Personal Watercraft facts from seadoo and pwc austraila

FACTS

Recent articles in newspapers have presented a

negative and biased position on PWC’s.

This is a synopsis of issues relating to PWC’s to

provide the facts from research projects in the

United States and actions in Australia.

·                  Pollution

·                  Water Quality

·                  Air & Water Testing

·                  Sound

·                  Water Fowl

·                  Seagrasses

·                  PWC Operation & Riders

·                  Education V’s Bans

·                  Myths & Facts

December 2000

Compiled by: 

H. Derricks, Heytrack Australia.

Pollution                                                         3

Water Quality                                                 4

Sound Emissions                                            5

Water Fowl                                                    9

Seagrasses                                                      9

Who rides a PWC?                                       10

Education V’s Bans                                      11

Myths & Facts                                              12

Summary                                                      13

Introduction

When Personal Watercraft (PWC) were first introduced in the late 1970’s they were mainly the single rider ‘stand up’ designs used predominantly by young men. Much has changed over the past 25 years with new environmentally friendly engine technology and 2-4 seater designs moving the PWC into a wider user group.

Today over 90% of PWC’s manufactured target the 2-3 seater markets comprising young families and professional adults.

Unfortunately there are those groups that rely on out dated information and/or studies to support their push to restrict or even exclude PWC’s from certain areas. The following information provides the latest details available giving a balanced perspective on the effects PWC’s have on the environment and about the users as well.

Given this information there is no doubt that PWC’s have very little impact on the environment and even less when compared to other marine vessels or pollution from industry, cars, oil from streets and storm water drains and even wildlife that live and breed on our water ways.

FACT:

From an environmental stand point, PWC’s have significantly less impact than many other powerboats. In fact, the design of PWC gives them many environmental advantages over other types of powerboats.

·         Very small wake compared to other boats

·         No propeller

·         Exhaust at the water line – outboard engines churn exhaust into the water

·         Jet propelled to reduce impact on sediment or aquatic plant life

·         Fuel injection to reduce emissions

Pollution

CLAIM:

A two hour ride on a 100Hp PWC emits as much pollution as driving the average motor car 220,000 km.

FACT:

The data cited from Coastcare Australia is from the California Air Resources Board and were based on tests done on old technology personal watercraft of the early 1990's that had no regulations compared with state of the art automobiles specially developed for the California market that had 20 years of EPA regulations.  Since then the US Environmental Protection Agency adopted rules that phase-in substantially reduced emissions for all marine engines by 75% in 2006.  PWC manufacturers are all meeting or exceeding the US EPA requirements.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

In 1996, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined marine engine emissions in the hopes of regulating them and cutting the amount of hydrocarbon emissions in the country.  They found that all marine engines combined account for only 3 percent of the total hydrocarbon emissions in the U.S. (PWC’s a small percentage of this group), Automobiles account for 33 percent, non-road sources 7 percent, and industry accounts for 57 percent.  They also found that the impact of the exhaust from marine engines on the water was not large enough to warrant additional regulations.

With the ongoing fleet conversion to these new technologies, recreational emissions will soon be as low as 1-2% and PWC’s being a very small % of that.

Water Quality

There has been a lot said about personal watercraft (PWC) with regards to air and water quality. Almost all the claims suggest that the two-cycle engines that power PWC are somehow different from those in 99 percent of the outboard engines currently in use. They are not - there is no meaningful difference between similarly powered two-cycle engines in PWC or in an outboard.

Although certain special interest groups claim that PWC are the major source of air and water pollution, scientific studies prove those claims to be false.

Air & Water Quality Testing

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined marine engine emissions in 1996. At that time, the EPA desired to regulate marine emissions in order to cut the amount of hydrocarbon emissions in the country. The EPA found the following:

All marine engines account for only 3 percent of the total hydrocarbon emissions in the United States. Automobiles account for 33 percent, gardening equipment and other non-road sources for 7 percent and other sources including industry account for 57 percent.

The impact of the exhaust from marine engines on the water was not large enough to warrant additional regulations to address water quality.

The EPA found that two-cycle engine emissions did not have a great effect on the marine environment because any fuel that did mix with the water quickly evaporated afterwards. It did not remain in the water and did not form "oil slicks" or films on the water. While it is true that some unburned fuel does pass through two-cycle engines, this fuel is in a gaseous state and is superheated by the combustion process. The fuel is not "dumped" or "spilled."

Recent water testing confirms the EPA findings. Below are the most recent water tests on PWC.

1. 1997: Anaheim, California
In August 1997, the IJSBA held a three-day PWC race on an artificial lake constructed in Anaheim, California. The man-made lake was filled with 14 million gallons of Orange County drinking water. In order to use the water, a $250,000 bond was placed to guarantee that the water would be returned unspoiled.

After an intense regimen of water testing, all the water was returned and the bond money was refunded. The water showed no trace of fuel.

2. 1999: Donner Lake, California

Reacting to Lake Tahoe's recent two-cycle restrictions, the Town of Truckee, nestled in the Sierra Nevada Mountains only a few minutes from Tahoe, decided to propose a PWC ban on nearby Donner Lake. The proposal stemmed from a fear that with Tahoe "closed" to PWC, boaters who couldn't get onto Tahoe would soon overrun Donner Lake. In order to adopt the rule, they approved water testing to show that two-cycle engines were harming the lake.

The tests were conducted on July 6th, after the July 4th weekend, traditionally the busiest boating weekend of the year. As with the results of the Anaheim PWC race, the test showed no trace of fuel components.

3. 1999: Canandaigua, New York

Canandaigua Lake, one of the popular Finger Lakes in upstate New York, was the site of the second annual Toyota/Sea-Doo Challenge PWC race. The race lasted two days, with over 100 participants.

Water testing was conducted prior to, during, and after the race by the City of Canandaigua. While the results showed an increase in fuel components in the water during the race, testing only three days later at the identical sites showed a "dramatic decline" in the components. The study showed that the fuel quickly left the water, just as the EPA's research had. The tests at Canandaigua further bolstered what the EPA already knew: that two-cycle engines did not have a significant impact on water quality.

In 1996, the manufacturers of marine engines agreed with the EPA to reduce engine emissions. By 2008, the recreational watercraft fleet (including PWC) will show a 75 percent reduction in emissions. In California, the California Air Resources Board stepped up the strict EPA rules by five years. But the PWC manufactures are not waiting until the last minute. In 1999, five PWC were already available with reduced emissions (at least one model meeting EPA 2006 emission standards). The 2000-1 model years promise to offer even more new technology, Iow emission two-cycle PWC.

Sound Emissions

According to the standard Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) tests done for the New Jersey Marine Police, PWC are just as well within the range of noise levels as other small motorized vessels (80 decibels or less, measured at 50 feet from the boat, at wide open throttle).

Tests also show that PWC are often quieter than many boats on the water.

Sound level measurements were conducted as a part of the recent studies conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Sound was measured at a range of distances from both an outboard-powered boat and a PWC. The PWC was significantly quieter than the outboard-powered boat at all distances.

In fact, in three out of the five distances that sound was measured, the PWC produced less than one-half the sound intensity of the boat.

Nevertheless, the industry has responded to critics' demands for quieter watercraft. New technology has enabled manufacturers to develop 2000 watercraft that are 50 - 70 percent quieter than similar 1999 models.

All watercraft now have decibel readings far less than 80 decibels.

The bottom line of all existing sound research is that solely restricting or banning PWC will not alleviate potential environmental impacts caused by boating noise. If there are concerns about boating sound levels on area waterfowl and marine life, then impacts from all boats should be considered and studied - not just personal watercraft.

* dBA: This is a measurement of sound approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. It is used to note the intensity or annoyance level of sounds.

** "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety." EPA 550/9-74-004, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 1974

*** SAE J1970: Shoreline Sound Level Measurement Procedure. This procedure was developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers for the specific purpose of measuring boat noise at the shoreline of recreational boating areas.

Two PWC operating 50 feet from an observer on shore are actually quieter than
1 open exhaust speed boat operating at over one half mile from the shore.

Four PWC operating 50 feet from an observer on shore are only 77 dBA and are actually quieter than one open exhaust power boat operating 1,600 feet from the on-shore observer. The fact is, it would take up to 16 PWC operating at 50 feet from shore (83 dBA) to equal the intensity of sound emitted from one open exhaust boat at 1,600 feet (82 dBA).

Pass-by Sound Level Measurement for Various Types of Boats 1995

These test were conducted before the introduction of noise reduction technology now found in majority of PWC’s

Results of sound level measurements performed for the New Jersey State Police.

Personal Watercraft were among the quietest boats measured in this test. Sound was measured as "dBA", which approximates the sensitivity of the human ear and is used to note the intensity or annoyance levels of sound.

What's all the Noise About Decibels?

Noise is measured in units called the decibel {usually on the "A" scale - dB(A)} which is a measure of how loud the noise sounds. Sounds perceived by the human ear range from zero on the decibel scale (the quietest sound the human ear can detect) to about 120 dB, where the noise is so intense that it becomes painful.

One of the most important things you will need to remember about the decibel scale is that when the sound level increases 10 dB, the perceived "loudness" of the sound doubles. So an increase of just a few "dBs" represents a rather large change in the perceived loudness of the sound.

Water Fowl

Some environmental interest groups contend that sound from PWC operation is more disruptive to waterfowl and other marine animals than other forms of recreation boating.

While there is no scientific data to support this contention, there is evidence that all recreational boating, including sailing, can disturb waterfowl. Research by Sutcliffe (1979) noted that there was a 50 percent decline in the numbers of New Hampshire lakes used by the Common Loon from 1929 to 1979. This occurred prior to any PWC use on the lakes. Another study by Tuite, Hanson and Owen (1984) on 384 lakes in Great Britain found the highest negative effects on waterfowl from fishing and sailing.

More recently, scientists with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have conducted extensive studies of the reactions of birds to various types of human disturbances.

In the most recent study, birds were exposed to approaches by an outboard motorboat and a PWC. The scientists report that of the 17 species of birds they investigated, 11 species showed no significant difference in flush (movement due to approaching noise) distances between the approach of an outboard-powered boat and a PWC. In fact, the researcher reports that,

"Despite their reputation for noise and wildlife disturbance, the direct approach of a PWC rarely elicited a greater flush distance. Rather, when there was a significant difference in the flush distance, the conventional outboard-powered boat most often exhibited the larger flush distance." In fact, five of the six species (83 percent) studied exhibited larger flush distances to the outboard-powered boat.”

Furthermore, objective tests do not support the contention that PWC are noisier than other motorized boats.

Seagrasses

Because personal watercraft are jet-powered, they have minimal impact on seagrasses, marine mammals, fish and other aquatic life.

Although the small draft of the PWC allows it to operate in shallower water than other boats, PWC users aviod intentionally operating in grassy or extremely shallow areas as the grass or other debris can cause serious engine damage when sucked into the engine, leaving the operator stranded.

Study

In 1997, Continental Shelf Associates, conducted a study to assess whether personal watercraft, when used in water depths of two feet or more (as recommended by the manufacturers), harm seagrass beds or other shallow water species associated with the seagrass community. Data collected during this study indicated that no statistically significant differences in the abundance of seagrasses or other bottom dwelling life were found following intensive personal watercraft operations.

PWC Operation

While most PWC owners operate their craft in a responsible, environmentally friendly manner, certain operators may use their vessels irresponsibly. This type of behavior, however, is also seen in traditional boaters as well.

In virtually every community, laws currently exist which prohibit such irresponsible behavior. We strongly supports strict law enforcement to protect all wildlife from the negative impacts of all boaters.

Who Rides a PWC?

Up to the late 1980's,

Personal watercraft (PWC) were a small portion of the recreational motorized consumer products business. One-passenger craft dominated the market and appealed largely to young men.

The 1990’s saw a big change in the design of personal watercraft. Two-, three-, and most recently, four-passenger models entered the marketplace and have almost completely replaced the one-passenger model in popularity.

In fact, multi-passenger models make up over 97 percent of new PWC sales. The introduction of these multi-passenger models changed the face of the typical PWC owner. Personal watercraft have now become the vessel of choice for many families nationwide.

A recent study conducted by Bowe Marketing Research (USA), revealed

·                71% of personal watercraft owners are married with families

·                62% have access to a waterfront home.

·                65 % of those surveyed had at least three years' experience riding a PWC

·                over 60% of the owners indicated they had owned a powerboat of some type prior to buying their first personal watercraft.

The average personal watercraft owner is a middle-aged, highly educated, white- collar worker with considerable boating experience.

Are PWC’s Dangerous?

United States
Alexandria, Virginia

A new survey by the US Coast Guard, which compares fatalities with the hours of boat usage, found that canoeists and kayakers have the highest fatality rate among recreational boaters. The fatality rate, 42 deaths per one million hours on canoes and kayaks, is almost twice that of those on personal watercraft (24 per one million hours), and almost four times higher than open motorboats (14 per one million hours).

The comparison of fatalities with hours of boat usage adds a new dimension to boating accident statistics, said Elaine Dickinson, managing editor of BOAT/U.S. Magazine. Only 2 percent of boaters surveyed had taken a boating safety class in the last year, while 19 percent took one more than 10 years ago and 66 percent had never taken a boating class, the survey said. The survey also found that motorboats are the most common type of boat owned, followed by canoes and kayaks.

Education V’s Banning PWC’s

PWC, like any other motor vehicle, are only as dangerous as the operator.

In the U.S. rider's efforts, along with the PWC industry association have created boating education laws in 24 states.

The AWA supports mandatory boater education in all states, especially for PWC operators. It has been shown that education is the key to reducing accidents.

Some examples of how boating education has helped reduce accidents:

·     Utah: 72% decrease in accidents ('98 vs. 95). Boat registrations increased during the same period by 30%.

·     New Jersey: 24% decrease in accidents ('98 vs. '97)

·     Florida: 12% decrease in accidents ('98 vs. '96). Registrations increased by over 30% during the same period.

·     Kansas: 16% decrease ('98 vs. '97). Registrations increased by 11.5% over the same period.

Australia

In Australia a pilot ‘Courtesy Rider Education’ program was introduced in 1999 and continued into 2000 with the Water Police, Marine Board, Parks Victoria and Sea Doo sponsoring the project. A team of four toured potential and reports ‘hot spots’where complaints about PWC operation had been made. The results were overwhelming in reducing the behaviour of riders with many stating they “did not know the rules” and did not know the areas where speed restrictions were in place.

Existing boating laws and regulations are adequate to protect wild life, swimmers and water way users from the wide variety of recreational boaters.  The information above demonstrates clearly that to focus attention onto PWC’s is biased and without the most elementary of research into the associated problems.

A PWC is a Recreational Boat.

Captain M.F. Holmes, Chief of the Coast Guard's Office of Boating Safety, clearly stated that PWC were in fact boats.

"In spite of at least three calls from members of your organization (i.e. Bluewater Network) trying to qet me to concur that PWC were not boats, I repeatedly stated that they were as much a boat or a vessel as a ski boat or any other boat."

Captain Holmes went on to explain that according to federal law, "The word "vessel" [a replacement for the word "boat" in federal regulations] includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.(1 U.S.C. 3) A Personal Watercraft would fit this description and is therefore a vessel."

Federal law defines the word "motor vessel" as "a vessel propelled by machinery other than steam." (46 CFR 2101(16)) As Captain Holmes pointed out in his letter, no current PWC models are steam powered and therefore, are "motor vessels" like any other boat.

More Myths & Facts

Myth: Personal watercraft owners are young, immature and irresponsible.

Fact: The typical personal watercraft owner is a middle-aged, highly educated and successful business person. The average age of personal watercraft owners surveyed is 41 with two-thirds of the respondents over 35. The majority of the owners (71%) are married with families. Forty one percent have children under 18 living at home. Three-fourths of those surveyed (77%) are employed in white-collar occupations with more than two-thirds (69%) having some college education and 40 percent having at least a four-year college degree. The average household income is more than $95,000.

Myth: Personal watercraft owners aren't the operators of the vessels.

Fact: By a wide margin (about 73% of the time), the person who owns the personal watercraft is the operator of the vessel.

Myth: Personal watercraft owners have little boating experience.

Fact: Typically, personal watercraft owners have substantial boating experience. More than two-thirds (68%) of the survey respondents indicated they had owned a powerboat of some type prior to buying their first personal watercraft. In addition, respondents indicated they have an average of 15 years' experience operating a powered watercraft of any type. Younger operators (24 years or less) have an average of six years' experience.

Myth: Personal watercraft owners have little concern for waterfront homeowners.

Fact: Actually, the opposite is true, since many personal watercraft owners are waterfront homeowners. Sixty-two percent of respondents surveyed have access to a waterfront home whether it is their primary home (15%), a second home they own or rent (27%) or a home of a close friend or relative (26%).

Myth: Personal watercraft owners most often use their vessels for reckless wave-jumping and speeding on public waterways.

Fact: Fifty-nine percent of the personal watercraft owners are really not interested in any type of intense physical activity when using their watercraft, but are more likely to use them for short cruises (62%), to cool off and get wet (62%) and to entertain visiting friends or family (61%).

Myth: Personal watercraft owners have little concern for responsible boating.

Fact: On the contrary, most personal water-craft owners are responsible boaters. A majority of survey respondents favor mandatory education for boaters, and believe it ensures better knowledge of boating regulations. In fact, the PWIA was the first marine industry organization to promote mandatory education for PWC operators. In addition, personal watercraft owners are more likely than traditional boat owners to wear their personal flotation devices, which results in fewer accidental drowning deaths.

In Summary

The information and data found in the above research leaves no doubt about the Facts of Personal Watercraft and the minute effect they have on the environment.

Despite this there are those that will try and promote a biased and negative position on PWC’s in the hope that someone will listen. These protagonists have been proven wrong as the facts speak for themselves.

The PWC manufacture

rs have spent millions of dollars ensuring the products they produce are the best for the environment and the thousands of users around the world. They will continue to meet and exceed EPA standards and looks forward to the day other industries can follow the excellent achievements made in such a short time.

This leaves one remaining opportunity for PWC’s to be criticized and this is from a behavioural perspective where some riders are exceeding speed limits. All responsible authorities have established safe boating speed zones in areas of high density activity. All manufacturers support the very successful education programs to curb such activities. Again this has been proven a more successful approach than descriminating against the 99% of PWC users that do the right thing.

Enforcement of existing laws by local authorities will ensure safety issues regarding speed are dealt with appropriately and EPA standards already in place will ensure PWC’s co exist with the environment.