Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature
Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature Consultant's Report - Minnesota State Legislature
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread ofZebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake mg/l Ca 2 +, with dense populations developing in waters with 2: 21 mg/l Ca 2 + (Mellina and Rasmussen 1994). Calcium concentrations of 15 mg/l or less were found to limit zebra mussel development (Mellina and Rasmussen 1994). Negative zebra mussel shell growth was reported at levels less than 8.5 mg/l by (Hincks and Mackie 1997). Ca 2 + at :s 12 mg/liter is required for successful zebra mussel veligers rearing (Sprung 1987). Generally, zebra mussel populations are positively correlated with Ca 2 + concentrations and negatively correlated with P04-3 and NO- 3 concentrations (Ramcharan et al. 1992). The amount of hydrogen ions in the water, i.e., pH, impacts the ability of zebra mussels to survive and reproduce in a water body. Claudi and Mackie (1993) found that minimum pH limits are 6.5 for adult zebra mussels, 7.4 for veligers, and> 8.0 for moderate to maximal adult growth. Sprung (1987) found that a pH of 7.4 - 9.4 is required for successful veliger development. Reponses to Starvation Zebra mussels feed primarily on planktonic algae and zooplankton, with bacteria, detritus, and organic matter being alternate food sources. The availability of food sources has been shown to control zebra mussel populations (Sprung and Rose 1988). In high-density populations, adult zebra mussels have been known to compete with plankton algae for limited food resources, thus reducing the survival of the planktonic veligers (Strayer et al. 1996). Under laboratory conditions, Schneider et al. (1998) suggested that food quality may be a better indicator of environmental conditions suitable for zebra mussel growth than food quantity. These results suggest that zebra mussels do not thrive in an abundant suspended inorganic sediment environment, which is indicative oflarge, turbid rivers (McMahon 1996). Generally, zebra mussels have a high starvation tolerance. For adult zebra mussels, Chase and McMahon (1994) reported 50 percent mortality (LTso) occurred after 118 days at 25°C and after 352 days at 15°C with no source offood. One hundred percent mortality (SMlOO) occurred at 143 and 545 days at 25°C and 15°C, respectively. In laboratory experiments, Sprung (1989) reported that zebra mussel veligers experjenced 100 percent mortality within 11-15 days- at 12-24°C when there was no food available. Effect of Water Velocity on Settlement, Attachment, and Feeding The speed ofwater movement, or velocity, impacts the settlement, attachment and feeding habits in zebra mussels. Juveniles will settle in internal piping and along any submerged area with a flow rate of less than 1.5 meters per second (4.92 feet per second) (Claudi and Mackie 1994). Adult zebra mussels have also been known to avoid high-velocity flow locations and typically detach from such a poor settlement location and move (e.g., crawl via the foot or float by detaching the byssal threads) to a more suitable site (Claudi and Mackie 1994). Ackerman (1999) has shown in laboratory studies that the ability of zebra mussels to clear plankton can be impacted by water velocity. Increasing ambient velocity up to approximately 10 cm per second led to increased clearance rates, whereas high velocity rates of 20 cm per second resulted in reduced clearance rates. IV-11 Review ofZebra Mussel (Dreissel/u po[ymorphu) Species
Impacts of Zebra Mussels MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread ofZebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake The introduction and subsequent expansion ofzebra mussel distribution into the inland waters of North America (see Figures IV-2 and 3) has caused and has the potential to cause significant direct or indirect abiotic and biotic changes to the environment (MacIsaac 1996). Impacts on Infrastructure and Water Users Biofouling is perhaps the greatest abiotic effect of zebra mussels to economic infrastructure within lakes, reservoirs, streams, navigation channels, and locks (MacIsaac 1996). Permanent structures including pilings, bridges, docks, and temporary structures including buoys, navigational aids, and fishing nets have all been biofouled by zebra mussels (Martel 1993). Carlton (1993) reported that zebra mussel infestation and fouling has also had economic impacts to recreational and commercial watercraft. While impacts are widespread, Claudi and Mackie (1994) reported that observed zebra mussel impacts within the Great Lakes are generally limited to structures submerged below a depth of 3.9 feet (1.2 meters). Water intake structures for municipal, industrial, and hydroelectric plants are highly vulnerable to zebra mussel biofouling (MacIsaac 1996). Kovalak et al. (1993) and Claudi and Mackie (1994) report that the following components have all been adversely impacted through zebra mussel biofouling: crib structures, trash bars, screen houses, stearn condensers, heat exchangers, penstocks, service water systems, water level gauges, and pipelines. High densities approaching 750,000 individual zebra mussels per square meter have been observed in Lake Erie (Kovalak et al. 1993). However, the intensity of zebra mussel biofouling depends upon and varies with substrate type (MacIsaac 1996). Kilgor and Mackie (1993) reported that zebra mussel colonization could vary greater than four orders of magnitude on substrates varying from copper to stainless steel. Table IV-3 lists the reported zebra mussel colonization on various substrates. In addition to the water intake and control structures previously discussed, many ofthe materials listed are commonly used in the construction of darns, retaining walls, piers, and pipelines (MacIsaac 1996, Kilgour and Mackie 1993, Lewandowski 1982, Walz 1975). IV-12 Review ofZebra Mussel (Dreissella polymorpha) Species
- Page 3 and 4: List ofTables MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
- Page 5 and 6: I. Introduction Purpose MINNESOTA D
- Page 7 and 8: Feasibility Study To Limit the Spre
- Page 9: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 13 and 14: Hydrological Characteristics MINNES
- Page 15: Outlet Structure MINNESOTA DEPARTME
- Page 20: lBhsl Nllrtq Osso'winnomakee Pelica
- Page 23 and 24: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 25 and 26: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 28 and 29: Age and Growth MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
- Page 35 and 36: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 37 and 38: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 39 and 40: Works Cited MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 41 and 42: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 43 and 44: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 46 and 47: Table V-1. Methods Available for Co
- Page 48 and 49: Cavitation MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 50 and 51: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 52: Potassium Salts MINNESOTA DEPARTMEN
- Page 56 and 57: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 58 and 59: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 60 and 61: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 62 and 63: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 64 and 65: Works Cited MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- Page 67: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 72 and 73: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- Page 74: Combined Treatments MINNESOTA DEPAR
- Page 78 and 79: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
Impacts of Zebra Mussels<br />
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES<br />
Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread ofZebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake<br />
The introduction and subsequent expansion ofzebra mussel distribution into the inland waters of<br />
North America (see Figures IV-2 and 3) has caused and has the potential to cause significant<br />
direct or indirect abiotic and biotic changes to the environment (MacIsaac 1996).<br />
Impacts on Infrastructure and Water Users<br />
Biofouling is perhaps the greatest abiotic effect of zebra mussels to economic infrastructure<br />
within lakes, reservoirs, streams, navigation channels, and locks (MacIsaac 1996). Permanent<br />
structures including pilings, bridges, docks, and temporary structures including buoys,<br />
navigational aids, and fishing nets have all been biofouled by zebra mussels (Martel 1993).<br />
Carlton (1993) reported that zebra mussel infestation and fouling has also had economic impacts<br />
to recreational and commercial watercraft. While impacts are widespread, Claudi and Mackie<br />
(1994) reported that observed zebra mussel impacts within the Great Lakes are generally limited<br />
to structures submerged below a depth of 3.9 feet (1.2 meters).<br />
Water intake structures for municipal, industrial, and hydroelectric plants are highly vulnerable<br />
to zebra mussel biofouling (MacIsaac 1996). Kovalak et al. (1993) and Claudi and Mackie<br />
(1994) report that the following components have all been adversely impacted through zebra<br />
mussel biofouling: crib structures, trash bars, screen houses, stearn condensers, heat exchangers,<br />
penstocks, service water systems, water level gauges, and pipelines. High densities approaching<br />
750,000 individual zebra mussels per square meter have been observed in Lake Erie (Kovalak et<br />
al. 1993). However, the intensity of zebra mussel biofouling depends upon and varies with<br />
substrate type (MacIsaac 1996). Kilgor and Mackie (1993) reported that zebra mussel<br />
colonization could vary greater than four orders of magnitude on substrates varying from copper<br />
to stainless steel. Table IV-3 lists the reported zebra mussel colonization on various substrates.<br />
In addition to the water intake and control structures previously discussed, many ofthe materials<br />
listed are commonly used in the construction of darns, retaining walls, piers, and pipelines<br />
(MacIsaac 1996, Kilgour and Mackie 1993, Lewandowski 1982, Walz 1975).<br />
IV-12 Review ofZebra Mussel (Dreissella polymorpha) Species
Change language