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 Based on the results of the prioritization matrix analyses (see Table VI-I), there are several treatment alternatives that could be implemented as spot treatments. It is believed, however, that chemical treatment alternatives utilized proactively are most likely the best alternative for limiting the growth ofjuvenile or adult populations (see Table B-1 in Appendix B for a list of chemicals). For example, the proprietary activated starch reagent developed by Barldey Distribution, LLC. could be advantageous, if the high efficiencies and low environmental impacts documented by the manufacturer can be achieved in the lake and/or brook. Ozone could also be a viable option if high capital and/or operational costs can be managed. The spot treatment locations could include Muskie Bay but also other areas ofthe lake where populations have become established. Figure VI-2 displays the potential treatment area for population control at this time, but this area could be expanded to incorporate other established populations ifneeded. OUtlet Structure··· Pellcen aro"k -- Figure VI-2. Population Control Area Summary LEGEND DWATER SURFACE CJ TREAlMENT AREA FIGURE VI..2 Objective 1 incorporates established zebra mussel monitoring and education strategies that should be continued to the greatest extent possible by MN DNR, Minnesota Sea-Grant, and the local public. This objective is key to the successful reduction of zebra mussels downstream of VI-14 Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread of Zebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake Ossawinnamakee Lake. The combination of Objectives 2 and 3 provide a potential solution for limiting downstream dispersal (Objective 2), while targeting population control in the lake (Objective 3). Together these treatment altematives have the capability to reduce the probability that zebra mussel veligers will be transported out of Muskie Bay downstream to Pelican Brook. In addition, the two altematives represent a passive solution to dispersal and a proactive solution to population control that will not require significant staff and operation hours to implement. While chemical agents and a pemleable barrier are relatively easy to implement, compared to most ofthe other treatment altematives evaluated, there are some drawbacks, primarily potential toxicity and recreation/migration impacts to non-target species. However, these disadvantages are minor, manageable disadvantages when compared to other treatment altematives outlined in Table VI-I. VI-I5 Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations
- Page 32 and 33: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES
- 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
- Page 82 and 83: Feasibility Study To Limit the Spre
- Page 84 and 85: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION MINNESOTA D
- Page 87 and 88: VII-B. Treatment Alternatives Expan
- Page 91 and 92: Message Page 3 of4 3/21/2005 best.
- Page 96: enougl1 to eV8Juatc £1'
- Page 101 and 102: I \ I iV!1';UJIOOiS for Estimaling
- Page 103 and 104: FishPro Consulting Engineers and Sc
- Page 129: ./}' 03/16/2005 14:40 FAX 217585189
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES<br />
Feasibility Study to Limit the Spread of Zebra Mussels from Ossawinnamakee Lake<br />
Ossawinnamakee Lake. The combination of Objectives 2 and 3 provide a potential solution for<br />
limiting downstream dispersal (Objective 2), while targeting population control in the lake<br />
(Objective 3). Together these treatment altematives have the capability to reduce the probability<br />
that zebra mussel veligers will be transported out of Muskie Bay downstream to Pelican Brook.<br />
In addition, the two altematives represent a passive solution to dispersal and a proactive solution<br />
to population control that will not require significant staff and operation hours to implement.<br />
While chemical agents and a pemleable barrier are relatively easy to implement, compared to<br />
most ofthe other treatment altematives evaluated, there are some drawbacks, primarily potential<br />
toxicity and recreation/migration impacts to non-target species. However, these disadvantages<br />
are minor, manageable disadvantages when compared to other treatment altematives outlined in<br />
Table VI-I.<br />
VI-I5 Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations
Change language