Download Seed Transport

Armed Forces Pest Management Board
New Technologies in
Decontaminating Vehicles
Dr. Harold E. Balbach
U.S. Army ERDC-CERL, Champaign, IL
Dr. Lisa Rew, Tyler Brummer and Fred Pollnac
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
What did we do?
What was the focus of these studies?

Two major areas of inquiry
1. Just how many seeds (and other propagules)
can a vehicle carry?
1. i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?
2. How well can we clean vehicles with existing
technology?

Today, let’s talk about them in reverse
order
What did we do?
What was the focus of these studies?

Two major areas of inquiry
1. How well can we clean vehicles with existing
technology?
2. Just how many seeds (and other propagules)
can a vehicle carry?
•

i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?
Ends up being more about NEED for new technology
rather than describing it

But some of this will be new to many people
CONUS vs. OCONUS?


It is clear that the greatest
concerns are for “foreign”
invaders
 Especially those “new”
to the U.S.
These studies concentrate
on issues related to the
spread on invasives we
already have within the
country

Presidential Executive Order 13112
(February 3rd, 1999)
Recognizes invasion by non-indigenous species
(plants & animals) is a global-scale problem,
threatening the ecological integrity of native
communities and ecosystems nationwide.
Sec. 2. Federal Agency Duties.
(i) prevent the introduction of invasive
species;
(ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control
populations of such species in a costeffective and environmentally sound
manner;
(iii) monitor invasive species populations
accurately and reliably;
The Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), also known as
“Tumble Weed” is common
throughout the United Stateshaving invaded about 100
million acres.
Military Dispersal of Invasives
What is the risk here?



Military-facilitated dispersal is a
primary concern because invasive
species or their reproductive
structures can be disseminated
across large areas by vehicles or
other equipment, or on clothing.
This is especially likely during
military training exercises where
equipment and personnel are
moved across large geographical
areas in short periods of time.
Many exercise participants or
war-fighters are unaware of the
potential troublesome conditions
that can arise if organisms are
transported to continental United
States (CONUS) locations.
OCONUS Background Issues


Forces participating in the
exercise Tandem Thrust were
prohibited from entering Australia
until a phyto-sanitation certificate
could be obtained indicating the
ship was free of gypsy moth.
In October-November 1999
snails were discovered on
equipment being transported to
North Carolina on contract ships
Motor Vessel Steven L. Bennett
and Motor Vessel Austral
Rainbow, respectively.
Snails attached to vehicle
Comparative size of snail
DoD First Response to EO 13112
A focus on OCONUS Invasives
 After the first Gulf War, the USDA and
DoD had several confrontations
related to the need to clean vehicles
before they returned CONUS
 In response to the Executive Order,
the Legacy Resource Mmgt Program
funded, and ERDC developed, a
general overview of the current
process that exists to clean, inspect,
and regulate the movement of
invasive species through ports of
embarkation and debarkation.
Stryker unloading at Camp
Arifjan prior to cleaning and
shipment through the port.
Other OCONUS Issues



Some military protocols and
instructional videos for cleaning
and transportation of equipment
focus on materiel that is obsolete
or not currently in the inventory.
The significant monetary and
environmental impact that invasive
species are having around the
world has focused the responses of
many agencies to this problem.
Due to these costs, the pathways
that allow new invasive species to
enter the country are becoming
increasingly scrutinized.
DoD retrograde NOT the only area
being tightened
OCONUS sites may rely on
obsolete cleaning methods
Aircraft prepared at Camp Doha
for shipment through the port.
Some problems with cleaning
prior to retrograde shipment

Time consuming



Labor intensive


May require from 3 or 4 to 40+
person hours per vehicle
Undercarriage Inspection
Water consuming



May require hours or days per
vehicle
Cleaning a unit’s equipment may
take weeks
May use hundreds of gallons per
vehicle
Recycling not commonly
practiced
Health concerns


Non-potable water used
May be gray water or untreated
effluent
Cleaning a Stryker
Naval Surface Warfare Center:
Rapid Deployment Wash Facility
One example of new technology






Developed under contract
from the NSWC for Military
and Homeland Defense
deployments.
The system was designed to
meet the ISO Military
logistics requirements.
Designed for automated and
manual cleaning and
decontamination of vehicles
and equipment.
Could be set up in response
to emergency situations
anywhere in the world within
a few hours notice.
Prototype built and excessed
No follow-up procurement
The Army’s Conventional Tank Bath
(Central Vehicle Washing Facility)
Invasive species were not one of the design criteria
Is the CVWF Adequate?
(To prevent spread of invasives)

Not all locations have a tank bath


Mostly deployed on larger CONUS posts
Reserve and State-operated locations may
not have one
 Usually
located near motor pool, may not
be useful for vehicles moving within post
 Designed to remove soil (surrogate for
seeds)
 Most wash racks lack containment
 Procedures do not address aquatics
Alternatives in Military Washing Equipment
The aftermath of the World Trade Center
terrorist attack created environmental
cross-contamination and track-out
problems similar to those faced today by
most landfills, mines and quarries.


InterClean designed and built the only robotic tank wash
system for Ft. Riley in 1996. The system the most
sophisticated single vehicular wash installation ever
designed and installed.
All of these systems are costly and therefore not widely used. They are NOT
what we are talking about when we talk about Vehicle Washing.
These systems do clean vehicles, but don’t really solve the problem of the
spread of invasive species from place to place within the United States.
Is there a risk from invasive
species within the U.S.?

Remember that Executive Order 13112 is NOT restricted to
risks from outside the country.
Example:
 The US Forest Service has already recognized
invasive species as a potential risk and developed
a means to respond to it.


USFS has instituted rules requiring that vehicles
entering and leaving forest fire management areas
are to be washed to help minimize such transfer
from one National Forest to another.
USFS is using our studies to prepare system
specifications for contracted cleaning of vehicles
moving from one area to another.
Forest Service Response to
Executive Order
Almost every major forest fire
attack plan includes requirement
that all vehicles be washed
going in and out of fire zone
USFS contracts for relocatable
wash systems similar to this
Our CONUS Study
“Evaluating the Potential for Vehicle Transport
of Propagules of Invasive Species”
(Interagency SERDP project - Montana State University PI)
ERDC-CERL
Bozeman, MT
San Dimas Lab
CDF Academy
Project Objectives #1

Acquire data on soil adhering to vehicles driven off
road, and to evaluate several relocatable
commercial vehicle cleaning systems for:



Cleaning system Efficacy – amount of debris removed from
the vehicles and equipment over a certain time period, compared to
total amount of debris that could be removed from them.
Waste Containment – contract system’s ability to contain the
waste from the cleaning system
Seed Viability Effects – number of viable seeds remaining in
the system waste compared to the known quantity of seed each
system processed.
Underlying DoD-relevant Question

Do the findings show the potential need to require
vehicle cleaning when moving between different
CONUS installations?
Evaluated Performance of 5
Commercial Wash Units

Do they meet their design purposes?
1. Remove soil from equipment?
2. Reduce risk of seed transport?

Do different washing systems differ in
performance?
Considerations
 Will
the wash unit accommodate your
goals?






Cleaning efficacy
Water Use
Cost
Seed Containment (most relevant for us)
Five units were compared
Similar basic design
Basic Operation of a Wash Unit
Graphic prepared by SK based on their unit
Other systems similar in design, but differ in some details
(WB 510G Weed Wash Unit)
Copyright 2006, Spika Welding & Mfg Inc
5.Wash
2.After
Staged
settling,
4. effluent
“Overflow”
water
is pumped
stream
pumped
through
is from
deposited
through
Hydrocyclone
2deposited
in
stage
settling
separation
cell
system,
1.
6.water
Processed
effluent
water
isis
pumped
is returned
to
reclaim
holding
mat
cellfiltration
tofor
staging
reuse
cell
3. “Underflow”
heavy
solids
are
separated
and
in
holding
cell
capturing all seeds and smaller particulates 25 microns in size and larger
Test Location – 2007 Study
SDTDC and CERL formed a working partnership with Cal Fire, whose cooperation
permitted researchers to stake out a test course, a travel route, and a solid, paved
cleaning location. All testing took place at Cal Fire Training Center in Ione, CA.
Site

Each system was tested over a separate 5-day
period between 18 June and 27 July 2007.

The test course was laid out in a cleared, open, level
field with little or no vegetation above the surface.

The area had been graded recently, so the surface
was fairly smooth. The soil in the test area is a
Honcut silt loam described by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service as “very deep, well drained
soils that formed in moderately coarse textured
alluvium from basic igneous and granite rocks.”
Vehicles Used
In this USFS-focused phase of the study, three types of vehicles were used:

Wildland (Class 3) Fire
Engines (two were used
for test cycles)

Light 4x4 vehicles (two
pickup trucks and 1 sport
utility vehicle [SUV])

Bulldozer (one Cat D6R
high track bulldozer).
Procedure

Vehicles were cleaned meticulously prior to driving at set speed
around the predefined course and then washed by wash unit.

Wheeled vehicles were driven 15m through a fabricated mud
bog and then 2.75 times around the figure-8 course before
returning them to the washing area on the helipad. Total
distance: 1720m (1.07 miles)

At the end of the process the vehicles were stripped down and
cleaned again to quantify the amount of debris missed by
commercial wash units.

To quantify how much seed was lost in the wash and filtering
system process, a known amount of soil and seed were placed
in a water trough and taken into the wash unit’s filtering system.
Samples were left over-night and filtered according the
individual unit’s protocol. Waste samples were collected and
germination was later recorded at MSU.
Predefined course is prepared
Vehicle drives the course at a set speed
Vehicle is washed by wash unit for 5 minutes
Quantify how much soil was removed by the wash contractor
Vehicles were stripped down and cleaned again
Quantified the amount of debris missed by commercial wash units
Waste samples were collected and
germination was recorded at MSU
Soil Removal – by contractor
Total mass removed for 18 replications

As the test progressed, the vehicles picked up more debris from same
course, apparently related to increases in the amount of water applied to the
course for dust abatement. Therefore, the later contractors had a much
larger mass of debris to remove, in some cases more than 4 time as much.
Soil Removal – by vehicle type
Proportion of total soil recovered
1.0
0.9
0.8
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Proportion
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
4 x 4 & SUV
Class 3 Fire Engines
Dozer
• Proportion of soil removed by vehicle type, for five commercial wash units
• No significant differences within a vehicle type
• Smaller vehicles were more difficult to clean
Cleaning Efficacy




The total (100%) was the amount contractors removed plus that which the
research crew removed in the post wash.
Even the most effective system could not remove more than 88% of debris from
the wheeled vehicles, and the poorer ones only 65%.
If more time had been allowed, the results would likely have been better;
however it was decided to standardize vehicle washes at 5 minutes each to
reflect fire-incident conditions in the field.
This is also approximately the time allocated per vehicle by the Army in its
washing facilities
Seed Viability

Seed viability was tested before the experiment (column 2)
 Soil and seed water retained at the end of the process was placed in cold storage
while transporting the samples from California to the greenhouse, causing a loss of
seed viability which was quantified (column 3)
 The number of seedlings of each species germinating from samples that had passed
through wash units was recorded and corrected for seed viability and loss due to
transport.
 The percent viability lost for each species (column 4) represents the percent of viable
seed of each species lost as a direct result of passing through the wash units.
Are seeds lost in the wash?
• Survival varies greatly by species
• Roughly 80% of seeds are lost when passed through the unit
• These values were used in correcting seed transport estimates
Does seed survival vary by wash unit?
% Seed Kill by Wash Unit
Proportion of Live Seeds Killed
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
AC
ACME
BRC
Wash Unit
LRH
SK
How clean is clean?
(Does it help to wash more than once?)
2007 Study
Percent material removed from a
contaminated truck during five successive
three minute washes, replicated six times.
ANOVA indicates that each successive wash
removes significantly less material than the
previous wash, with the exception of washes
4 and 5 which do not differ in terms of percent
material removed.
2008 Study Expanded from 2007.
Test 1: Applied known quantities of soil and known number of seeds to
undercarriage of a 1 ton truck. Truck was then driven for 1, 2, 5 or 10
miles on unpaved roads at OTA. Was then washed and soil and seeds
bagged for analysis. 5 replicates for each distance.
Test 2: Applied soil and seed mix as in #1. Allowed to dry. Then truck
was washed 1, 2, 4, or 10 times without being driven off the wash pad.
New “How Clean is Clean” Studies
6-9 June 2008 @ Orchard TA, Idaho
Chassis after being mud-loaded
Loading the mud cannon
Recovering debris and seeds
Entering wash pad
How clean is clean?
Is once through good enough?
Percent Removed
Percent Soil Removed for Different Wash Times
1.5
3
6
Wash Time (minutes)
Sort of…one short wash not adequate;
doubling it helps; doubling again adds more effect
Can we get cleaner than clean?
Twice IS better than once; successive washes DO
remove more, but a diminishing return as you continue
39
Results and Conclusions: Obj 1







The best systems removed from 80-90% of soil
from the vehicles.
Some, though, achieved < 70% soil removal
HOWEVER, these were all systems believed to
be the best of their types, with experienced
operators
Re-washing does benefit to a point
Six-minute wash may be optimum for efficiency
USFS has no performance specs, so many of the
systems actually being used by the USFS likely
do not achieve this level of soil removal.
This means large amounts of soil are routinely
NOT removed during cleaning at forest fire sites.
What does this mean?

Do the findings show the potential value of
enforcing vehicle cleaning when moving among
different CONUS installations




There ARE systems available that could be used to remove
soil and other debris from vehicles moved among different
training areas
BUT efficacy is much less than 100%;
The process would reduce the risk of seed transport, but
would not eliminate it
Is this level of removal a great enough benefit to
require inter- (or intra-) installation cleaning
procedures?
Objective 2
Vehicles as Vectors of Seed Dispersal
Seed transport on different types of vehicles
We all know it can and does take
place, but how MUCH is actually
transported?
This is the measure of risk
Previous Studies

Association between non native plants and
roads (Timmins and Williams, 1992; Tyser and Worley, 1992;
Parendes and Jones, 2000; Gelbard and Belnap, 2003)

Seeds found on automobiles (Schmidt, 1989; Hodkinson
and Thompson, 1997; Zwaenepoel et al, 2005)

Seeds dispersed by vehicles (Von der lippe and
Kowarik, 2007)
What information are we missing?
 Control measures
 Dispersal potential as related to vehicle type
 Seeds transported/distance
 Seasonal differences
Back to Basics:
How do seeds move in the environment?
•
•
•
•
•
Wind
Gravity
Natural events
Animals
The human animal
Seed Transport: Military Vehicles
Goal: Evaluate how vehicle type may
influence the potential to transport seeds
 4 Vehicles types evaluated

Tracked, 10-wheeled, 8-wheeled, Hummers
 Real-time
GPS data collected while
vehicles carried out exercises
 Road conditions were dry
 Two locations – MT in 2007, ID in 2008
Limestone Hills Training Area, MT - 2007
2007 study - Limestone Hills, MT
Number of seeds collected per km driven
(Corrected for est. 50% of seed viability lost)
Exercise 1
Exercise 2
Humvees
2.6
0.3
Trucks
1.3
0.5
ATV
1.0
1.4
Percentage of km driven on unpaved roads
Humvees
Trucks
ATV
Exercise 1
95
100
98
Exercise 2
57
17
100
Results: Quantify the number of propagules
transported on different types of military vehicles
Limestone Hills, MT, 2007 Field Study
• ca. 1,000 viable seeds recovered
• 53 species detected
• Dominant species: Verbena bracteata (big bract verbena),
Eragrostis pilosa (Indian lovegrass), Kochia scoporia,
(Kochia), Agropyron trachycaulum (slender
wheatgrass) and Hordeum jubatum (foxtail barley).
• Germination and growth to
stage to identify took 18 months
• Counts finalized Dec 2008
Results: Limestone Hills 2007
Seeds/km driven
Seed per vehicle km driven, Site 1
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
VEHICLE (Paved-:Unpaved-:Off-Road Percentage)
2008 Research Program






Instrumented a combined arms scout platoon from the
163rd Brigade, Montana ARNG
Recorded samples of each vehicle type during a weeklong FTX at Orchard Training Area, Boise, ID
Cleaned vehicles before and after participating in the
exercise
Saved debris removed, and quantified seed recovered
for species and germinability
Mapped terrain where vehicles actually operated as
recorded by GPS, and identified vegetation types
Related seed removal to duration and distance moved
in each vegetation type to develop risk ratings.
Orchard Training Area, ID - 2008
2008 Field Studies
Scout platoon vehicles in line
to be washed post-exercise
Orchard TA, Idaho
10 June 2008
2008 Field Studies
Vehicles being cleaned after an FTX at Orchard TA, Idaho. June 10, 2008
Pre-wash/Postwash
Results: Orchard TA 2008
Summary

Military vehicles do pick up a significant
number of seeds, even in dry conditions, and
early in the growing season
 Amount of seed transported may depend on
vehicle type and road surface
 Other questions:

Is there a maximum seed load vehicles transport?
• Limestone hills 09 – data being analyzed

Does seed load increase with wet road surface?
• Controlled seed loss/gain experiment – planned for
2010
Another Off-road Vehicle Type: ATV
Goal: Evaluate how season and terrain may
influence the potential of ATVs to transport
seeds
 Conducted in Gallatin National Forest
 Real-time GPS data collected while ATVs
were operated
 Trials conducted off-trail and on-trail, late
spring and fall of 2008
Off Trail (Indian Ridge Meadow)
On Trail (Mica Creek)
Methods
(Seed Collection)
ATV
on trail/ off trail
8 loops, 2 miles each,
GPS tracked
ATV
ATV
Collect seed
Repeat 3x for 3 replicates
Repeat again in the fall




Soil material potted
Plants counted and
identified
 AND
Seed material collected
from mat
Weighed, subsampled,
seeds identified and
total seed numbers
estimated
Results
Season
Treat
Total
Native
Exotic
Noxious
spring
off
80,911
907
79,508
18
spring
on
1,018
69
789
0
fall
off
266,720
21,857
158,327
753
fall
on
18,891
1,420
14,749
4
Average number of seeds collected per rep (48 miles of ATV travel)
Summary

ATVs are capable of picking up large amounts of
seed
 More seed picked up off-trail than on-trail
 More seed picked up in fall season that late
spring/early summer
**Our off trail area was very rich in seed material
 Other Questions:


How far are seeds transported?
What about horses, mtn. bikes, people, and animals?
Overall Conclusions

Significant CONUS risks exist
 Wash units do remove soil and plant material

Seed disposal practices need more care

Not clear how good BMPs really are
 Vehicle type plays a role in the amount of seed
moved



Season has a big effect on seed movement


Tracked vehicles have greater potential
Any off-road vehicle has high risk
There are high-risk seasons
Other studies could assist in quantification
Acknowledgements
 DoD
Sustainable Environment & Research
Development Program (SERDP) SI-1545
 Montana Noxious Weed Trust Fund Grant
number 2008-005
Thank You!
Questions?