Page |1
Have You Ever Heard
of a
Quagga Mussel?
By
Jackie Luebbert
Longfellow Elementary School
3rd Grade, Science
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
TTE 523
Summer 2012
Page |2
STUDENT SCENARIO
Topic: Quagga Mussels
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/zebra_mussels.shtml
Want to find our more?
Quagga mussels have left their own lakes and have started moving into other lakes close to
us. Their scientific name is dreissena bugensis. They are freshwater, bivalve mollusks that have
invaded North American waters. These mussels often settle in massive colonies that can block
water intake pipes and affect people’s water supply, agricultural irrigation, and power plant
operation.
In the United States, scientists estimated that zebra mussels alone cost the power industry
$3.1 billion in the 1993-1999 period, with their impact on industries, businesses, and communities
more than $5 billion.
Arizona lakes and rivers are threatened by the accidental introduction of the quagga mussels
due to the effects on native fish, industries, business and communities.
Scientists have found quagga mussels in Arizona lakes. What effect do you think quagga mussels
will have on the ecosystems in Arizona?
Goal: Your goal is to come up with a long-term solution to keep the quagga mussels out of the Salt
and Verde River systems.
Role: Your team has been hired by the Arizona Game and Fish department to create a proposal
explaining the current situation with the quagga mussels in Arizona and the possible impacts their
introduction may be to other lakes in Arizona. Find a long-term solution.
Page |3
Audience: Your clients are Arizona Game and Fish representatives, SRP employees, and local
politicians. Arizona Game and Fish will likely carry out the solution and would have ideas on to get
started. SRP is a power company that would be financially impacted if the mussels entered the Salt
and Verde River systems. They also have many resources to assist with the solution. Local
politicians would need to be educated about the problem so that they may create laws to help stop
the spread of invasive species, like the quagga mussel.
Situation: The challenge involves learning about the history and biology of quagga mussels,
identifying the affected lakes and the effects quagga mussels have had in other locations, human
contributions to the issue, and current prevention methods.
Performance: You will develop a presentation for your clients that will outline your findings and
introduce your solution. Your presentation must include the following:
-a display poster depicting quagga mussels and their effects that can be referred to during
the presentation___
-
an summary of the short and long term impacts
-
development of a method to publicize the issue and educate the human population
Criteria for Success: Your performance will be judged on your presentation and your display poster
which must include: the history of the quagga mussels, the current prevention methods, and your
own prevention model.
Page |4
Prevention of Quagga Mussels in Salt and Verde River Systems
Stage 1 – Desired Results
Established Goals (Standards)
What content standards and
program goals will the unit
address?
Transfer
Students will be able to independently use their learning to:
 Investigate
 Research
 Problem solve
3rd Grade Science:
 Solutions
 Communication of process
 Life Science – Concept 3:
 Collaborate
 PO1 – Living vs.
 Reasoning
non-living (compare
and understand
relationships)
 PO2 – Macro
Meaning
organisms and
microorganisms
Understandings
Essential Questions
(compare and
Quagga mussels can cause harm
Why is it important to know about
understand
to the environment and species
introduced species?
relationships)
that live there.
 PO4 – Animals
Any introduced species can cause How can humans help to prevent
cause change
harm to the environment and the the quagga mussel movement?
(judge and verify)
species that live there.
 Life Science – Concept 4:
What are the long term effects of
 PO2 – adapt to new
quagga mussel introduction would
environments
have on the Salt and Verde River
(hypothesize and
systems?
compile)
Acquisition
3rd Grade Reading:
 Expository Text – Concept Knowledge
Skills
1:
Students will know:
Students will be able to:
 PO2 – Locate facts
 Introduced species are
to answer
species that_____(define)
questions (identify
 Animals can cause change
and apply)
to their environment
 PO4 – Use a variety
 Some species can adapt to
of resources
new environments
(analyze
importance)
 PO5 – Interpret
information from
Page |5
graphic organizers
(select and verify)
rd
3 Grade Math:
 Number and Operations –
Number Sense
 PO2 – Compare and
order whole
numbers through
six digits (represent
and evaluate)
 Number and Operations –
Estimation
 Make estimates
appropriate to a
given situation
(analyze and
evaluate
reasonableness)
 Data Analysis
 Collect, record,
organize, and
display data using
graphs
(representation,
models)
Page |6
Stage 2 - Assessments
Performance Task (in GRASPS format)
Goal: Your goal is to come up with a long-term solution to keep the quagga mussels out of the
Salt and Verde River systems.
Role: Your team has been hired by the Arizona Game and Fish department to create a proposal
explaining the current situation with the quagga mussels in Arizona and the possible impacts
their introduction may be to other lakes in Arizona. Find a long-term solution.
Audience: Your clients are Arizona Game and Fish representatives, SRP employees, and local
politicians. Arizona Game and Fish will likely carry out the solution and would have ideas on to
get started. SRP is a power company that would be financially impacted if the mussels entered
the Salt and Verde River systems. They also have many resources to assist with the solution.
Local politicians would need to be educated about the problem so that they may create laws to
help stop the spread of invasive species, like the quagga mussel.
Situation: The challenge involves learning about the history and biology of quagga mussels,
identifying the affected lakes and the effects quagga mussels have had in other locations,
human contributions to the issue, and current prevention methods.
Performance: You will develop a presentation for your clients that will outline your findings and
Page |7
introduce your solution. Your presentation must include the following:
-a display poster depicting quagga mussels and their effects that can be referred to
during the presentation___
-
an summary of the short and long term impacts
-
development of a method to publicize the issue and educate the human population
Criteria for Success: Your performance will be judged on your presentation and your display
poster which must include: the history of the quagga mussels, the current prevention methods,
and your own prevention model.
Other Evidence: (quizzes, tests, prompts, work samples, labs, etc.)

Daily student journal writings

Quizzes
o Living vs. non-living
o Macro vs. micro-organisms
o Adaptations
o Animals cause change

Maps of original habitat location, current infested waterways, Salt and Verde river
systems, and a map showing the predicted progression of quagga mussel habitat.

Hamburger

Dam Model
Student Self-Assessment and Reflection
Students will document in a daily journal their tasks, completion, and reflection.
Page |8
Students will create a concept map to document their learning.
Hamburger of teamwork.
Rubric for Exhibits and Presentation
Poster:
Student poster
is:
4
3
2
1
easy to read
table helps to present
information, sections
provide format to
project, project and plan
are clearly stated
table is
present,
sections
provide format
to project
may have
sections but
information is
unclear
unable to
read or
make sense
of exhibit
consists of pertinent
information
information covers all of
the project sections
(quagga mussels
overview, effects of
expansion, short and
long term impacts, and
solution to educate
public)
information
covers some (1
or 2) of the
project
sections
information
does not cover
the required
project sections
but relates to
project topic
information
is not
relevant to
project topic
speaks clearly and
confidently
clearly explains the
project, presents
material in an
understandable manner
confidence is
lacking but able
to get ideas
across
low
confidence
and unclear
ideas
describes project
explains stages of project
in a detailed, welldefined way
does not explain
all stages of
project
project is not
defined
explains action plan
action plan is clearly
stated and feasible
action plan is
there but not
clear or thought
through
action plan
is not there
or unclear
refers to exhibit
the exhibit is referred to
and explained through
the presentation of
project
the exhibit is
present but not
referenced
during the
presentation
The exhibit
is not
present
during the
presentation
Presentation:
Presentation:
clearly explains
the project OR
presents
material in an
understandabl
e manner
explains stages
of project, not
necessarily
clearly
action plan is
stated but may
not be feasible
due to cost or
other
parameters
the exhibit is
referred to but
not fully
explained
during
presentation
Page |9
Student:
knowledgeable about
topic
able to answer
questions from panel
completely conveys an
understanding of the
project and the topic
does convey
an
understanding
of the project
and topic
does convey
understanding
of project OR
topic
does not
convey
understandin
g of topic or
project
completely answers the
questions posed by the
panel
does answer
some (1 or 2)
aspects of the
questions from
the panel
attempts but
does not
successfully
answer
questions from
the panel
does not
answer
questions
from the
panel
P a g e | 10
UNIT MAP
P a g e | 11
Stage 3 – Learning Plan
Pre-Assessments
1. Why should we care about quagga mussels? (Video from SRP to show
problem – appendix C) (H)
2. Quagga mussels - origin (reading for fluency)(H)
- living vs. non-living (nature study) (E,T)
- life cycle ( potato experiment) (E, T)
- ecosystem (living vs. non-living investigation)
(habitats study – appendix C) (E, R, T)
3. Lake reservoir infestations
interview)(E, R, E-2)
- infected areas (research online & expert
- map activity (create large maps)(W, R, T)
4. Human contribution - ecological impacts (animals cause change – Ant
Investigation) (species Introduction – snail & goldfish investigation) (E, R, E2, T)
- dams, reservoirs, & recreation (build-a-dam
activity, study of beavers – appendix C) (E, R,T)
5. Prevention - current programs (read for fluency)(W, E, E-2, R)
- detection (read for fluency)(W, E)
- monitoring (research online and report – appendix C)(W, E)
- new initiatives (group design and report, debate
findings)(W, R, E-2, T, O)
6. On-going student reflection - daily journal entry(ongoing writing and
modeling) (E-2, T, O)
- quizzes (ongoing – short answer, multiple
choice, misconception checkpoints, understanding checkpoints)(R, E-2)
- hamburger (self- & group-reflection)(E-2,
T)
7. Final Project - create presentation (including poster, and prezi,
powerpoint, or strictly oral) for AZ Game and Fish, SRP employees, and local
politicians to assess (T, O)
• All three types of goals (acquisition, meaning, and transfer) are addressed in the learning plan.
• The learning plan reflects principles of learning and best practices.
• There is tight alignment with Stages 1 and 2.
• The plan is likely to be engaging and effective for all students.

KWL chart

Initial concept map
Progress Monitoring

Daily student journal
writings

Quizzes
Misconceptions
 Legs or movement
makes something an
animal
 Living vs. non-living
 Organisms do not
belong to a
particular niche.
Feedback

Journal responses

Hamburger

Group work

Quiz grades
P a g e | 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
PowerPoint by Central Arizona Project
P a g e | 13
P a g e | 14
P a g e | 15
P a g e | 16
P a g e | 17
Appendix B:
SRP Data Analysis PowerPoint
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
1
Salt River Project
Quagga and Zebra Mussel
Implications and Recommendations
Final Draft
Prepared by:
Charles Paradzick, Environmental Services
Jim Kudlinski, Environmental Services
Brian Moorhead, Groundwater
Fred Fuller, Santan GS
Len Amols, Santan GS
David Bollinger, Desert Basin GS
Roger Baker, Hydro Generation
Tom Sands, Water Engineering
Paul Ostapuk, Navajo GS
Ed Weeks, Navajo GS
Lesly Swanson, Environmental Services
Ray Hedrick, Environmental Services
April 5, 2008
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
2
Summary of Key Recommendations in Priority Rank
1. Retain an outside consultant to conduct corporate–wide threat assessment and suggest
short and long-term coordinated control strategies (#4 below).
2. Sample for quagga in Salt and Verde reservoirs, Transmission and Distribution system
(canals and laterals), and coordinate with CAP on their assessment results to determine
infestation status and inform next steps (outreach and/or mitigation).
3. If no quagga detected in Salt and Verde reservoirs, dedicate SRP staff or contractor to
work with Arizona Game and Fish Department to implement aggressive outreach
campaign to delay Salt and Verde reservoir infestations and impacts to
Hydrogeneration, Groundwater, and Generation (valley plants using canal water).
Provide position with outreach funding. Estimated labor and supply cost: $135 k/yr.
4. Three stage approach to control and mitigation: 1) immediate facility emergency
planning to identify rapid control/mitigation methods; 2) develop corporate-wide shortterm mitigation and control strategy; 3) develop long-term mitigation and control in
partnership with other canal stakeholders.
a. The facilities that are prone to biofueling should continue independently working
on emergency control response plan, while corporate strategy is developed.
b. Designate corporate lead (point of contact) and team composed of affected
work units to coordinate corporate-wide quagga response strategy. Lead and
team would oversee consultant assessment work.
c. Develop long-term control strategy, and consider developing partnerships with
other canal water users.
5. Compile existing water quality data, and where missing gather necessary data to inform
threat assessment.
6. Develop and implement quagga sampling protocol SRP wide.
7. Develop and implement information sharing protocol to inform effected work groups
about infestation status and scheduled and active treatments (critical to avoid
generation plant discharge permits exceedance).
8. In coordination with other local, regional, and national water users, investigate and
support research of new technologies (e.g., bacteria toxin) for long-term control.
Immediate Funding and Staffing Needs for Assessment, Outreach, & Sampling
(does not include control or mitigation)
FY09
Activity
Time
Consultant Assessment
SRP Coordinator
1 TO (Rotating Engineer?)
SRP Outreach Specialist
Contactor
Outreach supply
Water quality & substrate sampling
X-charge (Lab) or Contractor
Total
* if no infestation of reservoirs continue funding
FY10
Cost
135k
60k
75k
60k
330k
Time
Cost
0
1 TO
Contactor
60k*
75k*
30k
165k
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
3
Background:






Quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) were first detected in Lake Mead in
January 2007. They are a closely related species to the well known Zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorha), which were detected in January 2008 in Colorado and California
reservoirs.
Quagga have since spread downstream of Lake Mead into Lake Havasu and occur within
the CAP canal.
In December 2007, adult mussels were detected at Lake Pleasant.
As observed in the upper mid-west, where mussels have been present since the 1980’s,
their exponential growth can cause significant operation and maintenance impacts to
water supply and power generation facilities by clogging water supply infrastructure
(“biofouling”).
- No economic impact assessment has been completed for Arizona.
- Estimates in the Great Lakes suggest the power industry spent $3.1 billion to
mitigate the impacts between 1993 – 1999.
- California Fish and Game suggested that agencies could spend 100’s of million of
dollars protecting water supplies.
US Bureau of Reclamation has noted explosive growth of mussels since initial detection
in Lake Mead, and biofouling documented of Lower Colorado dams, hydrogeneration
and diversion facilities. Their consultant (RNT Consulting) estimated an 8 month lag
time between detection and biofouling of equipment.
The mussel can also cause significant recreation (boat engine damage) and ecological
damage.
Quagga Mussel Biology:




Small (1-2”) freshwater bivalve mollusks.
Attach to hard substrates with hair like threads
and are often found in clusters of extremely high
concentrations.
May reproduce all year under favorable
conditions; each female can produce millions of
eggs; the microscopic larvae float freely in the
water column moving downstream for up to 3 weeks; grow to a sufficient size and then
colonize available hard substrates.
A key to understanding potential impacts is identification of the source population and
the distance or time for water containing larvae to be transport through the supply
system. Larvae settle out of the water column at approximately 3 weeks; thus it is
upstream sources (i.e., Salt and Verde reservoirs, and Lake Pleasant) that threaten to
cause biofouling of canals and laterals. Terminal laterals and piped laterals servicing
primarily urban irrigation and private systems may be particularly vulnerable due to
intermittent flows.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
4
SRP Infrastructure Threats:



Water delivery system – canals, laterals, and associated
structures.
o Biofouling of components could cause
significant flow restrictions potentially
disrupting water delivery.
o The high rate of filtering could increase water
clarity and promote bluegreen algal blooms,
and thus cause greater production of water
taste and odor compounds (MIB and geosmin).
o Conveyance of mussels to customer systems such as WTP’s and private
irrigation systems which result in increased customer costs.
Dams and hydrogeneration equipment.
o Clog water intake penstocks, cooling pipes, and
other infrastructure.
o May reduce power generation and pumpback
capacity.
o May affect spillway and intake gates and controls
potentially causing dam safety concerns.
Power generation facilities that utilize surface water
o Clog cooling water intake pipes and can
significantly restrict flow.
o Foul water treatment equipment, retention ponds, discharge piping and
laterals.
o Fouling can interrupt power production
o Disrupt instrumentation.
SRP Facility Evaluation Status, Impacts, and Recommendations
The potential quagga mussel threat, impacts, and mitigation strategies (e.g., prevention, mechanical
removal, and chemical control) varies among facilities and are dependant upon the geographic location,
connectivity with other facilities and water bodies, types of equipment and infrastructure, and other
treatment implications (e.g., environmental and regulatory compliance). The diagram below suggest a
basic approach to assess and evaluate the threat of quagga mussels and identify mitigation and control
options for SRP facilities. The next section identifies the current status of mussel impact assessment and
provides recommendations for specific facilities. Based on the interrelationship among SRP facilities a
corporate-wide comprehensive coordinated assessment is recommend (see below).
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
5
Decision Diagram to Evaluate Quagga Threat and Identify Control Strategies
Water supply assessment
 Connection with surface water?
 Probability surface water could support mussels (physical
and chemical properties)?
 Likelihood of infestation (recreation use or connectivity to
other infested water bodies)?
No threat
 No surface water connection
 Environment not suitable for
mussel survival
 Barriers to infestation (e.g., no
public access)
Determine if prevention or delay of
infestation possible
 Coordinate with resource agencies
 Close water body to public access
or institute strict preventive
measures
Determine viable, cost effective control
strategies
 As necessary, consult outside
experts/other utilities to provide
input into candidate strategies
 Design and implement
 Monitor and evaluate effectiveness
Possible Threat  Facility Assessment
 Establish water supply and facility
monitoring to detect mussels
 Conduct detailed facility review to
identify potential impacts
 Assemble information on control
technology
 Evaluate control strategies based on:
o Specific site requirements
o Specific site conditions
o Components fouled
o Coordination with other work
units and outside agencies
o Environmental and regulatory
compliance – both direct
application and indirect impacts
of application on other SRP and
external facilities.
If unsuccessful - reassess
information and strategies
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
6
Canal and Lateral System









Very likely all portions of the canal and lateral water supply delivery system is at risk of
biofouling; also the end users and private/public infrastructure are also at risk.
Evaluation and budget estimate completed by Groundwater.
Expect continuous threat of infestation due to CAP interconnect (Lake Pleasant) and SRP
reservoirs once infested.
Excessive mussel growth could result in waste
disposal issues because the mussels may
bioaccumulate toxins and heavy metals.
Emergency and short-term mitigation and
control is focused on minimizing mussel
Zebra mussels removed from 1 lock on the
population density and size of adults using
Mississippi River
repeated mechanical and chemical treatments.
Proposed periodic application (estimated every 3 - 5 months) of copper sulfate to kill adult
mussels and larvae within canals and laterals.
Proposed application of chlorine to control within stilling wells (constant application using
chlorine tablets).
Application of anti-fouling coatings (zinc metal spray, marine paint with copper) to critical
infrastructure (e.g., fish grates, automatic trash rakes,radial gates, booster pumps);
reapplication expected every 2-5 years.
Canal treatments have potential to impact power generation discharge compliance - have
initiated coordination with these generation facilities to avoid impacts (such as switch to pump
water during canal applications).
Recommendations:
 Recommend continued assessment of environmental and regulatory compliance for the
proposed treatment for both the direct application of chemicals, and continue to assess indirect
impacts to generation facilities (regulatory compliance of discharge). Continue coordination and
planning of control treatments with plant operators to avoid such impacts.
 Recommend working with other SRP affected work units and resource agencies to delay mussel
invasion into Salt and Verde Reservoirs (see outreach strategy below). Based on RNT Consulting
observations and their CAP evaluation, SRP reservoirs and Lake Pleasant will likely be the primary
producers of mussel larvae introduced to the canal system.
 Recommend convening canal water users forum to consider developing long-term quagga
control strategies.
 Recommend research and development of long-term control strategy (e.g., biocontrol
technology, assess possible treatments at Granite Reef diversion points).
Dams, Hydrogeneration, and Pump-back Facilities

Salt and Verde River Facilities, including Granite Reef
o Based on available information from Arizona Game and Fish Department, Verde and Salt
reservoirs are considered at high risk of infestation due to suitable lake environment
and high boat traffic between Lake Pleasant (and Colorado river) and Bartlett and Salt
chain of lakes.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
o
o
7
Potential significant impacts to generation infrastructure, intake and spillway gates, and
monitoring equipment.
As noted above, RNT Consultants suggested that operators may have as little as 8
months from the time mussels infest a water body to biofouling of equipment and
potential impacts on operations.
Recommendations:
o Recommend immediate evaluation of:
 Each reservoir to determine its susceptibility to mussel invasion, persistence, and
growth.
 Evaluation of each facility to determine components and functions at risk of
biofouling.
 Identification and evaluation of control measures to mitigate impacts.
o Recommend working with other SRP work units and state and federal partners to
conduct sampling (see below).
o Recommend assisting other SRP affected work units and resource agencies to delay
quagga invasion into reservoirs (see outreach strategy below).

Canal Hydrogeneration Facilities (Arizona Falls, Crosscut, South Con)
o Facilities are considered at high risk of infestation due to location within canal, CAP
interconnect, and mussel larvae produced in SRP reservoirs.
o Potential significant impacts to generation infrastructure and monitoring equipment.
Recommendations:
o Recommend immediate evaluation of:
 Each facility to determine components and functions at risk of biofouling.
 Identification and evaluation of control measures to mitigate impacts.
 Coordinate mitigation strategies with Groundwater (canal treatments) and
Environmental Services (assist with regulatory and environmental compliance).
o Recommend working with other SRP work units and state and federal partners to
conduct sampling (see below)
o Recommend assisting other SRP affected work units and resource agencies to delay
quagga invasion into reservoirs (see outreach strategy below).

C.C. Cragin
o RNT Consulting contracted to:
 Assess the environmental conditions of the reservoir to determine if suitable to
support the mussel.
 Identify impacts, and control and mitigation options including costs and impacts
to system reliability.
 Assessment complete March 2008.
o Reservoir found to be at very high risk of mussel introduction, but very low risk of
mussel survival and persistence due to water chemistry (low calcium and dissolved
oxygen) and pumping operations, which fluctuate lake levels over the spring and
summer disrupting quagga survival and recruitment.
o Based on this assessment, RNT did not recommend any significant control strategies or
modifications to infrastructure.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
o
Also, completed infestation prevention strategy report in coordination with state and
federal partners (e.g., boat inspections and limiting public access).
Recommendations:
o Recommend implementing prevention plan if preliminary findings not correct.
o Recommend sampling for mussel and water chemistry to assess invasion and report
findings/assumptions. Implement long-term sampling as needed.
o Recommend working with resource agencies to develop outreach material for reservoir
that discusses invasive species and importance of water supply to SRP shareholders and
Payson.
o If control strategies are necessary, coordinate with Environmental Services to review
options and assist with regulatory and environmental compliance.
Generating Stations
 Navajo Generating Station
o Intakes in Lake Powell and other plant infrastructure likely to be vulnerable to
biofouling.
o Quantitative threat assessment and identification of specific control treatments for
plant components have not been completed. Use of chemical treatments may need
National Park Service approval.
o Threat of quagga and possible controls are being considered in design of pumps,
motors, trolleys, and discharge line, which will allow for future installation of pvc feed
line for biocide application, if appropriate.
o Intake screens - being designed to allow removal and mechanical cleaning of screens
and casing.
o Potable Water system – evaluating if chlorine control at intakes is necessary.
o FGD scrubbers – potential fouling of raw water piping, requires further control
assessment.
o Circulating cooling water – existing use of chlorine should prevent biofouling.
o Coordinating with National Park Service concerning monitoring and prevention
strategies for Lake Powell.
Recommendations:
o Due to concern with indirect impact of biocides on plant facilities, recommend that NGS
is also evaluated with other SRP facilities that require assessments to determine best
approach to control.
o If chemical control strategies are implemented, coordinate with Environmental Services
to review options and assist with regulatory and environmental compliance.

Agua Fria Generating Station
o No direct surface water connection
o Holding pond receives groundwater; threat of infestation if sportfish captured from
infested waters (e.g., Lake Pleasant) are illegally stocked into the pond.
Recommendations:
o Recommend determining if pond is suitable to support mussels, and if transport of fish
has, or could occur. If stocking is possible and pond is susceptible to quagga, educate
8
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
o

9
employees that transport of live fish and wildlife is illegal and may contaminate holding
pond with invasive species including quagga mussel which will impact plants operation.
If stocking has occurred within last 2 years, monitor for quagga mussels to determine if
pond is infested – treat pond and plant as necessary.
Kyrene Generating Station
o Old plant has surface water connection with SRP canal, thus portions of the plant are
susceptible to biofouling.
o K7 has no surface water connection thus is not susceptible to biofouling.
o Staff has identified structures at risk. Mitigation measures under review;
implementation may require regulatory approvals. Plant management supports
accelerating the planning and preparedness schedules to prevent infestation rather than
reacting to it.
Recommendations:
o Recommend coordinating mitigation with Groundwater (canal treatments) and
Environmental Services (regulatory and environmental compliance)
o Recommend working with other SRP work units and state and federal partners to
conduct sampling (see below)
o Recommend assisting other SRP affected work units and resource agencies to delay
quagga invasion into reservoirs (see outreach strategy below).

Santan Generating Station
o Primary water supply is surface water from SRP canal.
o Staff has reviewed structures and components at risk. Control measures require further
detailed review. Implementation of mitigation measures may require regulatory
approvals. Plant management supports accelerating the planning and preparedness
schedules to prevent infestation, rather than reacting to it.
Recommendations:
o Coordination with Roosevelt Water Conservation District and Environmental Services
(regulatory and environmental compliance) recommended.
o Work with other SRP work units and state and federal partners to conduct sampling (see
below).
o Recommend assisting other SRP affected work units and resource agencies to delay
quagga invasion into reservoirs (see outreach strategy below).

Desert Basin Generating Station
o Portion of water supply is obtained from a lateral off of the CAP, the lateral is
downstream of the Lake Pleasant outflow.
o Plant is susceptible when mussel larvae flow out of Lake Pleasant into CAP canal.
o RNT Consulting conducted a risk and mitigation assessment for CAP. Their preliminary
findings suggest that quagga are killed when transported though the Mark Wilmer
Pumping Plant, thus quagga in CAP canal are likely originating from Lake Pleasant. Also,
because CAP draws from anoxic layer of the lake most of the year, Desert Basin may
only be vulnerable to infestation when water is drawn from higher lake levels.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
10
Recommendations:
o Recommend facility evaluation to determine components and functions at risk of
biofouling, and identification and evaluation of control measures to mitigate impacts.
 Filtration system was reviewed and estimated cost was >$850,000.
 Other control and mitigation options are being examined.
o Coordinate threat and mitigation assessment with CAP to include and incorporate their
evaluation results, and coordinate with Environmental Services (regulatory and
environmental compliance.
o Coordinate with lateral maintenance managers to confirm no potential plant impacts
due to upstream control measures (e.g., the use of copper or other chemical compounds
that could affect corrosion potential and discharge regulation and permits).
o Recommend working with other SRP work units, CAP, and state and federal partners to
conduct sampling (see below).

Coronado and Springerville Generating Stations
o No quagga threat – no surface water use
Environmental Services & Other Departments
 SRP employees may move quagga mussels inadvertently during routine work:
o Water quality sampling.
o Use of boats or other heavy equipment transferred between infected and uninfected
waters.
o Contractors working for SRP should certify that all equipment is free of invasive species
(including quagga and zebra mussels).

Recommendations:
Recommend identifying potential critical pathways, affected Departments, and institute training
and/or disseminate information material on threats and processes to minimize the movement of
invasive species among SRP waters and facilities by employees and contractors.
Recommend Coordinated Assessment and Water Users Forum
Due to interrelationship among infestation of SRP Reservoirs, hydrogeneration impacts, canal impacts
and mitigation, and direct and indirect impacts to SRP valley generation stations – recommend the
development of emergency contingency planning, and short and long-term comprehensive coordinated
threat assessment, facilities evaluation, and mitigation control strategies.
 Designate SRP corporate lead (point of contact) and team with leads from impacted work
groups to coordinate across work unit evaluations.
 Retain outside consultant to conduct the coordinated assessment with input and oversight from
SRP team.
o RNT’s estimate to conduct a rapid assessment of water supply and all infrastructure, and
assist with emergency planning, and identification of short-term coordinate control
strategies was $135,000. (Appendix 1)
 Goals of the risk assessment and mitigation evaluation:
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
11
Emergency Planning
o Based on available data mussels will likely cause biofouling problems for all SRP facilities
that use surface water. Depending on infestation date and mussel population rate of
growth, impacts to facilities may occur before detailed assessment and coordinated
approach can be completed.
o While additional data is collected and analyzed to accurately identify threats, severity of
potential problems, and best approaches to coordinated control, each facility will
prepare and as appropriate (in response to monitoring) implement a rapid response
plan.
o The need for regulatory approval to implement specific rapid control strategies should
be assessed and permits acquired.
Short-term Strategy
o Conduct a detailed assessment of relative risk and severity of impacts of biofouling for
each SRP facility to prioritize mitigation and coordinated control needs corporate wide.
o Determine probable source of mussel larvae based on life history and water delivery
parameters to estimate time from infestation to biofouling (e.g., Verde release
compared to Salt release, or pumpback and related hydrogeneration might increase or
decrease downstream larvae concentrations and movements, which will affect canals
and generating stations).
o Determine best individual and overall multi-facility short-term control and mitigation
strategies (1-5 yr) considering facility and indirect impacts of downstream users.
o Team to prioritize implementation of coordinated control based on cost/benefit, other
environmental concerns/restrictions, O&M concerns, and other user indirect impacts.
o Target for completion of Coordinated Control Strategy – Dec 2008.
Long-term Strategy
o Consider developing comprehensive coordinated long-term (5+yr) control strategies in
partnership with other water users.
o Consider initiating Canal Water Users Quagga Threat and Mitigation Task Force Team
with members from SRP facilities, cities, and other users affected by mussels.
o Team goal would be to evaluate most cost effective control and mitigation among all
users – for example, strategy may be focused control at Granite Reef diversion rather
than multiple control points throughout canal system.
o Based on Team evaluation develop funding partnership among users for
implementation.
Recommend Outreach and Monitoring

Based on RNT Consultant’s preliminary findings for CAP, the impact mussels will likely have on
our hydrogeneration facilities, and the suggestion by RNT that the Verde and Salt reservoirs
(and to a lesser extent Lake Pleasant) will be the source of mussels that will impact our canals
– recommend providing and where possible directly implementing aggressive outreach to
delay infestation of Verde and Salt reservoirs.
o Immediately staff/prioritize SRP employee or contractor to work with AZ Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) to organize Lake Pleasant and Salt and Verde Rivers outreach
strategies.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008
o
o
o
o
o

Primary goal is to delay infestation of reservoirs to provide as much time as possible for SRP
to conduct both emergency planning, and the short-term threat and mitigation/control
assessment to identify and confirm threats, infrastructure needs, allocate and prioritize
funding, and implement/construct control mechanisms.
AGFD has explained that lack of available personnel is currently limiting outreach and
coordination efforts.
Cost estimate for position - $60k/yr (1 yr contract, renew on annual basis if no mussels
infest SRP Reservoirs and outreach working)
Provide media outreach funding as match for federal and state grants - cost estimate for
equipment & supplies (see below)– $75k/yr (renew on annual basis if no mussels infest
SRP reservoirs and outreach is working)
Primary duties of SRP Quagga Outreach position:
 Coordinate and implement outreach with AGFD (state has $130k of funding
available, match with 75k of SRP funding) to inform public about invasive species
threats including quagga mussels: primary message is targeted at boats owners to
“Drain, Clean, and Dry” their boat before moving between waters. Outreach
programs are very successful in Minnesota, and have prevented the spread of the
mussel between lakes. In Wisconsin where little outreach has been conducted, the
mussel has spread rapidly.
 Targeted outreach of recreational boaters at Lake Pleasant
 Targeted outreach of Lake Pleasant marina operators (boats moored for long
periods have higher chance of carrying mussels).
 Inform fishing clubs (bass anglers that move frequently among central AZ waters are
a high threat to carry mussels).
 Targeted outreach (direct mailing) to boat owners in Maricopa county that use Lake
Pleasant and SRP reservoirs.
 Coordinate outreach and education with Tonto National Forest for Verde and Salt
Reservoirs.
 Coordinate outreach with Verde and Salt River marina operators.
 Apply and locate alternate funding sources (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service
invasive species funding).
 Coordinate quagga monitoring activities at central Arizona waters including
facilities/lakes with resource agencies.
 Assist NGS with National Park Service coordination for Lake Powell prevention.
Other SRP Recommended Support
o Publish articles in Pulse, bill stuffers, and other newsletters (Irrigators news) describing SRP
operation implications, our efforts to mitigate threat, and role of public moving personal
watercraft among lakes.
o Media Relations initiate press releases, and coordinate with AGFD to convey consistent
invasive species threat and impact message to the public.
SRP Facility and Reservoir Quagga and Water Quality Monitoring

12
Groundwater, Environmental Services (Lab), and/or hire contractor – deploy, maintain, and
monitor sample substrates.
Final Draft – April 5, 2008








13
Facility operators to dedicate staff to perform periodic monthly inspections of vulnerable
equipment.
Assess sampling equipment and contract service needs across facilities (e.g., purchase remote
underwater cameras, or contract with divers to check penstocks). Coordinate with U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation if inspection equipment (remote cameras) available to use on Salt and Verde
reservoirs.
Deploy sampling substrates (plates, blocks, or check available substrates/structures) and begin
periodic (monthly or quarterly) monitoring immediately at:
o All Salt River Reservoirs (marinas, boats docs, and near ramps) and near facilities, including
granite reef. Coordinate with marina operators to have their staff check facilities and report
findings.
o Bartlett Lake marina, ramps, docks, and near dam. Horseshoe not recommended at this
time due to limited use. Coordinate with marina operators to have their staff check facilities
and report findings.
o Canals – identify additional locations throughout system that have higher quality habitat
(slow moving water, shaded areas).
o Canal Hydrogeneration Facilities (Arizona Falls, Crosscut, South Con)
o Kyrene (old unit) and Santan intakes and in-plant components in coordination with
Groundwater canal sampling – educate employees (GW has developed a presentation),
begin onsite inspections and sampling.
o Agua Fria holding pond – determine if suitable – sample, educate employees
o Desert Basin – sample at intakes, and coordinate sampling in delivery canal (American
Water Company) and CAP.
o Navajo Generating station – coordinate with National Park Service, sample at intakes if
found in other parts of lake.
o Cragin at boat ramp and near intake structure or as recommended by consultant report.
Compile water quality data to assess spatial (horizontal and vertical) and temporal variability in
risk of quagga establishment, persistence, and growth. Provide data to consultant for initial
assessment.
Determine gaps in water quality data (e.g., DO at dam intakes, effects of pumpback), and collect
pertinent information.
Develop long-term water quality sampling protocol as recommended by consultant to assess
changes in threats and need for mitigation/control.
Develop sampling information distribution list for affected work units – where, when, & results
of sampling. Consider develop a web-based information/mapping database for sampling,
treatments and inspection findings to keep all work units informed of the progression of active
infestations, the control measures in use and the efficacy in reducing or eliminating adverse
impacts. Critically important for information to be disseminated concerning proposed and active
treatment activities to avoid regulatory impacts.
Develop triggers for control and mitigation implementation.
Draft – March 10, 2008
14
TIMELINE
? 2004 - - -2005 - - - 2006 ?
Mussels likely
introduced in Lake
Mead
Growth and spread
of mussels in Lake
Mead and
downsteam
reservoirs
2007
Jan.
Mussels detected
in Lake Mead
Spring - Summer
Mussels detected
in downstream
reservoirs
Spring – Summer
2008
Dec.
Mussels detected
in Pleasant
Nov. – Dec.
CAP – Pumping
Plant biofouling
noted
2015
Spring-summer
2008?
Fund Outreach;
SRP Emergency
Mitigation
Planning
Spring 2008?
Sample SRP
Reservoirs
2010
Establish canal stakeholder
team
Develop long-term strategy
Jan. – Feb.
Extensive mussel
colonization found on
LCR dams and Havasu
CAP intake
2009
Implement shortterm mitigation
strategy
Spring -Summer
2008?
Establish SRP
Team and develop
short-term
mitigation
strategy
Fall 2008
Finalize shortterm mitigation
strategy
Draft – March 10, 2008
APPENDIX 1
RNT Consulting – Scope and Budget Estimate for Rapid Assessment and Mitigation Planning
Budget Estimate for Deissenid Infestation Assessment of the SRP System, March
2008
Stage 1.
1 a) Rapid Reservoir/Lake Infestation Risk Assessment
Once the mussels get into the reservoir/lake there is not much one can do to
remove them so the mitigation options at that point will be protection of the
utilities and their various components. The most urgent action is to recommend
steps to reduce the probabilities of the introduction of mussels into the
reservoirs/lakes. Each year that the mussels can be delayed arriving at a water
body means one less year of O&M costs for facilities on that water body.
There are four watersheds to be considered within the project; Salt River, Verde
River, Colorado River and Aqua Fria River.
In the Salt River watershed there are four reservoirs/lakes:
1) Roosevelt Lake - Roosevelt Dam with a maximum depth of about 249 ft;
2) Apache Lake - Horse Mesa Dam with a mean depth of about 240 ft;
3) Canyon Lake - Mormon Flat Dam with a maximum depth of about 141 ft;
4) Saguaro Lake - Stewart Mountain dam with a mean depth of about 90 ft.
In the Verde River watershed there are two reservoirs/lakes:
5) Horseshoe Reservoir - Horseshoe Dam has varying water levels and is
usually near dry during the hot summer months with camping, hiking
activities from October to May;
6) Bartlett Reservoir - Bartlett Dam with a maximum depth of 188 ft.
In addition, there are two generating stations that draw water from:
7) Lake Pleasant (Aqua Fria River) and
8) Lake Powell (Colorado River).
Including Lake Pleasant and Lake Powell, there are a total of 8 lakes/reservoirs
to examine.
To make suggestions on reducing the risk of dreissenid introductions and make
recommendations on monitoring and water sampling we would need; aerial views or
drawings of all the reservoirs/lakes and the recreational and sporting (fishing,
boating, etc.) activities, locations of boat ramps/marinas, and all tributaries feeding
Draft – March 10, 2008
each reservoir/lake. Any bathymetric maps that can be provided would also be helpful.
1 b) Assessment of Likelihood of long term mussel survival
Before anyone panics at the sight of dreissenids, it would be wise to first see if they can
survive long term and if so, predict the potential infestation levels for each. An
understanding of the geology of each watershed would help predict variations in some
of the chemical parameters. We can use historical data but the best data would be
recent, e.g. 2005-2007. This will be based primarily on average values of at least three
critical criteria ([Ca], pH and total phosphorous) for each reservoir/lake. Including other
assessment data (e.g. Alkalinity, Total Hardness, Mean Summer Temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen, Conductivity, Salinity, Secchi depth, Chlorophyll a) would help make predictions
more reliable. Sites where the potential for long-term survival is questionable go to
stage 2 of evaluation.
Total estimated cost for Stage 1 = $15,000
Stage 2. Detailed Reservoir/Lake Infestation Risk Assessment and Mitigation Options
Stage 2 a) Likelihood of long term massive infestation in areas which fall into the
“ maybe” category of heavy infestation during Stage 1 survey’
Almost guaranteed this assessment will be required on Lake
Pleasant. This provides a good opportunity to team up with Central
Arizona Project as they also need this information for Lake
Pleasant
This will require an in-depth examination of several parameters, much like we did for
Cragin Reservoir. Best available historical data could be used but recent data (e.g. 20052007) would allow more reliable predictions.
Seasonal variations in infestation potential
12 consecutive months or more of data from any one or two years would be
ideal here. Otherwise, best available data are required. Time series graphs
Draft – March 10, 2008
would be provided for each variable on each water body. Each graph will show
the potential for little to no infestations up to massive infestations.
(a) Chalk variables (calcium, alkalinity, pH, hardness)
(b) Nutrient variables (Total phosphorous, Secchi depth, Chlorophyll a)
(c) Dissolved Oxygen
(d) Conductivity
(e) Temperature
Estimate for each reservoir/lake $1,500
Depth variations in infestation potential
Bathymetry of each reservoir and data of the following parameters down to the
upper part of the metalimnion would be required. Depth series graphs would be
provided for each variable on each water body. Each graph will show the
potential for little to no infestations up to massive infestations.
(a) Chalk variables (calcium, alkalinity, pH, hardness)
(b) Nutrient variables (Total phosphorous, Secchi depth, Chlorophyll a)
(c) Dissolved Oxygen
(d) Conductivity
(e) Temperature
Estimate for each reservoir/lake $1,500
Variations in infestation potential across the reservoir/lake
Depth profiles of the following at 3 to 5 sites would be ideal but otherwise, best
available data can be used. Depth series graphs would be provided for each
variable on each water body. Each graph will show the potential for little to no
infestations up to massive infestations.
(a) Chalk variables (calcium, alkalinity, pH, hardness)
(b) Nutrient variables (Total phosphorous, Secchi depth, Chlorophyll a)
(c) Dissolved Oxygen
(d) Conductivity
(e) Temperature
Estimate for each reservoir/lake $1,500
Total cost depends on outcome of Stage 1, as in how many of the sites would require
the Stage 2 assessment. This portion can vary from 0 to $36,000 (unlikely). For
budgeting purposes I have assigned 2/3 of the above or $24,000 as the most likely
cost.
A report will be compiled with the outcomes of the in-depth assessment for the
various sites and submitted to SRP.
Stage 2a) Cost Estimate: $24,000
Draft – March 10, 2008
Stage 2 b) Risk to Assets and Mitigation Options
Based on assessment done in Stage I, those sites identified as having a high probability of
massive dreissenid infestation will be examined first to determine the risk to assets. This
work could also begin concurrently with Stage 1, based on presence of the asian
clam at the various sites. Assessment would start at those sites reporting large
numbers of asian clam shells.
The risk to assets would begin with examination of available drawings for each facility. This
will be followed by a site visit and physical review of all systems exposed to or containing
raw water. Critical areas requiring protection will be identified and possible treatment options
will be discussed with plant personnel while on site. “Quick fix” solutions or “short term
coping strategies” will be favoured to give sites tools should mussels arrive before an indepth plan is developed. Assistance with costing of the mitigation strategies will be provided.
A summary report of all findings will be compiled and provided to SRP staff.
Stage 2b Cost Estimate: $80K
Stage 3. Coordinated across facility assessment of best approach(es) for SRP
corporate wide both short-term and long-term.
Long-term water sampling and monitoring for presence of veligers and/or adults would need
to be done on each lake and coordinated assessment across facilities would involve similar
methodologies and deployment schedules. This should flow out of Stage 1 and 2
assessments. Some best management strategies for control should come out of Stage 2.
In Stage 3, long term options for individual facilities would be evaluated (if available and if
different from the short term fixes). At this stage we would also propose looking at system
wide problems and possible system wide solution. This may involve co-ordinated effort with
other canal users. This stage may stretch over several years and the level of effort is hard to
gauge. For budgeting purposes I would suggest $15K/year to cover in-depth effort on two or
three facilities or alternatively to cover some high level strategy formulation.
Cost Summary:
Stage 1 - $15K
Stage 2 - $104K
Stage 3 - $15K
Total Cost - $134K
Draft – March 10, 2008
Appendix C:
Websites and online resources:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?speciesid=95
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel/
http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/ais/fs_quagga_mussel.pdf
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/zebra_mussels.shtml/
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/critter/invert/quaggamussel.htm
http://www.opb.org/programs/invasives/faces.php?page=ripple
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/home/default.aspx?tabid=575&videoid=24