program operates within would allow for better understand of the entire population
served by this education and outreach program. In addition, further expanding the study period to
include more of the Great Lakes boating season (April 1-November 1) or the Clean Boats Crew
season (Memorial Day-Early August) would allow future researchers to gain insight on the larger
population using public boat ramps. Furthermore, by expanding the study period researcher may
be able to reach more groups of recreationists who only participate in their recreational activities
during certain periods of time (e.g. open fishing and hunting seasons). Careful considerations
would have to be made to determine the best way to study the program while it is in operation at
the boat launches.
49
Studying observed behaviors instead of self-reported behaviors would also allow
researchers to get a better understanding of actual behaviors performed by recreationists. It
would also be useful in future studies to add and slightly alter survey questions. In future
research it would be necessary to include a not applicable response when addressing certain
preventative behaviors as not all recreationists have the ability to perform certain behaviors due
to lack of equipment. It would also be very interesting to analyze responses based on what type
of recreational activities respondents participate in.
Addressing some of these study limitations and including them in future research will
allow for the continuation of the study and for the further understanding of the practices of
recreational boaters and the angling community.
50
REFERENCES
Adam, M., Deem, K., and Paap, K. (2009). 2009 SUMMARY REPORT of Round Lake. Lake
County Health Department Environmental Health Services Environmental Services.
Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://health.lakecountyil.gov/Population/LMU/Lakes/Round%2009.pdf.
Arco, P. A. (2013). Chain O' lakes boating article: Charting a course for summer fun. Retrieved
on March 6, 2015 from http://www.lakecounty.org/blog/?p=1786.
Bjorkland, R., and Pringle, C. (2001). Educating our communities and ourselves about
conservation of aquatic resources through environmental outreach. Bioscience. 51 (4), 279-
282.
Carleton-Hug, A. and Hug, J.W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating
environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning. 33,159-164.
Davenport, M., Trushenski, J., and Whitledge, G. (2010). Illinois boaters' beliefs and practices
associated with fish diseases and aquatic invasive species. Department of Forest Resources,
University of Minnesota and Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://www.forestry.umn.edu/sites/forestry.umn.edu/files/FR_IllinoisBoatersFinalReport.pdf
Fox Waterway Agency. (2013). User fee schedule. Handout. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://www.foxwaterway.com/pdfattachments/feeschedule.pdf.
51
Great Lakes aquatic nonindigenous species information system. GLANSIS. (2014). NOAA
Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System. Retrieved on March 6,
2015 from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glansis/glansis.html.
Great Lakes Commission. (2003). Great Lakes recreational boating's economic punch. Retrieved
on March 6, 2015 from http://glc.org/files/docs/2007-rec-boating-economic-punch.pdf.
Great Lakes environmental assessment and mapping project. (GLEAM). (n.d.). Retrieved on
March 12, 2015 from http://www.greatlakesmapping.org/great_lake_stressors/2/zebra-and-
quagga-mussels.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). (2012). United States of America and
Canada. Signed on September 7, 2012. Retrieved on March 12, 2015 from
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glwqa/20120907-Canada-USA_GLWQA_FINAL.pdf.
Heimlich, J.E. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education as a
strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning. 33,180-185.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Chain O' Lakes - State Park - Northeast Region.
Information Webpage. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmgt/parks/r2/CHAINO.HTM.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources. North Point Marina - Northeast Region. Information
Webpage. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
https://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/north_po/INDEX.htm.
Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. (2000). Freshwater nonindigenous species: Interactions with other
global changes. In H.A. Mooney and R.J. Hobbs (Eds.), Invasive species in a changing
world. (3-30). Washington, DC: Island Press.
52
Lake County Government. About Our County. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/AboutOurCounty/Pages/default.aspx.
Leung, B., Lodge, D.M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Lewis, M.A., and Lamberti, G. (2002). An
ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: Bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 269, 2407-2413.
McGlynn, C., Zack, S., and Hilbrich, D.J. (2015). Clean boats crew manual: Guidelines for the
Illinois and Indiana aquatic invasive species volunteer outreach program. Retrieved on
March 6, 2015 from http://www.iisgcp.org/ais/CleanBoatsCrew.html.
Mills, E. L., Leach, J. H., Carlton, J. T., and Secor, C. L. (1993). Exotic species in the Great
Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes
Research. 19 (1), 1-54.
Mills, E. L., Leach, J. H., Carlton, J. T., and Secor, C. L. (1994). Exotic Species and the Integrity
of the Great Lakes. BioScience. 44 (10), 666-676.
Pagnucco, K.S., Maynard, G.A., Fera, S.A., Yan, N.D., Nalepa, T.F. and Ricciardi, A. (2015).
The future of species invasions in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. Journal of
Great Lakes Research. 41 (1), 96-107.
Pasternak, L., and Zack, S. (2013). Evaluations of AIS and Recreational Water User Outreach
Efforts in the Southern Lake Michigan Watershed: Summer 2012 Survey. Retrieved from
the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant offices.
Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
53
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2000). Environmental and economic cost
of nonindigenous species in the United States. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 50
(1), 53-65.
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2004). Update on the environmental and economic
costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52,
273-288.
Ricciardi, A. (2001). Facilitative interaction among aquatic invaders: Is an "Invasional
meltdown" occurring in the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 58, 2513-2525.
Ricciardi, A. (2006). Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in
vector activity. Diversity and Distributions. 12, 425-433.
Rosaen, A.L., Grover, E.A., and Spencer, C.W. (2012). The costs of aquatic invasive species to
Great Lakes states. Anderson Economic Group. East Lansing, MI. Retrieved on March 6,
2015 from http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/Portals/0/upload/AEG%20Report%20-
%20AIS%20Econ%20Impact-Final.pdf.
Rothlisberger, J., Chadderton, W.L., McNulty, J., and Lodge, D. (2010). Aquatic invasive
species transport via trailered boats: What is being moved, who is moving it, and what can
be done. Fisheries. 35 (3), 121-132. Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/InvasiveSpecies/Documents/RothlisbergerETAL10-
Fisheries.pdf.
Seekamp, E. (2012). Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Campaign Evaluation: Focus Groups with
Recreational Water Users in Illinois and Indiana. Retrieved on March 1, 2015 from
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant offices.
54
Snyder, F.L., Brinard Hilgendorf, M., and Garton, D.W. (1997). Zebra Mussels in North
America: The invasion and its implications. Ohio Sea Grant College Program. Columbus,
Ohio. Retrieved on March 12, 2015 from
http://www.iisgcp.org/catalog/downlds_09/zmna_real.pdf.
Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal
of Social Issues. 56 (3), 407-424.
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Harmful non-indigenous
species in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
on March 6, 2015 from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9325.PDF.
United States Census Bureau. (2014). State and county quick facts Lake County, Illinois.
Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17097.html.
United States Geological Survey. (2014). Dreissena polymorpha. Nonindigenous aquatic species
database. Factsheet. Retrieved on March 12, 2015 from
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=5.
United States Geological Survey. (2014). Dreissena rostriformis bugensis. Nonindigenous
aquatic species database. Factsheet. Retrieved on March 12, 2015 from
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=95.
Village of Round Lake Beach. Lake Front park facilities. Retrieved on March 6, 2015
from http://www.villageofroundlakebeach.com/Facilities/Facility/Details/Lakefront-Park-5.
Vander Zanden, J., Hansen, G.J.A., Higgins, S.N., and Kornis, M.S. (2010). A pound of
prevention, plus a pound of cure: Early detection and eradication of invasive species in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 36 (1), 199-205.
55
van Riper, C.J. and Kyle, G.T. (2014). Understanding the internal processes of behavioral
engagement in a national park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief norm
theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 38, 288-297.
Vaske, J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis Application in Parks, Recreation and Human
Dimensions. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Waukegan Port District. Waukegan Harbor your home on the lake. Retrieved on March 6, 2015
from http://www.waukeganport.com/harbor_html/index.html.
Williams, B. D. (2014). Be a hero, transport zero survey report. University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign. Prairie Research Institute. Illinois Natural History Survey. Retrieved on
March 1, 2015 from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant offices.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2014 a.). Watercraft inspection results. Retrieved
on March 1, 2015 from
http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/invasives/WatercraftSummary.aspx?show=efforts.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2014 b.). Clean Boats, Clean Waters Fast Facts.
Retrieved on March 6, 2015 from http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/cbcw/.
Zack, S.A. and Charlebois, P. (2013). It’s the Law. Handout. Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant.
Retrieved on March 1, 2015 from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant offices.
56
Appendix A: Survey – Page One
57
Appendix A (continued): Survey – Page Two
58
Appendix B: Survey Schedule
(Including dates and hours spent at each boat launch)
North Point Marina

Date Hours
Sunday, August 3, 2014 4.5
Saturday, August 16, 2014 3.6
Saturday, August 23, 2014 4
Sunday, September 7, 2014 5.5
Friday, September 19, 2014 3
Total Number of Hours 20.6
Chain O'Lakes State Park

Date Hours
Friday, August 1, 2014 8
Sunday, August 17, 2014 4
Saturday, September 6, 2014 6
Saturday, September 13, 2014 5.5
Waukegan Harbor
Date Hours
Friday, August 22, 2014 2.5
Sunday, September 14, 2014 5
Saturday, September 27, 2014 6
Round Lake Beach

Date Hours
Saturday, August 2, 2014 6.5
Friday, August 8, 2014 3.5
Sunday, September 21, 2014 3
Friday, September 26, 2014 3
59
Appendix C: Giveaways – Be a Hero Sticker
60
Appendix C (continued): Giveaways – Be a Hero Floating Keychain
61

Hilbrich Capstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hilbrich Capstone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hilbrich Capstone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CLEAN BOATS CREW: AN

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAM AIMED AT PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………………...4

JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES...………………………………………………………...9

OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES ………………………………………………………….11

resource stewardship by actively involving individuals in preventing the spread of harmful

species is an important strategy to prevent the continued spread of these organisms.

respond to public concern about aquatic invasive species.

Natural Resources 2014 b.).

(including two locations in Indiana).

Awareness is conceptualized as an antecedent to self-reported behavior, which is defined as

the environment” (Stern 2000; van Riper and Kyle 2014).

in response to outreach efforts. These authors provided a foundation for my conceptualization of

self-reported behavior. Despite a large body of research conducted on public awareness of

• Self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors will be related to awareness

of aquatic invasive species (Project Objective 3).

will be related to self-reported aquatic invasive species preventative behaviors (Project

have established free-living populations” (OTA 1993). Introductions of nonindigenous species,

ecosystem (Ricciardi 2006).

they are very difficult to control.

region by Great Lakes boaters.

as aquarium owners and water gardeners, and commercial transportation. Overland

invasive species into new uninvaded waters by transient boaters.

management such as trying to remove a well-established non-native organism from a large

Therefore, it is necessary to work to reduce the number of invasions (Ricciardi 2001).

to an ecosystem as a result of an aquatic invasive species invasion. Furthermore, it has been

invasion (Leung et al. 2002; Vander Zanden et al. 2010).

as well as preventing their spread.

invasive species message.

Evaluation is a very important component of any type of environmental education and

programming and/or increase understanding”. An extremely important role of evaluations can be

Determining effectiveness of outreach programs can answer many important questions.

program so information can be dispersed more efficiently.

In addition, self-reported preventative behaviors will also be analyzed in the survey.

OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1. Explore the understanding of aquatic invasive species by recreationists accessing waters

in Lake County, Illinois.

program and their messaging.

3. Examine self-reported behaviors in relation to awareness of aquatic invasive species.

launches to recreationist’s awareness of aquatic invasive species.

launches to recreationist’s self-reported preventative behaviors.

launches in Lake County, Illinois.

Harbor (Lake Michigan), and West Loon Lake (inland).

Chain O’ Lakes, and 4) North Point Marina.

restrooms. There is no fee to launch a boat at this location.

large lakes and six smaller lakes (Acro 2013).

2013). There are also one-day and ten-day permits available.

and bathrooms (Village of Round Lake Beach n.d.).

• 1 Year - Round Lake Beach (Inland)

• 2 Years - Waukegan Harbor (Lake Michigan)

• 3 Years - Chain O’ Lakes (Inland)

• 4 Years - North Point Marina (Lake Michigan)

conditions including wave height.

recreationists that visited these ramps during the weekends.

Grant (Appendix C).

recreationists were surveyed at all four public boat launches.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to develop the questionnaire.