1 / 19

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

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

sheri
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. BACKGROUND • Impacts of aquatic nuisance species • Environmental • Economic • Increased transfer worldwide • Expansion of trade • Improved water quality

  3. MN Sea Grant IA DNR Source: Rasmussen 2002 Source: Rasmussen 2002 The critical link

  4. Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier

  5. Source: Smith-Root, Inc. Source: Smith-Root, Inc. Source: Smith-Root, Inc. Previous assessments of electric barrier technology Lake Seminole, Florida Confine grass carp for aquatic weed control • Jordan River, Michigan • Block migration of sea lampreys Heron Lake, Minnesota Exclusion of common carp

  6. 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

  7. OBJECTIVES Long term: • Evaluate and improve electric barrier technology Short term: • Deter upstream movement of the bighead and silver carp

  8. 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.

  9. Receiver housing = hydrophone = antenna, 4 or 6 element = antenna signal reception area Plan view of Dispersal Barrier and Placement of Hydrophones and Antennas, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Maximum Field Strength Upstream Downstream Canal width = 165’ Canal depth = 25-30’ Electric Field length = 60’ *not drawn to scale

  10. 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?

  11. Assessment begins, radio only Barrier field strengthened Field effects study Angler catch Angler catch Angler catch 15 67 15 21 Carp migration witnessed Tagged fish crosses barrier Hydrophones installed Assessment Timeline 118 97 82 15 fish released Barrier activated Frequent manual tracking Apr Nov Apr May Mar 2002 Jul Nov 2003 Mar Oct 2004 Apr May

  12. Electroshockinglocation 21 fish released, 118 total 15 fish released, 97 total 82 fish released Location of tagged fish March 27, 2003 April 2, 2003 Barrier Power plant discharge Sand/ gravel yard Rte. 7 Bridge Grain elevator Sunken barge and vegetation Fish collection area April 11, 2003 April 22, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 28, 2003 July 10, 2003 July 22, 2003 October 28, 2003 April 26, 2004 May 11, 2004 June 17, 2004 June 28, 2004 July 13, 2004

  13. Electroshockinglocation Movements of Fish #211 and #1183/26/03 – 5/28/03 Barrier Rte. 7 Bridge Power plant discharge Grain elevator Sand/gravel yard Sunken barge and vegetation Fish collection area 4 1 3 1 6 5 2 3 2 5 4

  14. 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

  15. DISPERSAL BARRIER 2 Receiver housing Receiver housing Receiver housing Improved Two-Barrier System 1) Continuous monitoring DISPERSAL BARRIER 1 2) Passage detection by loss of signal or appearance of signal 3) Tests two directions 4) Fish more likely to probe barrier Downstream Upstream * Not drawn to scale

  16. Funding support from: USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office Illinois Department of Natural Resources USGS, Rapid Response ProgramSpecial 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 IllinoisFrank 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

  17. Bypassing the barrier • Hitchhiking on watercraft

  18. Bypassing the barrier • Flooding from Des Plaines River

  19. Bypassing the barrier • Waterway connections • I & M Canal, Deep Run Creek

More Related