If you started at square one with the quagga/zebra mussel issue, what would you do? If dollars were limited but options weren't - how would you spend the money? Here's a few thoughts.

1. Protect the most valuable water assets.

Of course all water is valuable. If 10,000 customers drink from a small lake it's not right to say that those people are less important than the 1,000,000 that drink from a larger lake. But common sense says to expend more energy to protect the large supplies. Common sense also says to protect lakes that are upstream from large lakes and water bodies. Large lakes and water bodies in CA are places like:

The CA Delta
Shasta
Clear Lake
Tahoe
Oroville
Don Pedro
McClure
New Melones
Isabella
Diamond Valley
Nacimiento
San Antonio
Trinity
Pardee

There are more, this is just a flavor.

2. Protect valuable biological areas

As I've pointed out in other posts, most man-made lakes are filled with non-native species to the point where protecting against mussels is somewhat absurd from a biodiversity standpoint. You're protecting something that is already a soup bowl of "invasive" species. Where it does make sense to protect native species is in large natural lakes and water bodies with unique species. That means places like:

Clear Lake
Tahoe
The CA Delta
Lakes upstream from rivers that still harbor native fish species

Again, just a flavor.

3. Protect through education

Here's a radical idea that has been pinging around in my head this week. What if the DFG offered online courses for invasive species with exams for boaters (like a driving exam)? For people who couldn't get online, in-person courses could be offered. On completing the course, the boater would get a sticker for their vessels that would be good for as long as that boater owns that vessel.

To account for future sales of the vessel, the sticker would be printed with the individual's name on it. This would allow for spot checking of name on the invasive species sticker vs. registered owner. This sticker would be universal across the state and anyone out of state could get one as well by simply taking the course and passing the test. The test should be fairly easy and more designed to build awareness than to trick people or cause them to fail the test.

My theory is that people who are educated about invasive species are unlikely to transport them. The sticker also makes it very easy for lakes to check boats as they come in.

4. Develop a tiered protection model

Rank bodies of water on a 1 to 3 scale.

1's would be small water bodies that are not municipal water supplies and that have no significant biodiversity in the lake or downstream. This would be places like Rancho Seco, Shadow Cliffs, etc.

2's would be small to medium sized water bodies that provide water to people but have little biodiversity impact. This would be places like Poway, Dixon, Puddingstone, Del Valle, Santa Margarita, and Castaic. These would be locations with very few launch ramps and access points. These locations are the easy to guard locations.

3's would be the big lakes and water bodies with significant biodiversity and human water use. 3's could also include upstream locations like Blue Lakes (drains to Clear Lake). These locations will include both easy to guard and difficult to guard locations.

5. Protect based on the tiered system

1's - Invasive species sticker only. Post large signs at the lake entrances indicating that the sticker is required. Do not require physical inspection of the sticker. In other words, allow people to go enter the waterway at any time even if no person is available to inspect. State agents like DFG and police as well as local lake authorities like park rangers are authorized to issue large fines for any vessel with no sticker.

2's - Invasive species sticker required with physical validation of the sticker. Boaters arriving at the lake will be shown a list of "infected" waters on arrival and verbally asked if they have been to any of those locations in the last 30 days. If yes the boat will be inspected. If no, there will be no inspection. The number of boats requiring inspection under this system will be small which means less staffing for inspections.

3's - Managing mussels on the large lakes poses the biggest dilemma. They are the most valuable in terms of biodiversity and human dependence but also the most difficult to protect. Given these challenges I would propose that they fall under the same rules as tier 1 locations. Sticker required, large signs at all ramps, no physical validation of the sticker at launch. Large fines for being caught with no sticker. This is far more than is being done now at most (but not all) of these locations.

6. Protect the state against invasive species lawsuits

Legislation should be passed that releases and indemnifies the state of CA against lawsuits from water districts. As was seen at Casitas, the water boards have threatened to sue the state for remediation if the state can't guarantee protection against invasive species. Therefore the state needs protection that allows a universal invasive species management plan but removes liability from the state if an invasive specie does get in to a lake and cause remediation costs.

7. Distribute costs equitably

Since the program is state wide, all recreation areas with pay-to-launch facilities should pay in to the system. The payments should be on a per-boat basis for equal distribution. Assuming there are millions of boat launches per year in CA, millions of dollars could be generated through a nominal fee of $1 to $2. If done right, the collective cost of a single program should be substantially less than the costs incurred by individual water districts running their own programs.

Holes in the Plan

1. The invasive species sticker plan relies on an honor system. Some people could be lazy about getting water out of their boat when traveling from lake to lake. Some people may even intentionally transport invasive species between lakes. Although there have been no documented cases of people being caught intentionally transporting mussels, it is a possibility. The thing is that even with boat inspections in place, someone who is out to break the law could just move the mussels in a container in their vehicle. So arguing that vessel inspections prevent intentional introduction is stupid.

2. There would be substantial up-front cost to issue the invasive species stickers and set up signage around the state.

3. Out-of-state boaters may not come to CA to go boating as frequently with the new rules. This effect could be limited over time as people learn the system.

4. Devising a state wide plan is politically and legally difficult to enact. Particularly the legal side of things. The state simply must be protected against lawsuits.

5. The state in general has a reputation for being inept. So getting large, politically powerful water districts like MWD to participate in the plan would be challenging.

Benefits of the Plan

1. A universal system allows boaters the confidence to go to the lake knowing that they will be able to launch that day, even if it's rainy. This will bring boating revenues back to a normal, pre-inspection level.

2. Lake use fees that have risen due to inspections could be lowered which would further increase boating.

3. Fishing and usage pressure on locations that don't inspect would diminish as people go back to the places they used to fish and recreate at. The big example is the CA Delta, which has been extremely busy in the past few years despite poor largemouth bass fishing.

4. Revenue saved on inspectors and additional staff at tier 1 and 2 lakes could be used to improve lake facilities and fishing. Santa Clara County's Valley Water District (for example) reported that they got a $250,000 state grant to deal with mussels. Just imagine what $250,000 could do to improve fish habitat, stock fish, improve facilities, or clean up trash.


Your thoughts or contributions?

I'm not convinced that larger lakes are either more important to the environment or more costly to maintain. On an individual basis yes, but I'd make the assumption that it would cost more to manage mussel infestations on 10 lakes less than 10,000 acres than one Don Pedro. So I don't think your plan is particularly cost-effective.

It'd be interesting if someone had the actual average costs for managing mussels on a lake of X size with Y type dam.

All the environmental stuff? Pfff....

I did the same thing with this post that I did with the first one - posting here, Westernbass, and SD Fish. So far 4 responses, all interesting and not what I expected.

In my I suggested that inspecting at all is a waste of time. Sounds like some people are all aboard with that idea and view this second post as irrelevant. That's cool, and I still standby the idea that inspections are ultimately an exercise in futility and money wasting.

This second post makes an assumption though that I did not explicitly spell out. The assumption is that the state and various water agencies will continue to do something about invasive species, especially the quagga/zebra mussels. I think this is a reasonable assumption because if all inspections were to stop, it would make the people who suggested them in the first place look incompetent.

My point in this 2nd post is therefore to suggest a new way of thinking about invasive species management. It's an education-centric approach with consistent application across the state. I'd like to think that this approach is a better long-term solution that costs less money and offers better overall protection against these mussels.

This contrasts with the current approach which offers no protection for many of the state's most important water assets - but which does offer a disjointed mix of education, inspection, boat banding, sticker application, and doing nothing.

Nico, I have no idea what is involved to mitigate mussels at large lakes vs. small lakes. There's no published information on the internet that I can find. It makes me wonder how all these water managers evaluated their water systems to determine how much it would cost to mitigate quagga mussels?

I know one thing. This recent pic of San Justo is startling.

http://www.imhooked.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1259534149/0

That does look knarly. But what is the real impact?

Here's the San Benito County Water district's update on the Zebra situation for Fall/Winter 2009.

http://www.sbcwd.com/SBCWD%20Newsletter.pdf

Zebra mussels were found in San Justo Reservoir in January 2008. They are currently the only known population of Zebra mussels in California. Zebra mussels produce quickly and in large numbers. Once established, eradication is extremely difficult. Zebra mussels can colonize on hulls, engines and steering components of boats and other recreational equipment, and if left unchecked, can damage boat motors and restrict engine cooling. They attached to aquatic plants and submerged sediment and surfaces such as piers, pilings, water intakes, and fish screens. They also clog water intake structures, hampering water flow.

San Justo Reservoir was closed to recreation following the Zebra mussel’s discovery. There are some ideas being considered to eradicate the Zebra mussels in San Justo Reservoir, including the use of potassium chloride (potash) slurry, which has been proven to kill mussels without harming other forms of aquatic life. The decision to re-open the reservoir will be made in conjunction with USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation) and DFG (California Fish and Game).

Sounds like the thought there is to try to nuke the mussels with poison. For some reason San Justo is being treated completely different than the San Diego lakes with quagga mussels. At least I haven't heard any plans to nuke all the lakes down there. I have no idea why there's this discrepancy.

Does anyone here live in San Benito county? Have your water rates gone up due to increased costs associated with the zebra mussels in San Justo?

This is one where environment is not a big concern since the lake is 100% man made and there is no natural creek of any consequence feeding the lake.

Too bad for all the giant bass in that lake. I saw more than one 15+ in that place.