[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASIAN CARP AND THE GREAT LAKES
=======================================================================
(111-87)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
February 9, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-813 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
?
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN J. HALL, New York ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois DON YOUNG, Alaska
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri GARY G. MILLER, California
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Carolina
Chair TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
PHIL HARE, Illinois MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DINA TITUS, Nevada CONNIE MACK, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
Columbia ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California PETE OLSON, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon
JOHN J. HALL, New York
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
BOB FILNER, California
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VACANCY
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Brammeier, Joel, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes,
Chicago, Illinois.............................................. 9
Davis, Cameron, Senior Adviser to the Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois...... 9
Frank, Matt, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.................................. 9
Hansen, Michael, Chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann
Arbor, Michigan................................................ 9
Humphries, Rebecca, Director, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, Lansing, Michigan................... 9
Lodge, David, Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation,
Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, Indiana............................................ 9
Peabody, Major General John W., Commander, the Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Cincinnati, Ohio............................................... 9
Rogner, John, Assistant Director, Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, Springfield, Illinois............................... 9
Wilkins, Del, Vice President of Terminal Operations and Business
Development, Canal Barge Company, Inc., Channahon, Illinois,
testifying on behalf of The American Waterways Operators....... 9
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Boozman, Hon. John, of Arkansas.................................. 51
Latta, Hon. Robert E., of Ohio................................... 54
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Brammeier, Joel.................................................. 58
Davis, Cameron................................................... 68
Frank, Matt...................................................... 72
Hansen, Michael.................................................. 91
Humphries, Rebecca............................................... 99
Lodge, David..................................................... 112
Peabody, Major General John W.................................... 172
Rogner, John, on behalf of Marc Miller........................... 179
Wilkins, Del..................................................... 182
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Edwards, Hon. Donna F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland:.............................................
Letter, John R. Groundwater, Executive Director, Passenger
Vessel Association....................................... 2
Letter, Conservation Coalition............................. 4
Rogner, John, Assistant Director, on behalf of Marc Miller,
Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources,
Springfield, Illinois, ``Management and Control Plan for
Bighead, Black Grass, and Silver Carps in the United States''.. 19
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois.................................................... 187
Clean Wisconsin, Melissa Malott, Attorney, written testimony..... 189
Natural Resources Defense Council, Henry Henderson, Director,
Midwest Program, letter........................................ 192
Watershed Council, Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, written
testimony...................................................... 197
Wendella Boats, Captain Ragna Russo and Captain Robert Davis,
letter......................................................... 203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.008
ASIAN CARP AND THE GREAT LAKES
----------
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donna F. Edwards
presiding.
Ms. Edwards. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome
everyone to today's hearing. Thank you for braving the snow
this afternoon.
As we get started, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, be permitted to
participate in today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment. Without objection. Thank you, Mr.
Petri.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent that the
following testimony be made part of the record: a statement
from the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman; a
letter from the Passenger Vessel Association, dated February 5,
2010; and a letter from the Conservation Coalition, dated
February 5, 2010, that was to be submitted by our Committee
colleague Representative Ehlers.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.014
Ms. Edwards. The Chair does not have an opening statement.
With that, I would like to ask Mr. Petri if you have an
opening statement.
Mr. Petri. I have a brief one.
I really want to thank you, Representative Edwards, for
pinch-hitting so that we can get this moving forward. I suspect
that we will be joined in a few minutes by the Chairman of the
Full Committee, and we look forward to that.
I would also like to thank our witnesses, particularly
those from out of town, for being here; and I hope you don't
have to stay longer than you originally planned. I know you are
all working on that.
I want to add that I was particularly happy that the panel
includes Matt Frank, who has been our hardworking Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources secretary; and we very much
appreciate your being a part of the panel as well.
It is no exaggeration to say the issue of the Asian carp
entry into the Great Lakes is one that has raised great fears
on the part of our States surrounding the Great Lakes. Some
predict that the carp population has the potential to disrupt
the fundamental ecology of the Great Lakes, resulting in
tremendous economic damage to our States and particularly our
fishing industry.
Yesterday, the Asian Carp Workgroup, a collection of State
and Federal agencies, released their Control Strategy
Framework. We all agree, and I would note that the Framework
specifically states, that the goal is to prevent the
introduction of carp into the lakes. Under this plan released
yesterday, the opening of the locks would be minimized while a
range of approaches are used to attack the carp population and
prevent them from entering Lake Michigan.
Much attention has been focused on a proposal originally
from the State of Michigan to close the Chicago Sanitary and
Shipping Canal. I am looking forward to hearing the views of
the representatives from Michigan, Illinois, and my own State
of Wisconsin on this issue.
It seems to me that we do want to keep the carp from
entering the Great Lakes, but there must be a way to do it that
does not hurt the economy of one of our Great Lake State
neighbors. If a lock is left open, however, we have to proceed
with great urgency to find effective and permanent solutions to
keep the carp out.
I am interested in hearing both the short- and long-term
strategies to prevent the introduction of the carp. We must
have a coordinated response and a strong Federal-State
partnership to combat this threat. So I would hope that this
hearing would examine a range of options to keep the carp out.
Certainly with our human ingenuity and know-how, we should be
able to outsmart this fish.
Given the interest in moving this hearing forward, I will
end my statement here and express my appreciation once again to
the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee under such
trying weather circumstances. Thank you for your work to
protect the Great Lakes, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Petri.
With that, I will introduce the witnesses in the order in
which we will hear your testimony. Again, thank you very much
for being here today, and we look forward to hearing your
testimony.
We will begin with Mr. Cameron Davis, who is the Senior
Adviser to the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, based in Chicago, Illinois. Major General
John W. Peabody is the Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Assistant Director John Rogner, Illinois
Department of Natural Resources in Springfield, Illinois.
Director Rebecca Humphries, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and the Environment from Lansing, Michigan. Secretary
Matt Frank, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in
Madison, Wisconsin. Professor David Lodge, Director, Center for
Aquatic Conservation, and Professor of Biological Sciences at
the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. Dr. Michael Hansen,
Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. And Mr. Del Wilkins, Vice President of Terminal
Operations and Business Development at Canal Barge Company in
Channahon, Illinois--I hope that is correct--and you are
testifying on behalf of the American Waterways Operators. And,
finally, Mr. Joe Brammeier, President and CEO of the Alliance
for the Great Lakes in Chicago, Illinois.
We will begin our testimony today with Mr. Davis.
TESTIMONY OF CAMERON DAVIS, SENIOR ADVISER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; MAJOR GENERAL JOHN W. PEABODY, COMMANDER,
THE GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CINCINNATI, OHIO; JOHN ROGNER, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS; REBECCA HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, LANSING,
MICHIGAN; MATT FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN; DAVID LODGE, DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR AQUATIC CONSERVATION, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, NOTRE DAME, INDIANA;
MICHAEL HANSEN, CHAIR, GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION, ANN
ARBOR, MICHIGAN; DEL WILKINS, VICE PRESIDENT OF TERMINAL
OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC.,
CHANNAHON, ILLINOIS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
WATERWAYS OPERATORS; AND JOEL BRAMMEIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman
Edwards, Representative Petri. Thank you very much, Members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today on behalf
of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa
Jackson. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the agency's
perspective on efforts to prevent Asian carp from becoming
established in the Great Lakes.
I would also like to recognize that Bill Bolen with EPA is
here with me who has put in significant work on behalf of EPA
on this issue.
The administration continues to make restoration and
protection of the Great Lakes a national priority, as evidenced
by President Obama's significant investment in the ecosystem
under his Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. EPA understands
the extreme level of concern by the public and that the public
feels for the Great Lakes ecosystem. We understand the concern
that the public feels for their safety while recreating and
concern for their jobs.
We also have an urgent need to keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes. As we move forward, we
are working to keep Asian carp from becoming established in
self-sustaining populations in the ecosystem. But to do that we
require a coordinated, cooperative approach.
I will address EPA's role first and the efforts in recent
past and multi-stakeholder plans moving forward second in my
testimony.
First, EPA is tasked with coordinating Federal Great Lakes
protection and restoration policies and efforts under Clean
Water Act section 118 and Presidential Executive Order 13340.
EPA has been doing this and will facilitate the integration of
efforts by participating agencies and stakeholders moving
forward.
One of the best weapons we have against Asian carp is this
coordinated, cooperative approach through which each agency
remains accountable for the work under its authorities in order
to ensure the most effective efforts possible. We will undercut
ourselves if we inhibit such accountability and integration.
This team approach has been successful and will continue to
be successful if we give it a chance. It was successful in
December when you saw participating agencies come together
under the leadership of the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources to undertake a rapid response action. The action was
needed to defend the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal against Asian
carp migration while the Corps of Engineers' electric fences
were down for maintenance. During that rapid response action,
we saw Federal, Canadian, municipal, State, Provincial,
binational, and municipal agencies, all of whom provided
people, funding, and equipment, come together in what was by
all accounts a highly successful effort despite numerous
obstacles.
This team approach also led to the draft Framework that was
released this week, and I will talk about that in just a
moment.
That was the first role of EPA, coordination. The second
role of EPA is that of funding.
Nearly a year ago, President Obama proposed and, thanks to
your help in Congress, passed the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, an unprecedented investment for rehabilitating the
Nation's largest fresh surface water system. EPA is stepping up
its use of its funding authority, as evidenced in December when
we announced that we were working with the Corps of Engineers
to use $13-plus million for the Corps of Engineers to
accelerate its work to help defend the Chicago Sanitary Ship
Canal against carp migration. That work, as I am sure you will
hear about from General Peabody, addresses bypasses and other
ways in which carp can get into the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal
from adjacent waterways.
And currently we are working with the other Federal
agencies in Illinois to fast-track additional investments under
the initiative that will address Asian carp populations that
may be upstream of the electric barriers.
I thought it was very important to talk a little bit about
the EPA's role. Let me turn now to the next steps, because
using that coordinated approach that I just talked about is so
incredibly important.
By using the coordinated team approach, participating
agencies have come together to produce this draft Asian Carp
Control Strategy Framework this week. We want to accomplish
several things with this document.
First, we want to provide direction without restricting
ideas and initiatives. As we have learned over and over again
in this situation the carp are not staying still. The
circumstances underlying the carp migration continues to
evolve. Likewise, we need to evolve with the situation. So one
of the great benefits of this Framework is that it provides a
unified direction for the agencies while not straitjacketing
them so that they can remain deft in their responses.
Second, with the Framework, we want to establish a multi-
teared defense. I cannot overstate just how important this is.
I believe we cannot fight biology with engineering alone. I
don't believe we can fight biology with any other mechanism
alone. What this Framework does is establish a multi-
dimensional defense for the Great Lakes. So, rather than just
use one tool in the toolbox, the Framework relies on
engineering approaches, relies on chemical approaches,
biological, managerial, and operational approaches so that we
have a strong, vibrant effort that we are deploying to help
prevent Asian carp migration.
Third, we want to create space for every player to be
involved in the effort. It is so incredibly important to
understand that no one agency has all the answers here. What we
have tried to do is essentially create a table around which
everybody can sit and offer their most constructive
recommendations and ways in which they can be part of the
solution. In other words, this Framework belongs to everybody.
It does not just belong to the agencies at this table and
beyond.
The Great Lakes region must unite in this effort. The
December rapid response action illustrates just what we can
achieve when we are working together. And the Framework is not
intended to be final. It is intended to be continually improved
upon. The first step is for everyone to have a hand in its
development and its execution.
I want to thank you, Members of the congressional
delegation, for your concern, your compassion for protecting
and restoring the Great Lakes. Administrator Jackson, our
partner agencies, the States, and delegation all share one
overriding imperative and that is to keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes.
Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
I remember you well from your many years of engagement and
involvement in Great Lakes water quality issues. You have been
a real leader, a practitioner, feet on the ground, and you have
given an excellent presentation this morning.
I apologize to all the panels for being delayed. I had a
number of other Full Committee activities that had been delayed
because of the Washington snowfall, so I was attending to
those.
I want to thank Ms. Edwards for standing in as Chair as we
began and Mr. Petri whose long-standing engagement in and
contribution to issues in water quality on the Great Lakes is
very well grounded and well informed and he is very much
actively engaged.
Also, on the Republican side, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Miller, who
are long-time advocates for the quality of the Great Lakes
water and protecting and enhancing that water quality out into
the future.
Members on the Democratic side, Mr. Hare, Mark Schauer, our
newest Member from Michigan, who was active in the State
legislature on water quality issues, all of those bring very
great commitments and understanding to this issue. Mr.
Costello, though he is not right on Lake Michigan or the Great
Lakes, his district borders on the Mississippi River. He
understands these issues directly.
Before I go further, I would just like to make an
observation. In 1953, 3 million pounds of lake trout were
caught by sport fisherman and also commercial fishermen on the
Great Lakes and 2.5 million pounds of white fish. The next
year, 1954, that fishery crashed to 300,000 pounds of lake
trout and 250,000 pounds of white fish in 1 year because of the
lamprey eel. That was before the St. Lawrence Seaway was
opened. That was due to vessels coming in the Welland Canal and
discharging this creature that came from--most people suspect--
from the Black Sea. And it multiplied. It found a happy home.
It adapted to freshwater and migrated all by itself without
being transported by vessels from the Welland Canal segment,
what is now the St. Lawrence Seaway, to the upper lakes.
We said then, we have learned our lesson. My predecessor,
John Blatnik, who was a Member of Congress at that time, was
Chair of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, a microbiologist
himself by training. And as the Seaway opened he said, we need
to prevent ballast water from transporting species into the
lakes which are not native to the lakes or which can adapt to
freshwater. We, the U.S., and the Canadians are now spending
upwards of $6 to $10 million a year and will do so forever to
contain the lamprey eel, spraying lampricide in their spawning
beds where rivers discharge into the Great Lakes from both
Canada and the U.S. side.
For a while, pollution of those rivers dampened the
population growth of the lamprey eel and the numbers declined,
but that is not an adequate solution. We don't want polluted
rivers dumping into our freshwater lakes and spreading the
damage.
So when the billions of dollars are spent on Lake Erie, $5
million to clean up discharges into the Lake, dig up the bottom
sediments, stop the toxins from coming in, airborne from as far
away as Central America, DDT coming into the Great Lakes,
having adverse effects on bald eagles, then the lamprey came
back. And then we had relaxed our vigilance on inbound cargoes
coming in on the salties, and we had the zebra mussel and the
round-eyed goby and spiny akinoderm, and a host of other
aquatic species and aquatic plants have taken up the water
column in the Great Lakes.
Now we have this huge threat that did not come into the
lakes but may well find its way in. Those specimens provided by
Dr. Ehlers give you an idea of how terrifying it is to be out
on a boat amongst those carp thrashing about and actually
jumping into boats.
Now when I first heard about the carp, I said, well, maybe
they will eat the lamprey, or maybe they will eat the zebra
mussels. No, they don't. They filter all the food chain out of
the water column; and one species has no stomach, so it must
continuously feed. There is just a slipstream going right
through the fish of all the water column. So it is taking away
the food chain from the rest of the species in the water
column. It is a treacherous, dangerous species that we cannot
allow into the lakes.
And Mr. Petri and I were exchanging notes that maybe the
cold freshwater will inhibit the species. I have seen so many
species adapt to the Great Lakes that I don't want to take that
chance. No one wants to take that chance.
And this has to be a Federal response. We cannot allow
eight Great Lake States and the Province of Ontario to pass
separate, disparate laws that may conflict with each other and
work against each other. We have to have a national response.
It has to be a unified response, and we have not had that in
the past in reaction to other invasive species.
So, Mr. Davis, I greatly appreciate your comments. You
can't fight biology with engineering alone. This is not a final
action taken by EPA but will continually be improved upon. That
is the mind-set that each one of our presenters today needs to
keep in mind.
As for this committee, I know the lessons of the past. I
know the treacherous fate that awaits the movement of those
ugly critters into--they really are. I am not hurting their
feelings, am I?
But, some years ago, scientists from the Great Lakes and
Russian scientists who have been studying Lake Baikal for
decades met in Duluth; and we had presenters from the
University of Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and scientists from
throughout the United States sharing information. Lake Baikal
has about the volume of Lake Superior, except that it is
deeper. It is a mile deep. Lake Superior is deep, 1,735 feet at
its lowest point, which is 125 feet below sea level. But each
is a unique specimen in the world of freshwater.
And you think of freshwater, it is 1 percent of all the
water on the face of the Earth. We have 20 percent of that
freshwater in the Great Lakes. Lake Superior is half of the
total Great Lakes' volume.
So we have a unique responsibility here. We have got to
marshal all the resources, all the brain power, all the
technology we can, not only to prevent Asian carp from--and all
their varieties--from getting into that freshwater treasure but
to get the others out.
General Peabody, thank you very much for being with us.
General Peabody. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to testify.
Congresswoman Edwards, Congressman Petri, I am here to
testify about the Corps of Engineers' efforts to defeat the
risk to the Great Lakes posed by the migration of Asian carp
through the Chicago area waterway system.
The Army Corps of Engineers is committed to using all
available authorities, capabilities, and resources to combat
this invasive species. Because the Corps cannot do this alone,
we are working intensively as part of the Federal, State,
Provincial, binational, and municipal agency team through the
Asian Carp Workgroup. We are actively exploring all options to
defeat the threat, working within the Asian Carp Control
Framework and using a strategy that has four prongs to it for
the Corps of Engineers.
The Corps' principal role has been to prevent or reduce
migration of Asian carp by building, operating, maintaining,
and improving the electrical dispersal barrier system in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The fish barrier is the
largest fielded operational electrical dispersal barrier in the
world and constitutes a dynamic project with significant
research and development components.
Any assertions that the barrier system is or has been
ineffective in restricting upstream movement of bighead and
silver carp are speculative. The facts are that the fish
barrier system has been in continuous operation since 2002 and
has performed as designed, as far as we can tell.
Monitoring Asian carp migration is an essential second part
of the interagency effort. As part of a comprehensive review of
the fish barrier's effectiveness in late 2008, the Corps
recognized that we did not have adequate information about the
location of Asian carp migration. As a result of canvassing
academic and scientific communities, we learned of the
environmental DNA research being conducted by the University of
Notre Dame's Dr. David Lodge in association with The Nature
Conservancy. We have been actively collaborating with him and
his team ever since.
Environmental DNA is an important emerging technology that
is providing additional information to indicate the possible
presence of Asian carp, but because Asian carp eDNA has not yet
undergone complete, scientific, independent peer review, the
results should be considered preliminary at this time. We are
coordinating with Dr. Lodge and his team to execute the needed
independent external peer review, which we hope to complete by
June.
This approach is consistent with the Corps' policy of
ensuring that its technical, engineering, and scientific work
undergoes an open, dynamic, and rigorous review process to
ensure confidence in our decisions and policy recommendations.
However, we are not waiting to take action even in the face of
these uncertainties.
Along with our partner agencies, the Corps is working to
address the potential threat in a variety of ways. Using the
efficacy study authorized in WRDA 2007, we are constructing
emergency measures recommended and approved through an interim
report that will be initiated this spring and completed this
fall. These measures are designed to prevent fish bypasses via
the flanking waterways of the Des Plaines River and the
Illinois and Michigan Canal.
The Corps is also working to develop additional measures to
apply in the Chicago Area Waterways System this spring once
warmer weather prompts increased fish activity. These measures
are under study so have not been defined but may include
modified operations at existing locks and controlling works,
installing other types of barriers near the locks, controlling
ballast water, and assessing options to block the alternate
pathways of the Grand and Little Calumet Rivers. To be
effective, any measures we take would have to be done in
concert with the actions by other agencies on matters within
their expertise or authority to eliminate or reduce the numbers
of any Asian carp that may be in the vicinity.
The fourth element of our strategy is to build on all these
efforts with a long-term focus on the Interbasin Control Study.
The Corps is undertaking this congressionally authorized study,
formally called the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Interbasin study, to explore options and technologies that
could be applied to reduce the risk of aquatic invasive species
of any type that might transfer along multiple points between
the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. This study would
be developed in coordination with all interested stakeholders
and will be based on science, leveraging the latest technology
and the best available information.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I look forward to
answering the committee's questions. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. I especially want to thank you, General
Peabody, for coming such a great distance by car.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Seventeen hours?
General Peabody. Sir, it was only 10. The view was nice. It
was covered in snow. But this is an important hearing, sir, and
I felt a compelling requirement to be here.
Mr. Oberstar. I must say Mr. Petri and I chose a different
route. Rather than going back to the safety of Minnesota and
Wisconsin, where it is only below zero, we chose to stay here
in Washington and risk life and limb in the snow, where they
don't know how to remove it. They don't know what to do with
it. They just walk on it. They count on the sun to melt it.
They are counting on global climate change to melt this down.
It is not happening. I have seen this for 40 years out
here. They just don't know what to do with snow. Hell, when I
grew up, we had a sidewalk snowplow because people didn't have
cars in my day. But we know how to handle it.
You are awfully good to make this journey. And, all of you,
I thank you very much for making the effort to be here with us.
Ms. Edwards, thank you. This is not the Chesapeake Bay, the
Great Lakes, but your concern for both the Bay and its good
health and your efforts over many years in the State
legislature and elsewhere now as a Member of this Committee
have marked you as an advocate for the environment, wherever it
happens to be. Thank you.
Mr. Rogner, give us the Illinois viewpoint.
Mr. Rogner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri,
Congresswoman Edwards, for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of Director Marc Miller, Director of the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, on the role of the Illinois
DNR in battling the Asian carp invasion. Since the early 1990s,
we have been fully engaged in this effort.
I will first mention a couple of the recent actions we have
taken and then outline our action plans for the immediate
future as we work with our Federal, State, and local partners
to prevent the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes.
But, first, I want to be absolutely clear on one important
point. The Illinois DNR has a firm commitment to this task, and
we remain unwavering in that regard. We have been working very
closely with our partner States, including Michigan and
Wisconsin, and also the Federal agencies to develop effective
control strategies.
Illinois has also contributed significant resources to
controlling Asian carp. A premiere example is that we served as
the local sponsor for the Corps of Engineers' electric barrier
system, contributing $1.8 million to this effort.
Most recently, Illinois DNR served as the lead agency for
the successful, rapid response effort last December to prevent
the upstream movement of Asian carp when the electric barrier
system was shut down for maintenance. The unified response of
the Great Lakes States and Provinces I believe was a shining
leadership moment for our region and a prime example of how a
small group of committed people can really make a difference.
This unparalleled effort demonstrated that Federal, Provincial,
State, and local partners can work together to help ensure that
this invasive species does not establish sustainable
populations in the Great Lakes and threaten this globally
important ecosystem.
Over 400 people worked together with contributions of
supplies, equipment, and crews from partners throughout the
basin. The rapid response team safely applied Rotenone to a 6-
mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Corps
of Engineers performed critical maintenance on the electric
barrier system, and then we led the cleanup and removal of
18,000 fish, including one Big Head carp. That one fish
documented that Asian carp were at the barrier and could have
moved past the barrier in potentially large numbers had we not
conducted this action.
It is important to note that, as we consider additional
operations, the cost of this single action was over $3 million
and would not have been possible without the substantial
donations of equipment and labor from the other States and
Provinces and financial support of our Federal partners. I want
to thank everyone here at this table today for that critical
support.
There are several lessons that we have learned from this
experience that I would lake to share with the committee:
First, meeting this challenge will require even greater
collaboration and levels of partnership. We must enlist the
scientific and communication resources as well as the political
leadership of every State and Province in the basin to join in
this effort.
Second, early and sustained outreach to key stakeholders,
proactive communication strategies, and operational
transparency must continue to be maintained as we move forward
with our Framework strategy and operations.
Finally, the collaborative approach that has been developed
with our local, State, and Federal partners is working very
well and we believe represents the best model for future
efforts.
I now wish to outline the actions to control Asian carp
that the Illinois DNR proposes to begin immediately or as soon
as funding can be secured. These actions will be conducted as
part of the Asian Carp Workgroup that is already firmly in
place.
First, we will conduct a targeted Asian carp removal
operation throughout the entire Chicago Area Waterways System.
This includes the identification, containment, and removal of
carp using standard fisheries gear, including netting, electro
fishing, contract commercial fishing, and the use of toxicants
such as Rotenone. These priority actions will be focused above
the barrier in locations most likely to hold carp. We propose
to begin these operations next week.
The Illinois DNR will contract with commercial fishermen to
operate below the barrier system to reduce populations and
propagule pressure on the barrier system below it.
Third, informed by Corps of Engineers' eDNA monitoring, we
will conduct sampling and removal in hot spots of the Cal-Sag
Channel. This includes the entire length of the Cal-Sag below
the O'Brien lock and dam as well as the North Shore Channel
below the Wilmette Pumping Station.
We will participate with the Corps of Engineers' efforts to
refine the eDNA technology so that it is a better predictor of
both location and population size of Asian carp.
In the next 90 days, the Illinois DNR will conduct a survey
of all retail live bait locations to ensure that Asian carp
minnows are not being sold in Chicago-area bait shops,
something that is currently unlawful in Illinois. This effort
is already under way.
We have also identified several longer-term actions that we
are proposing.
We will prepare for rapid response contingency operations,
including training, advanced procurement of supplies and
necessary equipment.
We will lead the Asian Carp Management and Control
Implementation Task Force along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. This plan outlines 133 different actions that will be
deployed nationally in all watersheds where Asian carp are a
problem.
We will participate in additional research into barrier
effectiveness using tagged fish and advanced sonar technology.
And then, finally, we propose to work with our sister State
agency, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, to
enhance commercial markets for Asian carp and investigate
requirements for the use of Asian carp products for
humanitarian relief purposes. These efforts will promote
commercial fishing on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers and
help reduce population pressures on the electric barrier
system.
This is a problem that is not going to be solved by one
State or one agency. As a region, we have a long and
established history of using a proactive and collaborative
approach. When we are divided, solutions to our problems can
remain elusive. We believe our Great Lakes region is stronger
when we work together in partnership to solve common problems,
and Asian carp will not be an exception to this.
The Illinois DNR looks forward to working with the other
Great Lake States and Federal agencies in preventing Asian carp
from establishing sustainable populations in the Great Lakes
and in the larger problem of the exchange of invasives between
the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Thank you again
for the opportunity to share our views.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for that splendid presentation.
I will have a couple of questions and comments later, but I
think it is a well-thought-out approach, and your emphasis on
the multi-disciplinary approach to the issue, that is what I am
looking for. I think that is what people all throughout the
lakes are looking for.
The Carp Management and Control Implementation Task Force
plan of 133 different actions, is that available to the
committee?
Mr. Rogner. Yes, it is. We can make it available.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4813.169
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Director Humphries, thank you very much for being with us.
Ms. Humphries. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Congresswoman Edwards.
Mr. Oberstar. Did you drive here too?
Mr. Humphries. No, I did not.
Mr. Oberstar. You caught the last Northwest Airlines flight
out?
Ms. Humphries. I did. I arrived yesterday. However, getting
home might be much more difficult than it was getting here.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, leave quickly before they shut
everything down.
Ms. Humphries. I think that might be the game plan.
Mr. Oberstar. It is much safer out there than it is here,
believe me.
Ms. Humphries. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today about the looming catastrophe that we face if Asian carp
become established in the Great Lakes. I also appreciate the
Members in the Michigan congressional delegation for their past
work on this and other Great Lakes issues. I have been a
conservation professional for over 30 years, and my role with
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment is
to protect our resources while maximizing recreational
opportunities. Allowing Asian carp to populate our Great Lakes
will destroy the resource as well as recreational
opportunities, and we must act swiftly, collaboratively and
wisely to address the crisis. Invasive species have already
created havoc, as you have so aptly described earlier. Reports
indicate that the cost of biological pollution from invasive
species is both massive and it is rising. In the Great Lakes,
total cost for treatment and control of zebra mussels alone
reaches $100 million each year. The Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission reports that for sea lamprey, program requirements
are on the order of $30 million per year. Invasive species have
profoundly changed the ecosystem of the Great Lakes,
significantly impacted the Great Lakes sport and commercial
fisheries and have hampered recreation, all of which have a
negative effect on Michigan's economy.
Let me give you one example, a little more recent example
than we heard earlier. Lake Huron once had a vibrant salmon
sport fishery with hundreds of charter boats attracting
thousands of anglers each year to ports up and down its long
coastline. Fishing derbies attracted additional anglers who
launched their boats and kept their boats at local marinas, but
invasive zebra and quagga mussels, which are Eurasian invaders,
have caused the collapse of the salmon population and thus the
sport fishery. This was a several million dollar industry, and
it is gone.
Michigan has taken aggressive steps to stop the further
spread of these foreign invaders, including requiring Great
Lakes ships to adhere to ballast water management practices,
enacting legislation requiring all oceangoing ships to obtain a
permit for ballast water discharges, taking legal action to
address ballast water issues, including successfully defending
our State laws in Federal court and challenging Federal
agencies for their failure to appropriately use existing
regulatory authority to act, and by administering State
regulatory programs to control aquatic nuisance species in our
lakes and our rivers, including restrictions on the transport
of invasive species of fish, establishment of a list of
invasive species prohibited in Michigan and participation and
actions to control sea lamprey in the Great Lakes and its
tributaries.
Despite our best efforts, Asian carp are now at our
doorstep. Michigan has its own steps and has taken those steps
to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. We have
contributed financially to the construction of the electrical
barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and we have
prohibited the possession of live Asian carp in the State. We
also participated in the actions this past December that
treated the canal to remove Asian carp prior to the maintenance
of the second electrical barrier. I cannot stress the following
in simpler terms. Once an invasive species gets established in
the lakes, we cannot eradicate it. The threat of Asian carp
must be treated as a crisis and steps must be implemented
immediately to address them. As early as 2003, scientists,
government officials and stakeholders were calling for
ecological separation to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River watershed, but we did not act quickly enough.
Short-term fixes have become long-term projects. For
example, the installation of the second electrical barrier took
over 6 years and is still not fully operational. It took
several years to ban the importation of black carp and silver
carp under the Lacey Act and bighead carp are still not covered
under that Act.
I started by saying that we must act swiftly, cooperatively
and wisely to address the threat posed by Asian carp.
Here are my recommendations to meet those objectives. We
must immediately take all available measures, consistent with
protection of public health and safety, to prevent the
migration of bighead and silver carp into Lake Michigan,
including closing and ceasing operation of the O'Brien lock and
the Chicago lock until a permanent ecological barrier is
constructed between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Watersheds. The Army Corps of Engineers must have the authority
to close the locks on the emergency basis and also a permanent
basis if necessary.
We must initiate studies to be completed by the end of this
year to examine the feasibility of transferring cargo via other
transportation systems. We must operate other water control
structures near Lake Michigan, the O'Brien lock, the Chicago
controlling works and the Wilmette Pumping Station in a manner
that will not allow fish to pass into the lake.
We must install inner barriers at other locations this
year, including barriers between the Des Plaines River and the
canal and the Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand
Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers to eliminate the potential
for flooding between these two watersheds. We need to complete
additional studies related to the biology and the ecology of
carp and predictive models to determine the areas at highest
risk for colonization within the Great Lakes. We need to
provide additional dollars for continuous monitoring of carp
based on risk analysis with funding on reserve for chemical
treatment as a rapid response mechanism is warranted, and we
must communicate with the States any actions and data in a
timely manner.
Operating electrical barrier 2a at optimum voltage and
completing electrical barrier 2b this year is important. In
developing and implementing plans for a permanent solution to
the problems that would ecologically and physically separate
the carp-infested waters of the Mississippi watershed from the
Great Lakes. We also have to be very proactive with our
citizens so that they don't knowingly or unknowingly move these
fish into waters where they are not found now. We all treasure
the Great Lakes, and we all share a commitment to its continued
vitality.
Now we must share in a similar commitment to more
aggressively move forward and stop the spread of Asian carp. I
have additional attachments that I have included in my
testimony. I would like to thank you, and I am available to
take any questions you might have.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much for the wide-ranging
statement. Now we will proceed with Secretary Frank.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing, Representative Petri and Representative Edwards.
We really appreciate you bringing the attention to this issue
that it truly deserves. I want to start off by thanking this
Committee and acknowledging the Congress and the President's
initiative on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. I can't
tell you how excited we are by that initiative. You know, we
have been talking about these issues, as you have pointed out,
Mr. Chairman, for a long time. This unprecedented opportunity
we have, I want to let you know that we are all working hard
together to make sure that that money is put to good use. It is
long overdue, and we are committed to improving the Great Lakes
with the resources that Congress and the President have set
aside. So that is a very positive thing. You eloquently set
forth the history of how we have been dealing with invasives in
the Great Lakes, from the lamprey eel to zebra and quagga
mussels to the round goby to VHS.
I can tell you, all of our agencies have been struggling
with these issues for some time, and there is a great deal of
frustration that we all have and that the people of our States
have to cut off the flow of these invasives into the Great
Lakes. This is a threat not only to our Great Lakes, but it is
a threat to all our inland waters. Once they are in the Great
Lakes, they move inland, and this becomes a problem not just in
our States, but then throughout the United States. Whether it
is the vector in the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes, this
truly is a national issue.
Before I talk about the specific issue at hand, I do want
to follow up on Director Humphries' comments about ballast
water because this is an incredible opportunity, I think, to
really reemphasize how important it is to deal with that issue
as well. The Congress last year, the House of Representatives
passed a strong ballast water measure. It passed overwhelmingly
in the House. It did not get passed through the Senate. And
that was following on years of inaction by Federal agencies. A
new administration is in town. The Coast Guard is taking a
close look at this issue.
Wisconsin and some other States have submitted comments to
the Coast Guard about regulation. We are glad to see that the
Coast Guard is taking this issue more seriously, but we are
concerned that we need to get strong action on ballast water.
We would welcome this committee's oversight of what is going on
with the ballast water issue so that we can finally move on
that issue. We know that ballast water continues to dump new
invasives into our waterways, and we need to deal with it. We
need to deal with it effectively.
Wisconsin passed a very strong ballast water permit
recently, but we still think the best solution is a strong
Federal standard that goes beyond IMO to make sure that we are
treating this ballast water so we are not continuing to dump
new invasives. It is a critical issue, and I appreciate having
the opportunity just to raise that as another important issue
we are dealing with right now.
Now as to Asian carp, there is a lot that has been said. I
will try not to replow ground. A lot of important points have
been made. We do think it is important that there is Federal
agency coordination, and again, I applaud the White House for
their leadership. We had a summit yesterday. The Governors came
in to meet with Federal agencies. We are encouraged that this
is being taken seriously. We are encouraged that there are
resources being devoted to this serious issue.
Having said all that, we have a sense of real urgency and
concern about where this is all going. We can all think that we
are doing as much as we can, but the fact is, we may not have
much time, and we really need to make sure that we are looking
at all alternatives. I think an immediate expansion of
monitoring and fish control efforts in the Chicago waterways
system are absolutely critical. We need, as has been said, to
get the second barrier up. We share Michigan's frustration that
we have a little different perspective on that issue than some
other folks do. It is long overdue.
It has taken too long, and we were pleased to hear
yesterday that the Corps said that it would be up and running
this year. That needs to get done. But having said all that, we
need to look at the ecological separation between the Chicago
waterway and the Great Lakes. There are a number of vectors. We
agree it is a complex issue. There is another number of vectors
that have to be closed off. We think there is good initial work
that is being done. But we need to move faster, and the issue
of the locks, what to do with the locks is certainly out there.
It is an easy call from Wisconsin's perspective. We are
concerned about commerce and the health of the Great Lakes. We
think the lock should be closed. We hope that people don't see
that as some sort of simplistic answer, that even in closing
the locks, you don't guarantee that fish don't get through
there. They were designed for navigation, not as a fish
barrier. Also there are other vectors that have to be dealt
with. So in advocating for that, we do not mean to demean all
of the other things that are in some of the Federal planning
that we have seen so far.
We really have to work together on this, and I can't stress
enough how urgent this is and that we need to move from talk to
action. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank, Mr.
Secretary, for your splendid presentation and your broad view
of the issue and the approaches.
Professor Lodge, I want to say, I read with great interest
the release of your research work on DNA. I look forward with
great interest to your testimony.
Mr. Lodge. Thank you very much. I will draw your attention
to the PowerPoint that I will use this afternoon.
Chairman Oberstar, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Petri, thank you very
much for the opportunity to talk about what my collaborative
team and I have learned in the last few months about Asian carp
in the Chicago waterway and for the opportunity to share our
perspectives on what that means. I was last before this
Subcommittee about 2 years ago to testify about the impact of
ship-borne invasions, the ballast water issue that Mr. Frank
was just talking about. And in that testimony, I pointed out to
the Subcommittee that while ships were a major contributor of
alien species to the Great Lakes, they were not the only one.
And in fact, that canals, like the one that we are here to talk
about today, are a major pathway by which harmful alien species
gain access to the Great Lakes and, indeed, by which other
species leave the Great Lakes. In my written testimony, I
outlined answers to six questions, and for the sake of brevity,
I am going to focus only on four questions in my verbal
testimony this afternoon. The first question I want to answer,
which stems directly from the work that the Army Corps has
supported and that General Peabody referred to, is our work in
the canal in the last few months on how close are the carp to
Lake Michigan. Now before I really answer that question, I need
to say a few things about the method by which we have learned
where silver and bighead carp are in the canal system.
We have used some very standard technologies from molecular
genetics but we have combined those protocols into an unusual
combination and a new application to surveillance of Asian
carps in the canal. You can think about what we have done as
the environmental protection equivalent of what forensic
experts do every day and what our justice system has in many
ways come to rely on, for example, to determine whether a
suspect was at a crime scene. We and Asian carps leave a trail
of DNA behind us, and it is that trail that we have been
detecting in the Chicago waterway.
We have invited an audit, a review, which is in many ways a
more rigorous peer review than is typical for scientific work.
That review was completed by the EPA, an independent audit
team. They issued their final report on our work this past
week, and I have provided that to the Committee to become part
of the permanent record of this hearing. The conclusion of the
EPA audit team--I have put one summary statement up here on
this slide--the bottom line is that it is uncontroversial that
we are detecting the DNA of only silver and bighead carp and
secondly, this EPA audit team, including experts in molecular
genetics, concluded that our results are actionable in a
management context.
So with that as a background--and I am happy to address any
questions you may have in a more detailed nature about that--
what we have discovered, unfortunately, in recent months is
that both silver and bighead carp are in the waterway north of
the electric barrier. I have just indicated with these red
blobs on that map where we have detected either silver or
bighead carp, and you have received a more detailed map in my
written testimony.
The most troubling result is that silver carp are not only
at the doorstep of the lake up in Wilmette in northern Chicago,
but, in fact, appear to be in Lake Michigan or at least in
Calumet Harbor opening to Lake Michigan. Bighead carp are not
yet--at least we have not yet detected, and I hope we do not
detect bighead carp DNA in the lake. However, my conclusion
from these data is that it is not inevitable that an invasion
of these species--either species is underway, and I believe
that an invasion, that is establishment of a self-sustaining,
reproducing and spreading population, is still possible to
prevent. That begs a question, however, about how many carp
will it take to launch an invasion?
The short answer is, I don't know, and no one knows. The
slightly longer and more helpful answer is that it is a numbers
game. If the goal is to prevent invasions in Lake Michigan,
then the proximate management goal has to be to prevent
additional individual fish of either species from entering Lake
Michigan. It is not inevitable that an invasion by either one
of these fishes will occur, and our most recent results finding
silver carp in the lake make it even more urgent that steps are
taken to prevent additional fishes from entering the lake.
The third question I want to address is, Is this issue only
about Asian carps? And the answer to that is no. I think that
is a very important point for the Committee to consider. This
canal has already been a pathway by which very harmful species
which Chairman Oberstar referred to earlier on--zebra mussels
and quagga mussels--this canal is how those species have
gotten, for example, to California. It is how they first
escaped the Great Lakes and then made their way across the
country by other means. But their escape of the Great Lakes was
made possible by this canal. This canal is a two-way highway
for many species. So these species that I am picturing have
already used it. There are many other species poised to use the
canal. They either have or are poised to do so. And I will
highlight just a few of those on this slide. Spiny water flea,
already mentioned by Chairman Oberstar. Water chestnut, a
highly damaging aquatic weed. A variety of parasites and
pathogens that can be deadly to a variety of fish species. New
Zealand mud snail, the bloody red shrimp. All of these species
are in the Great Lakes but not yet in the Mississippi River
Basin. And, of course, going the other way, I don't need to
tell you about bighead and silver carp but don't forget there
are other species waiting to go in the same direction.
Brazilian water weed, a very expensive water weed further south
could use the canal to go north. And then a final example would
be the northern snakehead, present in the Mississippi River
basin but not yet present in the Great Lakes.
So it is very important that you look at this canal and not
just as a conduit for Asian carps, but as a conduit for many
species, past and future. Therefore, any management actions
will bring benefits far beyond the benefits of preventing
damages by the Asian carps. I will just finish by suggesting
what I believe are some of the management implications of this,
and I won't go through all of this. In fact, many of the
previous speakers have already addressed these and the new
framework that came from the administration yesterday includes
many, but not all of, these points.
I draw your attention in particular to the last one which I
think Mr. Brammeier will also address, which is that especially
when you consider this whole suite of species that I mentioned,
it is very important to think about the benefits of the canal
being far beyond management taken with respect to Asian carps.
Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very, very much, Dr. Lodge, for
that excellent presentation. And all your accompanying data
will be concluded in the Committee record, in the hearing
record.
And now Dr. Hansen. Welcome, and thank you for joining us.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to discuss Asian carp and the threat
they pose to the Great Lakes.
I am Mike Hansen, Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission. I am also a professor of fisheries at the
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
The commission understands the destruction that invasive
species cause to ecosystems. Since the 1950s, the commission
has been responsible under a treaty between the U.S. and Canada
to control the sea lamprey, an invasive species that destroyed
fisheries after invading the upper Great Lakes in the 1920s.
The Great Lakes are tremendously valuable and worth
protecting. Annually, Great Lakes fisheries are worth more than
$7 billion and have enormous cultural value to the diverse
peoples who live and fish in the region.
Globalization and trade have provided more species more
opportunities than ever to invade waters of the United States.
Currently, more than 180 non-native species have entered the
Great Lakes, and harmful species have cost the region billions
of dollars. Permanent impacts on the environment and benefits
our children will never see are unquantifiable.
We are concerned about Asian carp because we have seen what
these fish have done to the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
Asian carp spread rapidly by reproducing in large numbers to
become the predominant species in an ecosystem. Asian carp eat
plankton that is the foundation of food webs. Once loose in the
wild, where plankton is abundant but predators are few, Asian
carp have proliferated. Strong dietary overlap between Asian
carp and native fishes suggest that Asian carp could outcompete
native fish for food, especially because an Asian carp can eat
40 percent of its body weight each day.
Between 1991 and 2000, bighead carp increased exponentially
in the Illinois River. So, by fall 1999, Asian carp made up 97
percent of the biomass of a fish kill in a national wildlife
refugee near St. Louis. Today, commercial fishers in the
Illinois River regularly catch more than 25,000 pounds of
bighead and silver carp each day--an amazing amount of fish.
The silver carp has a unique characteristic that makes it
particularly dangerous to humans. The sound of a motorboat
startles the fish into leaping up to 10 feet out of the water.
These flying fish, some weighing more than 20 pounds, are
projectiles that land in boats, damage property, and injure
people.
To understand potential risks of Asian carp to the Great
Lakes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-Canada and the
U.S. Geological Survey assessed the risk of invasion by Asian
carp. Specifically, these risk assessments tell us the
following: First, Asian carp are likely to tolerate the climate
of the Great Lakes because the basin's climate is within the
fish's natural rage. Second, Asian carp feed on plankton, the
low end of the food web, so they eat the same food that most
other fish eat for their own growth and survival. Third, the
Great Lakes Basin contains numerous tributaries with suitable
spawning habitat and large areas of vegetative shorelines,
which they need, particularly in large bays, river mouths,
connecting channels, and wetlands.
Silver carp will likely be harmful because nearly 1 million
boats and personal watercraft operate in the lakes, placing
millions of people in potential contact with silver carp.
Overall, people of the Great Lakes Basin should be deeply
concerned about the possible negative effects of Asian carp.
Let me conclude with some thoughts about policy responses.
Other witnesses during today's hearing described actions to
prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. The Great
Lakes Fishery Commission has been a supportive partner in all
of these efforts. I would like to especially thank Cameron
Davis for his determination to coordinate a multi-agency
response.
The question remains, however, what can be done if Asian
carp enter the Great Lakes? Unfortunately, the answer is not
much, at least not much at the moment, because control
mechanisms do not currently exist for Asian carp. While current
work to prevent Asian carp migration is appropriate, the only
solution to this problem is to achieve what is called
"ecological separation" by altering the canal system to prevent
species of any kind from moving between the Mississippi River
and Great Lakes Basins.
We appreciate the work, which we cofunded, that Mr.
Brammeier and his colleagues conducted to take a good, hard
first look at ecological separation. He will describe that in
more detail shortly.
But this is just the start. The Water Resources Development
Act of 2007 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
conduct a full-scale engineering analysis to identify and
propose ways to achieve ecological separation. We urge Congress
to clearly express that the end objective is ecological
separation, not to reduce the risk or try to achieve separation
while maintaining the status quo. The goal must be ecological
separation.
We also urge Congress to provide the Corps with adequate
resources and authority to accelerate development and
implementation of solutions to achieve ecological separation.
The Great Lakes cannot wait.
Mr. Chair, I again thank you for holding this important
hearing. I appreciate the committee's interest in taking steps
necessary to protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other
invasive species.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are so right, Dr. Hansen; the Great
Lakes can't wait. And, as I said at the outset, we thought we
learned that lesson 50 years ago. We are learning it all over
again with every one of these new species that come into the
Great Lakes. This is not an inexhaustible resource.
Mr. Wilkins, thank you for being with us. You may proceed
with your testimony.
Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to
you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Mr. Petri. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American
Waterways Operators, the national trade association for the
tugboat and barge industry.
I am vice president for Canal Barge Company, a family-owned
business headquartered in New Orleans that has been in business
for 76 years. Canal operates throughout the inland waterway
system and also owns Illinois Marine Towing Corporation, a
Chicago-area towing and barge fleeting company.
I would like the Subcommittee to know, first and foremost,
that the members of AWO fully support robust measures to
protect the Great Lakes from the spread of Asian carp. As we
put these protections into place, we must also protect human
health and safety and maintain the free flow of waterborne
commerce that is critical to our economy.
Our fundamental message is this: The choice whether to
protect the environment or ensure the continued flow of vital
maritime commerce is an unnecessary one and, quite frankly, a
choice our Nation cannot afford to make. We are confident that
congressional leadership, coupled with Administration and
stakeholder cooperation, will lead to us a sustainable long-
term solution that protects the Great Lakes ecosystem without
sacrificing critical jobs and the environmental and economic
benefits of barge transportation.
Mr. Chairman, finding such a solution is critical because
inland waterways navigation is essential to our economy, and it
is the safest, most economical mode of domestic freight
transportation with the smallest carbon footprint of any mode.
Barging plays a key role in the transportation system by
reducing congestion on our overcrowded highways and rails. And
as commercial users of the inland waterway rivers, coastal
waterways, and Great Lakes, our industry has a deep commitment
to environmental stewardship.
Since 2004, our industry has cooperated with Federal and
State agencies concerning the safe operations of the electric
fish barriers currently on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Our industry has also promoted the recovery of threatened and
endangered species and established practices to reduce
emissions from tank barges.
Cooperative and balanced solutions to the problems of
invasive species are, in fact, achievable. An integrated
approach can arrest the advance of the Asian carp, protect the
Great Lakes ecosystem, and maintain safe, efficient, and
reliable navigation on vital commercial waterways.
My testimony will now address what we feel are nine
specific actions as part of that integrated strategy.
First, expedite construction of the Barrier 2-B, which is
on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Secondly, design and
implement bubble and acoustic fish barriers to prevent Asian
carp from moving into the Great Lakes, as commonly done in
Europe. Thirdly, immediately complete structures to stop carp
from entering the Great Lakes during floods.
Fourth, conduct tag-fish research to validate the
effectiveness of all primary and secondary barriers, including
electric, bubble, and acoustic barriers. Fifth, employ
consistent measures to identify the location of this invasive
species, such as electric fishing or electrofishing, netting,
and commercial fishing that do not delay the movement of
commerce. Sixth, fund research on Asian carp specific
biological control agents, which has proven to be an effective
strategy with other invasive species on the Great Lakes.
Seventh, sample barges and other vessels for juvenile carp
and their eggs. We are currently serving on a public-private-
sector working group to conduct such sampling and ensure our
that our industry is not a vector to move this invasive
species. Eighth, impose further restrictions on the importation
of aquatic invasive species. And, finally, conduct more
scientific studies about the ability of carp to survive within
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, proposals have been made recently in both
legislation and litigation to permanently close the locks on
the Chicago Waterway System. We strongly oppose lock closures.
Recent proposals by Federal agencies to implement a program of
scheduled lock closures are equally troubling because they will
impede essential commerce without stopping the advance of the
carp. Let me repeat that and underscore that: Closing the locks
just will not stop carp.
Speaking personally, closing the locks would also be
devastating to Illinois Marine Towing Company and may even put
that company out of business, with a loss of a hundred or more
jobs for our shore-side and vessel operations. Other vessel
operators who work in the same Illinois waterway in the same
region who provide family-wage employment to hardworking
Americans would likely suffer the same fate. Together with
State, Federal Government agencies, and concerned stakeholders,
we feel that we can develop effective solutions to stop the
Asian carp in a way that doesn't sacrifice jobs at a time when
jobs are on such short supply.
Mr. Chairman, this prestigious Committee has a history of
leadership and finding solutions to complex and challenging
public policies without framing them as an either/or decision.
The American Waterways Operators has committed to working
cooperatively to ensure a balanced approach to environmental
stewardship and economic sustainability for the Great Lakes and
the western rivers. We are convinced that both goals can be
realized.
We thank you for the opportunity to present today, and we
certainly are here to answer any of your questions and
concerns.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much for testifying on behalf
of the waterways users. I will come back to you with some
further questions and comments after we hear all the testimony.
Mr. Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes, please
proceed.
Mr. Brammeier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Edwards and Congressman Petri, for hosting the hearing today.
My name is Joel Brammeier, and I am the president and CEO
of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. I am also a steering
committee member of the Healing Our Waters Coalition.
I and dozens of dedicated citizens and experts have, for
more than a decade, advised Federal agencies and the State of
Illinois on how to stop Asian carp from establishing in the
Great Lakes. And many of those folks are in this room today. As
Dr. Lodge said, we can accomplish that task, but only if every
choice we make today is dedicated to the permanent prevention
of Asian carp invasion.
Behind nearly every invasive species are the hands of human
intervention. The noble intent for the artificial connection to
the Mississippi River at Chicago was protection of the city's
drinking water. As the 19th-century city grew, sewage-laden
rivers flowed into Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois
reversed the rivers, binding the ecology of the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi River and ultimately leading this potentially
devastating invader to the shores of Lake Michigan.
Now, 120 years on, we have added layers of complexity to
that system. 2.1 billion gallons of water streams past those
channel walls every day. The system allows more than 35,000
recreational boat movements and supports a slowly declining
traffic of 20 to 25 million tons of bulk commodity movements
every year.
The city has built itself with pride on this backbone of a
19th-century engineering marvel. This connection opened the
continent to trade, and it kept the city's rivers from
reverting to open sewers. But the stark reality that the system
created an aquatic superhighway for Asian carp and other
invaders calls the question of whether it is as critical today
as it seemed 120 years ago.
On the threat itself, others have spoken to that, and I
will only say that the only reasonable response to the
biological pollution of invasive species is zero tolerance.
There is no diluting their impacts to some unnoticed background
level. And even if the electrical barriers operate as designed,
they will not last forever and they will not achieve 100
percent effectiveness.
The permanent solution is not technology but what we call
"ecological separation" or, simply, no movement of live
organisms between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River via
the canals, up to and including permanent physical barriers.
Now, this simple idea seems audacious. A close look
illuminates that sewerage treatment operations over 30 years
have dramatically reduced the need for a direct connection
between Chicago and Lake Michigan. Commodity deliveries and
loading are clustered at specific parts of the waterways with
comparatively little traffic moving through downtown Chicago or
into Lake Michigan itself. In fact, less than 1 percent of
freight movement in metro Chicago moves between the Mississippi
River and Lake Michigan. Barely more than a thousand
recreational boats move through Lockport Lock annually. We can
simply no longer afford to assume that 71 miles of century-old
canals are required to get the job done if the job creates a
massive liability for the Great Lakes.
Now, a feasible separation scenario can accommodate the
vast majority of commodity traffic. It can provide new methods
of moving recreational boaters. And, most importantly to this
committee, it can serve as a one-time payment for 100-percent
effective permanent protection.
Now, this is not a new concept. A 2003 gathering of experts
from around the world in Chicago set an agenda beyond the
electrical barriers and agreed that stopping water was the only
way to stop the stream of invaders.
Now, we are encouraged that the Corps has committed to an
interbasin feasibility study, but we are concerned that few
steps have been taken besides agency coordination nearly 2
years after original authorization. The unclear analysis by the
Corps of the economic impact of short-term changes to the
waterway does not herald a good start to this process. A rapid,
transparent process that stands up to citizen and expert
scrutiny is the only way to yield meaningful results.
To that end, Federal agencies should do three things:
immediately execute a short-term contingency plan with a clear
and singular goal of no establishment of Asian carp; take all
action necessary, including temporarily altering navigation, to
prevent movement of existing carp populations; and, probably
most importantly, expedite the Chicago portion of the
authorized Interbasin Transfer Study to be completed by
September 30, 2011, with a clear goal of 100 percent
prevention.
We understand the damage that has already occurred. We can
predict irreparable harm to the Great Lakes if we fail. We have
the tools and the knowledge in hand to stop this problem before
it starts. But a solution is being held hostage by outmoded
infrastructure and assumptions that how business has been done
is the way business has to be done.
The engineering feat of the Chicago waterway protected Lake
Michigan, but it transferred costs to others, costs that were
not apparent in 1890 but are a hole in the wallet today. This
backbone of the largest Great Lake's city must either stretch
and strengthen with time or it will collapse under its own
weight. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee and
everyone engaged on this matter to create a legacy for the
waterway that outlasts both me and the original projects.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to assisting on any actions the Committee can take
to support this effort.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Brammeier.
And to all of the witnesses this afternoon, I would say
that, were it not for the storm of the half-century, most of
the chairs here would be filled. The level of Member interest
and concern about this issue of the Asian carp in the Great
Lakes is very high. I had numerous requests from Members,
nearly everybody in the Subcommittee. And those who are not on
our committee, those who serve on other committees are very,
very deeply concerned. They are hearing from their
constituents. They are seeing the news reports. This carp has
galvanized public concern like no other such issue except,
perhaps, for the 1968 fire on the Cuyahoga River that moved the
Nation and the Congress eventually to pass the Clean Water Act
of 1972.
Coleridge, in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," describes
the ocean as dark, endless, heaving, and mysterious. Dark it
certainly is. So is Lake Superior on its worst days. Heaving in
the midst of storms, typhoons, hurricanes. We are beginning to
unlock the mystery of the oceans, going deeper than ever
before, going down to the bottom of the Marianas trough,
finding vents in the ocean that have temperatures of 700
degrees-plus with creatures still living there.
But endless the oceans are not. It was a form of image by
Coleridge. And neither are the Great Lakes endless. We haven't
unlocked all of their mysteries, but we are getting there. But
faster than we can address those mysteries, the species that
don't belong there, that were not there to begin with, are
getting ahead of us.
And the lakes can't heal themselves. The native species
can't protect themselves against these invasive predators or
plants, like purple loosestrife and others. It is only us, who
are the custodians, who can take these actions.
And I cited earlier the lamprey eel. So many efforts were
made to find something to do with the lamprey--catch them,
smoke them, export them to Sweden. The Swedes had an appetite
for them for a while, and then that waned. Norwegians thought
that might be a delicacy, but soon they abandoned it in favor
of lefse. And there just isn't anything you can do with these
species.
I mentioned the DDT. I held hearings on the U.S.-Canada
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1985, and we found that
the United States had banned DDT after Rachel Carson, and yet
it was being exported to Central America, sprayed on banana
plantations and the aerosols were caught in the upper
atmosphere. And in 14 days, faster than President Reagan said
the Sandinistas could reach the U.S. border, DDT was in the
Great Lakes. And bald eagles were eating the fish that absorbed
the DDT, and the bald eagle eggs weren't forming and the
hatchlings died. And something was happening far from our
shores that we had no way of controlling, except prevent the
exportation of DDT.
Dr. Humphries, you said the carp are at our doorstep. It
reminds me of an image in the language of my ancestors, the
Slovenes: [Speaking in foreign language.] "We just think about
the wolf, and it is at our doors." And that is what the carp
is; it is at our doors. And the Great Lakes can't wait, said
Secretary Frank, which I thought was so compelling.
So what I want all of you to discuss now is we have this
draft, Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. We have the
language of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which
took a great deal of bipartisan effort, I must say. And in so
expressing, I want to once again express my great appreciation
for the splendid work of Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member on the
Republican side, to bring a bill forward in a way that had
never been done before, open this transparency and
bipartisanship. And we overrode a presidential veto to get that
bill passed.
But it had this particular language, the interbasin study,
a long-term action to address the problem of the Asian carp. So
all the authority necessary exists to bring all of you and all
of the other entities together.
Now, I want your commitment and your expression of how you
are going to do this, both in the short term and the long term.
We have an immediate issue to be addressed; we have a longer-
term issue. We have the invasive species that come in through
ballast water. We have this species that is moving up-lake.
And, by the way, Mr. Wilkins, that didn't come in any
ballast water. The waterway users, the barge operators, they
didn't bring this in. It escaped, as we all know, from a fish
farm, a catfish farm, and didn't belong there in the first
place.
The Lacey Act is good law, but if it isn't enforced--just
as in the late 1970s we passed legislation to outlaw scrimshaw
and impose enormous penalties to save African elephants and
save whales. And yet, if you don't enforce the act, you don't
impose the penalties. We have penalties on whaling in our
territorial waters, but if it isn't enforced, the whaling
continues. Same here, if these laws aren't enforced, if we
don't have multidisciplinary strategies, we don't engage the
province of Ontario, the Canadian National Government and all
the States and the Federal agencies together, we are not going
to be effective.
So, first of all, while you are thinking about that, about
what you are going to do and how you are going to continue and
how you are really going to vigorously implement the
authorities available, General Peabody, tell me--and thank you
again for making the long journey, for each of you, for making
the extraordinary effort to be here.
We worked out the funding, the shift of authorities and the
availability of funds, both under the stimulus program and
under the regular programs. So describe the work under way now
and your timeline to meet the completion goal of fall 2010 for
this second, bigger, more robust electric barrier.
General Peabody. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Sir, originally, Barrier 2-B, which, the way I think of it,
is effectively a better-looking twin to Barrier 2-A will be
executed, thanks to $7 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act by September of this year.
If we can pull that to the left once the final design for
all the electronic components, which is under way right now is
complete and we have awarded the contract and examined the
schedule, we will do that.
This barrier gives us redundancy in the Sanitary and Ship
Canal, which, although there are other vectors, remains the
primary avenue of approach for Asian carp up into the Chicago
Area Waterway System.
Barrier 1, as a reminder, is a demonstration barrier, which
has lower operating parameters than Barrier 2-A. Barrier 2-A,
as a result of the information that Dr. Lodge and his team
provided to us this past summer, was taken to higher operating
parameters, which we know to be, based on laboratory testing of
Asian carp of all sizes, juvenile and adult, in tanks, to be
the optimal parameters for the barrier. So the barrier is
operating today at its optimal parameters.
Barrier 2-B will give us that redundancy so we don't have
to go through the intensive rotenone application that Mr. Davis
talked about during his testimony ever again. We would probably
have to do a minor application, but it would be in a very
short, narrow stretch of the canal, just a few hundred feet, as
opposed to nearly six miles.
Mr. Oberstar. Does that mean September of this year?
General Peabody. Sir, the construction will be done in
September. It will take about a month for us to do the
operational testing that we need to do to turn it on and make
it effective. We expect by the end of October that it will be
operating as an effective barrier.
Again, sir, I want to emphasize, once I have a construction
schedule, I can put that schedule under a microscope, and if
there is a way for us to accelerate that in any way, we will do
so. But we have to get the design pieces right now.
Mr. Oberstar. Has the electrical current power of the
stepped-up version been tested on critters that size?
General Peabody. I don't know if they were that large, sir.
But I think they were as large as a foot and a half in length.
I can get you the exact dimensions.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, if the sound of a motorboat can
stimulate those size fish that are on display here--and I
realize the record can't see my finger pointing over to these
models--but if it can scare them to jump out of the water, then
how much electrical current is needed to do that?
General Peabody. Yes, sir. Great question.
The original dispersal barrier, the demonstration barrier,
was built based on information generally available at the time
about other dispersal barriers that had been built. And the
information indicated that fish responded to one volt per inch,
which is the primary, but not the only parameter.
As a result of studies Dr. Mark Pegg did in 2004, he
indicated that the voltage required to repel the specific
species of Asian carp could be as high as four volts per inch.
Subsequently, we conducted (or ``ran'') additional studies, and
what we found was Dr. Pegg had it at least partly right. One
volt per inch did not seem to be adequate, but, in fact, it was
a combination of three variables: the voltage, in this case two
volts per inch; the frequency, or how fast this pulse rate goes
out, because it is not a constant current, it is a pulsing DC
current that goes out, and 15 hertz is the frequency; and then
the periodicity of the pulse, which is 6.5 milliseconds, in
other words, the duration of the pulse.
Those are the parameters that we are currently applying in
Barrier 2-A. I want to caution: These are parameters that have
shown to be effective in laboratory tank tests, where fish
cannot escape the electricity. One of two things happens. The
fish either attempt to swim away, or they swim into the current
at these parameters and they are rendered unconscious, they are
stunned, they float to the surface, and they flow away.
We need to do additional testing using flume tests, with
our Engineer Research and Development Center, that will
replicate field conditions. Right now we don't have flumes that
are large enough to replicate those conditions. This is being
built this spring. Over the course of the summer, we will
execute those additional tests, and that will further inform
our optimal parameters research.
Mr. Oberstar. Will that include testing this volume of
current against juvenile fish, as well?
General Peabody. Yes, sir, all size fish. It is
interesting, we were going to start testing in smaller flumes
this week, and we were unable to do so because when our
research and development lab folks went out to the laboratories
that farm these fish for testing purposes, there were not
enough fish available to do the tests. So we have had to go to
alternative sources. But we will start that next week, the
small flume test.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Cam Davis, what about my question? Speak for the whole
group here. What is it going to take to keep this group
together under the existing legislative authorities provided?
And what about funding to sustain this effort in the short term
and the long term?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What is it going to take to keep this group together? I
have been so impressed by how it actually hasn't taken much.
Every single agency around this table has come willingly and
very helpfully, in terms of helping with the rapid response
action that we saw in December, in terms of the drafting of
this framework. We have seen everybody drop everything and push
really hard to get this document in front of you that you see
now.
So I don't see any of that commitment wavering, from where
I sit. And that is something I can say for the whole group.
There is not a lot I can say for all other agencies because I
don't represent them, but that is one thing I can say
absolutely.
Mr. Oberstar. Are EPA and the Corps the lead agencies here?
Mr. Davis. The EPA has a coordination role. We facilitate
the integration of the various steps and actions that you see
in this document. We, for example, at EPA do not have authority
over the locks. We do not have fishery management authority
with any one of these States, certainly Illinois.
And, in terms of the lead, we consider ourselves the lead
for purposes of making sure that our actions are integrated,
that we are taking a coordinated approach to solving this
problem.
Mr. Oberstar. General Peabody, how is this going to work
now? Do we have a two-headed leadership here, or do we have one
single source of direction?
And I say, the opportunity is greater than we have ever had
before. We have a President from the Great Lakes who
understands the value of this great resource. We have the
funding in place, we have mechanisms available to us, the
scientific community alerted, the public is anxious. There has
never been a better time than now. So I don't want to lose this
momentum by a lack of central leadership.
General Peabody. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Davis's
remarks. I think the team is united in its intent to come to
solutions that are effective. The challenges that we have going
forward are, can we get adequate information upon which to make
the best informed and reasoned decisions in a timely manner?
That is the fundamental challenge.
I will give you an example. One of the things that we are
examining is whether we can apply acoustic and bubble barriers
and whether we can apply CO2 in or near the locks, to use the
locks as an effective barrier to the migration of Asian carp.
But this is just a concept. These are just ideas. We need to go
from ideas to drawing board to execution. And so we don't know
all the stumbling blocks that we may encounter to execute the
engineering that will take these ideas and implement them.
But I can assure you that we intend to implement them as
fast as possible and that, in coordination with EPA and our
other agency partners, we will try to make these measures as
effective as possible, as well.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I can assure you that there will
be vigilance from this committee, beginning with Mr. Petri, who
has long been a protector of the Great Lakes.
Mr. Petri. May I ask a question?
Mr. Oberstar. Such time as the gentleman may consume.
Mr. Petri. Okay, I do have a couple of questions.
First of all, I wondered if I could provide Mr. Wilkins an
opportunity to respond to Mr. Brammeier's testimony about the
locks. It didn't sound like you were talking about the same
world, because you were talking about the tremendous volume of
commerce going through the locks and the importance to the
local community, and he was saying it is only 1 percent that
goes all the way through, and, really, it would not be
particularly disruptive to figure out strategies to put in a
physical barrier between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River.
Mr. Wilkins. Well, sir, I cannot speak to Mr. Brammeier's
data, so I will not. But I can say to you is that, when I hear
the statement about the lock closure, basically what it says to
me is that the U.S. Solicitor General has already stated that
the locks themselves are not watertight. I can tell you that in
my previous life prior to be an administrator, I was a former
captain on the inland waterway system, and they leaked and they
permit the escape of water.
I guess my short answer is that the locks just won't be a
permanent barrier because there is no type of bulkhead in the
chamber. Given what the major general was saying, how can we
use other resources to come to a final means of trying to
control, because I can tell you that we, as AWO, certainly are
excited and want to continue working with the full team with
rational outcomes.
Mr. Petri. But could you elaborate on your testimony? I
think you were talking about a physical barrier, not
necessarily relying on the locks.
Mr. Brammeier. Certainly, Mr. Petri. I do want to be clear
that there are two questions at hand today. One is the short
term, and the other is the long term. And, in my comments, I am
speaking to the long-term need to separate the Mississippi
River from the Great Lakes, which is going to require
significant investment, new authority, and a change in the way
we think about the system.
Just to clarify the data, the numbers that I cited were
reflective of the volume of commodities moving through the
O'Brien Lock on the south side of Chicago relative to the total
volume of freight moving in the Chicago metropolitan area
annually.
Mr. Petri. And that is--well, you said it was 1 percent of
the total movement or something?
Mr. Brammeier. Less than 1 percent, yes. And those are the
best numbers we have, reflective of how much of that cargo
actually moves from the Mississippi River into the Lake
Michigan Basin.
Now, to be frank, even less of that actually requires a
trip into Lake Michigan. And so my point here is that the
volume of traffic that needs to move from the Mississippi River
to the Great Lakes on the waterway is a very small number
relative to the total amount of movement on the waterways and,
certainly, to the total volume moving through the Chicago metro
area.
Mr. Petri. So most of the movement is going to depots or
other destinations within the Chicago area but not in Lake
Michigan?
Mr. Brammeier. Most but not all, certainly.
Mr. Petri. You are saying it is only 1 percent?
Mr. Brammeier. Of the total volume of cargo moving on all
modes, through all mechanisms through the Chicago metro area,
yes.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Wilkins?
Mr. Wilkins. Well, first, I would say ecological separation
is a huge game changer. Nationally, the policy--that would
become a policy judgment which says navigation may not be
important, and I don't think that is the answer. And
regionally, it would eliminate a lot of jobs, not just jobs for
us in the barge industry, but all the subsequent services that
rely on that, which is manufacturing, terminals, docks, all of
the above.
As far as the tons that move through the system, it is
certainly a viable system. It is certainly a system that is
continuing to grow. We look at the inland waterways system as
the most economical means of transporting on a cost-per-ton
basis when compared to other modes. It is very green, very
environmentally friendly. So I don't look at it as a dying
business or a business that is still not viable today and in
the future.
Mr. Petri. I wish I had more time to go further, but this
is an area that I think will be of considerable discussion, and
we will try to come up with a permanent solution, not just for
this problem but for other invasive species moving both ways
through the area.
And I guess I wanted to ask Mr. Lodge about that. You
indicated that DNA testing indicates that these Asian carp are
already in the Great Lakes. And I wanted to ask General
Peabody, finally, about other vectors. Because in some of the
information the Chairman has, there is an indication that
people may be buying minnows or something for fishing, and they
could be Asian carp minnows. And the next thing you know, the
sports fisherman or others are--they don't all get eaten by
another fish. Some of them might wiggle off, and the next thing
you know, they are living in the Great Lakes. A lot of
different ways that these creatures can get into the lakes.
People might even inadvertently move them, or intentionally,
thinking it is a cool thing to do, discharge them into the
Great Lakes.
So I guess I wonder if there is no magic bullet, probably,
in dealing with the range of possibilities for species getting
from the Mississippi Basin into Lake Michigan. But I just
wondered if you could comment on that a little bit.
And then, secondly, talk about the habitat in the Great
Lakes. Is it really conducive to these fish? I mean, there seem
to be bottom feeders and, sort of, river and pond type fish.
The Great Lakes are colder and vast. How realistic is the
possibility that they will, in fact--I mean, maybe a few--but
really multiply and dominate the food chain, given the
different natures of the habitat?
Mr. Lodge. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I think what I hear is two
different questions. One is about what are the pathways and the
relative importance of the pathways by which fish might get
into the canal system above the electric barrier. And the
second is about potential impact in the Great Lakes. So let me
take those one at a time.
It seems quite clear that the largest potential source of
individual Asian carps into the canal system close to Lake
Michigan is via the canal. We know from lots of lines of
evidence, from many State and Federal agencies now, that the
silver and bighead carps are both very abundant south of the
electric barrier. So those fish are, if you will, stacked up
down there, spreading and pushing, if you will, against the
electric barrier.
If the electric barrier is less than 100 percent effective
or fails on occasion or can be circumvented during floods that
unite the Des Plaines and I&M canal with the Chicago canal,
then that is a large potential source. So it is reasonable to
put the greatest attention on the canal and the barrier system
and the steps that have already been outlined in the framework
for preventing additional fish from south of the barrier from
joining those north of the barrier.
Having said that, there clearly are other potential
pathways. And you have mentioned both, both of the ones that I
see as being potentially important. Bait--and Mr. Rogner has
already talked about a survey the Illinois DNR is going to do
to try to assess that. I think that is possible. I think that
is probably--I mean, we will have to see what the data say, but
I think these fish, I think particularly the juveniles, are
unlikely to do very well in a bait store kind of setting. So I
doubt that is going to be particularly important, but it could
be of some importance.
The thing that I think has, in the past at least, been
clearly more important is the intentional release of adult
carp. There are several, if not many, ponds in the Chicago
metropolitan area that we know are inhabited by bighead and/or
silver carp. Those carp didn't get there from the canal. They
got there because individuals bought them and released them.
There are some cultural practices that have encouraged people
to do that in the past.
Now, in Chicago, in the last few years, that was outlawed,
and I think Ms. Humphries suggested that is not legal in
Michigan anymore. But it could be that that is still happening
illegally. It could also be that some of those fish north of
the barrier have been there for a long time. They live 10 years
or more.
So that was perhaps a too-long answer to your first
question.
The second question was about impact to the Great Lakes. I
think none of us know for certain what the impact would be in
the Great Lakes. There is only one way to find out, and I don't
think any of us want to try that way.
I think what I would say is that it is very hard to imagine
the result of an invasion by either silver or bighead carp
being positive; very difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a
net positive outcome. And, on the other hand, it is very easy
to imagine a catastrophic outcome. So somewhere in between
those two perhaps is the most likely outcome if either silver
or bighead were to invade.
I would offer you a metaphor. We are playing Russian
roulette with the environment and the economy of the Great
Lakes systems when we allow access to those species and the
other ones that I outlined. And, in fact, probably Russian
roulette isn't a very good metaphor because it is not like
there is only one chamber loaded. We have it loaded with two
chambers full of Asian carp, silver and bighead, and then we
have all those other species. So it is not even a good
metaphor.
We know that these invasions will happen if additional
management steps are not taken to make the canal less permeable
to organisms. And, of course, while we are all sitting here
talking, the fish are swimming.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for that very thoughtful response
and for those very thoughtful questions.
I will come back to Mr. Petri in a bit. Now I want to
recognize Ms. Edwards and thank her again for beginning the
hearing and for being here today.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, as always, when
I show up at the hearing, I learn something, and then I end up
with questions. So I appreciate the opportunity.
Since I do come from the Chesapeake Bay region, I mean, one
of the things that I have been, you know, trying to focus on in
this hearing are areas of coordination and collaboration among
the States and Federal agencies. And so, Mr. Davis and General
Peabody, I appreciate your indicating the level of enthusiasm
that the various partners have shown, at least at this stage,
in working together and coordinating.
But some of the experience that I think we have here with
the Chesapeake Bay and the restoration of the bay and the
coordination of efforts within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is
that it really does require both presidential leadership, an
agency that is really designated to coordinate, and, of course,
a Congress that commits the resources that it takes to match
the enthusiasm of the participating States.
And there is a piece of that that seems lacking here, in
terms of really designated coordination. And, Mr. Davis, I
would appreciate your commenting on that. Because some of the
things that we learn about the bay and our other regions with
invasive species, you know, are transferable, and we don't
always have to start from scratch. And I wonder if EPA has some
thoughts about that and what we might gain in terms of its
application with the Great Lakes region.
Mr. Davis. Sure. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
I think you have pointed out a good trifecta. Presidential
leadership: check, we have it. Agency coordination: check, we
have it. Funding: check, we have it.
What we haven't had, to me, in the past is a roadmap that
clearly tells the public who has to do what by when using which
sources of funding. There hasn't been any one place that people
can go to say, okay, if I am interested in the locks issue,
here is where I go to find out about it. If I am interested in
fishery carp suppression, population suppression measures, here
is where I go to find out who is in charge of that, when are
they going to act, how are they going to fund those efforts.
That is why the release of this yesterday is so absolutely
critical. Because, for the first time ever, what we have done
is we have pulled together those answers, in terms of what
actions are going to be taken, by whom, when, and what the
funding sources are.
So there is nothing about this situation where, as much as
we all would love to see this, where any one person or any one
agency can simply pull a lever and this problem goes away or
mitigates itself in some way. But what we can do is clearly
articulate what the authorities are, which agencies are
undertaking which actions, and what the expectations are for
when those actions will be started and completed so there is
some sense of accountability.
I think communicating that accountability structure has
been something that we have desperately needed. And I think we
have, with this framework, a very good tool for ensuring that
accountability.
Ms. Edwards. And do you have any thoughts as to whether you
have the tools that will be applicable across administrations
and across Congresses?
Mr. Davis. Well, I wish I could predict the future with a
lot more clarity than I have been able to do so far. So it is a
great question, and it is a tough question to answer.
I do think that it is worth a try to see this. This
framework just came out yesterday, and I think we need to give
it some time to bake and for us to take action with it.
Ms. Edwards. But you don't have a statutory tool?
Mr. Davis. For coordinating?
Ms. Edwards. That is right.
Mr. Davis. Under Clean Water Act Section 118, the EPA does
have authority to coordinate actions among the Federal
agencies. So I think that that is clear. We have invoked that
authority for purposes of this particular issue.
I think the real question on the table is, have we been
able to act fast enough? And I think the clear answer is, no,
we haven't. I know I have been mindful of and trying to draw
attention to this issue for more than a half a decade. And now
that I am in the job, now that we have invoked that authority,
I think we are getting some traction here.
Ms. Edwards. Do any of our other witnesses have a comment
about the need for that authority more directly than through
the Clean Water Act?
General Peabody?
General Peabody. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Let me just make clear what I understand the Corps'
authorities to be and their duration. The authorities that we
have specifically related to this issue are derived from the
authorities to build, operate, and maintain the fish barriers,
first of all.
Second, the study authorities that we have, which are two-
fold--one is the so-called efficacy study, again authorized in
WRDA 2007, which tells us to find out whether the fish barrier
is effective, one of the issues that people have articulated
here. We have a variety of things that we are doing to address
that, to include an interim report (approved by Secretary Darcy
last month) to go ahead and work on these flood bypass
potential avenues that Dr. Lodge talked about along the Des
Plaines River and the Illinois-Michigan canal during flood
events.
The third authority is the Great Lakes/Mississippi River
Interbasin Study, which is the long-term part of the strategy
that both Mr. Davis and I talked about in our testimony.
What we don't have is authority for execution in all cases.
We have a stop-gap authority that was in the 2010 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act, Section 126, which gives the
Secretary of the Army emergency authority to take unspecified
measures to prevent Asian carp from dispersing northward of the
barriers and into Lake Michigan. That is a 1-year authority
that expires a year from the enactment, which I believe is
October 28th of this year.
We have used that authority to execute the construction of
these flanking waterway barriers that I just referred to. We
will continue to use that authority going forward through the
rest of the year to execute some of the ideas in our modified
lock operations concept. But we lose that execution authority
when it expires at the end of this fiscal year.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional
questions, but if we are going to go back around, I will save
them.
Mr. Oberstar. Before I go to Mr. Petri, I think we need a
midcourse review. And I would suggest that we convene,
optimally this panel again, not necessarily in a hearing, but
in a roundtable discussion that would be public, and get your
assessment of where matters stand, where progress is being made
by the Corps, by this interagency group on the control
strategy, so that, as I have discussed informally with Mr.
Petri, that is sort of a point of importance for the
appropriations cycle. If we need to do something further,
appropriations measures are an effective means of doing so. If
we need more funding or we need additional authority that we
can include in an appropriations bill, that all would be agreed
upon, that would be a legislative action, that would be the
time to do it.
So we will share our thoughts on what might be an optimal
time to do that, and we will notify you. But I want all of you
to be thinking about early to mid May.
General Peabody. When it is warm, that would be preferable,
so that it is not snowing.
Mr. Oberstar. Ahead of the hurricane season and after the
snow melts, and come together to discuss where we are, where we
are going, where we need to go.
Mr. Petri?
Mr. Petri. Well, we are going to be having other meetings,
I guess, so I just had one quick question that I--do these carp
have any natural predator in our system or where they come
from--I guess it must be somewhere in Asia, southeast Asia or
wherever--in their own habitat? Or are they at the top of their
particular situation?
Yeah, Dr. Hansen?
Mr. Hansen. I think we should assume that they have no
natural predators here, but neither did the common carp. And if
you give almost any of our native predators a choice, they seem
to like common carp. So they do tend to select fish with soft
rays.
I don't think we should persuade ourselves that the fact
that other fish will eat them will actually impede them from
colonizing these Great Lakes and doing great harm. We should be
pleasantly surprised that they are feeding some of our native
fishes, but that is not really the point, is it? Because they
are likely to do their damage in the way that they interact in
the food web.
And because they interact in the food web at a low level,
they could well have the same sort of catastrophic effects that
we have seen from zebra mussels, where they have essentially
rerouted the food chain and led to wholesale changes. And our
secretary from the State of Michigan pointed out that Lake
Heron just recently underwent a dramatic shift in how that
whole ecosystem was structured, probably owing to how zebra
mussels restructured things. So the Asian carp is a very
different animal but in the same position, and almost certainly
its damage will be caused through that mechanism.
And I would also like to say that I agree completely with
Dr. Lodge. These animals will almost certainly be harmful, not
helpful. So we probably could see some benefits because
something will eat them, but it is more likely they will be
very, very damaging.
And another point probably needs to be made. The deep cold
portions of the Great Lakes probably aren't where these animals
are going to be happiest. They are going to be happiest in the
near-shore waters, where we have an abundance of streams they
can swim into to spawn, where we have warmer waters that will
be more suitable. But those are also some of the most
productive systems in the Great Lakes. And history would
already show us that, at the peak of their productive
potential, Lake Erie outproduced all the Great Lakes combined.
And one species, the cisco, produced more fish production than
all of the rest of all the species in the rest of the lakes
combined.
So Lake Erie is probably the one at greatest risk, and the
near-shore waters of Saginaw Bay and Green Bay, where we have
extremely valuable fisheries. Those are probably the places
where this animal will do its greatest damage.
Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Petri.
Just to supplement that, so eagles, fish hawks, osprey have
no interest in the carp?
Mr. Hansen. I certainly didn't mean to say that. Carp are
probably----
Mr. Oberstar. No, you didn't, I know. But you say they
really don't have much challenge from predators. Given the
abundance in the Illinois River----
Mr. Hansen. They are almost certainly being eaten by
things.
Mr. Oberstar. An eagle is not going to pick up a forty-
pounder.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, right.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, Dr. Lodge?
Mr. Lodge. If I can just add and build on your point, even
if juvenile silver or bighead carp provide food for native
fishes, the problem is the size of those specimens over there.
And those are perhaps average size, not even big ones. There is
no predator that is going to be able to consume an adult. So,
from a biological perspective, we refer to that as a size
refuge. These fish grow very quickly to a size where there will
be no predator where they can be consumed.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, the idea of a fish that has no stomach
and must continually process water is astounding.
And, Dr. Hansen, I understand they can be smoked and some
people might eat them, but they are rather bony, aren't they?
Mr. Hansen. They do support native fisheries in their
native range. And I guess you could always say, well, that
would be a benefit. But, gosh, I hope we don't go there. So
they are probably perfectly suitable in some forms for food.
And obviously they could support the same kind of economies
here if we let them loose, but hopefully we wouldn't.
One more point about their colonization ability, it seems
to me this animal is built to colonize new habitats. These fish
grow very fast, and you can see how big they get. Those fish
are probably--you would need to look at their ear bones to
figure out how old they are, but they are probably only 7 or 8
years old. They mature at a very young age, and they produce
lots of eggs. So they are built to colonize these habitats. So
if you let too many out, the odds are much, much better that
they will get a foothold.
So I think you can probably rest assured that Dr. Lodge
detected fish upstream of that barrier. His methods are
convincing and proven. The idea now is, is it enough? Are there
enough up there to start this off? We should hope there are
not. And we should probably try at least to get rid of the ones
that have gotten above there.
Mr. Oberstar. I think we are all agreed on that point.
General Peabody, what is the rate of flow of the current
through the ship canal? And it is from Lake Michigan into the
Illinois River; therefore, fish have to swim against that
current. So a large fish can do that rather readily, I suspect.
What is the smallest size?
And then, Dr. Lodge, if one of these carp females can
produce 50,000 to a million eggs, can those eggs make their way
all by themselves against the current?
General Peabody. Sir, with reference to the current, it is
very slow in the Chicago Area Waterway System. As Mr. Davis
talked about, it is very flat topography. And even though 1
billion gallons of water sounds like a lot, it is not a lot
when you consider the web of canals and rivers that----
Mr. Oberstar. Well, in cubic feet per second, what is the
rate?
General Peabody. It is less than a foot per second,
generally, sir. Now, that varies with whether or not you have
rains, and it picks up during that period. But in terms of how
the fish behaves, I would defer to the fish experts on the
panel.
Mr. Oberstar. Dr. Lodge?
Mr. Lodge. I think you asked specifically if the egg could
go upstream, and the answer to that is clearly no. But what is
clear from the studies that many other biologists have done--I
am thinking of Duane Chapman at USGS and the book produced by
Cindy Kolar at the USGS which reviews work from around the
globe--it is clear that adult Asian carps of both species are
oriented toward swimming upstream, particularly in search of
spawning areas.
And that is what you see in the canal, both from
traditional work and from our work. They seem to stack up below
barriers, below structures. And when they are in the spawning
mood, they are swimming upstream and can readily do so against
substantial currents.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, the experience with salmon, which have
to swim against tremendous currents in the Fraser River and in
the Yukon and elsewhere on the west coast, you see them going
against the falls, and the drive to spawn is just so powerful.
And those are much smaller than these large-scale carps, so
they have huge power.
Director Humphries, it was the State of Michigan that
initiated legal action, and that action was denied by the U.S.
Supreme Court, but the underlying issue of authority to act was
not addressed by the Court.
What motivated the State of Michigan to initiate the
lawsuit? Will the State be satisfied now that there is enough
Federal-State multi-agency coordination, a concentrated
program, a clear strategy to attack this issue? Will they be
satisfied now to continue cooperating, coordinating?
Ms. Humphries. We will continue to cooperate and coordinate
with our sister States. We have been an active participant
despite the lawsuit. We worked as part of the rotenone
treatments that were done last December with our sister
agencies, and we will continue to do that.
Will it satisfy our legal challenges? No. I will tell you,
our attorney general office refiled this case last week. The
decision was made before the latest DNA information was made
public, and so they have refiled.
What is at the crux of this is really where we are going
with this long term. Is our goal to biologically, ecologically,
and physically separate these watersheds or is it not? And that
is what, in our conversations with our other agencies and with
the Federal Government, we have tried to ascertain, is what is
our long-term goal here. Because it does make a difference in
terms of how we approach the short-term strategies.
We applaud the efforts that have been done to coordinate
activities. We applaud the effort that has been done by the
Federal agencies to bring funding to this and to Congress. But,
quite frankly, we need to do more. And we do not feel that
continuing to operate the lock structure and the opening
waterways that are in place and poisoning off those waters on a
regular basis in order to facilitate that is a sustainable
strategy.
Mr. Oberstar. So, in short, the State of Michigan welcomes
the efforts under way but does not consider them to be
sufficient.
Ms. Humphries. That is correct, at this point in time.
Mr. Oberstar. General Peabody, in Louisiana, many, many
years ago, it was believed to be a great benefit to shipping to
dig an additional channel to New Orleans from the Gulf, the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, commonly known as "Mr. Go." On
the order of six or so freighters use that waterway annually.
What was perhaps not anticipated--or if it was, it was
dismissed--was that the waterway would allow saltwater to
penetrate all the way up to New Orleans. In that action, the
area between Lake Borgne and the Mississippi River was
destroyed, the wetlands with huge reeds and plant growth that
proved to be the barrier against surges in storms and in
hurricanes from Lake Borgne, such that St. Bernard Parish in
Hurricane Katrina was not just hit by water, it was washed
away.
The force of the surge from Lake Borgne, with nothing
standing in its way, swept away--I was there just 6, 7 months
after Katrina and took a photograph of the first home that bore
the brunt of that storm. All that was left was a commode. That
porcelain piece dominated the landscape. It was the only thing
that was left. There were no watermarks on the homes of St.
Bernard Parish because they were all overtopped. And several I
saw were lifted up with their concrete base and floated as much
as three blocks away from home until they ran into another
object that didn't move.
And this is all, sort of, parenthetical. But the owner of
the home that didn't move and was struck by a moving home sued
the intruder for collision damage. And I asked him why. He
said, "Well, there is nothing else for us to do. No one is
fixing our problem here."
So we moved, in the Water Resources Development Act of
2007, to close off--give the court authority to close off "Mr.
Go" and divert the Mississippi River, reintroduce fresh water
and sediment, and to hopefully in time restore the wetland that
once was the buffer for St. Bernard Parish, which is the home
of the Islenos people, the Canary Islanders who came to that
area in the 16th and 17th century.
So is it possible that closing off navigation, closing off
the outlet from Lake Michigan would be the definitive answer to
movement of carp into Lake Michigan and the rest of the Great
Lakes?
General Peabody. I think your question gets to the heart of
the matter, sir.
If I could get the topography slide up, not the structural
operations. Great. Thank you.
Sir, as Mr. Davis indicated in his testimony, this is
relatively flat topography. If you look, it is a little bit
hard to see on the slide, but there are some green dots along
the edge of Lake Michigan in the Chicago area. Starting from
north to south, you have the Wilmette Pumping Station. And then
in the heart of Chicago, you have the Chicago locks and
controlling works. And then a little bit further to the south
of that, near the bottom of the dark yellow aspect of the
slide, is the O'Brien Lock, a little bit inland, about eight
miles inland from the lake. Those are the only potential
physical obstacles, for aquatic species to move between Lake
Michigan and the Chicago Area Waterway System above the fish
barrier.
If you will notice, to the south and east of the O'Brien
Lock and Dam, there are two waterways--and it appears there are
three egress points into Lake Michigan; there are actually only
two: the Grand Calumet River to the north and the Little
Calumet River to the south. You are familiar with them, sir, I
know. And both of those egress into Lake Michigan through the
Indiana and the Burns Harbor, respectively.
So one of the challenges that we have is, in addition to
the authority that the Corps has to operate those locks and
dams for purposes of navigation--and there are some other
associated purposes, such as water flow management and flood
damage reduction--if we were to close the locks, this would
need to be shown to be effective as impediments to Asian carp
migration.
We are actively studying--I want to emphasize this--
actively studying whether or not we should close the locks, but
we need a vast amount of information to assess impacts and
consequences on both sides of the equation; not just impacts
and consequences to the Great Lakes but the impacts and
consequences to commerce, transportation, flood damage
reduction, and so forth in the Chicago area system. This is a
very complex issue. There are orders of magnitude impacts,
second- and perhaps third-order impacts, that we cannot yet
understand until we complete our studies, and we are going
forward with our studies to do that.
In the meantime, we are actively studying this concept of
modified lock operations, which would envision operating the
locks differently than we do today. This concept is just an
idea that we are still considering. I hope to give Secretary
Darcy a recommendation early next month, about a month from
now. But the concept would be, instead of just operating the
locks so whenever traffic shows up we allow it through, we
could do a variety of things to impede, not prevent, not stop,
but impede Asian carp migration through those structures.
They could include such things as maximizing traffic
through the locks so we reduce the total number of openings and
closings of the lock gates. They could include taking actions
in areas near the locks that would attack the Asian carp
populations that might be present so that, when we do have
periods where the locks are open for navigation traffic, there
is a lower or reduced likelihood that the Asian carp might pass
through. And they could include putting screens during flooding
events in the locks, as well as the sluice gates, which need to
be open for reverse flows to prevent really massive flooding in
the Chicagoland area.
The bottom line is, whatever measures we take, they need to
be effective. And we definitely need to take actions along the
Little Cal and the Grand Calumet Rivers in association with any
actions we are considering to take along the locks.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you for that thorough and complex
response. I appreciate it very much. The question is a hard
one. It has to be asked, and I asked it in the context that I
did because I think it is very instructive for us to learn from
the experience of the lower Mississippi River.
And I appreciate very much, also, your attention,
attentiveness to the consequences for navigation or shipping
for commerce as well as the environmental importance of this.
We cannot have one instead of the other or say they cancel each
other out. I think we have to do this in the context of the way
you presented it. I think that is well thought out.
Mr. Petri?
Mr. Petri. No, I am fine.
Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Edwards?
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of questions for you, Professor Lodge and Dr.
Hansen, about biology.
Can you tell me, Professor Lodge, what a positive test for
Asian carp DNA means on the likelihood that a live carp has
passed by the location where the sample is taken? And I think
that there is some variation in terms of how long that sample
lasts to show presence.
And, also, if you could answer for me whether there is some
entity that coordinates research about the biology of the carp,
its habitat, et cetera, and who pulls all that together.
Mr. Lodge. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards.
Your first question, what does a positive DNA result mean?
With a very high probability, it means that a live carp has
been or is close by or close upstream within the last 6 to 48
hours. That is what I believe it means.
While it is possible that--I mean, you can imagine a number
of scenarios by which DNA might be present without a live carp
being present, while there are possibilities, they are not very
plausible. And they are certainly insufficient to explain the
overall repeated spatial pattern that I showed you in the
canal. So when we have been back to places three or four times,
the result is the same.
So, while there are other possibilities, they are not a
plausible explanation for the overall pattern. So the short
answer is, it means there is a live fish close by, and it has
been there in the not-very-distant past.
Your second question is about----
Ms. Edwards. About coordination of research.
Mr. Lodge. I think there is no entity. There may be other
panel members who can speak to that better. I think perhaps the
framework document and the plans that were put out yesterday
may be the closest thing that exists to a coordinated plan of
study of Asian carps. But others may have a more informed
answer than mine.
Ms. Edwards. If not, I mean, I guess my question goes to
whether, for example, we know enough about the reproductive
cycle to begin to interfere with that? And what research is
available, for example, that might tell us whether we could
perhaps pretreat vessels coming through so that it would
potentially kill eggs passing through? Things like that.
Because, I mean, there must be some way that, either
through your university research or other research, that the
participating States are able to identify the need-to-know list
and then check that off to get to some of the prevention
efforts that I think, Dr. Hansen, in your testimony, you
indicated a need to focus more on that prevention. And I don't
know how you do that without identifying and coordinating
research.
Mr. Hansen. I agree with Dr. Lodge, I don't think any
single entity coordinates all the research. But the thing to
remember about these animals is that they have been fairly well
studied in their native range, so the overall biological
attributes that they have are fairly well understood.
And that information was essentially assembled in the two
risk analyses that were done, one in the U.S. by the people
that Dr. Lodge mentioned and there was a companion or similar
piece done in Canada. So we know quite a bit about their
biology.
And the studies that have been done on the Illinois River
by researchers in Illinois basically converge on the same sort
of information. Hence, we know that they have a fundamental
ability to grow fast, get large, have lots of eggs. We know
approximately when you would expect them to spawn, what they
look for.
And those elements of their biology were used in the risk
analysis to essentially say, we think we know where they will
live, like these near-shore waters or shallower, cooler
habitats, and they are probably not going to like the really
open, colder waters. They would likely want to spawn in
streams. So we would find them in those areas.
I think many of the things we would want to know from a
control perspective we probably already know. The question is,
what tools do we have to bring to bear on some of those control
methods?
We studied the lamprey very hard to find a very specific
toxicant that would target its juveniles when they were living
in streams. And we got maybe lucky or not, but we have found a
chemical that has worked and is the primary thing that we fire
against them. We don't have that same sort of technology
sitting there waiting for the Asian carp, so we would have to
think about this more broadly and employ some of the things we
can do, like catch them. We now apparently can detect them at
fairly low numbers using Dr. Lodge's technology, but what do we
do to control them?
That is what I meant about we don't have a lot that we have
in the gun right now that we could shoot that specifically aims
at these species. The things we do know are more general, like
rotenone, like fishing, and those sorts of things.
Ms. Edwards. But rotenone just kills everything.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, absolutely. It is not specific like the
chemical we deploy for lampreys. And that is obviously what the
best thing would be. If we had a chemical you could throw into
the river and it only killed carp, that would be great.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, this idea of biological control, I
remember at the height of the zebra mussel concern, some
researcher said, "Oh, we have found a diving duck in the Black
Sea that eats the zebra mussels, and maybe we could bring that
over here." My first question was, who is its control? There
are so many of these control mechanisms in species that we have
brought in to control a runaway creature or plant that then
become runaway on their own. Whoever or whatever that creature
is, let's not bring it in, because they will become a menace on
its own.
Well, before I close, I want to ask unanimous consent for
Members who were not able to be present today to submit
questions in writing to members of the panel and for you to
submit responses for the record.
And, secondly, I will ask staff to work with the
stenographer team to produce the transcript as soon as possible
so we can distribute it to Members who were not able to be
here, for them to review and upon which to ask for their
questions.
But now we have been firing at you. Do you have any
questions for each other or for us? It is not like church, you
know. You don't have to pray about this.
Mr. Wilkins?
Mr. Wilkins. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just come back to
underscore one point around the sense of urgency.
And the Federal framework currently in place, I mean, it
has promising measures that we all support. And I think that if
it comes down to looking at modified lock schedules or
something of this sort, we would highly recommend that we
exhaust every other option to stop the carp or impede the carp
before we look at the effectiveness of closing the locks, and
certainly take time to understand that.
We work closely with the Corps of Engineers and with the
Coast Guard. AWO has had a long history of that type of
collaboration and working-togetherness, and we think we can
apply that to this measure, as well.
Mr. Oberstar. All right. No question about the AWO and
their participation and their cooperation. It is a great
organization, and they have a very balanced view on matters of
this kind, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Brammeier?
Mr. Brammeier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to draw some attention to something you noted
earlier, which is that these next few years are a tremendous
opportunity. You pointed out that we have a Great Lakes
President who understands what the lakes means to the region.
This is a great time to be thinking about thinking big and what
we need to do, not just in the short term to stop these fish
from getting in tomorrow, but how we can make changes for the
long term so we don't have to be here 5 or 10 years from now,
having this same discussion.
So now is certainly the time, and this is a tremendous
opportunity to think big about solving this problem.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. And the Chair intends to seize
this opportunity and pursue it, as we did in the Water
Resources Development Act and in the Coast Guard authorization
bill that has passed the House twice and is languishing over in
the place I affectionately called the black hole, the other
body. It is a galactic black hole. You know what happens in
outer space? Stars become bigger and bigger, and finally they
condense and collapse upon themselves, becoming enormous powers
and suck everything else into it, from which not even light can
escape. That is what is happening in the other body.
None of you need comment, but that is the way I feel about
them. This Committee has sent them a lot of legislative
authority; they just haven't acted on it. So we are hoping that
maybe some light will escape from the other body and we will
see something happen.
But we have put in place a framework within which EPA for
ballast water will set the standard and the U.S. Coast Guard
will be the implementing agency, drawing upon all other
authorities and resources from the Great Lakes and the
universities, the intellectual capabilities that we have. And
we had in place a protocol and an agreement with one of the
lake carriers on the Great Lakes and Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory to test various methods of treating ballast
water, both for the lakers and for the salties. And something
fell apart. We just couldn't get it together at the right time.
Actually, we needed further authority in the Coast Guard bill
that we passed; the Senate never acted on it.
Those are the kinds of missed opportunities. Let's not miss
that opportunity here. So we will convene this group again in
May in the understanding that this is a continuing effort.
Today's hearing is not definitive.
Your work is much appreciated. I know that my colleagues on
the Committee were very much looking forward to this testimony,
to this day. And I know that Mr. Petri will continue to support
the effort and lead, as he has done, in cooperation with Mr.
Ehlers, Mrs. Miller, and others on our committee.
Mr. Petri, any final comment?
Mr. Petri. No, just thank you, and thank all of you for the
time that you have put in preparing this testimony. And we hope
you make it safely back whence you came.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, we wish you all a safe journey home,
despite the Washington snows.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]