Colias_Analysis of Zebra and Quagga Mussel Contamination_Thesis_Final

ANALYSIS ON THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE LAKE BERRYESSA MUSSEL

PLAN AND THREAT OF INFESTATION OF ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSELS

A Senior Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of

California State University, Sacramento

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science, Environmental Studies

Presented By:

Sabrina C. Colias

Fall 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 100TH MERIDIAN IMITATIVE AND THE BAY AREA ZEBRA AND QUAGGA

MUSSEL CONSORTIUM PREVENTION PLAN ................................... 8

CHAPTER 3 SAN JUSTO RESERVOIR ........................................................... 11

CHAPTER 4 HYPOTHESIS AN DATA TO BE ANALYZED .................................... 14

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETATION AND SIGNIFICANCE .......................................... 19

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 8 IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 21

APPENDIX A FIGURES

1.1 Zebra and Quagga Mussel Characteristics .......................................... 27 1.2 Zebra and Quagga Mussel Current Infestations ............................. 28

1.3 Zebra Mussel Attached to Crayfish ........................................... 29 1.4 Quagga Mussel Fouling Pipes ................................................. 29 1.5 MacIssac Schematic of Impacts of Dreissena Polymorpha ................. 30 2.1 100th Meridian Initiative ....................................................... 31 APPENDIX B TABLES AND GRAPHS

1.1 Zebra and Quagga Mussel Ideal Parameters ............................................. 32 5.1 Data Analysis from Traffic Counter............................................................. 33

5.2 Total Boat Launches Between Four Launch Sites ................................. 34 5.3 Average Daily Launches at Capell Cove .............................................. 35 5.4 Average Daily Launches at Markley Cove ........................................... 36 5.5 Average Daily Launches at Steel Park ................................................ 37 5.6 Average Daily Launches at Pleasure Cove ........................................... 38 5.7 Average Weekend Launches per Hour at Capell Cove ........................... 39 5.8 Amount of Boats Not Inspected Average ........................................... 40 5.9 Amount of High Risk Boats Average .................................................. 41

APPENDIX C ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND MAP

Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan Analysis 1

ABSTRACT

The effectiveness of the Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan Hypothesis predicts the majority of boats

launching at Capell Cove Launch site are not being inspected and a percentage of those boats

pose high risk, potentially carrying the invasive mollusk species of zebra (Dreissena polymorpha)

or quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis). This hypothesis is based mainly on first hand

observation as a boat inspector and annual traffic counter data courtesy of The Bureau of

Reclamation. In order to estimate the amount of traffic launching per day, the traffic counter

needed to be calibrated against original data collected Friday through Sunday, Memorial Day

through Labor Day courtesy of The Solano County Water Agency. The amount of traffic

launching un-inspected was estimated by eliminating the numbers documented from the traffic

counter numbers. This was then broken up by month in order to estimate the seasonal trends.

This analysis will provide valuable information regarding the risk of infestation imposed on Lake

Berryessa.


PREFACE

The work presented in this paper was conducted with various data provided by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Solano County Water Agency. This analysis was approved by both agencies and the California State University of Sacramento to whom it is presented to. Chapter two and three contain information provided by the San Benito Water District and Department of Water Resources from published and unpublished documents. I am a Level One Certified Watercraft Inspector and Certified Dockwalker. I collected data at the site of analysis under the Solano Resource Conservation District with an additional co-worker in 2012. The data provided collected on site was provided by a team of six employees at the Solano County Water Agency performing the same data collection in 2013, and I was also occasionally on site collecting data. Due to my work experience and certifications, I observed a lack of full time staffing at the site and developed the concept that the risk involved of potential infestation needed to be analyzed. I performed all of the data analysis presented in this paper with the assistance of supervisory staff at Solano County Water Agency, and developed my conclusions based on the data’s outcome and my own personal experience.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Foremost, I would like to express my gratitude towards my professor and advisor, Dudley Burton, Ph.D., for the tireless support of my research and progress. His guidance and persistence has made this all possible. The Environmental Department is full of influential and helpful mentors that have led to my success in this department. In addition, I would like to thank my co-worker, Alisa Kim, for collecting data and inspecting boats with me even in the most grueling of heat waves. I would also like to thank all the staff at Solano County Water Agency including the summer interns of 2013; Kayla Henry, Marissa Hartley, Johnny Chang, Louis Anthony Perez, and Jessica Mendoza. Additionally from the Agency, a special thanks to Alex Rabidoux, PE, for guiding me through my data analysis and always being willing to help when needed, and thank you to Ken W. Davis for his intuitive insight and strong support. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their constant support and belief in my success.


CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND

Two invasive species have spread across North America in less than a decade. They are known

as the zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and the quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis). Eurasian

mussel is a term used to describe zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), quagga mussels

(Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), and golden mussels (Limnoperna fortunei), however it will be

used to describe only zebra and quagga mussels as a group in this report. Their names are

derived from their physical characteristics of the stripes on their shells as seen in Figure 1.1 in

Appendix A (Davis 2012). These two species are of the Mollusca Phylum (WoRMS 2013). They

are freshwater mussels known as filter feeders originating from southern Russia, in the Balkans,

and Poland (National Atlas). These organisms are filter-feeding, meaning they remove small

particles from freshwater, and according to the Western Regional Panel, alters nutrient flows

and providing a sink for environmental contaminants (Mangin 2001). Adult zebra mussels grow

up to approximately two inches in length and have the capability to filter up to one gallon per

day, per mussel (Mangin 2001). With this filtration feeding process, some particles are

consumed as food, and then deposited on freshwater floors as feces, whereas non-food

particles are combined with mucus and other matter and deposited onto benthic floors as

pseudo feces (Mills 1995). The zebra mussels usually mature for reproduction within a year,

and an individual female mussel can produce up to one million eggs per season (Mangin 2001).

These fertilized eggs are initially free swimming larvae known as veligers, but quickly mature

developing a hard shell and attaching to a hard surface with their byssal threads (Claudi &

Mackie 2010).

Although the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel are two distinct species, they share many

similar biological characteristics, and pose many of the same threats to fresh water systems.

Both species have the capability to adapt to a similar range of fresh water aquatic systems. The

zebra mussel can successfully infest waters with a range of fifteen to thirty milligrams of

Calcium per liter, whereas the quagga mussel can adapt to waters containing twelve to thirty

milligrams of water per liter (Claudi & Mackie, 2010). The Eurasian mussels have also been

found to successfully adapt to somewhat brackish water, ranging their adaptability of pH levels

from 7.4 to 9.0 (Claudi & Mackie 2010). However both the quagga mussel and the zebra mussel

are only capable of succeeding in waters with seven to eight milligrams of oxygen per liter

(Davis 2012). The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has shown to succeed in temperatures

ranging from ten to twenty degrees Celsius, however temperatures above sixteen degrees

Celsius is fatal to the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) (Davis 2012). Both species are also

successful in freshwaters with a conductivity range of sixty to one hundred and ten

microsiemens per centimeter (Claudi & Mackie 2010). The Eurasian mussels require many of

the same environmental conditions. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has been found

to reside in depths from water surfaces down to fifty meters, whereas the quagga mussel

(Dreissena bugensis) has been found to successfully populate in depths more than twice that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofeces


depth from surface waters to one hundred and thirty meters (Mills 1995). The success of the

species is dependent on multiple of the environmental factors existing as described. Not only

do both species succeed in a wide range of environmental conditions, they have the capability

to survive outside of water for seven to ten days depending on temperatures (Mangin 2001).

This is thought to be one of the largest factors responsible for the spreading of this invasive

species across the United States.

Given the ability of the Eurasian mussels, they have quickly succeeded across the United States

as an invasive species in our fresh water rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and various creeks. Of the two

species, zebra mussels were the first detected in the United States in 1988 in Lake St. Claire of

the Great Lakes (Mangin 2001). However their population may have started as early as 1986,

going unnoticed (Mills 1995). In less than three years, their population had spread to the

remaining Great Lakes as a thriving species (Mangin 2001).

There is no proven cause of the introduction of the species to the U.S, but it is strongly

speculated that they were unknowingly transported in the ballast of large freight ships or other

international vessels (Mills 1995). The quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) was not discovered

until 1991 in the Erie Canal, and found to be cohabiting with the already established zebra

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (Mills 1995). Different sources indicate whether the species

were introduced together, or if D. bugensis went unnoticed due to their ability to survive in

deeper waters. Due to their biological characteristics as free swimming larvae and attaching to

hard surfaces as adults, they spread into the Hudson and Mississippi River by 1994 (Mills 1995).

By 2008, they spread across the Western States into various systems in almost every state

(USGS 2013). Their current distribution or live sightings and establishments as of 2012 can be

seen on the map and list of known water systems in Figure 1.2 in Appendix A (USGS 2013).

Since the introduction of Eurasian mussels into the North American water ways, they have been

shown responsible for many significant abiotic and biotic impacts on the different biological

structures (MacIsaac 1996). It is broadly known that the introduction of nonnative species to

any biological system can cause initial or cumulative impacts or alterations on the native

diversity, nutrient cycling, biological functions, energy flow, or chemical composition of the

environment. A study was performed in 1996 by Hugh J. MacIsaac for the Department of

Biological Sciences and Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research showing the abiotic

and biotic impacts of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). The analysis show the introduction

and establishment of zebra mussels do have positive and negative effects on the environment

of the Great Lakes. Of the findings, the most pressing of abiotic impacts is the bio fouling on

natural and permanent marine structures as seen in Figure 1.3 and 1.4 in Appendix A (MacIsaac

1996). This includes docks, pilings, buoys, bridges, and water delivery infrastructure. Municipal

and hydroelectric plants are highly vulnerable if water is drawn from a contaminated source

due to veligers being drawn into the systems (MacIsaac 1996). Their establishment may also be

greatly supported and assisted by the intake of raw water which provides a constant


replenishment of sources, blocking of access to predators, and removal of pseudofeces

(MacIsaac 1996).

In addition, the materials used for the infrastructure do have an effect on the magnitude of

establishment, for example: stainless steel, copper, concrete, or galvanized iron. The majority

of the materials listed have been seen to support D. polymorpha establishment (Dillon 2000).

Another abiotic effect is the enhancement of water clarity due to their filter feeding process

(MacIsaac 1996). Although enhanced water clarity may sound like a positive impact, zebra

mussel population biomasses grow at a faster rate than that of zooplankton, and consume a

broader range of particles than zooplankton (MacIsaac 1996). Zebra mussels have been

observed to consume suspended particles ranging from .7 micrometers to 750 micrometers,

and most zooplankton consume particles ranging from 15 to 40 micrometers (Sprung & Rose).

With such a broad palp for consuming suspended particles, the zebra mussels consume and

expel pseudofeces, which may develop as a cumulative negative impact on nutrient cycles

(MacIsaac 1996). Not to mention, is has been found that zebra mussels are correlated with

approximately 90% reductions in microzooplankton and algal biomass, but have only increased

water clarity by about 7%, most likely due to their deposits of feces and pseudofeces (MacIsaac

1996). Phytoplankton biomass is also negatively affected by the presence of zebra mussels.

Studies show phytoplankton biomasses diminish due to individuals being enveloped in

negatively buoyant psedufecal pellets by the mussels (MacIsaac 1996).

These effects are also projected onto a macro scale within the biological community.

Outcompeting of zooplankton may reduce the availability of food for fry of various fish species

(MacIsaac 1996). The increased water clarity and light transmittance may also promote a

change in hydrophytic species diversity (MacIsaac 1996). Certain fish species, some of which are

in Lake Berryessa, are known to exploit the presence of mussels, including sunfish (Lepomis

micropophus), and carp (Cyprinus carpio). With biomagnification, the effects have also been

seen in higher trophic levels, including those of waterfowl (Bruner et al 1994). Several studies

show that given the mussels ability to filter feed many different suspended particles in

combination with the consumption of the mollusk by waterfowl, they serve as a transfer of

contaminants (MacIsaac 1996). The process of consuming contaminants through the

consumption of mussels is correlated to reproductive problems ranging from smaller eggs to

higher embryo mortality rates, and higher rates of nest abandonment (MacIssac 1996).

Waterfowl that consume contaminated mussels have higher concentrations of pesticides and

polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (MacIsaac). The positive and negative effects can be seen

in MacIsaac’s diagram on aquatic systems in Figure 1.5 in Appendix A.

Not only do Eurasian mussels have an effect on aquatic structures but they do pose negative

economic impacts. Since the rapid spread of Eurasian mussel across North America, economic

estimates of impacts were upwards of nearly a billion dollars per year ( Connelly & O’ Neill


2007). A study was performed in 2007 by Connelly and O’Neill on the economic impacts of

zebra mussels on water treatment plants and electrical power facilities; however the estimates

do not include the impacts of cost of recreational boating and fishing. Of the water treatment

facilities surveyed, an average of $30,000 per year is spent on prevention efforts or eradication

efforts towards the mussels (Connelly & O’Neill 2007). Compared to earlier estimates from

1994, the cost had decreased by roughly $14,000 annually. This could be due in part to

development of methods and control procedures that were implicated through trial and error

(Connelly & O’Neill 2007). Through this study, the analysis of expenditures shows the majority

of annual costs were directed towards prevention methods. However, recreational boating,

fishing, local businesses, and environmental impacts were not considered in this evaluation.

This is strictly the cost of maintenance for the water service facilities and the prevention

methods associated directly towards zebra mussels. Given the other factors, the majority of

expenditures may be different for Lake Berryessa.

Lake Berryessa is not a naturally created lake, it was created as a reservoir after the completion

of the Monticello Dam in 1957 (USBR 2011). Originally the valley floor was inhabited by the

Miwok and Patwin tribes; it was then conquered by European settlers and soon thereafter

established as the town of Monticello in Napa County (USBR 2011). Putah Creek was also

dammed in order to flood the valley floor between the Napa hills and the Monticello Dam

(USBR 2013). Lake Berryessa was then flooded, creating a reservoir with a maximum storage

capacity of 1.6 million acre feet of water (USBR 2013). Specifically located at coordinates

38.593880,-122.226952, this is the largest lake in Napa County (USBR 2013). The reservoir

currently serves over 500,000 Solano County residents their drinking and agricultural water

(Solano RCD). The lake also serves hydroelectricity to those of the Northern Bay area near San

Francisco (Davis 2012). The lake also supports wildlife habitat to those native to oak woodland,

chaparral, grassland, and riverine woodland regions (USBR 2013). The reservoir also supports

much aquatic life including species of Brown trout (Salmo trutta), Carp (Cyprinus carpio),

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Smallmouth

bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) (USBR 2013).

According to Davis, his data collection and analysis show that Lake Berryessa is biologically

suitable for the establishment of Eurasian mussels. Lake Berryessa on average has Calcium

levels higher than 20 milligrams per liter, with an average pH of 8 to 8.5 (Davis 2012). Since Lake

Berryessa has many deep points, as much as 84 feet, with its large storage capacity, the

temperatures range from 4 degrees Celsius up to 25 degrees Celsius near the shorelines. The

oxygen levels and conductivity also show to be suitable habitat for the two species as seen in

Table 1.1 in Appendix B.

Given that the Eurasian mussels are extremely invasive and are spreading rapidly, the

vulnerability of Lake Berryessa is in question. The biological characteristics of Lake Berryessa


hold it suitable to host either of the two species (Davis 2012). The efforts of various

governmental agencies to prevent this spread will be analyzed before looking at the

management and monitoring methods of Lake Berryessa and neighboring California waters for

effectiveness in preventing such contamination.


CHAPTER II: 100TH MERIDIAN INITIATIVE AND

THE BAY AREA ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSEL

CONSORTIUM PREVENTION PLAN

Since the first discovery of Eurasian mussels in the Great Lakes, a Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act was installed in 1990. In 1996, that act was amended in an

effort to come up with prevention methods to halt the westward spread of the zebra mussels.

It was not until 2001 that a large scale prevention method had been drafted in result of this

amendment. The 100th Meridian Initiative, known as the first strategic approach to prevent the

westward spread of both species of mussels across the 100th Meridian line that basically divides

the U.S mainland in half (Mangin 2001) (Figure 2.1, Appendix A). This initiative included other

aquatic species as well and was meant to assist all water body management agencies and

departments in implementing a stop to the spread. The document was prepared by Susan

Mangin, U.S Fish and Wildlife, and The Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance

under an elected panel of tribal, federal, state, local, private, and commercial representatives.

Within the 100th Meridian Initiative, goals and estimated costs were established. The goals

included public outreach and education on the damages caused by the aquatic invasive,

monitoring methods for early detection, and to initiate a voluntary boat inspection and to

perform voluntary boater surveys. According to the document, “Recreationalists using infested

waters east of the 100th meridian and those trailering boats or personal watercraft from the

east to areas west of the 100th meridian will be targeted”. However, the efforts would not be

put towards boaters in the west that might already be in undetected infested waters. The

Initiative produced a lot of signage along major highways and at different water bodies east of

and at the 100th Meridian line. The highways implemented with the warning signs include US2,

I-94, US12, I-90, I-80, I-70, US54, I-40, I-20, and I-10. Interstate 80 connects to Highway 505 and

113, of which both lead to Lake Berryessa. Radio messages and other means of public outreach

were also to be implemented. Just as Lake Berryessa operates today, trained personnel will be

used to perform the voluntary inspections. The 100th Meridian Initiative acknowledges zebra

mussels may have already been introduced west of their goal point. Therefore it calls for early

detection protocols to be established and determined by those of current management of that

particular water body, and the 100th Meridian will make a list of who is implementing what. The

Initiative also calls for Federal and State agencies to determine which water bodies are at high,

low and medium risk. The evaluation will base its findings off of chemical and physical

characteristics along with recreational use patterns (Mangin 2001). Those that are of high risk

will be monitored frequently by various tests for the presence or absence of zebra mussels.

Rapid response plans of action and teams will be developed by cooperating government


agencies if contamination occurs. The Initiative also suggests the rapid response team should

meet annually to discuss their prevention and monitoring methods for revision and as needed

improvement.

The 100th Meridian Initiative was a great start towards stopping the spread of the aquatic

invasives. However, the efforts are only focused on zebra mussels not zebra and quagga

mussels. Both species have similar characteristics for adaptability to waters in the west. As

presented in earlier text, the quagga mussel is present in waters east of the 100th Meridian and

can exist in the same waters as zebra mussels and will eventually out-compete the zebra

mussel. The advocation for stopping the spread of zebra mussels, which do not adapt to a wider

range of environmental factors such as pH and Calcium levels as quagga mussels, leaves some

bodies of water at higher risk for contamination because they are considered a lower risk due

to the parameters of one species as opposed to consideration for both.

Since the 100th Meridian Initiative, contamination of both species has made their way into

California waterways. The closest known contamination to Lake Berryessa is San Justo

Reservoir. The 100th Meridian Initiative has proven itself ineffective and more stringent

measures were required for California. Since 2009, over 15 waterways in California used for

recreation have been shut down or reduced to restricted access due to infestation or extreme

high risk of contamination of zebra or quagga mussels (Klett 2012). Currently the Bay Area

Consortium Zebra and Quagga Mussel Coordinated Prevention Plan is being developed and

partially implemented (Klett 2012). The Coordinated Prevention Plan set in place a flow chart of

vulnerability assessment to determine which water bodies are at low, medium, and high risk.

Members of the program must abide by the same monitoring and prevention methods

established by the Consortium. The management methods are similar to that of the 100th

Meridian Initiative but spell out specific guidelines. Each member agency will apply the same

standards and consistency in their vessel inspection process to ensure boats from other

agencies within the Consortium do not pose a risk of unknown contamination to others. The

protocol states all boaters go through physical inspections at every access point and the

documented inspections are shared amongst the consortium on a live time database. The

following procedures must also be performed:

The boat is to be determined where it is registered by vessel “CF” identification number, and

the owner of the boat must be present. If the boat is registered out of state, or south of the

Tehachapi Mountains, where infestations exist, the boat will immediately fail the inspection

process and may not launch. If not, the recent locations of launch for that watercraft must be

determined. The same locations of out of state or south of the Tehachapi will fail the

inspection. Confirmation of previous quarantine must be determined and boat must be

inspected to have been properly cleaned, drained, and dried or released from quarantine from

the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Educational material must be provided to boater and


boater must be informed on the dangers of zebra mussels. Finally, the boat must be visually

and manually inspected looking at the deck, hull, bilge, bait wells, motor, trailer, equipment,

water toys, and rear of towing vehicle. All boater information is to be entered into the live

database, including the outcome of each inspection. Watercrafts that are exiting the water

body are to be offered a band and the benefits of banding are to be explained to the boater. As

stated in by the Consortium, “Only consortium members with full physical inspection programs

may place a band on a boat. Members of the consortium will recognize an intact band from

other Consortium members. A vessel entering a vessel inspection station with an intact band

will not need to submit to a full inspection. Instead the inspector shall inspect the band, insure

that it is intact, un-tampered, and is a valid band from a member of the Consortium. If a band is

lost or broken during transport, the vessel is subject to inspection and any applicable inspection

fee. If there are obvious signs that the band has been subject to tampering, the vessel owner /

operator will be given 30-day quarantine, a notice on how to properly clean and dry the boat,

and the information will be entered into the live time database” (Klett 2012). The band more

specifically attaches the boat to the trailer and needs to be removed in order for the boat to

launch again. If the boat launches in other waters that are of high risk, do not have an

inspection program, or even infested it is a simple and effective way for inspectors to

determine if that watercraft needs a full detailed inspection.

There have been no known additional contaminations of water bodies since the contamination

of San Justo Reservoir. The Coordinated Prevention Plan is proving itself to be much more

effective than the 100th Meridian Initiative, for those that are members. The program is

organized, and tightly knit which leaves little room for unknown factors. The demand for a

streamlined protocol ensures the quality of the inspections and assurance of no contamination

from all other bodies of water. However, other reservoirs still remain at risks that are not a part

of the consortium or do not practice similar methods of prevention, one of which is Lake

Berryessa.


CHAPTER III: SAN JUSTO RESERVOIR CASE STUDY

The Eurasian mussels have swept across the United States in only ten years. They have

transferred from water body to water body by hitchhiking onto different vessels, and in some

cases aquatic industrial equipment. The mussels are currently in California waters, but not all.

The closest known contamination is San Justo reservoir. An interview of the Deputy District

Engineer from San Benito County Water District, Mr. Dale Rosskamp, PE, was interviewed

regarding the contamination and subsequent challenges they face today.

According to Mr. Rosskamp, the economic impacts of the infestation of zebra mussels

(Dreissena polymorpha) are difficult to evaluate and quantify. Impacts that have not been

considered in previous studies are the indirect impacts on local businesses within the area. This

includes private marina’s that no longer accept boat launches, and for San Benito County

specifically, the bait shops and marina stores within the local towns.

San Justo Reservoir is located in San Benito County and fed by the San Luis Reservoir, which

also serves Santa Clara County. Similar to Lake Berryessa, San Justo Reservoir is managed by the

USBR, but the water is controlled by the San Benito Water District. The reservoir is smaller than

Lake Berryessa holding only 10,308 acre-feet at full capacity, with a circumference of about

21,500 feet. It only serves agricultural water, and was at one time open to the public for

recreational use including boating, fishing, and picnics. The reservoir was contaminated with

zebra mussels and the invasives were not discovered until 2008 (Rosskamp 2013). Due to the

Calcium and pH levels, San Justo Reservoir was susceptible for invasion from either species.

Although the 100th Meridian Initiative was developed, no prevention methods were being

practiced at the reservoir previous to the time of discovery. Now that the issue is increasingly

presenting itself, a team of responsible agencies are in charge of tackling this rapidly growing

devastation. The responsible agencies include the Bureau of Reclamation, San Benito County

Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, the California Department of Boating and

Waterways, and California State Parks (Rosskamp 2013).

The reservoir had also not been previously analyzed for level of risk of contamination

(Rosskamp 2013). Currently, the reservoir is contaminated from the water’s surface of the

shoreline down to thirty feet deep. Traditional methods have been implemented since

contamination including dredging, and regular maintenance is practiced to scrape the shores of

the zebra mussel shells. Rosskamp claims the current situation does not pose a threat to the

water conveyance infrastructure of the reservoir due to their hasty response and the

cooperation and assistance of other agencies. However, the Hollister Conduit and Distribution

System are already infested. In response to the infestation, the San Benito Water District,


federal, state, and local government agencies have been developing response plans against the

zebra mussels.

San Benito County Water District and other concerned local agencies are currently practicing

eradication efforts which include chemical treatments that are commonly used back east where

the mussels have resided for a longer period of time. In an effort to prevent further

contamination into other vital water conveyance systems, San Benito County Water District has

developed an alternative and innovative method.

This method consists of frequently and rapidly changing the water levels by emptying and filling

the reservoir to dry out what they call “the bath tub ring”. Since the reservoir is only

contaminated in the first thirty foot depths, they drain the reservoir to expose the zebra

mussels for a period of time to try and kill them, if not at least slow their reproduction rate

considering their resilience, and repeat the method constantly. Rosskamp noted this method

has only reduced their reproductive density, so far. Another decontamination test was

performed using San Justo raw water. This water contained various sizes of the mussels,

including veligers. They were put into different tanks with different pH and Calcium levels. In all

treatments, the adults remained firmly clumped and had to be separated for counting

(Rosskamp 2013).

Rosskamp believes it is not the motorized boaters that are the issue of the rapid spread of

contamination. He stated it is the canoes and kayaks that “are the biggest problem, because

people with motorized boats tend to clean and dry their boats after being in the water,

whereas kayaks and canoes do not. They launch, pick up, and go”. He had also mentioned

another problem is older fishing boats that are worn and uncared for. Two factors of older

boats put them at higher risk for carrying the unwanted hitchhikers than other watercrafts, one

is their surface is usually pitted with a worn clear coat and sometimes surface rust making it

easier for smaller Eurasian mussels to attach to. The second, according to Rosskamp, is that the

boaters tend to not care for their boats and do not drain and dry them, leaving the watercrafts

to potentially hold contaminated water consisting of the Eurasian mussels.

Contrary to what Rosskamp had stated about kayaks and canoes, the USBR and San Benito

Water District believe the contamination was due to a USBR project known as the San Felipe

Project. This is a part of the state water project which is also known as the Central Valley

Project. This water system carries Northern California waters down through a series of different

networks pipelines and canals to Southern California (Rosskamp 2013). Rosskamp claims the

mussels were introduced by equipment owned by the Bureau for construction of the project.

Regardless of the source of contamination, it happened even with great concern and an

attempt with the 100th Meridian Initiative.


San Justo Reservoir is only three hours south from Lake Berryessa. The lack of priority and

reality of risk of contamination led to the closure of a reservoir that was once open for

recreation. Now the reservoir is closed to the public, local businesses are suffering with the lack

of visitors, and the Water District and Bureau are spending more than ever on testing and

maintenance of different eradication efforts.


CHAPTER IV: HYPOTHESIS AND DATA TO BE

ANALYZED

The Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan incorporates a mixture of monthly plankton tows and

processing of the plankton samples for detection of the Eurasian mussels, and monthly

examination of deployed artificial substrates to look for mussel attachments (Davis 2012). The

monthly examination of deployed artificial substrates also includes visual examination of

different structures in Lake Berryessa and the infrastructure surrounding it including canals and

buoys (Davis 2012). The plan also includes on-site education and boat inspections performed by

interns of the Solano County Water Agency, and rangers of the Bureau of Reclamation (Davis

2012). All of the individuals performing the on-site education are trained as certified

Dockwalkers through the Department of Boating and Waterways and Level I Watercraft

Inspectors through the Bureau of Reclamation (Davis 2013). The trained individuals educate

boaters entering Capell Cove Memorial Day Weekend though Labor Day weekend, Fridays

through Sundays about the dangers of the invasive species, where they are located, and how

they can be accidentally transported. A quick inspection is also performed on each boat using a

self-reporting form for the boaters, and a visual walk around. If a high risk boat is encountered,

an order of protocol is followed by contacting a specific chain of command consisting of local

agency authorities. Signage is posted through the Program focusing on education of the

Eurasian mussels at various locations throughout Lake Berryessa. Through the Program, off-site

education is also implemented with help of the Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership (Davis

2012).

Within this process, the day to day operation of Capell Cove consist of the gates opening early

in the morning before the sun rises for boaters, and unmonitored or inspected boats entering

the waters from Monday to Thursday, only relying on the single sign that is posted at the launch

ramp . A drop box has been installed with the self-reporting inspection form for boaters to fill

out and place on their dash before proceeding to launch at the unattended ramp, however this

is not very effective. The boaters do not always fill out the forms. During the summer months

from approximately May to September, Friday through Sunday, a trained ranger is on site

around 7:00 am to educate boaters and visually inspect the boat along with filing out the self-

reporting survey for the boater to determine their risk of transporting the Eurasian mussels

(Appendix C). A team of two trained interns will then take over the shift and perform the same

duties as the ranger from approximately 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. In addition to the same duties as

the ranger; they will keep track of the type of traffic entering Capell Cove, including returning

visitors and type of boats on an hourly basis. One intern will also perform an optional

questionnaire with the boaters to further educate them on Lake Berryessa, current boating

laws, and water quality issues. However, during the time that trained personnel is not on site,


the only monitoring that is being performed is done so by a traffic counter that records the

number of axles entering Capell Cove.

The Bureau of Reclamation monitors this traffic counter. This traffic counter records the

number of axles that cross over the counter and continuously counts until it is either reset

manually or from the battery dying. Approximately each week, a USBR ranger will record the

traffic counter. According to USBR the numbers are unreliable and not always recorded after

exactly 7 days. The daily maintenance traffic, sheriff patrol traffic, and watercraft inspection

personnel traffic on the weekend is not factored into the recordings, but is a part of it. The

traffic counter is recorded continuously throughout the year ranging from 4 days to 21 days

between each reading.

The hypothesis to be tested is as follows: The current Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan as regards to

on-site education and boat inspections at Lake Berryessa is ineffective. Therefore, Lake

Berryessa is at risk and will eventually become contaminated with zebra and or quagga mussels.

The null-hypothesis is as follows: The current Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan as regards to on-site

education and boat inspections at Lake Berryessa is effective. Therefore, Lake Berryessa is at no

risk and will not become contaminated with zebra and or quagga mussels, so long as the plan

remains at current status.

The criterion for rejecting the null hypothesis is if the number of boats un-inspected is greater

than 50% of the total number of boats entering Lake Berryessa through Capell Cove in a year. In

addition, there must be evidence that high risk boats of potential contamination are entering

Lake Berryessa’s waters.

The data to be analyzed will look at the traffic counter data that counts axles provided by the

Bureau of Reclamation, and the data collected on site from the Solano County Water Agency

interns from the summer of 2013. In order to compare and analyze the data, the traffic counter

must be calibrated for the range of error. The data to be analyzed will determine the amount of

traffic that is not inspected through Capell Cove launch ramp with the self-reporting form, and

projecting the amount of high risk potentially contaminated boats going un-inspected based on

the amount of potentially contaminated boats intercepted by the Solano County Water Agency

interns. This will be done by the calibration of the traffic counter though on site recordings of

entering traffic and the traffic counter reading after each vehicle crosses the traffic counter.

The number of axles per actual vehicle and vehicle towing a boat can then be closely estimated

through this method of calibration. The amount of employee traffic including patrol,

maintenance, and employee rounds will also be subtracted from the readings. The data

collected from the Solano County Water Agency interns will then be subtracted from that

calculation which they collected Fridays through Sundays. This will then unveil the estimated

amount of un-inspected boat launches Mondays through Thursdays and be presented in a bar


graph to compare daily weekday boat launches to daily weekend boat launches at Capell Cove

between May and September. The amount of annual uninspected boat launches at Capell Cove

will be projected based on the remaining traffic counter data available. Then, the number of

high risk potentially contaminated boats during that uninspected time will be calculated with a

simple ratio and projection. The data will be compared to launch patterns at other launch sites

at Lake Berryessa including Markley Cove, Steel Canyon Park, and Pleasure Cove. The Solano

County Water Agency interns also recorded the amount of hourly traffic at Capell Cove which

will be analyzed through a bar graph as well.


CHAPTER V: DATA ANALYSIS

On November 2, 2013, the traffic counter was read before any boat had arrived at

approximately 4:15 am. The traffic counter reading was recorded after every vehicle would

cross the traffic counter for approximately 6 hours until traffic slowed down and it was

determined the data recorded was sufficient for calibration.

With the single vehicular traffic ratio compared to the boater traffic, an estimated ratio of 7% of

the traffic is visiting vehicles without trailers. The amount of axles crossing the traffic counter

was also calibrated against the data collected over the summer weekends (Friday-Sunday) by

interns and an estimate of 2.23 axle counts occur for every single boat towed by a vehicle, and

1.0 axle count for every single vehicle without a trailer. This estimate includes boats of single

axle and double axle trailers. The amount of USBR workers, maintenance, and law enforcement

patrol was estimated at 6 entrances per day during the off season (January 1- April 29). The

amount of USBR workers, maintenance, and law enforcement patrol was estimated at 10

entrances per day during the high season (April 30- September 2). The remaining dates are

considered off season, but the data is only available from February to April for Capell Cove

during 2012. With the factors established in order to estimate weekday boat launches, the

calibrated axle count data was converted to units of boats and vehicles, which was then

analyzed with the data collected by interns during the summer weekends (Friday-Sunday). As

seen in Table 5.1, Appendix B, the traffic counter data was collected at an array of different

times spanning from 4 days to 21 days year to date. The number of boats documented on the

weekends is assumed at collection of 85% of boats launching during the weekends, meaning

each day’s worth of boats documented was multiplied by 1.176. This assumption is based off of

experience and the fact that the gates are open before and after interns and rangers are on site

to inspect boats and collect data. Once the traffic counter numbers had been converted to

number of boats with the 2.23 calibration, the numbers of boats documented on the weekends

during the summer were subtracted. This leaves the total number of boats launching during the

weekdays for the summer. The number of boats launching during the weekdays was then

divided by the number of weekdays the traffic counter collected data, giving the number of

boats launching per weekday during each time frame the traffic counter data was collected.

Some numbers were not accurate due to the battery dying on the traffic counter, or other

unknown errors. To normalize the data, each month’s daily weekday and weekend traffic

numbers were averaged in order to see the trends. Data was also collected by the Bureau of

Reclamation for four other launch sites including Markley Cove, Pleasure Cove, and Steel

Canyon Park. The data is recorded by the concessionaires at those launch sites and for each site

the month’s daily weekday and weekend boat launches was also averaged for comparison. The

total boat launches for each of the four sites was also broken up into percentages per site.


As seen in Graph 5.2, Appendix B, Capell Cove makes up 35.14% of the total launches amongst

the four sites.

Looking at Capell Cove’s average daily traffic, the lowest number of weekday launches is seen in

February and May with approximately 4 launches per day. The highest number of weekday

launches is in July with an average of 34. The lowest number of weekend launches is seen in

May with an average of 73 launches per day. As stated previously, data is not available in

January, September, October, November, and December. The highest number of average

weekend launches at Capell Cove is in June with 90 launches per day. This graph can be seen in

Graph 5.3, Appendix B. The averages for weekday and weekend daily launches for Markley

Cove shows to be higher than those of Capell Cove which can also be seen in Graph 5.4,

Appendix B. Steel Canyon Park shows lower numbers than that of Capell Cove (Graph 5.5,

Appendix B), and Pleasure Cove with the least amount of boat launches out of the four launch

sites (Graph 5.6, Appendix B).

The average weekend boat launches per hour was also calculated using data collected from

interns in 2012 and 2013. The available data was collected from 7:00 am until 6:00 pm. As seen

in Graph 5.7, Appendix B, the peak of the day is between 10:00 am and 11:00 am with an

average of 17 boats launching in that one hour. After 11:00, the number of boats launching

decreases by 1.3985 boats per hour.

Finally, given the total number of boats launching at Capell Cove with the methods as stated

above, the proportion of inspected boats (each boat documented by interns is inspected)

versus non-inspected boats was calculated. The pie chart shows 35% of boats throughout the

year are inspected and 65% of boats are launching with no inspection (Graph 5.8, Appendix B).

Of those boats inspected during the summer weekends, the original inspection forms show 7

out of 3357 boats were potentially contaminated (Table 5.9 Appendix B). That .21% of

potentially contaminated boats projected on the amount of boats that are not inspected shows

13 out of 6352 boats could potentially be contaminated with zebra and or quagga mussels. The

estimated 13 boats are launching without inspection.

Based on the experience from USBR rangers, the traffic counter placed at Capell Cove does

contain some errors, and the amount of employee traffic is an average based on their normal

activity. Changes in that assumption have occurred over 2013 given a unique situation or

emergency that requires a higher amount of employee, patrol, and or maintenance traffic.

Some errors were seen in the documentation by interns compared to their original inspection

forms they filled out. However, not all original inspection forms were available so the entries

into their data form were used instead of the original documents in these calculations for

consistency.


CHAPTER VI: INTERPRETATION AND

SIGNIFICANCE OF DATA

The data calculated for the boat launches at Capell Cove shows more than 50% of the boats

launching in the year are not being inspected, or even informed on the dangers of zebra and

quagga mussel infestations. Calculations showing 65% of boats are not being inspected meets

one of two criterions to reject the null hypothesis. Of those boats launching un-inspected and

un-informed, 13 of those boats are launching as high risk and potentially contaminated. This

calculation meets the second of criterion to reject the null hypothesis. Although only .21% of

the total boats launching at Capell Cove are at high risk, it only takes one exposure for either

species to establish. The summer of 2013 was the first year certified inspectors were stationed

at Capell Cove past 12:00 pm. The interns from the summer of 2012 were scheduled until 6:00

pm on a handful of days in order to see what the launching traffic is like. The data collected by

the Solano County Water Agency interns clearly shows boats have been launching Friday

through Sunday, before and after rangers and interns are scheduled to inspect boats. Capell

Cove is also the only free launch site at Lake Berryessa. The fact of not having to pay a launch

fee might entice new boaters or boaters who have never been to Lake Berryessa to launch

there (un-inspected). Looking at the boat launching trends at the other three launch sites, it can

be assumed there are boats launching where monthly data was not available for Capell Cove.

Given the assumption only 85% of boats were being inspected and informed on the weekends,

the amount of high risk and potentially contaminated boats going un-inspected could be higher.

Also, looking at the data for Steel Canyon Park, 2013 was a unique year for them due to being

closed from January to May. Under normal conditions, their portion of total boaters will

increase in 2014, and the percentage of Capell Cove, Markley Cove, and Pleasure Cove will

decrease.

Although 64.85% of the boats recorded in this study are launching through manned

concessionaires, their inspection process is no more than what is performed at Capell Cove on

the summer weekends. All launch sites use the same self-reporting form and signage provided

by the Bureau of Reclamation and Solano County Water Agency. However, Markley Cove does

not use the forms properly; they cut off the educational portion of the self-reporting forms only

leaving the bottom for a signature stating the visitor’s boat is not infested.

Based on the biological characteristics of Lake Berryessa as described previously, Lake Berryessa

is very suitable for zebra or quagga mussels to establish and infest. Accepting the hypothesis:

The current Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan as regards on-site education and boat inspections at

Lake Berryessa is ineffective. Therefore, Lake Berryessa is at risk and will eventually become

contaminated with zebra and or quagga mussels.


CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSIONS

All criterion have been met, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The hypothesis is

accepted as follows: The current Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan as regards Lake Berryessa is

ineffective. Therefore, Lake Berryessa is at risk and will eventually become contaminated with

zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and or quagga (Dreissena bugensis) mussels. Based on the data,

not all of the traffic at Capell Cove is inspected. It is only documented by a traffic counter at the

entrance to the launch site. About 65% of the boats launching at Capell Cove are doing so un-

inspected, and 13 of those boats are launching at high risk and potentially contaminated

(Appendix C). Over half is a significant number to be un-inspected. An infested boat can arrive

at any time, a likely possibility based on this past summer’s inspections. If a contaminated boat

launches at Capell Cove, the mussels will establish and infest the aquatic system. Based on the

biological characteristics of Lake Berryessa as stated in the Background, the lake is suitable

habitat for both species to thrive. Given the fact that one mussel can produce up to one million

eggs in a year, contamination at one launch site poses a threat to the entire lake. The likelihood

of contamination of either of the two species is realistic given they have spread across the

United States in approximately 10 years. The cause of the spread is due to recreational boaters

going from one lake to another and the species ability to attach to hard surfaces and survive

out of water for over a week, or floating veligers in the bilge compartment of boats which hold

water. Infested lakes are near Lake Berryessa including waters in Southern California and

Arizona. Some of those lakes do not require decontamination of boats after exiting. It has also

been noted by an anonymous boater at Lake Berryessa that state border patrol did not inspect

his boat for invasive species or standing water. This makes the transfer of the invasives possible

and plausible. Given all of the stated factors into consideration, the null hypothesis is rejected,

and the hypothesis is accepted.

The exposure of Lake Berryessa to Eurasian mussels could happen tomorrow, in the next year,

or a couple of years. However, there is a 65% chance when a potentially contaminated boat

does arrive that there will not be any staff on site to inspect that boat or to educate that boater

on the dangers of the zebra and quagga mussels.


CHAPTER VIII: IMPLICATIONS

Since San Justo is the closest contaminated reservoir to Lake Berryessa and the biology of the

two reservoirs is similar, this contamination should serve as a warning indicator that Lake

Berryessa is at the same risk as San Justo was. The traffic analysis of how many boats are

launching, how many are not inspected, and how many are at high risk and potentially

contaminated should also serve as a strong indicator that more stringent measures need to be

implemented.

The original inspection forms filled out by 2013 interns indicates the training needs to be

stronger. The high risk boats in the original inspection forms were not inspected by the interns

and were not marked as needing a full inspection. Therefore there are no records of following

the appropriate protocol for that encounter. The previous launching locations, registration

number, or place of residence should all serve as indicators for a needed full inspection if the

content permits. For example, three of the watercrafts were registered in Arizona. This is a

known area of contaminated reservoirs and lakes that do not provide a decontamination

station after recreational use. Two of those Arizona registered watercrafts were jet skis and

launching together. Two of the other watercrafts that should have been subject to a full

inspection were from Southern California residencies near waters that are known to be

contaminated with zebra mussels. Another inspection that was also not subject to a full

inspection was a boat without the state of registration documented that last launched in Lake

Havasu. This lake is known to be open for recreation and infested with zebra mussels. Although

all rangers with the Bureau of Reclamation and interns with Solano County Water Agency go

through certification to become Level 1 Certified Watercraft Inspectors, not one boat has been

documented to be submitted to a full inspection in the summer of 2013. The boater simply

passed through the normal inspection process of visual checks and the self-reporting form. The

boaters were asked where they last launched, where they live, and their registration (CF

number) is documented. The training calls for inspectors to notice signs of high risk boats and

then proceed with a full inspection of looking in live wells and bilge compartments for standing

water, or rough surfaces on the boat and trailer. Water samples should be obtained along with

personal identification information of the boat owner, and authorities notified. The training

period needs to be extended and the importance of not spreading invasive species needs to be

stressed further to those who will be inspecting the boats on a regular basis.

A training manual was created in 2013 for the upcoming interns, although it could use revisions,

the protocol for boat inspections are available in that document. Those who will be performing

the regular inspections should be required to go through their training manual and be tested on

key concepts and steps regarding zebra and quagga mussel facts and high risk signs. Interns

from the summer of 2013 are still currently with Solano County Water Agency, and they are the


most experienced in performing the job and should play a key role in the training and guidance

of new interns throughout the upcoming summer. However, the data clearly shows having

diligent inspectors perform their duties on the summer weekends is not enough. With 65% of

the boats not being documented or inspected, a great threat of infestation is posed on Lake

Berryessa. The estimated cost provided by Solano County Water Agency for 5.5 interns is about

$47,520.00, each at $16.00 per hour and working 30 hours per week on Friday, Saturday, and

Sunday. They will work 40 hours per week during summer holidays. If a team of two interns

were to be implemented at Capell Cove inspecting boats Monday through Thursdays at the

same rate, but 8 hours a day, the additional costs would only be $19,584.00. This

implementation would reduce the amount of boats launching un-inspected from 65% to 43%,

assuming the inspections are performed from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day

weekend.

An interview with Ken Davis on this topic is as stated: “I think attitude is paramount on the part

of all participants in the program: the Bureau, the inspectors, the sheriffs, etc. We need better

training on the USBR forms to make them more track-able, some oversight (with interns) at the

lake on a regular basis, continuing education such as a Facebook Group, and required

recertification every two years for interns and concessionaires. In other words, more interns

are not going to help if their attitudes are negative or wanting.” This brings the idea to light that

the program is not exactly defined regarding mussel inspections. The interns began as water

quality education interns, and the mussel inspections have surfaced slowly as a priority of their

duties. It simply has not been defined as an urgent priority of their tasks. Specialty management

for boat inspections should be implemented in the Lake Berryessa Mussel Plan in addition to

the specialty management of the water quality education that is already present. This is a light

suggestion that may help streamline and really define the objectives of having interns out at

Lake Berryessa working with the public as a whole.

Due to the availability of data from the traffic counter, the amount of boats that could be

inspected during the weekends of the remaining months cannot be estimated. The estimated

additional cost to implement inspections by a team of two interns on Saturdays and Sundays in

the remaining months is $8,704.00. During the summer months, when interns and rangers are

inspecting boats 7 days a week, an idea from the Bay Area Zebra and Quagga Mussel

Consortium Prevention Plan should be considered. The operations of the plan include tagging

boats as they exit their reservoirs and lakes. The unique tags attach the boat to the trailer, and

must be cut in order to re-launch. With this, it is easy to tell if a returning visitor has launched

their boat in unknown waters or if the boater last launched in Lake Berryessa. For Solano

County Water Agency, the tags can most likely be large zip ties with a unique sticker to secure

around the zip tie for identification. The tags can either be handed to visitors before they

launch in good faith or after they exit the waters with the incentive of not being subject to the

full inspection upon their return. The materials will not be a substantial cost. Such an


implementation would be a great step in the right direction towards reducing the risk of

infestation.

Due to the lack of data and what has been estimated; a further traffic study at Capell Cove

should also be performed. In order to do this a more reliable traffic counter should be installed

in order to see daily traffic counts. With those resources, the percent of boats going un-

inspected can be more precisely calculated. Regarding the other launch sites, it would be

appropriate for the concessionaires to perform similar inspections of each watercraft, currently

inspections are not provided and they rely on signage to prevent contaminated boats from

launching. Summer of 2013 was the first year Solano County Water Agency interns were

stationed at the other launch sites for inspections Fridays through Sundays. However, each site

should inspect their boats during the week when the interns are not present. Each watercraft

already checks in and pays a launch fee; therefore using the tagging system would not be too

disruptive to the flow of traffic and business. The Solano County Water Agency should provide

the materials for this tagging system to the concessionaires. Employees of the other launch

sites should also become Level 1 Certified Watercraft Inspectors as well. Putah Creek Park, a

launch site not analyzed in this study is the only concessionaires with certified employees (Davis

2013). If a tagging system is not used, the signs of a high risk boat will be presented to them as

they pay to launch and turn in their self-reporting form. This idea can be easily implemented by

Markley Cove if they did not tamper with the self-reporting forms. Steel Canyon Park and

Pleasure Cove can regulate boats launching in the same operation and educate boaters with

their certifications in the process. In order to see which launch sites are accurately the most

vulnerable (highest traffic), Steel Canyon Park should be required to report daily launches

opposed to monthly totals.

If all the launch sites were certified to inspect their boats and did so diligently, it would be

useful to have a live reporting data form that is viewed and shared by all the launch sites. Much

like what the Consortium operates; a live data sheet with all documented launching boats or

denied boats will prevent the risk of a boater being denied to launch at one site and going on to

the next. Although this would be a great solution, cell phone and data usage is not available in

some locations around the lake. Radios would also be an effective form of communication

between all launches sites and a great alternative. A Facebook page for boat inspectors is in the

works and very useful for communication for many resorts (Davis 2013).

Finally, if all the suggested protocols were set forth, it is likely boats will be deemed infested

and advised not to launch in Lake Berryessa. Due to the unique position of Lake Berryessa and

its history, the efforts put forth in prevention do not grant interns the jurisdiction to legally

deny boats from entering Lake Berryessa. This is a highly sensitive issue between many of the

stakeholders, and not for the breadth of this report. Regardless, if those performing the

inspections had legal assistance on site or jurisdiction to do so, it would only enhance the


effectiveness of the efforts. Currently very high advisory can only be performed, and

jurisdictional personnel notified.

On another note, if a decontamination station were installed at Capell Cove boaters could

pressure wash their boat with high heat in order to eliminate any hitchhiking invasives and

might be less discouraged for attempting to launch again after the boat has been properly dried

out. Not only would a decontamination station be useful for on-site emergencies, it will resolve

the issue of a denied boat potentially launching in a nearby lake or reservoir.

There are many possibilities for decreasing the risk of contamination; it is only a matter of

initiative, cooperation, and costs. The suggestions provided are with a modest budget in

consideration. The data analyzed in this study presents itself as a serious indicator for a

devastating threat to Lake Berryessa. The time is now to initiate new protocols in order to

decrease the risk of zebra or quagga mussel infestation. The repercussions are very costly and

devastating to the biology, local businesses, annual boaters, and the people who depend on it

as a source of drinking water.


REFERENCES

Bruner, K. A., S. W. Fisher, and P. F. Landrum. 1994. The role of the zebra mussel in

contaminant cycling: II. Zebra mussel contaminant accumulation from algae and suspended

particles, and transfer to the benthic invertebrate, Gammarus fasciatus. J. Great Lakes Res.

20:735-750.

Butler, M. K. 2013. Keep Berryessa Clean (pamphlet). Resource Conservation Agency. Solano

Resource Conservation District. Dixon, California, USA.

Claudi, R, G. Mackie. 1994. Practical manual for zebra mussel monitoring and control. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Connelly, N. A., C. O’Neill, B. Knuth, T. Brown. 2007. Economic Impacts of Zebra Mussels on

Drinking Water Treatment and Electric Power Generation Facilities. Environ Manage. 40: 105-

112.

Davis, K. W. Early Detection & Education Plan for Eurasian Mussels (Solano Project).2012.

Solano County Water Agency. Vacaville, California, USA.

Davis, K. W. Personal Interview with Ken W. Davis, Aquatic Biologist/ Wildlife Photojournalist.

(Creekman.com). Creekman, Sacramento, California, USA. 12-10-13. 1:45 pm.

Dillon, R. T. 2000. The Ecology of Freshwater Molluscs. Cambridge University Press, New

York, New York, USA.

Klett, K. Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. 2012. Bay Area Consortium

Zebra and Quagga Mussel Coordinated Prevention Plan. Los Gatos, California, USA.

MacIsaac, H. J. 1996. Potential Abiotic and Biotic Impacts of Zebra Mussels on the Inland

Waters of North America. Amer Zool, 36:287-299.

Mangin, S. The 100th Meridian Initiative: A Strategic Approach to Prevent the Westward Spread

of Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species. 2001. U.S Department of the Interior,

U.S Fish and Wildlife. Washington, DC, USA.

Mills, E. L., G. Rosenberg, A. Spidle, M. Ludyanskiy, Y. Pligin, B. May. 1995. A Review of the

Biology and Ecology of the Quagga Mussel (Dreissena bugensis), a Second Species of

Freshwater Dreissenid Introduced to North America. Amer Zool, 36: 271-286.

Rosskamp, D. F. 2013. Phone Interview with Dale. F. Rosskamp, Deputy District Engineer (20

Minutes). San Benito County Water District, Hollister, California, USA. 10-25-13. 3:03 pm.

Sprung, M., U. Rose. 1988. Influence of food size and food quantity on the feeding of the mussel

Dreissena polymorpha. Oecologia 77: 526-532.


The National Atlas of the United States of America. Zebra Mussels. 2009. Nationalatlas.gov.

U.S Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. 2013. About Lake Berryessa. Central

California Area Office, Lake Berryessa, Napa, USA.

U.S Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Early History of Lake Berryessa.

Central California Area Office, Lake Berryessa, Napa, USA.

WoRMS. Mollusca. 2013 Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at

http://www.marinespecies.org.

Figure 1.1 Provided By: Herbert et al. 1989, Marsden et al. 1995

Figure 1.2 Provided By: U.S Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database

Figure 1.3 Provided By: J. Thompson, F. Parchaso, A. Alpine, J. Cloern, B. Cole, O. Mace, J.

Edmunds, J. Baylosis, S. Luoma, F. Nichols of U.S Geological Survey.

Figure 1.4 Provided By: Peptide Technologies, Inc.

Figure 1.5 Provided By: MacIsaac, H. J. 1996. Potential Abiotic and Biotic Impacts of Zebra

Mussels on the Inland Waters of North America. Amer Zool, 36:287-299.

Figure 2.1 Provided By: Mangin, S. The 100th Meridian Initiative: A Strategic Approach to

Prevent the Westward Spread of Zebra Mussels and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species. 2001. U.S

Department of the Interior, U.S Fish and Wildlife. Washington, DC, USA.

APPENDIX A

FIGURES


FIGURE 1.1 ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSEL CHARACTERISTICS


FIGURE 1.2 ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSEL CURRENT INFESTATIONS


FIGURE 1.3 ZEBRA MUSSEL ATTACHED TO CRAYFISH

FIGURE 1.4 QUAGGA MUSSEL FOULING PIPES


FIGURE 1.5 MACISAAC SCHEMATIC OF IMPACTS OF DREISSENA POLYMORPHA


FIGURE 2.1 100TH MERIDIAN INITIATIVE

APPENDIX B

TABLES AND GRAPHS


TABLE 1.1 ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSEL IDEAL PARAMETERS


TABLE 5.1 DATA ANALYSIS FROM TRAFFIC COUNTER

Date from Date to:

2/5/2013 2/11/2013

2/12/2013 2/18/2013

2/19/2013 2/25/2013

2/26/2013 3/4/2013

3/5/2013 3/11/2013

3/12/2013 3/18/2013

3/19/2013 3/25/2013

3/26/2013 4/1/2013

4/2/2013 4/10/2013

4/11/2013 4/14/2013

4/15/2013 4/21/2013

4/22/2013 4/28/2013

4/29/2013 5/5/2013

5/6/2013 5/27/2013

5/28/2013 6/3/2013

6/4/2013 6/16/2013

6/17/2013 6/23/2013

6/24/2013 6/30/2013

7/1/2013 7/4/2013

7/5/2013 7/8/2013

7/9/2013 7/14/2013

7/15/2013 7/28/2013

7/29/2013 8/4/2013

8/5/2013 8/11/2013

8/12/2013 8/18/2013

8/19/2013 8/29/2013

8/30/2013 9/2/2013


GRAPH 5.2 TOTAL BOAT LAUNCHES BETWEEN FOUR LAUNCH SITES


GRAPH 5.3 AVERAGE DAILY LAUNCHES AT CAPELL COVE


GRAPH 5.4 AVERAGE DAILY LAUNCHES AT MARKLEY COVE


GRAPH 5.5 AVERAGE DAILY LAUNCHES AT STEEL CANYON PARK


GRAPH 5.6 AVERAGE DAILY LAUNCHES AT PLEASURE COVE


GRAPH 5.7 AVERAGE WEEKEND LAUNCHES PER HOUR AT CAPELL COVE


GRAPH 5.8 AMOUNT OF BOATS NOT INSPECTED


TABLE 5.9 AMOUNT OF HIGH RISK BOATS

Clean Boats Inspected Potentially Contaminated Boats Not Inspected

3357 7

% Potentially Contaminated= 0.21%

Total Potentially Contaminated Clean Boats in 2012 Potentially Contaminated Boats in 2012

6352 13.25

APPENDIX C

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND MAP

Date from Date to: Axel Count Total

Actual Count on

Traffic Counter

Maintenance

Vehicles + Patrol (6

per day off season

& 10 per day busy

season)

Axel Count- Maintenance

Vehicles + Patrol (5 per

day)

Visiting Vehicles/

Boat

Axel Count Total

Vehicles

Axel

Count/Vehicle

(1.0 Axel Count/

Vehicle)= Number

of Vehicle

Average

Axel Count -

(Maintenance

Vehicle + Visiting

Vehicles) = Axel

Count Boats

Axel Count/ Vehicle +

Trailer (2.23 Axel

Count/Boat)= Boats

Weekend Boats

Counted

Number of

Days

Number of

Weekend

Days

Counted

Number of

Weekdays

Weekday Boats Only Average Daily Boat

During Week Provided

Total

Weekday

Boaters/M

onth

Average

Weekday

Boaters/

Month

Total

Weekend

Boaters/M

onth

Average

Weekend

Boats/

Month

2/5/2013 2/11/2013 435 435 42 393 7% 27.51 19.65 373.35 167 NA 7 0 NA 24 85.3 4 NA NA

2/12/2013 2/18/2013 462 27 42 -15 7% -1.05 -0.75 -14.25 -6 NA 7 0 NA 0

2/19/2013 2/25/2013 1150 688 42 646 7% 45.22 32.3 613.7 275 NA 7 0 NA 39

2/26/2013 3/4/2013 1554 404 42 362 7% 25.34 18.1 343.9 154 NA 7 0 NA 22

3/5/2013 3/11/2013 2069 515 54 461 7% 32.27 23.05 437.95 196 NA 9 0 NA 22 122.7 6 NA NA

3/12/2013 3/18/2013 479 479 42 437 7% 30.59 21.85 415.15 186 NA 7 0 NA 27

3/19/2013 3/25/2013 1156 677 42 635 7% 44.45 31.75 603.25 271 NA 7 0 NA 39

3/26/2013 4/1/2013 1784 628 42 586 7% 41.02 29.3 556.7 250 NA 7 0 NA 36

4/2/2013 4/10/2013 2269 485 54 431 7% 30.17 21.55 409.45 184 NA 9 0 NA 20 230.9 12 NA NA

4/11/2013 4/14/2013 708 708 24 684 7% 47.88 34.2 649.8 291 NA 4 0 NA 73

4/15/2013 4/21/2013 1324 616 42 574 7% 40.18 28.7 545.3 245 NA 7 0 NA 35

4/22/2013 4/28/2013 2196 872 42 830 7% 58.1 41.5 788.5 354 NA 7 0 NA 51

4/29/2013 5/5/2013 3096 900 42 858 7% 60.06 42.9 815.1 366 NA 7 0 NA 52

5/6/2013 5/27/2013 3939 843 210 633 7% 44.31 31.65 601.35 270 639 21 9 12 -369 -31 53.9 4 879 73

5/28/2013 6/3/2013 1011 1011 50 961 7% 67.27 48.05 912.95 409 240 5 3 2 169 85

6/4/2013 6/16/2013 2343 1332 120 1212 7% 84.84 60.6 1151.4 516 540 12 6 6 -24 -4 154.6 12 990 90

6/17/2013 6/23/2013 1402 1402 60 1342 7% 93.94 67.1 1274.9 572 270 6 3 3 302 101

6/24/2013 6/30/2013 2429 1027 60 967 7% 67.69 48.35 918.65 412 180 6 2 4 232 58

7/1/2013 7/4/2013 3933 1504 40 1464 7% 102.48 73.2 1390.8 624 84 4 1 2 540 270 544.3 34 1315 82

7/5/2013 7/8/2013 495 495 40 455 7% 31.85 22.75 432.25 194 252 4 3 1 -58 -58

7/9/2013 7/14/2013 1858 1363 50 1313 7% 91.91 65.65 1247.35 559 252 5 3 2 307 154

7/15/2013 7/28/2013 3023 1165 130 1035 7% 72.45 51.75 983.25 441 504 13 6 7 -63 -9

7/29/2013 8/4/2013 5381 2358 70 2288 7% 160.16 114.4 2173.6 975 223 7 3 4 752 188

8/5/2013 8/11/2013 6486 1105 60 1045 7% 73.15 52.25 992.75 445 223 6 3 3 222 74 429.1 31 888 74

8/12/2013 8/18/2013 983 983 60 923 7% 64.61 46.15 876.85 393 223 6 3 3 170 57

8/19/2013 8/29/2013 2245 1262 100 1162 7% 81.34 58.1 1103.9 495 223 10 3 7 272 39

8/30/2013 9/2/2013 3408 1163 40 1123 7% 78.61 56.15 1066.85 478 219 4 3 1 259 259

21

21

20

Date post:	16-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sabrina-colias
View:	173 times
Download:	1 times

Colias_Analysis of Zebra and Quagga Mussel Contamination_Thesis_Final

Documents