Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report 838 February 1979 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF EXOTIC FISHES ON MANITOBA: AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT by J. S. Loch, A. J. Derksen 1 , M. E. Hora 1 and R. B. Oetting 1 Western Region Fisheries and Marine Service Department of Fisheries and the Environment Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N6 This is the 118th Technical Report from the Western Region, Winnipeg ISee Appendix 7 for addresses.
Transcript
Fisheries and Marine Service
Technical Report 838
February 1979
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF EXOTIC FISHES ON MANITOBA:
AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT
by
J. S. Loch, A. J. Derksen 1 , M. E. Hora 1 and R. B. Oetting 1
1 List of fishes in watersheds affectedby the Garrison Diversion .
2 Potential problem fish speciesassociated with the GarrisonDiversion . . . . . . . .
3 Problem fish species associated withthe Ga rri son Di vers ion. .
4 Summary of interbasin fish introductionsbased on life history information
5 Biology Committee's prediction ofpercent reduction in population sizeof four commercially important fishspecies in Lakes Winnipeg and Manitobadue to exotic fish species .
6 Rates of dispersal and estimatedtraverse times (from Garrison to LakeWinnipeg) for four exotic fishes
LIST OF FIGURES
4
3
6
20
21
22
Appendix Page
1 List of fish species occurrencesin the study area . . . . 26
2 List of fishes in the Red Riverdrainage in Minnesota andNorth Dakota. . . . . . . 29
·3 List of fishes occurring or believedto occur in the Assiniboine Riverdrainage in North Dakota andMani toba . 0 ••••• 31
4 List of fishes in Lake Manitoba andits tributaries, Lake Winnipeg andthe Red River in Manitoba . . 33
5 Accepted common and sci entifi c namesof fish in the study area . . 35
6 List of fish species in Hudson BayDrainage but not in the UpperMissouri River Drainage . 38
7 Members of Biology Committee,International Garrison DiversionStudy Board . 39
ABSTRACT
Loch, J. S., A. J. Derksen, M. E. Hora andR, B. Oetting. 1979. Potential effects ofexotic fish species on Manitoba: an impactassessment of the Garrison Diversion Unit.Can. Fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rep. 838: iv+ 39 p.
The proposed Garrison Diversion would divertwaters from the Missouri River Basin down theMcCl usky Canal through a 40 mesh fish screenlocated in the Hudson Bay drainage basin. Waterwould then be distributed in North Dakota foragricultural, municipal and industrial uses.Return flows would enter Hudson Bay drainagesand adversely affect Canadian waters. The CanadaUS International Joint Commission (IJC) and itsattendant study board and technical committeesinvestigated this problem.
This paper is an update of one section of theIJC Biology Committee's report. It comprises anassessment of the potential for and effects ofintroduction of exotic fish into Manitoba; alsoincluded are recommendations for mitigation plussome new information that recently becameavailable.
Twenty species of fish would be introduced viathe Garrison Diversion, resulting in a reductionof 15-75% of lake whitefish and walleye in LakeWinnipeg and Lake Manitoba. Rainbow smelt, gizzardshad and Utah chub are the problem species. Concomitant implementation of amelioration measuresincluding elimination of wasteways, installation ofsand filters, modifications to the McClusky CanalFish Screen and development of operating criteriaare recommended to alleviate fish passage problems.
Subsequent to the filing of the BiologyCommittee report, the IJC concluded that theMcClusky Canal Fish Screen could not be reliedupon to prevent fish passage and because theresultant impacts were so potentially damagingthat the proposed amelioration measures would notprovide a sufficient guarantee against interbasintransfer of foreign biota.
Key words: introduction; smelt, rainbow; shad,gizzard; chub, Utah; fish screen.
iv
RESUME
Loch, J. S., A. J. Derksen, M. E. Hora andR. B. Oetting. 1979. Potential effects ofexotic fish species on Manitoba: an impactassessment of the Garrison Diversion Unit.Can. Fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rep. 838: iv+ 39 p.
Le projet de Garrison Diversion prevoit ledetournement des eaux du bassin de la MissouriRiver pour qu'elles coulent a travers une grillede 40 mesh, dans le McClusky Canal situee dans lebassin hydrographique de la Hudson Bay. L'eauserait alors distribuee dans le North Dakota pourdesservir les exploitations agricoles, lesmunicipalites et 1'industrie. Elle penetreraitensuite dans les cours d'eau qui alimentent laHudson Bay et aurait des repercussions nefastessur les eaux du Canada. L'International JointCommission (Canada, Etats-Unis) ainsi que sonconseil d'etude et ses comites techniques ontexamine ce probleme.
Le present document constitue une mise a jourd'une section du rapport du Biology Committee de1 'International Joint Commission. On y trouve uneetude des possibilites d'introduction d'especes depoisson exotiques au Manitoba et une analyse desconsequences de ce phenomene. De plus, on ypropose des mesures d'attenuation et on y trouvedes renseignements obtenus recemment.
La mise en oeuvre du projet de GarrisonDiversion entralnerait 1 'introduction de 20 especesde poisson, phenomene qui se solderait par unereduction de 15 a 75 pour cent du nombre de grandscoregones et de dores jaunes dans les lacsWinnipeg et Manitoba. Ce sont 1 'eperlan arc-enciel, l'alose a gesier et Gila atraria qui posentun probleme. Aux fins de reduire les problemeslies au passage des poissons, il est recommandede mettre en oeuvre des mesures d'ameliorationcomprenant 1'elimination des ouvrages de vidange,1 'installation de filtres a sable, la transformation de la grille du McClusky Canal et1'elaboration de criteres d'exploitation.
Une fois que le Biology Committee eut remisson rapport, 1 'International Joint Commission enest venue a la conclusion qu'on ne pouvait comptersur la grille du McClusky Canal pour empecher lepassage des poissons, notamment en raison du faitque les consequences qui s'ensuivraient pourraienta ce point etre nefastes que les mesuresd'amelioration proposees n'offriraient pas degaranties suffisantes contre le transfert debiote etrangere d'un bassin a 1 'autre.
Mots-cles: introduction; eperlan arc-en-ciel;alose a gesier; Gila atraria; grille.
PREFACE
The Garrison Diversion Unit is a multi-purposewater resource project designed to divert MissouriRiver water from Lake Sakakawea into central andeastern North Dakota where the water would be usedto irrigate 1011 km 2 of land, provide a municipaland industrial water supply to 14 cities and furnish recreational and fish and wildlife opportunities throughout the area (Fig. 1). A portion ofthis diverted water will enter the Souris and Redrivers as return flow from irrigated lands,seepage from impoundments and conveyence ditchesand as effluent from municipal and industrialwaste treatment systems. These flows will thenenter Canada mixed with water of the Souris andRed rivers.
Garrison was authorized by the United StatesCongress as Public Law 89-108 dated August 5, 1965.The principal supply works (Snake Creek pumpingplant, McClusky Canal, Lonetree Reservoir) havebeen under construction by the US Bureau ofReclamation (BuRec) since 1968. In 1976 theNational Audubon Society (NAS) brought suit againstthe US Department of Interior complaining thatGarrison violates the Migratory Birds Treaty Act,the Boundary Water Treaty and the National Environmental Protection Act. A court-sanctionedsettlement led to cessation of most constructionbetween May 1977 and July 1978. In July 1978Congress authorized expenditures for portions ofthe project which allegedly would not affectCanada. In November 1978 NAS's request for apermanent injunction against utilization of theseresources was turned down by a US federal court.
Under the 1965 plan the Snake Creek pumpingplant will lift Missouri River water from LakeSakakawea behind Garrison Dam into Lake Audubon,an impoundment adjacent to Lake Sakakaewa. FromLake Audubon the water will flow by gravitythrough the 118.4 km McClusky Canal into LonetreeReservoir situated on the headwaters of theSheyenne River near Harvey, North Dakota. Enrouteto Lonetree Reservoir the McClusky Canal waterwill pass through a large fish screen containingtwo levels of 40-mesh (0.4 x 0.4 mm) bronzescreen designed to prevent the passage of fish,fish eggs and other aquatic life. The 0.52 km 3/yr
Lonetree Reservoir will be so situated with respectto the topography of North Dakota that water fromthe reservoir can be diverted by gravity into theSouris, Red and James river basins as well as theDevils Lake Basin.
The Velva Canal will convey project waternorthward from Lonetree Reservoir to irrigate the48.6-km2 Karlsruhe area and 420-km2 Middle Sourisarea. The New Rockford Canal will flow eastwardto provide irrigation water for 84.7 km2 in theNew Rockford area and to deliver water into theJames River feeder canal for use in the OakesLaMoure area. The Warwick Canal, an extension ofthe New Rockford Canal, will serve the 191-km2
Warwick-McVille area and provide water for therestoration of the Devils Lake chain.
Water for the Oakes-LaMoure area will bediverted from the New Rockford Canal into theJames River feeder canal leading to the JamesRiver near New Rockford. The water will flowdown the James River, be re-regulated in the
1
existing Jamestown Reservoir and continue down theJames River. The LaMoure area (54-km2 ) will beserved by a series of small pumping plants alongthe James River. Water for the 186-km2 Oakes areawill be pumped from the James River at the Oakespumping plant and flow through the Oakes Canal toTaayer Reservoir, a re-regulation and storagereservoir located on the divide between the Eastand West Oakes areas. The irrigable lands will beserved by a combination of direct releases fromthe Oakes Canal and from storage releases fromTaayer Reservoir.
The Government of Canada concluded thatwaters flowing from Garrison into the Souris andRed rivers in the US, would cause injury to healthand property in Canada and would contraveneArticle IV of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909.Concerns related primarily to the quality andquantity of the water entering Canada and to theintroduction of foreign biota.
After a number of discussions betweenCanada and the US it was agreed in October 1975to refer the problem to the International JointCommission (IJC) for investigation. The IJCnamed an International Garrison Diversion StudyBoard to perform the necessary studies. TheBoard struck a number of technical committees; onewas the Biology Committee of which the authors ofthis paper were members.
The IJC found that the introduction offoreign biota and the resultant potential effecton Manitoba's fisheries was the major problemassociated with Garrison and recommended that nofurther construction which could potentiallyaffect Canada should occur until this problem wasresolved. Because of the impact that this findinghas had publicly and because of its historicalsignificance we felt that the Biology Committee'sanalysis should be made available to an audiencewider than normally encompassed by the distributionlist for IJC reports. What follows is our revisedand updated version of subsection II.F of theBiology Committee report to the IJC plus relevantportions of the Recommendations section of thatreport. To preserve the assessment with as littlechange as possible we have retained the presenttense in the assessment - while this renders thedocument slightly anachronistic in places itretains the flavour that existed when the reportwas initially written.
This paper focuses primarily on the problemof introduction of foreign biota and specificallythe assessment of the possibility and potentialimpact of movement of exotic species of fish intothe Hudson Bay Basin via Garrison from theMissouri River Basin. Details of assessments onother resource groups are presented in the BiologyCommittee report (1976).
N
\,III
- . \( ...., ...... ,J......, --, ",-
.....1 ",_.1
LAKEMAN/TOBA \
~ r_~:1,~l \\PORTAGE rr" '.... .
LA PRAIRIE H-\..... " \0--;,;1 ----".. I __.... It
Fig. I. GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT AND AFFECTED MANITOBA WATER.
Table 2. Potential problem fish species associatedwith Garrison Diversion Unit.
A composite list including all the above listswas compiled to determine which fishes do not occurin the Hudson Bay Basin but do occur in the MissouriRiver Basin (Table 1). Twenty-one were consideredas "potential problem species" that might beinvolved in interbasin transfer resulting fromGarrison (Table 2). Carp were included in Table 2for, while they occur in both North Dakota andManitoba, they are not known to occur in the NorthDakota or Saskatchewan portions of the Souris River.Garrison may enhance habitat conditions for carp inthe Souris River in North Dakota. This could allowthe establishment of carp populations in some NorthDakota wildlife refuges and in Saskatchewan portionsof the Souris River.
River between the mouth of the James River and theMississippi River. Therefore, fish species in theMississippi River could also be available forintroduction. It was impossible to make anassessment of all possible.fish introductions fromthe entire Gulf of Mexico Basin. We evaluated onlythose species considered to be close enough to theGarrison project area to be readily and easilyinfluenced by changes in the upper James River andwhich may have a potential negative impact ifintroduced into Canada. This does not infer thatintroductions of fish from the lower Missouri orMississippi rivers may not occur, nor does itinfer that such fish introductions may not be asserious as range extensions of fish from the lowerJames River.
ISee Appendix 5 for scientific names.
We also compared fish species lists for thevarious drainages to determine those fish foundin Manitoba but not in the upper Missouri RiverBasin in North Dakota. A total of 17 species wereconsidered (Appendix 6); we concluded that thesefish did not pose a serious problem. This conclusion was premised on the capability of manmadebarriers such as Baldhill Dam and Garrison dropstructures inhibiting the emigration of fishesfrom the Hudson Bay Basin to the Missouri RiverBasin. Furthermore the IJC directive to the BiologyCommittee was to examine effects of fish introductions through Garrison into Canada, not from Canada.
INTRODUCTION
On a worldwide basis, the introduction ofexotic animals has led to significant ecologicalproblems. There are a number of examples-sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great lakes,European carp (Cyprinus carpio) in North America.Consequently much concern has been expressedabout the effects of introduction of exoticfishes via Garrison on the fishery resource ofManitoba.
Most fish species presently found in theHudson Bay drainage originated from the MissouriMi~sissippi river drainages approximately 12,000years ago following the retreat of the last continental ice sheet and the formation of glacialLake Agassiz (Crossman 1976). Except for severalintermittent connections between the headwaters,the Missouri-Mississippi rivers and Hudson Baysystems have been distinctly separate drainagesfor about the last 10,000 years. During this timedifferent fish fauna have developed in the twodrainage basins. A number of fish species nowoccur in the Missouri River Basin which are notfound in the Hudson Bay Basin. Most of thesespecies are native to the Missouri River but a fewhave been introduced by man in recent years.Garrison will provide a high volume connectionbetween the waters of the two basins from at leastMay to October every year.
We determined that fish will be able to passthrough or by the McClusky Canal fish screen andthrough the Garrison irrigation works to reach theSouris, Assiniboine and Red rivers (BiologyCommittee 1976). Following is a description ofthe predicted effects of introduction of exoticfish via Garrison on the Manitoba fisheries oncethese fish reach Canadian waters.
DETERMINATION OF PROBLEM SPECIES
We reviewed literature describing past andpresent fish distribution in North Dakota,Minnesota and Manitoba drainage systems affectedby Garrison (Owen and Russell 1975a, band c;Scott and Crossman 1973; Eddy et al. 1972; Benson1968). Fish distribution records in adjacentstates (Montana, South Dakota) and provinces(Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta) were examined(Brown 1971; Simon 1946; Bailey and Allum 1962;Scott and Crossman 1973). From these recordslists were compiled of fish species occurring inthe drainage basins: Missouri River drainage inNorth Dakota and the James River in North andSouth Dakota, Red River drainage in Minnesota,North and South Dakota, Assiniboine River drainage,including the Souris River, in North Dakota andManitoba and Red River drainage in Manitoba,including Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg.Appendices 1-4 summarize the fish distribution inwaters that could be directly or indirectly affected by Garrison. A number of experts (BiologyCommittee 1976) reviewed and verified these listsand provided additional information on certainspecies.
We recognized in dealing with possible rangeextensions of fish up the James River that thereis no impassable fish barrier on the Missouri
Brief life histories of the 21 potentialproblem species were prepared and evaluated usingthe following criteria: frequency of occurrence
4
Table l. List of fishes occurring in watersheds affected by Garrison.
Lake WinnipegCommon Name 1 Missouri River James Ri ver Souris R. Assiniboine Red Ri ver South North Lake
Sakakawea Oahe Upper Lower ND Man. Ri ver ND and Man. Basin Basin Mani -Minn. toba
Chestnut lamprey x x x x x xSil ver 1amprey x x xLake sturgeon x x x x x xPallid sturgeon x xShovel nose sturgeon x x xPaddl efi sh x xLongnose gar x2
Shortnose gar x x xBowfin xGi zzard shad x3 xGol deye x x x x x x x x x xMooneye x x x x x xLake herri ng x x x x x xBlackfin cisco x x xShort jaw cisco x xLake whi tefi sh x x x x x x xCoho salmon xRa i nbow trout x x x x x x x xBrown trout x xBrook trout x x xLake trout x x x x xRainbow smelt xCentral mudminnow x x x x xNorthern pike x x x x x x x x x x x x xMuskellunge xSturgeon chub xLake chub x x x x x x xStoneroller x x x4
Goldfish X x4
Carp x x x x x x x x x x xBrassy mi nnow x x x x x x xSilvery minnow x x x xFlathead chub x x x x x x x xHornyhead chub x x xSil ver chub x x xSilverband minnow xGolden shiner x x x x x x x x x x x xEmerald shiner. x x x x x x x x x x xRosyface shiner x xRiver shiner x x x x x x x x xCommon shiner x x x x x x x xBigmouth shiner x x x xBlacknose shiner x x x x x x x xPugnose shiner x x x4
.Spottai 1 shiner x x x x x x x x xWeed shiner xBlackchin shiner x x x4Red shiner x xSand shiner x x x x x x x xMimic shiner x x x x x xSpotfin shiner x x4Topeka shiner xBluntnose minnow x x x x xFathead minnow x x x x x x x x x x x xBlacknose dace x x x x x x x x x x xLongnose dace x x x x x x xCreek chub x x x x 'If. x x x x x x xPearl dace x x x x x x x x xFinescale dace xNorthern redbelly dace x xRi ver carpsucker x x x xQuill back x x x x x x xLake chubsucker x
5
Tabl e l. (Cont'd.)
Lake HinnipegCommon Name l Mi ssouri Ri ver James Ri ver Souris R. Assiniboine Red River South North Lake
Sakakawea Oahe Upper Lower ND Man. River ND and Man. Basin Basin Mani-Minn. toba
Longnose sucker x x x x x x x xWhite sucker x x x x x x x x x x x xBlue sucker x xSmallmouth buffalo x x x xBigmouth buffalo x x x x x x xSho rthead redho rse x x x x x x x x x x xSilver redhorse x x x x x x xGo 1den redhorse xGreater redhorse x x4
Black bullhead x x x x x x x x x xBrown bull head x x x x x x x xYe 11 ow bu 11 head xChannel catfi sh x x x x x x x x xBlue catfish xStonecat x x x xTadpole madtom x x x x x x x x xFlathead catfish x xBanded killifish x xBurbot x x x x x x x x xPlains topminnow xBrook stickleback x x x x x x x x x x xPlains minnow x xNinespine stickleback x x x x x xTrout-perch x x x x x xWhite bass x x x x xRock bass x x x x xGreen sunfish x x x x4
Pumpkinseed x x xOrangespotted sunfi sh x x x x X x4
Bluegill x x x xSmallmouth bass x x x x x xLargemouth bass x x x xWhite crappie x x x x X x4
Bl ack crappie x x x x x x x x xCrappie sp. x x xYellow perch x x x x x x x x x x x xBlackside darter x x x x x x x xIowa darter x x x x x x x x x x xJohnny darter x x x x x x x x x x xRiver darter x x x x x xLeas t da rter x x4
Logperch x x x x x xSauger x x x x x x x x xWalleye x x x x x x x x x x x xFreshwater drum x x x x x x x x xMottled sculpin x XS x x x xSlimy sculpin x x x x x xSpoonhead sculpin x x x x X
1 See Appendix 5 for corresponding scientific names.2 Reported from the Otter Tail River in the 19th century but Eddy et al. (1972) suggested its removal from the
faunal list of the Red River drainage until supporting specimens are found.3 Carufel and Witt (1963) reported a single gizzard shad in the Missouri River 4 km below Garrison Dam.4 Fedoruk (1971) noted that these species occur in the Red River drainage in North Dakota or Minnesota and thus'
may spread into Manitoba via the Red River or may already be present in the province in the Red River system.S No reported incidence in the Red River drainage in North Dakota or Minnesota but Eddy et al. (1972) suspected
its presence there.
6
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROBLEM SPECIES
RAINBOW SMELT (Osmerus mordax)
Table 3. Problem fish species associated withGarrison.
lSee Appendix 5 for corresponding scientificnames.
route provided by Garrison will allow rapidinvasion because smelt generally move down majorwatercourses rapidly as evidenced in the GreatLakes and also in the Missouri River where smelthave moved at least 400 km downstream from LakeSakakawea in four years (Biology Committee 1976).We cannot predict when or if smelt will movethrough the natural lake-river system (Rainy Lake,Rainy River, Lake of the Woods, Winnipeg River) toLake Winnipeg. Smelt have been in the Rainy Riverheadwaters for at least seven years but have notyet been reported in the Rainy River (less than80 km downstream trip). This is in contrast toother instances where smelt have been introducedinto headwaters as discussed above. Furthermore,Garrison will complicate management of smelt inthree ways: it doubles the sources from whichinvasion can occur, it places management in aninternational setting which is more difficult toresolve and due to the possible rapid invasionvia Garrison, it shortens lead time for anyremedial actions. On the basis of these and otherfactors, rainbow smelt were considered to be aproblem species.
Smelt have successfully reproduced andestablished themselves in Lake Sakakawea (BiologyCommittee 1976). It is unknown whether they havebeen transferred from Lake Sakakawea to LakeAudubon. We expect smelt will move into LakeAudubon when Snake Creek pumping plant operatesand that they will successfully reproduce andestablish there. Furthermore, adult smelt couldmove into the McClusky Canal and spawn. MacCallumand Regier (1970) reported smelt spawning in aditch near Lake Erie; Rupp (1959) reported thatsmelt eggs have been found deposited on sand,boulders, mud, aquatic vegetation, brush, floodedgrasslands, concrete or wood sluicebeds and on alltypes of debris. Rupp reported a large variationin timing of spawning runs, with runs beginningas early as 55 days before ice-out and as late as19 days after ice-out and ending as early as 40days before and as late as 31 days after ice-out.In the case of Lakes Sakakawea and Audubon, iceout varies from mid-March to mid-April. Therefore,spawning may occur anytime from 1 March or earlierto 1 Mayor later. Consequently, ripe adults canmove through the McClusky Canal in April and May.Smelt eggs require 10 days at 15°C to 30 days at6°C to hatch (Swain 1976a). Therefore larvaecould be present in McClusky Canal by 1 April orearlier to 1 June or later. The Snake Creekpumping plant will likely begin operation shortlyafter ice-out to fill up Lonetree Reservoir. Atthat time there will be water moving in the canalto transport eggs, larvae and both ripe andspawned-out adults to the McClusky fish screen.Owen and Russell (1975c) bel ieved that adultfishes would survive in the canals but suggestedthat young-of-the-year fish would not survivebecause of lack of suitable food. We believe thatplankton in waters diverted from Lake Audubon willprovide an immediate suitable food supply in thecanals; furthermore, some populations of aquaticmacro-invertebrates will be established in thecanals within a year after filling. It shouldbe further noted that several species of fisha1ready occur in portions of the McCl usky Canal(Biology Committee 1976). In addition, lakes inthe canal system will provide suitable habitat foroverwintering fish.
Pallid sturgeonShovel nose sturgeonPaddl efi shShortnose garGizzard shad
within study area, reproductive potential in preferred habitat, history of population irruptions,undesirable characteristics, migratory habits andassessment of positive, negative or neutral impactof these species on Manitoba fishes based on knowledge and familiarity with the species. Using thesecriteria the Committee decided that topeka shiner,sturgeon chub, plains minnow, blue sucker, redshiner, flathead catfish, plains topminnow, yellowbullhead, coho salmon, blue catfish and silverbankminnow were not considered major problem species.Therefore, the initial list of 21 potential problemspecies was reduced to 10 species (Table 3). Following this screening we evaluated the life historyliterature reviews that were prepared (BiologyCommittee 1976: Attachment C.II-7) on the 10 problemspecies to determine those species most criticalin terms of ecological impact on fisheries in Canadaif introduced via Garrison.
The literature reviews focussed on a number ofpoints: (1) Did these problem species live orcould they occur in areas that would enable themto move into and through the Garrison area into theHudson Bay watershed? (2) Could they move throughthe interconnection? (3) Could they survive andestablish in the Hudson Bay watershed? (4) Whatkinds of interactions would occur between exoticand indigenous fishes? Figure 2 shows how rainbow smelt, gizzard shad and Utah chub could enterManitoba waters.
Garrison will provide a second source, LakeSakakawea, from which smelt can invade LakeWinnipeg. We believe that smelt from LakeSakakawea will bypass the fish screen in theMcClusky Canal and enter Lonetree Reservoir. Itis our opinion that this Lonetree-Lake Winnipeg
In the Missouri River drainage smelt existin Lake Sakakawea upstream from Garrison Dam.Smelt were introduced to Lake Sakakawea by theNorth Dakota Game and Fish Department in 1972 toprovide forage for predatory game fishes (BiologyCommittee 1976). Rainbow smelt already occur inthe Hudson Bay Basin but only in the headwatersof the Rainy River sustem in Quetico Park, Ontarioand in the Boundary Waters area of Minnesota(Biology Committee 1976). These smelt populationsrepresent a potential source for the invasion ofsmelt into Lake Winnipeg.
FOR UPSTREAM MIGRATION UC=UTAH CHUBft POTENTIAL GDU TRANSFER POINT 0 OTHER POTENTIAL
TRANSFER POINTS
Fig 2. IMPORTANT LOCATIONS OF PRINCIPAL IMPACT SPECIES OF FISH AND LOCATIONSOF GDU AND OTHER POTENTIAL TRANSFER POINTS OF INTEREST
•••••• HUDSON BAYATLANTIC DIVIDE
I
I.I;
I,
----.
* As a result of the above the Biology Committeebelieved that eventually smelt larvae would passthrough the fish screen even if it functioned continually without mechanical failures. This prediction has been corroborated by the US Department ofInterior experiments in the spring and summer of1978; these have shown that both smelt eggs andlarvae can pass intact through 40, 50 and 60 meshscreens (J. S. Loch, personal communication, DFE,Fisheries and Marine Service, Winnipeg).
The proposed opening in the mesh of theMcClusky Canal fish screen is 0.43 x 0.43 mm. Thediameter of smelt egg ranges from 0.79 to 0.99 mmwith an average of 0.86 mm (Bailey 1964). Therefore it is unlikely that smelt eggs could passthrough the fish screen. To determine whethersmelt larvae could pass through an 0.43 x 0.43 mmopening, information on the cross-sectional bodydimensions of smelt larvae was obtained from D.Faber, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Fabermeasured five smelt larvae which had an averagetotal body length of 5.5 mm. The followingaverage measurements were received:
Head width is greater than the head depthsince the eyes protrude slightly from the head.Faber indicated that the yolk sac of these larvaecontributed one-third of the body depth dimension.These measurements indicate that smelt larvae willnot pass through a 0.43 x 0.43 mm opening. However,it should be noted that the size of smelt eggsvaries. Furthermore, we do not consider fivefish to be an adequate sample to conclude any-thing about the minimum diameter of smelt larvae.Smaller eggs produce smaller larvae. We were unableto find any data on the frequency and distributionof body sizes of smelt larvae. Judging from theminimum egg diameter reported by Bailey (1964),the cross-sectional body sizes of some smelt larvaehatched from small eggs could approach or equal thediagonal dimension (0.6 mm) of a 0.43 x 0.43 mmpore opening. Although most smelt larvae may betoo large to pass through the 0.43 x 0.43 mm openings, some larvae will likely pass.*
A final consideration is that there must bea 100% assurance of fish passage prevention overinfinite time to fully protect Manitoba's fishery.Under these conditions the frequency distributionof sizes becomes important. Extremely rare sizesat the lower end of the distribution becomeincreasingly common over time. With time, theprobability -tha t extremely small (or rare) smeltlarvae will pass through the 0.43 x 0.43 mm meshincreases. This probability could not bedetermined because of the lack of data on thefrequency distribution of smelt larvae body sizes.
The most direct and likely routes by whichsmelt from Lonetree Reservoir could invade Manitobaare via the Sheyenne and Red rivers or the VelvaCanal and the Souris River. The Sheyenne-Red Riverroute will be the first avenue opened for theinvasion of smelt into Manitoba. LonetreeReservoir is scheduled for filling in 1978 andwaters will be spilled almost immediately intothe Sheyenne River. There are no plans for a fishscreening device on the Lonetree Reservoir outletto the Sheyenne River. Once smelt reach the
Head depthHead width at eyeBody depth at yolk sac
0.8 mm1.2 mm0.8 mm
8
Sheyenne River, their transfer to Lake Winnipegcould occur rapidly.
Another route by which smelt may invadeManitoba from Lonetree Reservoir is the New RockfordCanal-Wild Rice River-Red River route. Invasionsvia this route could occur after the Oakes Canalis completed, about 1981.
The Velva Canal-Souris River route will not beavailable until approximately 1985 when the VelvaCanal is scheduled for completion and irrigationreturn flows will be spilled into the Souris River.
One critical habitat requirement that must beconsidered regarding smelt emigration is temperature.Water temperatures in Garrison waterways and theSouris and Assiniboine rivers, during most of theyear, will not exceed the upper thermal tolerancefor smelt. Smelt appear to tolerate a wide rangein temperature. Populations are known to exist inlakes which do not thermally stratify and whensummer temperatures sometimes exceed 20°C (Swain1976b). Young-of-the-year, yearlings and adultshave been captured by trawling during May andOctober in Lake St. Clair, which is a relativelyshallow, warmwater lake. Young-of-the-year smelthave also been caught during mid-summer in shallowinshore waters of Lake St. Clair (Biology Committee1976) .
There are no known environmental conditions orbarriers which would preclude the existence andreproduction of smelt in Lake Winnipeg. Althoughthe south basin of Lake Winnipeg, because of itsvery shallow depth and high turbidity, may notprovide suitable habitat for the establishment oflarge smelt populations we believe the north basinwill provide near-optimum habitat conditions andsupport high smelt densities.
Christie (1974) noted that colonization ofsmelt in Lakes Michigan and Huron was largelyrestricted to Green and Saginaw bays, respectively.These bays have shallow to moderate depths. Thechief smelt concentration in Lake Superior occursin the shallow western end (Baldwin and Saalfield1962; Anderson and Smith 1971). Smelt firstappeared in large numbers at the west end of thecentral basin of Lake Erie (Kennedy 1961), whichhas been compared to Saginaw and Green bays(Christie 1974). The central basin of Lake Erie isrelatively uniform in configuration with depthsranging from 18-24 m. Smelt populations havealso become very abundant in the eastern basin ofLake Erie. Annual commercial catches from a 518km2 area in Long Point Bay, eastern Lake Erie,averaged 75 kg/ha during the years 1961-1965(MacCallum and Regier 1970). The eastern basinhas a maximum depth of 64 m (Applegate and VanMeter 1970). Smelt in Lake Ontario are found inall parts of the lake and at depths to 46 m(Christie 1974). The north basin of Lake Winnipegis comparable in terms of depth to the centralbasin of Lake Erie. Northern Lake Winnipeg has anaverage depth of 15 m and a maximum depth of 30 m(Rybicki 1966).
Summer temperature conditions in northernLake Winnipeg are also suitable for the survival ofsmelt. Smelt prefer cold water but they can existin temperatures ranging from 15 to 20°C (Swain1976b). MacCallum and Regier (1970) observed that
for yearling smelt in Lake Erie, "spatialdistribution is affected by a complex interactionof factors rather than a simple temperaturepreference". Surface water temperatures in LakeWinnipeg reach 200C during July and early August.Bottom temperatures in the north basin during midsummer may average 15-18°C, depending on depth(Rybicki 1966). However, since these temperaturesprevail in Lake Winnipeg for only a relativelyshort period of time (two months or less), webelieve smelt will adapt to the thermal regime inthe northern portion of the lake.
Smelt are spring spawners and will spawn instreams of almost any type or on shoals and beachesin lakes (Rupp 1959). Lake Winnipeg and environscontain numerous areas which would providesuitable spawning habitat for smelt. Smelt couldspawn in the tributary streams presently used bysuch species as walleye. There are also extensiveareas of wave-swept gravel beaches in northernLake Winnipeg which would provide optimum spawninghabitat for smelt. Smelt may also spawn on therocky shoals and reefs which exist along the entireeast shore of the north basin.
Smelt spawn over a relatively wide range ofwater temperatures (2-150C, Swain 1976b). Theonset of smelt spawning runs closely follows icebreakup (Rupp 1959). Peak concentrations of smelton or near spawning grounds may be expected forperiods up to several weeks (MacCall um and Regier1970). Breakup on northern Lake Winnipeg occursusually during the latter half of May and walleyesand northern pike begin spawning from about midMay to early June. Smelt spawning in northernLake Winnipeg would therefore coincide with walleye and northern pike spawning.
Food would not be a limiting factor to smeltsurvival in Lake Winnipeg since hatching of smelteggs would coincide closely with the springplankton pulse. Food organisms similar to thoseutilized by smelt in other areas are also commonto Lake Winnipeg.
Although it can be concluded from the aboveconsiderations that smelt will establish in LakeWinnipeg, precise impacts of an invasion of smelton indigenous fish fauna cannot be easilyidentified nor quantified. There is no doubt smeltwill have a disruptive influence on eXisting fishcommunities in Lake Winnipeg. The extent towhich smelt may affect native fish stocks dependson levels of abundance that smelt populationsachieve. Since food and habitat availabilitywill not be limiting to the proliferation of smelt,the key factor is predation on smelt by piscivorousfishes.
Because of competition for habitat and foodthat may occur between smelt and other predatoryfishes, it may require some time for smelt tocolonize Lake Winnipeg and attain levels ofabundance which have been witnessed in the GreatLakes. Lake Winnipeg, throughout, containspopulations of piscivorous fishes such as northernpike, walleye and sauger. Predation by thesepopulations may retard the spread and proliferationof smelt. However, in Lake Sakakawea smelt haveestablished large populations within four yearsdespite the presence of major predator populations.Furthermore, any severe reduction in Lake Winnipegpredator populations resulting from natural fluctuations and/or exploitations will sUfficiently
9
relieve predation pressures and allow smeltpopulations to increase in size and number.Excessive exploitation, coupled with adverseenvironmental conditions, could reduce predatorpopulations, at least in some areas of LakeWinnipeg, to a level at which smelt could increase.
It is not possible to state the degree ofpredator stock reduction necessary before smeltpopulations would proliferate. It should be noted,however, that smelt densities in Lake Erie wereincreasing when blue-pike (Stizostedion vitreumgZaucum) and walleyes were being heavily overexploited during the 1950's. The record yieldof smelt from Lake Erie was in 1962 when 8.2million kg were caught (Christie 1974). This wasonly four years after the almost total collapseof walleye populations in the lake (Baldwin andSaalfield 1962).
Reasons for proliferation of invading speciesmay not be as simple as described above. Experiences on the Great Lakes have demonstrated thatinvading fishes will proliferate despite thepresence of reasonably large populations ofpredators. For example, Christie (1974) pointedout that the alewife (AZosa pseudoharengus)colonized Lake Ontario at a time when lake trout(SaZveZinus namayeush) stocks were declining butstill relatively abundant. He further noted thata similar situation existed when smelt colonizedLake Michigan. Christie suggested that declinesin predator stocks would allow significantincreases in the indigenous forage fish populations and consequently relieve predation oninvading fish.
Lake Winnipeg contains large populations ofnative forage fishes such as cyprJnids, troutperch and the young of other species (lakeherring, yellow perch) which are sufficient tomaintain existing predator populations by anincrease in their own abundance. A slight reduction in predator populations in Lake Winnipeg asa result of either exploitation, adverse spawningconditions or both could initiate a major increasein native forage stocks. Under these circumstances,smelt in Lake Winnipeg would not be as vulnerableto predation, since predatory fishes would feedon their natural prey. Smelt, relieved of predation, could then increase in abundance.
Other factors may affect the relationship orinteractions between invading fish and predators.Regier et al. (1969), for example, suggested thatdepletion of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnialwaters of central Lake Erie provided the pelagicyoung of smelt a sanctuary from predation bywalleyes. Walleyes, which use the bottom as thebase from which they forage, were excluded fromthe area because of dissolved oxygen depletion.Although dissolved oxygen depletion does not occurin Lake Winnipeg, similar environmental conditionsmay occur which in a subtle way will provide someadvantage to smelt.
Given the advantage in Lake Winnipeg, smeltcould attain a rapid rate of increase. It isgenerally postulated that invading species maytemporarily lose some of their specialized habitatrequirements and increase at a greater rate thannative species which are still subject toecological constraints (Christie 1974). Furthermore, since smelt mature in two or three years andhave a high reproductive capacity, their
proliferation could well attain proportions of apopulation irruption. In other words, the rate ofincrease would be so rapid that smelt densitieswould soon reach or exceed the intrinsic carryingcapacity of the lake. Predator populations inLake Winnipeg, because of their slower- rate ofmaturation and other environmental constraints,would not be able to increase quickly enough toeffectively contain the smelt population irruption.Provided they were not adversely affected by smelt,predator populations would require severalgenerations (10-20 years) before they would beable to bring smelt populations into some stateof equilibrium.
Irrupting smelt populations might also becounteracted by factors other than predation.Van Oosten (1947) reported a drastic mortality ofsmelt in Lakes Michigan and Huron during thewinter of 1942-43. Nepszy and Dechtiar (1972)reported an unusually high post-spawning mortalityof smelt in Lake Erie in 1971 and suggested it mayhave been partly due to a heavy infestation ofCZugea hertwigi, a microsporidian parasite specificto Osmerus spp, The infestation of Lake Erie smeltwith c. hertwigi did not attai n si gnifi cant proportions until the middle and late 1960's. It shouldbe noted, however, that these events did notoccur until well after the population irruptionoccurred. By that time, damage by smelt on nativefish stocks could markedly affect at least somenative fish stocks.-
Some beneficial affects could accrue. Smeltcould provide some additional forage for predatoryfishes and result in increased growth rates andabundance of such species as northern pike,walleyes and saugers. Such benefits, however, maybe only transitory. There is a greater danger thatsmelt would compete with more desirable fishspecies for food and space. Young smelt are pelagicand feed on invertebrate organisms (Gordon 1961) andtherefore could compete with the pelagic young ofnative species for food. Larger smelt could becompetitors for food but they also constitute apredatory threat because of their fish-eatinghabits (Baldwin 1948). In Burntside Lake,Minnesota, smelt have been observed preying onnewly hatched lake trout, lake herring and on lakewhitefish larvae (Biology Committee 1976). Largeconcentrations of smelt can also cause otherfishes to be crowded out of an area. Crowdingcan be particularly detrimental if it displacesthe spawning runs of other fishes.
Some insight into the possible ramificationsresulting from the invasion and proliferation ofsmelt in Lake Winnipeg was obtained from a reviewof literature on the Great Lakes fisheries.Although evidence presented in the Great Lakesliterature for this case is largely circumstantial,the association between increases in smelt as wellas other non-native fish populations and subsequentchanges in indigenous fish populations are tooapparent to be dismissed as coincidental.
Concern over possible adverse effects ofsmelt in the Great Lakes was expressed as early asthe 1930's. Van Oosten (1937) stated:
"The phenomenal spread of the introducedsmelt ... throughout the Great Lakesregion during the past decade will bereferred to repeatedly in the years to
10
come as another classic exampleillustrating the many complicationsthat follow the successful establishment of an exotic species of fish.Whether the smelt will prove to be acurse or a blessing to the Great LakesI cannot say."
Although it was not known at that time whateffects flourishing smelt populations Wereexerting on other fish populations in the GreatLakes, Schneberger (1937) reported smelt in GreenBay, Lake Michigan were fouling gill nets to sucha degree that commercial fishing had to cease forpart of the season.
Van Oosten (1947) found some evidence thatsmelt had limited year class success in lakeherring, lake whitefish and "perhaps walleyes" inGreen Bay. As stated previously, the smeltpopulation in Green Bay suffered a heavy mortalityin the winter of 1942-43. In the late 1940's ahigh abundance of lake herring, lake whitefish andwalleye occurred because of the phenomenal strengthof the 1947 year class in each population (Hile etal. 1953; Pycha 1961). Anderson and Smith (1971)suggested that this occurred because of reducedpressure by smelt. The same events wereexperienced by lake herring and smelt stocks inLake Huron at the same time (Christie 1974). Anintensive study by Anderson and Smith (1971) intofactors involved in the decline of lake herringin western Lake Superior strongly suggested thatan increase in smelt populations, and to a lesserextent, bloater (Coregonus hoyi) populations wasthe major cause. Food competition between larvalstages of lake herring and between smelt andbloaters was implicated. Results of this studyalso suggested a loss of recruitment in lakeherring populations due to their displacementfrom spawning grounds by smelt.
A recent and comprehensive review of fishspecies changes in the Great Lakes was made byChristie (1974). He noted that an apparentlyconsistent reaction to smelt invasions of LakesSuperior and Michigan was a swift collapse oflake herring stocks. Christie postulated thatthese collapses occurred because of closesimilarities between lake herring and smelt intheir distribution and habits. Smelt, like lakeherring, will spawn along lake shorelines. Bothspecies occupy the thermocline in summer and feedon plankton. Christie suggested the two speciesdo not interact significantly since whitefish inLake Superior have increased along with a thrivingsmelt population and since Lake Ontario whitefishhave persisted long after the invasion of smelt.Christie also stated that whitefish catches haveimproved in Lake Mi chigan. He interpreted theincreases in whitefish catches in Lake Michiganand Lake Superior as a response to sea lampreycontrol. Concomitant with the program to controlsea lamprey in Lake Michigan there has been anintensive program to plant salmonids (Pacificsalmon, lake trout, etc.). The predaceous fishesmay have resulted in some control of smelt andother pest fishes, which, in turn, has allowedwhitefish stocks to recover.
Regier et al. (1969) tended to support VanOosten's claim that smelt may interact withwalleyes. They postulated that, along withintensive exploitation and environmental
degradation, growing smelt populations in Lake Eriehad an added deleterious effect on walleyes,especially in the central basin. However, Leachand Nepszy (1975) disputed this statement andindicated that the present smelt abundance in LakeErie does not appear to have affected success ofrecent year classes of walleyes.
On the basis of experiences with smelt in theGreat Lakes it is expected that an invasion of smeltinto Lake Winnipeg will result in collapse of lakeherring stocks. Lake herring are commerciallyexploited in Lake Winnipeg. The record catch oflake herring was made in 1947 when approximately2 million kg were harvested. Since 1961 catcheshave been less than 0.5 million kg. Commercialproduction statistics do not, however, reflect theabundance of lake herring in Lake Winnipeg. Lakeherring are generally too small to be captured inlegal mesh sizes of gill nets allowed in commercialfi sheri es on the 1ake. Furthermore, 1ake herri ngare not specifically sought since they are infestedwith TriaenophoY'us sp. which encysts their fleshand reduces their commercial value. Experimentalgill netting in Lake Winnipeg indicated that lakeherring are at least as abundant as lake whitefish(Biology Committee 1976). The loss of lakeherring stocks as a result of smelt invasioncould affect other populations of more desirablefishes. Young lake herring may provide a significant source of forage for predator populationsin Lake W.innipeg (Biology Committee 1976). Lakeherring may compete with lake whitefish, particularly at the young stages, for food. A reductionin lake herring could therefore also result in anincrease in whitefish populations.
There is concern that smelt in Lake Winnipegwill compete with whitefish stocks. That suchinteractions apparently have not occurred in theGreat Lakes may be related to the greaterdiversity of habitats. Those Great Lakes wherewhitefish populations still exist have deepareas which undergo thermal stratification. Thehypolimnial areas of these lakes have sufficientdissolved oxygen tensions to maintain whitefish,whieh are primarily benthic feeders. Smelt, onthe other hand, are pelagic feeders and usuallyfound in or above the thermocline. It istherefore evident that habitats of smelt andwhitefish in the Great Lakes may not overlapsignificantly.
This would not be the case in Lake Winnipegand particularly the north basin. The northbasin is relatively shallow compared to theGreat Lakes and does not undergo any permanentthermal stratification during the summer. It isargued therefore, that the distribution of smeltand whitefish habitats will overlap significantly.Since whitefish form a major component of thefish community in northern Lake Winnipeg, majorcompetition will occur between them and smelt,should smelt populations attain high levels ofabundance. These interactions will most probablybe in the form of competition between young smeltand whitefish for food. Some predation of smelton larval whitefish will also occur but itspotential for negative effects on whitefish islargely speculative. The presence of large smeltconcentrations on whitefish spawning grounds willhave some effect on reproduction of whitefish.Whitefish populations in Lake Winnipeg have been
11
subject to over exploitation previously (Davidoffet al. 1973). If it occurred again, smelt couldeasily gain a competitive advantage over whitefish.The potential therefore exists for smelt to causea collapse in Lake Winnipeg whitefish stocks.
There is also a potential for localizedimpacts of smelt on walleye populations in LakeWinnipeg. Significant declines have beenobserved in commercial walleye catches in theGrand Rapids and Sturgeon Bay areas. The declinein the Grand Rapids area appears related to thedestruction of a major walleye spawning ground inthe area. Stresses created by a large populationof smelt could result in an even further declineof walleye stocks there. Smelt may have a positiveeffect on walleye stocks in Sturgeon Bay since theproblem there appears to be more related toexploitation rather than availability of spawninghabitat.
Smelt will invade Lake Manitoba either bythe Assiniboine River Diversion or possibly fromLake Winnipeg via the Dauphin-Fairford Riverduring very high water periods (when the FairfordDam is overtopped). Smelt in Lake Manitoba couldfreely enter Lake Winnipegosis through theWaterhen River system.
Although smelt will enter Lake Manitoba it isnot expected that populations could attain theabundance considered possible in Lake Winnipeg.Environmental conditions, particularly watertemperatures in the shallow south basin are notconducive to establishment of permanent smeltpopulations. Smelt may use the south basin duringwinter. Some portions of northern Lake Manitoba,where lake herring and lake whi~efish populationsoccur, may be favorable to smelt. However, sincewater depths similar to those found in northernLake Winnipeg do not occur in the north basin ofLake Manitoba, habitat for smelt is limited.
The possible impacts of smelt on indigenousfish populations in Lake Manitoba are difficultto assess. Generally, Lake Manitoba containssizable populations of predaceous fishes such assauger, walleye and northern pike. Deficiency ofpreferred habitat for smelt in concert withpressures from existing predatory populations wouldact to control smelt in Lake Manitoba. Smeltpopulations could provide additional forage andconsequently favor the growth and production ofpredatory fishes. On the other hand, smelt mayexert pressures similar to those described inreference to Lake Winnipeg and cause the collapseof lake herring and lake whitefish populations innorthern Lake Manitoba. Since lake herring andwhitefish catches are small in comparison tocatches of other species, loss of lake herringand whitefish populations would not have a majorimpact upon the total commercial fishery on LakeManitoba. Establishment of smelt populations innorthern Lake Manitoba may also present anothersource of stress to walleye populations. Walleyepopulations in northern Lake Manitoba have declinedand may be presently stressed by heavy infestationsof EY'gasiZus sp. (Biology Committee 1976). Thecombined effects of exploitation, parasitic infestation and pressures from smelt could culminate incollapse of walleye populations in northern LakeManitoba. To state the very least impact, thepresence of smelt in Lake Manitoba will complicatefi sheri es management efforts.
The invasion and establishment of smeltpopulations in Lake Winnipegosis may have impactssimilar to those discussed above for Lake Manitoba.Despite the minor contribution of whitefish to thecommercial fishery on Lake Winnipegosis, loss ofwhitefish stocks will be significant. Absence ofwhitefish, a valuable commercial species, woulddecrease the number of management options forrevitalizing the commercial fishery on LakeWinnipegosis. Replacement of lake herringpopulations in Lake Winnipegosis with smelt may bebeneficial. Lake herring in Lake Winnipegosis aresmall or stunted fish which have little or nocommercial value. Smelt may be of more commercialvalue than lake herring. As stated earlier,walleye stocks have seriously declined in the lastdecade. The presence of smelt in Lake Winnipegosiswill greatly complicate management efforts torestore dwindling and depauperate walleye stocks.
In summary, we believe that rainbow smeltwill be successfully introduced and established inManitoba waters. Smelt introduced to LonetreeReservoir via Garrison will move into LakeWinnipeg. Smelt could also invade Lake Winnipegfrom the Rainy River system which is within theHudson Bay drainage. We anticipate rapid invasioninto Lake Winnipeg via Garrison; we do not knowwhen and if invasion will occur through the naturallake, river system (Rainy Lake and River, Lake ofthe Woods and Winnipeg River). Garrison compoundsthe problem by creating an additional source ·ofinvasion, places fisheries management in an international setting which is more difficult toadminister and lastly, due to potential rapidinvasion of smelt via Garrison waterways, shortenslead time for any possible remedial measures. Webelieve that smelt, when introduced to Manitoba,will cause the collapse of lake herring populationsin Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis andwill have a major negative impact on the lakewhitefish fishery in the north basins of LakesWinnipeg and Manitoba. Smelt will also havenegative impacts on walleye fisheries in certainlocales of Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis. Declines in the abundance of higher-valuedspecies wil-I result in decreases in fishermen'sincomes such as occurred in Lake Erie during thelate 1950's (Frick 1965). These losses will notbe recovered by utilization of smelt, which havea lower market value.
GIZZARD SHAD (vorosoma cepedianum)
Gizzard shad do not occur in Manitoba waters.A single specimen was taken from the MissouriRiver several miles below the Garrison Dam(Carufel and Witt 1963). This in the only recordof the species in North Dakota. Populations ofgizzard shad do exist in Missouri River reservoirsin South Dakota. The current distribution ofgizzard shad in the Missouri River appears closelyrelated to construction of mainstem reservoirs onthe river.
The gizzard shad is basically an anadromousmarine species of the eastern Atlantic seaboard.It has adapted to a totally freshwater existence.Gizzard shad exhibit a high propensity for movinginto manmade canals and waterways and by this meansextended their inland range in eastern North America(Miller 1957). Gizzard shad have long been present
12
in and are considered native to the MississippiRiver. From this source they invaded theMi ssouri Ri ver.
Gizzard shad were first recorded from thelower Missouri River near Sioux City, Iowa aroundthe turn of the century and since then havegradually moved upstream (Biology Committee 1976).They presently occur in the Missouri River as farnorth as the tail waters of Oahe Dam near Pierre,South Dakota. Gizzard shad must have reached thisarea sometime prior to 1952. In July 1952, FortRandall Dam, which is on the Missouri Riverdownstream from Pierre, was closed. It is notknown whether the movement of gizzard shad intoSouth Dakota resulted from the creation of FortPeck Reservoir on the Upper Missouri River inMontana. This large mainstem reservoir came intobeing in 1938. Since large reservoirs tend tostore heat, downstream discharges, during lateautumn, winter and early spring tend to be warmerthan under natural riverine conditions. Fort PeckReservoir may have increased average downstreamwater temperatures enough to allow the northwardincursion and survival of gizzard shad. Thecontinued northward movement of gizzard shadappears to have been further stimulated bycompletion of Garrison Dam (Lake Sakakawea) in1953. It has been observed that gizzard shadpresently occurring in the Missouri River moveupstream in autumn in response to warmer dischargesfrom the reservoirs (Biology Committee 1976).Discharges from Lake Sakakawea may have amelioratedtemperature conditions in the Missouri River enoughto permit gizzard shad to invade North Dakota.This would explain the one specimen that wascollected from Garrison Dam tail waters. Althoughgizzard shad had evidently begun to invade theNorth Dakota portion of the Missouri River, theydid not establish populations. Intensive samplingof Lake Oahe, downstream of Garrison Dam, has notproduced any gizzard shad (Beckman and Elrod 1971).It is conceivable that activities associated withthe construction of Oahe Dam, which was completedin 1958, may have prevented movement of sufficientnumbers of gizzard shad into North Dakota toestablish a reproducing population.
Gizzard shad occur in two areas of the JamesRiver system in South Dakota and in the MissouriRiver in South Dakota (Bailey and Allum 1962).Lake Mitchell, which drains a distance of about 2km via Firesteel Creek into the James River inSouth Dakota, contains a self-sustaining populationof gizzard shad. Gizzard shad in Lake Mitchell andthe Missouri River form a nucleus for invasion upthe James River. There are presently no insur~
mountable physical barriers to prevent their movement from Lake Mitchell, down Firesteel Creek, upthe James Ri ver and into North Dakota as far asJamestown Dam (Harza 1976; Owen and Russell 1975a;BuRec 1976). In fact, fish kills involving gizzardshad have been reported in the James River upstreamof Huron, South Dakota (Biology Committee 1976).
Gizzard shad are restricted in their movementto and survival in the James River in South Dakotaby low flows and low dissolved oxygen duringsummer and winter. Winter fish kills are commonin the James River in South Dakota. Garrison,however, will substantially increase flows in theriver during both summer and winter. The WaterQuality Committee (1976a) determined that improved
flows will increase dissolved oxygen levels in theJames River in South Dakota and dissolved oxygenconditions in the James between the North DakotaSouth Dakota border and Oakes-Lamoure will continueto be satisfactory. Harza (1976) and Burec (1976)determined there will be increased flows of4.4 km 3/yr (3,600 AF/yr) to 16 km 3/yr (13,000 AF/yr)near the state line in the James River in Northand South Dakota as a result of Garrison. Inaddition, substantial increases in flow will occurin the James River in South Dakota as a result ofthe Oahe project (BuRec 1973). There will be anannual increase of 318 km3/yr (259,000 AF/yr) at apoint above James River Diversion Dam located nearHuron, South Dakota with the majority of thisincrease resulting from irrigation return flows.These improved conditions should permit gizzardshad to extend their range into North Dakota.
Distribution of gizzard shad, once in NorthDakota, will be further influenced by Garrison.Swain (1976b) indicated that gizzard shadspawning generally occurs between temperatures of15-240C which in the James River in North Dakotaat Oakes would be from the end of May to mid-July.At these temperatures, eggs would hatch in lessthan one week (Swain 1976b). Therefore, duringthe summer when the Oakes pumping station andCanal would be in operation, there could be eggs,larvae and adult shad in the canals. Gizzardshad have used canals for range extension (Miller1960) making interbasin transfer quite possible.Gizzard shad eggs, which are adhesive and sink ordrift with the current, attaching to any objectcontacted, usually aquatic vegetation (Miller 1960)will be pumped into Oakes Canal by the Oakespumping plant. Project waters in the Oakes Canalwill be pumped by the Taayer pumping plant intoTaayer Reservoir for storage and subsequentrelease when required. The Oakes pumping plantwill have a traveling water screen which BuRec(1976) believes should prevent fish from movingfrom the James River into the Oakes Canal andTaayer Reservoir. This is the only mitigationmeasure proposed to inhibit movement of fish fromthe James River into the Wild Rice River. TheCommittee did not find this measure satisfactoryand felt gizzard shad and other fish species wouldmove from the James River to the Red River viaOakes Canal, Taayer Reservoir and Wild Rice River.
If a barrier similar to the McClusky Canalfish screen is incorporated in the Oakes pumpingplant or constructed at some point along OakesCanal, it will have to be smaller than 0.43 x0.43 mm mesh. Newly hatched gizzard shad larvaeare 3.25 mm in total length and have an estimatedaverage body depth of only 0.2 mm (Swain 1976b).Since the eggs of gizzard shad are adhesive shortlyafter they are spawned, they may cling to a fishscreen. Water flowing through the screen willprovide almost optimum conditions for incubationand hatching. Upon hatching, the larvae will passthrough any screen with a mesh size of 0.43 x0.43 mm. Furthermore the other concerns regardingthe inclined screen concept apply here as discussedpreviously (Biology Committee 1976). Therefore, wedo not feel any fish screen similar to the proposedMcClusky Canal fish screen would prevent passage ofgizzard shad into the Wild Rice and Red rivers.
Temperature is apparently important incontrolling the distribution of gizzard shad.Lindsey (1975) reported that although gizzard shad
13
in North America are distributed primarily southof the 21 0C July isotherm, they have extendedtheir range northward between the 210C and 180CJuly
isotherms (Fig. 3). The southern end of LakeWinnipeg lies between the 180 and 21 0C isotherms.As gizzard shad occur throughout. the Great Lakesthe Committee attempted to obtain seasonal watertemperature data for the Great Lakes and LakeWinnipeg. The critical data, winter water temperatures, were lacking but we made the followinggeneralization: there may be up to a 20C differencebetween Lake Erie and Lake Winnipeg and less forother Great Lakes during winter months with thetemperature in Lake Winnipeg going as low as 1-1.5°C,depending upon freeze-up conditions (BiologyCommittee 1976). Certainly Lake Erie is warmerduring summer, but the summer water temperature ofLake Winnipeg does exceed 150C for at least threemonths. Once gizzard shad reach Lake Winnipeg theymay experience some winter mortality. Watertemperatures of 1.4 0C have been reported in thesouth basin of Lake Winnipeg during March (Crowe1973). Swain (1976b) reported a number of lowerlethal temperatures; however all of them rangedfrom 2.2-3.30C. Some mortality of gizzard shad inConchas Lake, New Mexico, occurred at water temperatures of 2.2 0C (Jester and Jensen 1972). However,gizzard shad were found in Presque Isle Bay, easternLake Erie, in water temperatures of 1.1-1.70C. Theyappeared to be acclimated to these temperaturessince mortalities occurred in an area of thermaloutfall in the bay where temperatures of adjacentwaters were elevated to 130 or 150C (Miller 1960).In Lake Erie shad are most plentiful in shallowwaters around the periphery of the western end andin the Bass Islands area, especially in protectedbays and mouths of tributaries with mud bottoms(Bodola 1966; Nash 1950). Similar habitat conditionsprevail in Netley and Libau marshes at the south endof Lake Winnipeg.
Gizzard shad spawn over a variety ofsubstrates from boulders and gravel to silt bedsand rocky shorelines (Swain 1976b). Thesehabitat types occur in the south basin of LakeWinnipeg. Young gizzard shad feed on zooplanktonwhile adults are phytoplankton feeders. Organismsutilized as food by gizzard shad occur in LakeWinnipeg. Therefore, requirements for gizzardshad are met in Lake Winnipeg and particularlyin the south basin and central area of the lake.
Gizzard shad have a high reproductivecapacity and exhibit rapid growth during theirfirst and second summer. In favorable habitats,shad will produce large populations. Extremelylarge populations are likely to occur in shallowwarmwater lakes with mud bottoms, high turbidityand high fertility. Because gi2zard shad feedalmost exclusively on phytoplankton they areimmediately benefited by any increase in aquaticproductivity. For example, in George Lake,Florida, gizzard shad populations increased 300to 400% over a 20-year period. This increase wasattributed to the increasing nutrient enrichmentof the lake (Williams 1975).
Because gizzard shad can grow rapidly to alarge size, their population growth is noteffectively controlled by predation. Only thevery largest predators, such as northern pike,may utilize large shad. Kutkuhn (1958) statedthat studies of gizzard shad in the mid-westernUS indicated the species, by the middle of its
14
r:MONT
LEGEND: r-_- Isotherms
kt:f:tt4 Gizzard Shad Distribution
Fig. 3. Distribution of gizzard shad In relation to the 18 and 21°C JulyIsotherms. Data after Lindsey 1975.
15
second year of life, is beyond the size rangewhich is effectively utilized as forage.Therefore, gizzard shad essentially represent a"dead end" in the aquatic food chain and, sincethey are not used as human food, in the totalfood chain (Coutant 1976).
Extensive proliferation of gizzard shad inlakes has, almost invariably, resulted inadverse effects on the i ndigenous fi sh populations.Shad are efficient competitors with other fishes.Valesquez (1939) stated that gizzard shad mayselectively feed on phytoplankton which wouldtend to eliminate the more desirable phytoplanktonspecies and favor the undesirable species. Thiscould directly affect other fish species whichfeed on phytoplankton or indirectly affect fishby altering the species composition of zooplanktonwhich feed on phytoplanktono Gizzard shad couldaffect other fishes simply by numbers. Largenumbers of young-of-the-year walleyes were notcaught in areas along the south shore of LakeSt. Clair, Ontario where heavy catches of youngof-the-year gizzard shad were made (BiologyCommittee 1976). Thompson et al. (1940)suggested that large numbers of gizzard shad mayroil the water, interfering with other speciesthat depend on vision for feeding.
Gizzard shad have received "bad press" inmany areas where they have become establishedeither through invasion or by introduction toprovide forage for game fish species. Reservoirsin the mid-southern US have been overpopulatedwith shad resulting in declines in game fishpopulations (Miller 1960; Coutant 1976). Bennett(1943) observed that large shad populations werealways associated with small numbers of bass inartificial warmwater lakes in Illinois. Anirruption of shad in Black Hawk Lake, Iowa,resulted in decreased game fish catches (Madden1951). The selective removal of gizzard shadfrom waters in Kentucky and from other southernUS reservoi I"S resulted in improved fi shi ngsuccess for game fishes (Smith 1959; Zellar andWyatt 1967). Gizzard shad have only been valuedas a forage fish in impoundments with deepwaters, fluctuating water levels, no littoralzones, abrupt shorelines, adequate plankton cropsand large predatory fish populations (Miller 1960).It should be noted that these conditions areartificial and rarely, if ever, occur in naturallakes. In general, gizzard shad are presentlyconsidered a pest species. This is illustratedby the fact that importation or possession ofgizzard shad is prohibited by law in the statesof Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, NewMexico, Utah and Wyoming (Lindsey 1975).
Introduction and proliferation of gizzard shadin Lake Winnipeg will result in native fishpopulations having to contend with increasedcompetition for food and space. Severe competitionfrom shad will alter the existing balance betweenpredator fish and their major prey species.Gizzard shad will most likely compete with minnows(Cyprinidae) and the young of other, larger species.This will affect such species as walleye andsauger which utilize minnows and young fishes asforage. Gizzard shad may also compete directlywith young walleye and sauger in the south basinand central areas of Lake Winnipeg. As gizzardshad rapidly achieve a size where they are notvulnerable to predation, shad populations could
soon replace the out-competed forage species.This would reduce the amount of forage fishavailable and reduce predator fish population inLake Winnipeg even further. The impact ofgizzard shad invasion into Lake Winnipeg will begreatest in the south basin and central area ofthe lake where the greatest concentrations ofwalleye and sauger occur and where shad will findfavorable habitat conditions.
Habitat requirements of adult gizzard shadare essentially different from those of adultwhitefish and lake herring. Shad primarilyoccupy shallow or littoral areas of lakes whereaswhitefish and lake herring prefer open water duringmost of the year. It is therefore doubtful thatshad will interact significantly with whitefish orlake herring. There may be some interactionbetween them during their juvenile stages.However, since major whitefish and lake herringpopulations in Lake Winnipeg occur in areas not assuitable to gizzard shad, the interactions will be1imited.
In view of experience elsewhere, availabilityof suitable habitat and potential for interactionswith desirable fish species, we believe gizzardshad will have an adverse impact on Lake Winnipegfisheries. Final outcome of the introduction andproliferation of gizzard shad in Lake Winnipeg willdepend to some extent on other factors such aschanges in exploitation of existing fish populations and in eutrophication processes which mayact to increase or retard impact. The worstpossible impact would be total collapse of walleyeand sauger populations in the south basin andcentral areas of Lake Winnipeg.
Gizzard shad can enter Lake Manitoba fromLake Winnipeg via the Dauphin-Fairford Riverduring periods of high flows in which theFairford Dam is overtopped. Environmentalconditions in Lake Manitoba are even morefavorable for establishment of shad populations.The impact of gizzard shad on the fisheries ofLake Manitoba will be similar to those outlinedfor Lake Winnipeg. The loss of walleye and saugerpopulations in Lake Manitoba as a result ofintroduction and proliferation of gizzard shad willcause a significant reduction in commercial fishharvest from the lake.
Lake Winnipegosis lies south of the lSDC Julyisotherm and has habitat conditions similar tothose found in Lake Manitoba. Gizzard shad could,therefore, become established in Lake Winnipegosisfrom Lake Manitoba. They will present furtherproblems to the management of commercial fisheriesin Lake Winnipegosis. Management is presentlystriving to overcome economic difficultiesresulting from recent drastic declines in walleyestocks. The commercial fishery on the lake iscurrently dependent on low and medium valuespecies such as suckers and northern pike.
In summary, we believe that gizzard shad willbe introduced and can be established in LakesWinnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis. There aresuitable environmental and habitat conditions, foodsupplies and spawning areas for establishment ofgizzard shad populations in these waters. Theextent or magnitude of impact of gizzard shad onthese lakes will depend on acclimation of gizzardshad to colder temperature, predation from
16
existing fish populations and changes in habitatdue to eutrophication. Magnitude of impact mayrange from minimal impact to the worst possibleimpact of total collapse of walleye and saugerpopulations in these lakes.
PADDLEFISH (PoZyodon spathuZa)
Paddlefish occur in North Dakota in LakesSakakawea, Audubon and 03he. They have also beenfound in the lower James River approximately 29 kmupstream from its confluence with the MissouriRiver (Biology Committee 1976). It is not knownwhether paddlefish in the James River represent areproducing population or are simply transientfrom the Missouri River; Paddlefish do not occurin Manitoba.
The interbasin transfer of paddlefish fromLakes Sakakawea and Audubon is likely to occur inspite of the McClusky Canal fish screen, forreasons discussed previously, except the fishscreen mesh will stop eggs and larvae of paddlefish.Paddlefish eggs vary from 2.7-4.0 mm in diameterand larvae range from 8.0-9.5 mm in total length(Purkett 1961). Paddlefish are highly migratoryand improved fish habitat in the James River as aresult of Garrison may permit paddlefish to moveinto the North Dakota portion of the river.Paddlefish could move from the James to the WildRice and Red rivers via Oakes Canal and TaayerReservoir.
Paddlefish can survive and become establishedin Lakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosis and Manitobabecause environmental and habitat conditions arefavorable for their reproduction and growth. Sincewinter temperatures in Lake Sakakawea do not differgreatly from those in Lakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosisand Manitoba there is no reason to suspect thatpaddlefish could not exist in these lakes and theirtributaries. Paddlefish are largely planktivorous(cladocerans, copepods, rotifers and phytoplankton)although aquatic insects and small fish are alsosometimes consumed. Lakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosisand Manitoba contain an abundance of these foodorgani sms ,
Paddlefish have reached an appreciable levelof abundance in Lake Sakakawea. Populations ofthis species may also become abundant in LakesWinnipeg, Winnipegosis and Manitoba. The effectof large numbers of paddlefish in these lakescould be a reduction in the zooplankton biomass.Since paddlefish may attain a large size (inexcess of 50 kg) the impact of a large populationon the zooplankton crop could be severe.
Reductions in the plankton crop in localizedareas of these lakes, particularly after springbreakup, would adversely affect indigenous fishpopulations. It is during the spring that newlyhatched fishes in Lakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosisand Manitoba are heavily dependent on zooplanktonand phytoplankton. The impact of paddlefish wouldbe felt by most fish species rather than by onlyone or a few species. Since paddlefish growrapidly during their first year, they quicklyattain a size where they cannot be eaten by otherfishes. Predators, therefore, would not be afactor in controlling the abundance of paddlefish.
Paddlefish may also indirectly affect lakesturgeon populations in the Hudson Bay Basin.Eggs of paddlefish in the Missouri River Basincontain a coelenterate parasite (PoZypodium sp.,Suppes and Meyer 1975). Lubi nsky (1976) reportedthat P. hydriforme is found in sturgeon in theUSSR and that it destroys a considerable number ofoocytes (egg cells) in these fish. This inhibitsboth reproducti on of these fi sh and qual i ty of thecaviar. Lubinsky further stated, "The percentageof oocytes varies greatly, from a fraction of 1%to several percent, though an infection rate ofover 10% seldom occurs." PoZypodium has not beenrecorded in any lake sturgeon in Manitoba (Lubinsky1976). This parasite could have a negative impacton sturgeon populations, which have already beensubjected to overexploitation.
Although nothing is known about the freeliving stage of PoZypodium sp. it is likely thatthe spread of the parasite would not be containedby the McClusky Canal fish screen. The parasitecould also be transferred to the Hudson Bay Basinby adult paddlefish moving into the Red River viaOakes Canal and the Wild Rice River.
In summary, we believe paddlefish will besuccessfully introduced and established in Manitobawaters. Bacause of their plankton feeding habitsthey will cause reduction in food availability forother fish species. We are unsure that theManitoba lakes will provide a large amOunt ofsuitable habitat and suspect paddlefish will havelimited distribution in these lakes. Paddlefishwill have a negative impact on Manitoba fisheriesbut not as extensive as gizzard shad or smelt.
Two species of acipenserid fish, shovelnoseand pallid sturgeon occur in the Missouri River inNorth Dakota. Both species are found in LakesSakakawea and Oahe. The only acipenserid inManitoba waters is the lake sturgeon.
Shovel nose and pallid sturgeon could beintroduced to Manitoba by Garrison from LakesSakakawea and Audubon via the McClusky and Velvacanals, from the James River via Oakes Canal to theWild Rice River and from Lonetree Reservoir to theSheyenne River. Although these species may betransferred by Garrison, the probability of thisoccurring appears remote. Both species are nonmigratory; for example, tagged shovel nose sturgeonare usually recaptured within a few miles of thetagging site (Helms 1973). Pallid sturgeon arealso rare in Lake Sakakawea. Eggs and larvae ofboth species, should they reach the McClusky Canal,are too large to pass through the fish screen mesh.
In the event that shovel nose and pallidsturgeons bypassed the McCl usky Canal fi sh screenby methods described previously or were introducedfrom the James River via Oakes Canal, environmentalconditions in the Souris, Assiniboine and Redrivers would be suitable for natural propagation ofboth speci es. These ri vers possess fast waterareas with rocky or gravelly substrate which areideal for sturgeon spawning. Silty areas of theserivers would also provide a food source for thespecies. With time, shovel nose and pallid sturgeon
might invade Lakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosis andManitoba and their tributary streams.
The establishment of populations of shovelnoseand pallid sturgeon in Manitoba waters is mostlikely to have an impact on indigenous lakesturgeon populations. Shovel nose sturgeon matureat an earlier age and smaller size than lakesturgeon and therefore can qUickly attain highpopulation levels. Shovel nose sturgeon attainsexual maturity after about four years. Lakesturgeon, on the other hand, are not mature untilabout age 20. Since both species haveapproximately the same habitat requirements, anabundant shovelnose population would competedirectly with lake sturgeon for food and space.Little biological information is available onpallid sturgeon.
The impact of shovelnose and pallid sturgeonon lake sturgeon cannot be precisely quantified.In many areas of Manitoba lake sturgeon populationshave been seriously depleted by overexploitationand deleterious environmental conditions such asdams which interfere with spawning. Because ofthese conditions most sturgeon fisheries inManitoba have been closed. Competition fromshovelnose and pallid sturgeon could extirpateexisting lake sturgeon populations in some areas.
Introduction of shovelnose and pallidsturgeon into Manitoba waters could adverselyimpact native lake sturgeon populations inanother way. Shovel nose and pallid sturgeons inthe Missouri River, like paddlefish, may also becarriers of Polypodium sp. The worst effect ofthis coelenterate parasite upon reproductivecapacity of lake sturgeon would be a potential10% reduction in egg survival (Lubinsky 1976).
In summary, we believe that pallid andshovelnose sturgeon could become established inManitoba waters if introduced by Garrison.However, due to the non-migratory habits of bothspecies and the rarity of pallid sturgeon, theprobability of this occurring is remote. Shovelnose and pallid sturgeon may negatively impactManitoba waters by directly competing with nativelake sturgeon populations or by transferring thecoelenterate parasite Polypodium sp. Precisemagnitude of this impact cannot be assessed butthe worst impact would be eventual destruction ofexisting lake sturgeon populations.
SHORTNOSE GAR (Lepisosteus platostomus)
Shortnose gar are found in Lake Sakakawea,Lake Oahe and in the lower James River. Thespecies does not occur in Manitoba nor do anymembers of the garfish family. With Garrison thepotential exists for introduction of shortnosegar to Manitoba waters.
Little is known of the biology of shortnosegar. To obtain some assessment of the possibilityof introduction and impact of shortnose gar,additional information on a close relative, thelongnose gar, was evaluated.
Eggs of longnose gar range from 2.1 (Netscheand Witt 1962) to 5.0 mm (Mansueti and Hardy1967) in diameter; eggs of shortnose gar are
17
smaller (Echelle and Riggs 1972). Larvae ofshortnose gar are about 8 mm long (Echelle andRiggs 1972). Body depth of shortnose gar larvaeis likely greater than 1 mm. Eggs and larvae ofshortnose gar should not pass through the McCluskyCanal fish screen mesh.
Shortnose gar could gain access to the HudsonBay Basin by bypassing the McClusky Canal fishscreen or from the James River via Oakes Canal.Shortnose gar prefer calm, clear and shallowwaters such as pools, oxbows and backwaters ofslow moving streams. It is not known whethershortnose gar now occur in the James River inNorth Dakota. The species could exist in thisarea during open water periods despite low flowsand low dissolved oxygen levels. (They arecapable of supplementing branchial respiration bygulpin9 air.) Any shortnose gar that maysporadically occur in the North Dakota portion ofthe James River are winterkilled annually.Increased flows occurring in the James River andresultant increased dissolved oxygen levels maypermit shortnose gar to establish a permanentpopulation in the area.
If shortnose gar reach Lonetree Reservoir orOakes Canal, they can reach Lakes Manitoba,Winnipegosis and Winnipeg. Shortnose gar areprimarily adapted to warm waters. The lowerlethal temperature for shortnose gar is not known.However, the fact that they exist in LakeSakakawea implies that they have some capabilityto adapt to colder habitat conditions.
Shortnose gar could establish populations inLakes Winnipeg, Winnipegosis or Manitoba becauseenvironmental conditions of thess lakes do notdiffer markedly from those of Lake Sakakawea.Winter water temperatures of Lake Sakakawea aresimilar to those experienced in these lakes butthe annual heat budget for Lake Sakakawea may besomewhat greater. Shortnose gar may find morefavorable habitat in areas adjacent to LakesWinnipeg, Winnipegosis and Manitoba than exists inLake Sakakawea. The quiet backwaters of Netleyand Delta marshes closely approximate preferredhabitat for garfishes. Other marshes occur aroundthese lakes where shortnose gar may establishpopulations. The level of abundance that shortnose gar could reach in these areas cannot beestimated. In the southern portion of their range,however, garfishes attain high populationdensities. Gar in Florida reached densities of270 fish/100 yards of canal (Hunt 1952) but willnot approach these levels in Manitoba.
Adult shortnose gar are highly predaceous andfeed almost exclusively on other fishes. Younggar feed on insects and other aquatic invertebrates.There is an abundance of food in Lakes Winnipeg,Winnipegosis and Manitoba available to shortnosegar. Shortnose gar would therefore act as bothpredators and competitors of indigenous fishpopulations. The degree of impact of shortnosegar on fisheries resources in Lakes Winnipeg,Winnipegosis and Manitoba would depend on levelsof population abundance attained and extent ofinteractions with other fish species.
In summary, shortnose gar are sUfficientlycold-tolerant to exist in Manitoba waters andwould find an available food supply and suitable
habitat in Manitoba waters. Therefore, we believeshortnose gar could establish in and have a negativeimpact on Manitoba waters. The impact of shortnosegar will not be as extensive as that forecast forsmelt or gizzard shad because environmental andhabitat conditions are not optimum for them.
UTAH CHUB (GiZa atraria)
Utah chub are native to the Bonneville Basinof Utah and the upper Snake River drainage ofwyoming and Idaho. They are found in the MissouriRiver in Montana at Canyon Ferry Reservoir and mayeventually invade and become established in LakeSakakawea.
Sigler and Miller (1961) reported that Utahchub are found in a wide variety of waters andthrive over a wide range of temperatures. Theyare at home in cool (15-200C) or warm (27-31°C)springs, irrigation ditches, ponds, sloughs,creeks, lakes, rivers and reservoirs. They areomnivorous feeders, readily feeding on plants,aquatic and terrestrial insects, crustaceans andoccasionally small fish and fish eggs. They spawnin less than two feet of water and spread theireggs at random over a wide diversity of substrate.The eggs are heavier than water and sink to thebottom. We do not anticipate any ecologicalbarriers preventing downstream movement in theMissouri River to Lake Sakakawea and on throughthe Garrison study area to the Red River Basin.
Peak spawning usually occurs between June5-15 but this activity can start in mid-May andlast until mid-August. Temperatures associatedwith spawning range from 11. I-20°C. The eggshatch within two weeks. We were able to obtainlimited information on egg diameters of the Utahchub from Wydoski (1976). Graham (1961) foundUtah ~hub larvae lengths in August 1953 to average20 mm and range from 10-33 mm and in July 1954 toaverage 8 mm and range from 6-13 mm. Approximately30-50 eggs from 10 Utah chub were measured; eggdiameters ranged between 1.04-1.17 mm for fishbetween 1.~9-2.67 mm total length. Therefore wesuspect but cannot confirm that Utah chub larvaemay pass through the 40-mesh screen; in addition,they may bypass the screens by methods describedpreviously.
Considering the ecological requirements ofUtah chub, We believe they could exist and thrivein waters such as Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba orManitoba streams or rivers to which they gainaccess. Utah chub have a high reproductivepotential and population irruptions may occurafter they enter waters where they have beenpreviously excluded by natural barriers. Theirgeneralized feeding habits may enable them tobecome serious competitors with most fish speciesfor food.
Brown (1971) referred to the Utah chub asfollows: "It has proven to be a nuisance tofishermen who find difficulty avoiding it whilefishing for trout ... there is no economicallyfeasible way of eradicating such pest fish oncethey are established and widely distributed."Furthermore, Sigler and Miller (1961) reported:
"Because of its great abundance, widedistribution, large size and generalized
18
feeding habits, this species may becomea serious competitor of game fishes. Itis known to compete with them for food.Widely used as bait fish, it hasestablished itself in reservoirs to whichit was originally barred by naturalbarriers. Under these conditions itshigh reproductive potential may lead torapid multiplication to the point whereit overpopulates such bodies of water;expensive means of control may then berequired, as for example in Fish Lake,Panguitch Lake and Scofield Reservoir(Olson 1959). The Utah chub became soabundant in Strawberry Reservoir that aspecial trash fishery was set up to handlethe menace (Anonymous 1949). Its spreadoutside of the Bonneville Basin should bediscouraged. It is significant that thosewaters in which the species has become anuisance are either not within its nativerange or, if so, have been much modifiedby man."
In summary, Utah chub have a high reproductionpotential, a potential for population irruptionsand likely can establish in Manitoba waters. Webelieve Utah chub could be successfully introducedand established in Manitoba waters if they get toLake Sakakawea. Furthermore, if in Manitoba waters,Utah chub wi 11 have a negati ve impact on i ndi genousfishes and may become a nuisance to anglers andcommercial fishermen (through sheer volume of catchin the nets). We expect Utah chub will competewith whitefish and walleye for food and likelydisplace, to a major extent, existing forage species,particularly minnows. On the other hand, Utah chubwere introduced in the 1930's in Montana and havenot spread significantly through the malnstemMissouri River (or at least have not been detected).We believe that it is a matter of time before theyinhabit the Missouri River as there are no ecological barriers to this downstream movement. Therefore,we consider this fish to represent the same potentialfor major impact as rainbow smelt or gizzard shad.
SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO (rctobus bubaZus)
Smallmouth bUffalo are present in LakeSakakawea and the James River. This species isnot known in Canada.
Habitat requirements of smallmouth buffaloare variable. This species usually inhabitsdeeper, swifter and clearer waters of large rivers.Food of smallmouth buffalo consists largely ofaquatic insects, crustaceans, molluscs and somevegetation, mainly duckweed. There is littlepublished information on spawning characteristicsof these fish. No information is available onegg or larvae sizes. Eggs are deposited atrandom over river bottoms and aquatic vegetation.Egg size of a similar species, the bigmouthbUffalo, is in the range of 1.2-1.8 mm in diameter.
Considering the close similarity betweenbigmouth and smallmouth buffalo and that bigmouthexist in the Red River in Manitoba, we believesmallmouth buffalo could also survive in Manitoba.The potential for harm from the introduction ofsmallmouth buffalo cannot be assessed due to lackof available data. If smallmouth buffalo cause nomore harm than the already present bigmouth bUffalo,
the adverse impact of introduction will not besignifi cant.
RIVER CARPSUCKER (Ccu'piodes carpio)
River carpsuckers occur in Lakes Sakakaweaand Oahe and in the James River. They are notknown to occur in the Red River Basin.
We could find no information on river carpsucker egg or larvae sizes. This species couldbe introduced into the Hudson Bay Basin bybypassing the McClusky Canal fish screen bymethods discussed previously or by entering OakesCanal from the James River. Preferred habitat ofriver carpsuckers is backwater and quiet places inrivers, larger streams and canals. Carpsuckersare especially fond of piles of brush orexposed roots.
Food of river carpsuckers consists ofimmature insects, other aquatic invertebrates andorganic matter contained in bottom sediments.Their food is similar to other members of thesucker family except that a greater amount of siltand detritus is included.
River carpsuckers spawn in the spring inlowland areas after flooding and in backwaterareas among submerged portions of trees and shrubs.They are similar to quillback suckers which alreadyoccur in Lake Winnipeg and the Red River inManitoba. Considering environmental, habitat andfood requirements of river carpsuckers, we believethey could survive in Manitoba waters.
The impact of introduction of river carpsuckersto Manitoba waters cannot be assessed due to a lackof available information. It is known thatquillback suckers, a similar species which alreadyexists in Manitoba waters, are very rare and havelittle or no impact on existing fish populations.
CARP (cyprinus carpio)
The introduction of carp to the Souris RiverBasin in North Dakota as a result of Garrison wasidentified as a concern of the Biology Committee.Carp, found in many North Dakota waters, presentlydo not occur in the Souris River loop (Owen andRussell 1975c). Although carp are not common inthe upper Souris River in Manitoba, individualspecimens have been captured there occasionally(Swain 1976c). Carp populations do exist,however, in the Assiniboine River. Movement ofcarp up the Souris River is prevented during lowwater periods by six small dams between the SourisAssiniboine confluence and the US border. Duringhigh spring flows carp move up the Souris Riveras far as North Dakota. High water may have, onoccasion, allowed carp to enter Souris Riverimpoundments within J. Clark Salyer NationalWildlife Refuge (NWR). Absence of reproducingcarp populations in this refuge has been attributedto low winter flows and dissolved oxygen conditions.Winterkills have occurred within J. Clark SalyerNWR in 7 out of 13 years, covering the period1960-73 (Fish and Wildlife Service 1960-74). Lowwinter oxygen levels occur frequently in the SourisRiver from Lake Darling to J. Clark Salyer NWR(North Dakota Health Department 1968-1972). No
19
other habitat conditions are believed limiting toestablishment of carp in this area.
The Souris River in North Dakota from belowLake Darling to the Manitoba border reflects afish species composition similar to that found inLake Darling. The downstream movement of fishesfrom Lake Darling occurs annually during springrunoff. The only sport fish of any majorconsequence that exists in J. Clark Salyer NWR onan intermittent basis is northern pike. Northernpike are the most resistant of all game fishes tolow oxygen levels. This tolerance to low oxygenlevels exceeds that of carp. This explains whynorthern pike can furnish a limited sport fisheryin J. Clark Salyer NWR, while carp may be absentfrom the system.
The Water Quantity Committee (1976) predictedthat return flows from Garrison will increase meanflows in the Souris River at Westhope duringJanuary through March from about 0.7-2.5 m3/s.
These increased flows will prevent winter dissolvedoxygen levels in J. Clark Salyer NWR impoundmentsfrom falling below 5.0 mg/L (Water QualityCommittee 1976b). Winterkill of carp in the SourisRiver therefore will not occur and populations willbecome established. Establishment of a sizablepopulation in J. Clark Salyer NWR will greatlyenhance possibilities for invasion of carp furtherupstream, to Lake Darling and the Souris Riverinto Saskatchewan. Carp will have some impacts onindigenous fishes of the Souris River in NorthDakota. Scott and Crossman (1973) noted that carp" . . . increase the turbi dity of the water anduproot and destroy submerged aquatic vegetationthat is essential for the survival of nativespecies, since such growth provides cover, foodand sometimes spawning sites." Scott and Crossmanfurther noted that carp" ... al so adverselyaffect duck populations by the destruction ofrooted aquatic plants in marshes." Proliferationof carp in North Dakota wildlife refuges along theSouris River will result in damage to waterfowlproducing marshes and exacerbate other waterfowllosses resulting from Garrison.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The foregoing discussions on the 10 fishspecies identified as problem species (exceptcarp) have primarily stressed possible impacts onthree major lakes in Manitoba (Lakes Winnipeg,Manitoba and Winnipegosis). Emphasis has beenplaced here since these lakes support a largepart of the commercial fishing industry as wellas some sport fishing in Manitoba. We recognizethat impacts resulting from invasion ofexotic fishes will not be limited to the abovelakes. It is very likely that the invasion ofproblem species into Manitoba will have someimpact on fish stocks in the Souris, Assiniboineand Red rivers. Some problem species, such as thepallid and shovel nose sturgeon, shortnose gar,smallmouth buffalo and river carpsucker, which areadapted to lotic environments, may becomeestablished in these rivers. Availability ofsuitable habitats, however, may restrict theirproliferation in these rivers.
Establishment of invading species in theSouris, Assiniboine and Red rivers would
Table 4. Summary of interbasin fish introductions based on life history information.
Potenti a1 Potential for Potential for Potential for Avai 1abi 1i tySpecies for survival in bi 0 logi cal adverse impact of information
introducti on Hudson Bay Basin i mpa ct on ~1anitoba for eva1uati on
Pall i d sturgeon low high medi urn low low
Shovel nose sturgeon low hi gh medium low low
Paddlefish medi urn high medi urn low medium
Shortnose gar medium high medium medi urn low
Gi zzard shad high medi urn high medi urn hi ghN
Rainbow smelt high high high high hi gha
Ri ver ca rps ucker medi urn hi gh medi urn low low
Smallmouth buffalo medi urn hi gh medi urn low low
Utah chub medi urn hi gh high high medi urn
21
Percent reduction in populationsize (lowest-most likely-maximum)
Table 5. Biology Committee's Predictions ofpercent reduction in population sizeof four 'commercial ly important fishspecies in Lakes Winnipeg andManitoba as a result of introductionof exotic fish species.
quantitatively predicted the overall impact ofthese introductions on commercially importantspecies in Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. Thisimpact assessment is our prediction based on datapresented in this report. Our predictions werebased to some extent on Great Lakes experiences,and in these cases effects of introduction ofexotics were complicated by other factors such aseutrophication, overexploitation, managementefforts and introduction of exotic fish diseasesor parasites.
The four commercially important speciesconsidered were lake whitefish, lake herring,walleye and sauger. The predicted impact wasmeasured as percent reduction in population size.Water bodies considered were Lake Winnipeg (southand north basins) and Lake Manitoba. (LakeWinnipegosis was not considered, as the commercialfishery is in such a poor state, Anonymous 1976,that the impact of introduction of exotics couldnot be predicted). We estimated percent reductionin population size by giving a range of percentagesrepresenting low, most likely and maximum impact(Table 5).
25-50-7525-50-7550-75-99
Walleyeand sauger
Lakeherring
50-75-990- 5 -10
50-75-99
Lakewhitefish
25-50-750- 5 -10
10-30-50
Lake Winnipegnorth basinsouth basin
Lake Mani toba
undoubtedly have some biological impacts onindigenous fishes. The precise nature or extentof these impacts cannot be assessed since verylittle is known concerning the distribution,behavior or population sizes of fishes in theserivers. The Souris, Assiniboine and Red riversare utilized for angling. One area which issubjected to heavy angling pressure is on the RedRiver below Lockport. Although desirable speciessuch as sauger, walleye and northern pike arecaught, other less desirable species such asfreshwater drum, burbot, suckers and bullheadsare also angled. Since angling on the Souris,Assiniboine and Red rivers is largely nonselective,it is doubtful that the invasion of new specieswould deter anglers and consequently cause aserious negative impact on the angling fishery.Indeed paddlefish and shortnose gar would likelyprovide interesting new species for anglers.
GENERAL EFFECTS OF INTRODUCTION OF EXOTIC SPECIES
Exotic fishes will not be ableto invade the Saskatchewan or Winnipeg riversbecause of large, impassable dams near the mouthsof these rivers. Most smaller tributaries to thewest side of Lake Winnipeg and those to LakeManitoba which have low gradients may be subjectto invasion. Exotic fishes could also invadelower reaches of some tributaries to LakeWinnipegosis. There are no barriers to haltdownstream invasion of the Nelson River. It mightbe assumed that not all invading exotic fisheswill extend their range northward into the NelsonRiver. This assumption could be argued on thepremise that since invaders come from southerlyclimes, they would not be able to cope with themore rigorous environmental conditions in theNelson River. This argument, however, isweakened by observation of carp in the Nelson River.Although it is believed that carp populations inthe Nelson River lakes have not attained asignificant level of abundance, carp have nonetheless extended their distrubution in the river asfar downstream as Hudson Bay (Biology Committee1976) .
We identified 20 fish species which presentlyoccur in the Missouri River Basin but not in theHudson Bay Basin in Manitoba. Because Garrisonwill provide a direct link between the two basins,the 20 species were considered as potential problemspecies. We then briefly reviewed information onthe 20 species and consequently recognized ninefish species which, if introduced to Manitoba, willcreate adverse impacts on indigenous fish resources.These species are the pall i d and shovelnosesturgeon, paddlefish, shortnose gar, gizzard shad,rainbow smelt, Utah chub, smallmouth buffalo andriver carpsucker. Carp was added to the list sinceGarrison will enhance conditions for the introduction of this species into the Souris River inNorth Dakota and Saskatchewan where they presentlydo not occur.
These assessments, by species, of thepotential for introduction and survival as well asthe extent and nature of impact of these exoticson fishes in Manitoba are summarized in Table 4.
After assessing in a qualitative manner theimpact of each of the problem species we then
Lake Winnipeg: As discussed previously,smelt will have a major impact on lake whitefish,particularly in the north basin. We do not thinksmelt will do well in the south basin and thereforetheir impact will be less. We do anticipate majorinteractions between lake whitefish and Utah chubas well, due to competition for food. Thisanalysis resulted in a prediction of 25-50-75%reduction in the lake whitefish population size inthe north basin.
We believe that smelt could cause the collapseof the lake herring fishery in the north basin but,as with whitefish, smelt will not have a majorinfluence in the south basin. Other exotics areanticipated to negatively interact with lakeherring. Therefore, we predict a 50-75-99%reduction in the lake herring population size inthe north basin and a 0-5-10% reduction in thesouth basin.
With respect to walleye and sauger we believerainbow smelt, gizzard shad and Utah chub willcause major negative impact in Lake Winnipeg:25-50-75% in both basins.
Lake Manitoba: We believe that introductionof smelt, gizzard shad and Utah chub, primarily,will result in a reduction in population size of10-30-50% for whitefish, 50-75-99% for lakeherring and 50-75-99% for walleye and sauger.
In addition to the four species describedabove, lake sturgeon will also likely be negativelyimpacted in Lake Winnipeg. We predict a possible50-75-99% reduction in populations due to introduction of the pallid and shovelnose sturgeon,paddlefish and the parasite Polypodium sp.
While anticipating a negative impact on baitfish, we could not provide a quantitativeassessment of this impact. This was due both to alack of information and also a feeling thatpotential losses to indigenous bait fish could beoffset by use of Utah chub and to a lesser extentby smelt or gizzard shad, as bait fish.
We point out that percent reduction inpopulation size is not necessarily equivalent topercent reduction in the fisheries harvest. Itmay be that the effort required to catch a reducedpopulation is not economical such that a 50%reduction in the population size may mean a 100%reduction in harvest. Furthermore, some of theintroduced exotics may irrupt to such large numbersthat nets become plugged with trash fish, againinfluencing fishermen's efforts to catch commercially valuable species; such could likely be thecase with Utah chub.
In addition to the question of impact ofintroductions, it was necessary to address thequestion of impact timing. This was accomplishedby reviewing literature on dispersal rates ofselected fish (those for which enough pertinentdata were available: carp, white perch (Roccusamericanus) , rainbow smelt and alewife (Alosapeeudoharenque i which are noted for invasion intonew watersheds, Table 6). All four species couldmove 360 miles on the average in less than 55 years.Extreme ranges are from 6-180 years. Of particularinterest are the data for rainbow smelt: 6-16-45years. Furthermore, tagging studies (BiologyCommittee 1976) have shown that sauger have movedfrom the City of Winnipeg up the Red River as faras Drayton (140 km) in four weeks, and walleyehave moved as far as Grand Forks in 12 weeks.Therefore, we anti ci paterapi d movement down theRed River by introduced species.
22
Table 6. Rates of dispersal and resultingestimated traverse times (fromGarrison to Lake Winnipeg) forfour known exotic fishes.
Rate of dispersal Calculated time(km/year) (yr) to move 580 km1
Min. Mean Max. Max. Mean Min.
Carp2 32 42 64 29 11 14
White 11 24 46 82 38 19perch 3
Smelt4 13 37 101 72 26 10
Alewifes 3 11 14 288 88 64
1 Using 580 river kilometres as the distance fromGarrison to Lake Winnipeg.
2 Source: Atton(1959).3 Source: Scott and Christie (1963).4 Source: Dymond (1944) and Biology Committee
data on Missouri River.S Source: Miller (1957).
Therefore, based on the Great Lakes and otherexperiences~ we believe these introductions andimpacts will commence shortly (less than 10 years)after Garrison is completed but full effects willbe felt within 25-50 years. Remedial (after-thefact) measures to Garrison will be futile afterinitial introduction of species. .
In summation, we are firm in our belief thatintroduction of exotic fishes via Garrison posesa serious threat to the fisheries resources ofManitoba. We wish to underline our general concernregarding the introduction of exotics in general.Literature reviews on the history of unmanagedexotic introductions emphasize this concern.Concern over the introduction of exotic fishes isexemplified by recent action in the US requestinga protocol governing interstate transfer ofexotic fishes (Sport Fishing Institute 1976).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMELIORATING IMPACTS
Following are recommendations developed by theBiology Committee. (1976) in conjunction with theEngineering Committee (1976) intended to amelioratethe impact on Manitoba fisheries of the introductionof exotic fish:
1. To Insure that AU Water Pwnped fromSurface Water in the Missouri River Basin is Passedthrough a Sand or Soil Filter: This recommendationincludes elimination of operational wasteways inall project areas in North Dakora, elimination ofSheyenne River outlet in Lonetree Reservoir, sandfiltration of all municipal and industrial waterinto the Sheyenne and Souris River drainages,elimination of the Kindchi Lake turnout and elimination of the New Rockford turnout.
2. Modify Existing Design Features for FishScreen Structures: This includes acceptingEngineering Committee recommendat~ons concernin~
modifications to McClusky Canal flSh screen deslgnand design and installation of some form of fishscreen at Oakes pumping plant.
3. Develop Operating Criteria for Fish ScreenStructures: A model of the McClusky Canal fishscreen must be evaluated. This evaluation shouldtake place in Lake Brekkon-Holmes turnout for atleast five years. The fish screen must be identicalin design to the proposed McClusky screen. Allwater passing through the test facility must returnto its source; test water cannot be permitted topass down the McCl usky Canal to Lonetree Reservoi rduring the testing period.
Development of 0 and Mcriteria should bedeveloped in conjunction with the modeling andevaluation of the fish screen and biologists andengineers from the Us and Canada should comprisethe model evaluation team.
We believe that adoption of our firstrecommendation (above) would remove the potentialfor i nterbasi n transfer of exoti cs except throughthe accidental introduction via Lonetree Reservoiror some calamity in the middle Souris or East Oakeswhich would permit connections of irrigationdistribution canals with wasteways (e.g. collapseof canal banks, unusual rain storms). To mitigatethese latter potentials we believe that recommendations Nos. 2 and 3 (above) should be adopted inconjunction with recommendation No.1. This wouldtherefore serve as "fi rst li ne of defence", albeitnot entirely effective on its own.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to acknowledge other members of theBiology Committee (Appendix 7). All committeemembers contributed to the writing of the originalIJC report. We thank Barbara Cohen for her helpas assistant editor of this paper.
. We want to give a general acknowledgment tomany fisheries scientists both in the US andCanada who willingly gave of their time to providethe IJC Biology Committee with up-to-date information which forms the basis of this paper.Outstanding contributors were Doug Swain, GordonMcRae, and Jan Dolan.
Scott Campbell, Bert Kooyman and Mary Kaysprovided valuable criticism of the manuscript.Jean Allan typed the final draft of the manuscript.
The International Joint Commission gave theirpermission for the publication of the paper in thismedium.
REFERENCES
ANONYMOUS. 1949. New industry in Utah utilizestrash fish. Prog. Fish Cult. 11(13): 85-86.
. 1976. One million pounds of pickerel-------re~c~ommendations for the restoration of the
Lake Winnipegosis commercial fishery.Manitoba Department of Renewable Resourcesand Transportation Services, Winnipeg. 52 p.
23ANDERSON, E., and L. SMITH, Jr. 1971. Factors
affecting abundance of lake herring(Coregonus artedii Le Sueur) in Western LakeSuperior. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100: 691-707.
APPLEGATE, V., and H. VAN METER. 1970. A briefhistory of commercial fishing in Lake Erie.U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish Leafl. 630: 28p.
ATTON, M. 1959. The invasion of Manitoba andSaskatchewan by carp. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.88: 203-205.
BAILEY,M. 1964. Age, growth, maturity, and sexcomposition of the American smelt, Osmerusmordax (Mitchill), of western Lake Superior.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 93: 382-395.
BAILEY, R., andM. ALLUM. 1962. The fisheriesof South Dakota. Univ. Mich. (East Lansing).Misc. Pub!. Zool. 119: 131 p.
BALDWIN, N. 1948. The American smelt, Osmerusmordax (Mitchill), of South Bay, ManitoulinIsland, Lake Huron. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 77:176-180.
BALDWIN, N., and R. SAALFELD. 1962. Commerci a1fish production in the Great Lakes - 1867-1960.Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Tech Rep. 3: 166 p.
BECKMAN, L., and J. ELROD. 1971. Apparentabundance and distribution of young-of-the-yearfishes in Lake Oahe, 1965-1969. In G, Hall(ed.) Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology.Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 8: 333-348.
BENNEn, G. 1943. Management of small artificiallakes. Bull. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. 22: 357376.
BENSON, N. 1968. Review of fishery studies onMissouri River mainstem reservoirs. U.S. Dep.Inter. Res. Rep. 71: 61 p.
BIOLOGY COMMITTEE. 1976. Biology CommitteeReport, Appendix C, International GarrisonDiversion Study Board Report to the International Joint Commission. 392 p.
BODOLA, A. 1966. Life history of the gizzardshad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur), inwestern Lake Erie. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish.Bull. 65: 391-425.
BROWN, C. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big SkyBooks, Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 207 p.
BUREC. 1973. Initial stage, Oahe unit, PickSloan Missouri River Program, South Dakota.. 1976. Draft Environmental Statement,
------Lamoure and Oakes Section, Garrison DiversionUnit. U.S. Dep. Inter. 823 p.
CARUFEL, L., and A. WIn, dr ; 1963. Rangeextension of the gizzard shad (Dorosomacepedi.onum'i into North Dakota. Copeia 1963(2): 178.
CHRISTIE, W. 1974. Changes in the fish speciescomposition of the Great Lakes. J. Fish.Res. Board Can. 31: 837-854.
COUTANT, C. 1976. Letter regarding gizzard shad,16 March. In Information File of BiologyCommittee. (1976).
CROSSMAN, E. 1976. Quetico Fishes; R. Onto Mus.Life Sci. Misc. Pub l , 86 p.
CROWE, J. 1973. Benthic fauna of the South Basinof Lake Winnipeg, March 1965-March 1967.Manitoba Department of Renewable Resourcesand Transportation Services, Winnipeg. Res.Br. MS Rep. 73-27. 67 p.
DAVIDOFF, E., R. RYBICKI, and K. DOAN. 1973.Changes in the population of lake whitefish(Coregonus cZupeaformis) in Lake Winnipegfrom 1941 to 1969. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.30: 1667-1682.
DOAN, K. M., and R. R. ANDREWS. 1964. Experimental trawling in Lake Manitoba in October 1974.Report of the Fisheries Branch Manitoba Dep.of Mine~ and Natural Resources. 13 p.
DYMOND, J. 1944. Spread of the smelt (Osmerusmordax) in the Canadian waters of the GreatLakes. Can. Field Nat. 58: 12-14.
ECHELLE, A., and C. RIGGS. 1972. Aspects of theearly life history of gars (Lepisosteus) inLake Texoma. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101:106-112.
EDDY. S., R. TASKER, and J. UNDERHILL. 1972.Fishes of the Red River, Rainy River andLake of the Woods, Minnesota with commentson the distribution of species in theNelson River Drainage. Bell Mus. Nat. Hist.Univ. Minn., Occas. Pap. 11: 24 p.
FEDORUK, A. 1971. Freshwater fishes of Manitoba.Checkl i st and Keys. Manitoba Department ofRenewable Resources and TransportationServices, Winnipeg. 130 p.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1960-74. North DakotaNational Wildlife Refuge Annual Reports.Bismarck, North Dakota.
FRICK, H. 1965. Economic aspects of the GreatLakes Fisheries of Ontario. Fish. Res. BoardCan. Bull. 149: 142 p,
GORDON, W. 1961. Food of the American smelt inSaginaw Bay, Lake Huron. Trans. Am. Fish.Soc. 90: 439-443.
GRAHAM, R. 1961. Biology of the Utah chub inHebgen Lake,.Montana. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.90(3): 269-276.
HARZA. 1976. Garrison Diversion Unit, effects ofreturn flows on receiving waters. Preparedfor U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by HarzaEngineering Co., Univ. of Arizona. 1011 p.
HELMS, D. 1973. Progress report on the secondyear study of shovelnose sturgeon in theMississippi River. D.-J Proj. 2 - 156 R-2,Iowa Conserv. Comm., Des Moines, Iowa. 142 p.
HILE, R., G. LONGER, and H. BUETTNER. 1953.Fluctuations in the fisheries of State ofMichigan waters of Green Bay. U.S. Dep.Inter. Fish. Bull. 54: 1-34.
HUNT. B. 1952. Food relationships betweenFlorida spotted gar and other organisms inthe Tamiami Canal, Dade County, Florida.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 82: 13-33.
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. 1977. Trans~
boundary implications of the GarrisonDiversion Unit, and IJC Report to theGovernments of Canada and the United States.153 po
JESTER, D., and B. JENSEN. 1972. Life historyand ecology of the gizzard shad, Dorosomaeepedianum (Le Sueur), with reference toElephant Butte Lake. New Mexico State Univ.Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 218: 56 p.
JOHNSON, M. 1976. Letter regarding smelt inMinnesota, 21 July. In Information Fileof Biology Committee (1976).
KENNEDY, W. 1961. Daily catch records of CreweBrothers Fishery, Lake Erie - 1904-1956.Fish. Res. Board Can. MS Rep. Ser. (Biol.)706: 411 p,
KUTKUHN, J. 1958. Utilization of gizzard shadby game fishes. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 65:571-579.
LEACH, J., and So NEPSZY. 1975. The fish community in Lake Erie. J. Fish. Res. BoardCan. 33: 622-638.
24
LINDSEY, C. 1975. Impact of fish likely to betransferred into Manitoba waters by theGarrison Diversion project. A statementto the International Joint Commission publichearing, Winnipeg, 20 November.
LUBINSKY, G. 1976. Pol.upodi.um hydriforme, thecoelenterate parasite of Acipenseriform
. fishes. A review of literature. 10 p. InInformation rile of Biology Committee (1976).
MacCALLUM, W:, and H. REGIER. 1970. Distribution. of smelt, Osmerus mordax, and the smelt
fishery in Lake Erie in the early 1960's.J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27: 1823-1846.
MADDEN, K. 1951. Gizzard shad suppresses BlackHawk Lake fish populations. Iowa Conserv. 10:191-192.
MANSUETI, A., and J. HARDY. 1967. Development of. fi shes of the Chesapeake Bay regi on: an atl asof egg, larval and juvenile stages. Part I.Nat. Res. Inst., Univ. Maryland, Baltimore.202 po
MILLER, R. 1957. Origin and dispersal of thealewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and thegizzard shad, Dorosoma eepedianum in theGreat Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 86(1956):97-111.
__-,-_. 1960. Systematics and biology of thegizzard shad (Dorosoma eepedianum) andrelated fishes. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish.Bull. 173: 371-392.
NASH, C. 1950. Associations between fish speciesin tributaries and shore waters of westernLake Erie. Ecology 31: 561-566.
NORTH DAKOTA HEALTH DEPARTMENT. 1968-72.STORET retrieval data. Bismarck, NorthDakota.
NEPSZY, S., and A. DECHTIAR. 1972. Occurrenceof Glugea hertwigi in Lake Erie rainbow smelt(Osmerus mordax) and associated mortality ofadult smelt. J .. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:1639-1641.
NETSCHE, N., and A. WITT, Jr. 1962. Contributionsto the life history of the longnose gar(Lepisosteus osseus) in Missouri. Trans. Am.Fish. Soc. 91: 251-262.
OLSON, H. 1959. The biology of the Utah chub,Gila atraria(Girard) of Scofield Reservoir,Utah. MS thesis, Utah State Univ., Salt LakeCity, Utah. 34 p.
OWEN, J., and G. RUSSELL. 1975a. Distributionof fishes in North Dakota affected by thesouthern section of the Garrison DiversionUnit. Mimeo. Rep. 43 p.
• 1975b. Distribution of fishes in North--.~Da~k~o·ta aff~cted by the central section of the
Garrison Diversion Unit. Mimeo. Rep. 54 p.. 1975c. Distribution of f'i shes in North
--~Da~k--ota affected by the northern section of theGarrison Diversion Unit. Mimeo. Rep. 54 p.
PURKETT, C., Jr. 1961. Reproduction and earlydevelopment of the paddle-fish. Trans. Am.Fish. Soc. 90: 125-129.
PYCHA, R. 1961. Recent changes in the walleyefishery of northern Green Bay and historyof the 1943 year class. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.90: 475-488.
REGIER, H., V. APPLEGATE, and R. RYDER. 1969.The ecology and management of the walleye inwestern Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm.Tech. Rep. 15: 101 p.
RUPP, R. 1959. Variations in the life history ofthe American smelt in inland waters of Maine.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 88: 241-252.
25
RYBICKI, R. 1966. Limnological survey of theNorth Basin of Lake Winnipeg, 1963 and 1964.Fish. Br. Rep., Manitoba Department of Renewable Resources and Transportation Services,Winnipeg. 71 p.
SCHNEBERGER, E. 1937. The biological and economic importance of the smelt in Green Bay.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 66: 139-142.
SCOTT, W., and W. CHRISTIE. 1963. The invasionof the lower Great Lakes by the white perchRoceus americanus (Gmelin). J. Fish. Res.Board Can. 20(5): 1189-1195.
SCOTT, W., and E. CROSSMAN. 1973. Freshwaterfishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can.Bull. 184: 966 p.
SIGLER, W., and R. MILLER. 1961. Fishes of Utah.Utah State Department of Fish and Game, SaltLake City, Utah. 203 p.
SIMON, J. 1946. Wyoming fishes. Wyo. Game FishDep. Bull. 4: 129 p,
SMITH, W., Jr. 1959. Shad management in reservoirs. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Game Fish. Comm. 12:143-147.
SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE. 1976. SFI resolutions:Exotic fish control. Bulletin No. 275: 5.
STEUCKE, E. W. 1978. Personal communication,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,D.C.
SUPPES, V., and F. MEYER. 1975. Polypodium sp.(Coelentrata) infection of paddlefish(Polydon spathuZa) eggs. J. Parasit. 61:772-774.
SWAIN, D. 1976a. The biology and distribution ofthe Atlantic rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax,Mitchi11 ). 29 p. In Informati on Fil e ofBiology Committee (1976).
· 1976b. Life history of the gizzard---~s~h~ad (Dorosoma cepedianum, Le Sueur). 40 p.
In Information File of Biology Committee (1976).· 1976c. Biology of the carp (cyprinus
------c-arp-io L.) in North America and its distribution in Manitoba, North Dakota and neighbouring US waters. 28 p. In InformationFile of Biology Committee (1976).
THOMPSON, D., G. BENNETT, and S. PARR. 1940. Asecond year of fisheries investigations at
. Fork Lake, 1939. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv.,Lake Manage. Rep. 4: 1-24.
VALESQUEZ, G. 1939. On the variability of algaeobtained from the digestive tract of thegizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur).Am. Midl. Nat. 22: 376-412.
VAN OOSTEN, J. 1937. The dispersal of smelt,Osmerus mordax (Mitchill), in the GreatLakes region. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 66:160-171.
· 1947. Mortality of smelt, Osmerus------m-o-rdax (Mitchill(, in Lakes Huron and
Michigan during the fall and winter of 19421943. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 74: 310-337.
WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE. 1976a. Letter regardingdissolved oxygen in James River, 2 July. InInformation File of Biology Committee (1976).
· 1976b. Final Report to the Inter---~n~a7t·ional Garrison Diversion Study Board,
International Joint Commission. 499 p.WATER QUANTITY COMMITTEE. 1976. Final Report
to the International Garrison Diversion StudyBoard, International Joint Commission. 499 p.
WILLIAMS, R. 1976. Letter regarding gizzardshad, 11 April, In Information File ofBiology Committee (1976).
WYDOSKI, R. 1976. Letter regarding Utah chub,3 November. In Information File of BiologyCommittee (1976).
ZELLER, H., and H. WYATT. 1967. Selective shadremoval in southern reservoirs,p. 405-414. InReservoir Fishery Resources Symposium, Am.Fish. Soc.
Appendix
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
26
APpmDrx 1
List of Fish Species l Occurrences
in Various Areas Within the
Biology Committee Study Area
List of fishes in North and South Dakota in theMissouri River drainage, including the James River
List of fishes in the Red River drainage in Minnesotaand North Dakota
List of fishes occurring or believed to occur in theAssiniboine River drainage in North Dakota and~lani toba
List of fishes in Lake Harri toba and its tributaries,Lake Winnipeg and the Red River in Manitoba
24
26
28
30
1 List of fishes is by common name alone; scientific names are inAppendi x E,
27
Appendi x 1. List of fishes in North and South Dakota in the Mi ssouriRiver drainage, including the James Rivet.}
~lissouri River James RiverCommon name References 4
Sakakawea Dane Upper2 Lower 3
Pa 11 ids turgeon x x 2,3Shovelnose sturgeon x x x 2,3Paddl efi sh x x 2,3Shortnose gar x x x 1,2,3Gizzard shad x2 x 1,3Goldeye x x x 1,2,3Lake whitefish x 3Coho salmon x 3Rai nbow trout x 2,3Brown trout x 2,3Lake trout x 3Rainbow smelt x 3Northern pike x x x x 1,2,3Sturgeon chub x 2Lake chub x 2,3Stoneroller x 1,3Carp x x x x 1,2,3Brassy minnoH x x 1,3Silvery minnow x x 3Flathead chub x x 2,3Hornyhead chub x 3Silverband minnow x 2Golden shiner x x x x 1,2,3Emera1d shi ner x x x 2,3Ri ver shi ner x x 2,3Connon shi ner x x 1,3Bi gmouth shi ner x 1Blackmouth shiner x 1,3Spottail shiner x 1,3_Red shiner x x 1,3Sand shi ner x x x 1,3Topeka shiner x 1Bluntnose minnow x 3Fa the ad mi nnow x x x x 1,2,3Blacknose dace x x 1,2,3Creek chub x x x x 1,2,3Pearl dace x 2,3River carpsucker x x x 1,2,3Quillback x 2,3Longnose sucker x 2,3White sucker x x x x 1,2,3Blue sucker x x 2,3Smallmouth buffalo x x x x 1,2,3
2 The upper and lower James RiIJer refer to the stretches of river aboveand below Jamestown Dam, ,respect1vely.·
. .3 Carufel and Witt (1963) reported one gizzard shad in the Missouri
River 4 km below Garrison Dam.4 References: 1. Bail ey and Allum (1962).
2. Benson (1968).3. Owen and Russell (1975a).
Appendi x 2.
29
List of fishes in the Red River drainage in Minnesotaand North Dakota•.
Common name
Chestnut 1ampreyLake sturgeonLongnose gar2
Bowfi n~1ooneye
Go1 deyeLake herringLake whitefishBrown troutRai nbow tro utBrook troutQui11backlrJhi te suckerSi1 ver redhorseShorthead redhorseGreater redhorseGolden redhorseGoldfishCarpLake chubsuckerBigmouth buffaloGolden shinerNorthern creek chubNorthern pea r1 daceFinesca1e daceNorthern redbe 11y daceHornyhead chubSil ver chubB1 acknose daceLongnose daceEmerald shinerRosyface shinerRiver shinerSpottail sh i nerWeed shinerB1ackchin shinerBigmouth shinerSand shiner .ttli mi c sh i nerSpotfin shinerB1acknose shinerPugnose shinerCommon shinerBrassy minnowSil very mi nnowFathead minnow
1 References: 1. Owens and Russell (l975a).2. Owens and Russell (l975b).3. Eddy et a1. (l972).
2 Reported for Otter Tai 1 River in 19th century but Eddy et a1. (l972)suggested its removal from faunal list of the Red River drainage untilsupporting specimens are found.
3 r~o reported incidence in the Red River drainage but Eddy et al.(l972) suspect its presence there.
31
Appendix 3. List of fi·shes occurring or believed to occur in theAssiniboine River dratnaqe in North Dakota and Manitoba.
So uri s Ri ver Assiniboine R. andCommon Name North other tlributaries References!
Dakota Manitoba in Hani toba
Chestnut lamprey x 4,5Lake sturgeon x 5Rainbow trout x x 2,5Brook trout x x 5Lake herri ng x 5Lake whitefish x 5Gol deye x x 5r~ooneye x 5Central mudminnow x 3Northern pike x x x 1,2,3,4,5Lake chub x x 5Carp x x 1,4,5Brassy minnow x x x 3,4,5Silver chub x 4,5Flathead chub x x 2,5Horney chub x 3Golden shiner x x x 3,5Pugnose shiner x 2Emerald shiner x x x 3,5River shiner x x 2,5Common shiner x x x 2,3,4,5Bigmouth shiner x 3Blackchin shiner x 2Blacknose shiner x x 5Spotta il shiner x x x 2,3,5Sand shiner x x 4,5Mimic shiner x 5Northern x 3R2dbelly daceBluntnose minnow x x 3,5Fathead minnow x x x 2,3,4,5Blacknose dace x x x 3,5Longnose dace x x 2,4,5Creek chub x x x 2,3,4,5Pearl dace x x x 3,4,5River carpsucker x 3Qui 11 back x 5Longnose sucker x x x 3,5
32
Appendix 3. (Contl·d.)
Common Name
Souris Ri ver
North ManitobaDakota
Assiniboine R~ andother tributaries
in ManitobaRe fe ren ces 1
Whi te sucker8i gmouth buffa 10Sil ver redhorseShorthead redhorseBlack bullheadBrown bullheadChanne1 ca tfi shTadpole madtomTrout-perchBurbotBrook sticklebackNinespine
1 References: 1. W. Howard, ~lanitoba Dept. of Renewab le Resources andTransportation Services - Winnipeg.(personal communication).
2. r·1anitoba ~1useum of Nan and Nature collections - SourisRiver. (personal communication).
3. Owens and Russell (l975c) - Souris River in Nor-thDakota.
4. Royal Ontario Museum collections - Assiniboine andSouris rivers, r:lanitoba. (personal communication).
5. Scott and Crossman (1973).
33
Appendix 4. List of fishes in Lake Manitoba and its tributaries,Lake Winnipeg ~nd the Red .River in t1ani toba •.
Lake HinnipegLakeCommon Name Red River
r'lani tobaReferences 1
S basin N basin
Chestnut lamprey x x x 5,6Si 1ver 1amp rey x x x 6Lake sturgeon x x x x 6Ra i nbow trou t x x x x 3,6Brook trout x 5,6Lake trout x x x x 6Lake herring x x x x 3,6,7Bl ackfin cisco x x x 5,6Shortj aw ci s co x x 5,6Lake whitefish x x x x 3,6,7Gol deye x x x x 3,5,6,7r"looneye x x x x 5,6Central mudminnow x x x 6Northern pi ke x x x x 2,3,4,5,6,7Lake chub x x x x 3,6Carp x x x x 1,2,3,4,6,7Brassy minnow x 5,6Silvery minnow x 6S11 very chub x 5,6Golden shiner x x x x 5,6Emerald shiner x x x x 1,2,3,5,6,7River shiner x x x x 5,6Common shiner x x 4,5,6,7Bigmouth shiner x 5,6Blacknose shiner x x x x 3,5,6Spottai 1 shi ner x x x x 1,2,3,5,6,7Rosyface shi ner x 6Sand shiner x x 5,6r·limic shi ner x x x x 5,6Bluntnose minnow x 5,6Fathead minnow x x x x 2,3,4,5,6,7Fl a thead chub x x x x 5,6Blacknose dace x x x x 5,6Longnose dace x x x x 3,5,6,7Creek chub x x x x 2,5,6Pearl dace x x x x 3,5,6Qui 11back x x x x 1,2,3,6,7Longnose sucker x x x x 3,5,6Hhi te sucker x x x x 1,2,3,4,5,6,7Bigmouth buffalo x G
34
Appendix 4. (Contl·d.)
Lake ~~innipeg
Common Name Red RiverS bas in
Laker'lani tobaN basin
Refe ren ces 1
Si 1ver re dho rs eShorthead redhorseBlack bullheadBrown bull headChannel catfishStonecatTadpole madtomBanded killifishBurbotBrook sti cklebackNtnespi ne
Doan and Andrews (1964).J. Gee, Dept. of Zoology, University of r·1anitoba,Winnipeg.D. Gillies, rianitoba Dept. of Renewable Resources andTransportation Services, Brandon.r'1anitoba r·luseum of r,1an and Nature Collections.Royal Ontario Nuseum,Scott and Crossman (1973).A. Storimans, Manitoba Dept. of Renewable Resourcesand Transportation Services, Brandon.
35
Appendix 5. Accepted 1 common and scientific names of fishes reported in this paper.
River shinerCOITmon shinerBiamouth shi nerBlacknose shinerSpottail shinerRed shinerRosyface shinerSi 1verband sh iner-'Spotfin shinerSand shiner\~eed shinerTopeka shiner1·1imi c shinerNorthern redbe lly daceFinescale daceBluntnose minnowFathead minnowBlacknose daceLongnose daceReds ide shinerCreek chubPearl daceUtah chubBlackchin shiner
River carpsuckerQuillbackLongnose s ucke r\~h i te sucker~lounta in suckerBlue suckerLake chubsuckerSmallmouth buffaloBigmouth buffaloSi 1ver redhorseGolden redhorseShorthead redhorseGreater redhorse
Blue catfishBlack bullheadYellow bullheadBrown bullheadChannel catfishStonecatTadpole madtomFlathead catfi sh
Trout-perch
Burbot
Banded killifishPlains killifishPlains topminnow
Shortfi n mollyGreen swo rdta ilVariable platyfish
Brook sticklebackNinespine stickleback
36
Family
Cyprinidae (cont'd.)
Catostomi dae
Ictaluridae
Perceps i dae
Gadidae
Cypri nodonti dae
Poecil i i dae
Gasterostei dae
Scientific name
Notmpis blennius (Gi rard)Notropis covnutius (r1itchi 11 )Notmpis dorsalis (Agassi z)Notropis heterolepis Eigenmann and EigenmannNotmpis hudson ius (Cl i nton)Notropis l.utirene ie (Baird and Girard)Notmpis rubel.Lus (Agassiz)Notmpis ehumardi (Gi rard)Notmpis spilopterus (Cope)Notropis stramineus (Cope)Notmpis tiexanus (Girard)Notropis topeka Gi1bertNotropis volucellus (Cope)Phoxinus eos (Cope)Phoxinus neogaeus CopePimephales notatus RafinesquePimephales promelas (Rafinesque)Rhinichthys atiratiul.us (Hermann)Rhinichthys cataractae (Valenciennes)Richardsonius balteatus (Richardson)Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill)SemotiZus margarita (Cope)Gila atirax-ia (Gi ra rd)Notmpis he terodon (Cope)
1 Ameri can Fisheries Soci ety. 1970. Ali st of common and scientifi c names of fishesand Canada 3rd ed. R. M. BQiley (ed.}, Special Publication No.6, September 1970.
2 Also called the sil verband minnow; formerly N. i.l.Leoebroeue,
from the United States149 p.
38
Appendix 6. List of fish species occurring in Hudson Bay drainage butnot in the Upper f1issouri River drainage.
Common name 1
Silver 1amp rey
Lake stu rgeon
Lake herring
Blackfin cisco
Shortjaw cisco
~'looneye
t~i mi c shi ner
Rosyface shiner
Longnose dace
1 See Appendix 5 for scientific names.
Common name l
Silver redhorse
Trout-perch '
Ninespine stickleback
Logperch
River darter
r·1ottled s cul pi n
S1i my scu1pin
Spoonhead sculpin
39
Appendix 7.
MEMBERS OF BIOLOGY COMMITTEE
INTERNATIONAL GARRISON DIVERSION STUDY BOARD
CANADIAN SECTION
J. S. Loch (Chairman)Environment CanadaFisheries and Marine Service501 University CrescentWINNIPEG, Manitoba R3T 2N6
A. J. DerksenMan. Dept. of Renewable Resources
&Transportation ServicesRenewable Resources DivisionBox 141495 St. James StreetWINNIPEG, Manitoba R3H OW9
P. W. RakowskiEnvironment CanadaCanadian Wildlife Service501 University CrescentWINNIPEG, Manitoba R3T 2N6
W. C. McDonaldDirector, Research StationResearch BranchCanada Dept. of Agriculture25 Dafoe RoadWINNIPEG, Manitoba R3T 2M9
R. B. OettingMan. Dept. of Renewable Resources
&Transportation ServicesRenewable Resources Division1495 St. James StreetWINNIPEG, Manitoba R3H OW9
AMERICAN SECTION
D. F. Henegar (Chairman)Chief, Fisheries DivisionNorth Dakota Game and Fish Department2121 Lovett AvenueBISMARCK, North Dakota 58505
H. L. HollowayBiology DpeartmentUniversity of North DakotaGRAND FORKS, North Dakota 58202
M. E. Hora, Sr. BiologistMinnesota Pollution Control AgencyWater Quality Division1935 West County Road B-2ROSEVILLE, Minnesota 55113
J. C. PetersEnvironmental SpecialistCode 203, Building 67Engineering &Research CenterBureau of ReclamationDENVER, Colorado 80255
E. W. Steucke, Jr.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceInland FisheriesDept. of InteriorWASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
M. C. BromelDepartment of BacteriologyNorth Dakota State UniversityFARGO, North Dakota 58102
![NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE …...NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS 01-101-03 [9/30/2015] Fisheries Management Fisheries Management Actions, NMFSPD -01-101 OPERATIONAL](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f0d46657e708231d4398972/national-marine-fisheries-service-national-marine-fisheries-service-instructions.jpg)
