Docstoc

NRES 456 pres

Document Sample
NRES 456 pres Powered By Docstoc
					       Evaluation of a barrier to prevent
          transfers of harmful aquatic
        species between the Mississippi
             and Great Lakes basins

Traci L. Barkley
Program in Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Illinois

Richard E. Sparks
Illinois Water Resources Center
and National Great Rivers
Research and Education Center

John M. Dettmers
Center for Aquatic Ecology,
Illinois Natural History Survey
             BACKGROUND
   Impacts of aquatic nuisance species
    – Environmental
    – Economic


   Increased transfer worldwide
    – Expansion of trade
    – Improved water quality
                                                       MN Sea Grant




                     IA DNR




Source: Rasmussen 2002




The critical link             Source: Rasmussen 2002
 Aquatic
Nuisance
 Species
Dispersal
 Barrier
  Previous assessments of electric
         barrier technology
Lake Seminole, Florida
 Confine grass carp for aquatic weed control



                                                                      Source: Smith-Root, Inc.



                                      Jordan River, Michigan
                                      Block migration of sea lampreys

           Source: Smith-Root, Inc.




       Heron Lake, Minnesota
        Exclusion of common carp

                                                               Source: Smith-Root, Inc.
Unique conditions and constraints in
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

    Larger in scale
    Periodic high flow rates
    High water conductivity
    Fish movements in two directions
    Safety to users
    Barge traffic
    Demonstration project, 3 year life
              OBJECTIVES
Long term:
  – Evaluate and improve electric barrier
    technology


Short term:
  – Deter upstream movement of the bighead
    and silver carp
                        Methods

 Combined acoustic/
  radio telemetry
  system
   Implant transmitters in
    common carp, release

   Fixed station and
    manual tracking
      Various seasonal and
       flow regimes

                                  Source: Lotek Wireless, Inc.
   Plan view of Dispersal Barrier
   and Placement of Hydrophones and Antennas,
   Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal



                                        Dispersal
                                         Barrier


                                           Maximum
                                             Field
                                           Strength



Downstream                                                              Upstream



                                       Receiver
     = hydrophone
                                       housing        Canal width = 165’
     = antenna, 4 or 6 element
                                                      Canal depth = 25-30’
     = antenna signal reception area                  Electric Field length = 60’
                                                       *not drawn to scale
       Questions and Concerns
   Would fish approach and probe the
    barrier?

   Were fish surviving surgery and
    retaining transmitters?

   What effect would barges have on the
    electric field and fish movement?
                   Assessment Timeline
                                                                          97
                                                                          82
                                                                          15
                                                                         118 fish released

                      Assessment     Barrier
         Barrier        begins,       field    Field effects
        activated      radio only strengthened     study                                 Frequent
                                                                          Angler
                                              Angler                                     manual
                                                                          catch
                                              catch                                      tracking
       Apr           Nov            Apr       May                      Mar
2002         Jul     Nov      2003 Mar               Oct        2004     Apr       May
                                            Angler
                           15            67 catch          15                      21
             Carp migration          Tagged fish                             Hydrophones
               witnessed            crosses barrier                            installed
Location of tagged fish                 21
                                        82
                                        15 fish
                                       released
                                      released,
                                       Marchtotal
                                        97 27, 2003
                                      118total
                                     Barrier 2, 2003
                                       April
                                        April 11, 2003
                                     Power plant
                                        April 22,
                                     discharge 2003
                                        May 1, 2003
                                     Sand/ gravel yard
                                        May 28, 2003
                                       July 10, 2003
                                     Rte. 7 Bridge
                                       July 22, 2003
                                     Grain elevator
                                       October 28, 2003
                                       April barge and
                                     Sunken26, 2004
                                     vegetation2004
                                       May 11,

                                        June 17, 2004
                                     Fish collection
                                     area
                                        June 28, 2004
          Electroshocking location      July 13, 2004
Movements of Fish #211 and #118
      3/26/03 – 5/28/03

                              Barrier
                 4
                 1
                              Rte. 7 Bridge
              3
              1
             6
             5                Power plant
             2
                              discharge
             3
             2
                              Grain elevator


         5                    Sand/gravel yard

         4                    Sunken barge and
                              vegetation

                              Fish collection
                              area
   Electroshocking location
    Preliminary Findings/ Observations
   Fish are challenging barrier

   Initial electric field settings not sufficient

   Barges weaken electric field; can aid fish passage

   Tows up to 5 barges long traveling in canal;
    important for length of electric field and distance
    between dual barriers
   Improved Two-Barrier System

                         1) Continuous monitoring
             DISPERSAL                              DISPERSAL
                         2) Passage detection by
              BARRIER                                BARRIER
                            loss of signal or
                 2                                      1
                            appearance of signal
                         3) Tests two directions

                         4) Fish more likely to
                            probe barrier
Downstream                                                                Upstream




             Receiver                               Receiver
             housing                                housing



                                                               * Not drawn to scale
Funding support from:

USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
USGS, Rapid Response Program                               Special thanks to:
Illinois Natural History Survey
Great Lakes Protection Fund                                     Mark Pegg (INHS)
USFWS, Coastal Program                                         Kevin Irons (INHS)
USACE, Chicago District                                       Matt O’Hara (INHS)
University of Illinois                                     Frank Veraldi (USACE)
                                                           Dan Makauskas (IDNR)
                                                           Steve Robillard (IDNR)
                                                            Bernie Pientka (INHS)
                                                  Mitch Sisak (Applied Biometrics)
                                                               Ruth Sparks (INHS)
                                                              Matt Warren (UIUC)
                                                           Art Michelowicz (UIUC)
                                                            Conor Gillespie (UIUC)
                                                           Dennis Skultety (UIUC)
                                                            James Barkley (UIUC)
                                                             Beth Boisvert (INHS)
                                                             Al Thompson (INHS)
                                             Lake Michigan Biological Station staff
         Bypassing the barrier
   Hitchhiking on watercraft
       Bypassing the barrier
 Flooding from
  Des Plaines River
         Bypassing the barrier
   Waterway connections
    – I & M Canal, Deep Run Creek

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:19