# RRFW Riverwire – Quagga Mussels Found Below Glen Canyon Dam



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Are they a danger to native plants and/or fish, or just to the hydro plants?

Sounds like a dream come true, if only the latter.


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

They will change the natural ecosystems entirely. They will out compete the native aquatic insect larvae (nymphs) thus greatly reducing the food the fish rely on. 


Jim


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

mikesee said:


> Are they a danger to native plants and/or fish


Yes. They can severely alter food webs in certain cases. They are also unlikely to colonize swift rivers without upstream lentic habitats supplying large amounts of veligers for colonization. In other words, it is just another way that the Powell Reservoir is pooping in the river.

Now they are putting another invasive fish, redear sunfish, into Mead to help control the mussles.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Sembob said:


> They will change the natural ecosystems entirely.


The mussels or the dams?


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Frankly my dear, I don't want a dam. But..... What was the topic?


Jim


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

They are a horrible addition to the colorado river system. And from a management funding standpoint....the dam will always have funding for development to maintain its purpose but wildlife and aquatic services rarely are able to keep up with this form of biological warfare.

On the other hand....mussels seem like a losing battle unless we are willing to entirely ban motorized vessels from moving between waters. And I don't ever see that being politically viable in the US. 

We are so far down this rabbit hole I don't know what to think about introducing invasive biocontrols to eradicate other invasive species. Such a nasty issue.

Phillip


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

As mike says they are unlikely to colonize swift water ecosystems and the lakes are already unnatural I do wonder what impact they will have. Of course as Phillip states they will spread to natural Stillwater environments and reek havoc. 
Are these the same creature that turned the Great Lakes into a clear blue but much more lifeless environment? 


Jim


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Sort of depends on what you mean by "swiftwater." There aren't any rapids between the Dam and Lees Ferry, but they evidently can survive the temperature and moving current in that stretch.

Here in Illinois, we have them in moving streams as well as lakes, so there is at least some additional reason to believe they are resilient in that regard. The sediment load in our infested rivers is not as dense as when the Paria and LCR are kicking hard, nor as persistent. But even with our harsh winters and spring runoffs, they have (sadly) survived and prospered.

The shells are small and sharp. In addition to all the other problems, if they wind up infesting the rocks on the river through GC, it could be a real challenge keeping soft-hull craft moored without incurring damage. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## ridecats (Aug 8, 2009)

Would it help to introduce Prince Edward Island mussels? They, at least, are delicious.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

I introduce muscles to the Grand Canyon every time I row it.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Quagga Omlets and Pinto Beans*

No need for the Wrecked Bureau to wreck it further with more invasive species. 

Let the healing begin by accepting the mussels as the inevitable result of a failed and fool-hearty attempt to harness the Colorado. 

Wrecked should let the quagga invasion run its course without inflicting further damage. Fresh quagga omelets? mmm, mmm, mmm. Fresh quagga dip based on dry land beans from a free-flowing Dolores River. mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm.


----------



## SKeen (Feb 23, 2009)

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode when lizards eat all of the pigeons at the end. Then they plan to send in snakes to eat the lizards, then snake eating gorillas, then winter rolls in just in time for the gorillas to freeze to death!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Droboat said:


> No need for the Wrecked Bureau to wreck it further with more invasive species.
> 
> Let the healing begin by accepting the mussels as the inevitable result of a failed and fool-hearty attempt to harness the Colorado.


I don't know for sure but my hypothesis is that the mussels were introduced into Lake Powell by a motorized boat someone brought from elsewhere, possibly back east.

Crap.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> On the other hand....mussels seem like a losing battle unless we are willing to entirely ban motorized vessels from moving between waters. And I don't ever see that being politically viable in the US.


Why Just motorized? Cause folks utilizing human powered craft are inherently more adept at preventing the spread of aquatic invasives?



Andy H. said:


> I don't know for sure but my hypothesis is that the mussels were introduced into Lake Powell by a motorized boat someone brought from elsewhere, possibly back east.
> 
> Crap.


Do we really have to start pointing fingers towards other users? There are certainly lots of places for larvae to live in a large motorized craft. There are also plenty of places on a lace in self-bailer, or inside a kayak that hops from one river to the next... Acting morally superior to another type of user will only degrade the conversation and detract from the progress of stemming future advances of the little buggers!

On another note I tend to agree with the idea of not introducing a spider to swallow the fly... 

I know that the invasive mussels are a different type of problem, but 15 years ago trout, salmon and steelhead fishing as we knew it was doomed! Whirling disease was going to wreak havoc on western streams altering the economy and signaling the end of civilization as I knew it... In the end the impact was fairly minor and self mitigating... Lets not panic just yet!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

elkhaven said:


> Why Just motorized? Cause folks utilizing human powered craft are inherently more adept at preventing the spread of aquatic invasives?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you read up much on the mussels? Its pretty well established that they are more common on motorized rigs, especially those that hold any sort of water from the lakes they use. Its not a bashing of motorized used so much as a well established fact of the mussels life cycle. You don't hear about the spread of these types of invasives from kayaks and rafts because its not common. There is a reason most western states require motor boats to pull over at borders or go through a procedure at lakes. Yeah, Powell required me to be interviews when I launched my kayak trip there but it was as easy as a single question. Its also a matter of #s....where these invasives are being transported (to and from) are largely used by motor boats.

You are barking up the wrong tree on this one...both of us are rather friendly or at least accepting of motor crowds. 

And its not a matter of panicking as being fairly educated on the subject. This isn't new. And the potential harm is much more than a disease that affects a few species. From an ecological level we are talking about a species that has the potential (and has already elsewhere) forever altering the habitat. The cascade is not healthy for how we understand these systems or how we currently use them. From a human systems standpoints they have the potential to destroy hydroelectric systems with relatively no recourse. 

And maybe Whirling Disease didn't affect your region much but we lost several of our local hatcheries which alone is millions of dollars in damage, lost jobs and rather lengthy changes to our regional fishing opportunities. Its also a great example of how writing off educated responses as "panicking" is inaccurate. The concerted actions of wildlife managers, scientists and stakeholders had a significant influence on the spread and impact of the parasite. Doing so meant understanding how it was spread and taking rational and educated measures to reduce its impact. 

The first stage of doing so for zebra and quagga mussels has been effective but obviously not enough. They are still spreading. As I said before the most direct option is not politically and socially possible as we know it; citizens would not allow themselves to be hampered by a policy that restricts transportation of motor boats between regional waterways. Not sure how agencies can further respond at this point. But your response is not an accurate portrayal of the conversation or the scale of the issue (ecological and human infrastructure).

In the Great Lakes alone....researchers estimate the cost to be more than $3.1 billion for power industry and $5billion for local economies. And that was just for a 6 year period. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

My only edit to Andy's comment would be it could just as easily been from regional boaters. Quagga mussels have been established in Mead and Mojave for several years.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

restrac2000 said:


> My only edit to Andy's comment would be it could just as easily been from regional boaters. Quagga mussels have been established in Mead and Mojave for several years.


Phillip - thanks for correcting me, I hadn't realized that Mead and Mojave had Quagga mussels in them. I concur with the way you characterized my mention of motors - I think there's a time and place for them. It just seems like motorized boats (power boats, houseboats, etc.) have lots more places for bilgewater, and any noxious critters in it, to hang out when being transported from one place to another.

-AH


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Yeah, sadly, it seems the steady march forward into reservoirs and lakes for invasive mussels is largely inevitable. I think I have read that the first reliable sightings and counts of quagga in Mead dates back to the mid-aughts. 

Water intake and hard hulls seems to be the primary issues with motor boats. Some agencies do mention cleaning procedures for inflatables (mostly focused on lake tubes, etc) but its not remotely the agency focus. The reality is active systems of water intake increase the risk of exposure and transportation of mussels. Sucks for motor boats and the agencies....not cheap for either of them. 

If/when we start to find significant evidence that non-motorized whitewater boaters are transporting invasive species then I would hope our community would be willing to change its habits too. I can only hope that never happens.

I wouldn't want to be the fisherman or commercial guides in Lees Ferry right now. The major changes mussels cause seems to take about a decade to really take hold. I imagine there are gonna be some difficult meetings and decisions to be made soon...not to mention finding funds to research and implement changes. 

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> Have you read up much on the mussels? Its pretty well established that they are more common on motorized rigs, especially those that hold any sort of water from the lakes they use. Its not a bashing of motorized used so much as a well established fact of the mussels life cycle. You don't hear about the spread of these types of invasives from kayaks and rafts because its not common. There is a reason most western states require motor boats to pull over at borders or go through a procedure at lakes. Yeah, Powell required me to be interviews when I launched my kayak trip there but it was as easy as a single question. Its also a matter of #s....where these invasives are being transported (to and from) are largely used by motor boats.
> You are barking up the wrong tree on this one...both of us are rather friendly or at least accepting of motor crowds.
> And its not a matter of panicking as being fairly educated on the subject. This isn't new. And the potential harm is much more than a disease that affects a few species. From an ecological level we are talking about a species that has the potential (and has already elsewhere) forever altering the habitat. The cascade is not healthy for how we understand these systems or how we currently use them. From a human systems standpoints they have the potential to destroy hydroelectric systems with relatively no recourse.
> And maybe Whirling Disease didn't affect your region much but we lost several of our local hatcheries which alone is millions of dollars in damage, lost jobs and rather lengthy changes to our regional fishing opportunities. Its also a great example of how writing off educated responses as "panicking" is inaccurate. The concerted actions of wildlife managers, scientists and stakeholders had a significant influence on the spread and impact of the parasite. Doing so meant understanding how it was spread and taking rational and educated measures to reduce its impact.
> ...


 wow - I wasn't implying that you, Andy or anyone else on this thread was panicking, it was meant more inline with the comments above at adding other invasive species to attack the current invasive species to attack the previous one... you know ye olde "I knew and old lady who swallowed a fly" concept.

I'm also certainly not advocating doing nothing, and I definitely didn't write off anyone's response...I guess that's what I get for trying to be concise.

Yes, I have some working knowledge of invasive species, including aquatic invasives... mostly plants but I've read a bit about zebra muscles, not particularly the Quagga but the problem they pose is crystal clear...

I didn't say you were bashing, you simply singled out one user type, in my experience that is counter productive. I agree completely that it's more common in power boats, I own and operate both, I understand, but it's still possible. If motorboats can spread the mussel, so can rafts, kayak's, sandals, felt soles and dreadlocks. to paraphrase: Take ownership, work together and don't point fingers!

Here in boondock land all boats must stop at check stations. I wonder how many "paddlers" don't think it applies to them? 



> I know that the invasive mussels are a different type of problem, but...


 As I already mentioned I know they're not the same thing, however, not all ecological Armageddon's live up to the hype...let's work the problem, preferably without making it worse. And maybe if we're lucky the problem will be less devastating than predicted... At least it wouldn't be the first time.

Just a point of argument about whirling disease, the overall impacts were a tiny, tiny fraction of what was forecast. I was not trying to belittle those it did impact but by most accounts Montana was going to be amongst the hardest hit because we don't stock rivers. The result was to be loss of genetically "pure" strains of salmonids. In the end it was the wild fish that "saved" the day, the genetic diversity allowed for reasonable numbers of tolerant individuals, those that survived, repopulated stretches with resistant fish. Ultimately whirling disease probably did more good than harm to our fishery (again sorry for the few guides that had to find temp work for a few summers).

I still stand behind my original statement. If you were to propose legislation, phrased as you did above, you'd have every power boater out their rallying against paddlers.... For fuck sakes, All I'm saying, is let's not make the road to recovery any harder than it has to be. This is all of our problem work it together with a minimum additional regulations! I realize it's the buzz, but do we have to fight about everything?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

The tone and comment definitely seemed to imply otherwise but its an easy mistake on both ends of internet communication. No worries in the long run or any hurt feelings.

I will say this is plain and simple an issue of hard hulled motorized boats. In context, the stretch of river mentioned is mostly utilized by motorized boats. The few inflatables and human powered boats that do use the stretch (we are speaking of the upriver section from Lees Ferry to the dam) are mostly back hauled by motor boats. And those users represent a ver small minority of users. Same goes for the major affected waterways of the west...mostly motor sport locations like Mead, etc.

There is a potential for inflatable rafts spreading quagga mussels but it makes no sense with the information to remotely focus on them. I have no reason to believe this will remotely turn into an abusive relationship between motorized versus non-motorized stakeholders. Most accounts I have read highlight that motorized users know that their community is the principle concern and most take measures to prevent movement of the mussels. 

Not recommending legislation by any means. The agencies involved can pass directives and procedures without legislation. And as I have said before I am not sure the most effective option will ever be viable. My guess is the next step will be forced cleaning at every lake and affected waterway at takeout and put-in. At some point self-reporting will no longer be viable. 

If/when this starts consistently affecting rivers that see primarily inflatable non-motorized users than we have to approach that reality. But assuming we need to treat the quagga mussel with equal concern for whitewater rafters as we do motorized hard hulled boats is counter productive. There is a reason agencies and literature are focused on motor boats that use lakes. Focusing on inflatables would be like inspecting every shoe sole when we know the vast majority of spread comes from truck tires (considered a primary source of transport for several invasive land plants/seeds). Yeah, there is potential but context and science allow us to narrow that focus more effectively.

And at this point its more about what motorized boats do once they leave these infected areas, like Lees Ferry. This is especially true as Powell is inundated and is a likely source of spread as well. There are currently no means to eliminate the mussels once they establish themselves. 

Per cost and scale of response.....quagga mussels have been in the midwest for 30+ years and the evidence is in that the reality is extremely unpleasant and costly. We will adapt but these species multiply at a level that local economies and agencies are unable to keep up with. In small towns like Marble Canyon the affects could be devastating as fishing is one of a few economies they have. For places like Mead and Powell you are talking about a multiplying ecological and economic factor that is only negative. All of those places are already stressed in both venues. 

I try and ignore media hype and develop scale based upon science based agencies like USGS and fish and wildlife services. All of them have been amped up about this for years. And count yourself lucky...Whirling Disease was devastating for many places. Utah state fisheries (and commercial trout fisheries across the US) have never been the same since it hit our hatcheries. In some ways its good as we have focused on natives more. Unfortunately, with Quagga mussels, there is no such silver lining as the trophic cascade affects biotic and abiotic elements across the ecosystem. The implications of this invasive are much broader than a species specific parasite.

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Well here in MT we have zebra mussels, they are not a widespread problem yet, but they exist and they exist in places that have never seen a motor, (Darlington Ditch, Gallatin County, MT) I believe Darlington ditch was one of the first places in the state to contain ZM. This is a groundwater fed agricultural drainage ditch with no boating use. It is likely they came in on clothes. This ditch parallels and eventually empties into the Madison River which sees essentially no motorboat traffic... it's limited to 10 hp and is frequently only several inches deep (not conducive to motors). 

Montana is a glaringly pro trout, pro human powered craft state. Motors are typically only allowed on the lower stretches of the big rivers (of course this varies by location, but is generally accurate). Transport of ZM, especially in the mid to upper reaches of the famous trout streams, will likely be by some other means rather than motor boat. Ultimately it's a matter of perspective and from where I stand I'm fairly certain that these species will be transported by multiple means, loop holeing a user type because the probability is low is not the right answer IMHO. I don't think that shit loads of research needs to be devoted to eradicating mussels from inflatables, but they should still be governed by the same policies. 

I'm truly not saying this to be argumentative but rather to illustrate the differences between areas and users... What works there may not work here, but Montana is likely to follow others lead, so I'd like to see comprehensive solutions that can work elsewhere...

Sorry for my defensive post earlier. I've had a rough day and I certainly could have been clearer.


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

Randaddy said:


> I introduce muscles to the Grand Canyon every time I row it.


hahaha. awesome:grin:


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Does it really matter who gets credit for wrecking the Wrecked dams? Kudos all around!!!!!

Couldn't think of a more poetic silver lining than tiny mussels bringing down the damned dams and opening up the possibility of reclaiming the natural ecological function of the Colorado River watershed. Mussels might provide the only chance to reverse the ongoing Wrecked-induced trophic cascade that is choking the life and soul out of the Colorado. 

Right now, the Colorado is dying. Mussels might change that by thwarting a threat coming in at the highest and most destructive trophic level - industrial human.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

No worries. How we read and interpret comments plays as much a role in misunderstandings as what we type so I am just as culpable. Could have easily asked your intent. I am fine with disagreeing with others' ideas but that can often come across as a distaste of the person, which is rarely true for me. No harm on my end.

I will have to spend some time researching it as I haven't focused on Montana much. A quick google search showed Darlington Ditch has a major problem with the NZ mud snail but records I found show no mussels issue. Other sources show no incidence of zebra mussels in Montana at all. Do you have any sources I can look into? The NZ mud snail has a completely different life cycle and means of transportation (like being able to survive fish digestion, movement by fisherman waders, etc) and therefor require completely different management regimens. 

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/maps/current_zm_quag_map.jpg

And I am not against broader targeting...I willingly and understandably went through the interview process at Lake Powell with my sea kayak. But the process was rightfully different. They asked me a single question about the last time the boat was in the water or if I had cleaned it. In Utah, at least many places, if you have traveled with a motor boat into an affected reservoir you have to go through decontamination. I have not heard of that requirement with inflatables or kayaks. On I-15 you have to pull over at the Port of Entry with motor boats to do so. 

Invasives are like human diseases; for best results you should target the most probable causes. 

Complex subject though. Wish I knew more than I do.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Droboat said:


> Does it really matter who gets credit for wrecking the Wrecked dams? Kudos all around!!!!!
> 
> Couldn't think of a more poetic silver lining than tiny mussels bringing down the damned dams and opening up the possibility of reclaiming the natural ecological function of the Colorado River watershed. Mussels might provide the only chance to reverse the ongoing Wrecked-induced trophic cascade that is choking the life and soul out of the Colorado.
> 
> Right now, the Colorado is dying. Mussels might change that by thwarting a threat coming in at the highest and most destructive trophic level - industrial human.


I will owe you a beer if anytime in my lifetime we decide to take down Hoover or Glen Canyon Dams but I would bet a fair amount of $$ that they will find a way to make energy and money off both structures even with the mussels in place. I still have a copy of Nichols "Glen Canyon" next to me on the coffee table and it has the power to bring me to tears. But I see no indication that even the trillions of these things that will inhabit our reservoirs will ever bring down those dams. It could cost billions and the place will never be the same but 30 years of history has shown people will rally behind their infrastructure in the face of mussel invasions. 

And the ecologist in me sees that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Adding another detrimental organism to the Colorado takes us further from its "native" condition (for whatever that means).

Phillip


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

*would the real mud snail please stand up!*

First thing I have to say is OOOPS... I was mentally transposing NZ mud snails for zebra mussels, period. No excuses, just treating the two as interchangeable and I absolute know they are not.... so, so much for that line of discussion. Now I'll have to go back to the duck pond I was just on... I swear it said zebra mussels, but it could have said NZ... damn I feel like an idiot...

Anyways in my quick search to clarify my corrupted mind I did find this: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :: AIS Current Activities Which indicates that they have been found around Dillon at minimum (my guess would be the local reservoir, Clark Canyon)... The area contains two absolutely phenomenal trout streams though, the Beaverhead (which is what Clark Canyon impounds) and the Big Hole....

Again sorry for the misinformation, it was not intended!!!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

No worries....and you might be the first person to an Eminem lyric in relation to mud snails. Took some time to read about Montana aquatic invasive so that was helpful. Always good to know what going on in your neighbors backyard.

Hope you have a better night than its sounds like your day was. I think its more common to bring outside moods into our online conversations than some of us like to admit. 

Phillip


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

The sooner the dams fail or are removed, the sooner these slack water reservoir invaders have no ecological niche to invade and establish. Wrecked's heroic efforts may ensure that Boulder Dam and Las Vegas survive. But most of the CRSP dams and diversions are likely gone before 2030, sooner if the mussels establish or if the low return on Wrecked's bloated budget comes under real scrutiny. 

It is an almost magical convergence that promises to liberate the Colorado's ecosystem function from damned reservoirs, invading mussels, and Wrecked wa$te. It is as if a one-armed Major decided now was the time to put his muscle into accelerating the inevitable dam demise and freeing the entire Colorado.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Great discussion you all. 

A very kind Bureau of Reclamation biologist out of Salt Lake City spent a chunk of time with me on this. He notes Quagga can attach to the sides of pen-stocks. They can attach to downstream sides of cobbles in areas of water flow. They don't like high turbidity flows but can last weeks and weeks while they wait for the water to clear up. This means that between Glen Canyon Dam and where end of flow happens in the headwaters of res Mead, the quagga can be expected to take hold everywhere except the area between Devils Slide and end of flow, where the river is constantly turbid due to reservoir sediment erosion. Those of you who have run below Diamond Creek on clear water may have seen how the river becomes very turbid by Quartemaster. That lower section will not be conductive to Quagga growth at this time. 

Quagga do not like to dry out. That will kill them. The BOR biologist thought the Quagga would not impact shores and cobbles above the low flow. I failed to point out to him that flow levels from Glen Canyon Dam go up and down in steps. I know he knows this. What it means, as Rich Phillips points out, is that quagga have the potential to make low water boating in Grand Canyon hard for PVC and hypalon craft.

The BOR guy also notes Quagga like warmed water and the water exiting Glen Canyon Dam is cold. He did say the discharge flow temps are not cold enough to stop them. He also mentioned Quagga need nutrients, and he did not think the water exiting the Dam was loaded with enough nutrients to allow for large scale colonization. Not knowing, I kept quiet, but simple logic would dictate that nutrient load goes up as the surface elevation of the dam drops and gets closer to the penstock openings, like is happening now.

The take home message is anyone who brings a raft or kayak or paddle board to the Grand Canyon from out of state and is taking off the river today, has exposed their watercraft to Quagga. Clean, Drain and Dry applies, and when there is a State inspection at the state line for recreational boats, this means you. The larva (veligers) float freely for some weeks. They will be in your raft or kayak or dory, and if that raft or kayak or dory gets to another river or lake without the Clean, Drain and Dry steps, then the spread may continue. 

All the best, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Nice addition to the info stream, Tom.

I was an invasive species inspection monitor here in Northern Illinois for a number of years, and have seen them up close and personal in both lakes and streams. They survive months of frozen streams every year, so I'm never held any hope that water temperature alone would stop them in the Colorado. 

And they are very easy to transport. Back here, we do fisherman/boater education about how the veligers (the young mussels) can survive in footwear, ropes, bilges, cracks and crevices on boat trailers, and basically anything/anywhere that can remain damp for a period of time. The problem is people don't see mussels as a real problem that they can personally impact, and so they tend to not care for self-examination and decontamination.

There was a mussel prevention program in place at Powell for a number of years, but it eventually failed and they were detected a couple of years ago. Whether the ones now found below the dam came through the penstocks or on a boat from some other infested body of water seems to me to be sort of immaterial. The real question is how well they survive (or adapt) in the heart of the Canyon. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thats nasty news that they believe the quagga will survive below Lees Ferry. Wish we truly had the ability and funds to transport silt/sand below the dam to increase turbidity close to natural levels. 

The nutrient load is complicated (as the entire ecological impact of quaggas tends to be). The penstocks are currently 115 feet below the lake level which puts it well into the dead profundal zone (organic nutrient load). As the lake drops it will eventually reach the euphoric zone (photosynthesis capability) which does mean more nutrient load comparably. One benefit to the location of the dam in this regard is we won't see much benefit from shoreline plants as that section of water is rather steep, and in general Lake Powell has relatively few shore plants. The downside is the penstocks are so far above the lake floor that we will never see much mixing in the water column to bring in regular silt.

The inorganic nutrient load is hard to discuss as information is rather limited. In theory we will see more fluctuations as the lake drops. Once again, the closer we get to the penstocks (roughly 30 meters starts to be principle distinction) the more viable temperature changes affect mixing and loading. But that is a rough estimate as its heavily affected by what is going on way upstream in the Escalante, San Juan and main stem arms. I assume much of the input is absorbed into the silts and then deposited deep in the lake or farther upstream then the dam. But that is at best a rough guess. 

It would be interesting to see information (if it exists) about the seasonal mixing in the water column and how that relates to nutrient load (as the lake drops). It would only take a drop of about 30 feet for spring and fall to change the amount of nutrients sent through the dam. 

It will be interesting to see what rate of reproduction the quagga have in Lees Ferry stretch for now considering how far it is from ideal habitat. Between the cold temps and low nutrient load I would wager a much slower population growth, though even half their ability is still staggering. The Paria and Little Colorado have the ability to really alter any equation though. While any floods will initially bring in significant silt loads I am not aware of how long that lasts (comparable to the weeks long dormancy for the mussel previously mentioned). Once the silt settles you then have to deal with the nutrient load benefits (largely inorganic) those floods bring to the area. 

I hear a ton of information about the initial changes once quagga are introduced. Does anybody have information or know of sources about the long term implications, i.e. they so alter the habitat can they survive?

The stretch from Lees to Little Colorado could get real scary for rafters within a decade if they do establish. The tides there affect boats so much I can't imagine adding mussels shells to the equation. Potential for some serious heartache of having a boat high and dry on a plain of mussels covered rocks. I haven't stayed at many places below the confluence (have had boat stranded but only on sand bars) where that is much of an issue myself but I imagine they exist. 

Talk about a jacked up habitat and ecology. 

Phillip


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Phillip,

As to the beach situation, my wife and I used to work as volunteers at a kids camp up at Lake Geneva, WI. After the quaggas got established there, we had to regularly rake the shells off the sand on our beach, so that swimmers didn't nick their feet on the washed-up shells. It got so bad that eventually neoprene sox were the norm for anyone using the beach. 

No piece of the Lees Ferry picture looks encouraging to me.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

richp said:


> Hi Phillip,
> 
> As to the beach situation, my wife and I used to work as volunteers at a kids camp up at Lake Geneva, WI. After the quaggas got established there, we had to regularly rake the shells off the sand on our beach, so that swimmers didn't nick their feet on the washed-up shells. It got so bad that eventually neoprene sox were the norm for anyone using the beach.
> 
> ...


Yeah, just read up some more and it seems they are better at sand establishment than zebras. 

There is no short or long term benefit to these species. 

Beyond recreation the potential and likely impact to native species is saddening. It seemed like the native fish were finally making a comeback in the Grand and this seems to forever alter how manage those populations. If they establish they change everything, from the oxygen load to zooplankton. 

And the reality is they adapt and establish faster than any management regime can keep up with. The literature is frightening as they state several places that the have the ability evolve and adapt to unexpected habitats beyond their current range (damn rapid generation times and genetic malleability). Its an eloquent and rather beautiful evolutionary strategy....if it wasn't so sad for humans and the habitat we transported them to.

Sometimes its disheartening to have a background and degree in zoology. I will try to stop dorking out on the subject now.

Phillip


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Each and every problem identified on this thread is solved by tearing out the damn dams and unleashing the restorative power of the Colorado River.

The quagga are a mere symptom, and ironically enough, a potential cure should they continue to reclaim what the Wreck hath wrought.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> and when there is a State inspection at the state line for recreational boats, this means you


Has this been verified with AZ and UT state agencies, i.e. having us stop at state line checkpoints? Not sure if they are equipped to deal with rafters who trailer deflated and piled gear. May want to verify that before the start of next season when the inspection stations are manned again. I can imagine it being a bad scene if we are expected to inflate our gear again with a dozen motorboats behind me. I don't think they have trained for inspecting inflatables at this point. 


I did just found this passed in October for all watercraft entering Utah. 

Rule R657-60. Aquatic Invasive Species Interdiction.
UT Admin Code R657-60. Aquatic Invasive Species Interdiction. October 1, 2014

According to this code any boat coming from waterways in Arizona (enough waterways affected that entire state is considered geographically affected).

The other waterways that are considered part of this mandate are :



> (b) Lake Powell and that portion of the:
> 
> (i) Colorado River between Lake Powell and Spanish Bottoms in Canyonlands National Park;
> 
> ...


So at this point any raft leaving Cataract is legally required to decontaminate. Any craft used to float Escalante River to the Crack in the Wall takeout is expected to be decontaminated.

Any boat (vessel defined in code as any equipment used to transport across water) coming from Colorado, California, and Nevada and being used in Utah must also go through the process outlined in the code. Fairly sweeping expectations.

Lake Powell also got $750k annually to deal with invasive mussels....though they have transitioned to stopping the spread elsewhere. I am guessing it won't be too long before we start paying an extra invasive species fee for the Grand similar to the one in Idaho. They are gonna have to allocate some serious $$ annually and it will logically be sourced from the groups using the riverway.

Will be interesting to see if the Colorado from Lees down is eventually listed specifically.


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

So how do you and how many do decontaminate an Aire open pocket floor? I know those floors take a very long time to dry out. 


Jim


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Here's the flyer they put out about decontamination at Powell.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/mussels/PDF/2013_Lake_Powell_Flyer.pdf

This one actually describes what a decontamination involves if you don't go the route of letting things dry out.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/mussels/PDF/self_certify.pdf

Ugly problem with no clear-cut solution. One of our lakes here was a test site for a chemical process to kill them. It worked -- but at a huge cost for a very small test area that was subject to relatively quick recolonization.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

The one issue I am wondering about with the decontamination process is the "clean" part. The ideal situation is to clean at the point of exit from the river so any contaminated water goes back to the source. Most lakes and reservoirs have stations setup up with non-lake water to do this. However for rafting we normally "clean" with the very contaminated waters from the river. Doesn't seem very effective from the standpoint of the microscopic juveniles. And do we really want to be washing the contaminated surfaces into our local municipal sewers? Are we supposed to be getting professionally decontaminated (which uses 140F+ water to actively kill any mussels, adult or juvenile) after every river trip from affected waterways then? I don't know the answer to this but the implication sucks.

Looks like its time to send some questions to state agencies for me. 

Phillip


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Sembob said:


> So how do you and how many do decontaminate an Aire open pocket floor? I know those floors take a very long time to dry out.
> 
> 
> Jim


Somehow you will need to inject 140 degree water into the floor. They have the equiptment to do it at the deco stations. I doubt the 140 degree water will hurt the bladders or fabric on the boats. 

Normal boats will have to be thoroughly cleaned and dried at the take out before rolling them up or transporting them. The key is to get them dry before rolling them up.

What I was told at Lake Powell was that if they stop and check you, and you have water in your boat or bilge and no documentation on where it was last, they can keep your boat and fine you. Then you have to pay someone to decon it, to get it back. They won't release it until they get the proper paperwork from whoever you have decon it.


----------



## kengore (May 29, 2008)

For those that are interested I have started a new post to discuss practical solutions to this problem. Please contribute if you have any expertise or suggestions. As restrac2000 pointed out I'm not that sure washing with contaminated water at the take out or rinsing at home where the runoff goes in to local waterway is a good solution.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Silkwood Showers at Checkpoint Quagga*

From the related compliance thread, the genius solution appears to be Silkwood Showers for inflatables and dories.

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f41/how-to-comply-with-new-decontamination-rules-55713.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Ec20v7wX8


----------

