DOCSLIB.ORG

Brandon Road: Appendix A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brandon Road: Appendix A GLMRIS – Brandon Road Appendix A - Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report August 2017 US Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island & Chicago Districts The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement—Will County, Illinois (Page Intetionally Left Blank) List of Attachments Attachment 1: Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Transmittal Memo Attachment 2: Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Attachment 3: Appendix I—Corps Future Without Project Condition Factsheet Attachment 4: Appendix II—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Planning Aid Letter to Corps Attachment 5: Appendix III—Corps Combined GLMRIS-BR Factsheets Attachment 6: Appendix IV—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Planning Aid Letter to Corps Attachment 7: Appendix V—Great Lakes Fish Table Attachment 8: Appendix VI—Des Plaines River Fish Table Attachment 9: Appendix VII—Des Plaines River U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Table Attachment 10: Appendix VIII—Scoping Comments from Illinois Department of Natural Resources Attachment 11: Appendix IX—Indiana Department of Natural Resources Comments on the Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Attachment 12: Appendix X—2016 Des Plaines River Management Plan Attachment 13: Appendix XI—Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Comments on Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report A-1 A-2 Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report On U.S. Army Corps of Engineers GLMRIS – Brandon Road Project Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carterville Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Marion, IL U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Midwest Regional Office Fisheries Program Ecological Services Program Bloomington, IL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Green Bay Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office New Franken, WI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region Bloomington, Minnesota September 2016 A-3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose, Scope, & Authority ......................................................................................................... 1 FWCA Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 1 Prior Studies and Reports .............................................................................................................. 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ....................................................................................... 7 DESCRIPTION OF CORPS’ ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 9 1. No New Federal Action............................................................................................................ 9 2. Non-structural Alternative........................................................................................................ 9 3. Technology Alternative – Continuous Electric Barrier............................................................ 9 4. Technology Alternative – Complex Noise ............................................................................ 10 5. Technology Alternative - Complex Noise with Intermittent Electric Barrier ....................... 10 6. Technology Alternative - Complex Noise with Continuous Electric Barrier ........................ 10 7. Lock Closure .......................................................................................................................... 10 FISH AND WILDLIFE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES .................................... 12 DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS .................................. 16 The Great Lakes .......................................................................................................................... 16 Cultural and Economic Significance ....................................................................................... 17 Ecosystem/Habitat Characteristics .......................................................................................... 18 Aquatic Species Communities ................................................................................................. 22 Interjurisdictional Species ....................................................................................................... 27 Overview and Threats/Stresses ................................................................................................ 29 Overview of Restoration and Recovery Efforts ...................................................................... 30 The Des Plaines River ................................................................................................................. 31 Cultural and Economic Significance ....................................................................................... 32 Biological Significance ............................................................................................................ 33 Aquatic Species Communities ................................................................................................. 33 Interjurisdictional Species ....................................................................................................... 37 Overview of Threats/Stresses .................................................................................................. 39 A-4 Overview of Restoration and Recovery Efforts ...................................................................... 40 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 41 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 43 FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 52 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 54 A-5 APPENDICIES I. Corps’ Future Without Project Condition for Asian Carp, November 13, 2015 II. USFWS PAL to the Corps, October 30, 2015 III. Corps’ GLMRIS-Brandon Road Draft December 2015 Factsheets, December 2015 IV. USFWS PAL to the Corps, March 31, 2016 V. List of the fishes of the Great Lakes and their Federal/State listing statuses VI. List of the fishes of the Des Plaines River including tributaries from 2013 survey VII. List of the fish collected by the Service from the Upper Des Plaines River from 2011- 2015 VIII. GLMRIS Brandon Road Scoping Comments from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to the Corps, January 16, 2015 IX. Indiana Department of Natural Resources’ letter to the USFWS with comments on the draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, September 6, 2016 X. Illinois Department of Natural Resources Des Plaines River Fishery Management Plan, June 2016 XI. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ letter to the USFWS with comments on the draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, September 12, 2016 A-6 INTRODUCTION Purpose, Scope, & Authority The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is evaluating seven alternatives for controlling the upstream movement of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) at Brandon Road Lock and Dam (BRLD). These measures are focused on preventing the transfer of three key species as identified in the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) - Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), Silver Carp (H. molitrix; collectively Asian carp), and a scud (Apocorophium lacustre). The BRLD project will assess the efficacy of establishing a single point to control the upstream transfer of ANS from the Mississippi River basin into the Great Lakes basin at the BRLD site. Construction of one-way ANS controls near BRLD is anticipated to enhance protections for the Great Lakes basin while also providing additional information and technology to inform potential two-way risk reduction solutions. Brandon Road Lock and Dam was identified in the GLMRIS analyses as the only single location that can address upstream transfer of Mississippi River species through all Chicago Area Waterway System pathways. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) involvement in this project is authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). At the request of the Corps, the Service is assisting in coordination with State fish and wildlife management agencies on formal comment and review of the project under the FWCA. The FWCA establishes fish and wildlife conservation as a co-equal purpose or objective of federally-funded or permitted water resource development proposals or projects. A required product under this FWCA consultation is the Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (DFWCAR) which outlines the Service’s fish and wildlife concerns and planning objectives, evaluates the anticipated impacts of the alternatives on the significant resources, and recommends alternatives that the Corps should consider selecting with input from affected states fish and wildlife agencies. The Service has submitted two Planning Aid Letters (PAL) to the Corps providing preliminary comments on the BRLD project and the pending evaluation of the proposed alternatives. This DFWCAR does not constitute the FINAL report of the Secretary of the Interior as required by Section 2(b) of the FWCA. After the Corps selects an alternative, the Service will revise this draft FWCAR and provide the final FWCAR in fulfillment with Section 2(b) of the FWCA. FWCA Agency Coordination
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sturgeon Research in NY 2017. NY Chapter, American Fisheries Society
    Citation: 2017. Brooking, Thomas E. Sturgeon Research in NY 2017. NY Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Annual Meeting Abstracts. Feb. 1-3, 2017. Buffalo, NY. 45 pp. Thursday February 2, 2017 Keynote Speakers 8:35 AM-9:20 AM Title: Lake Sturgeon recovery: Optimism for long-term success Author: Ron Bruch Affiliation: Fisheries Chief (retired), Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Contact: [email protected] Abstract: Biologists who have worked with Lake Sturgeon are all aware of the devastating declines in abundance and habitat the species experienced in the Great Lakes and elsewhere throughout its range in North America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Yet today in the early part of the 21st Century Lake Sturgeon populations overall enjoy much greater protection from over-exploitation, and have greater opportunities for recovery and sustainability throughout their range than they have experienced since the early 19th Century. A combination of factors including: increased attention over the last 30-40 years by state and provincial governments to effectively manage harvest and conduct proper assessments, increased public awareness of LS and their extreme vulnerability to overexploitation, improvements in assessment techniques, improvement in LS propagation techniques and stocking strategies, exponential expansion of population studies and research, increasing awareness and efforts to improve habitat and water quality, and the formation of the North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish and World Sturgeon Conservation Societies have all contributed to greater protection and recovery potential. While these are all positive steps that collectively should allow many LS populations to continue or start down the road to recovery, there are still waters and populations that may not be getting the attention needed to allow their recovery to occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Bowfin and Northern Sunfish Biology and Ecology By
    Aspects of Bowfin and Northern Sunfish Biology and Ecology by David Sanderson-Kilchenstein A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Science and Biology of the State University of New York College at Brockport in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science December 2015 i Aspects of Bowfin and Northern Sunfish Biology and Ecology by David Sanderson-Kilchenstein APPROVED BY: James Haynes, Advisor Date Jacques Rinchard, Reader Date Douglas Wilcox, Reader Date Christopher Norment, Department Chair Date Jacques Rinchard, Graduate Coordinator Date ii Abstract Bowfin (Amia calva) are currently being harvested at high rates in the Mississippi River system for the sale of their roe as a caviar alternative. I evaluated the effect that this industry could have if it expands to include the Great Lakes by describing population characteristics of bowfin from Braddock Bay, Monroe Co., NY. Pectoral fin ray sections were used to age 51 bowfin, and back-calculated length-at-age data were used to fit the Von Bertalanffy growth model. Theoretical maximum length was estimated to be 753 mm TL, the coefficient of growth 0.262, and time at length zero -0.023 years. These values resemble populations described from the upper Mississippi River that grow slower and live longer than populations in the south, and therefore would be affected more by commercial harvesting. Aquaculture could provide an alternative to wild harvest, but no established protocols exist. I attempted captive breeding (tanks and ponds) and tested the acceptance of a commercial and a handmade artificial diet. The 55 bowfin did not respond well to captivity: no breeding was observed and most fish lost weight, but they lost significantly less weight on the handmade artificial diet (P = 0.007).
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Lateral Lines Volume 33 Number
    Volume 33, Issue: 3 December 20, 2015 in this issue >>> 3 President's corner 4 2016 Iowa AFS meeting 5 Call for Papers Iowa Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Lateral Lines current topics >>> Crystal Darter, 6 Let the Invasion Begin Mississippi River 10 Big Springs Appreciation Day— Connects Farmers to the Path of Page 6-9 Water that Drains from Their Lands 13 Getting Data from the Field to your Desktop Faster 17 Effectiveness of Pulsed Direct Current at Reducing Walleye AFS Escapement from a Simulated Reservoir End-of-Year Book Sale IN THE NEWS: 18 Foray into the Wilds of Iowa finds Northern Pearl Dace and Least Darter but not Northern Sunfish 24 Why Didn’t the Fish Cross Under the Road? 26 Mountain Growth Helped Spawn Fish Diversity in New Zealand Volume 33, Issue: 3 December 20 , 2015 Visit Iowa AFS on the web: http://www.fisheriessociety.org/iowa/ index.html OFFICERS PRESIDENT SECRETARY/TREASURER Our Mission: Lewis Bruce Ryan Hupfeld To improve the Cold Springs Station Rathbun Hatchery conservation and 57744 Lewis Rd 15053 Hatchery Place sustainability of fishery Lewis, IA 51544 Moravia, IA 52531 resources and aquatic (712)769-2587 (641)647-2406 ecosystems by [email protected] [email protected] advancing fisheries and aquatic science PRESIDENT-ELECT MEMBERSHIP CHAIR and promoting the Jeff Kopaska D. Allen Pattillo development of fisheries professionals. Boone Research Fisheries Extension 1436 225th St 339 Science II Boone, IA 50036 Iowa State University (515)432-2823 Ames, IA 50011 [email protected] (515)294-8616 [email protected] COMMITTEE CHAIRS Audit Continuing Education Best Paper Ben Dodd Clay Pierce Chad Dolan [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Membership Student Affairs Newsletter Editor D.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa's Longear Sunfish Mystery Solved...Maybe
    17 American Currents Vol. 41, No. 3 IOWA’S LONGEAR SUNFISH MYSTERY SOLVED...MAYBE Konrad Schmidt Saint Paul, MN In June 2014, Iowa Department of Natural Resources per- How did Longears get into Lake George? We did pass by sonnel found three Longear Sunfish Lepomis( megalotis) the reservoir’s outlet, which was a huge cement box culvert. in a pond at the Fairport Fish Hatchery near Muscatine. I looked for the stream through the bridge and it appeared to The origin of the fish was a mystery. It was the first record be roughly a 50-foot almost vertical drop. No, Longears did of the species in Iowa (see Fall 2014 Riffles). Recent revi- not swim upstream into Lake George. Afterwards, Karen sions elevated the Northern Sunfish L.( peltastes) to species did some more digging and found some interesting things, rank from the subspecies L. megalotis peltastes, which was which raised even more questions. Ken Clodfelter has man- known from Iowa but is now presumed extirpated. Bruce aged the reservoir for 28 years and confirmed Longears had Bauer examined the Fairport specimens and tentatively been present during this entire period. Big Branch Creek identified them as the former subspecies L. megalotis mega- was dammed in 1967 to create Lake George, but there has lotis. DNA sequencing supports this determination but it never has been a fish survey of the creek and the species may was not 100% on the separation of peltastes from megalotis. Currently, DNA sequencing has not distinguished peltas- tes specimens as distinct from megalotis. Future work will hopefully shed more light on the situation as more speci- mens from throughout the range of these sunfishes are added to the DNA and the morphometric databases (Bruce Bauer, pers.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Multiple Species Inventory & Monitoring Program Technical
    Iowa Multiple Species Inventory & Monitoring Program Technical Manual Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2016 - 1 - - 2 - Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…..5 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….………..………….......6 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Sampling Design and Plot Establishment…………………………..………………………………………….…11 Landscape Characteristics Protocol…………………………………….…………………………………………..17 Data Entry & Database Maintenance……………………………….………………………………………………21 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………...23 Reporting………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………….33 Periodic Review & Evaluation……………………………………….………………………………………………..37 Mammal Monitoring Protocol……………………………..………………...………………………………………39 Bat Monitoring Protocol………………………………………………………………………………………………..53 Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Protocol……………………………………………………………………65 Bird Monitoring Protocol……………………………………………………………………………………………….79 Butterfly Monitoring Protocol……………………………………………………………………………….………..91 Odonate Monitoring Protocol……………………………………………………………………………..………..103 Terrestrial Snail Monitoring Protocol…………………………………………………………………………….109 Fish in Wadeable Streams Monitoring Protocol………………………………………………..……………115 Fish in Lakes Monitoring Protocol……………………………………………………………….……………….127 Fish in Rivers Monitoring Protocol………………………………………………………………….………….…133 Mussel Monitoring Protocol…………………………………………………………………………………………139 Crayfish Monitoring Protocol…………………………………………………………………….…………………151 Terrestrial Plant Species and
    [Show full text]
  • Lepomis Spp. Technical Note Prepared by IUCN for the European Commission
    Information on measures and related costs in relation to species considered for inclusion on the Union list This technical note has been drafted by a team of experts under the supervision of IUCN within the framework of the contract No 07.0202/2016/739524/SER/ENV.D.2 “Technical and Scientific support in relation to the Implementation of Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species”. The information and views set out in this note do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this note. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This document shall be cited as: Zogaris, S.2017. Information on measures and related costs in relation to species considered for inclusion on the Union list: Lepomis spp. Technical note prepared by IUCN for the European Commission. This technical note provides information on the effectiveness of measures, alongside the required effort and resources, used to prevent the introduction, and to undertake early detection, rapid eradication, and management for the invasive alien species under review. Each table represents a separate measure. Date of completion: 04/12/2017 Comments which could support improvement of this document are welcome. Please send your comments by e-mail to [email protected] Species (scientific name) Genus: Lepomis (Rafinesque,
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Fishes of Thunder Bay District, Ontario
    Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Checklist of Fish es of Thunder Bay District , Ontario 31 December 2019 Introduction This first edition of Checklist of Fishes of Thunder Bay District adds to existing checklists prepared by members of the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists (TBFN) covering other vertebrate taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles & amphibians), as well vascular plants, butterflies, and odonates. As with these other checklists, it covers the official judicial District of Thunder Bay (Figure 1). The District extends from the eastern border of Quetico Provincial Park east to White River, and from the international border north to Lake St. Joseph and the Albany River. Much of the District (60%) is within the Great Lakes watershed, with the remaining draining into the Arctic Ocean either north via the Hudson Bay Lowlands, or west via Rainy Lake/Lake of the Woods and the Nelson River watershed. Figure 1. Judicial District of Thunder Bay with primary watersheds and protected areas. 2 The fish species of the Thunder Bay District mostly reflect post-glacial colonization, modified by more recent ecological and anthropogenic influences. The Wisconsinan ice mass began to retreat north of Lake Superior circa 10,700 BP (Farrand and Drexler 1985), allowing fish to initially colonize the Thunder Bay area (Momot and Stephenson 1996). The Marquette advance circa 9900 BP likely wiped out these early colonizers, but its retreat around 9700 BP allowed many species access from glacial refugia in the Mississippi River basin to the south (Mandrak and Crossman 1992b; Stephenson and Momot 1994). Some species invaded from the east via the outlet of Lake Minong and Lake Superiors’ other post-glacial predecessors.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowfishing in the United States: History, Status, Ecological Impact, and a Need for Management Dennis L
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343610758 Bowfishing in the United States: History, Status, Ecological Impact, and a Need for Management Article in Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science · October 2020 CITATIONS READS 0 246 2 authors, including: Jason D. Schooley Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 31 PUBLICATIONS 155 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Bowfishing View project Benthic Habitat Mapping of Grand Lake Tributaries as it Relates to Paddlefish Recruitment View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jason D. Schooley on 12 October 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. TRANSACTIONS OF THE KANSAS Vol. 123, no. 3-4 ACADEMY OF SCIENCE p. 285-338 (2020) Bowfishing in the United States: History, status, ecological impact, and a need for management DENNIS L. SCARNECCHIA1 AND JASON D. SCHOOLEY2 1. Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho [email protected] 2. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Jenks, Oklahoma In this paper we review the history and development of bowfishing, provide a case study of a high-profile bowfishing tournament in Oklahoma, survey and summarize management of the sport in all 50 states, and provide scientifically-based approaches for its management. Bowfishing has a distinct niche in the evolution of the bow and arrow and in fishing, as one of several methods practiced by many and scattered indigenous cultures worldwide. In the past century, advances in technology, including the development of the compound bow, custom boat and lighting systems for night bowfishing, and improved information transfer have opened the sport to many people previously unable to participate in the sport at a satisfying level.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition
    Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition Pictures from – NANFA (2017) Warren Lamb Aquatic Biology Program Bemidji State University Bemidji, MN 56601 Introduction Minnesota’s landscape is maze of lakes and river that are home to a recorded total of 163 species of fish. This document is a complete and current dichotomous taxonomic key of the Minnesota fishes. This key was based on the 1972 “Northern Fishes” key (Eddy 1972), and updated based on Dr. Jay Hatch’s article “Minnesota Fishes: Just How Many Are There?” (Hatch 2016). Any new species or family additions were also referenced to the 7th edition of the American Fisheries society “Names of North American Fishes” (Page et al. 2013) to assess whether a fish species is currently recognized by the scientific community. Identifying characteristics for new additions were compared to those found in Page and Burr (2011). In total five species and one family have been added to the taxonomic key, while three have been removed since the last publication. Species pictures within the keys have been provide from either Bemidji State University Ichthyology Students or North American Native Fish Association (NANFA). My hope is that this document will offer an accurate and simple key so anyone can identify the fish they may encounter in Minnesota. Warren Lamb – 2017 Pictures from – NANFA (2017) References Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. Hatch, J. 2015. Minnesota fishes: just how many are there anyway? American Currents 40:10-21. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 11-D Plant and Wildlife Species Lists
    PLANT SPECIES INVENTORY Species identified during on-site ecological surveys conducted by EDR within 2019-2020 Conservation Notes1 Family Genus species common name infraspecific rank Rank2 Acoraceae Acorus americanus sweet flag S5 Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra common elderberry S5 ssp. canadensis Adoxaceae Viburnum acerifolium mapleleaf viburnum S5 Adoxaceae Viburnum dentatum smooth arrowwood S5 var. lucidum Adoxaceae Viburnum lantanoides hobblebush S5 Adoxaceae Viburnum opulus highbush cranberry S4 var. americanum Alismataceae Alisma subcordatum water-plantain S5 Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead S5 Amaranthaceae Chenopodium album lambs-quarters SNA Amaryllidaceae Allium tricoccum wild leeks S5 var. tricoccum Anacardiaceae Rhus typhina staghorn sumac S5 Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy S5 1 Apiaceae Anthriscus sylvestris wild chervil SNA Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace SNA Apiaceae Pastinaca sativa wild parsnip SNA Apiaceae Sium suave hemlock water-parnsip S5 Apocynaceae Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading dogbane S5 Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum Indian hemp S5 Apocynaceae Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed S5 ssp. incarnata Apocynaceae Asclepias syriaca common milkweed S5 Aquifoliaceae Ilex verticillata common winterberry S5 Araceae Arisaema triphyllum common jack-in-the-pulpit S5 ssp. triphyllum Araceae Lemna minor lesser duckweed S5 Araceae Symplocarpus foetidus skunk cabbage S5 Araliaceae Aralia nudicaulis sarsaparilla S5 Asparagaceae Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower S5 Asphodelaceae Hemerocallis
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Press Release – November, 2015 --- DRAFT 2
    COSEWIC scientists not ready to declare species extinct yet, but several are on the brink KELOWNA, BC (May 2, 2016) – Several of Canada’s species continue to decline, based on a recent assessment. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) met last week to evaluate the conservation status of 26 Canadian species. Ten new species were added to a growing list of 739 with only a few showing signs of improvement over the past decade. “The poor condition of species that we examined during this meeting is, unfortunately, quite typical of what we see year after year“, remarked Dr. Eric Taylor, Chair of the committee and professor of Zoology at the University of British Columbia. As an independent science advisory body with a mandate under the federal Species at Risk Act, COSEWIC plays a key role in monitoring the state of Canada’s biodiversity. From orchids to whales, the committee keeps an eye on the conservation status of Canada’s plants, animals and other organisms. At this meeting, COSEWIC considered many complex cases of species facing the threat of extinction. One example was the Sakinaw Sockeye Salmon. Found only in Sakinaw Lake, B.C., which drains to the Strait of Georgia, this population regularly numbered about 4,500 Sockeye Salmon (mature female) © Dr. E.R. Keeley individuals in the period 1960-1990. However, by 2009, none could be found in the lake. Problems both in marine habitats and in the lake appear to have combined to cause the complete disappearance of wild-breeding fish from this population of Sockeye Salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Metabarcoding Approach to Identifying Early Life Stages of Great Lakes Fishes
    Metabarcoding approach to identifying early life stages of Great Lakes fishes by Kavishka Gallage A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto ãCopyright by Kavishka Gallage 2020 Metabarcoding approach to identifying early life stages of Great Lakes fishes Kavishka Gallage Master of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto 2020 Abstract Accurately identifying fishes in their early life stages using morphology is challenging, time-consuming, and requires taxonomic expertise. Metabarcoding is a method that can be used to identify species in batch samples (Cruaud et al. 2017). Detection of early life stages of fishes is important for understanding life history patterns and critical spawning habitat. In this study, metabarcoding is used as an identification tool to identify 1119 egg and larva batch samples from Sydenham River and Rondeau Bay. I identified 34 species from Sydenham River and 8 species from Rondeau Bay and the spawning months of these species based on date of capture. I determined the materials and supplies cost of metabarcoding in this study to be $6597.33, compared to $62289.09 for individual-based barcoding. This study shows the potential of metabarcoding as a broad-scale detection and identification method for early life stages of Great Lake fishes. ii Acknowledgements Many people contributed to the completion of my Master’s thesis through academic and emotional support. First, I would like to thank my supervisors Dr. Nicholas Mandrak and Dr. Nathan Lovejoy for their continuous support throughout the duration of my thesis. I am grateful for opportunity to work with you and learn from you.
    [Show full text]