DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Implications and Science-Based Strategies for Invasive Carp in Minnesota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Implications and Science-Based Strategies for Invasive Carp in Minnesota Ecological Implications and Science-Based Strategies for Invasive Carp in Minnesota Luther Aadland, Amy Childers, Ian Chisholm Stream Habitat Program, Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources April 2015 Executive Summary Statement of the Issue Bigheaded carps (silver and bighead carp) were introduced to the U.S. over 40 years ago and have since become abundant in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers. As these fish species spread, it is feared that they will become a dominant part of the fish community and adversely affect or displace native species. In response to potential ecologic and economic effects of spreading bigheaded carp populations, state and federal agencies have responded with plans and strategies for addressing bigheaded carp dispersal, including construction of dams and electric barriers. However, fragmentation of river systems by barriers has been shown to be among the most definitive causes of extinction and extirpation of native species. To address this management issue we examine four underlying questions: • Why are some introduced species successful while many native species decline? • What are the effects of carps on native species and their populations? • How effective are barriers for introduced carp? • What are the effects of barriers on native fish species in Minnesota? Based on scientific review and empirical findings within these four fundamental questions, alternative strategies are proposed. These strategies address invasive carp while prioritizing native species and the river ecosystems upon which they depend. Question 1. Why are some Introduced Species Successful while many Native Species Decline? Native species have adaptive traits that favor their survival under prevalent historical conditions. Their life history cycles take advantage of river networks that provide corridors for migrations to allow access to a range of habitats. Their adaptation to connected river ecosystems allows them to recolonize after droughts, floods, and other disturbances. Many native species are vulnerable to poor water quality, including low dissolved oxygen, and depend on the ability to migrate in response to these impairments. Eutrophication, habitat degradation, hydrologic changes, impoundment and fragmentation have altered and degraded stream habitat and conditions resulting in depleted native stream biodiversity. Meanwhile these conditions favor tolerant native and introduced species. For example, bigheaded carps (silver and bighead) have adaptations that include their ability to a) tolerate impaired water quality (while they have become widely distributed, they often reach highest densities in impoundments) and b) consume and digest blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that are inedible or toxic to most native fishes, which provides an otherwise unexploited food resource to these fishes. These species have been selectively bred in Asia for over 1,000 years to tolerate conditions in hyper-eutrophic ponds. River and lake systems with elevated nutrient levels, particularly in agricultural watersheds, create eutrophic conditions favorable to these species. Question 2. What are the Effects of Carps on Native Species and their Populations? Even at extreme biomass levels, bigheaded carps have not been shown to be causative in the extirpation of native species. Correlated declines in abundance of some primarily planktivorous species on the Illinois River began prior to the arrival of bigheaded carps. Bigheaded carps were associated with changes in zooplankton composition, which appeared to result in a slight decline in condition factor of two Page i planktivorous fish species in the Illinois River. The effects of introduced carps are conditional, based on the degree of fragmentation and eutrophication. The case evidence suggests that as water quality deteriorates and fragmentation increases the risk of bigheaded carp success also increases. It is unclear whether this high risk of effects on native species is primarily due to the bigheaded carps or due to the degraded water quality and fragmentation. Question 3. How Effective are Barriers for Introduced Carp? Electric barriers have not been proven to be effective in limiting upstream dispersal or abundance of common carp or other introduced carps due to power outages, flood flows, alternate dispersal pathways, and other factors. Most dams have not proven to be effective barriers to introduced carp due to inundation by large floods or alternate dispersal pathways. The ability of silver carp to jump 10 feet and burst to over 20 feet per second makes them much more likely to pass barriers than most native species. Barriers may actually increase the success of carp and other tolerant species (native and non-native) by reducing competition and predation controls by native species. Based on case examples in Minnesota and elsewhere, barrier effectiveness for limiting range expansion and abundance of introduced carps is predicted to be low with high certainty. Question 4. What are the Effects of Barriers on Native Fish Species in Minnesota? Barriers have been shown to be among the most definitive causes of loss of native species in Minnesota waters and globally. An assessment of 32 dams on streams throughout Minnesota found that barriers have a substantial negative effect on native biodiversity of fish and mussels. Species richness of native fish was an average of 41% lower upstream of nineteen complete barrier dams. When dams were removed or failed, an average of 68% of the absent fish species returned to the upstream watershed. In addition, three extirpated mussel species recolonized the Pomme de Terre River following removal of the Appleton Dam. Loss of biodiversity due to barriers was also shown to extend to entire watersheds. This loss in biodiversity can adversely affect (a) water quality through loss of filtration by mussels, (b) the bait industry through loss of shiners and other bait species, (c) recreation by loss of fisheries, and (d) overall watershed health. Based on this assessment, effects of new barriers on native biodiversity are predicted to be high with high certainty. Documented adverse effects of barriers on native species are far greater than documented negative effects of bigheaded carps on native species. Therefore, fish barriers should not be considered as a viable alternative on naturally free-flowing rivers. Management Implications and Recommendations 1. Alternative strategies for addressing a biomass dominated by bigheaded carps include: (a) improvements in water quality, dam removal, and restoration of natural habitat to increase native species abundance and diversity to increase resistance to invasion, (b) increased protection of flathead catfish and other predators of bigheaded carps, and (c) commercial harvest of bigheaded carps. These strategies can be used in combination with other strategies that specifically target carp without adversely affecting native species. 2. Barriers that re-establish either watershed divides in artificially connected watersheds (ditches and canals) or natural barriers would not adversely affect native biodiversity. Re-establishing natural barriers, such as Upper St. Anthony Falls, is an example of reestablishment of a natural barrier. 3. Based on the systematic review of current science within this document for each of the questions outlined, the conditions on the Minnesota River, and the dramatic need for maintaining native species everywhere - we recommend a focus on maintaining and restoring healthy watershed conditions for native species. This will not be easy or quick. But effective prevention and control of biotic invasions requires a long-term, large scale strategy, rather than a tactical approach that focuses on battling individual introduced species. Ultimately, to be successful, an effort will have to be made to include stakeholders, engage them fully in the science and ecology of these systems, and work together towards long-term solutions that emphasize healthy systems and native species. Page ii Page iii Acknowledgements We would like to thank the reviewers of this report – Dr. Duane Chapman (US Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center), Dr. Isaac Schlosser (University of North Dakota, Professor of Biology), Dr. Charles Anderson (MN DNR Fisheries, Research Supervisor), and Brian Nerbonne (MN DNR Fisheries, Streams Habitat Consultant). Their edits and comments were very valuable. We would also like to thank the MN DNR fisheries managers and others that provided additional information on the fish distribution data -including: Roger Hugill, Chris Domeier, Ryan Doorenbos, Arlin Schalekamp, and Kevin Stauffer. Finally, thanks to Gene Van Eckhoudt (ND Game and Fish) for details on silver carp dispersal in the James River. Page iv Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................iv Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1 Question 1. Why are some Introduced Species Successful while many Native Species Decline?...............4 Ecological Definitions................................................................................................................................4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota
    Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota By Christopher A. Sanocki Abstract Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected sites on streams in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, located in southwestern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both lakes and wetlands, the main- channel length, and the main-channel slope. Stream sites include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, outlets of sewage treatment plants, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey low-flow, high-flow, and continuous- record gaging stations. Introduction watershed boundaries, which were used for parts of this report. These contributions were essential for the This is the 10th report in a series detailing subbasin completion of this report. characteristics of streams in Minnesota and adjacent states. The Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin drains an area of 2,070 square miles and is represented Methods by hydrologic accounting unit 07020004 (U.S. U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute series Geological Survey, 1974). The Hawk Creek-Yellow topographic maps were used as source maps to obtain Medicine River Basin includes parts of Yellow the areas for the subbasin boundaries, lakes, marshes, Medicine, Lac qui Parle, Lincoln, Lyon, Chippewa, the main-channel length, and the contour elevation Kandiyohi, Renville, and Redwood Counties in points used in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Upper Sioux Agency State Park Trails and Facilities
    ©2019, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MAP AND GUIDE: ABOUT THE PARK SO EVERYONE CAN ENJOY THE PARK... UPPER SIOUX AGENCY Upper Sioux Agency State Park was established in 1963 to STATE PARK preserve and interpret the remains of the historic site of A full set of STATE PARK RULES AND the Upper Sioux or Yellow Medicine Indian Agency. The REGULATIONS is available at mndnr.gov. 5908 HIGHWAY 67 Historic Upper Sioux Agency Site is managed by the GRANITE FALLS, MN 56241 PARK OPEN Minnesota Historical Society and offers self-led 8 a.m.–10 p.m. daily. YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY opportunities. Be sure to explore the park’s diverse 320-564-4777 landscapes covering 1,280 acres of the Minnesota River VEHICLE PERMITS and its confluence with the Yellow Medicine River. You’ll Permits required; purchase at park office or entrance kiosk. find open prairie knolls, bluffs and cool, wooded slopes. A VISITOR TIPS visit will reveal trails that are perfect for horseback riding, PETS WELCOME • The park office is open Memorial hiking, snowshoeing and snowmobiling. Reserve a tipi for a unique experience. Keep on 6-foot leash; pick up after; attend at all times; not allowed in Day weekend to Labor Day buildings or at beaches. weekend on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. TRAIL HIGHLIGHTS − CAMPGROUND QUIET HOURS • Contact at the park November 10 p.m.– 8 a.m.; only registered campers may be in campground during quiet hours. through March may be sparse. Hiking Club Trail 4.3-mile loop • Trails are shared with horses; all Hilly • Mowed grass • Packed dirt FIREWOOD dogs must be leashed.
    [Show full text]
  • ROOT RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN -I- SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
    Cold Snap Photography Prepared For: Root River Planning Partnership Prepared By: Houston Engineering, Inc. Photo by Bob Joachim Root River Watershed | ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN List of PLan Abbreviations i Plan Definitions iii Executive Summary iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Preamble 1-1 1.2 Plan Area 1-1 1.3 Watershed Characteristics 1-4 1.4 Plan Overview 1-4 1.5 Plan Partners and Roles in Plan Development 1-5 1.6 Incorporating Comments into the Plan __________________1-7 2. ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF RESOURCES, CONCERNS, AND ISSUES CAUSING CONCERN 2-1 2.1 Definitions 2-1 2.2 Identifying Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-2 2.3 Prioritizing Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-13 2.4 Priority Resource Concerns and Issues 2-14 2.4.1 "A" Level Priorities 2-14 2.4.1.1 Description and Resource Concern Locations 2-14 2.4.1.2 Issues Affecting "A" Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-18 2.4.2 "B" Level Priorities 2-18 2.4.2.1 Description and Landscape Locations 2-18 2.4.2.2 Issues Affecting “B” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-26 2.4.3 "C" Level Priorities 2-26 2.4.3.1 Issues Affecting “C” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-35 2.5 Use of Priority Categories in Plan Implementation 2-35 2.6 Emerging Issues 2-35 2.6.1 "Scientific and Technical Emerging Issues 2-36 2.61.1 Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience 2-36 2.6.1.2 Endocrine Active Compounds 2-37 2.6.1.3 Water Movement Within a Karst Landscape 2-37 2.6.1.4 Improving Soil Health 2-37 2.6.1.5 Buffers for Public Waters and Drainage Systems 2-38 2.6.1.6 Invasive Species 2-38 2.6.1.7
    [Show full text]
  • Little Crow Historic Canoe Route
    Taoyateduta Minnesota River HISTORIC water trail BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA Twin Valley Council U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 AUGUST 17, 1862 The TA-OYA-TE DUTA Fish and Wildlife Minnesota River Historic Water Four Dakota men kill five settlers The Minnesota River Basin is a Trail, is an 88 mile water route at Acton in Meeker County birding paradise. The Minnesota stretching from just south of AUGUST 18 River is a haven for bird life and Granite Falls to New Ulm, Minne- several species of waterfowl and War begins with attack on the sota. The river route is named af- riparian birds use the river corri- Lower Sioux Agency and other set- ter Taoyateduta (Little Crow), the dor for nesting, breeding, and rest- tlements; ambush and battle at most prominent Dakota figure in ing during migration. More than the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Redwood Ferry. Traders stores 320 species have been recorded in near Upper Sioux Agency attacked the Minnesota River Valley. - The Minnesota River - AUGUST 19 Beneath the often grayish and First attack on New Ulm leading to The name Minnesota is a Da- cloudy waters of the Minnesota its evacuation; Sibley appointed kota word translated variously as River, swim a diverse fish popula- "sky-tinted water” or “cloudy-sky tion. The number of fish species commander of U.S. troops water". The river is gentle and and abundance has seen a signifi- AUGUST 20 placid for most of its course and cant rebound over the last several First Fort Ridgely attack. one will encounter only a few mi- years.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Funds, Sharing Expertise in the Yellow Medicine River
    ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN The Yellow Medicine River flows under Minnesota Highway 23 just north of Hanley Falls in Yellow Medicine County. The Yellow Medicine River Watershed was among five One Watershed, One Plan pilot projects funded in 2014. The watershed drains more than 665,000 acres in Yellow Medicine, Lincoln, Lyon and Lac qui Parle counties. Leveraging funds, sharing expertise in the Yellow Medicine River Watershed MARSHALL – In the Yellow middle of the watershed Medicine River Watershed, near Canby, agreed. Antony upstream projects are has phased out of full-time gaining downstream farming since his crop support as One Watershed, insurance business took off, One Plan catches on. but most of his constituents are farmers. The locally driven, “The watershed isn’t just watershed- isolated to our county. based Knutson Netzke Overholser As projects are being approach done upstream, it’s spans ultimately going to help us political River Watershed to leverage “If we’re putting those downstream,” Antony said. boundaries federal funds that will cut practices in and the money “This is how you have to as it landowners’ shared costs in upstream, you’re going to think, as a watershed, not as prioritizes and put more projects on see benefits downstream,” ‘I’m part of this county,’ or conservation the ground. said Michelle Overholser, ‘I’m part of this district.’” work with the potential to Yellow Medicine River make the biggest water- The watershed drains land in Watershed District Agriculture dominates the quality improvements. four counties, from Lincoln administrator. 665,073-acre watershed. County in the southwest to Most watershed districts in A $551,700 Clean Water the Minnesota River south of Yellow Medicine County this part of the state formed Fund implementation grant Granite Falls in Upper Sioux Commissioner Ron Antony, decades ago to alleviate allowed the Yellow Medicine Agency State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypophthalmichthys Molitrix and H. Nobilis)
    carpsAB_covers 6/30/15 9:33 AM Page 1 BIGHEADED CARPS (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and H. nobilis) An Annotated Bibliography on Literature Composed from 1970 to 2014 Extension Service Forest and Wildlife Research Center The information given here is for educational purposes only. References to commercial products, trade names, or suppliers are made with the understanding that no endorsement is implied and that no discrimination against other products or suppliers is intended. Copyright 2015 by Mississippi State University. All rights reserved. This publication may be copied and distributed without alteration for nonprofit educational purposes provided that credit is given to the Mississippi State University Extension Service. By Andrew Smith, Extension Associate Biologist, MSU Center for Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts. We are an equal opportunity employer, and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, Compiled by Andrew L. Smith national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. Edited by Steve Miranda, PhD, and Wes Neal, PhD Publication 2890 Extension Service of Mississippi State University, cooperating with U.S. Department of Agriculture. Published in furtherance of Acts of Congress, May 8 and June 30, 1914. GARY B. JACKSON, Director (500-06-15) carpsAB_covers 6/30/15 9:33 AM Page 3 Bigheaded Carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and H. nobilis): An Annotated Bibliography on Literature Composed from 1970 to 2014 Compiled by Andrew L. Smith Mississippi State University Extension Service Center for Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Forest and Wildlife Research Center Edited by Steve Miranda, PhD Wes Neal, PhD Andrew L.
    [Show full text]
  • Si@~Ili!Iiii~~I~11~~~~\\Ll\ 11111
    NCE LIBRARY si@~ili!iiii~~i~11~~~~\\ll\ 11111 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) SH i73:5 ~M53 1989 MICROHABITAT CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STREAM FISHES AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSTREAM FLOW STUDIES IN MINNESOTA TECHNICAL REPORT 1987-1989 Report to the LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION on MINNESOTA RESOURCES Prepared by Luther Aadland Chantel Waltner Mary T. Negus Henry Drewes Charles Anderson Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries June, 1989 PREFACE The quantity of water needed to maintain instream values, such as water-based recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, water quality, and navigation, must be determined to resolve water-use conflicts and wisely allocate water for offstream uses. Several methods for setting the protected flows are available, but not all address the habitat requirements of fish. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a method of quantifying instream flow needs of fish by combining detailed hydraulic modeling with species-specific habitat suitability criteria to determine the "useable" habitat throughout a range of flows. The goal of this project was to develop habitat suitability curves which can be incorporated into instream flow models of Minnesota's warm water streams. These models will be used to determine flow regimes which optimize habitat for target species of fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed • Physiography and Description • Geology and Land Use • Climate • Water Quality o Ground Water o Surface Water • Recreation • References This report reflects the number and boundary delineations of earlier work done by the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP), in which the Minnesota River Basin was divided into thirteen major watersheds. The majority of these watersheds contain the drainage area of only one of the Minnesota River's major tributaries, while the others contain a given reach of the Minnesota River as well as the tributaries and creeks joining the Minnesota along that reach. Among the latter is the Hawk Creek- Yellow Medicine River Watershed, classified as a major watershed of the Minnesota River it is actually two separate sub-watersheds, Hawk Creek on the north side of the Minnesota, and Yellow Medicine on the south side of the river. In addition, the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed also includes the section of the Minnesota River mainstem extending between the Lac Qui Parle Reservoir to just below the mouth of the Redwood River. Several smaller creeks draining their respective minor watersheds also join the section of the Minnesota River mainstem within the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed, it is assumed, land use, geology, water quality, etc. within these minor watersheds is comparable to that within the Hawk Creek Watershed on the north side of the Minnesota River, or the Yellow Medicine Watershed on the south side of the river. Without installing monitoring equipment at each of the smaller tributaries, collective inputs from these minor watersheds can be calculated as being the residuals of Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed (Minnesota River inflow load plus Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine load minus Minnesota River outflow load).
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Minnesota
    Improving water quality Southwest 25% BY 2025 Minnesota Dear Fellow Minnesotans, In the land of 10,000 lakes, clean water should be a right, not a privilege. But the reality is that the quality of our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater is threatened from many sources all across our state. We are at a crucial moment – we can continue to let water quality become worse or we can work together to reverse the damage that has been done and prevent future water degradation. That is why your involvement in this summer’s Community Water Meetings is so important. It will take all of us working together to protect our waters for ourselves and future generations. That is why, after hearing from citizens and experts at Water Summits in Morris and St. Paul, I set the goal to improve our State’s water quality 25 percent by 2025. This goal does not mean that every pollutant will be reduced by 25 percent; it does not mean that every part of the state will improve 25 percent; but it means that in aggregate for the state and the many pollutants there will be a 25 percent improvement. At the current level of effort, there will be only a 7 percent improvement statewide, and without further action, water quality will get worse. To be clear, this is not a regulation. More importantly, it is a call to action and the reason for Minnesotans to gather for Community Water Meetings this summer. I want to hear from people in every part of our State about the water concerns in their communities, how it will benefit our economy and quality of life to improve water quality, and what we can do to make greater progress toward clean water.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Water Fund Appropriations 2018-2019 Biennial Report to the Legislature
    Clean Water Fund Appropriations 2018-2019 Biennial Report to the Legislature March 1, 2020 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 651-296-3767 www.bwsr.state.mn.us Prepared by Megan Lennon, Mary Juhl, Marcey Westrick, and Seth Weeks. This document was developed in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. As requested by Minnesota Statute 3.197: This report cost approximately $3,400 to prepare, including staff time, printing, and mailing expenses. This report is available at www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund. Upon request, this material will be made available in an alternative format such as large print, Braille, or audio recording. Printed on recycled paper. Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Clean Water Fund Appropriation Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 Statewide Watershed Management Transition .................................................................................................... 9 Watershed-based Funding Implementation Funding ......................................................................................... 10 Clean Water Fund Conservation Easement Programs .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 3 YELLOW MEDICINE ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN
    YELLOW MEDICINE ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 8, 2015 Lyon County Government Center, Marshall MN Committee Members Present : Galen Boerboom, Roger Dale, Mike Gunlogson, Dennis Johnson-NRCS, Dennis Klingbile, Tyler Knutson- Yellow Medicine SWCD, Luke Olson-Lyon SWCD, Robert Olson-Lincoln County Environment Office, Rodney Stensrud, Dale Sterzinger-Lincoln SWCD, and Emma Volz-YMRWD. Planning Work Group Members Present: Jason Beckler, Matt Drewitz and Mark Hiles-BWSR, Jolene Johnson-Yellow Medicine Environmental Office, LouAnn Nagel-Yellow Medicine SWCD, Kerry Netzke-Area II, Cindy Potz-YMRWD, and Pauline VanOverbeke -Lincoln SWCD. Agency Members Present: Amanda Strommer-MDH, Mike Weckwerth-MPCA, and Lucas Youngsma-DNR. Others Present: RESPEC Consultant -- Emily Javens, Melissa Lewis-BWSR-St. Paul, Levi Campion-Lincoln NRCS, and John Boulton-YMRWD. Kerry Netzke called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. and welcomed everyone. Attendees introduced themselves. Flyover Video of the Yellow Medicine River Watershed DNR Area Hydrologist Lucas Youngsma presented a 6-minute video developed by DNR which simulates a flyover of the Yellow Medicine River. The video starts at the headwaters and ends at the confluence with the Minnesota River. A video of the South Branch Yellow Medicine River is also available for viewing. Youngsma stated that the program links could easily be put on the website for access. The committee suggested that DNR develop a video of the Spring Creek tributary specifically. The committee expressed appreciation to Youngsma for providing this unique view of the Yellow Medicine River. Update on the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) MPCA Project Manager Mike Weckwerth gave a brief status of the WRAPS development.
    [Show full text]
  • Current and Potential Aquatic Invasive Species in Ontario and the Great Lakes Region: a Compilation of Ecological Information
    Science and Research Information Report IR-16 Current and potential aquatic invasive species in Ontario and the Great Lakes region: A compilation of ecological information Science and Research Information Report IR-16 Current and potential aquatic invasive species in Ontario and the Great Lakes region: A compilation of ecological information Elizabeth C. Hatton1, Jeffrey D. Buckley1, Shannon A. Fera1,2, Samantha Henry1, Len M. Hunt3, D. Andrew R. Drake4 and Timothy B. Johnson1 1 Aquatic Research and Development Section, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 41 Hatchery Lane, Picton, ON K0K 2T0 2 Current address: Fisheries Section, Species Conservation Policy Branch, MNRF, 300 Water Street, Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 3 Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, MNRF, 103-421 James St S, Thunder Bay, ON P7E 2V6 4 Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON L7S 1A1 2019 Science and Research Branch Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry © 2019, Queen’s Printer for Ontario Copies of this publication are available from [email protected]. Cette publication hautement spécialisée, Current and Potential Aquatic Invasive Species in Ontario and the Great Lakes Region: A Compilation of Ecological Information, n’est disponible qu’en anglais conformément au Règlement 671/92, selon lequel il n’est pas obligatoire de la traduire en vertu de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir des renseignements en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère des Richesses naturelles et des Forêts au [email protected]. Some of the information in this document may not be compatible with assistive technologies.
    [Show full text]