Protect Our Precious Waterways Brief

7/28/2019 Protect Our Precious Waterways Brief

1/13

Protect Our Precious Waterways:Stopping the Invasion

December 8, 2011

1

Quagga Mussels

Photo credit: USFWS

Zebra Mussels

Photo credit: USFWS

Executive Summary:

We, The Utah Society for Aquatic Protection (USAP), find ourselves extremely

dissatisfied regarding Utahs current invasive species management policy, specifically

concerning the lack of prevention measures to halt the zebra and quagga mussel

invasion. This policy brief is written in order to bring our concerns to Utahs

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the hopes of changing the status quo.

Utahs waterways have significant agricultural, historical, cultural, and recreational

significance. We believe that the DNR must take further action in order to preserve

Utahs waterways for the enjoyment of future generations. If the DNR fails to take

action, they will fail in their attempt to prevent the spread of these devastating

species. Such a failure will inevitably result in devastation to Utahs economy,

recreation, and tourism this must be prevented. We reccomend implementing a

comprehensive monitoring, inspection, education, and boater registration system in

order to halt the invasion.


2/13

I. Context and importance

One consequence of the incredible mobility of humans is the spread of invasive species.

Since we as a people are constantly on the move, we create endless opportunities for non-native

species to hitch-hike their way into our ecosystems and waterways. Zebra and quagga mussels

are one example of an aggressive invasive species. They have the ability to choke out native

species, cause severe problems for recreation and infrastructure, and threaten precious local

waterways. This is a problem that Utahns must solve before our waterways become infected

beyond repair.

Zebra and quagga mussels originated from Eurasia and eventually made their way to the

United States in 1989 by way of ship (Department of the Interior National Atlas, 2011). Ever

since then, these species have been threatening the waters of the United States, reproducing and

spreading like wildfire. A large percentage of waterways in the eastern United States are now

contaminated beyond repair. As these invasive mussels are filter feeders, they drastically deplete

the food and resources naturally utilized by native mussels, aquatic organisms, and fish. As

native fish and mussel populations are depleted, more algae grows because of the newly filtered,

cleaner water. As a consequence, the entire natural food web, and entire ecosystems are

permanently altered (Department of the Interior National Atlas, 2011).

Quagga and zebra mussels also cause damage to any infrastructure that is drawing water

from an infected waterway. The mussels attach themselves onto anything solid, including pipes.

Since they grow in extremely dense groups, they easily clog water intakessimilar to

cholesterol clogging a human artery. Infrastructure owners drawing water from infected waters

2


3/13

are forced to pay a significant amount every year to remove these mussels. They also cause

problems with fishing and recreation; when water in reservoirs gets low in the summer, the

creatures are exposed and rot, creating a foul smell and cutting the feet of beach

comers (Havnes, 2011).

Utahs Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the umbrella agency responsible for

managing invasive species throughout Utah. The Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) is the

primary division responsible for the control of aquatic invasive species. According to the DNR

and DWR, there has not been a large outbreak of these mussels in Utah. Most of the infected

waters are located in the eastern United States, Canada, and some of the West Coast. However,

the mussels spread very quickly, and one waterway in Utah has been reported to have invasive

mussels, In Utah, Sand Hollow Reservoir in Washington County is the only body of water that

is listed as infested after one of the mussels was discovered there (Havnes, 2011). Infested

means that juvenile or adult mussels are present and a preliminary species confirmation is made

by two recognized experts either examining the specimen or suitable photos, followed by

confirmation via one molecular (DNA) method (DNR, 2011).

However, there are two additional lakes in Utah where the mussels have been detected.

Detected means that no juvenile or adults mussels are present but a plankton tow net sample

evidences a preliminary finding of veligers by microscopy (FlowCam or cross-polarized

microscopy followed by light microscopy) and the finding is confirmed by at least two

independent molecular (DNA) methods (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2011).

3


4/13

In 2008 Electric Lake, located in the southeastern region of Utah, was updated to

detected status and remains in that classification today. Red Fleet Reservoir, located in the

northeastern region of Utah, was also listed in the detected stage. Both Electric Lake and Red

Fleet Reservoir are currentlybeing assessed to be declassified from "detected" to "inconclusive,"

since no further evidence for presence of invasive mussels has been measured for three years

since discovery. If the classification change is made, both waters will be managed in the

inconclusive status for at least the 2012 and 2013 boating seasons, as long as survey results

continue to not detect quagga or zebra mussels (DNR, 2011).

Clearly, mussels are starting to show their presence in Utah. These invasive species must

be prevented from taking over Utahs waterways and destroying our gorgeous recreational areas.

Zebra and quagga mussels cause nothing but grieffor wildlife officials, waterway user groups,

and entire ecosystems.

Benjamin Franklin once stated, An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This

well-known advice echoes the understanding that it is much better to forestall a disaster than to

attempt to deal with that disaster once it has already struck. Every penny spent in prevention will

be amplified exponentially in the result. Once mussels have invaded, there is very little that can

be done. Because many waterways in the eastern United States are now infected beyond repair,

the managers of those waters have no choice but to simply deal with the effects. They spend

millions of dollars every year to replace and repair infrastructure and witness their pristine

ecosystems being permanently altered. This must not happen to Utahs waters! Utahs current

policy must be amended promptly in order to prevent imminent disaster.

4


5/13

II. Description and critique of the pre-existing policies or programs

a. Utahs current policy

Utahs written policy takes a very basic approach to preventing the invasion and spread of

zebra and quagga mussels throughout the state. The key actions involved in the current policy

include planning and implementing interdiction and containment efforts to prevent infestation,

assisting with monitoring efforts to document the absence or presence of mussels, public

education to increase awareness of the impacts of mussels, training conservation officers to help

monitor and control visitor use, and intergovernmental cooperation (DWR, 2007).

The Utah DWR has a recommended course of action for all boaters recreating on Utahs

waterways. According to the invasive species section on the DWRs site, all boaters should clean

mud, plants, animals, or other debris from their boat and equipment; drain the ballast tanks,

bilge, livewells, and motor; and dry (7 days summer, 18 days spring/fall and 30 days in the

winter) or freeze (3 days) their boats. Boaters are asked to be prepared to fill out a

decontamination certification form (DWR, 2011). The completion of the form and the

decontamination process are referred to as self-certification by the DWR.

Utahs approach has a number of frightening disadvantages. First, all methods of

prevention are based on an honor system and have little enforcement. The decontamination

segment of the DWRs website makes it clear that decontamination is barely more than highly

recommended. Individuals planning on launching a boat simply have to fill out a paper check-list

indicating that they cleaned and checked their boat (DWR, 2011). Unfortunately, it would be

quite simple to check off each requirement without having actually completed the

5


6/13

decontamination. Second, Utahs approach is not very aggressive. The current management

policy requires that Utah inspects and monitors its waterways, educates the public, and trains

conservation officers. The policy does not require that Utah prevent the invasion in the first

place (DWR, 2007). This is clearly proved by the fact that the flawed method of self-certification

is the only method employed by the State of Utah to block the entrance of the mussels.

Other states attempts at halting or reversing the invasion

Other states are also faced with these persistent invasive species. The state of Colorado

has been fighting zebra mussels for several years. Colorado has already been infested with Zebra

mussels and has approached the idea of reversing the invasion from a few different directions.

One method employed at some locations involved divers removing the zebra mussels by hand.

Clearly, this would only be effective if there was a finite, localized population of mussels.

Officials at Lake Pueblo, one of Colorados major recreational lakes, emphatically state that this

plan would not be plausible for them.

Colorado has also contemplated other methods of removal at Lake Pueblo. One proposed

method of removal is a drawdown. Basically, a drawdown lowers the level of the water in the

lake. A drawdown of the lake is a great idea [but] it has a low probability for success. Legal

implications of the drawdown are complicated and no lake in the country has successfully

eradicated zebra mussels via drawdown (Colorado State Parks, 2008).

Another of Colorados attempts to prevent the further spread of mussels was to

implement mandatory boat inspections. When the watercraft come back to the ramps to leave, all

of the boats that were on the lake for less than 24 hours need to be inspected to ensure that they

6


7/13

are fully drained. Boats that were on the lake longer than 24 hours need to be inspected for live

mussels and any boats found to have mussels will be decontaminated at wash facilities (Pueblo

response plan 2008).

As one of the many infected states on the East Coast, Virginia took a very drastic measure

in order to effectively rid a small lake of mussels. They pumped 174,000 gallons of potassium

into the Millbrook Quarry over a three week period from January 31 to February 17. The solution

was delivered each morning to the site, and then pumped into the Millbrook Quarry along

transects established throughout the quarry which resulted in complete eradication of zebra

mussels in the Millbrook Quarry (Millbrook Quary Zebra, 2011). However, there is clearly

potential for negative environmental impacts following the implementation of this method.

The approaches of other states indicate that once these species have invaded, there is no

chance of reversing the damage. Colorados approaches clearly have not worked, as is evidenced

by the fact that Lake Pueblo is still infested. Virginias approach worked, to some extent, but

what are the environmental consequences of using chemicals strong enough to kill such a hardy

creature? Are the financial burden and the possibility of ecological damage worth the effort?

There are preferred alternatives to Colorado and Virginias methods. Many states,

including Utah, have enacted laws that prohibit an individual from transporting zebra and quagga

mussels between two bodies of water. This alone, as infested states have acknowledged, does

very little to stop the spread of the invasion. Other approaches include education and user fees.

Educational outreach informs the public, but does little to actually halt the spread of invasive

species. User fees are implemented to charge owners of water vessels a mandatory fee prior to

launching from a dock or marina. This approach is beneficial because it ensures that boaters, the

7


8/13

user group which is most likely to spread the invasive species, are held fiscally accountable for

their actions. However, this approach is not effective as a stand-alone prevention measure.

Additional states inspect all watercraft in addition to charging a usage fee. The problem

with programs that involve education, fees, or inspections, is that there are still loopholes which

allow boaters the opportunity to accidentally introduce these dangerous non-native species. For

example, the state of Idaho only inspects vessels between specified set of hours and months.

Vessels frequently avoid being inspected because of closures at inspection sites. One relatively

successful inspection program was implemented by the National Park Service at Lake Powell.

Before a vessel launches, it must be inspected. If an inspector is not available, the launch dock is

closed and all users are prohibited from launching their vessel. This successful measure prevents

potential introduction that could otherwise be caused by boats launching despite closure.

III. Reccomended alternatives for the State of Utah

Alternative A: Mandatory inspection stations

Alternative A would implement a system of statewide mandatory inspection stations for

water vessels. After determining the most practical locations for inspection stations, the DWR

would place these checkpoints at waterways across the state. Inspections would be free to the

public and funding for the project would be taken directly out of the State of Utahs general

budget.

Each inspection station would be manned with at least two inspectors and would maintain

specific hours of operation. In addition to the mandatory inspection, data would be collected and

recorded for each vessel. This information would be used to track the history of the vessel as it

was used on waterways across the United States. This system would ensure that inspectors at

8


9/13

each station are aware of the vessels past history of use on infected waterways. The self-

certification requirements would continue as prescribed by current law.

Studies have indicated that an approach as simple as free mandatory checkpoints, as well

as a strong education system can decrease the chance that aquatic invasive species will spread

(Timar and Phaneuf, 2009). These mandatory checkpoints are one of the very basic alternatives

which Utah could use to improve the current system in order to avoid situations similar to those

which are being faced by infested states.

Unfortunately, this alternative does not offer the most effective way to prevent the spread

of zebra and quagga mussels. Money funding the program would, by necessity, come from the

states general fund or be removed from other currently funded programs. This would hinder the

formation and implementation of current and future natural resource programs. Although this

would be a step in the right direction it will not protect our waterways as efficiently as other

possible alternatives.

Alternative B: Tax for all

Alternative B would implement a tax for every Utahan. Implementation of this alternative

would require both users and non-users would be required to help fund the prevention program.

A special statewide tax would be implemented and all residents of Utah would be required to pay

for the prevention techniques. The money collected would only be used to fund the prevention

program.

These taxes would fund a program allowing the DWR to place inspectors and inspection

stations at each body of water in Utah. The number of inspectors at each waterway would vary

depending on the recreational usage of that area. Each inspection station would have specific

9


10/13

hours of operation. When no inspector is available to inspect boats, or when the launching area is

closed, no watercraft may launch onto that body of water.

Additionally, boaters must to obtain a license in order to operate their watercraft on any

Utah waterway. Boaters would be required to demonstrate a competent knowledge of safe vessel

operation and an understanding of how to prevent the spread of zebra and quagga mussels.

Boaters would also need to demonstrate a proper personal inspection of their vessel as well as

proper decontamination techniques.

This alternative would be highly effective at preventing the spread of invasive species,

but residents of Utah who do not own a vessel would be strongly against sharing the burden of

paying for the prevention program. Boaters might also be resistant to a policy requiring them to

obtain a boating license, despite its clear educational and risk mitigation benefits

(Leung, B., D.M. Lodge, D. Finnoff, J.F. Shogren, M. Lewis, and G. Lamberti).

Alternative C: Widespread prevention, inspection and education

Alternative C would create a usage tax for all individuals launching a vessel on Utahs

waterways. The tax would be collected through the sale of watercraft registration stickers. The

fee for each registration sticker would be determined after a study is conducted to determine the

cost of funding the program. Revenue from registration would only be used to prevent the spread

of zebra and quagga mussels and could not be used for any other state program in Utah. It could

be applied to invasive species public education programs, inspection stations, decontamination

units, research, and other methods of infestation prevention as deemed necessary by the DWR.

Every registration sticker will have a bar code to allow inspectors to track vessel travel

history and screen for past usage at infected areas. Each inspection site would have a handheld

10


11/13

electronic device, enabling inspectors to complete the history check smoothly and quickly. The

data collected in this manner would also aid the process of data collection for future research.

This alternative protects our waterways with no true disadvantages. Boaters may claim

that fees and inspections are a disadvantage, but while they may be slightly inconvenienced by

fees and specific times of inspection, such a price is small when compared to both the fiscal and

recreational damage that will be caused by failure to act. As stated in the beginning of this brief,

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure the disadvantage of boater frustration

becomes irrelevant when compared to the benefits of halting the invasion and protecting Utahs

water recreation areas for future generations of boaters.

Alternative C provides the greatest benefits and the fewest disadvantages compared to

alternatives A and B and is substantially better than maintaining the current, passive course of

action. We believe that this third alternative it is the best method for the DWR to implement

because it is comprehensive, self supporting, and effecient. If the State of Utah refuses to take

this action, our waterways will be permanently and irreversibly damaged. Although it will

require effort, time, and money to implement a new policy, every action, moment, and penny of

prevention will be worth it.

11


12/13

References:

Department of the Interior National Atlas. Zebra Mussels. National Atlas, (2011, January 26).

Web. 29 Oct 2011.

This website provides an overview of the basic biological effects of zebra mussels where they originated, how they invaded, specific threats to recreation and ecological

systems, and removal and control techniques presently instituted.

Havnes, M. (2011, May 13). Boats inspected for mussels at border checkpoint near St. George.

The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from

Two Utah agencies team up to prevent the spread of mussels into Utah waters. A border

checkpoint is instituted near St. George, and all boats traveling into Utah are inspected

for invasive mussels. No invasive mussels were found that day. Basic consequences of

mussel invasion are also discussed.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (2011). Affected water status definitions. Retrieved October

17, 2011, from

The Division of Wildlife Resources provides this information on their website in order to

inform citizens about the dangers and risks of invasive mussels in Utahs waterways. This

website educates users about preventing the spread of these species by keeping their

boats clean.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2007). Appendix B Prevent Invasion of Zebra Mussel Into

Utah Waters (NR-07-D-11). State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Policies and

Procedures.

This is the text of the current policy used to prevent the introduction invasive species into

Utahs waterways. This appendix specifically addresses Utahs management approach for

zebra mussels.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2007). Appendix C Quagga Mussel Education and

Implementation Plan (NR-07-D-11). State of Utah Department of Natural Resources

Policies and Procedures.

This is the text of the current policy used to prevent the introduction invasive species into

Utahs waterways. This appendix specifically addresses Utahs current management

policy which is being used to educate Utahans about quagga mussels.

12
http://wildlife.utah.go/http://wildlife.utah.go/http://wildlife.utah.go/http://www.sltrib.com/http://www.sltrib.com/


13/13

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Decontaminate. (n.d.). Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from

This website contains the decontamination methods recommended by the Division of

Wildlife Resources. The three most important steps are clean, drain, and dry. Thisprocess is not currently enforced by the DWR.

Colorado State Parks. Pueblo response plan. Colorado State Fish, Wildlife and Parks (2008).

Retrieved from

This article examines Colorados proposed methods of stopping the spread of invasive

mussels at Lake Pueblo. It weighs the pros and cons of multiple approaches. Colorado

eventually focused on vessel inspections, but Lake Pueblo was already infected and all

that can be done at this point is to prevent the further spread of the invasion.

Virginia Department of Game and Fisheries, (2011). Millbrook quarry zebra mussel eradication .

Retrieved from

This article studies Virginias Millbrook Quarry as a specific case study. Virginia was

successful in eradicating the invasive mussels using chemicals. Virginias Department of

Game and Fisheries pumped thousands of gallons of potassium into the lake over a three

week period.

Timar, Levente; Phaneuf, Daniel J. (2009). Modeling the human-induced spread of an aquaticinvasive: The case of the zebra mussel. Ecological Economics, 68, 12, 3060-3071.

This is a peer reviewed publication which examines various methods used to prevent the

spread of zebra mussels. Studies done by these two scientists indicate that states must at

least have a mandatory inspection for all boats for a prevention program to be successful.

Leung, B., D.M. Lodge, D. Finnoff, J.F. Shogren, M. Lewis, and G. Lamberti. (2002). An ounce

of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species.

Proceedings: Biological Sciences (formerly Proc Royal Soc London B) 269: 2407-2413.

This study examined the cost effectiveness of invasive species programs without focusing

on one particular program. The study found that it is much less expensive to prevent

aquatic invasive species than to try to reverse damaged caused by failing to create a

program.

13
http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewardship/20080814_Pueblo_Response_Plan_Final.pdfhttp://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/decontaminate.htmlhttp://www.dgif.virginia.gov/zebramussels/http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/zebramussels/http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewardship/20080814_Pueblo_Response_Plan_Final.pdfhttp://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewardship/20080814_Pueblo_Response_Plan_Final.pdfhttp://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewardship/20080814_Pueblo_Response_Plan_Final.pdfhttp://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewardship/20080814_Pueblo_Response_Plan_Final.pdfhttp://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/decontaminate.htmlhttp://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/decontaminate.htmlhttp://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/decontaminate.htmlhttp://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/decontaminate.html

Protect Our Precious Waterways Brief

Documents

Transcript of Protect Our Precious Waterways Brief