Effects of tow transit on the efficacy of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Electric Dispersal Barrier System

Davis, Jeremiah J.; LeRoy, Jessica Z.; Shanks, Matthew; Jackson, P. Ryan; Engel, Frank L.; Murphy, Elizabeth A.; Baxter, Carey L.; Trovillion, Jonathan; McInerney, Michael K.; Barkowski, Nicholas

doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2017.08.013

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another emerging pattern is that most upstream fish passages were initiated when an upstream‐bound tow entered the lock chamber, and the successful exit of fish from the lock chamber upstream coincided with the entrance of a downstream‐bound tow into the lock chamber, similar to the results documented in 2017–2018 (Fritts et al, 2021). The association may reflect a combination of behavioral impacts, hydraulic influence on fish movement, and the length of time available for fish to enter the lock chamber (Becker et al, 2013; Davis et al, 2017; Maynord, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upstream experience and experimental translocation of invasive bigheaded carps results in increased upstream passage success at a navigation lock in a large river

Fritts,

Gibson‐Reinemer,

Knights

et al. 2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish movements in regulated rivers can be challenging to study because anthropogenic modifications, such as locks and dams, can influence animal behavior. Upper Mississippi River Lock and Dam 19 (LD 19), for example, is an invasive carp movement bottleneck due to an impassable dam. Upstream fish passage at LD19 is restricted to the lock chamber, making it an optimal location to test invasive fish deterrents that could limit further range expansion. Evaluating the effectiveness of experimental deterrents requires baseline knowledge of fish movements and suitable sample sizes of fish encountering the deterrents to ensure adequate statistical power. Some evidence indicates fish with prior upstream experience may return upstream or challenge potential deterrents at a higher rate than fish without such experience. To test how previous upstream experience could increase the rate at which fish moved upstream through a navigation lock chamber, we compared upstream passage through LD 19 using bigheaded carp captured below the dam (downstream‐origin) and two groups of bigheaded carp captured upstream from the dam: those that swam downstream on their own volition (upstream‐origin fish) and those that were captured upstream and translocated downstream of LD 19 (translocated upstream‐origin). Translocated upstream‐origin carp demonstrated the highest rate of upstream passage, with 59% of the fish detected downstream from LD 19 passing upstream during our study. In contrast, downstream‐origin carp made no upstream passages over 2 years. Fish origin was shown to influence upstream passage success. This may be an important consideration for fish passage studies and deterrent evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upstream experience and experimental translocation of invasive bigheaded carps results in increased upstream passage success at a navigation lock in a large river

Fritts,

Gibson‐Reinemer,

Knights

et al. 2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the ICRCC (2023) continues to report for both Silver Carp and Bighead Carp that “The population front has remained unchanged for over 10 years.” It is not clear that this conclusion is incorrect, but it is also not clear what evidence would lead the ICRCC to reject or modify this assertion. In my view, a more nuanced interpretation would be appropriate given the less than 100% effectiveness of electric barriers and other management interventions (Davis et al., 2017), the low sensitivity for species detection of electrofishing and netting, repeated eDNA detections in the CAWS, and multiple fish captures. I think it more likely, for example, that multiple bigheaded carps have traversed (and may be traversing) the electric barriers (Figure 1) and gaining access to Lake Michigan.…”

Section: Bringing the Story Up To Datementioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned from eDNA adoption in the management of bigheaded carps in Chicago IL USA Area Waterways

Lodge

2024

Environmental DNA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) connects the Great Lakes watershed with the Mississippi watershed via canals that withdraw water from Lake Michigan. From 2009 through 2011, collaborators and I provided research, development, and application of eDNA to invasive species management in the CAWS in cooperation with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The research team's approach was a high‐stakes test of a novel combination of proven technologies (field sampling techniques and laboratory genetics). In the first application of eDNA to a large scale, urgent management goal, we quickly discovered eDNA of two species of bigheaded carps in parts of the waterway where traditional tools had not captured fish. The central research question was whether the sensitivity (probability of detecting a fish when it was present) of eDNA was higher than that of traditional fish sampling tools (e.g., nets, electrofishing). The effort was part of what became a very large, complex, on‐going initiative to reduce access by invasive species to Lake Michigan. This immediately garnered much attention, initiating a dialog about the reliability of eDNA, public discussion about the benefits and costs of the CAWS, and skepticism from industries that use the CAWS. Government agencies formed the Asian Carp Rapid Response Workgroup, which eventually became the Invasive Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ICRCC). The ICRCC continues its coordinating role on the use of eDNA and other management responses in the CAWS. With the benefit of hindsight, I draw several lessons from the experience that may help in other settings where eDNA is now being deployed with increasing confidence and acceptance; evaluate the on‐going CAWS surveillance and management effort; and recommend strengthening the current approach by broadening and deepening participation in a collaborative governance approach. Stronger public‐private partnerships would accelerate research, development, commercialization, and application of eDNA analysis to the benefit of society.

show abstract

“…Although not installed directly to benefit sea lamprey control, four GFFB electrical barriers are installed in the Chicago Area Sanitary and Shipping Canal (CSSC) to prevent passage of invasive fish like silver and bighead carps between the Mississippi River Basin and the Great Lakes (Moy et al, 2011;Davis et al, 2017). While seemingly effective at blocking large fish (i.e.…”

Section: Applications and Design Best Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While seemingly effective at blocking large fish (i.e. large fish experience a greater voltage change than small fish), recent studies have demonstrated that small fish (total length $ 100 mm) can traverse the barriers when the electrical field is compromised by barge passage (Davis et al, 2017).…”

Section: Applications and Design Best Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative Sea Lamprey Barrier Technologies: History as a Control Tool

Zielinski

McLaughlin

Castro‐Santos

et al. 2019

Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, application of lampricides and installation of low-head barriers are the only proven means of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control in the Great Lakes. While sea lamprey cannot climb or jump over low-head barriers, many desirable migratory species also cannot traverse barriers and are unintentionally blocked. Recently, there has been a push to reduce reliance on chemical controls as well as increase stream connectivity and flood conveyance. In response, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) continues to seek alternative methods of control. Great Lakes basin resource managers often request consideration of alternatives to both lampricide use and low-head barriers. Seasonal operation and alternative barrier designs (e.g. velocity barriers and electrical barriers) that incorporate additional features such as selective fish passage or flood conveyance are among the most commonly requested options. To date, alternative barrier technologies have been intermittently successful in the sea lamprey control program directed by the GLFC, yet continue to be proposed as alternatives to conventional low-head barriers. This document provides a comprehensive review on the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of current and alternative barrier technologies and their historical use in the sea lamprey control program. This synthesis provides resource managers and sea lamprey control agents a reference and some tools to facilitate decision making around barriers that balance the critical need for invasive species control and fishery restoration.

show abstract

Effects of tow transit on the efficacy of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Electric Dispersal Barrier System

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Upstream experience and experimental translocation of invasive bigheaded carps results in increased upstream passage success at a navigation lock in a large river

Upstream experience and experimental translocation of invasive bigheaded carps results in increased upstream passage success at a navigation lock in a large river

Lessons learned from eDNA adoption in the management of bigheaded carps in Chicago IL USA Area Waterways

Alternative Sea Lamprey Barrier Technologies: History as a Control Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About