From:                              Nault, Michelle E - DNR

Sent:                               Wednesday, September 06, 2017 7:26 PM

To:                                   Klemme, Rebbeca A - DNR; Ferry, Maureen M - DNR; Wakeman, Robert S - DNR

Cc:                                   McLennan, Robin - DNR; Blanke, Chelsey M - DNR; LaLiberte, Gina - DNR

Subject:                          FW: Spiny waterflea in Fox River

Attachments:                 20170731_150030.jpg; 20170731_150057.jpg; Spiny waterflea in Fox River


Follow Up Flag:               Follow up

Flag Status:                     Flagged




Becca - could you please attach this email correspondence (& photos) and create a new ‘observed’ SWF ROI on the Fox River (near Sunset Park where Hwy 441 crosses the Fox River).  You can also add some text to the ROI comments in order to capture some of the details which Bart provided below (i.e. single individual detected; no other SWF detected in other 2017 Fox River locations monitored).  Please create this ROI as a point record (not an area record).  The approx. lat/long for this location (FR-A) is: 44.2765; -88.35452.


AIS Team - we should probably discuss whether or not it’d be worthwhile to have my crew head out to the Fox River to do any additional SWF sampling yet this fall.  Most of my September is relatively booked already, but if we thought it would be a high priority to do some additional sediment and/or plankton sampling I could potentially try and schedule a half-day/day to do such.  LMK your thoughts.  IF we did such additional sampling I would want to be sure we have clearly hashed out what will and what won’t trigger listing this population as ‘verified’ (see more below).


As a reminder, Bart’s students found at least 3 juvenile SWF individuals at a nearby downstream site (Fox River-Riverside Park) in July 2016.  So this is the second observation of individual(s) along this stretch of river.  I think we should probably develop clear guidance on what sort of detection would trigger listing this area as having a ‘verified’ SWF population (vs. observed).  I think we want this decision to be consistent to what we have done for other SWF lakes in the state.  What level of detection was required to list these inland waterbodies as having ‘verified’ SWF?  Presence of more than one individual in a plankton tow?  Presence of more than one individual in a sediment samples?  Presence of more than one individual for multiple (>1) years?  Presence of individuals in more than one location within the waterbody? Presence of individuals in both plankton and sediment samples?  Perhaps Maureen can give us a lake by lake break-down of what triggered a ‘verified’ population in other inland waters?  For example, I see that Escanaba Lake is listed as having “observed” SWF although 5 live spiny waterfleas were collected in 2012 (but they were not detected again in additional monitoring in 2012).  However it looks like other lakes (i.e. Ike Walton, Star, Trout, etc.) have ‘verified’ SWF populations and from what I can tell from SWIMS, this was also based on a single ‘positive’ SWF sample being collected.  Also, I have heard different interpretations on whether or not plankton tows are required to ‘confirm’ an established SWF population, or whether presence of spines in the sediment is enough (and vice versa; whether sediment samples are required to ‘confirm’ a SWF population which is detected in the plankton tows).  I’d like clarity (and consistency) on that monitoring issue as well so we all know what to expect from a monitoring/response standpoint. 


This sampling location and AIS results is obviously high profile due to the fact that’s it’s upstream of Rapid Croche, so I think knowing well in advance what level of detection will ultimately trigger a ‘verified’ population of SWF will hopefully help guide monitoring/response efforts moving forward.  Thanks in advance for your thoughts.


Take care,



We are committed to service excellence.

Visit our survey at to evaluate how I did.


Michelle E. Nault
Water Resources Management Specialist

Office of Great Waters – Lake Michigan, Lake Superior & Mississippi River
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Phone: (920) 662-5110
Cell Phone: (608) 513-4587



      (   \)   



From: Bart T. De Stasio []
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Ferry, Maureen M - DNR
Cc: Nault, Michelle E - DNR; McLennan, Robin - DNR; Wakeman, Robert S - DNR
Subject: Spiny waterflea in Fox River


Dear Maureen:


I wanted to inform you that during our sampling for the Fox River Navigational System Authority this summer we found a single spiny water flea in an Ekman grab sample that was collected on July 24, 2017 from mud at the most upstream site we monitor (FR-A).  This site is just upstream of Sunset Park in Kimberly (where Hwy 441 crosses the Fox River).  I have attached pictures of the preserved specimen.  It appears to be an adult female that is carrying embryos.  We did not find any spiny water fleas in duplicate samples from oblique plankton tows we collected on that date.  On Aug 7, 2017 we collected additional, more extensive plankton net samples and additional Ekman samples but did not find any spiny water fleas.  We have not found any spiny water fleas at any of the other Fox River sites we sample, or in Lake Winnebago.  They have again been abundant in southern Green Bay throughout the summer.


We have not found round goby at any of our sites above the Rapide Croche barrier, but they have been common in our sampling at all sites below the barrier.  We have not found round goby in Lake Winnebago.


I will be putting together a more formal report this fall, but I thought you should know about the single spiny water flea collected from the river.  Based on these data they do not appear to be established in the river or Lake Winnebago at this time.  We have completed our sampling of the river for the summer, but I know that in the past you have conducted additional sampling at times.  Please let me know if you have any questions.


I hope all is going well.


All the best,