Download Document

Garrett George
Management Plan to Prevent the Establishment and Spread of the Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Problem Statement and Background
The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) is an invasive species that was
introduced to North America in the late 1980s/early 1990s (Bossenbroek et al.
2007). Zebra mussels are native to Eastern Europe (Gelembiuk et al. 2006) and are
assumed to have traveled across the Atlantic Ocean in the ballast water of ships
(Keevin et al. 1992). The zebra mussel is mainly a freshwater bivalve, however it has
been found in brackish areas
with low salinity (Gelembiuk
et al. 2006). They have been
spotted in the Susquehanna
River and in the northern
neck of the Chesapeake Bay
according to the USGS
Nonindigenous Aquatic
Species Map (Figure 1). The zebra
Figure 1. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Map
highlighting the zebra mussel spread across the US.
mussel is known to feed on
phytoplankton and severely depletes phytoplankton abundance when zebra
mussels have become established (Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010). The zebra
mussel has been found in large numbers as far west as Kansas and as far south as
Louisiana since its introduction to the Great Lakes in the 1980s (Figure 1).
Garrett George
An adult zebra mussel lives approximately 2-3 years and a female can
produce approximately 40,000 eggs per reproductive cycle, which allows the spread
of this invasive species to occur rapidly (VDGIF 2016). One of the main dispersal
factors of the zebra mussel is the release of ballast water containing zebra mussel
larvae in lakes, rivers, and streams (Keevin et al. 1992). The release of ballast water
in rivers and lakes not only contributes to the spread of zebra mussels upstream,
but also provides expansion routes downstream (Horvath and Lamberti 1997).
After being established upstream, the spread of veligers (larva stage of mussel)
downstream is inevitable (Kraft et al. 2002; Bobeldyk et al. 2005). The veligers and
zebra mussel eggs can be dispersed in multiple ways which in overland transport of
recreational boats (Nalepa and Schlosser 1993), streams connected to infested lakes
(Johnson et al. 2006), and the release of ballast water in streams and lakes (Keevin
et al. 1992).
While each of the dispersal methods are significant in the spread of the zebra
mussel, stream connectivity accounts for an estimated one-third of all distribution
(Johnson et al. 2006). Eggs and zebra mussel larvae can be found as far as 18
kilometers downstream from an infested lake (Horvath and Lamberti, 1999).
Bossenbroek and Bodamer (2008) determined that in wetland streams with
vegetation, the downstream dispersal of veligers was decreased when compared to
streams with little or no vegetation. Wetland streams limit the dispersal of veligers
downstream because of the macrophyte’s ability to hold suspended particles on
their leaves and by the reduced water velocity from vegetation (Miller and Haynes
1997; Horvath 2004). Other possible explanations for the decreased veliger
Garrett George
abundance can be attributed to unsuitable water characteristics, limited substrate
availability, and increased predation (Bossenbroek and Bodamer 2008).
Overland transport of these recreational boats is believed to be the largest
contributor to infestation of zebra mussels in inland lakes (Nalepa and Schlosser
1993; Johnson and Carlton 1996; Johnson and Padilla 1996; Schneider et al. 1998;
Buchan and Padilla 1999). Zebra mussels can be transported over land and become
introduced to uninfected lakes because of their ability to survive out of water for
several days (Ricciardi et al. 1995).
Zebra mussels are responsible for multiple problems in the ecosystems of
which they are introduced to, including reduced dissolved oxygen (Canale and
Chapra 2002), increased water clarity (Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010), and
alterations to the concentrations of dissolved nutrients including soluble reactive
phosphorus, nitrate, and ammonia (Makarewicz et al. 2000; Bykova et al. 2006;
Miller and Watzin 2007; Strayer 2009). Zebra mussels are changing the physical and
chemical conditions of the ecosystems they inhabit (Kirsch and Dzialowski 2012)
and are responsible for the depletion of phytoplankton abundance in inhabited
bodies of water (Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010). Zebra mussels severely impact
hydroelectric plants across the United States (Bossenbroek et al. 2007), as observed
in multiple sites in Asia (Bobat et al. 2004). The impacts not only affect humans, but
the benthic predators of the ecosystems as well (Beekey et al. 2004). Beekey et al.
(2004) observed that zebra mussel establishment inhibited foraging success of
sculpins, bullheads, and crayfish when foraging for isopods. It was observed that in
Garrett George
general, when zebra mussel coverage increased, the foraging success of predators
decreased (Beekey et al. 2004).
Once the zebra mussel becomes established, it is difficult to eradicate
because of the use of their byssal thread and reproductive capabilities (VDGIF
2016). Unlike other mussels, the zebra mussel can latch on to various surfaces
forming beds resembling dense oyster beds (VDGIF 2016). The Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF) and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will
work together to prevent the spread and further establishment of the zebra mussel
in the Susquehanna River and northern neck of the Chesapeake Bay. Studies have
shown that increased vegetation in waterways (Bossenbroek and Bodamer 2008),
the inspection of boats before and after entering a body of water (Bossenbroek et al.
2007), and the release of ballast water before entering separated bodies of water
(Keevin et al. 1992) all can prevent the spread of the zebra mussel. A visual
inspection for vegetation and a spray down of the boat hull to remove sediments
and any gritty organic matter has also been known to reduce the spread of zebra
mussel larvae (VDIGF 2016). The CBF and MDNR aim to limit the amount of zebra
mussels introduced and thus slow the process of their establishment in uninfected
lakes, streams, and rivers.
Objectives
The objective of this management plan is to first identify infected bodies of
water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and then implement techniques to prevent
and slow the spread of the zebra mussel in at least 50 percent of the identified
infected bodies of water. This will be accomplished within eight years of recognizing
Garrett George
the infestation of the body of water. This can be quantified by determining how
many of the identified bodies of water we can implement these prevention
techniques in as well as whether or not they can sustain the techniques introduced.
We will monitor the infested bodies of water every six months to assess success. We
will focus on the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay due to increased zebra
mussel sightings over the past few years.
Management Actions and Justifications
1.) Zebra Mussel Identification
To identify infested bodies of water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, we
will enlist the help of citizens who are regular boaters and fishers. The posting of
information will help let the citizens know that this management plan is occurring
and who they can contact for information or to report a sighting. After a citizen
reports zebra mussels are in a body of water, professional identification will follow.
The use of only professional identification on such a large scale would be too
expensive. By enlisting the help of citizens traveling to lakes, streams, and rivers we
will be able to save money and time. When someone informs the agency of the
location of an apparently infested lake, an agency member will travel to confirm or
deny a sighting. The identification of a zebra mussel by an agent will be
accomplished by obtaining a picture of the zebra mussel(s) and if possible, removing
the mussel from the body of water.
2.)
Decrease Spread and Transport
To prevent the spread of the zebra mussel, we will use a studied technique to
increase macrophyte abundance in streams and rivers as demonstrated successfully
Garrett George
by Bossenbroek and Bodamer (2008). Bossenbroek and Bodamer (2008) found that
in streams with a higher abundance of vegetation, zebra mussel eggs and veligers
could only travel a certain distance. To successfully implement this technique, we
will have to research what native plants can be introduced efficiently. This, however,
cannot be done until areas have been designated as infested. To quantify this
technique we will have to track how much plant matter is added to each body of
water and take water velocities of different areas to determine if the macrophytes
are slowing down the water. Bossenbroek and Bodamer (2008) found that the
decrease of water velocity is important in slowing down the spread of the zebra
mussel. Increasing macrophyte density is a way to decrease water velocity without
drastically altering the ecosystem.
Boat checks are going to be used to prevent the overland transport of zebra
mussels. Overland transport is a large component of the spread of the zebra mussel
across long distances (Nalepa and Schlosser 1993; Johnson and Carlton 1996;
Johnson and Padilla 1996; Schneider et al. 1998; Buchan and Padilla 1999). There is
no way to enforce boat checks on recreational vehicles without the introduction of a
new law, so instead education will be pursued. Signs and posters will be created and
posted outside of lakes and boat docks that include information about the zebra
mussel. These educational posters and signs will include information about how
easily the zebra mussel is spread, how the boater can prevent their spread, who to
contact if they positively identify a zebra mussel in the body of water, and how to
positively identify a zebra mussel.
Garrett George
Justifications for Budget
Personnel
The Project Coordinator will be responsible for the management of the team
by directing the Technician Leader and the six technicians in their overall duties for
the course of the eight-year management plan. The Project Coordinator is also
responsible for communications between the Chesapeake Bay foundation and the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources to ensure cooperation and efficiency.
The Project Coordinator will also be responsible for determining the priority of sites
to be visited.
The technician leader is responsible for the everyday management of the six
technicians including hiring and monthly performance reviews as well as reporting
on overall project progress to the project coordinator. The technician leader is
responsible for the timeline being met and addressed efficiently as well as
periodically doing fieldwork.
The technicians are responsible for preforming the everyday tasks such as
map and poster construction, visits to reported sightings, assessing sites visited, and
maintenance of equipment.
Benefits
The project coordinator and technician leader will receive a yearly benefit of
34% of salary to account for increased cost of living as well as dental and medical
benefits. The technicians will receive a yearly benefit of 15% of salary. Inflation is
included in all pricing as a 1.021% increase for each year.
Supplies
Garrett George
Many of the supplies listed in the budget only need to be purchased once due
to their quality. The supplies that fall under this category include all of the scuba
gear, waders, GPS’s, waterproof cameras, and boat trailer. With proper maintenance
these items can all be bought once which will be cheaper than renting materials
frequently. The scuba gear and waders are very important in identifying an infested
body of water. To properly identify a zebra mussel the technician will have to get
into the water and locate zebra mussels to consider the body of water as infested.
The waterproof camera will be used to document the zebra mussel while it is in the
body of water and the plastic bags will be used to store mussels if they can be
removed with the scuba knife or in another way. Educational materials will be used
to spread information and will be posted around frequently used recreational
bodies of water.
Equipment
The F-350XL Diesel is necessary for travel needs, diesel engines have higher
mpg rates and will be important in saving money over the course of the
management plan. The truck is also necessary for towing the boat to locations
where the technicians will check for zebra mussels and plant subaquatic vegetation
(SAV). The planting of SAV is the most important part of the management plan as it
is the main technique that will be slowing the spread of the zebra mussel. The Tahiti
Daycruiser is a used boat that is necessary for checking for zebra mussels and
planting SAV. It will also be used to provide an example for boat checks that can be
done when exiting water to prevent the spread of the zebra mussel.
Garrett George
Services
The maintenance of scuba gear, the truck, and the boat are necessary to keep
these items in good shape so that new materials will not need to be purchased.
Scuba certification is necessary for the technicians so that all can preform the
identification of zebra mussels in the water. Boat licensing is necessary for all of the
staff so that everyone is qualified to operate the boat.
Travel
Travel will be done mostly in the truck and boat; flights will not be necessary
due to the close proximity of the sites that will be identified. The estimated mileage
is 2,000 miles at $0.55 per mile for the truck and 300 miles at $0.75 per mile for the
boat. Hotel stays may be necessary for long drives but will not be frequent; the per
diem rate in Maryland is an average of $91 per person.
Indirect Costs
This is the overhead costs that are required to keep the agency running, the
rate of 26% was applied to the total sum of each year to account for lighting, heat,
computer use, servers, etc.
Garrett George
Literature Cited
Beekey, M. A., D. J. McCabe, and J. E. Marsden. 2004. Zebra mussels affect benthic predator foraging
success and habitat choice on soft sediments. Oecologia 141:164-170.
Bobat, A., M. O. Hengirmen, and W. Zapletal. 2004. Zebra mussel and fouling problems in the
Euphrates Basin. Turkish Journal of Zoology 28:161–177.
Bobeldyk A. M., J. M. Bossenbroek, M. A. Evans-White, D. M. Lodge and G. A. Lamberti. 2005.
Secondary spread of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in coupled lake-stream systems.
Ecoscience 12:339–346.
Bossenbroek, J. M., and B. L. Bodamer. 2008. Wetlands as barriers: effects of vegetated waterways on
downstream dispersal of zebra mussels. Freshwater Biology 53: 2051-2060.
Brossenbroek, J. M., L. E. Jonathan, D. M. Lodge, and B. Peters. 2007. Forecasting the expansion of
zebra mussels in the United States. Conservation Biology 21:800-810.
Buchan, L. A. J., and D. K. Padilla. 1999. Estimating the probability of long-distance overland dispersal
of invading aquatic species. Ecological Applications 9:254-265.
Bykova, O., A. Laursen, V. Bostan, J. Bautista, and L. McCarthy. 2006. Do zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) alter lake water chemistry in a way that favors Microcystis growth? Science of
the Total Environment 371:362–372.
Canale, R. P., and S. C. Chapra. 2002. Modeling zebra mussel impacts on water quality of Seneca River,
New York. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128:1158-1168.
Gelembiuk, G. W., G. E. May, and C. E. Lee. 2006. Phylogeography and systematics of zebra mussels
and related species. Molecular Ecology 15:1033-1050.
Higgins, S. N., and M. J. Vander Zanden. 2010. What a difference a species makes: a meta-analysis of
dreissenid mussel impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 80:179–196.
Horvath T.G., and G. A. Lamberti. 1999. Recruitment and growth of zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) in a coupled lake-stream system. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 145:197–217.
Horvath, T. G. 2004. Retention of particulate matter by macrophytes in a first-order stream. Aquatic
Botany 78:27–36.
Horvath, T. G., and G. A. Lamberti. 1997. Drifting macrophytes as a mechanism for zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of lake-outlet streams. American Midland Naturalist
138:29–36.
Johnson, L. E., and D. K. Padilla. 1996. Geographic spread of exotic species: ecological lessons and
Garrett George
opportunities from the invasion of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Biological
Conservation 78:23–33.
Johnson, L. E., and J. T. Carlton. 1996. Post-establishment spread in large-scale invasions: dispersal
mechanisms of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Ecology 77:1686–1690.
Johnson, L. E., J. M. Bossenbroek, and C. E. Kraft. 2006. Patterns and pathways in the postestablishment spread of nonindigenous aquatic species: the slowing invasion of North
American inland lakes by the zebra mussel. Biological Invasions 8:475–489.
Keevin, T. M., R. E. Yarbrough, and A. C. Miller. 1992. Long-distance dispersal of zebra mussels
(Dreissena polymorpha) attached to hulls of commercial vessels. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology 7:437.
Kirsch, K., and A. Dzialowski. 2012. Effects of invasive zebra mussels on phytoplankton, turbidity, and
dissolved nutrients in reservoirs. Hydrobiologia 686:169-179.
Kraft C. E., P. J. Sullivan, A. Y. Karatayev, L. E. Burlakova, J. C. Nekola, L. E. Johnson and D. K. Padilla.
2002. Landscape patterns of an aquatic invader: assessing dispersal extent from spatial
distributions. Ecological Applications 12:749–759.
Makarewicz, J. C., P. Bertram, and T. W. Lewis. 2000. Chemistry of the offshore surface waters of Lake
Erie: pre- and post- Dreisenna introduction (1983–1993). Journal of Great Lakes Research
26:82–93.
Miller, E. B., and M. C. Watzin. 2007. The effects of zebra mussels on the lower planktonic foodweb in
Lake Champlain. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:407–420.
Miller, S. J., and J. M. Haynes. 1997. Factors limiting colonization of western New York creeks by the
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12:81–88.
Nalepa, T. F., and D. W. Schloesser. 1993. Zebra mussels: Biology, impacts, and control. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society 12:302-304.
Ricciardi, A., R. Serrouya, and F. G. Whoriskey. 1995. Aerial exposure tolerance of zebra and quagga
mussels (Bivalvia, Dreissenidae)— implications for overland dispersal. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:470–477.
Schneider, D. W., C. D. Ellis, and K. S. Cummings. 1998. A transportation model assessment of the risk
to native mussel communities from zebra mussel spread. Conservation Biology 12:788-800.
Strayer, D. L. 2009. Twenty years of zebra mussels: lessons from the mollusk that made headlines.
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7:135–141.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries [VDGIF]. 2016. Wildlife.
<https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/zebra-mussels/>. Accessed 19 Oct 2016
Zhu, B., D. G. Fitzgerald, C. M. Mayer, L. G. Rudstam, and E. L. Mills. 2006. Alteration of ecosystem
function by zebra mussels in Oneida Lake: Impacts on submerged macrophytes. Ecosystems
9:1017-1028.
Garrett George
Images Cited
United States Geological Survey [USGS]. 2016. Nonindigenous aquatic species.
<https://nas.er.usgs.gov/viewer/omap.aspx?SpeciesID=5>. Accessed 16 Nov 2016