From: Nault, Michelle E - DNR
Sent: Wednesday, September 06,
2017 7:26 PM
To: Klemme, Rebbeca A - DNR; Ferry, Maureen M -
DNR; Wakeman, Robert S - DNR
Cc: McLennan, Robin - DNR; Blanke, Chelsey M -
DNR; LaLiberte, Gina - DNR
Subject: FW: Spiny waterflea in Fox
River
Attachments: 20170731_150030.jpg;
20170731_150057.jpg; Spiny waterflea in Fox River
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi-
Becca - could you please attach this email correspondence (&
photos) and create a new ‘observed’ SWF ROI on the Fox River (near Sunset Park
where Hwy 441 crosses the Fox River). You can also add some text to the
ROI comments in order to capture some of the details which Bart provided below
(i.e. single individual detected; no other SWF detected in other 2017 Fox River
locations monitored). Please create this ROI as a point record (not an
area record). The approx. lat/long for this location (FR-A) is: 44.2765;
-88.35452.
AIS Team - we should probably discuss whether or not it’d be
worthwhile to have my crew head out to the Fox River to do any additional SWF
sampling yet this fall. Most of my September is relatively booked
already, but if we thought it would be a high priority to do some additional
sediment and/or plankton sampling I could potentially try and schedule a
half-day/day to do such. LMK your thoughts. IF we did such
additional sampling I would want to be sure we have clearly hashed out what
will and what won’t trigger listing this population as ‘verified’ (see more
below).
As a reminder, Bart’s students found at least 3 juvenile SWF
individuals at a nearby downstream site (Fox River-Riverside Park) in July
2016. So this is the second observation of individual(s) along this
stretch of river. I think we should probably develop clear guidance on
what sort of detection would trigger listing this area as having a ‘verified’
SWF population (vs. observed). I think we want this decision to be consistent
to what we have done for other SWF lakes in the state. What level of
detection was required to list these inland waterbodies as having ‘verified’
SWF? Presence of more than one individual in a plankton tow?
Presence of more than one individual in a sediment samples? Presence of
more than one individual for multiple (>1) years? Presence of
individuals in more than one location within the waterbody? Presence of
individuals in both plankton and sediment samples? Perhaps Maureen can
give us a lake by lake break-down of what triggered a ‘verified’ population in
other inland waters? For example, I see that Escanaba Lake is listed as
having “observed” SWF although 5 live spiny waterfleas were collected in 2012
(but they were not detected again in additional monitoring in 2012).
However it looks like other lakes (i.e. Ike Walton, Star, Trout, etc.) have
‘verified’ SWF populations and from what I can tell from SWIMS, this was also
based on a single ‘positive’ SWF sample being collected. Also, I have
heard different interpretations on whether or not plankton tows are required to
‘confirm’ an established SWF population, or whether presence of spines in the
sediment is enough (and vice versa; whether sediment samples are required to
‘confirm’ a SWF population which is detected in the plankton tows). I’d
like clarity (and consistency) on that monitoring issue as well so we all know
what to expect from a monitoring/response standpoint.
This sampling location and AIS results is obviously high profile
due to the fact that’s it’s upstream of Rapid Croche, so I think knowing well
in advance what level of detection will ultimately trigger a ‘verified’
population of SWF will hopefully help guide monitoring/response efforts moving
forward. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Take care,
Michelle
We are committed to service excellence.
Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey
to evaluate how I did.
Michelle
E. Nault
Water Resources Management Specialist
Office of Great Waters – Lake Michigan, Lake Superior &
Mississippi River
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Phone: (920) 662-5110
Cell Phone: (608) 513-4587
Michelle.Nault@wisconsin.gov
,_,
(o,o)
(
\)
-"-"-
From: Bart T. De Stasio
[mailto:bart.t.destasio@lawrence.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Ferry, Maureen M - DNR
Cc: Nault, Michelle E - DNR; McLennan, Robin - DNR; Wakeman, Robert S -
DNR
Subject: Spiny waterflea in Fox River
Dear Maureen:
I wanted to inform you that during our sampling for the Fox River
Navigational System Authority this summer we found a single spiny water flea in
an Ekman grab sample that was collected on July 24, 2017 from mud at the most
upstream site we monitor (FR-A). This site is just upstream of Sunset
Park in Kimberly (where Hwy 441 crosses the Fox River). I have attached
pictures of the preserved specimen. It appears to be an adult female that
is carrying embryos. We did not find any spiny water fleas in duplicate
samples from oblique plankton tows we collected on that date. On Aug 7,
2017 we collected additional, more extensive plankton net samples and
additional Ekman samples but did not find any spiny water fleas. We have
not found any spiny water fleas at any of the other Fox River sites we sample,
or in Lake Winnebago. They have again been abundant in southern Green Bay
throughout the summer.
We have not found round goby at any of our sites above the Rapide
Croche barrier, but they have been common in our sampling at all sites below
the barrier. We have not found round goby in Lake Winnebago.
I will be putting together a more formal report this fall, but I
thought you should know about the single spiny water flea collected from the
river. Based on these data they do not appear to be established in the
river or Lake Winnebago at this time. We have completed our sampling of
the river for the summer, but I know that in the past you have conducted
additional sampling at times. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
I hope all is going well.
All the best,
Bart