[Senate Hearing 111-386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-386
ASIAN CARP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
EXAMINE THE SCIENCE AND POLICY BEHIND THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK AND
NONFEDERAL EFFORTS TO PREVENT INTRODUCTION OF THE AQUATIC INVASIVE
ASIAN CARP INTO THE GREAT LAKES
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-102 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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, Great Lakes Regional Center, National
Wildlife Federation, Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes
Coalition, Ann Arbor, MI....................................... 42
Carl, Leon, Midwest Area Regional Executive, United States
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.................. 6
DeBeaussaert, Ken, Director, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes,
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Lansing, MI... 28
Durbin, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From Illinois.................
Farrell, Jim, Executive Director, Infrastructure Council,
Illinois Chamber Infrastructure Council Waterway Committee,
Chicago, IL.................................................... 35
Hayden, J. Michael, Secretary, Kansas Department of Wildlife and
Parks, Topeka, KS.............................................. 25
Miller, Marc, Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources,
Springfield, IL................................................ 32
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan................ 1
Sutley, Hon. Nancy H., Chair, White House Council on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 3
Taylor, John C., Associate Professor and Director of Supply Chain
Programs, School of Business, Wayne State University, Detroit,
MI............................................................. 38
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 57
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 69
ASIAN CARP
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie
Stabenow presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Good morning. I'd like to call to order
this Water and Power Subcommittee hearing. Very much appreciate
all of the witnesses and everyone who has traveled here today.
We do have an exhibition, I understand, of what would be
viewed as the more baby, smaller, Asian carp. If they do start
to smell too much, please let us know and we will--you know, if
the--if we need to move them, we will. But, we appreciate the
fact that they've been brought in to just demonstrate--even
with these smaller ones, not yet grown--what we are up against,
in terms of the fish, the size, and so on, that we'll be
talking about.
It's my pleasure to welcome you, and I know that my ranking
member, Senator Brownback, will be joining us this morning. We
appreciate having one of his constituents from Kansas joining
us on the panel today, as well.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the science and
policy behind the Federal framework and the non-Federal efforts
to prevent introduction of the aquatic invasive Asian carp into
the Great Lakes.
In 2003--I want to give you an example of what we have been
hearing, in terms of the threat to the carp on individuals, as
well as on the Great Lakes--in 2003, a woman named Mary
Poplett, from Peoria, Illinois, decided to enjoy some
unreasonably warm October weather with a little jet skiing in
the Illinois River. As she cruised the waves, the sound of her
ski's motor excited a 30-pound Asian carp swimming under the
water, which leapt out and crashed into her. Image being hit in
the face by a bowling ball, which is what she said it felt
like. She broke her nose and fractured a vertebrae, knocking
her unconscious. She would have drowned if other boaters hadn't
stepped in and saved her life.
Mary's not alone. Since Asian carp were introduced to
control algae in catfish ponds down south in the 1970s, the
carp have spread at a rapid pace, causing injuries, destroying
ecosystems, and threatening entire industries. They are a very,
very serious threat to our Great Lakes.
As you can see, these fish like to eat. The two that are in
front of us are viewed as ``baby fish.'' The Bighead Carp
killed in Illinois weighed 92 and a half pounds.
Because Asian carp don't have a true stomach, they can't
store food between meals, so they are constantly eating. Every
day they eat 40 percent of their bodyweight in plankton. Their
incredible appetites mean that other fish are left to starve.
You can see the effect on other fish species in areas where
infestation is greatest. Asian carp now make up 90 percent of
the fish in the water, which should be an alarm to all of us.
Now these fish are on the verge of invading the Great
Lakes. If they do, they could easily destroy our $7-billion
fishing industry and our $16-million recreational boating
industry, among other things, including what we view our way of
life in the Great Lakes.
Invasive species in the Great Lakes have already
contributed to significant decline in fish populations. Asian
carp could completely unwind the food web, with devastating
effects for our existing fish populations.
Today's hearing will explore solutions to this very serious
threat. The Asian Carp Working Group, made up of State and
Federal agencies, has developed a framework for Asian carp
control, which will be the focus of our hearings today. That
framework call for short-term and long-term actions to stop the
spread of the Asian carp and protect the Great Lakes.
I've introduces S. 2946, the CARP Act, along with Senators
Brown, Schumer, Gillibrand, Franken, and Feingold--and this is
a companion to a House bill introduced by Congressman Dave
Camp--that includes many of the short-term actions included in
the framework, with one notable exception. Our bill calls for
the immediate closure of the Chicago Canal locks until a
permanent strategy is developed. For thousands of years, the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River ecosystems were separated,
until the construction of artificial canals and locks
connecting them. Continuing threats of invasive species,
especially the Asian carp, make it clear that we need to return
to some kind of permanent separation of the two ecosystems.
This strategy was endorsed on Monday by the Great Lakes
Commission, a group made up of 8 States and 2 Canadian
provinces that border the Great Lakes. We want to talk about
that today, as well.
So, I'm very pleased that all of you are here. I look
forward to the testimony. When Senator Brownback joins us, I
will turn to him for opening comments.
But, let me proceed with our first panel, and we welcome
The Honorable Nancy Sutley, chair, White House Council on
Environmental Quality. We very much appreciate your leadership
and participation.
Dr. Leanne Carl, director of the Great Lakes Science Center
in the U.S. Geological Survey, from Ann Arbor Michigan.
So, we welcome both of you, and I would ask that The
Honorable Nancy Sutley proceed.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY H. SUTLEY, CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you for
holding this hearing, and for your leadership on this issue.
Invasive species, as you said, have been--long been a
serious threat to many of our great ecosystems around the
United States. The Great Lakes, in particular, has been
attacked by invaders such as the zebra mussel and the round
goby. For this reason, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
identified combating invasive species as one of its areas of
focus.
As you noted, the Great Lakes face perhaps their most
serious threat from an invasive species yet, from the Asian
carp. We think, however, there's a chance to stop this invasive
species before it becomes established in the Great Lakes. This
will require urgent coordinated action across all levels of
government--Federal, binational, State, and local--pursuing
immediate-term and long-term actions.
The Obama administration is engaging in this approach and
working urgently to prevent these fish from establishing
themselves in the Great Lakes.
We have a unique opportunity to prevent the environmental
and economic harm that this invasive species could cause.
Earlier this month, 4 Federal agencies--the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of the Interior, and the U.S. Coast Guard--in cooperation with
State and local agencies, developed the draft Asian Carp
Control Strategy Framework.
The framework encompasses more than 25 short- and long-term
actions, at an estimated cost of $78.5 million, to keep the
Asian carp from becoming self-sustaining in the Great Lakes.
The scale of this effort is unprecedented for invasive species
control. Agencies are currently taking action and have outlined
several short-term actions for the spring.
Operationally, agencies have already deployed field crews
for electroshocking and netting operations within the waterway.
Work is underway to reduce the turnaround times for the eDNA
verification efforts that will give us a more accurate and
timely picture of the movement of Asian carp.
A contract will be awarded this spring for construction of
structures to block passages between the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River, which will prevent fish
movement around the electric barriers in the event of flooding.
Construction and operation of a third electric barrier will be
funded from Recovery Act in 2010 appropriations.
Also, the Army Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service are looking at ways to use Chicago's
navigational locks to impede carp movement. In the near term,
that means looking at how they can be kept closed more
frequently and, in the long-term, evaluating what it would mean
to permanently close them. A plan is being developed right now
which will modify lock operations, as appropriate, this spring.
A final recommendation, following the assessment, will be
presented to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works in the next couple of weeks.
Before any decision is made about the locks, we need to
consider and understand the increased flood risk to
northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana, reduction in
the flow of commerce into the Chicago area, and slower local
and Coast Guard emergency response on the waterway.
The framework also identifies several long-term research
efforts to provide significant tools for Asian carp management.
This includes the development of control methods by USGS--and
I'm sure my colleague will address those--where researchers are
looking at carp-specific poisons and pheromones, and methods to
disrupt spawning and egg viability.
The framework also includes the Army Corps of Engineers
Inter-Basin Transfer Study, which examines the technologies and
techniques to reduce invasive species transfer between the
Mississippi River and the Great Lakes aquatic basins. The
Chicago Area Waterway portion of this study, which includes an
analysis of permanent lock closure and of ecological
separation, is expected to be completed in 2012.
Because regional coordination is critical to this effort,
Federal, bi-national, State, and local partners held public
meetings this month to seek feedback on the draft framework,
and, in addition, Federal agencies recently met a number of the
Great Lakes Governors at the White House to discuss
coordination and the most effective response to this threat.
Let me close with this: We are making progress in this very
daunting challenge that lies before us. The Congress has made a
commitment to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and
provided $475 million to meet the initiative's goals, including
fighting invasive species and preventing the introduction of
new species. The Obama administration is committed to working
in partnership with Congress in this regard, and we are also
taking immediate, aggressive, and coordinated efforts to manage
and control the Asian carp threat. While we have a long path
ahead, what I understand the scientists are saying, we can be
successful in this effort.
I welcome the ongoing dialog on this issue and thank you
again for the opportunity to testify, and for your leadership
on this issue.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley Chair, White House Council
on Environmental Quality
Thank you Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Brownback for
holding this hearing.
Invasive species have long been one of the most serious threats to
our ecosystems. The Great Lakes in particular have been devastated by
invaders such as the zebra mussel and the round goby. For this reason
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) identified combating
invasive species as one of its five areas of focus. The Great Lakes now
face perhaps their most serious invasive species threat yet from the
Asian carp. This time however, we have a chance to stop an invasive
species before it becomes established in this important ecosystem. This
will require an urgent and coordinated approach across all levels of
government--Federal, State, and local--in pursuit of immediate and
long-term actions. Federal officials within the Obama Administration
are engaging in such an approach and are working urgently toward a
single goal--to prevent these fish from establishing in the Great
Lakes.
Today we have a unique opportunity to prevent the environmental and
economic harm that this invasive species could cause. Recognizing this,
earlier this month, four Federal Agencies, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of the Interior, and the U.S. Coast Guard, in cooperation with state
and local agencies, developed the draft Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework (Framework).
The Framework, guided by the latest scientific research,
encompasses more than 25 short and long-term actions at an estimated
cost of $78.5 million to keep Asian carp from becoming self-sustaining
in the Great Lakes. The scale of the effort described in the Framework
is unprecedented for invasive species control, unifying Federal, State,
and local action and introducing a multi-tiered defense of the Great
Lakes to immediately prevent Asian carp from developing self-sustaining
populations in the Great Lakes while longer term control methods are
developed.
Federal and State Agencies are taking action right now on netting
and fishing Asian carp in the rivers and channels that connect the
Mississippi Basin to the Great Lakes. A set of actions are being
planned for this spring and summer when fish begin moving again, and
long-term planning to deal with Asian carp and other invasive species
is underway.
SHORT-TERM ACTIONS TO COMBAT ASIAN CARP
Agencies have outlined several short-term actions for this spring.
Operationally, Agencies have already deployed field crews for electro-
shocking and netting operations within the waterway, particularly
around warm-water discharges where Asian carp may be wintering. Work is
also underway to reduce turnaround times for eDNA verification efforts
and to double testing capacity to 120 samples per week, which will
provide a more accurate and timely picture of Asian carp migration.
Using GLRI funds from an interagency transfer between EPA and the
Corps, a contract will be awarded this spring for construction of
structures to block passages between the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal and the Des Plaines River, which will prevent fish movement
around the electric barrier in the event of flooding, when the two
water bodies mix. Construction and operation of a third electric
barrier (IIB) will be funded from both the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and appropriations from the 2010 Energy and
Water Bill. The electric barriers remain our best defense and these
efforts will fortify them.
Also, the Army Corps, Coast Guard, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service are looking at ways to use Chicago's navigational locks to
impede carp movement. In the near term, that means looking at how they
can be kept closed more frequently, and in the longer term, developing
an evaluation of what it would mean to permanently close them. A plan
is being developed which will modify lock operations, as appropriate,
this spring, and a final recommendation following this assessment
process should be presented to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works in the next several weeks.
As you know, lock closure is a complicated issue. Before any
decision is made we need to consider and understand the increased flood
risk to northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana, reduction in
the flow of critical commerce in the Chicago area, and slower local and
Coast Guard emergency response on the waterway. While fish movement is
limited this winter, agencies are considering all these issues and are
developing a recommendation for modified lock operations as quickly as
possible. In addition, it is critical to note that even a complete
closure of the Chicago and O'Brian locks would not serve as an absolute
barrier to fish movement. Alternate river paths to Lake Michigan exist,
which are not blocked by locks, and separately the locks are not
watertight, which may allow fish passage even when closed.
LONG-TERM ACTIONS TO COMBAT ASIAN CARP
The Framework identifies several long-term research efforts that,
used individually or in concert, will inform decision makers and
provide significant tools for Asian carp management.
What is likely to be the most important long-term research involves
the development of control methods by the United States Geological
Survey at the Department of the Interior. Researchers are looking at
Asian carp-specific poisons and pheromones--as well as methods to
disrupt spawning and egg viability using sonic and light barriers.
The Framework also includes the Army Corps Inter-Basin Transfer
Study, which examines technologies to reduce invasive species transfer
between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes aquatic basins. The
Chicago-Area Waterway portion of this study, which includes an analysis
of permanent lock closure and of ecologic separation, has been
expedited and is expected to be completed in 2012. The Framework also
identifies activities to reduce downstream populations of the carp. It
calls for educational and enforcement tools to prevent Asian carp from
being sold or purposefully transferred, an investigation of Asian carp
transfer in ballast and bilge water, and other Asian carp research.
FEDERAL, STATE AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
Because regional coordination is critical to this effort, and to
the overall health of the Great Lakes, Federal, bi-national, state, and
local partners held two public hearings earlier this month in Illinois
and Michigan to seek feedback on the draft Framework. In addition,
Federal agencies recently met with Great Lakes Governors at the White
House to discuss the strategy to constrain the spread of Asian carp and
ensure coordination and the most effective response to this potential
threat across all levels of government. Finally, efforts to stop Asian
carp migration will be strengthened with participation from water users
including the commercial and recreational fishing and navigation
industries and environmental groups, and their input is being
solicited.
CONCLUSION
Let me close with this: we are making true progress on the
challenge that lies before us. Six months ago, Congress made a
commitment to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and provided $475
million to meet the Initiative's goals. An additional $300 million is
requested for FY 2011. One of the focus areas in the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative is the management and control of invasive
species in the Great Lakes, including preventing the introductions of
new invasive species. The Obama Administration is working in
partnership with Congress in this regard and has taken an immediate,
aggressive, and coordinated approach to manage and control the Asian
carp threat. And, moving forward, while we have a long path ahead, the
best scientists have said that we can be successful in this effort and
prevent Asian Carp from invading the Great Lakes.
We welcome any input the committee, its members, or your colleagues
in Congress would like to provide as we continue to work together and
in collaboration with state and local agencies to fight the spread of
Asian carp into the Great Lakes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. Carl.
STATEMENT OF LEON CARL, DIRECTOR, MIDWEST AREA REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Chairman Stabenow. I thank you again
for the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Geological Survey
research on Asian carps in support of efforts to prevent their
establishment in the Great Lakes.
My name, again, is Leon Carl. I'm the regional exec for the
Midwest area for the USGS.
Today, I will briefly describe the USGS efforts to
understand the biology and distribution of Asian carp in the
U.S., as well as new and ongoing USGS research in the Federal
Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework.
The mission of USGS is to provide reliable, impartial, and
timely scientific information. This information is used by
resource managers and policymakers at the Federal, State, and
local levels to make sound, science-based decisions.
USGS scientists have assisted in developing the National
Asian Carp Management and Control Plan, participated in the
Interagency Asian Carp Rapid Response Team, organized research
symposia, and have been involved in local and regional research
and control planning efforts. USGS has been the primary Federal
agency conducting ecological research on Asian carp for the
past decade.
The 2 primary science roles for USGS related to Bighead and
Silver carp, collectively referred to as Asian carp, include
tracking and reporting the geographic distribution of these and
other invasive species in the U.S., and providing research and
data to better understand the biology and manage populations
effectively.
USGS has provided information on the geographic
distribution of Asian carp populations since they became
abundant in the Mississippi River drainage. These data are
delivered online to the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species data
base.
USGS has synthesized and interpreted data and literature on
the basic biology, life history, uses, and consequences of the
introduction of Asian carp around the world, and developed a
risk assessment for the U.S. The synthesis serves as an
important information resource for researchers and natural
resource managers, including the Fish and Wildlife service in
its determination regarding the addition of Asian carp as
injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act.
Early ecological research conducted by USGS on Asian carp
focused on understanding their basic biology and life history
requirements in the U.S. This information underpins nearly all
areas of the potential research to manage and control these
species. Field data demonstrate that Asian carp are affecting
some of our native filter-feeding fishes. Additional details on
the USGS research were submitted in our written testimony. Most
current and planned USGS research on Asian carp has progressed
to the--to focusing on more complex ecological interactions and
more specific methods to control Asian carps.
USGS is identified as the lead agency to address nine
action items in the Asian Carp Framework. These include
projects on Asian carp prevention, detection, and control. The
primary chemical control project will investigate the
feasibility of incorporating toxins or bioactive compounds into
an oral delivery system to target Asian carp without harming
other species. Using this technology, toxins, identified
through collaborations with pharmaceutical and agrochemical
companies, would be encapsulated into a molecule that would be
filtered by Asian carp as they feed. Once ingested, the toxin
would be activated and the fish would die. This technology
could also be used to target other invasive species, such as
quagga or zebra mussels, and would reduce the amount of
chemicals released into the environment.
Building on completed preliminary research under other USGS
projects, we are looking at pursuing the feasibility of using
carp pheromones to improve control efforts. Releasing
pheromones may help us to attract or repel Asian carp and
enhance the effectiveness of more effective--or more
traditional control methods, such as netting or electro-
fishing.
Another control project under USGS will evaluate the
possibility of disrupting spawning behavior, as well as
repelling or killing Asian carp using sound waves. If
successful, this technique would be implemented quickly to
limit the distribution and abundance of Asian carp.
In conclusion, the USGS science has provided significant
contributions to our understanding of Asian carp biology and
their impact on U.S. rivers. This information has proved
valuable for our partners as they develop plans to prevent and
control the expansion of Asian carp populations. However, there
is still much to learn as Asian carps threaten new ecosystems.
The USGS is committed to continuing our research and new
efforts to develop control methods. We look forward to
continuing our collaboration with our local, State, and Federal
partners.
Thank you very much, Chairman Stabenow, for this
opportunity to testify. I would be happy to take any questions
you or other members might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leon Carl, Midwest Area Regional Executive,
United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Chairwoman Stabenow and members of the Subcommittee, I am Leon
Carl, Regional Executive of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Midwest
Area. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of the
Interior's (Department) efforts regarding the science and research on
Asian carps in support of the Federal Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework (Framework) to prevent the establishment of Asian carps in
the Great Lakes. Also included in this statement is a summary of on-
going Department efforts to address other aquatic invasive species in
the Western United States (U.S.).
The USGS, the science arm of the Department, conducts research to
understand the interrelationships among earth surface processes,
ecological and biological systems, and human activities. In support of
the science, the USGS partners with other Federal and State agencies,
tribal governments, and non-governmental organizations to provide the
science needed to help resource managers address critical and complex
natural resource issues.
Today, my testimony will provide background on the biology of Asian
carps, explain the Department's response to growing threats from
bighead and silver carps, and describe what we are learning about these
fishes as they became established and abundant in the great rivers of
the central U.S. I will end by describing on-going and new USGS
research efforts to address the threat of Asian carps to the Great
Lakes using the newly drafted Framework.
BACKGROUND
Bighead and silver carp (collectively referred to as ``Asian
carps'') filter bacteria, algae, and zooplankton from the water
column--elements at the base of aquatic food webs. Asian carps were
imported into the U.S. in the early 1970s as biological control agents
for nuisance algal blooms in wastewater treatment plants and
aquaculture ponds, as well as for human food. They escaped from those
uses, were first captured in the wild in the 1980's, and quickly became
the most abundant large fishes in parts of the Missouri, Illinois, and
Mississippi rivers. Both bighead and silver carps grow quickly and
become large as adults, often averaging about 10 pounds in U.S. rivers.
Records for both species approach 100 pounds, but in the U.S. silver
carp over 20 pounds and bighead carp over 30 pounds are uncommon.
Schools of silver carp often jump from the water, particularly in
response to passing motorboats, sometimes reaching heights of 10 feet
in the air. When jumping silver carp intersect with boaters or boat
equipment, serious injuries or damage can result.
Through time, Asian carps have steadily moved upstream through the
Illinois and Des Plaines rivers into the Chicago Area Waterway System
(CAWS). Because of the propensity of these fishes to outcompete native
fish species in ecosystems they invade, great concern exists over the
possibility of Asian carps colonizing the Great Lakes. Their
establishment could threaten an important recreational and commercial
fishery (valued at over $7 billion dollars annually) and the well-being
of native species.
GROWING ASIAN CARP CONCERNS
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 established the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF), an
intergovernmental entity including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), USGS, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and
Bureau of Reclamation within the Department, five other Federal
agencies, and 12 Ex-officio members. The ANSTF is co-chaired by the
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
encourages Federal and State agencies to establish partnerships to
augment work with partners to enhance collective efforts to address
aquatic invasive species issues.
In response to threats from Asian carps, the ANSTF established an
Asian Carp Working Group in 2003. Led by the Service, this stakeholder
group of private and public sector fisheries professionals,
aquaculturists, and aquatic ecologists developed a comprehensive
national Asian carp management and control plan. The final plan,
Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps
in the United States, was approved in 2007 and included input and
authorship from several USGS scientists. Most USGS research on Asian
carps has focused on national goals to reduce feral populations,
conduct research to provide accurate and scientifically valid
information for effective management and control, and to effectively
plan, implement and evaluate the management and control of bighead and
silver carps.
ROLE OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The USGS has been the primary Federal agency conducting ecological
research on Asian carps for the past decade. USGS scientists have
participated in various interagency efforts during this time including
assisting in the development and writing of the national Asian carp
management and control plan, participating in the interagency Asian
Carp Rapid Response Team, organizing research symposia focused on Asian
carps, and have been involved in local and regional research and
control planning efforts. The two main USGS science roles in regard to
Asian carps have been to track and report their geographic distribution
in the U.S. and to provide research to improve understanding of the
biology of these fishes in U.S. ecosystems to better manage
populations.
MONITORING THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF ASIAN CARPS IN THE U.S.
The USGS has been involved in monitoring the geographic
distribution of Asian carps since they became abundant in the
Mississippi River drainage. The primary means of delivering
distributional data on invasive aquatic species is the USGS
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov). The
database was created by the ANSTF with the goal of providing timely,
reliable data about the presence and distribution of nonindigenous
aquatic species using a National Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Information Center with: (1) a data repository and geographic
information system; (2) a mechanism to allow sources such as
researchers, field biologists, anglers, and others to report detection
and occurrences of nonindigenous aquatic species; (3) transfer of
information to interested parties; and (4) rapid communication of oral
and written information. Real-time maps can be produced by users with
the most recent distributional data reported. These maps are widely
used by our partners and are frequently used by various media. The NAS
database is perceived as a valuable resource by our partners and
reporting distributional information on Asian carps to the NAS database
is an objective in the Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black,
Grass, and Silver Carps in the United States.
The USGS continues to collect valuable distributional data on Asian
carps as part of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP),
which is implemented by USGS in cooperation with the five Upper
Mississippi River System (UMRS) States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin), and with guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. LTRMP personnel collect data on water quality, aquatic
plants, macroinvertebrates (e.g., larval insects, worms, crayfish), and
fisheries throughout the year using standardized protocols across six
study reaches in the UMRS. The objective of the LTRMP Fisheries
Component relates to collecting quantitative data on the distribution
and abundances of all fishes and communities in the UMRS. Therefore,
protocols are not specific to Asian carps. Much useful data on the
presence and abundance of these fishes has been collected, however, and
these data continue to be reported to the NAS database and used by
partners.
HIGHLIGHTED USGS RESEARCH ON ASIAN CARPS IN U.S. WATERS
In 2002, Congress petitioned the Service to list black, bighead,
and silver carps as Injurious Wildlife under the Lacey Act. To help the
Service address the petition, USGS collected and interpreted
publications on the basic biology, life history, uses, and history and
consequences of their introductions around the world, and developed an
environmental risk assessment for the U.S. that led to the publication
of Bigheaded Carps: A Biological Synopsis and Environmental Risk
Assessment. This report, later published as a book, synthesized and
interpreted information and data on bighead and silver carps from
scientific literature from around the world and made it more
accessible, and is seen as a foundation for understanding the biology
of these fishes both in their native ranges and as invaders in U.S.
rivers.
When USGS researchers began studying Asian carps in U.S. waters,
not enough was known about their basic biology to use traditional
fisheries management tools. For instance, a basic tool of fisheries
management is to model population growth. To develop a population
model, some basic parameters must be known, such as body length of the
species at known ages and the number of offspring produced. In the case
of Asian carps, these parameters could not be estimated because not
enough was known about Asian carps to even collect these data.
Throughout the world many different anatomical structures of bighead
and silver carps have been used for aging individual fish but there had
not been a comparison of methods to determine the most reliable. USGS
researchers collected a wide variety of aging structures from known-age
fish and conducted such a comparison. Data analysis is still ongoing in
this study, but it is clear that some structures provide more reliable
age estimates than others. In gathering data from sources around the
world, it became apparent that the timing and frequency of spawning of
bighead and silver carps varied widely. Estimating the number of
offspring an individual female could produce for population modeling
requires data on the timing and frequency of spawning. USGS researchers
completed such a study on Asian carps in the Missouri River and found
that the spawning time of these fishes was much longer in their
introduced ranges than in their native ranges and that individual
females can have multiple spawns of portions of their eggs over that
extended period of time.
A fundamental understanding of Asian carp biology and life history
requirements in U.S. waters underpins nearly all other areas of
potential research to manage and control these species and completing
key basic biological studies on Asian carps has been an early research
focus of USGS. For example, one study examined the diet and diet
selectivity of bighead and silver carps in the Missouri River and one
of its tributaries. Another, a 2-year telemetry study examined the
movements and habitat selection of bighead and silver carp captured
from the Missouri River and a prominent tributary. As part of this
study, side-scan sonar was used to image and map available habitats of
the tributary.
Predicting the potential range of an invading species can help
guide monitoring efforts of natural resource agencies. Therefore,
gaining an understanding of factors limiting distribution can prove
valuable for natural resource managers. Water hardness has been
proposed as a factor potentially limiting the distribution of Asian
carps. If true, water hardness could be used to predict areas in which
Asian carps could and could not survive. However, studies by USGS
scientists have shown that bighead and silver carp egg survivorship is
not substantially affected by water hardness suggesting that this
factor would not be helpful in predicting potential distribution.
Results from diet studies indicate that excessive filtering by
Asian carps can affect native fishes. In a collaborative study between
Florida State University and USGS examining diets of Asian carps and
native filter feeding fishes found substantial dietary overlap between
bighead carp and both bigmouth buffalo and paddlefish. Similar dietary
overlap was found between silver carp and gizzard shad, suggesting
competition between these species could occur when food resources are
limiting. Preliminary results from a study in which USGS is a
participant with many partners indicate that excessive filtering by
Asian carps can even affect Asian carps. Data from this study indicate
that Asian carps are quite robust when they first invade an area, but
that they become thinner after they have been established for a few
years.
While conducting initial field research on Asian carps to
understand their fundamental biology, USGS researchers also initiated
two studies to assess efficacy of traditional fisheries management
chemicals on controlling Asian carps. Both studies found that the
susceptibility of Asian carps to rotenone and antimycin were similar to
those of native fishes. Results of these studies helped inform
development of the Asian Carp Rapid Response Plan, which was
implemented in December 2009 to poison a 5.7-mile stretch of the CAWS
when the electrical barrier (Barrier IIA) in Romeoville, Illinois, was
de-electrified for scheduled maintenance.
The USGS also completed initial experiments to determine whether
naturally-produced Asian carp pheromones could be used to better
control the distribution or reduce the population sizes of these
fishes. For instance, many members of the minnow and carp family are
known to have alarm pheromones that are released from traumatized skin
and cause an alarm reaction in members of the same or closely-related
species. In preliminary laboratory studies, juvenile bighead and silver
carps exhibited a significant avoidance of skin extracts from members
of their own species. Alarm pheromones could potentially be introduced
into areas near locks to keep Asian carps from entering into these
structures and gaining access to additional areas to colonize.
The USGS researchers also conducted a study to support an objective
of the Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and
Silver Carps in the United States that encourages the development of
markets for bighead and silver carp flesh. Ensuring safety of consuming
flesh of Asian carps is paramount to this objective. USGS collaborated
with the Saint Louis Zoo to collect bighead and silver carps from the
Missouri River and to analyze tissues for organic and inorganic
contaminant concentrations. Data analysis revealed contaminant
concentrations lower than in native fish from the same area and
acceptable for human and animal consumption.
NEW USGS PROJECTS ON ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ASIAN CARPS IN THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER DRAINAGE
As research on Asian carps in the Mississippi River drainage has
progressed from basic to more complex research questions, additional
effort has been placed on examining ecosystem level effects of these
fishes. In FY10, USGS has two new studies looking at more complex
ecological interactions of bighead and silver carp on large river
ecosystems.
The first study will examine whether excessive filtering of
planktonic resources by Asian carps has altered the flow of essential
fatty acids in the Upper Mississippi River System to such an extent
that these effects are cascading through different trophic levels of
the ecosystem. Specifically, this pilot study will determine if the
abundance and quality of food resources for aquatic waterfowl have been
affected by filter feeding by Asian carps.
A second study will seek to determine the mechanism by which Asian
carps negatively affect fishes with larvae that share open water areas
with feeding Asian carps. It is unclear if the observed negative
effects are due to competition for food resources or if the Asian carps
are actually eating larval fishes. To examine this phenomenon further,
USGS researchers will determine whether bighead carp can prey
effectively on larval fish when the larvae of native fishes are present
in relative abundance using genetic barcodes.
USGS AND THE ASIAN CARP CONTROL STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
The USGS is identified as the lead agency to address nine of the 31
action items in the Framework. One action focuses on preventing further
spread of Asian carps; two more actions will aid in Asian carp early
detection and rapid response efforts; another will assess the effects
of bighead and silver carps on plankton resources in the Great Lakes,
and five additional actions will focus on developing control strategies
for Asian carps.
Short-term Action 2.2.7 addresses preventing further spread of
Asian carps in the U.S. This research project will identify other
pathways in addition to the CAWS that could allow even intermittent
water flow between the Mississippi River watershed and the Great Lakes
resulting in the exchange of species between basins. The USGS will work
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other partners to help
identify these places and the hydrologic conditions during which
invasive species could be transferred.
Two USGS action items in the Framework address Early Detection and
Rapid Assessment (EDRA) of Asian carps. Short-term Action 2.1.11 will
build on preliminary screening of tributaries of the Great Lakes
identified in earlier USGS research as potentially supporting spawning
of Asian carps. This research project will further refine predictions
about suitable spawning locations in the Great Lakes for these fishes.
Speculation exists as to whether adequate plankton resources are
available in the Great Lakes to sustain Asian carps. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that these fishes are more flexible in their feeding methods
than previously believed and understanding their ability to use a
variety of food resources is important in understanding where these
fishes may be able to survive in the Great Lakes. Short-term Action
2.1.12 will examine the ability of bighead and silver carps to use food
resources in addition to plankton.
Intensive filtering of planktonic resources by bighead and silver
carps can lead to dramatic changes in those communities. One potential
outcome observed in the literature is an increase in toxic bluegreen
algae blooms. Long-term Action 2.2.14 will examine the potential
ecosystem-level effects of bighead and silver carps on toxic algal
blooms in the Great Lakes.
Three of the USGS action items in the Framework involve developing
species-specific chemical control methods for Asian carps. The primary
chemical control project is Short-term Action 2.1.6. No method
currently exists to control Asian carps or quagga and zebra mussels
without treating the entire water column and euthanizing all fish and
likely all mussels in the area treated. In this project, USGS will
investigate the feasibility of using recent advances to incorporate
toxins or bioactive compounds into a targeted oral delivery platform to
achieve species-specific control. USGS researchers have developed a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with a private company,
Advanced Bionutrition Corporation, to use their patented oral delivery
platform. Using this technology, fish toxins, perhaps rotenone, would
be encapsulated into a neutrally-buoyant molecule of the preferred size
filtered by bighead and silver carps. The molecule would remain safe
and stable until the toxicity is triggered by something unique in the
physiology of the targeted species, perhaps mucous on the gill rakers
or the pH of the gut of bighead and silver carps. Delivering toxic
doses of chemicals to Asian carps or zebra and quagga mussels in this
manner would not only allow for species-specific control, but would
require the release of lesser amounts of chemicals into the
environment. This project is supported by Short-term Action 2.1.10. In
one additional action item, Short-term Action 2.1.8, USGS researchers
will work with a pharmaceutical or agrochemical company to identify
chemical toxicants that may be specifically toxic to bighead and silver
carps. Once identified, these chemicals would be tested on Asian carps
as well as native fishes to examine selectivity.
Preliminary research completed by USGS researchers on Asian carp
pheromones showed promise in using these compounds to either attract or
repel bighead and silver carp from specific areas. Using pheromones in
combination with other control methods may provide substantial
efficiency and efficacy in achieving population control. Short-term
Action 2.1.7 will allow USGS to further pursue the feasibility of
exploiting Asian carp pheromones to enhance containment or control
efforts.
The last USGS action item identified in the Framework is Action
2.1.9. This research project evaluates whether it is possible to
disrupt spawning behaviors of bighead and silver carps using sound
waves. Sound waves of particular amplitudes and frequencies can alter
fish behavior. This project will identify sound wave amplitude and
frequency that elicit silver carp avoidance behavior to disrupt
spawning aggregations and limit recruitment.
HIGHLIGHTS--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM
Reclamation has been active in a wide-range of efforts to combat
invasive species that impact the management of our facilities or cause
damage to habitats. Reclamation is concentrating on ways to prevent
invasive species infestation, develop early detection/rapid response
measures, support control and management actions, conduct targeted
research, restore habitats damaged by invasive species, extend outreach
to the public, and strengthen coordination with our managing partners.
For example, in Arizona and California, Reclamation partners with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other federal and state agencies,
and the Palo Verde Irrigation District to control invasive aquatic
weeds such as giant salvinia and parrotfeather. In California,
Reclamation cooperates with the State agencies on hydrilla control.
Approximately 450 acres of hydrilla have been controlled, and over
3,000 acres of ponds, canals, and rivers have been surveyed. In New
Mexico and Arizona, Reclamation participates in the Multi-Species
Conservation Program by controlling nonnative fish to benefit
threatened and endangered native species. In several states and in
collaboration with other agencies, Reclamation is performing research
and demonstrating control and habitat restoration of salt cedar
infested areas. In Washington State, Reclamation is conducting habitat
restoration along the Yakima River.
Reclamation's greatest invasive species challenge is limiting zebra
and quagga mussel introductions into the western states. These mussels
arrived in the United States from Europe in the 1980s and spread to
many Eastern state waterways. They have now spread into the Western
states and as a result, Reclamation is concentrating on proactive
measures, in close coordination with other Federal, state, and local
entities, to help reduce the post-introduction spread and impacts of
mussels at Reclamation facilities. An invasive mussel corporate task
force has been established across Reclamation to focus on the
development and implementation of a four-part strategy both on a
regional and a Reclamation-wide basis. Reclamation has continued
investigations to develop and implement facilities protection
technologies (filtration for cooling water systems, biologically based
pesticide product, and coating systems to minimize or prevent mussel
attachment to critical infrastructure).
Reclamation received funding through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 which will be expended for monitoring
and detection at high priority water bodies in the western U.S. Nearly
200 reservoirs will be studied. Early detection of mussels enables
facilities protection actions before impacts to infrastructure and
water resources are realized.
Reclamation has developed an Equipment Inspection and Cleaning
Manual which emphasizes prevention through inspection and cleaning of
various types of equipment. Reclamation has also developed a
comprehensive Integrated Pest Management Manual to assist field
personnel in diagnosing and treating pest and invasive species
problems. Reclamation has provided leadership to develop the Quagga-
Zebra Action Plan (QZAP) for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Reclamation is also an active participant in the Western Regional Panel
for Aquatic Nuisances Species and assisted in the development of the
Columbia River Basin Rapid Response Plan. Reclamation has held numerous
training sessions, and hosted a Western Invasive Mussel Management
Workshop in May, 2009. Further information has also been posted on
Reclamation's mussel website http://www.usbr.gov/mussels/
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, USGS science has made significant advances to
understand both the biology and the impacts of Asian carps on river
systems. This information has proven critical for our partners as they
develop prevention and control efforts. However, there is still much to
learn as the Asian carps have the potential to enter new ecosystems.
USGS is committed to continuing our ongoing efforts and to assisting in
new efforts, aimed at developing control methods. We look forward to
continuing our collaborative efforts with our local, State, and Federal
partners.
Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony on USGS research to address the expansion of Asian carps in
U.S. waters. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other
Members of the Subcommittee might have.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Dr. Carl.
I've been joined by our ranking member. Senator Brownback,
welcome. Thank you----
Senator Brownback. Thanks very much.
Senator Stabenow [continuing]. So much, for coming.
Senator Brownback. Sure.
Senator Stabenow. We're to have you make any comments.
Senator Brownback. I don't have an opening statement that I
want to make orally. I do have one that I want to submit for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas
Senator Stabenow, it's a pleasure to be here today, and I thank you
for chairing this important hearing.
I am pleased to join you in welcoming the witnesses and members of
the public. Particularly, I would like to note the presence of Mike
Hayden, former governor of Kansas and current Secretary of the Kansas
Department of Wildfire and Parks.
The issue of aquatic invasive species has been a growing threat to
the environmental, economic, and overall health of our national lakes
and waterways. One such species, and the topic of today's hearing, is
threatening the viability of one of our nation's most precious bodies
of water.
While Asian carp were initially introduced in the United States as
both a commercial food source and as a mechanism for cleaning bodies of
water, the ability to control their migration and dominance of local
ecosystems has proven a monumental task for state and federal wildlife
groups.
In Kansas, as Secretary Hayden can attest to, we have had extensive
experience dealing with invasive species. While I understand the Great
Lake states have a unique situation in managing shared bodies of water,
it is my hope that by examining our successes and failures, we can
provide some guidance on what is the best approach for mitigating
further damage these species cause to local communities and ecosystems.
As a government we share the critical goal of providing all people
within the United States access to a reliable, safe and secure water
supply. It is essential, though, to balance this need in a manner that
considers the dire economic climate our nation currently faces.
I say this hopefully as a guide for Michigan and Illinois as they
work to find an appropriate solution that will balance the need to
prevent the spread of Asian Carp while maintaining the robust movement
of goods throughout this region.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for your presence and thank you,
Senator Stabenow, for conducting this hearing.
Senator Brownback. I do appreciate the panel that is here.
Particularly, the next panel up has a dear friend of mine,
Governor Mike Hayden, that's now secretary of wildlife and
parks for State of Kansas. Very knowledgeable. So, I'm looking
forward to his testimony, and others.
I do note that this is quite an extraordinary issue, and
I've seen a lot of press on it. So, I'm really looking forward
to learning more of the technical issues on it and then how
best it is that we might be able to address it. So, this is
certainly good information for me for policy formation. I
appreciate you holding the hearing.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. As you will see,
that we have 2, what are referred to as ``baby carp.'' We
understand that there was one that attacked a woman in the
Illinois River that was up to 92 and a half pounds and jumping
out of the water, causing her to be unconscious, so--but this
gives you some example of--at their--at the small end, what it
looks like. So----
Let me first, Dr. Carl, ask you to talk a little bit more--
there's been some debate about whether or not the Asian carp
would find the Great Lakes suitable as a habitat. Of course,
again, looking at a $7-billion sport fishing industry and a
$16-billion-a-year recreational boating industry, I mean, this
is a--is important question for us. I wonder if you might
describe a little bit more, in terms of your answer, as it
relates to whether or not they would find the lakes suitable as
a habitat, and what effect they have on our ecosystems as a
whole. What areas of the Great Lakes are more likely to be
affected by the Asian carp were they to sustain themselves?
Mr. Carl. Thank you. That's quite a question.
I think we already know that we've captured fish that have
grown--the Bighead carp in Lake Erie--so I think the answer to
the first part of that is: It is likely that they would be able
to grow and mature in quite a few parts of the lake--the lakes.
The key question might be, Can they reproduce in the Lakes?
One of the very restrictive requirements that they have is, it
seems to be 100 kilometers of stream--of large flowing
turbulent water is needed at this point. What we base that on
is--a lot of literature indicates that they haven't been
successful if that amount of fast-flowing, large river is
available.
We have concerns about that. The principle, I think,
limiting factor may be that the eggs, when they first come out
of the female, are very dense and very small, and they go--they
grow very much, they take on water, and they harden. At that
time, they would sink to the bottom, and they probably would
smother. It takes about an hour for that process to be
completed, so that high velocity, turbulent water would be
necessary.
We're concerned that it may not be necessary to have a full
100 kilometers of stream. Even if it is 100 kilometers of
stream, USGS has identified 22 rivers in the Great Lakes where
they would be--on the U.S. side only--be possible for them to
spawn. They may not be large enough or turbulent enough.
However, one of the concerns I have--and it gets to your
question about where they might do well--are the connecting
channels. If you look at the connecting channels, the St.
Mary's has 120 kilometers of stream, the Niagara River is 58
kilometers, St. Clair is 58, and the--the Detroit River is 56
kilometers. So, there may be enough for them to spawn there. If
they are successful in spawning--particularly, let's say, the
St. Clair River; immediately downstream you have--Lake St.
Clair would be a good place for larval fish to grow. So, that
might be an area that they'd concentrate on. They do like
concentrations of plankton, they are filter feeders most of the
time, so that the areas--large embayments, such as Lake St.
Clair, that the larvae would do well; the western basin of Lake
Erie, I think, would also be an area; perhaps Saginaw Bay,
Green Bay, and some of the larger embayments; and Lake Ontario,
as well. So, those would be areas that they would likely
concentrate on.
We do have concerns--and it's in part of our control
strategy--looking at other methods of feeding. We know that the
Bighead carp will feed on detritus. That's the muck,
essentially, on the bottom. So that there's real opportunity
for them to eat on that, even where the plankton may be sparse
caused by our quagga and zebra mussels. The silver carp
apparently will eat algae mats. We have cladophora mats
throughout the Great Lakes, so there is a good opportunity for
these fish to grow in other places, as well.
I'm not sure I've completely answered your question, but
there--areas would be--that they would concentrate would be in
the--some of those large embayments.
Senator Stabenow. Basically, for anyone not knowing
Michigan, you're talking about large population centers--
Detroit River, St. Clair River, St. Clair--Lake St. Clair, or
Saginaw Bay--a lot of people. A lot of people involved in
recreation or fishing activity or commercial activity.
I'm wondering, though, based on what you're saying, if we
should be monitoring other Great Lakes tributaries this spring.
Mr. Carl. I have had discussions with Charlie Wooley, who's
the deputy director of the--one of the east--of the Fish and
Wildlife areas that's involved with this. I think we're going
to be looking at, with the EPA and the Corps, a surveillance
plan as we move forward. We have been looking at these control
measures and--so much concentrated on the canal right now, but
eventually I think we're going to do that.
One of the projects that we have put--proposed and has been
funded is to look at modeling to try to predict where we would
find the fish spawning. That's probably the place--the best
place to try to detect them, because they'd be concentrated.
So, we would be looking at that. I would think we would use a
tool like the eDNA to try to detect them in river systems and
surveil the ones that we think are the most likely to have
them. That we might be able to put into effect this summer. I
can't predict that, because that's a management action. But, we
would certainly be working with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the State and tribal agencies, to try put that in place as
quickly as possible.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
To Ms. Sutley, we thank you for your leadership, and for
the resources that you've put together, and the efforts that
have been made. We see a tremendous difference having a Great
Lakes President with the resources that have been available to
the Great Lakes. We want to continue to move forward, not only
on this critical issue, but on other issues that are absolutely
critical to 20 percent of the world's fresh water, called the
Great Lakes.
I wonder if you would speak to the fact--again, there's a
difference when we look at legislation that has been introduced
versus the plans that have been put together. Short-term
efforts are similar. But, the--one big area relates to whether
or not to temporarily close the locks until there is a
permanent plan put in place.
I'm wondering if you might explain the administration's
position on the locks, and a little bit more of how we do an
intermittent lock closure. From a layperson's standpoint, you
know, the fish are moving all the time. So, it's hard to
explain why we would choose to close the locks part of the
time, when we know these fish--again, who are eating
continually and moving continually--are not going to read the
signs and know, ``Monday, Wednesday, Friday''--you know, I mean
it--it's--so, there's a concern that I have about whether or
not we are acting with a sense of urgency. I know people feel a
sense of urgency, but are we acting with a sense of urgency
about the reality of what is happening, what we have seen on
the other side of the locks, from the eDNA, and what we know to
be coming? I mean, time is of the essence. So, I'm wondering if
you might just speak to the issue of the locks.
Ms. Sutley. Certainly. Thank you, Senator.
As I've said, we share the sense of urgency. As I
understand, we have crews from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and from the Illinois DNR, who are out on the water right now--
they have been all winter--doing sampling and electro-fishing
and netting, and trying to make sure that, while there's not a
lot of movement, because of the winter, they're still keeping
an eye, looking in the areas where the eDNA has been found,
looking at where there are warm water discharges, to just--to
ensure that we're keeping an eye on things and really focused
on getting some answers by the springtime, with respect to the
operation of the locks.
So, the Army Corps of Engineers will make a--an--a
recommendation, as I said, within a few weeks, to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, about lock operations
for the spring and for the foreseeable future.
I think that the questions are complicated. I think--I know
everybody would like a simple answer, but it is a little bit of
a complicated situation. First of all, the locks were not
designed to be waterproof, so it's not entirely clear--and,
again, something that the Corps is looking at--whether closing
the locks would prevent--entirely prevent fish passage. The
second set of issues are that we do need to understand the
impact--the potential impact of lock closures on flooding in,
not only the Chicago area, but throughout northeastern Illinois
and northwestern Indiana--what happens to the commerce that's
moving there currently, how to deal with the wastewater
discharges into--the treated wastewater discharges into the
canal, and also that it's used for emergencies by the Coast
Guard and others. So, those are things that are being
discussed.
With respect to whether modified lock operations, as
opposed to closing it off entirely--how--and I think it's a
fair question to ask--the fish, they may be big, but I don't
think they're that smart----
Senator Shabenow. Right.
Ms. Sutley [continuing]. That, really, right now the
situation is that the--as I understand it, the canals are
operated--the locks are operated on the show-and-go, so anybody
who shows up with a boat, the locks are opened. So, one thing
that the Corps is looking at is restricting the time that the
locks will be open, so that it isn't on demand, that it would
be some period of time, and then also looking at other things
that they would be doing while the locks were open. So, whether
further application of rotenone or other chemicals, also
surveillance and netting and electro-fishing, and other things
that they would be doing while the locks were open.
So, that's all under consideration. As I said, we expect a
recommendation, shortly, to be given to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works.
Senator Stabenow. I'll turn to my colleague here in a
moment, but let me just ask, at this point, though, one other
thing that--I realize this is the Army Corps, so you can't
answer directly, but it is of great concern to me when we hear
about--that a study that will be completed in 2012 regarding
options. Again, very hard to listen to when we know that these
fish are on the move and that we have an immediate situation
happening. So, I'm hopeful that you will join us in developing
a strategy to be able to move much more quickly and not have
just a study on what could be done, but, given the Great Lakes
Commission recommendation and the Governors coming together,
and others, that we would zero in on and really focus on the
ecological separation that they recommended, and be more
focused on how to do that.
I very much appreciate--I'm not at all insensitive to what
the current situation means to Chicago, in terms of flooding or
commerce, and that those are not insignificant, and that we
need to address those, that--certainly. But, we can do that in
a way that is--a way that allows us to protect the Great Lakes
and address those issues. My concern is when we talk about
timetables and we have the Army Corps looking at 2012. You
might as well just, you know, start looking out for the carp,
because I--that's too late. We have to create a much quicker
turnaround, I think, to do this. So----
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Senator Stabenow. I appreciate
that.
Dr. Carl, I was looking through your testimony, and you
were going to talk, as well, about other invasive species.
Obviously, this is a big fish to deal with, and a huge problem,
and I want to hear more about this, as well, but zebra mussels
are ones that are hitting more of the west United States and
places in my State, and I wondered if you had any, just,
thoughts of how we're doing on those control efforts or what
needs--what more needs to take place.
Mr. Carl. A couple things, I think. One, since their
discovery in January 2007 in the lower Colorado River, the
quagga mussel has spread to additional waters in the western
U.S. Early detection provides the greatest potential for
implementing effective and rapid response and management
actions to--designed to minimize that impact.
The USGS, through our Western Fisheries Research Center, is
conducting a project, in collaboration with Washington State
University, to develop and implement comprehensive approach for
monitoring and evaluating capabilities--looking at evaluating
capabilities essential to managing these invasive species in
the Colorado River system, and I think that can then be brought
to other ones.
A second point that I would make is the biomatrix that
we're discussing for the Asian carp, we're also proposing to
use that with the quagga or zebra mussel, depending on what
infestation you have. In that case, we do know there is a
bacterium, called pseudomonas, that is toxic to the--both
species. What we're looking at is packaging that--again, in a
bio-matrix--encapsulating it in a molecule, and then being able
to distribute that over the bottom, and basically treating and
controlling them that way. I think that might have good, strong
applications in the West, as well as the Great Lakes.
We us a strategy, with the Great Lakes Fish Commission and
the Fish and Wildlife Service, with the sea lamprey control,
and we might envision something similar to that with both of
those species to try to control those. It's not a solution that
would eradicate them, but it was something that you could
reduce their population numbers to the point where they
wouldn't have the impact that they currently have, both in the
Great Lakes and some of the western reservoirs that we're
seeing now.
Senator Brownback. Now, when you say doing--you're looking
at doing this, or are you doing this in places now?
Mr. Carl. The first priority, with the Great Lakes
Restoration money, is the work on the Asian carp and finding a
toxin for the Asian carp. We are also starting to develop that.
We have--with the resources we have, we can work on the Asian
carp first. Then the second priority would be to work on the
quagga and the zebra mussel control, as well.
Senator Brownback. So, you are researching this, at this
point in time, but you're not using it anywhere? Is that what
you're saying?
Mr. Carl. That is correct.
Senator Brownback. But, you think this same biomatrix that
works on the Asian carp can work on the zebra mussel?
Mr. Carl. It would be different in formulation, because,
with the Asian carp, they're filter feeders, and we want
something that's buoyant, that they would capture in their gill
structure and then ingest, and then the toxin would dissolve in
their gut. That's what we're thinking right now.
With the mussels, they are on the bottom, so it would be
something that would sink to the bottom. It would encapsulate a
specific toxin that we already have--that have--we have
identified, and put that on the bottom. So, it would be
slightly different, but it's the same--we're working with a
private company that has a patent on it, and we have an
agreement with them, and we would be looking at the same kind
of work. Potentially, you could use this for other species, as
well.
But, I mean, we're looking for field trials, we're--our
estimate is, we'd be in field trials with the Asian carp in 18
months. I can't predict where we would be with the--with the
current resources, I can't predict where we would be with the
other--this other species, zebra and mussel--zebra and quagga
mussels.
Senator Brownback. Some frame beyond 18 months.
Mr. Carl. Yes. That's correct.
Senator Brownback. Do you think you're moving fast enough
on these things?
Mr. Carl. I think there's a tremendous urgency to these--
both of those issues, both the zebra mussel, and quagga mussel,
and the Asian carp. I think we are doing what we can with the
resources that we have, at this point.
Senator Brownback. So, I take it you don't think you're
moving fast enough.
Mr. Carl. I think that we are doing what we can. I guess I
would repeat what we have said before. I think--is there room
for improvement? Potentially, there is.
Senator Brownback. In my--years ago I was secretary of
agriculture in Kansas, and loved the job. It was a great job. I
would see we'd--at times, we'd introduce things, or plants,
into the State to do one thing, and it ended up taking over and
doing something else, which we hadn't counted on at the time,
but weren't smart enough, or didn't have enough study, to see.
It was sure my experience. But, boy, the--you know, to get out
there ahead of something, you've just got--your options get
much better, and your dollar amounts are much less, and your
possibilities for success are much higher, that speed does have
an impact on these things. Or if you even want to try to
biological control systems. I don't know--I didn't hear you say
any sort of biological-type control system--I don't know if
those are even possibilities on something like this. But, my
experience with these has been, you're much better off getting
out there faster, even if you--even if you don't have the
resources you really would like to have, you get out there with
what you've got, faster rather than later, and you're going to
be a lot more effective with it. Because once they get
established, as you know, it's just--it becomes much more of a
task to get on top of them.
Mr. Carl. I agree.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. This is interesting. I'll
look forward to the next panel, too.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
We're very pleased to be joined by Senator Bayh. Welcome.
We would encourage you to ask questions.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Madam chairman. I apologize for
being late. As both you and Senator Brownback are well aware,
I've--or are very familiar with--I found myself trying to
accomplish the impossible by being in two places at the same
time. We are, on the Banking Committee, hearing from the
chairman of the Federal Reserve today about the state of the
economy. So, I needed to complete my time there.
So, for the members of the audience who don't follow these
things, that's why I'm late, and I apologize. It was not out of
a lack of interest. On the contrary----
Senator Brownback. You've got the Fed or the Asian carp?
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I was interested, chairman. Did the committee
provide the Asian carp here today?
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Bayh. I can't wait to see how this is reported in
the press tomorrow, that this was a ``fishing expedition,''
``there was something fishy in the committee,'' ``we were
sleeping with the fishes.'' I can't wait to see----
Senator Stabenow. You know, this----
Senator Bayh [continuing]. What the----
Senator Stabenow [continuing]. This is----
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Press will----
Senator Stabenow [continuing]. This is lunch.
Senator Bayh. Oh.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. Asian carp as sushi, huh? That's--OK. I think
I may stick with the cheeseburger.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. In any event, it's interesting. I've been
here a while, and I've not seen a prop quite that interesting.
Fortunately, they are on ice.
I didn't have the benefit of hearing the testimonies, so I
apologize for that. But, it seems to me that what we need to
try and do here is strike the appropriate balance. Anyone who's
seen the Great Lakes, Chairman, as have I--and obviously your
State is so familiar--knows that they are a tremendous natural
resource and something truly unique. Many people in other parts
of the country can't really understand how immense they are,
and just how special they are. At the same time, we do have
business and commercial interests, and this is a difficult time
for our economy.
So, my question is going to be, How do we go about
protecting the Great Lakes while at the same time minimizing
the threat to commerce and disrupting job creation and that
sort of thing? So, that's what I'm going to be looking forward
to. I won't ask either of you questions, because I didn't have
the benefit of hearing you. I'm looking forward to reviewing
your testimony. But, for our other witnesses, that's where I'm
coming from. We've got to protect the Great Lakes, obviously,
but don't want to--we have to do it in the most prudent way
possible.
So, thank you for your presence. I apologize for my
tardiness, but I do look forward to having the benefit of your
thoughts.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
I have just a couple more questions, and then certainly
we'll throw it open to any Senators that want to follow up.
But, let me follow up on Senator Brownback's question, really
about budget and resources, which are obviously very important.
So, first I would ask, Are we properly budgeting to carry
out the activities that we've been talking about today, and
other things that need to happen, so that we can monitor the
locations that need to be monitored, that we can act, that we
can move as quickly as possible to turn around and get results?
I would ask both of you to respond.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Ms. Sutley. First, we've identified, in the framework, a
resource need of about $78 million to fund the activities that
are identified in the framework. We certainly thank you for
your great assistance in helping us to get the $13 million in
December, and that both the Army Corps of Engineers, in its FY-
10 appropriations and Recovery Act money, is going toward some
of these immediate-term actions.
We're very fortunate that the administration, the Congress,
have funded the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative this fiscal
year at $475 million and that, as part of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, as I said in my testimony, the--one of
its priorities is to address invasive species. So, it is part
of that effort.
So, I think, in terms of resources for the things that have
been identified in the framework, I think we--we feel like
we're in pretty good shape there.
I would say that the--we view the framework as a living
document. As we identify other actions and other activities
that may be necessary here, that's something that the working
group and the folks who are spending all their time on this
will discuss and make sure are coordinated. If they need
additional resources, certainly we'll look at that, and look to
Congress to help us secure those.
Senator Stabenow. Dr. Carl, in answering that, I wonder if
you might also distinguish between the activities that we can
do right now and in the spring compared to activities that are
experimental. Is there enough money, in--within the framework
budgeted for these activities? Is the USGS leveraging all its
expertise and partners? Because we really--I mean, we need to
know--we need to know--and I realize that you are working, both
of you, within a framework, within an administration, and
decisions are made at various levels, but there is a great
sense of urgency, that we have, and we need to know what you
need, how soon you need it, and what it's going to take to be
able move as quickly as possible right now and into the spring,
as well as long-term.
Mr. Carl. I've got----
Senator Stabenow. Doctor.
Mr. Carl [continuing]. Several parts to that. That's a----
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Mr. Carl [continuing]. Good question. I think I would start
out by saying that we have several scientists that have been
working on Asian carp and been thinking about Asian carp and
have had projects to do on Asian carp for several years. We
brought those forward now that possibly didn't get as much
attention before. So, what the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative--as I said, there were nine projects. I think they
were all really good signs for managers. All were approved by
the EPA, and they've all been funded at the level that we
requested for this year.
Now, my next concern, when I talked with EPA, was that this
was an annual budget and it was approved for this year, and
they are very much aware that many of these are long-term
commitments. So, I think that what we have received so far is
quite adequate for the first year in the study that we're
looking at. So, I'm--I was astounded that we were able to put
forward those projects and have them funded. I think we're
going to do some really exciting research with that.
In terms of leveraging, one thing I will say is that the
USGS scientists--and there are quite a few at several centers--
are all working under a single manager, and that's me; and I
think that is very helpful. We're very closely tied with our
partners, which I think is also important. We have also started
a consortium, which is looking at 4 primary USGS aquatic
centers that work on control issues; and we're sharing
knowledge, resources, and facilities; and bringing together a
steering committee of partners to do partner-driven research.
The focus is on partner-driven research. I think that's a--kind
of a general answer.
If I look to the question--the second part of your
question, where you ask what we doing now, and what are we
doing longer-term, I think most of the work that we are doing
is longer-term. As I mentioned to Senator Brownback, the Asian
carp, we're looking at field testing in 18 months. There are
permits that we have to have from EPA and a lot of different
things that have to occur in that timeframe, and the pressure
is on our scientists.
The shorter-term things, we had proposed and had accepted
the idea of sonic disruption of spawning areas. In talking with
one of my scientists, who had already been working on that, he
had found a patented hydrocanon, coming out of the East Coast,
that we're looking at taking over--rather than looking at sonic
disruption of spawning grounds, we're actually looking at that
for targeting carp that might be in the canal.
So, we're looking at accelerating that program. I've
already talked to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources,
the EPA, the Army Corps, and Fish and Wildlife and we've gotten
a green light from everyone to go for it. When the ice comes
out, we plan on being at one of our centers, looking at Asian
carp that we have--they're--within the watershed that they're
already in, they're not in the Great Lakes--and looking at
whether these are effective in either moving the fish out or
killing them. After we're done with that, we would be looking
at field testing--potentially on either the Illinois River or
in the canal--and it could be this summer, depending on the
results. There is risks to that strategy, but I think it's well
worth it--the urgency that we have.
If you then look at the longer-term things--what we're
trying to do as a science agency--our goal is to increase the
management tools for control. So, we're looking at selective
toxin; we're looking at attracting them with pheromones; we are
looking at sonically herding them and eliminating them; and
we're looking at whether we can predict where they are through
some modeling efforts with our water science centers. We also
would like to see the eDNA technique developed better, so that
we can use that as part of a surveillance plan. So there's a
whole suite of potential management tools that we coming--
potentially could be coming on in the next few years, as we
move forward.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
I think, at this point, we will move to our next panel,
unless----
Did you have any question Senator Bayh?
Senator Bayh. Just one brief question.
I see some of the steps you've taken, whether its
electronic fencing or poisoning or other things. How have the
fish managed to frustrate the steps that have been taken, to
date?
Mr. Carl. We do have positive DNA above the weir. It's not
clear right now how the fish got there. I think people presume
that they came up over the weir. I'm not sure that they can, or
not, because the weir is a fairly--is a pretty effective tool
for that. There are other ways. One of the things that I didn't
mention is that we're looking at subterranean methods for the
fish to move from the Des Plains River to the canal system.
Then that's one of the projects that we're going to look at. We
think there's fractured bedrock and there may be----
Senator Bayh. Or underground streams----
Mr. Carl [continuing]. Underground streams.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Something like that?
Mr. Carl. We'll be looking at that, beginning this spring.
Again, we have to wait til the ground thaws----
Senator Bayh. In terms----
Mr. Carl [continuing]. To try----
Senator Bayh. Forgive me----
Mr. Carl [continuing]. That.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. My chemistry is not what it once
was. Pheromones?
Mr. Carl. Pheromones. We haven't used those yet, but
we're----
Senator Bayh. What are----
Mr. Carl [continuing]. Certainly----
Senator Bayh [continuing]. What are pheromones.
Mr. Carl. Pheromones are something that a animal gives off
that either attracts of repels others. So, there's a fright
pheromone, that we know that we've seen in the Asian carp, that
will tell other Asian carp to go away. They may go away for 2
or 3 days. Attractings pheromone often is a sex pheromone. A
lot of work has been done on that with sea lamprey. They're
very effective in bringing sea lamprey in.
Senator Bayh. I'm not even going to touch that. But----
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. Just interested. Thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, and that's a very important
question.
Again, thank you, to both of you. I realize that you are
focused. We appreciate your leadership. But, we will continue
to follow up with you, because we have a great sense of
urgency. There is a strong bipartisan support for moving
quickly and having the resources available, and being focused
on what I view, as a crisis. So, thank you very much for being
here.
Thank you.
We would ask our second panel to join us.
Senator Stabenow. Welcome. We are very glad to have you
with us.
First let me say that Senator Durbin has submitted
testimony for the record today, as well, which we welcome. We
thank his leadership on appropriations and really championing
the electric fences and the other resources that have been made
available up to this point. So, we look forward to continuing
to partner with him, as well.
[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator From Illinois
Let me start by thanking Chairman Stabenow for holding this
hearing. Asian carp pose a serious environmental threat to the Great
Lakes. I know that the Chairwoman, like all of us representing Great
Lakes states, is very concerned about this threat. Today's hearing is
another opportunity for us to hear from agencies and private sector
stakeholders who are working with Congress to contain this aggressive,
invasive species.
The Great Lakes are a national treasure. They represent one fifth
of the world's fresh surface water, provide endless boating and beach
recreation activities and are used as a major mode of transport for
bulk goods.
While the threat of an Asian carp invasion are real and imminent,
this Administration, Members of Congress, state and local agencies, and
environmental advocates are engaged and are working together to meet
this collective challenge.
The White House has identified the protection and restoration of
the Great Lakes as a high priority, and Congress has concurred with
full funding in FY10 for the $475 million Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. The agencies participating in this Initiative recognize
that protecting the Lakes from an advancing invasive species is a
priority we must address. And we must address it now.
Asian carp present a complex challenge. They are deemed
``invasive'' because there is no natural predator for the species in
the Midwest. Asian carp reproduce quickly, out-compete other species
and spread rapidly. Several federal agencies, along with the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, have been working together to
implement rapid response measures to combat the Asian carp in Illinois
waterways. These efforts are having an effect. But to contain these
fish, we need a full arsenal of management options.
On Feb 8th, the Administration released a $78 million Draft Asian
Carp Control Framework . This plan to contain Asian carp lays out
short-term and long-term actions, with an overarching goal of
preventing the species from establishing in the Great Lakes. While
individual components of the plan may invite further scrutiny and
spirited debate, the Framework as a whole includes a mix of science,
engineering and management options.
The Framework calls for a longer term inter-basin study that
determines all invasive access points into the Great Lakes, and
considers more than just the Asian carp. Chicago is the current hotspot
for invasive species to enter Lake Michigan, but the Great Lakes have
multiple access points. With a better understanding of all our
vulnerable locations, we will be better prepared to manage the threat
from this and, as yet unknown, invasive species.
The U.S. Geological Service found that an Asian carp can move 200
miles in one year, so we can't afford to slow down. Thank you for your
leadership, Chairman Stabenow, and for convening this important
hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Stabenow. Let me just briefly introduce our second
panel. Senator Brownback has introduced the Honorable Mike
Hayden--Secretary Hayden--with the Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks.
Senator Brownback, did you wish to make any other comments?
Senator Brownback. Only that Secretary Hayden was Governor
Hayden, was also head of Fish and Wildlife, nationally, and, I
found, just has an extraordinary knowledge of natural species
and habitat and issues, and, I think, can be a great resource
for us, and, on top of that, is a good friend and understands
these systems and the processes, both politically and
biologically.
Welcome, Governor Hayden.
Senator Stabenow. Great. We're very glad to have you. I
want, personally, to welcome Ken DeBeaussaert, the director of
the Office of the Great Lakes of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources and Environment, and a longtime friend. We
served together in the State House of Representatives.
So, it's wonderful to have you, Ken, and thank you for your
leadership, as well.
Marc Miller, the director of the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, is a very important partner in all of this
as we proceed, and we very much appreciate your leadership.
Jim Farrell, the executive director of Infrastructure
Council for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, a very important
perspective as we move forward on how we solve this problem.
Dr. John Taylor, it's great to have you, an associate
professor, director of supply chain management programs, at
Wayne State University, in Detroit Michigan.
Mr. Taylor, we thank you.
Mr. Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director for the
Great Lakes Regional Center, the National Wildlife Federation.
We thank you so much for being here, as well.
We'll ask each of you, because we appreciate having all of
you, and because the number of guests that we have testifying--
we would ask each of you to speak for 5 minutes. You should
have a clock in front of you, and a red light that will go off.
We will then open it up from--questions, from there.
So, Secretary Hayden, welcome.
STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL HAYDEN, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
WILDLIFE AND PARKS, TOPEKA, KS
Mr. Hayden. Thank you, Senator Stabenow and members of the
committee. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to share
our perspectives and experiences with the growing problem of
invasive species. I want to emphasize that it is a growing
problem. Every week, every month, every year, we're faced with
new invasive species throughout the Nation, and, unfortunately,
Kansas, even though it's in the heart of the country, is no
exception.
The focus of what you will hear today, several invasive
species of fish collectively known as the Asian carp, is very
important. The threat these fish pose to the Great Lakes is
very real. Asian carp will impact commercial fisheries,
tourism, recreational fisheries, and the ecosystem. We urge you
to consider this carefully, and, most importantly, to act to
prevent the further spread of these species.
Asian carp have spread throughout the Mississippi River
basin and, at this time, are only being stopped where there are
obstructions, such as large dams big enough to prevent their
passage. They have and continue to impact native fisheries
throughout the heart of the Nation, and their numbers continue
to increase, and actually increase very rapidly. In addition,
they are a threat to public safety, as you've already heard,
because of their ability and habit of jumping out of the water
when boats pass. Imagine an entire school of fish, that may
weigh 60 pounds or more, jumping 6 or 8 feet into the air when
a motorboat passes, or waterskiers, or jet skis. People have
been injured, and, unfortunately, they'll continue to be
injured in the future, from the spread of these species. Again,
we act you--we urge you to act now.
But just as the Great Lakes are only part of the problem
with the spread of Asian carp, Asian carp are only part of the
invasive species problem. Invasive fish, plants, mussels,
snakes, crustaceans, and other invertebrates, and diseases, are
all a part of the problem. Invasive species impact every
American and the American way of life. We're talking about the
Asian carp today, as we should be, but what will it be
tomorrow? You can build electric barriers, you can install
fences along the flood areas, as outlined in the Federal
Framework, but these measures only address one small component
of the invasive species problem, and, in all honesty, their
successes may well be limited.
We have heard discussion about the potential Asian carp
impact on native species in the Great Lakes, but we're ignoring
the non-native interchange of water, waste, and species between
the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. Sources indicate that there are
roughly 180 non-native species currently in the Great Lakes.
There are several of these invasive species, such as the
snakehead fish, in the Mississippi River who are moving
northward. So we've got invasive species coming from the Great
Lakes and threatening to enter the Great Lakes at the same
time. Which one of these will be the next to invade the
Mississippi Basin or the Great Lakes, or where else in this
Nation?
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``If I were to go west, I'd go
to Kansas.'' Unfortunately, Lincoln never took up residence in
Kansas, but a number of invasive species have.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hayden. Coincidentally, one of them, the zebra mussel,
was transported in ballast water of a ship and became
established in the Great Lakes in the 1980s, and, since that
time, has spread across the Nation and has become a very large
problem. Zebra mussels now inhabit 6 Federal reservoirs in
Kansas, and many other smaller lakes and streams. Similar to
Asian carp, they pose a threat economically, environmentally,
and to human health. They clog water intakes; they kill our
native mussels, many of whom are threatened or endangered; they
damage boats; and they cut the feet of swimmers.
One example of Asian clams, for example, in Kansas.
Recently, we have a local fire department--rural fire
department hook up to a dry hydrant at a lake to fight a fire.
The firetruck intake became completely clogged with these small
clams, effectively rendering it useless against the fire. This
is just one. We have hundreds of these small lakes with dry
hydrants that we use to fight fires in the rural areas. If they
continue to clog those up, it really, of course, renders us
almost helpless against these fires.
The opportunity for new invasive species seems almost
endless. However, there are some solutions. First and foremost,
preventing the introduction is always the cheapest and the
easiest. In fact, getting rid of them is almost impossible once
they become established. The zebra mussel is a very good
example of that. Current laws make it too easy to bring non-
native species to the United States, and we often end up
chasing one species after another, after they become
established. National policy needs to move toward providing--
proving a species will not become a problem, before it is
imported.
Further management of invasive species already present is
extremely difficult with the current level of Federal funding.
Last year, Kansas got $37,000 from the Federal Government to
fight invasive species, and that $37,000 is a reduction from
the previous year. We don't have near the tools at either the
Federal or the State level right now. We have not marshaled
adequate resources to address this problem.
We need your help, Madam Chair. The Asian carp and hundreds
of other invasive species will continue to damage our
fisheries, our water supplies, our tourism, and our economy,
not only of the Great Lakes, but of the Nation as a whole.
National policies need to make it harder for invasive species
to come to this country, and more needs to be done to implement
existing programs to prevent their spread.
Thank you very much, Madam chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Michael Hayden, Secretary, Kansas Department
of Wildlife and Parks, Topeka, KS
Chair Stabenow and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share our perspective and experience with the growing
problem of invasive species. I want to emphasize this is growing
problem. Every week, every month, every year, we are faced with new
invasive species throughout this nation and unfortunately, Kansas is no
exception.
The focus of what you will hear today, several invasive species of
fish collectively known as ``Asian Carp'', is important. The threat
these fish pose to the Great Lakes is real. Asian Carp will impact
commercial fisheries, tourism, the ecosystem associated with the Great
Lakes and the associated local and regional economies. We urge you to
consider this carefully and act to prevent the further spread of these
species.
Asian carp have spread throughout the Mississippi River basin and
at this time only being stopped where there are obstructions such as
dams large enough to prevent them from passing. They have and continue
to impact native fisheries throughout the heart of the nation and their
numbers continue to increase. In addition, they are a threat to public
safety because of the silver carp's habit of jumping out of the water
when boats pass. Imagine an entire school of fish that may weigh 60
pounds jumping six or eight feet in the air when a motorboat, water
skier or jet ski passes. People have been injured and unfortunately,
more will be in the future.
Again, we urge you to act now to prevent the spread of Asian Carp
into the Great Lakes. But, just as the Great Lakes are only part of the
problem with the spread of Asian Carp, Asian Carp are only part of the
invasive species problem. Invasive Fish, Plants, Mussels, Snakes,
Crustaceans, other Invertebrates and diseases are all part of the
problem. Invasive species impact every American and the American way of
life. We are talking about Asian carp today, but what will it be
tomorrow? You can build electric barriers or install fences along the
flood areas as outlined in the Federal Framework but these are measures
that address one small component of the invasive species problem and
successes may be limited.
We have heard discussions about the potential Asian carp impacts on
native species in the Great Lakes but we are ignoring the non-native
interchange of water, waste, and species between the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi River Basin through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal. Sources indicate there are roughly 180 non-native species
currently in the Great Lakes. There are several invasive species such
as the snakehead fish in the Mississippi River Basin moving upstream.
Which one will be the next species to invade the Mississippi River
Basin, Great Lakes or somewhere else in the nation? As long as there is
a direct connection between these two large basins we will continually
be fighting this battle.
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``If I were to go west, I would go to
Kansas''. While Lincoln never took residence in Kansas, several
invasive species have. Coincidentally, one of them, the Zebra Mussel,
was transported in the ballast water of a ship and became established
in the Great Lakes in the 1980's. It has since spread across the
nation, including Kansas, and has become a very large problem. Zebra
Mussels now inhabit 6 federal reservoirs in Kansas and many other
smaller lakes and streams. Simalarly to Asian carp, they pose a threat
economically, environmentally, and directly to human health. They clog
water intakes, kill native mussel species, damage boats and cut the
feet of swimmers. Asiatic Clams, or Corbicula, are another problem
invasive. One example is a local fire department attempted to use a
``dry hydrant'' at a lake to replenish their water supply on the fire
truck. The fire trucks intake became completely clogged with these
small clams or mussels effectively making the truck unusable to fight
fire and protect the public.
The opportunity for new invasive species seems almost endless and
the different ways these organisms are spread is almost as big a
problem. However, there are some solutions. First and foremost,
preventing the introduction of invasive species is always cheaper and
easier than removing them. In fact, getting rid of them is often
impossible once they become established. Zebra Mussels are a good
example. Once they are established, removing them from a large lake
such as a federal reservoir would require measures so extreme that it
just isn't practical. We must do more to prevent Invasive Species from
coming to the nation. Current law makes it too easy to bring non-native
species to the U.S. and we often end up chasing one species after
another after they have become established. We lose the opportunity to
prevent invasive species from becoming established by banning species
AFTER they have become a problem rather than BEFORE. National policy
needs to move toward proving a species will not become a problem BEFORE
it is imported. Further, management of invasive species already present
in U.S. waters is extremely difficult with the current level of federal
funding support. Resources need to be directed to current management
efforts such as the Asian Carp Management and Control Plan or the
Quagga/Zebra Mussel Action Plan.
Chair Stabenow, we need the Committee's help. Asian Carp and the
hundreds of other Invasive Species will damage our native fisheries,
water supplies, tourism and economy of the Great Lakes and resources
across the nation unless more is done. National policies need to change
to make it harder for Invasive Species to come here. And more needs to
be done to implement existing programs to prevent the spread of
Invasive Species.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Secretary Hayden. Thank you
for bringing a broader perspective to this, in terms of not
only the Great Lakes and Asian carp, but what is happening in
Kansas and across the country. Thank you.
Mr. Hayden. Right.
Senator Stabenow. Mr. DeBeaussaert.
STATEMENT OF KEN DEBEAUSSAERT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE
GREAT LAKES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT,
LANSING, MI
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
committee.
First, Madam Chair, let me thank you for the leadership
that you've shown, not only on this issue, but on other Great
Lakes issues throughout your distinguished record of service to
the people of the State of Michigan.
My name is Ken DeBeaussaert, and I am director of the
Michigan Office of the Great Lakes. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you today to talk about the policy of--
related to efforts to avert the looming catastrophe that we
face if Asian carp become established in the Great Lakes.
Allowing those carp to populate our waters will destroy the
resource as well as the recreational opportunities. The Chair
has indicated the economic impact there. So, we must act
swiftly and collaboratively and wisely to address this crisis.
As the Secretary noted, invasive species have already
created havoc for the natural resources and economy, not only
of the Great Lakes, but across the country. Invasive species
have profoundly changed the ecosystem of the Great Lakes.
Michigan has taken some specific actions to try to address
this question, including enacting legislation requiring all
oceangoing ships to obtain a permit for ballast water
discharges in our State and taking legal actions to address
ballast water issues, not only defending our State law, but
also trying to seek some action to force the Federal agencies
to act in areas where we think they--that they need to. We
administer our own State regulatory programs to control aquatic
and nuisance species, including restrictions on the transport
of certain invasives--invasive species, and the establishment
of a list of invasive species prohibited in Michigan.
Specifically related to the question of Asian carp,
Michigan has been involved over a long period of time. We've
contributed financially to the construction of the electrical
barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal system; we have,
in Michigan, prohibited the possession of live Asian carp;
we've participated in the rapid response activities, that I
think we'll be hearing about in a moment, that occurred in
December; we have consistently communicated. On our written
testimony we have some attachment of communications to our
Federal partners about the importance of actions, and some
suggestion on how we might be able to move forward more
quickly, including letters from our Lieutenant Governor to the
Secretary--Assistant Secretary of the Army and the Governors;
of course, correspondence with the White House.
As others have said, I can't stress the following strongly
enough: Once an invasive species gets established in the Lakes,
we cannot eradicate it, fully control it, its spread, or the
damage that it causes. In order to solve the problem, though,
the threat of Asian carp must be treated as the crisis that we
think it is, and steps must be implemented immediately to
address it.
As long ago as 2003, there was a--scientists and government
officials and stakeholders were calling for the ecological
separation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin
to prevent spread of invasives between those two bodies. We did
not see action occur quickly enough, in our view. Short-term
actions become long-term projects. For example, the
installation of the second electrical barrier took over 6
years, and it's still not fully operational; and it took
several years to ban the importation of black carp and silver
carp under the Lacey Act; and Bighead carp are not yet listed
under that Act.
So, we appreciate the efforts by the administration now to
try to assemble all the Federal agency positions and actions in
one place through the draft framework. There are, as--in my
testimony, a number of areas where we are supportive of that
document. But, overall, we're concerned that it does not
provide the full comprehensive approach that's necessary in the
short-term, and doesn't provide the kind of a long-term focus
on the solutions that we need to achieve the prevention of this
introduction. That, again, is that ecological separation that I
mentioned.
So, if we're really to embrace the new standard of care
that was outlined by the EPA administrator, earlier this week,
the draft framework, we think, needs to be revised and improved
and strengthened, using that sense of urgency that's talked
about in the regional--Great Lakes Regional--or Restoration
Initiative plan of action.
We have some specific recommendations that I have laid out
in the testimony. I'll just touch on a few of them. First is,
of course, developing and implementing plans for the permanent
solution to the problem, that would ecologically and physically
separate the systems. I would note that--as you have, that the
Great Lakes Commission unanimously adopted that as a position
earlier this week.
In Michigan, we believe that closing the O'Brien and the
Chicago locks until a permanent ecological barrier is
constructed, consistent with protection of public health and
safety, is important. We do support the need for additional
studies, but need, as you've said, Madam Chair, to conduct them
on a much faster timeline to get the kind of action that we
think is necessary. There are a series of operational measures
related to some of the other control structures that we've
mentioned, and we support the additional interim barriers at
other locations. We support the efforts to do additional
studies on the biology and ecology of the carp, and predictive
models to determine the areas at highest risk. We obviously
need to provide the additional support for monitoring and to
provide the reserve for chemical treatments, if necessary in
the future, for rapid response activities.
But, I would note that--and I think the--that the Congress
may also be able to be--you know, help provide additional
support, not only in the authorizations and appropriations, but
also provide some clear direction about the timelines and
activities that the Federal agencies must adopt to try to
address this issue with the seriousness that we think it
deserves.
So, I thank you again for your interest in holding this
hearing today, the urgency that I sense from you, that we have
in the State of Michigan, and look forward to the rest of the
presentations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeBeaussaert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken DeBeaussaert, Director, Michigan Office of
the Great Lakes, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
Lansing, MI
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Ken
DeBeaussaert, and I am the Director of the Michigan Office of the Great
Lakes. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the policy
behind the efforts to avert the looming catastrophe that we face if
Asian carp become established in the Great Lakes.
My role within the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes is to develop
Great Lakes policy for issues critical to our state. Invasive species
such as the Asian carp are certainly a critical issue. Allowing Asian
carp to populate our Great Lakes will destroy the resource as well as
recreational opportunities. We must act swiftly, collaboratively, and
wisely to address this crisis.
Invasive species have already created havoc for the natural
resources and economy of the Great Lakes. Invasive species have
profoundly changed the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, significantly
impacted the Great Lakes sport and commercial fisheries, have hampered
recreation, and caused many millions of dollars in damages to
infrastructure all of which have a negative effect on Michigan's
economy.
Let me give you an example. 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 or kept
their boats at local marinas. But invasive zebra and quagga mussels
(Eurasian invaders) have caused the collapse of the salmon population,
and thus the sport fishery. Gone are the fishing derbies, charter
boaters have left the ports, and anglers have moved elsewhere. This was
a several hundred million dollar industry, and it is gone.
Michigan has taken aggressive steps to stop the further spread of
these foreign invaders, including:
Requiring that Great Lakes ships to report on ballast water
management practices established by the shipping industry,
Enacting legislation requiring all ocean-going ships to
obtain a permit for ballast water discharges. The permit
specifies the use of an approved treatment system to prevent
release of invasive species via ballast water,
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
Administering state regulatory programs control aquatic
nuisance species in our lakes and rivers. These programs
include restrictions on transport of invasive species of fish,
establishment of a list of invasive species prohibited in
Michigan, and participation in actions to control sea lamprey
in Great Lakes tributaries.
Specifically with regard to Asian carp, Michigan has:
Contributed financially to construction of the electrical
barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal; and
Prohibited possession of live Asian carp in the state; and
Participated in the response actions in December 2009 that
treated the Canal to remove Asian carp prior to maintenance of
the electrical barrier; and
Consistently communicated our concern and recommendations
for actions to federal agencies, most recently through a letter
from Lt. Governor John Cherry to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in November, 2009.
I cannot stress the following strongly enough: Once an invasive
species gets established in the lakes, we cannot eradicate it, fully
control its spread, or the damage it causes.
The story of Asian carp does not need to be a legacy of destruction
for future generations. The Great Lakes community, including Governors,
congressional delegations, local government officials, and citizens has
proven that they can work together on difficult challenges. This is a
formidable challenge, but together we can and must solve it.
But in order to solve the problem, the threat of Asian carp must be
treated as a crisis and steps must be implemented immediately to
address it. As early as 2003, scientists, governmental officials, and
stakeholders were calling for ecological separation of the Great Lakes
and the Mississippi Rover basins but we did not see action occur
quickly enough. Short-terms fixes have become long-term projects. For
example, the installation of the second electrical barrier took over
six years, and it is still not fully operational. It took several years
to ban the importation of Black Carp and Silver Carp under the Lacey
Act. Bighead Carp are still not covered under that Act.
We appreciate the efforts by the Administration to assemble all
federal agency positions and actions in one place but the draft Asian
Carp Control Strategy Framework proposed by federal agencies falls well
short of a comprehensive approach to prevent Asian carp from entering
the Great Lakes. In our view, the draft Framework fails to include
necessary short term actions and fails to focus on ultimate solutions
which we believe are achievable.
The recently released Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action
Plan cites Asian carp as an Action Illustration for application of the
Initiative. If the carp are allowed to get into Lake Michigan, the
illustration will take a bad turn and it will be sorry day for the
Great Lakes. From a state perspective, it is critical for the federal
agencies to heed the three main operating principles in the Action
Plan: accountability, action, and urgency.
I started by saying that we must act swiftly, collaboratively, and
wisely to address the threat posed by Asian carp. Here are my
recommendations to meet those objectives.
Federal and non-federal efforts consistent with protection of
public health and safety must immediately be taken to prevent the
migration of Bighead and Silver Carp into Lake Michigan. These actions
include:
Developing and implementing plans for a permanent solution
to the problems that would ecologically and physically separate
the carp-infected waters of the Mississippi River basin from
the Great Lakes;
Communicating on actions and data in a timely manner;
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
watershed;
Initiating studies to be completed by the end of this year
to examine the feasibility of transferring cargo via other
transportation systems;
Operating other water control structures near Lake
Michigan--at 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;
Installing interim barriers at other locations this year,
including barriers between the Des Plaines River and the Canal
and in Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand Calumet
and Little Calumet Rivers to eliminate the potential for
flooding between the two watersheds;
Completing additional studies related to the biology/ecology
of the carp and predictive models to determine the areas at
highest risk for colonization in the Great Lakes, including
estuaries and bays, drowned river mouths, and river systems;
Providing additional dollars for continuous monitoring of
carp based on risk analyses, with funding on reserve for
chemical treatment used as a rapid response mechanism as
warranted;
Completing electrical barrier 2b this year;
Developing a proactive campaign to educate the public about
the risks, dangers of Asian carp so that they do not get hurt
or unknowingly (or knowingly) spread these dangerous fish into
inland waters; and
The Corps of Engineers must be given necessary authorities
and appropriations and may need additional direction from
Congress on the authorities that already exist in order to see
action occur more expeditiously.
We all treasure the Great Lakes and share a commitment to their
continued vitality. We must now all share a similar commitment to move
aggressively forward to stop the spread of Asian carp. The Great Lakes
states may have challenging discussions on specific actions, but that
should not stop us from moving forward. Allowing Asian carp to populate
our Great Lakes will destroy the resource and the recreational
opportunities they provide us.
My submitted testimony has additional attachments.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Additional documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time. I appreciate the Committee's attention to
this matter.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much for your leadership.
Mr. Marc Miller, we are very appreciative of your efforts,
as well, in Illinois.
STATEMENT OF MARC MILLER, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of
the subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify on the role
of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 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 recent actions that 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.
First, I want to be absolutely clear on one very important
point. Our commitment to this task is--has been and remains
unwavering. We have been working closely with our partners--
partner States, including Michigan and Wisconsin--and the
Federal agencies to develop effective control strategies.
Illinois has also contributed significant resources to
controlling Asian carp. One example of this is supporting, as a
cost-share partner, $1.8 million for the creation of the
electric barriers.
Most recently, Illinois DNR has served as the lead agency
for the successful rapid-response effort, an effort last
December to prevent the upstream movement of Asian carp when
the electric barrier system was shut down for maintenance. We
laid down a chemical barrier while that barrier was shut down.
The unified response of the Great Lakes States and Provinces
was a shining leadership moment for our region, and a prime
example of how a small group of committed people can 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 a
sustainable population in the Great Lakes and threaten this
globally important ecosystem. Over 400 people worked together,
with contributions of supplies, equipment crews, and partners
throughout the Basin. The Rapid Response team safely applied
rotenone, a fish toxicant, to a 6-mile stretch of the Ship and
Sanitary Canal. The Corps of Engineers performed critical
maintenance on the electric barrier, and we led the cleanup and
removal of over 18,000 fish including one Bighead carp. That
one fish documented that the Asian carp were at the barrier and
could have moved past the barrier in a potentially large number
if we had not conducted that action.
It is important to note that, as we consider additional
operations, the cost of this one single action was over $3
million and would not have been possible without the
substantial donations of equipment and labor from the States
and Provinces, and financial support from our Federal partners.
We'd like thank all of those who were involved in this critical
effort.
There are several lessons that we've learned from this
experience that I would like 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 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 it represents the best model for our
future efforts.
I now wish to outline actions to control Asian carp that
IDNR is undertaking. These actions will be conducted as part of
the Asian carp framework strategy that was announced recently.
We will conduct Asian carp removal throughout the entire
Chicago Area Waterway System. This includes identification,
containment, and removal of carp using standard fisheries gear,
including netting, electrofishing, contract commercial fishing,
and toxicants such as rotenone. These priority actions will be
focused above the barrier in locations most likely to hold
carp. We have been working for the past several weeks to use
these efforts--use these techniques to try to identify, and, as
of yet, we have not found any carp.
IDNR will also contract with commercial fishermen to
operate below the barrier system, that front line of defense,
to reduce populations and propagule pressure, or pressure for a
invading specie, on the barrier system.
Informed by Corps of Engineers eDNA--environmental DNA--
monitoring, we will conduct sampling and removal in hotspots of
the Cal Sag Channel. This includes the entire length of the Cal
Sag below O'Brien lock and dam, as well as the North Shore
Channel, and the Wilmette pumping station.
We will also participate with the Corps of Engineers
efforts to refine environmental DNA technology so it is a
better predictor of location and population size. Those
questions are not answered today when we have that for
management techniques.
Also in the next 90 days, we will conduct a survey of all
retail live bait locations to ensure that live Asian carp
minnows are not being sold in Chicago area bait shops,
something that is currently unlawful in Illinois. This effort
is already underway.
Included in my written testimony are some long-term actions
that we will be taking, but we--as we look forward to working
on this issue, all of our partners are very important, and we
look forward to working with them.
Aagain, thank you for the opportunity to be heard, today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc Miller, Director, Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, Springfield, IL
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the role of the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources in battling the Asian carp invasion. Since the early
1990's 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.
First I want to be absolutely clear on one point. Our commitment to
this task has been and remains unwavering. We have been working closely
with our partner states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, and the
federal agencies to develop effective control strategies. Illinois has
also contributed significant resources to controlling Asian carp. One
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 was a shining leadership moment for our region, and a prime
example of how a small group of committed people can 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 six mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. The Corps of Engineers performed critical maintenance
on the electric barrier system, and 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 the action.
It is important to note that as we consider additional operations,
the cost of this single action was over $3,000,000 and would not have
been possible without the substantial donations of equipment and labor
from the states and provinces and financial support of our federal
partners. Thank to all for this critical support.
There are several lessons that we learned from this experience that
I would like 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 now outline the actions to control Asian carp that
IDNR is undertaking. These actions will be conducted as part of the
Asian carp framework strategy that was announced recently.
We will conduct a targeted Asian carp removal operation
throughout the entire Chicago Area Waterways System. This
includes identification, containment and removal of carp using
standard fisheries gear including netting, electro fishing,
contract commercial fishing, and toxicants such as rotenone.
These priority actions will be focused above the barrier in
locations most likely to hold carp. This operation began last
week.
IDNR will contract with commercial fisherman to operate
below the barrier system to reduce populations and propagule
pressure on the barrier system.
Informed by Corps of Engineers' eDNA monitoring, we will
conduct sampling and removal in hotspots of the Cal Sag
Channel. This includes the entire length of the Cal Sag below
O'Brien Lock & 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 E-DNA technology so that it is a better predictor of
location and population size.
In the next 90 days IDNR will conduct a survey of all retail
live bait locations to ensure that live Asian carp minnows are
not being sold in Chicago area bait shops, something that is
currently unlawful in Illinois. This effort is already
underway.
We have also identified several longer term actions that we are
proposing:
We will prepare for Rapid Response contingency operations,
including training, advance 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.
Finally, we will work with our sister state agency, the
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, to enhance
commercial markets for Asian carp and investigate requirements
for 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 is not an exception to this.
The Illinois DNR looks forward to working with the other Great
Lakes 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 basins.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
being here today, and your efforts.
Mr. Jim Farrell, welcome. We realize that you have other
challenges and perspectives, from your position, and we very
much appreciate your being here as a part of the discussion.
STATEMENT OF JIM FARRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INFRASTRUCTURE
COUNCIL, ILLINOIS CHAMBER INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL WATERWAY
COMMITTEE, CHICAGO, IL
Mr. Farrell. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Illinois Chamber would like to thank Senator Stabenow
for inviting us to appear and contribute toward the resolution
of this important matter. I'd also personally like to thank
Senator Bayh and Senator Brownback for spending their time--
valuable time with us.
We share the concern of the State of Michigan and others
who want this invasive species stopped before it can enter the
Great Lakes. We offer recommendations we believe can protect
Lake Michigan from an invasion of Asian carp and simultaneously
provide for commerce to continue uninterrupted.
This discussion needs to move from the courtroom to
conference rooms like this. The common objective is to stop the
carp. Solutions should not pit Illinois towboat operators, like
John and Jacque Kindra, of Kindra Lake Towing, against Michigan
fishermen and charter boat captains, like Paul Jensen.
Furthermore, we believe that out concern for the
environment should give us cause to recognize commercial
navigation as the most environmentally friendly and safest mode
of freight transit. Depending upon the commodity being
transported, a single barge carries the equivalent between 60
and 120 truckloads of cargo. The Chamber has consistently used
80 truckloads as an average in all examples.
Further, we're encouraged that the Asian Carp Control
Strategy Framework includes, in principle, 6 of the 8
suggestions we present, and that the framework notes the
historical perspective of when invasive species from the
Mississippi Basin became an issue for the region. There is a
precedent for an aquatic barrier, and that's what we're
recommending.
It is our goal that this testimony will bring to light the
fact that lock closures are not the answer. Though it is
convenient and simple to suggest the dramatic and easily
visualized act of closing a lock, we submit that halting the
migration of Asian carp should be, and can be, executed 20
miles or more west of the Chicago and O'Brien locks without
interrupting commercial navigation.
Much, if not all, the recent alarm regarding Asian carp
stems from eDNA. It must be emphasized that a positive eDNA
test does not correlate to sighting an Asian carp, but rather
to finding Asian carp DNA. We at the Chamber have stated,
publicly and consistently, that this new technology has
indicated the presence of DNA, yet has not produced a live
Asian carp or even an Asian carp carcass upstream of the
electronic fish barrier. Therefore, at best eDNA should be
considered a warning, not an alarm.
Commercial navigation cannot supply the needs of the region
without consistent, continually available, operating locks. In
the Chicago region the equivalent of well over a half a million
truckloads of cargo enters and leaves annually by barge, with
an additional tens of thousands of truckloads worth of cargo
moved by barge within the region. That's the equivalent of
truck lined up end to end from New York City to Los Angeles and
back again.
In addition, at the Chicago lock, tens of millions of
dollars are at stake in accommodating recreational boating,
commercial--and commercial passenger vessels. Chicago's Navy
Pier is the largest tourist attraction in the Midwest and would
be severely impacted without navigation being able to traverse
the lock. This impact would be felt in retail; recreational
boating; the entire convention, restaurant, and hotel trade.
Passenger vessels made at least 7,790 transits of the Chicago
lock just in 2009.
Probably more importantly, we need to recognize, in this
economy, that, if we're to create jobs, we must give businesses
a commitment that lock closure is not an option. Certainty is
required. Banks will not finance, businesses will not invest in
the--in regions where businesses need the waterways.
Now, we have produced a list of 8 suggestions for action.
Today, in the interest of time, I'd like to focus on just items
6 and 7. If the committee's interested--subcommittee's
interested, they're items 6 and seven on our--on our list.
We suggest that the blockage of fish of all types, by
executive order or congressional mandate, be done through the
EPA requiring adjusted standards which maintain oxygen levels
that will not support aquatic ecosystems in the 15-mile section
of the Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Cal Sag Channel upstream
from Lockport. This is a manmade channel which is currently 70-
percent treated effluent, and this would create an aquatic dead
zone between Lockport and the subcontinental divide.
Further, since we wish to protect the environment, we would
recommend the installation of remedial oxygenation to enhance
water quality south of the Lockport lock, so that those
downstream would not suffer from any reduced water quality.
I've brought a map. I'll be happy discuss these in detail if
they are of interest to the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Farrell, Executive Director, Infrastructure
Council, Illinois Chamber Infrastructure Council Waterway Committee,
Chicago, IL
Illinois Chamber Infrastructure Council Waterway Committee Jim
Farrell Executive Director, Infrastructure Council Suggested Asian Carp
Strategy February 25, 2010 The Illinois Chamber of Commerce and its
Infrastructure Council appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the
effort to protect Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes Basin from the
Asian Carp and other invasive species. The Illinois Chamber would like
to thank Senator Stabenow for inviting us to appear and contribute
towards resolution of this important matter.
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce shares the concern of the State of
Michigan and others who want this invasive species stopped before it
can enter the Great Lakes. We offer recommendations, which have been
submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency andthe
Asian Carp Workgroup, for action to stop the Asian Carp. We believe
these suggestions can protect Lake Michigan from an invasion of Asian
Carp via Illinois waterways and simultaneously provide for commerce to
continue uninterrupted.
Separate and apart for our concern for a balanced and thoughtful
approach to the problem of preventing the Asian Carp from reaching Lake
Michigan is our concern for the creation and retention of jobs in the
region. This discussion needs to move from the courtroom to the
conference room. The common objective is to stop the carp. However, in
the process we do not believe the Solutions should pit Illinois Tow
Boat operators like John and Jacque Kindra of Kindra Lake Towing of
South Chicago against Michigan fisherman and Charter Boat Captains like
Paul Jensen of Muskegon.
Furthermore, we believe that our concern for the environment should
give us cause to recognize commercial navigation as the most
environmentally friendly and safest mode of freight transit. Depending
on the commodity being transported a single barge carries the
equivalent of between 60 and 120 truckloads of cargo. (The Chamber
consistently uses 80 truckloads as an average in all examples.) The
Illinois Chamber is encouraged that the Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework, which we were unaware of at the time we created our plan,
includes six of the eight suggestions we present. Further we are
encouraged that the Framework notes the historical perspective of when
invasive species from the Mississippi Basin to the Great Lakes Basin
became an issue for the region. ``Historically, poor water quality in
Chicago's urban waterways had controlled the transfer of invasive
species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
watersheds.''[Framework 1.2, page 4]
There is precedent of on impenetrable aquatic barrier.
It is our goal that this testimony will bring to light the fact
that lock closures are not the answer. Though it is convenient and
simple to suggest the dramatic and easily visualized act of closing the
locks, we submit that halting the migration of Asian Carp should be,
and can be executed twenty miles west of the Chicago and O'Brien Locks
without interrupting commercial navigation.
Just this week the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
conducted electro fishing expeditions both in the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal and further down stream in the area of Peru, Illinois. Once
again there were no Asian Carp found above the existing electric
barrier at Romeoville. Asian Carp were found down stream roughly fifty
miles from Lake Michigan. We respectfully submit that this most recent
result from electro fishing affirms the Chamber's position that we can
address this problem many miles downstream and west of Lake Michigan.
Much, if not all, of the recent alarm regarding Asian Carp stems
from eDNA testing performed by the University of Notre Dame. It must be
emphasized that a positive eDNA test does not correlate to a sighting
of Asian Carp, but rather to a finding of Asian Carp DNA. The Framework
references the term ``vector'' as a delivery mechanism of Asian Carp.
Many vectors have been discussed: cultural releases, bait, and the
barges themselves. In fact Dr. Lodge whose research team is partnering
with the United States Army Corps of Engineers on this technology
acknowledged as recently as this month ;www.nd.edu' that ``These
biological materials degrade in the environment, but this process is
not instantaneous, and DNA can be held in suspension and transported.''
We at the Chamber have stated publicly and consistently that this new
technology, which has indicated the presence of DNA has yet to produce
a live Asian Carp or even an Asian Carp carcass upstream of the
electronic fish barrier. Therefore, at best, eDNA should be considered
a warning--not an alarm.
As part of our testimony we have submitted my Sworn Affidavit which
was a part of the Illinois Solicitor General's' response to the State
of Michigan's Supreme Court filing which requested lock closures. And
we have included a copy of our Public Comment prepared for the EPA
Public Hearing held February 12, 2010.
Below is the enclosure of both documents.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. John Taylor, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. TAYLOR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR
OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, DETROIT, MI
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, today I am
providing testimony on research that former Michigan Department
of Transportation manager James L. Roach and I conducted in our
roles as expert witnesses for the Michigan attorney general's
case on Asian carp control. I should note, however, that this
testimony is my own and is not on behalf of the Michigan
attorney general's office.
The research and report that I am testifying about examines
the freight transportation and handling cost impacts of
establishing physical barriers at the Chicago lock in downtown
Chicago and at the O'Brien lock and dam located south of Lake
Calumet. Our analysis determined that closure of the locks in
question would affect some 7 million tons of cargo at the
O'Brien and Chicago locks, 98 percent of that being at the
O'Brien lock. These are the Army Corps of Engineer numbers on
this matter.
We highlight this number because there has been much
confusion about the volume of commerce that would be affected
by lock closures. Numerous news articles have referenced much
higher tonnages, in the range of 16 million tons. However,
these sighted tonnages, in many cases, involve goods moving
through all portions of the Illinois Waterway System or the
unaffected Lockport lock, downriver. The sighted figures could
also be due to some misunderstandings that assumed the Lockport
lock could be closed, even though Michigan has not requested
this. We believe it is important to understand that the actual
freight volume affected by a lock closure is 7 million tons.
While that may seem like a lot of tonnage, let's put that
in perspective: The 7 million tons represents about 1 percent
of freight originations and terminations in the Chicago region.
In 2007, a total of 4475 loaded barges moved through the
O'Brien lock, or 18 per day for a 250-day year. There were 50
loaded barges in 2007 at the Chicago lock.
The volume is about the same amount of cargo that moves in
two daily loaded rail unit trains. What's that mean? The
Chicago region has 500 freight trains a day.
In order to estimate the cost impact of closing the lock,
we examined alternative means of accommodating the cargo
affected by the closures. Common to all of them was the
likelihood that most of the cargo would continue to move by
barge to transload terminals downstream of the O'Brien lock,
with subsequent movement via truck, rail, or pipeline to
existing users.
That being said, some of the cargo should--could shift to
rail for the entire move. It is very important to understand
that the use of multiple modes for one move is common today.
For instance grain moves by truck, then by rail, and then by
barge. Likewise, in a move that would unaffected--and I say
``unaffected''--by the lock closure, coals moves first, from
out West, by rail to Romeoville, down on the southern end of
the system, and then is barged about 10 miles to powerplants on
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Similarly, construction
sand is barged to a terminal and then trucked to its usage
point.
It is also important to understand that other modes, such
as rail, currently carry the greatest percentage of many of
these commodities' total tonnage moving in the region. For
instance, only 6.8 percent of the cargo handled by water at the
northwest Indiana Lake Michigan ports moves by barge, and
mostly then on through the O'Brien lock.
These ports also handle a large volume of goods that use
other modes than water. For instance, the Burns Harbor port Web
page states that it annually handle--annually handles 10,000
railcars, 500,000 trucks, 250 barges, and 100 ships. The 250
barges is the equivalent of 15,000 trucks, or 3 percent of the
current truck movements happening at that port.
A total of a half million tons of steel moved outbound by
barge at the 3 Lake Michigan steel ports, per Army Corps of
Engineers numbers, were just 1.9 percent of the Chicago
region's 2007 production of 27.3 million tons of steel, so 1.9
percent.
For the 3 steel mills on Lake Michigan, their respective
ports received, per the Army Corps of Engineers numbers,
232,000 tons of coal coke by barge, compared to some 4 million
tons moving to these plants by rail, of coal coke specifically.
Our conclusion is that the 7 million tons could be moved
for an additional cost of $70 million per year if the O'Brien
and Chicago locks were closed. On a weighted average basis, we
believe the extra handling and transportation costs to move the
freight would be $10 a ton.
Similar figures have been reported elsewhere. The Texas
Transportation Institute says barge shippers--says barge
shippers nationally save $11 a ton. At the Burns Harbor port
Web page I mentioned, they indicate that their port saves
shippers $10 per ton over other locations.
So, in just a couple of quick last points: If barriers were
established at the O'Brien lock, the annual cost increase of
$70 million would equal 13 one-thousandth of 1 percent of the
521-billion Chicago area economy.
I've got a couple other points here. The truck traffic in
the Chicago region would increase by one-tenth of 1 percent. We
have a few other points.
But, just to close, let me say that--let me summarize, a
conservatively estimated additional transportation and handling
costs of shifting the existing barge traffic to other modes of
transportation would be $70 million a year.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Taylor, Associate Professor and Director
of Supply Chain Programs, School of Business Administration, Wayne
State University, Detroit, Michigan
Senator Stabenow, and Members of the Committee on Public Works and
the Environment: My name is Dr. John C. Taylor and I am an Associate
Professor of Supply Chain Management and Director of Supply Chain
Programs in the School of Business at Wayne State University in
Detroit, Michigan. Today I am providing testimony on research that
former Michigan DOT Manager James L. Roach and I conducted in our roles
as expert witnesses for the Michigan Attorney General's case on Asian
Carp control. I should note, however, that this testimony is my own,
and is not on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General's Office.
My expertise is in the areas of logistics and transportation. I
hold a Ph.D. in logistics from Michigan State University's School of
Business. I am a past member of the Congress and President's National
Commission on Intermodal Transportation, and several other
transportation advisory committees. I am also Editor of the Journal of
Transportation Management.
The research and report that I am testifying about today examines
the freight transportation and handling cost impacts of establishing
physical barriers at the Chicago Lock in downtown Chicago, and at the
the O'Brien Lock and Dam located south of Lake Calumet. A copy of the
report* has been provided for the record. A look at the chart on the
easel and attached to our testimony here may help clarify the geography
. . . . . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis determined that closure of the locks in question would
affect some 7 million tons of cargo at the O'Brien Lock on the Calumet
River, and some 100,000 plus tons at the Chicago Lock. These figures
represent averages from 2007 and 2008 and are referred to in more
detail in our report. Our volume findings are consistent with the Army
Corps reported figures.
We highlight this number because there has been much confusion
about the volume of commerce that would be affected by lock closures.
Numerous news articles have referenced much higher tonnages in the
range of 16 million tons. However, these cited tonnages in many cases
involve goods moving through all portions of the Illinois Waterway
System or the unaffected Lockport Lock downriver. The cited figures
could also be due to some misunderstandings that assumed the Lockport
Lock could be closed, even though Michigan has not requested this. We
believe it is important to understand that the actual freight volume
affected by a lock closure is primarily the 7 million tons at the
O'Brien Lock.
While 7 million tons may seem like a lot of freight it is important
to put the volume into perspective. For instance:
The 7 million tons represents about 1 % of freight
originations and terminations in the Chicago region.
In 2007 a total of 4475 loaded barges moved through the
O'Brien Lock, or 18/day for a 250 day year. There were 50
loaded barges in 2007 at the Chicago Lock.
The volume is about the same amount of cargo that moves in
two daily loaded rail unit trains. And the Chicago region has
500 freight trains each day.
In order to estimate the cost impact of closing the lock, we
examined alternative means of accommodating the cargo affected by the
closures. Common to all of them was the likelihood that most of the
cargo would continue to move by barge to transload terminals downstream
of the O'Brien Lock with subsequent movement via truck, rail, or
pipeline to existing users. That being said some cargo could shift to
rail for the entire move. It is very important to understand that use
of multiple modes for one move is common today. For instance grain
moves by truck and then by rail. Likewise, in a move that would be
unaffected by the Lock closure, coal moves by rail to Romeoville and
then is barged about 10 miles to power plants on the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal (CSSC). Similarly, construction sand is barged to a
terminal and then trucked to its usage point.
It is also important to understand that other modes such as rail
currently carry the greatest percentage of many of these commodities
total tonnage moving in the region. For instance:
Only 6.8% of the cargo handled by water at the NW Indiana
Lake Michigan ports moves by barge.
These ports also handle a large volume of goods that use
other modes than water. For instance the Burns Harbor web page
states that it annually handles 10,000 railcars, 500,000
trucks, 250 barges, and 100 ships. The 250 barges is the
equivalent of 15,000 trucks, or 3% of current truck movements.
A total of .52 million tons of steel moved outbound by barge
at the three Lake Michigan ports, or just 1.9% of the Chicago
Region's 2007 production of 27.3 million tons of steel.
For the three steel mills on Lake Michigan, their respective
ports received just 232,000 tons of coal coke by barge,
compared to some 4 million tons moving to these plants by rail.
Our conclusion is that the 7 million tons could be moved for an
additional cost of $70 million dollars per year if the O'Brien Lock was
closed. On a weighted average basis we believe the extra handling and
transportation costs to move the freight would be$10/ton. Similar
figures have been reported elsewhere. The Texas Transportation
Institute says barge shippers nationally save $11/ton. And, the Burns
Harbor port web page indicates that their port saves shippers $10/ton
over other locations.
Following are some key points about the impact:
If barriers are established at the O'Brien Lock, the annual
cost increase of $70 million would equal 13/1000ths of 1
percent of the $521 billion Chicago area economy.
Great Lakes ship traffic would still be able to reach their
docks in the Calumet River, and 3 NW Indiana Lake Michigan
ports. These ships do not pass through the O'Brien Lock.
Truck traffic in the Chicago region would increase by less
than 1/10th of 1 percent. If all the freight transferred to
truck at transload points, an extra 1000 daily truck trips
would be required in a region with several hundred thousand
trips per day.
Almost all significant shippers have direct or proximity
access to rail. There is also more than sufficient rail and
truck capacity and it could readily be provided.
Most of the claimed environmental, air quality, safety and
energy benefits associated with barge transportation would
continue.
We do acknowledge in the report that there would be negative
impacts on the barge industry and that some businesses and terminals
would be adversely affected by the closures. That said, barge volumes
at the O'Brien have been dropping for many years. For instance, using
the average volumes in 1993-95, and comparing to average tonnages in
2006-08, volume dropped 30.5%. We also note that inland waterway
traffic in general has been declining as other modes such as rail and
truck have shown significant increases. This despite a 1992 CBO study
that found that barge is the most heavily subsidized mode.
In conclusion, waterway closure at the Chicago and O'Brien Locks
would have a localized impact on already declining commercial cargo
traffic that comprises only a tiny fraction of economic activity in the
metropolitan Chicago area. The conservatively estimated additional
transportation and handling costs of shifting the existing barge
traffic to other modes of transportation for portions of the trip is
$70 million/year. While there have been several stories indicating that
lock closure would devastate the local economy and Illinois' role in
the regional, national and global economy, our report does not justify
this conclusion.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Andy Buchsbaum, thank you so much for being here.
STATEMENT OF ANDY BUCHSBAUM, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES REGIONAL
CENTER, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, CO-CHAIR, HEALING OUR
WATERS--GREAT LAKES COALITION, ANN ARBOR, MI
Mr. Buchsbaum. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Bayh, thank you
for the opportunity to testify here today about the worst--one
of the worst crises ever facing the Great Lakes.
In addition to my position with the National Wildlife
Federation, I'm also the cochair of the Healing Our Waters
Coalition, a 11-member organization that is dedicated to
protecting and restoring the Great Lakes.
As you well know, the Asian carp are a enormous threat to
the ecology and the economy of the Great Lakes. But, they're
more than that. They also pose a threat to the unity of the
Great Lakes and Great Lakes leadership. That's important,
because you all have shown that, when the Great Lakes comes
together, that we can do amazing things, like the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, like the Great Lakes Water Resources
Compact. So, this issue--this Asian carp issue has not only
threatened our ecosystem, but it's also threatened our
effectiveness and our ability to get things done together.
Let me suggest a way--and you've heard a little bit about--
already here--let me suggest a way to solve both of these
problems, and that is to reverse the way that we're looking at
this problem. Until now, we have been focused on what to do
tomorrow, what to do the next day to stop these carp from
getting into the Great Lakes. We've been on an emergency basis.
We've been doing that for 3 months.
I guess I suggest now it's time to look at what we actually
ultimately want to happen, and that's ecological separation. I
don't think there's a disagreement that, ultimately, the only
solution is to stop the movement of live organisms between the
Mississippi River system and the Lake Michigan basin. I don't
think there's disagreement that we can't save the Great Lakes
unless that happens.
What does that mean? It doesn't have to mean closing the
locks at Chicago and O'Brien and Wilmette. It may mean that,
but you can separate the ecosystem--there's a map at the side
there--you can separate the ecosystem at several different
points. At Lockport, you can separate in between those at
Lockport and the other locks. That's important, because that
means that there's flexibility. That means that there are costs
and benefits associated with each of those, and you can
maximize safeguarding the Lakes while minimizing economic
disruption.
There is a gentleman in the room, Joel Brammeier, from the
Alliance for the Great Lakes, who has done a study with the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission that suggests different points
of doing that type of separation.
That's the reason--the flexibility is the reason the Great
Lakes Commission came out with its resolution saying, ``Yes,
ecological separation is something we all agree on.'' When I
say ``we all agree on,'' that included the States of Illinois,
it included the States of Indiana.
So, how do we get to that endpoint? No. 1 is, there has to
be a directive, an objective that every--that is actually--the
agencies are directed to do. The Army Corps of Engineers and
the other agencies, they need a mission that says ecological
separation is the permanent solution that we need to get to.
Second, there needs to be funding. Third, there needs to be an
accelerated timeframe; we need to do this quickly. Fourth, we
have to make sure that we buy enough time for this solution to
occur, and that's where the emergency measures come into play.
Unfortunately, the focus on the emergency measures alone
has split the community. Those emergency measures pose special
problems, and that's--there are legitimate disagreements on
what to do with those. What one can say about the emergency
measures right up front, though, is that none of them is 100-
percent effective. The electric fence, no, not 100-percent
effective. Lock closures--two of the 5 openings to Lake
Michigan are not covered by locks; those are not 100-percent
effective. Poisoning is not 100-percent effective.
Electrofishing is way less than 100-percent effective.
So, the issue isn't whether to do all of them. Certainly we
need to do them all. The issue is, How do we sequence them, how
do we pull them together in a plan that maximizes the
protection of the Great Lakes, even if we can't guarantee their
protection because we simply don't have the technology to
guarantee their protection right now?
So, where does the framework--how does the framework line
up with that? The framework has some very, very good points
that I've provided in detail in my written testimony, but it
has two major gaps:
No. 1 is, it doesn't specify what the long-term solution
is. It doesn't specify a permanent solution. It has a study to
study what a permanent solution might be, and that study takes
to long to do, but it doesn't tell--the Army Corps of Engineers
does not say, ``Let's figure out how to do ecological
separation,'' it asks, actually, whether to do ecological
separation or something else. That needs to be fixed, and
that's a--that's something that is all in your power to do.
The second thing is that the framework has a number of good
possible potential actions, but it doesn't sequence them; it
doesn't have a true contingency plan; it doesn't have a
channel-by-channel plan on how you minimize a chance that Asian
carp are going to get to the Great Lakes. It's essential that
it do that, and that it do that quickly.
So, I just would like to conclude by encouraging you all to
help this process along by providing the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Federal agencies with the mission they need
to get this done, and to do it quickly, and thereby reestablish
the potential for unity among our Great Lakes leadership, which
is going to be so important to solving this crisis.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buchsbaum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy Buchsbaum, Director, Great Lakes Regional
Center, National Wildlife Federation, Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters--
Great Lakes Coalition, Ann Arbor, MI
Madame Chairwoman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name
is Andy Buchsbaum. I'm here today wearing two hats: one as the director
of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Regional Center, and
the other as the co-chair of the Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes
Coalition. The National Wildlife Federation is America's conservation
organization, inspiring Americans to protect wildlife and the habitat
they depend on, like the Great Lakes, for our children's future. The
HOW Coalition is a partnership of 114 national, regional, state and
local organizations dedicated to protecting and restoring the Great
Lakes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about the
worst crisis to face the Great Lakes since the colonization of the
lakes by zebra and quagga mussels. Of course, I am talking about the
potential invasion of two species of Asian carp, the bighead and silver
carp. Your hearing today is most welcome because we have very little
time to stop these species before immense and irrevocable damage is
done to the Great Lakes. Madame Chairwoman, I was present when you
spoke at the Asian carp public meeting in Ypsilanti, Michigan, last
week, and your words perfectly describe the challenges we all face. The
task of preventing Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes is a hard
one: between the technical challenges, the difficulties of finding
effective deterrents, and the desire to reduce the impacts of control
measures on jobs and the economy, there are some very tough choices to
be made. But the task of protecting the Great Lakes once Asian carp
establish breeding populations is far harder--in fact, it is
impossible. Once the invasive carp colonize the lakes, there is no
turning back; the damage will be done. So as tough as our job is to
prevent the invasion of these carp, the alternative is far worse. We
have no choice; we have to do whatever is necessary to stop the Great
Lakes' colonization by Asian carp. And we have to take action quickly,
while there is still time to save the lakes.
As you know, over the past three months, federal and state agencies
have been working in crisis mode to stop the Asian carp. Many dedicated
people in those agencies have worked night and day, through weekends
and holidays, to combat the carp. And I believe they have made
progress. But because of institutional and political barriers, that
progress has been uneven, often incomplete, and too slow. That
description unfortunately also describes the agencies' most recent
effort, the Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2010; hereinafter, ``Framework''). Unless that
Framework is significantly upgraded, the Great Lakes remain highly
vulnerable to invasion by Asian carp. With today's testimony, I would
like to share with you our analysis of the Framework--its strengths and
weaknesses--and our recommendations for improvements and action.
ASIAN CARP AND THE GREAT LAKES
The Great Lakes are a phenomenal natural resource, a network of
five inland seas that span 94,000-square miles of surface area, contain
20 percent of all surface freshwater on the planet and comprise the
world's largest freshwater ecosystem. The five lakes--Superior,
Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario--provide drinking water for 25
million people, support a $7 billion fishery, a $16 billion tourism
industry (Great Lakes Commission, 2007), and are an integral part of
North America's cultural and economic heritage.
But the lakes are under siege from more than 180 invasive species--
nonnative fish, mussels and other creatures that entered via manmade
canals and ocean freighters (Framework, p. 4). Asian carp is the latest
threat and it could be the worst invader of all time if it establishes
breeding populations in the lakes (Framework, p. 5).
Asian carp were imported to Arkansas in the 1970s to control algae
in commercial catfish farms. The fish escaped into the Mississippi
River during a 1993 flood and spread to the Illinois River and the
Chicago Waterway System, a series of manmade canals that carries
Chicago's sewage to the Mississippi River. Those canals link the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds, creating an artificial
superhighway for Asian carp to reach Lake Michigan.
The Asian carp have taken over the waterways they invade. They are
large fish, up to 5 feet long and 100 pounds. They are voracious filter
feeders, eating up to 20% of their body weight in algae and zooplankton
every day (Framework p. 4). And they reproduce rapidly. Where they have
invaded in the Mississippi River basin, they have become established in
great numbers and outcompeted native fish (Chapman 2003). One species,
the silver carp, panics when it hears a boat engine and flings itself
out of the water, sometimes causing injuries to boaters, anglers, and
water-skiers. Their presence has depressed fishing and recreation in
the Mississippi River (Framework, p. 5).
If Asian carp colonize the Great Lakes, their impact is likely to
be immense. Scientists from the U.S. (Kolar et al 2005) and Canada
(Mandrak and Cudmore 2004) have conducted risk assessments indicating
that the Great Lakes have multiple carp-friendly habitats, including
Green Bay, west Michigan, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, and western Lake
Erie. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan published this
week identifies precisely those nearshore areas as needing special
protection (White House Council on Environmental Quality, et al., pages
26-27). Not only are these some of the most popular boating and fishing
spots in the region; they also are the most biologically productive and
sensitive areas in the Great Lakes system. These areas are most
important for the overall health of the Great Lakes. According to an
assessment by the region's top scientists, the Great Lakes' self-
regulating mechanisms--their ability to recover from insults and damage
from a variety of sources--is based in the near-shore communities and
major tributaries of the lakes (Bails, et al., 2005). Those are exactly
the areas most likely to be damaged by the establishment of Asian carp
in the lakes.
Scientists, resource managers, Congress and the public have known
about the threat of Asian carp to the lakes for almost a decade.
Concern about an Asian carp invasion prompted Congress in 2007 to fund
the Army Corps of Engineers construction of a new electric fence in the
Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal, about 20 miles from Lake Michigan, to stop
the carp's passage through the canals. But due to construction delays
and operational disagreements among federal agencies, the new barrier
did not become fully operational until 2009.
The hope that the electric fence would stop the Asian carp from
reaching Lake Michigan was shattered late last year. In November, the
Corps released the results of a new type of eDNA testing conducted by a
team of scientists led by Dr. David Lodge at the University of Notre
Dame. These tests sample the waters where fish swim for minute traces
of Asian carp DNA. Some of the eDNA samples tested positive for Asian
Carp in areas past the electric fence--that is, beyond the last barrier
protecting Lake Michigan. Most recently, the positive eDNA tests
indicate Asian carp DNA at multiple points beyond the electric fence:
in the Calumet Sag Channel; near the O'Brien Lock; near the Wilmette
Pumping Station; and in Calumet Harbor, which is in Lake Michigan
itself. See Figure 1 (Framework p. ES 1).* At the Asian Carp public
meetings this month in Chicago and Ypsilanti, Dr. Lodge and his
colleague, Dr. Lindsay Chatterton, noted that these eDNA tests do not
necessarily mean that live Asian carp are present, but that the
likelihood of live fish being in these locations is very high based on
the frequency and pattern of the positive DNA samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graph has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite that bad news, there is reason for hope if we act quickly.
No one has seen live or dead Asian carp beyond the electric fence. The
Illinois DNR has conducted extensive electrofishing and netting beyond
the fence in the past three months and caught hundreds of common carp,
but no bighead or silver carp. Fisheries managers and scientists
believe the lack of live or dead fish means that the positive eDNA
tests are due to isolated Asian carp in the areas beyond the electric
fence. That is good news because it means that the Asian carp probably
have not yet established breeding populations in the Great Lakes.
Quoting Dr. David Lodge, the ``establishment of a self-sustaining
population of either silver carp or bighead carp in Lake Michigan--what
biologists would refer to as an invasion--is not a foregone
conclusion.'' Framework p. ES 2.
No one can say what would constitute a self-sustaining population
of Asian carp in Lake Michigan--whether it would be two fish or two
hundred fish. But there is universal agreement that lower the number,
the better. That mandates a dual approach: stop any more Asian carp
from reaching Lake Michigan, and kill any Asian carp that are already
present in or might soon reach the lake.
THE FRAMEWORK
This month, the federal and Illinois agencies released their
strategy to combat Asian carp, the Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Although it has
many useful and potentially effective elements, it is not nearly enough
to protect the Great Lakes. Most fundamentally, it does not shut the
door on additional Asian carp reaching Lake Michigan.
As Senator Stabenow noted, the challenge the Framework attempts to
meet is not easy. Over the past 100 years, the Chicago canal system has
grown and created interconnections with five different outlets to Lake
Michigan (Figure 1 above describes the five outlets). Three of those
outlets have control structures--locks--before they empty into the
lake; two do not. Water flows from the lake through the outlets into
canals and then to the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal, southwest through
the electric fence and the Lockport Lock into the Illinois River. But
this system of waterways does not always remain intact. The DesPlaines
River runs next to the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal for several miles
northeast of (beyond) the electric fence. During large storms, the
DesPlaines River sometimes floods into the canals--carrying live
organisms into the canal system well beyond the where the electric
fence is designed to stop the movement of Asian carp. Because eDNA
samples from the DesPlaines River also have tested positive for Asian
carp, flooding of the DesPlaines could send additional invaders into
the canal system without the protection of the electric fence.
The Framework appropriately attempts to plug these invasion vectors
through several dozen short- and long-term actions. Some are likely to
be effective and represent real progress, including:
The Framework addresses the critical problem of flooding
from the DesPlaines River, committing to the construction of
barriers and fences by October, 2010 to contain flooding from
the DesPlaines and to keep Asian carp from being carried from
the DesPlaines to the canal system. This is essential in the
short-term. Framework 2.1.5, p. 17.
For the first time, the agencies commit to using all
possible measures for short-term Asian carp control: chemical
treatment (poison), electrofishing, netting, and temporary lock
closures. Although it is still unclear how such measures would
work together, this is the first time that modified operations
of the O'Brien, Chicago River, and Wilmette locks have been
included as action measures in a plan. Framework 2.1.4, pp. 15-
16.
The Framework includes enhanced and accelerated actions at
Asian carp hotspots--particularly increased testing and
targeted removals using chemical and physical measures.
Framework 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, pages 13-14. These measures are
important to reduce and eliminate Asian carp that have gone
beyond the electric fence and to minimize the chance they can
move into Lake Michigan.
The Framework also expands the scope and scale of eDNA
sampling and accelerates the capacity to analyze those eDNA
samples so they can be used for rapid response.
The Framework includes important research to find biological
means of killing and controlling Asian carp. That research, if
successful, may be helpful for long-term solutions but is not
likely to be completed soon enough to incorporate into short-
term plans.
Despite these positive features, the Framework has some major flaws
that make it ineffective in protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp:
In the short term, there is not enough detail on how or when
the various measure will be used together to impede the
movement of Asian carp. Those measures have to be used in
sequence at specific locations over specific time frames to be
effective. The Framework now is like a list of ingredients
without a recipe. Unless you combine the ingredients in the
right proportions and sequence, you will have a disastrous
meal. We cannot afford that for the Great Lakes. What we need
is a true contingency plan of triggers and timelines, with
channel-by-channel and lock-by-lock actions sequenced for
maximum protection of the Great Lakes.
The short-term actions do not lead to a long term solution.
The Framework's long-term strategy is a series of studies, none
of them committed to a course of action. The most important
study for the long-term--the Corps' Inter-Basin Feasibility
Study on ecological separation--only considers ecological
separation; it does not commit to it. As discussed below, that
is a fatal flaw. The only way to protect the Great Lakes from
Asian carp is to stop the movement of live organisms between
the Mississippi River system and the Lake Michigan basin--to
separate the two ecologically. Unless that is the goal of the
Framework, it is doomed to failure.
The agencies are taking too long to develop an effective
plan. They have had three months to develop contingency plans
with triggers and timetables and a path toward a long-term
solution. After all that time, they have produced an incomplete
and flawed Framework, promising more details later. Every day
we wait, the chances increase that Asian carp will establish a
breeding population in Lake Michigan. The agencies need to act
faster.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I attended both of the Asian carp Framework public meetings this
month in Chicago and Ypsilanti and was impressed by the passion
exhibited at each. There was a surprising consensus around the need to
protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp, shared even by those most
concerned that their jobs and livelihoods could be jeopardized by some
of the remedial measures. Where the greatest polarization occurred was
over one measure: closure of the O'Brien and Chicago Locks. That
polarization is also reflected by the positions that different states
have taken in the litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The focus on lock closures can obscure the larger issues that we
might get agreement on if we could get everyone to focus on them. We
need a larger plan for short-term measures and how lock closure or
modification might fit into that strategy. What gets lost is the
concept that no single measure is effective by itself. The electric
fence is certainly not 100 percent effective. Nor is poisoning, or
electrofishing, or commercial fishing, or lock closure. The real issue
is how to put all those measures together to stop movement of Asian
carp into Lake Michigan.
The emphasis on lock closure also leads to confusion about the
long-term goal of ecological separation--that is, stopping the movement
of live organisms between the Mississippi River system and Lake
Michigan. Ecological separation is essential for the Great Lakes. It is
the only way of safeguarding the lakes from Asian carp. Anything short
of complete separation will fail sooner or later, and if experience
over the past few months is any guide, that failure is likely to be
sooner. Unfortunately, many equate such separation with closure of the
Chicago and O'Brien locks when in fact there are many other options.
The system can be separated at other points in the canals that would
leave the locks open (and could actually enhance passenger boat traffic
and tourism). Those options are what we hope the Army Corps of
Engineers is exploring in their Interbasin Feasibility Study. My
colleague Joel Brammeier from the Alliance for the Great Lakes has done
a study of several of those options (Brammeier, et al., 2008), and
additional possibilities may also be feasible.
The other conclusion I drew from the Framework meetings is that the
federal agencies, and particularly the Army Corps of Engineers, need
additional direction from Congress. The Corps is the key decisionmaker
here, and it is unclear as to whether the Corps is equipped to make
good decisions. All the other agencies have roles in the Asian carp
task force, but when it comes to long-term separation, canal
modification, and lock modification and/or closure, the Corps decides.
In Ypsilanti, the Corp's chief, Assistant Secretary to the Army Jo
Ellen Darcy, repeatedly said the Corps would ``balance all interests''
in making its decision. ``Balancing'' is not a good standard for an
agency whose historic mission is navigation and whose record
overwhelmingly favors commerce over ecological protection. The Corps
needs a new mission: in order to protect the Great Lakes from Asian
carp, stop the movement of live organisms between Mississippi River
system and Lake Michigan. That should be their priority.
These conclusions lead to the following recommendations:
We recommend that Congress give the Corps a new mission to
stop the movement of live organisms between the Mississippi
River system and the Great Lakes. As part of that mission,
Congress should direct the Corps to conduct its Inter-Basin
Feasibility Study to determine how to best separate the
Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes--not whether to
separate them, as the Corps seems to be interpreting its
mission now. Congress should also direct the Corps to complete
the study in one year--by mid-2011---and then to implement the
conclusions.
We also recommend that Congress declare Asian carp to be an
imminent and substantial threat to the Great Lakes and that
stopping their movement into the Great Lakes be given the
highest priority and urgency by the Corps and the other federal
agencies as they design and implement short-term and long-term
measures to combat the carp. Such a declaration will set the
right parameters and timeframe for how the agencies balance
different interests as they refine and implement the Framework.
We support the agencies' plans to implement many of the
short-term measures in the Framework: the flooding protections,
optimizing the operation of the Barrier IIA (the electric
fence), bringing Barrier IIB (the second electric fence) on
line, expanding and enhancing eDNA and other monitoring,
targeting hotspots for Asian carp eradication, and installing
temporary barriers on the two channels into Lake Michigan that
have no locks. We also support the search for methods to
interfere with Asian carp spawning and to suppress existing
populations.
We recommend that Congress demand from the agencies a true
contingency plan, with triggers and timelines and a channel-by-
channel, lock-by-lock strategy for stopping the movement of
Asian carp into Lake Michigan. While it is encouraging that the
Framework contemplates partial lock closures as part of its
``modified lock operations'' plan, it needs to incorporate much
more aggressive closures much more quickly and integrate them
with other activities, such as chemical treatment and other
removal measures.
The implementation of these measures will require funding.
We are fortunate that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
funds are available for short-term and emergency measures. For
longer term measures that will be more costly, additional
funding will be required. It would be unwise to drain the GLRI
funds to combat a single threat, no matter how urgent that
threat might be.
Despite the weekly and sometimes daily drumbeat of alarming news
about Asian carp, I am still optimistic that we can stop these invaders
before they colonize Lake Michigan. I believe our biggest challenge is
not technical, but political. Our region's leadership and people are in
conflict over how to respond to this menace, and it is slowing and
stalling the search for solutions. Our region has shown that we can do
amazing things if we work together. Just in the past 18 months,
Congress has enacted and the White House has signed two historic,
unprecedented major initiatives for the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence Water Resources Compact and the Great Lake Restoration
Initiative. These measures were possible because Congressional members,
governors, municipal leaders, tribes, businesses, and the public in our
region were united in favor of them. We need that same unity if we hope
to do the hard work needed to protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Thank you, to all of you.
Let me followup, Mr. Buchsbaum, by asking you to talk a
little bit more about what it means when we say ``ecological
separation.'' This is something that I'm learning more and more
about, and have now seen pictures of boatlifts that have been
used in other countries so that, essentially, commerce could be
conducted with barriers, in terms of the water and so on, and
species. But, I wonder if you might just describe more what
you're talking about, for those of us who are still learning
about how this would work.
Mr. Buchsbaum. That's a great question, Senator. The--it's
important to define what we mean by ``ecological separation,''
and I think the definition that I just mentioned earlier, in
passing, is probably the one we want to stick with, and it's
something that the Great Lakes Commission has in their
resolution, as well, and that is stopping the movement of live
organisms between the Mississippi River system and Lake
Michigan.
There's a great deal of flexibility in how you do that.
It's--to guarantee the cessation of that movement, you actually
have to physically separate those two systems, and--which means
putting a barrier in somewhere along the Chicago Waterway
System, one or multiple places, depending on where it's
optimal, from both an ecological and economic standpoint.
Those barriers--you could have a barrier that was a berm;
you could have barriers that were pipes; you could have
barriers that were different canal systems. There are--you
could, kind of, change the canal system--there's all sorts of
options that are possible now, which is why it's so important
for the Army Corps of Engineers study to look at how to do that
separation.
As you point out, there are many mitigation mechanisms that
are available to--once ecological separation is achieved.
Boatlifts is one, certainly, that's being used other places.
Tim Eder, the director of the Great Lakes Commission, actually
has pictures of that, if you're interested.
Others, though--others are going to involve multimodal
transportation, like Dr. Taylor talked about. One things that
Dr. Taylor has in his report, that I've seen before, is that
the opportunity to do multimodal transportation is a job growth
opportunity. It takes people, not just to build those
offloading stations, those uploading stations, but also to
operate them. Dr. Taylor had concluded that, if multimodal
transportation--I don't want to put words in his mouth--but if
it's done correctly, there could be a net job growth for the
Chicago area. It makes sense. That $70 million in extra costs
isn't going up in smoke, that's going to go to something. It's
going to go to the--those extra transportation costs will go to
jobs to make that transportation happen.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. At this point, just to
followup as you were talking about the fact there's no silver
bullet, unfortunately--we wish there was, in the short run--
but, could you talk a little but more, though, about our
ability to mitigate the carp moving into the Great Lakes while
we are focused on this longer-term goal?
Obviously, we have to have a longer-term goal, a solution--
and not that long; when I say ``long-term,'' I mean that we
need to do this as quickly as possible--but, what about the
immediate, in terms of what we know about the carp?
Mr. Buchsbaum. Again, it's a--that's a--it's a very vexing
question. We need a channel-by-channel--there's 5 different
channels--we need a channel-by-channel control strategy that
minimizes the chance that the carp are going to move through
the system. That strategy needs to include sequenced, timed
measures like poisoning, combined with electro-fishing,
combined with herding, combined with testing, combined with
lock closures in the channels which have locks, combined with,
also, very rapid installation of other barriers in the two
channels where there are no barriers now.
Lock closures is important. We support, as Michigan does,
the closures of the locks until other things can happen, but
lock closures, by themselves, are not 100-percent effective. We
have other criticisms of the framework that have nothing to do
with lock closures. We believe the framework can be
strengthened in multiple ways, lock closures being one of them.
I guess I would suggest that the more we focus on lock
closures as the lead thing to happen, the more it's difficult
to get the focus on--where it needs to be, on this channel-by-
channel plan.
One of the encouraging things in the framework was that it
talked about, for the first time, modifying lock operations.
Those partial lock closures, in conjunction with poisoning at
the right time, could be done like the lock was closed in
Lockport, with the poisoning done with the--when the electric
fence maintenance happened. So, you poison an entire stretch
where the lock is closed. You can open the lock, because
there's no--they're--you've eradicated the fish nearby.
Those are the kinds of the flexible and innovative things
that we need to look at.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Miller for your
thoughts, as it relates to what Mr. Buchsbaum has said. I know
that Illinois is part of the Great Lakes Commission that is now
recommending the long-term solution of the ecological
separation. I wonder if you might expand on that, in terms of--
from the Illinois perspective.
Mr. Miller. I'd be happy to. Madam chair, just for the
record, not only is Illinois a part of the Great Lakes
Commission, Governor Pat Quinn, my boss, is the chairman----
Senator Stabenow. Thank you for----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Of the Great Lakes Commission.
Senator Stabenow [continuing]. Correcting me. Yes.
Mr. Miller. As he was here this week to participate, we did
discuss what ``ecological separation'' meant. It--from our
perspective, it means, exactly as Andy said, that we do not
want to have organisms going back and forth between the two
basins--the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. But, it does not
mean that we cannot move commerce and have navigation or other
kinds of traffic in between.
The same type of vision and engineering feat that it took
to reverse the Chicago River will be needed in order to deal
with this challenge for the next century. Governor Quinn has
seen the potential here, not only to create jobs, but create a
better infrastructure, but this is something that we must do in
the long run. It is the long-term solution to keep invasive
species from traveling between the two very important basins,
and something that we need to do.
What it does not mean, though, to us, is that we should
close the locks. The locks themselves are leaky, as Nancy
Sutley said this morning. There are two avenues to get into the
Great Lakes that do not possess locks. The map over here to my
right does not include the whole system, but the Grand Calumet
River and the Little Calumet River both go into Indiana and
then into Lake Michigan without an obstruction, such as a lock.
We need to address all of these things in a very thoughtful
way.
Sewage treatment in Chicago, storm water in Chicago, are
going to be challenges to ecological separation. We will not
have an--a very easy fix for this, but we need to do it in a
thoughtful manner and move forward so that we can have what is
really a every-100-year conversation about how to deal with the
water in Chicago, Illinois.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I wonder--I'd like to ask you
and Mr. DeBeaussaert more specifically--you've talked about the
emergency actions that were taken--and thank you, to both of
you--and the efforts there. But, after the efforts that you
were involved in, looking back on it now, is there more that
can or should have been done? Are there things that we should
be doing? Are there other resources that should've been
available at the time, any limits that you felt, in terms of
doing what it was that you felt should be done?
Mr. Miller, why don`t you go ahead.
Mr. Miller. In terms of the--the Rapid Response Plan in
December, I think that we performed an unprecedented feat, and
pulled it off with professionalism and results, and I'm very
proud of our staff and the partners for that.
I will say that we do need to get resources to the States
faster. We need to make that commitment to make sure that we
have the resources to do those types of actions. The Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative is a great example of how we can
do that, but we need to make sure that in--when we have these
emergency situations, that the money will flow quickly.
As other States deal with this issue, they're going to also
need to have resources quickly, because we don't have it at the
State level. Illinois DNR took a great leap of faith using what
we had in our budget to address this issue, and, fortunately
for us, other partners, other States came through with money on
that $3.1&llion operation.
In terms of what we need to do to make it better, I think
that we need to continue to define what environmental DNA means
for adaptive management. We don't have a lot of answers. We
need to have that information more quickly so that we can send
crews in where we know the hotspots are, and get to them with
our techniques.
I think it is efficient when we pair commercial netting
with electrofishing. We're able to get to the fish and get
them. We need to have better response time there.
Senator Stabenow. OK.
Mr. DeBeaussaert.
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Thank you, Madam Chair. The State of
Michigan, as I noted, did participate, upon the request of
Illinois and the other agencies, as did, I think, most of the
States and Provinces as part of that team effort. We were not
actually part of the overall planning exercise, so it's hard
for us to provide some detailed comments on it in that regard.
What I would say, though, is that it--moving on go-forward
basis, a couple of things that would be helpful is--one is to
recognize that the massive effort that was undertaken there is
not sustainable on a long-term basis, that we need these long-
term solutions of--that we've been talking about here. The
State of Michigan provided, you know, staff time and chemicals
and equipment, but, you know, a rotenone application on a
regular basis for maintenance isn't sufficient and--or
sustainable. I--our DNRE director, you know, commented on that
when she testified before the House committee.
The other area I think that we could improve on is that of
communications. I think that the framework talks about the need
to do additional outreach. I think that having all the States
involved in a more direct way in these planning activities
might lead to better communication and of understanding of the
overall process. Recognizing that this was an emergency--rapid-
response activities--there wasn't the luxury of doing all the
things that, in hindsight, people might have wanted to do, I
think that is an area where we could improve.
The only other thing I would comment on--and we've--in
terms of the other--if I could, the questions that we've heard
about, in terms of the long-term planning and the concerns
about the need to take some short-term actions while we wait
for that long-term--just, as I said earlier, based on our past
experience with the delays; you know, when we talk about the
delays in the electrical barrier, when the Governor went to her
meeting at the White House, she carried with her a yellowed
copy of a newspaper from 2004 that talked about the need for
the electrical--2003 perhaps--about the need for the electrical
barrier to prevent the gobies from getting into the
Mississippi. I mean, the line of defense was really, in some
respects, first seen as protecting the Mississippi from the
invasives in the Great Lakes. Obviously, it didn't get put in
place in time for that to occur. So, it just is one example, I
think, of why we need to take short-term measures, where we may
have some disagreements, but we need to continue to work
through those while we wait for this real goal of the
ecological separation.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Yes, I know. Senator Bayh, I'll turn to you.
Senator Bayh. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Those of you who favor the closure of the locks, I'd like
to ask a question. My Governor is very concerned about that,
and the Congressman who represents that part of my State is
very concerned about that, because they feel that it's going
to--we have a flooding problem there that is--can be quite
substantial, in terms of, you know, hardship to the families
that--who are displaced from their homes, and the economic loss
that comes with that. For those of you who favor the closure of
the locks, what can be done about this flooding issue?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Senator, I would just note that, in the
actions that Michigan undertook, in terms of the court filings,
as we made that request related to lock closure, we did note
that it would have to be done in a way that was protective of
public health and safety, recognizing that there are
circumstances where flooding issues might come into play----
Senator Bayh. How would you----
Mr. DeBeaussaert.----where----
Senator Bayh [continuing]. How would you do that?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. If----
Senator Bayh. They think closing the locks is going to
cause the flooding. So, I mean, just saying, in a court filing,
``don't cause, you know, collateral damage'' doesn't keep the
flooding from taking place. So, if you close the lock, how do
you keep the flooding from happening?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. In an emergency situation where flooding
might occur, you could operate the locks in a way that might
mitigate that concern. But, on a--the normal period of time
when that flooding issue--and I--over a period of years, I
think there were about 8 times where that flooding situation
arose over a period----
Senator Bayh. This last----
Mr. DeBeaussaert.--of time. So, it's not----
Senator Bayh. This last year was quite bad.
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Yes. I--and I don't know--I can't predict
the future activities, but on a go-forward basis until those
situations arise, we think that taking the actions that would
be protective are appropriate, recognizing that there are
situations that would arise, where you might have to, you know,
adjust accordingly.
Senator Bayh. Right. From our State's point of view, I
mean, any action like that is going to have to have some
guarantee that--not just kind of a hope and a prayer, that
our--you know, hundreds of people aren't going to be flooded
out of their houses, but, in fact, they're going to be
protected when the need arises. So, I just kind of recommend
that to your thinking, because it's a legitimate issue that has
to be addressed.
Mr. DeBeaussaert. We understand that. That's why I think it
was, in fact, acknowledged, but----
Senator Bayh. It was acknowledged, but we need more than
just kind of a vague assertion that, ``Don't worry. Trust us,
it'll be taken care of.'' We need to have something a little
more concrete than that.
The second thing I would ask--Mr. Taylor, your $70-million
figure, the increased costs, was that for the entire Chicago
metropolitan area, including northwest Indiana, or how--what
area did that cover?
Mr. Taylor. That's for the volume that goes through the
locks, the 7 million tons that goes through the 2 locks, with
98 percent of that being at the O'Brien lock.
Senator Bayh. So----
Mr. Taylor. That's extra transportation and handling
costs----
Senator Bayh. So, customers in Indiana that are paying--the
extra costs--the $70-million figure, reflects the extra amount
they'd have to pay for--you know, for shipping around, or
however they'd get around this thing
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. Just keep in mind this is----
Senator Bayh. Because some of them----
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. It's basic commodities. So,
those--the costs of moving those basic commodities that move
through the system would go up by the--the transportation costs
would go up by $70 million. Now, the transportation cost is a
percentage of their overall cost.
Senator Bayh. Right.
Mr. Taylor. On average, $10 a ton. Steel sells, you know,
for multiples--hundreds of dollars-plus per ton.
Senator Bayh. Right.
Mr. Taylor. So, it's not a one-to-one correlation.
Senator Bayh. You can imagine they're a little concerned
about this, because the steel industry's doing a little better
right now, but, if you look over the last 10 years, I mean,
they've contracted substantially, and thousands of jobs have
been lost. So, they're a little concerned about increasing
their costs at a moment like this. But I just wanted to----
Mr. Taylor. Right.
Senator Bayh. The reason I asked the first panel about the
previous mitigation strategy is, I think somebody had
indicated--maybe one of you--maybe Mr. Miller, it was you; I
can't remember--it was about $3 million to do the fish kill.
You could have 23 fish kills in a year, for the $70-million
figure. That's why I was, kind of, curious--I mean, is that a--
Mr. Buchsbaum indicated--nothing's perfect, and, of course--you
know, other than ecological separation, I understand that. But,
I was just try and do sort of a cost-benefit analysis here. I
mean, how effective, you know, are these fish kills? If you did
one every 3 weeks, how certain could you be that you were
keeping the carp from getting upstream? Unless they were using
the underground waterway that, I think, one of the first
panelists indicated.
Mr. Miller. The use of fish toxicants, as we planned for in
December, was very effective. We used hard structures to make
sure that there was a acute dose delivered to every fish; it
could not escape. We would use nets and other things to make
sure that fish were--had the residence time to receive that.
So, I think that using rotenone is a highly effective tool.
We want to be careful about how we use it and how much we use
it. We would like to move into a paradigm where we can find out
where the fish are, identify where they are, and then possibly
use rotenone as a sampling technique to understand what kind of
abundance they have. What we don't know is how many fish are
actually above that--or above that barrier, or behind our
enemy--you know, behind our lines. We don't know. We're using
environmental DNA as a--in a precautionary way to inform our
decision. We're using every possible technique that we can,
knowing that we must find them. But, we don't know how many are
there. We--there may not be many at all. We're trying to find
out, through environmental DNA, what that--
Senator Bayh. I think that was Mr. Farrell's point. Mr.
Farrell, I'd like to ask you--you had a number of
recommendations here. I guess I'd like to focus on No. 5 and
No. 6, maybe starting with No. 6. I mean, is there some way to
reduce the oxygen levels in the water so it just doesn't
sustain aquatic life? Is that----
Senator Bayh. Can you tell us a little about that?
Mr. Farrell. Certainly. Senator, thank you for the
question.
I made the point that our suggestions were done separate
from the framework, so it's not like we were working in
concert. But, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
recognizes this as--one of their suggestions is to create some
type of ``dead zone.'' Historically, they note that this
problem didn't exist back when we were in the unfortunate
situation of the 1970s, with high pollution in the Chicago
Waterways. Nothing got through.
Far be it from us to ever suggest that--returning to that
point, but, on a daily basis, to reach the attainment levels
mandated by EPA, the Water Reclamation District is monitoring
and adding oxygen, as needed. In fact, part of the problem they
have with this lock closure is that they're mandated, in
certain weather conditions, to open the locks to bring
freshwater in from Lake Michigan to maintain these oxygen
levels.
So, what we were trying to do is agree that--separation is
a tremendous idea. We'd just like to see it happen away from
the lakefront and away from these locks. The point that we
picked to begin the discussion--we don't think this is a
panacea, but the point we picked to begin this discussion was
the subcontinental divide, which means that anything we do
would have a propensity to go downstream, as opposed to the
Lakes.
Senator Bayh. Your point No. 5, that was, I guess, the
same----
Mr. Farrell. I----
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Same thing.
Mr. Farrell. I think this is an interesting point, in that
locks--it's--locks might be considered as an ally in this
battle, as opposed to an enemy. In fact the Corps' use of
moderated lock operations includes activities which would
jeopardize the industry that--when folks don't realize it,
because they're intending to tab activities in the river while
they close the locks, which means--it's not as if things can
happen on one side versus the other, they're going to close the
locks as a tool to help them do something else.
But, this suggestion recognizes the point that Lockport, in
foreign policy terms, is like Checkpoint Charlie in the Berlin
Wall; it's where everything comes into the region. You have at
your disposal a 600-foot chamber that's roughly 100 feet wide,
and, when full, is 50 feet high. All the Chamber is saying is
that this is, basically, an aquarium in which to work while
boats are navigating. We're--don't stop the operation to solve
the problem at the locks, but recognize the value of this
contained environment in which you can do chemical injection on
a much smaller scale. I'm certain that everyone here wants to
make sure that we don't have too many chemicals in too large a
quantity.
Senator Bayh. I'm done, Madam Chairman. Just so that people
don't misconstrue my comments, I'm pretty alarmed about the
prospect of these things getting in the Great Lakes. That would
be a very bad thing. There's no going back once they get in
there. But, I am saying that this flooding issue is a real one,
and it's causing great distress. I think we ought to vigorously
explore all the options. You know, if there are some things
that we have a very high degree of confidence will be
effective, that don't cause some disruption, well, they deserve
some serious consideration. You know, if the only way to go is
just, you know, ``pftt,'' well, then you do what you've got do.
But, I think we've got to look at some of these issues, like
you put on the table, and the fish kill and other things, to
kind of assess just how effective they would be. So, that's the
point I'm making.
I think the oxygen thing was kind of intriguing, you create
a mini ``dead zone,'' and maybe that's enough to get the job
done.
So, in any event, thank you for your time. I do appreciate
it.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Bayh. I think we all want to create a situation that has the
least amount of disruption, whether it's commerce or to
communities. But, I would just emphasize, again, that when
we're debating environmental DNA and, you know, ``What does
that mean?'' and ``It's above the barriers''--I mean, we're
past, sort of, just theoretical discussions. I mean, we--this
is serious. This is--and I'm sure you share that.
Senator Bayh. Yes. No, we've got to act. There's a----
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Real sense of----
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Urgency here. I----
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. Share that.
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Senator Bayh. I think we're all on the same page.
Senator Stabenow. I think we are.
Senator Bayh. We've got to act. It's just a question of----
Senator Stabenow. Right.
Senator Bayh [continuing]. What's the best course of
action.
Senator Stabenow. Right. One of the things that I think has
come forward this week, that's been very positive, is the
unifying effort of looking at the ecological separation where
the--what the Chamber is talking about, from a commerce
standpoint; what the Governors are talking about; the
environmental community, and so on. So, it's a--I think one of
the big questions for me is, How do we move much more quickly
and much more focused on that as a long-term solution?
The Army Corps, at this point, is doing a study on possible
suggestions, and the--before they would even look at how to do
it. So, I--from--one of the takeaways, for me today, is that we
need to shorten that and move that into a study on how do we do
it, and how do we do it as quickly as possible, so that we can
get to that long-term solution that appears to have the ability
to bring people together.
So, I think--and at the same time, knowing that we have
short-term issues right now--they're very serious--that we have
to address. We have to be deploying everything. Nothing's
perfect, but we have to deploy every tool that we have
available.
So, I want to thank all of you.
Dr. Taylor, I want to thank you, as well, for your
comments, in terms of how we look at transportation, and the
jobs created from looking at this from a multimodal
perspective, and making sure that we are looking at those costs
and how do we, in fact, reconstruct a transportation system so
that commerce and jobs can thrive and we can protect the Great
Lakes. I know that was your message to us. So, I thank you for
that.
I think we have run out of our allotted time. I wanted to
thank--and, Secretary Hayden, thank you very much for bringing
a broader perspective to this. We don't want to be sending the
carp your way, and we share the zebra mussels and have the same
stories that you can tell about what has happened in the Great
Lakes. We certainly want to be protecting our waterways and
tackling, with a sense of urgency, what is happening on
invasive species.
So, thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Leon Carl to Question From Senator Brownback
Question 1. Addressing Asian carp in the Great Lakes is of great
importance and deserves the Committee's attention. However, it is one
part of a national problem. Do you plan to turn your attention to
implementation of existing federal authorizations and crucial policy
changes needed to protect the economy and natural resources of the
nation from invasive species on a long term basis?
Answer. The USGS is committed to assisting DOI managers and the
nation by responding rapidly and effectively to growing threats from
invasive species in U.S. ecosystems. The USGS Invasive Species Program
provides methodologies and information to address impacts to ecological
systems and native species due to the introduction and spread of
invasive species. This research includes cooperative efforts to
document and monitor the introduction and spread of invasive species,
study the ecology of invaders and the ability of habitats to resist
invasion, forecast probabilities and locations of future invasions,
provide methods and information to assess and manage risks, and develop
methods to prevent and control invasive species to minimize their
environmental and economic impacts. In addition to Asian Carp, USGS
researchers are providing technical assistance on numerous other
invasive plant and animal species including tamarisk, Zebra/Quagga
mussels, Brown Tree snakes, python (and other large constrictor
snakes), leafy spurge, nutria, cactus moth, feral pigs and buffelgrass.
The USGS works in cooperation with the National Invasive Species
Council, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and other entities to
ensure that research efforts are coordinated and implemented in a
strategic manner.
______
Response of John C. Taylor to Question From Senator Brownback
Question 1. Have you been able to estimate, in dollar amounts, the
possible loss in state revenue that would result if Asian Carp were
introduced into Lake Michigan?
Answer. This question falls outside our area of expertise. My
colleague and I are experts on the logistics cost impacts on industry
of closing the locks in the Chicago area. These costs would relate to
moving the goods by other modes of transportation plus extra handling.
We estimate these costs at $70 million per year.
Other economists have studied the question of costs to the Lakes
economy (or lost tourism, and related fisheries revenues, if carp get
in and established. David Lodge at Notre Dame and colleagues of his
would be closer to this question. You see estimates in the $4-7 billion
range but we are not experts in this area.
______
Response of Marc Miller to Question From Senator Brownback
Question 1. What studies have been conducted to examine the
negative effects toxicants as a method for controlling the spread of
Asian carp have on native species?
Answer. Rotenone was the toxicant Illinois Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) used in the December Rapid Response effort. It is a
natural substance derived from the roots of several tropical and
subtropical plants in the bean family. Use of this toxicant in North
America began in the 1930s in ponds and lakes as a tool to sample fish
populations or to completely eradicate undesirable fish populations.
In 2007 the U.S. EPA completed a thorough evaluation of the human
health and ecological risks associated with rotenone. For more
information on the EPA evaluation, you can visit the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/rotenone_red.pdf.
In that evaluation, EPA concluded that rotenone could be used
safely for fish management if used properly with the following
conditions:
In situations where treated water is likely to move outside
of the direct area of application, rotenone must be deactivated
with a chemical agent (typically potassium permanganate) to
ensure that fish and aquatic life outside the treatment area
will not be adversely affected.
Applicators must post signs at access points to the affected
area to prohibit recreational access during treatment, prohibit
swimming for at least three days following treatment, and
prohibit consumption of dead fish taken from the treated area.
Many options were considered as control strategies including
heating the water, capturing the fish with nets, herding the fish with
noise or lights and trapping them, using explosives, removing oxygen
from the water, increasing the flow at the lock, and sonic disruption.
However the scientific literature is clear that rotenone is the
best option to control Asian carp populations. Rotenone affects all
species of fish, although susceptibility to the chemical varies between
species. The chemical inhibits a biochemical process at the cellular
level making it impossible for fish to use oxygen in the release of
energy needed for body processes. For more information on this study
you can visit the following website: http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/
center/pdfDocs/carp_rotenone.pdf.
Rotenone is used annually in Illinois on an average of 65 lakes
totaling 475 acres of water. IDNR fisheries biologists have over 40
years experience using rotenone in various aquatic environments to
control nuisance populations and improve fisheries habitat.
Rotenone is non-persistent, so there is no accumulation in the
water, soil, plants or surviving animals. The breakdown process is very
rapid. Ultimately, rotenone breaks down into carbon dioxide and water.
In an effort to mitigate possible effects on other fish and
wildlife, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) conducted
electro-fishing operations in the treatment area prior to the rotenone
application to remove any sport fish that were present before
application. Desirable fish caught were relocated outside the treatment
area, and the area will be restocked with more desirable fish in the
future, improving the overall quality of fish in the area.
Secondly IDNR accelerated the natural detoxification process by
adding potassium permanganate to the water once treatment was
completed.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
answer these questions and explain IDNR's history and commitment on
this issue. I also wish to reaffirm our desire to continue the
successful working relationship we have established with our federal,
state and local partners to protect the Great Lakes from this invasive
species.
______
Response of Jim Farrell to Question From Senator Brownback
Question 1. You indicate that the results from eDNA testing
performed on waters upstream of the electronic fish barrier have yet to
produce definitive evidence of live or dead Asian carp, and should
instead only be looked at as a warning sign and not an alarm to the
potential threat this species poses. Why would a warning sign not
warrant the type of remedial measure sought by the state of Michigan? I
say this because as many of you already know, and what we've
experienced in Kansas, is that once this species infiltrates a water
system it's too late.
Answer. Senator Brownback, thank you for the question regarding
eDNA. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Council points
out the distinction between a warning and an alarm for two reasons.
First, the confusion created in the media has caused the public and,
more importantly, policy makers to believe there is proof that the
Asian Carp is already in or near Lake Michigan--which is not the case.
The Asian Carp certainly is not in the Lake or above the electronic
fish barrier in any sustainable or established population. Second, the
request of Michigan to close the Locks--though dramatic and
simplistic--is an ineffective response that does nothing to halt the
migration of Asian Carp while devastating commercial navigation which
plays a vitally important role in the regional economy.
Further, as stated in the United States Solicitor General's
Response to Michigan: ``In August of 2009 the Corps entered into a
cooperative agreement with Dr. David Lodge of the University of Notre
Dame to use an experimental technique [bold for emphasis] known as
environmental DNA (eDNA) testing.'' We have yet to find any peer
reviewed publication regarding this experimental technique.
Additionally over 30,000 fish were killed and found in December 2009
with only a single Asian Carp found which was down stream of the
electronic fish barrier.
The Chamber applauds the effort to stop this invasive species and
believes that the efforts should be focused many miles downstream and
far from Lake Michigan and the Chicago and O'Brien Locks.
The Chamber has put forth eight Suggestions for Action, which I
have listed below.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION
1. Conduct a study of the ability of Asian Carp to survive
and/or thrive in Lake Michigan. This is a bottom feeding river
fish that seems to have entered Lake Erie in a very limited way
without doing harm. [In Framework]
2. Study the efficacy of eDNA testing. This newly developed
test seems to have received much of its approval by its implied
endorsement from the US Army Corps of Engineers' decision to
try what was thought to be the best available test when no
other technology was available. If the test is not going to be
halted, then it should be considered merely a warning not an
alarm. [In Framework]
3. Expand as planned the fish barrier system. This system
appears to be working--no live Asian Carp or Asian Carp carcass
has been found above the fish barrier. [In Framework]
4. Utilize the five miles between the Lockport Lock and the
fish barrier at Romeoville as a designated ``Kill Zone''. These
kills can be implemented on an as needed basis. [In Framework]
5. Install chemical kills and/or acoustical barriers in, and
adjacent to, the 600-foot lock chamber at Lockport to be used
as commercial and recreational traffic are locked through the
chamber. Lockport is the ``Check-Point'' of the region.
6. Block the passage of fish of all types by issuing an
Executive Order and/or Congressional Mandate charging the
United States Environmental Protection Agency to mandate
adjusted standards which maintain oxygen levels that will not
support an aquatic ecosystem in the 15-mile section of the
Sanitary and Ship Canal as well as the Cal Sag Channel upstream
from Lockport Lock. This is a man-made channel, which is
currently 70% treated effluent. This would create an ``Aquatic
Dead Zone'' between Lockport and the Sub Continental Divide.
[In Framework]
7. Install south of Lockport a remedial oxygenation program
to enhance water quality south of the Chicago Area Waterways
and protect the ecosystem in the balance of the Illinois
Waterways and the Mississippi River Basin.
8. Provide incentives and support commercial harvesting of
Asian Carp from Peoria to Lockport and in the southern end of
the Des Plaines River. [In Framework]
All of these suggestions focus on preserving and protecting the
quality of the Great Lakes while accommodating the use of the locks on
a consistent and continually operating basis. Six of these eight
suggestions are in principle found in the Asian Carp Strategy Framework
published recently by the Asian Carp Rapid Response Group. We believe
Michigan's action is unnecessary and counterproductive to a
constructive effort to stop Asian Carp.
Response of Jim Farrell to Question From Senator Sessions
Question 1. Can we find a more balanced solution to closing the
locks or ecologically separating the inland river system from the Great
Lakes? One that protects the jobs and economy that depend on the goods
moved by the barge industry, the most environmentally-friendly mode of
freight transportation, while still preventing invasive species from
traveling into the Great Lakes?
Answer. Senator Sessions, thank you for the question about a
balanced solution. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure
Council believes lock closures are largely symbolic and should be
removed from any list of solutions. In regards to ecological
separation, we believe that it can be accomplished without impacting
commercial navigation which we agree is the most environmentally-
friendly mode of freight transportation.
From a short-term perspective we must all agree that stopping the
Asian Carp is the priority. We have put forth eight suggestions for
action which are listed below:
SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION
1. Conduct a study of the ability of Asian Carp to survive
and/or thrive in Lake Michigan. This is a bottom feeding river
fish that seems to have entered Lake Erie in a very limited way
without doing harm. [In Framework]
2. Study the efficacy of eDNA testing. This newly developed
test seems to have received much of its approval by its implied
endorsement from the US Army Corps of Engineers' decision to
try what was thought to be the best available test when no
other technology was available. If the test is not going to be
halted, then it should be considered merely a warning not an
alarm. [In Framework]
3. Expand as planned the fish barrier system. This system
appears to be working--no live Asian Carp or Asian Carp carcass
has been found above the fish barrier. [In Framework]
4. Utilize the five miles between the Lockport Lock and the
fish barrier at Romeoville as a designated ``Kill Zone''. These
kills can be implemented on an as needed basis. [In Framework]
5. Install chemical kills and/or acoustical barriers in, and
adjacent to, the 600-foot lock chamber at Lockport to be used
as commercial and recreational traffic are locked through the
chamber. Lockport is the ``Check-Point'' of the region.
6. Block the passage of fish of all types by issuing an
Executive Order and/or Congressional Mandate charging the
United States Environmental Protection Agency to mandate
adjusted standards which maintain oxygen levels that will not
support an aquatic ecosystem in the 15-mile section of the
Sanitary and Ship Canal as well as the Cal Sag Channel upstream
from Lockport Lock. This is a man-made channel, which is
currently 70% treated effluent. This would create an ``Aquatic
Dead Zone'' between Lockport and the Sub Continental Divide.
[In Framework]
7. Install south of Lockport a remedial oxygenation program
to enhance water quality south of the Chicago Area Waterways
and protect the ecosystem in the balance of the Illinois
Waterways and the Mississippi River Basin.
8. Provide incentives and support commercial harvesting of
Asian Carp from Peoria to Lockport and in the southern end of
the Des Plaines River. [In Framework]
From a long-term prospective ecological separation is a worthy
goal, which we believe can be accomplished without impacting commercial
navigation.
Suggestion number 3 (Expand as planned the fish barrier system) is
pertinent because the electronic fish barrier is working and is about
to be expanded.
Suggestion number 6 (Create an ``Aquatic Dead Zone'' between
Lockport and the Sub Continental Divide) is the only solution that has
any precedent of success. As noted in the Asian Carp Work Group
Framework, ``Historically, poor water quality in Chicago's urban
waterways had controlled the transfer of invasive species between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds.''[Framework 1.2, page 4]
Though we would never suggest returning to the poor water quality of
the 1950's and 60's, we know that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District in Chicago is continually adding oxygen to reach and maintain
mandated levels of oxygen. Logic says that we should be able to manage
oxygen levels marginally below the level required to support aquatic
life and still have reasonable water quality. Suggestion number 7
(Install south of Lockport a remedial oxygenation program to enhance
water quality south of the Chicago Area Waterways) would re-establish
water quality for the benefit of those downstream.
______
Responses of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Please consult as needed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/
or the Environmental Protection Agency.
SHORT TERM MONITORING
Question 1. Testimony made it clear that there is not one single
solution to prevent carp from entering the Lakes in the short-term;
therefore there is a significant importance to adequately coordinate
all possible short-term management activities and ensure that we are
conducting all of them as sufficiently as possible. As federal agencies
and partners continue to review the Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework and comments made to it, can you assure me that we will spare
no resources and ensure that the entire litany of activities to prevent
carp from reaching the Lakes are properly budgeted for?
Answer. The Administration takes very seriously the threat Asian
carp may pose and is responding to this threat with a high level of
focus and attention. Officials are working in an urgent, coordinated
manner toward a single goal--to prevent Asian carp from establishing in
the Great Lakes.
Restoring the Great Lakes has received unprecedented support under
the Obama Administration. The FY 2011 Budget requests $300 million for
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in addition to $475
million from FY 2010 enacted, yielding a total Federal investment of
$775 million over two years to significantly advance Great Lakes
protection.
In February 2010, a draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework was
released which reflected the collaboration of Federal, State, and local
partners. The draft Framework presents a multi-tiered strategy to
combat the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes and to ensure
coordination and the most effective response across all levels of
government. The Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC),
composed of the same Federal, State, and local partners who drafted the
Framework, is now implementing this plan, one of the most comprehensive
plans ever undertaken to control invasive species. GLRI and other FY
2010 funding will be directed to the short-term actions listed in the
Framework. Within the totals requested for FY 2010 and 2011 for Great
Lakes restoration, sufficient funding will be available for actions
necessary to reduce the threat of Asian carp.
Question 2. Are there any activities identified in the Framework
that could receive more funds to do more preventative work? For
example, I am concerned that the monitoring activities such as EDNA
testing, including in other Lake Michigan tributaries this spring,
could be expanded with more resources than are listed in the Framework.
Can we expedite and perform additional EDNA monitoring?
Answer. Monitoring efforts using eDNA to detect Asian carp are
being led by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Notre Dame
University. These eDNA field sampling plans are being coordinated
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Agencies that have
responsibility for ``standard'' fish monitoring (electro-fishing and
gill netting).
The current geographic scope of eDNA testing is the Chicago Area
Waterway System (CAWS). The ACRCC is in the process of expanding eDNA
processing capability for more sampling within the CAWS. They also are
developing a multi-agency monitoring strategy to include electro-
fishing, netting and eDNA sampling within the CAWS. Monitoring
activities are adequately funded and are being conducted at the
necessary level. As more is learned from field efforts, we will assess
the potential need for expanded activity.
LONG TERM SEPARATION
Question 1a. The issue of ecological separation, as discussed in
the hearing, is receiving more and more attention for being the only
certain measure which can keep Asian carp and other aquatic invasive
species from entering the Lakes or leaving the Lakes to infiltrate
other parts of the country. Both aspects make this a national issue,
not merely an issue for Illinois or Michigan. Can you describe to me
the current parameters of the Army Corps study on ecological separation
of the Chicago waterway from Lake Michigan?
Answer. WRDA 2007 authorized the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) to: (1) identify the hydraulic connections
between the basins, including episodic pathways, (2) identify current
and potential future invasive species, including Asian carp in these
basins, and (3) investigate potential options and controls for
reduction of transfer risk of these aquatic invasive species (AIS).
Ecological separation will be considered as an alternative for reducing
transfer risk. The GLMRIS will focus on all relevant hydraulic
connections, although the effort will begin with consideration of the
CAWS and the threat of Asian carp specifically.
Question 1b. Can we budget more for this part of the Interbasin
Feasibility Study than the $1 million currently suggested in the
Framework to expedite the process so that Congress can review the
options that may be implemented?
Answer. The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study
(GLMRIS) is authorized through 2014 under WRDA 2007. The portion of the
GLMRIS focusing on CAWS and Asian carp has been expedited and an
interim report will be released prior to the completion of the full
study; the Corps anticipates completing this report in 2011. In
addition to the FY 2010 enacted level, GLRI funds are being used to
support the expedited portion of this study. The President's FY 2011
Budget would provide another $400,000, but the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has the capacity for this study to be funded at $2.5
million.
Please note that the capability estimate for each study or project
is the USACE estimate for the most that it could obligate efficiently
during the fiscal year for that study or project. However, each
capability estimate is made without reference to the availability of
manpower, equipment, and other resources across the Army Civil Works
program, so the sum of the capability estimates exceeds the amount that
the Corps actually could obligate in a single fiscal year. The Budget
allocates funding among studies and projects on a performance basis in
a manner that will enable the Corps to use that funding effectively.
Furthermore, the overall funding level proposed in the Budget for the
Army Civil Works program reflects the Administration's assessment of
national priorities in view of the range of potential private and
public uses of funds. Consequently, while the Corps could obligate
additional funds for some studies and projects, offsetting reductions
within the Army Civil Works program would be required to maintain
overall budgetary objectives.
Question 1c. Does the Army Corps need additional direction from
Congress to fully analyze how to implement such ecological separation?
Answer. No additional authority is needed to study ecological
separation as a part of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). USACE intends to evaluate multiple
alternatives that may effectively address AIS transfer between the two
basins. The study includes efforts to identify: all potential AIS
pathways and vectors, current and future AIS of concern, and
technologies, capabilities and methods for preventing AIS transfer.
USACE will examine the concept of ecological separation as part of
these efforts. However, since the outcomes of the study are not
predetermined, implementation of ecological separation of the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River basin is not a legislatively mandated goal
of this study.
Responses of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. In developing the Control Strategy Framework, did the
agencies involved examine other states' efforts in combating aquatic
invasive species and, if so, what are some examples of areas in the
United States that have experienced significant success?
Answer. Parts of the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework draw
upon other existing aquatic nuisance species management plans and
control efforts. For example, the Framework included components from
the Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver
Carps in the United States\1\, a nationwide strategy for controlling
Asian carp that was completed in 2007 at the request of the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force. This plan identified 133 recommendations
for blocking or controlling Asian carp expansion, and was developed
with input from States and Federal agencies, industry, and other groups
with experience in managing Asian carp and other AIS in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conover, G., R. Simmonds, and M. Whalen, editors. 2007.
Management and control plan for bighead, black, grass, and silver carps
in the United States. Asian Carp Working Group, Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, Washington, D.C. 223 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fundamental component of the Framework is the development and
support of a ``rapid response'' capability so that partner agencies can
quickly deploy assets to key locations when there is a high risk of
species introduction or movement. This ``rapid response'' approach has
been used in efforts to eradicate or control other AIS in the United
States and elsewhere.
The Framework also incorporates a multi-pronged ``integrated pest
management'' approach, a model used through a U.S./Canadian Federal
partnership to successfully control the invasive sea lamprey in the
Great Lakes.
Question 2. Addressing Asian carp in the Great Lakes is of great
importance and deserves the Committee's attention. However, it is one
part of a national problem. Do you plan to turn your attention to
implementation of existing federal authorizations and crucial policy
changes needed to protect the economy and natural resources of the
nation from invasive species on a long term basis?
Answer. Invasive species are one of the primary threats to native
fish and wildlife resources in the Unites States. The Federal
Government continues to work diligently with States, Tribes, non-
governmental organizations, and others to identify potential threats
from invasive species before they become established, and to control or
(where possible) eradicate species already introduced.
Responses of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. The Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework is a great
start at combating Asian carp. There are numerous management and
scientific measures in the plan. Given that we are spending a
significant amount of tax payer dollars, Congress would like to see
prioritized items with their respective price tag. How are you
prioritizing your efforts?
Answer. The goal of this multi-tiered defense is to prevent Asian
carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes. Federal, State, and
local partners are taking advantage of this unique opportunity to
prevent economic and ecological harm before it occurs. While the
Framework identifies short and longer term actions to prevent the
spread of this invasive species, all of the steps outlined in the
Framework are considered important.
Last month, FWS and IDNR crews began breaking ice on the waterways
to fish, net, and electroshock potential Asian carp wintering grounds
near warm water discharges and in areas that eDNA analysis signaled
carp may be. As waters are warming, crews continue their intense
efforts to locate Asian carp in the CAWS. No Asian carp have been found
past the electrical barriers. At the same time, USACE is increasing
eDNA sampling capacity, constructing a third electrical barrier, and
acquiring land to build mesh screens and erect jersey barriers to
prevent the fish from bypassing the electrical barriers in flooding
events. The last activities--constructing mesh screens and jersey
barriers--were recommendations made in Interim Report I of the
Congressionally-authorized Efficacy Study. The near-term actions
identified as part of this study are intended to provide interim
protection as additional measures are either studied or are ongoing.
USACE is also developing a recommendation for modified structural
operations, and continuing to work on the Great Lakes and Mississippi
River Interbasin Study, which is considering ecological separation as
one potential method among others to reduce movement of invasive
species from one basin to another.
Question 2. The Framework has budgeted $300,000 for commercial
fishing below the Lockport pool where the population of Asian carp is
very high. This number seems very low compared to the other action
items-for example you have $5 million budgeted for rotenone treatments
during barrier maintenance shutdowns. It would seem to me that reducing
the population of Asian carp downstream is one of the best ways to slow
their movement. Can you please comment on this action item?
Answer. With Asian carp, our objective in including commercial
fishing is to decrease carp numbers downstream and reduce pressure on
the barrier system.
This action will employ commercial fishermen in the pools below the
barrier to use traditional methods in a sustained program of catch and
removal. The Framework budget for this is calculated based on current
rates for commercial fishermen and the scope of work the ACRCC
anticipates.
This action is designed to blunt the leading edge of the Asian carp
advance, which biologists believe to be in the stretch of river between
the electrical barrier and the Brandon Road Lock and Dam, based on eDNA
sampling.
Commercial fishing crews will operate from March through October
2010 for a total of 33 weeks. These crews will report weekly on species
and number of fish removed. Based on positive results (actual capture
of Asian carp), this area may be extended downstream to include the
stretch between the Dresden Island Lock and Dam and the Brandon Road
Lock and Dam.
Further eDNA testing in conjunction with these commercial fishing
efforts will allow us to clearly define the leading edge of the Asian
carp migration. This is an important component in developing and
enhancing future control options.
Question 3. In the Framework, $3 million is allocated towards
commercial market enhancement ideas. Can you explain your idea of
commercial market enhancement?
Answer. As intensive commercial fishing begins this spring to
reduce population pressure below the electrical barrier, Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), is leading efforts to determine
how carp remains can be used. IDNR is working with the Illinois
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity and the Illinois
Department of Agriculture to determine if carp can be used in products
such as animal feed, organic fertilizers, or Omega 3 oils.
Response of Hon. Nancy H. Sutley to Question From Senator Sessions
Question 1. We understand that the Corps is planning intermittent
lock closure. Can you explain to the Committee how lock closures will
stop the Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes?
Answer. Currently, the locks operate on a ``show and go'' system,
which allows any boat to request lock passage at any time. The purpose
of intermittent lock closure is to restrict the time the locks are open
to certain, pre-determined periods. This would allow control measures
to be taken to restrict carp movement through the locks while they are
open. It is also important to note that even when locks are closed,
there are alternate, uncontrolled paths to Lake Michigan, around
Chicago's locks. USACE is studying the ability of intermittent lock
closure to impede carp movement. USACE intends to submit this report
(Interim Report III of the Congressionally-Authorized Efficacy Study)
with recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works by the end of April.
______
Response of Andy Buchsbaum to Question From Senator Brownback
Question 1. In addition to the funds spent from the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, how much federal funding do you anticipate will
be necessary to prevent introduction of Asian Carp into the Great
Lakes? Now I understand how vitally important these bodies of water are
to the economic stability of your state, but it's also important to
keep in mind that states like Kansas receive almost no federal funds to
combat invasive species. In fact, last year the Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks received only $37,000 to combat aquatic invasive
species.
Answer. We agree that it is important to increase federal
investment in combating invasive species in every region of the
country. But we also note that the Great Lakes have long been
recognized as being a national priority transcending any single state's
interest.
The Great Lakes are vital to the economy and quality of life to the
35 million people who live in the eight states that border them--and
also to the nation as a whole [3]. The Great Lakes are the economic
engine for an eight state region from New York through Minnesota that
comprises 28 percent of the nation's the GDP [5]. They provide the
clean, usable water that powers the nation's manufacturing heartland,
including the steel, automobile, and manufacturing industries. They
support a $7 billion a year fishing industry and a $16 billion tourism
industry [6]. The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for
approximately 26 million people in the U.S [6a]. These lakes contain
20% of the world's surface fresh water and 95% of the nation's [6]. The
Great Lakes make the United States the Saudi Arabia of fresh water.
Protecting their health from threats like invasive species is not an
issue for a single state; it is a national imperative.
The federal government has repeatedly recognized this imperative
for over a century. The U.S. and Canada in 1909 entered into the
Boundary Waters Treat which led to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement and then to a special amendment to the federal Clean Water
Act to protect Great Lakes water quality (Great Lakes Critical Programs
Act, 33 U.S.C. sections 1268 et seq). More recently, former President
Bush issued an Executive Order in 2004 that designated the Great Lakes
as an area of ``national significance'' and established a multi-federal
agency task force to protect them [2]. The Executive Order also created
a multi-stakeholder collaboration that resulted in EPA publishing a
comprehensive restoration plan, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy to Protect and Restore the Great Lakes, in 2005 [3]. President
Obama used this Strategy as the blueprint for his Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Action Plan published last month [6].
As detailed in my February testimony and the testimony of the other
panelists, an invasion of the Great Lakes by Asian carp would
permanently and significantly damage the ecology of the lakes and the
economy of the region. In addition to the direct effects on the $7
billion fishery and the $16 billion tourism industry, an Asian carp
infestation could threaten drinking water supplies and the clean water
that industry needs to prosper. Avoiding those impacts is the reason
that there is an emerging consensus on the need to ecologically
separate the Mississippi River system from the Great Lakes basin.
There is a second reason that federal investment in separating the
Mississippi River system from the Great Lakes basin is a national
priority. Although the February 25 hearing focused on stopping a
particular invasive species, Asian carp, from moving via the Chicago
canals from the Mississippi River system into the Great Lakes, it is
equally important to stop invasive species in the Great Lakes from
moving into the Mississippi River basin and across the country. Several
invasive species--zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and round gobies--have
jumped from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers,
their tributaries, and inland lakes using the same canals that are now
transporting the Asian carp [7, 8, 9]. As J. Michael Hayden, Secretary,
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, testified before the
Subcommittee on February 25:
We have heard discussions about the potential Asian carp
impacts on native species in the Great Lakes but we are
ignoring the non-native interchange of water, waste, and
species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin
through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Sources indicate
there are roughly 180 non-native species currently in the Great
Lakes. There are several invasive species such as the snakehead
fish in the Mississippi River Basin moving upstream. Which one
will be the next species to invade the Mississippi River Basin,
Great Lakes or somewhere else in the nation? As long as there
is a direct connection between these two large basins we will
continually be fighting this battle.
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``If I were to go west, I would go
to Kansas''. While Lincoln never took residence in Kansas,
several invasive species have. Coincidentally, one of them, the
Zebra Mussel, was transported in the ballast water of a ship
and became established in the Great Lakes in the 1980's. It has
since spread across the nation, including Kansas, and has
become a very large problem. Zebra Mussels now inhabit 6
federal reservoirs in Kansas and many other smaller lakes and
streams. Similarly to Asian carp, they pose a threat
economically, environmentally, and directly to human health.
They clog water intakes, kill native mussel species, damage
boats and cut the feet of swimmers. . .[4]
Ecological separation of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes
basins is important to Kansas and other states threatened by invasive
species that now reside only in the Great Lakes. This separation is
necessary to protect all of the nation's waterways from invasive
species in the Great Lakes, and federal funding and support of that
separation is essential.
As to how much federal funding will be needed on an annual basis to
prevent the invasion of Asian carp in the Great Lakes (and to stop
Great Lakes species from invading the Mississippi River system), the
answer depends on the strategy the federal government chooses to
implement to prevent an invasion. Presently, the Draft Asian Carp
Control Strategy Framework [1] is the best indicator of the federal
strategy, but it is preliminary and incomplete. The Framework has
identified 13 short-term actions that would be funded mostly from the
GLRI. Non-GLRI funding of $2.3 million for these actions has already
been appropriated. The Framework also identifies 16 long-term actions
primarily funded by the GLRI; the non-GLRI funding (already
appropriated) totals $4.3 million for these actions. One long-term
action (additional rotenone treatment) at a cost of $5 million is
unfunded; it is unclear whether this cost would be funded by the GLRI
or another source. Finally, the Framework identifies two ongoing
actions by the Army Corps of Engineers (barrier maintenance and
construction) totaling $16.75 million. Both have been appropriated from
non-GLRI sources. The total spending project from all these projects is
$55,226,000 from the GLRI; $23,350,000 from non-GLRI funds (all of them
already appropriated); and $5,000,000 from either or both sources.
Additional funding from GLRI and non-GLRI sources for ongoing and
long-term actions will also be required. The Framework identifies
several actions that already have appropriations but which might
require future appropriations because they are ongoing, including
barrier maintenance and more eDNA testing, but we do not know what the
cost of those activities will be in the future and how much will be
funded by the GLRI. More significantly, the Framework includes a
feasibility study by the Corps on ecological separation and other
measures to prevent the spread of invasive species between the
Mississippi River system and Lake Michigan. Implementing those
recommendations is likely to require substantial resources, but it is
impossible to say what the costs of those measures will be until the
study has been completed and the response actions have been chosen.
The Great Lakes are a national resource vital to the country's
economy and security. We urge Congress and the Administration to
protect them from an invasion by Asian carp, one of the worst threats
to their ecology and our economy, by authorizing and funding the
ecological separation of the Mississippi River system from Lake
Michigan. That separation will both prevent invasive species from
entering the Great Lakes from the west and also stop invasive species
from leaving the Great Lakes and contaminating the Mississippi River
system and its neighboring states, including Kansas.
REFERENCES
[1] Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework (2010) http://
www.asiancarp.org/RegionalCoordination/documents/
AsianCarpControlStrategyFramework.pdf
[2] Executive Order 13340 of May 18, 2004, Establishment of Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force and Promotion of a Regional Collaboration
of National Significance for the Great Lakes, http://www.glrc.us/
documents/EO13340.pdf.
[3] Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (2005) http://
online.nwf.org/site/DocServer/
prescriptionforgreatlakes_1_.pdf?docID=2621, at page 9.
[4] Hayden, J. Michael, Secretary, Kansas Department of Wildlife
and Parks, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Water and Power,
February 25, 2010 http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/
HaydenTestimony022510.pdf
[5] Regional Economic Accounts, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Table 1. Real GDP by State, 2005-2008, released June 2, 2009, available
at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/
gsp_newsrelease.htm.
[6] U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan (2010)
http://greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/
glri_actionplan.pdf, at pages 3-6.
[6a] U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Great Lakes
Monitoring (2006) http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/
great_minds_great_lakes/social_studies/without.html
[7] USGS, Non Aquatic Invasive Species Maps, Round Goby (2009)
http://nas2.er.usgs.gov/viewer/omap.aspx?SpeciesID=713
[8] USGS, DREISSENA SPECIES FAQs, A CLOSER LOOK (2009) http://
fl.biology.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Zebra_mussel_FAQs/
Dreissena_FAQs/dreissena_faqs.html#Q9
[9] USGS, PROGRESSION OF THE ZEBRA MUSSEL (Dreissena polymorpha)
DISTRIBUTION IN NORTH AMERICA (2009) http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/
Nonindigenous_Species/ZM_Progression/zm_progression.html
______
Response of Ken DeBeaussaert to Question From Senator Brownback
I appreciated the opportunity to testify at the hearing regarding
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes before the subcommittee on Water and
Power of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on February
25, 2010. I am responding to your important follow-up questions
concerning the closing of locks in the Chicago Area Waterways (CAW) to
control dispersal of the Asian Carp into Lake Michigan; and to your
question about attacking the potential threat further downstream where
Asian Carp are already present. I am pleased with the attention of the
subcommittee to the issue of Asian Carp. Michigan has a lot to lose if
Asian Carp get into the Great Lakes and we believe that all emergency
actions to prevent that should be considered and implemented.
In response to your first question, there are a number of reasons
why closing of the Chicago Lock and the O'Brien Lock in the CAW until a
permanent ecological barrier is constructed between the Mississippi
River Basin and the Great Lakes Basin is critical and must be
undertaken immediately.
The discovery of Asian Carp DNA is a clear indication that they are
in the CAW. This is not just the view of the state of Michigan; it is
confirmed by the testimony before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee by Dr. David Lodge, the federal government's
expert witness in their brief before the Supreme Court. Dr. Lodge noted
that a Quality Assurance audit team, led by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, reviewed his team's environmental DNA (eDNA)
protocols and concluded that ``the eDNA method you are using is
sufficiently reliable and robust in reporting a pattern of detection
that should be considered actionable in a management context'' (cite
testimony @ http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/water/20100209/
Lodge%20Testimony.pdf).
Even though a live Asian Carp has not been found to-date on the
Lake Michigan side of the electrical barrier in the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, the finding of eDNA is sufficient evidence for
emergency actions. Waiting until a live Asian Carp is found, or waiting
until extensive feasibility studies can be completed, may delay action
until it is too late. Of special concern to Michigan is that Asian Carp
eDNA was found in Calumet Harbor on Lake Michigan. Asian Carp present
in this location would pose special challenges for rapid response and
everyone hopes there is not an established population in that area.
Asian Carp passage through the O'Brien Lock is the most immediate
threat as it lies between the areas where eDNA testing has determined
the presence of Asian Carp in the Calumet-Sag Channel and Calumet
Harbor. If this lock is allowed to continue to operate and enable
passage of boats to and from Lake Michigan, it will permit the Asian
Carp to get into that lake. There is currently no mechanism in place
that prohibits any fish from swimming into the lock when it is opened
to allow a boat to enter, or to stop the fish from escaping the lock
when it opens to allow a boat to exit the lock on its way to Lake
Michigan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard
recognized this danger when they shut down the Calumet-Sag Channel to
boat traffic, and closed the O'Brien Lock for several days in December
based on the discovery of the eDNA evidence. Similarly, there is
nothing in their path to stop the Asian Carp from eventually entering
Lake Michigan through the Chicago Locks in downtown Chicago.
Although no one can predict with certainty how long it will be
before the Asian Carp establish populations in Lake Michigan, if they
are present in the areas where the eDNA evidence shows they are, and
given the track record of the Asian Carp and its ability to swim 10 to
15 kilometers a day, there is no reason to believe that the danger is
not imminent. Given the unimaginable devastation to the Great Lakes
ecosystems and economies if no action is taken, there is no real choice
but to immediately take whatever measures are necessary and possible to
stop the Asian Carp from passing from the CAW into the Great Lakes.
The answer to your second question is straightforward. When actions
are taken to stop dispersal of an invasive species, those actions must
be taken in front of the leading edge of the invasion. Actions taken
after a species has established populations are too late. There are
extremely few examples of invasive species that have been successfully
eradicated so the effort must be on prevention in the case of Asian
Carp and the Great Lakes.
Michigan recognizes that no one action by itself may be enough to
prevent Asian Carp dispersal to Lake Michigan, but collectively action
that can be taken will significantly reduce that risk. The full suite
of actions I put forward in my testimony are required and will reduce
the risk for Asian Carp dispersal into the Great Lakes. If you have
further questions about Michigan's positions regarding Asian Carp in
the Great Lakes, please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for
your interest and attention to the issue.
______
Responses of J. Michael Hayden to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. What has been the biggest obstacle for the Kansas
Department of Wildlife & Parks in dealing with our state's invasive
species problem?
Answer. Financial shortfalls have been the biggest obstacle for
invasive species management in Kansas. Approved by Governor Kathleen
Sebelius in 2005, the Kansas Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
(Plan) established a program to specifically address the issue of
aquatic invasive species in Kansas. The effort to develop the Plan was
led by the Department of Wildlife and Parks in conjunction with
personnel from other government agencies and private organizations.
Identified as the coordinating agency for the Plan, the Department of
Wildlife and Parks has been increasing and improving their capacity to
prevent, control, contain, and eradicate invasive species in Kansas.
Utilizing state funds, federal grant assistance through the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996, and private donations as the primary
funding mechanism for implementation of the plan, it is apparent these
funding sources are limited and have made successful management
difficult. We do have a well developed management plan, but without the
financial resources to properly implement the identified objectives, it
is largely ineffective. A budget enhancement would allow for us to hire
the necessary staff to contain current infestations (physical
containment at infested waters as well as an effective education
program), monitor for future issues, address introduction vectors such
as aquatic imports, and eradicate invading populations where feasible.
Question 2. What has Kansas done to help mitigate the spread of
Asian Carp throughout the state?
Answer. The aforementioned invasive species management plan
addresses all aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp in a broad
sense. Actions specific to Asian carp include the listing of four Asian
carp as prohibited species under Kansas Administrative Rule 115-18-10.
Further, we have supported the listing of species as injurious wildlife
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by submitting comments through
the Federal Register. In addition to regulatory actions, we rely
heavily on outreach and education activities. Educational videos, high
profile news reports (front page of Wichita Eagle), print materials for
distribution, an online education and certification course, and
appropriate signage at infested waters are all tools employed across
the state to inform aquatic users of the risk Asian carp pose and what
precautions need to be taken to prevent further spread. We have
conducted research to identify various vectors for spread, but
recommendations have not yet been implemented. To directly address
human/Asian carp interactions, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
routinely increases water discharges to flush the carp out of public
access areas below the dam to limit the possibility of human/fish
interaction. Fortunately, physical barriers exist to limit natural
dispersal upstream where established in Kansas. However, if we were to
have a major flood or an uninformed water user accidentally moved them
above a barrier, Asian carp would spread throughout a much greater
portion of the state.
We sincerely hope the comments provided address the concerns of the
committee and Senator Brownback. If further clarification is necessary,
please contact us again.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Ducks Unlimited, Ann Arbor, MI
Ducks Unlimited is non-profit wetlands conservation organization
with more than 650,000 members nationwide, and approximately 200,000
members in the Great Lakes states. Our mission is to conserve wetlands
and associated habitats for the benefit of waterfowl, people and other
wildlife.
Non-native invasive plants and animals have a long history of
negatively impacting ecosystems. The Great Lakes have been particularly
vulnerable due to the many vectors leading into, and out of, the lakes.
Exotic plants such as purple loosestrife, flowering rush and common
reed (Phragmites australis) are recent invaders that have reduced
wetland productivity for wildlife and people. Exotic animals that have
impacted wetlands have been minimal, but the common carp, introduced in
the late 1800s to the US, has had a major negative impact on wetlands.
Common carp thrive in shallow wetlands where their activity uproots
native vegetation and increases turbidly, thereby decreasing
productivity and quality of the wetlands.
Four species of recently-introduced carp are now on the verge of
invading the Great Lakes through man-made connections between the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Already known to have devastating
impacts on the Mississippi River ecosystem, these fish species now
threaten the Great Lakes. DU is especially concerned about two of those
four species that have received little attention. Grass carp (white
amur) and black carp are quite different from the silver and bighead
carp that have received most of the notoriety. Grass carp are
herbivores and eat their weight in vegetation daily. They are long-
lived and have great potential to cause further degradation to the
shallow water bays/wetlands in the Great Lakes. These shallow bays and
coastal wetlands provide important feeding areas for waterfowl and
nursery areas for fishes. For example, submersed aquatic vegetation
(SAV) in Lake St. Clair provides key food resources for approximately
150,000 canvasbacks and tens of thousands of redheads, scaup and other
diving ducks each fall and spring. If SAV abundance further declines
due to grass carp, one of the most important mid-migration areas for
waterfowl in North America will be lost.
Black carp feed on mollusks and snails and therefore also compete
with waterfowl for food resources. They also have the potential to
negatively impact populations of native mussels, already stressed by
other exotic competitors such as zebra and quagga mussels.
DU encourages federal, state and local agencies and public groups
to work together to immediately implement a short term strategy to
prevent Asian carp migration into the Great Lakes, and develop a long
term solution that would prevent exotic invasive species from traveling
between two of the nations key watersheds: the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River systems. If carp are successful in invading the Great
Lakes system, considerable resources currently dedicated to natural
resource conservation stand to be diverted to strategies needed to
mitigate impacts on fisheries and water recreation. Eliminating the
impacts of exotic invasive species is a key strategy to protect and
restore the Great Lakes, as stated in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration's Restoration Strategy that DU contributed greatly to and
supports.
______
Statement of Capt. Mike McElroy
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to call to your attention
what I believe to be a series of mistakes and unfortunate assumptions
that have led the USACE to the brink of making a very serious mistake.
Today as this distinguished Sub Committee meets to discuss the
progress and science behind the Control Strategy Framework many
Americans in Chicago are in fear of losing thier Jobs. They are afraid
because they have been told that in haste a decision has been made by
the USACE to cut our employers operations in half. This will be done
because of a fish. This fish has not been seen, we are not sure if it
can live here and the best science around cannot tell us any more than
that. Our employer also cannot tell us when this will occur because he
also does not know. People watching the news are cancelling boat rides,
they are not sure if we can leave our dock let alone through the lock.
Daily we lose business, daily anxiety grows with the crew yet still no
actual real fish.
The Locks are not actually what the name implies. They are not
water tight. Not even close. Closing them does nothing except ensure
businesses go under. Then ,should the fish arrive, they will swim right
through the lock gates right past our deserted ships.
What will do something is actually doing something very well right
now. The barriers. A very large concrete wall at the narrowest part of
the CSSC in Lamont would also do many things, including satisfy
Michigan, Chicago and the fish.
Bypass Chicago flood water could be pumped past the wall, barges
could be lifted over the wall and if the fish ever leave we could take
the wall down. It is Cheap, quick and involves no loss of jobs. For
once it will actually create them. No controversial experimental
unproven science required.
After reading your recently posted memorandum on Establishing and
Applying Categorical Exclusions under the NEPA, Mrs. Sutly, as the
protector of NEPA,I ask that you reconsider giving the USACE a
categorical Exclusion for this project. now more than ever NEPA is
needed now to protect our rights and our environment. A full EIS is
warrented based on the massive impacts related to this action,this is
clear to see.
______
Statement of Michael Borgstrom, President, Wendella Sightseeing Boats,
Chicago, IL
Please consider the following facts:
Despite the media hype, Asian carp are not an imminent
threat to enter Lake Michigan. ``To date there has been no
physical carp seen or captured above the electric barrier.''
Colonel Vincent Quarles. USAGE Chicago District Commander
According to the Asian Carp Workgroup Framework ``Even if
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) were to close
the Chicago Lock and take measures to make it watertight, fish
can get into the lake through the lock and other, unregulated
access points.''
Dr. John Taylor's Logistics and Transportation Study, cited
below, did not include the commercial passenger vessel industry
or the effect that closing the Looks will have on Chicago's $12
billion tourism industry..
eDNA is an untested, unpublished research project that does
not provide solid confirmation of the presence of Asian Carp
and has not been tested or used in any marine environment other
than a laboratory or the Chicago Area Waterway System.
The economic effects of closing the Chicago Lock, the second
busiest lock in the nation on a permanent, temporary or
modified operational basis will be devastating and immediate.
My name is Michael Borgstrom. I am president of Wendella
Sightseeing Co. Inc. (Wendella) in Chicago. I am the third generation
of this locally owned, family business that has provided a variety of
guided boat tours, private charters and Chicago WaterTaxi service on
the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. My businesses have been built
around the Chicago Lock. In fact, Wendetla has been a user of the
Chicago Lock since it opened in 1938. Any closure of the Chicago Lock
and Chicago River to commercial passenger vessels on a permanent,
temporary or modified operational basis would be devastating if not
catastrophic to my business and the entire industry.
As Chairwoman of the hearing to examine the science and policy
behind the Federal response to Asian carp, l urge you to keep the above
bulleted facts in mind when listening to and/or questioning the
witnesses appearing before you on Thursday.
Dr. John Taylor, an Associate Professor at Wayne State University,
in his written affidavit for the Supreme Court in connection with the
State of Michigan lawsuit requesting immediate lock closure, that the
``documents submitted by the United States and Illinois to this Court,
have seriously exaggerated the economic and transportation impacts
associated with closure of portions of the Chicago Waterway System at
the Chicago and O'Brien Looks...'' He made this statement, despite the
admission, in a conference call last week with members of the media,
that he ``did not study any effects on tourism or the passenger vcooel
industry in Chicago.'' Dr. Taylor's Study was commissioned and financed
by the State of Michigan.
As stated by Dr. Taylor, in his affidavit to the Supreme Court, his
conclusions and resulting report were based on the following:
1. A boat tour he took with Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago in 2006.
2. (He) observed portions of the study area by land in
January 2010 (when commerce and river usage is at its lowest.)
3 (He) reviewed publicly available aerial photographs, as
well as Illinois Waterway Navigation Charts.
4. (He) researched publicly available information concerning
waterway traffic.
This does not qualify as a complete and comprehensive study of a
large, complex industry. Obviously, no due diligence was performed.
The proposed decision to close the Chicago Lock is being made based
on results from Dr. David Lodge's research project on eDNA. However,
what is actually known about eDNA?
General John Peabody of the USAGE in his testimony before
Congress stated, ``ft (eDNA) has not been peer-reviewed, nor
has it been independently tested for its validity,''
In its Laboratory Audit Report of February 5m, the
Environmental Protection Agency only concluded that the test
detects eDNA. They wrote ``the protocols utilized by the Lodge
laboratory group to detect environmental eDNAdie reliable.''
The audit ``did not address Interpretation of tine eDNA results
in regards to the presence or absence, proximity, or abundance
of silver or bighead carp, the presumed source of eDNA.''
Dr. Lodge agrees. In a January 19th press release put out by
the USAGE he said ``It (eDNA) does not yet provide information
about Asian carp quantity that may be present, age, size, how
they got there or how long they've been there.''
In short, eDNA does not and cannot explain how the eDNA ended up in
a particular location. it could have been present in the testing
locations long before hand. It could have been carried by birds or
other fish or on the bottom of a boat or barge that has transited
through a waterway where the presence of live Asian carp has been
documented.
Based on the use of eDNA and its findings, closure of the Chicago
Lock, the second busiest in the nation, would be arbitrary and
capricious.
In fact, late last year, eDNA testing indicated the presence of
carp near the O'Brien Lock. The USAGE in conjunction with the illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District (MWRD) conducted one of the largest fish kills in
US history. More than fifty thousand pounds of dead fish were
recovered; not one Asian carp was found. In another test a few weeks
ago, crews from the IDNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
conducted netting operations in a warm water outflow of the river,
again not one Asian carp was found. In fact, according to Colonel
Vincent Quarles, USACE Chicago District Commander, ``To date there has
been no physical carp seen or captured about our barrier system.''
There is no science or evidence that would indicate an imminent
threat to the Great Lakes from Asian carp. However, the catastrophic
consequences of its closure of the Chicago Lock, whether permanent,
temporary or on a modified operational basis are quite clear to our
industry.
I urge you to look past the hype and hysteria that has been created
and actively support other more effective, less destructive and proven
measures to prevent the migration of the Asian carp.
______
Statement of Captain Michael Strain, Munster, IN
My name is Michael Strain. I am the owner and Captain of a 200
passenger charter boat that docks on the Chicago River and cruises on
Lake Michigan. Our company is a small family owned business. I am the
Captain. My wife is the bartender and handles foodservice. My son is a
crew member. And my sister handles sales.
If the Chicago lock is closed we will be forced to shut down our
business and will go bankrupt. We have worked extremely hard to start
and build this business and it seems utterly impossible that the
Chicago Lock may be closed because edna suggest the possibility of
Asian carp beyond the fish barrier.
Nobody wants to see Asian carp in the Great Lakes. Rut as you
examine the issue remember that no live Asian carp have been found in
or near Lake Michigan The existing barriers are working.
______
Statement of Capt. Jennifer Perry
The progression of the concern over Asian carp is disappointing.
The people and agencies allowing the issue of Asian carp to evolve into
a debate causing hysteria and panic are irresponsible.
It's unacceptable that those urging the closing of two major locks
have disseminated misleading information. Many people, including the
news media, are being falsely led to believe that Asian carp are
bouncing off the lock gates, ready to charge into Lake Michigan to seek
and destroy. They are neglecting to do their homework.
The draft of the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework is filled
with inadequacies and contradictions that recklessly promote panic of
an invasion. The factual statements are found on page 8 of the ACCSF
regarding ``Risks and cost associated with closure''. The ACCSF group
is prepared to spend $84,516,000 on speculation and inconclusive
research. Again, irresponsible. Furthermore, the panel of experts at
the two ACCSF meetings I attended, seemed bewildered by the technical
questions and comments by the represented commercial vessel industries.
It was discouraging to hear the facilitator tell many of us; ``time's
up'', ``wrap it up'', ``it's not technical enough'', ``that's a
comment, not a question'', when companies are in jeopardy of losing
their businesses, jobs lost, families devastated, and the dreadful
ripple effect of even more crippling of our already struggling economy,
Is urgent action required to abate a threat of Asian carp migrating
into Lake Michigan? Yes. Take the urgent action to where the Asian carp
are, which is 33 miles from Lake Michigan, not where they aren't. It is
incumbent upon the ACCSF group to do better, be guided by the facts,
and be more responsible. www.aisiancarpfacts.com
``To date there has been no physical carp seen or captured above
our barrier system...33 miles from Lake Michigan, south.'' Colonel
Quarles, Commander, Chicago District, United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
______
Statement of Edmund B. Welch, Legislative Director, Passenger Vessel
Association, Alexandria, VA
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) wishes to emphasize that the
thriving commercial passenger vessel industry in Chicago, so integral
to the city's tourism economy, will be jeopardized if there is a
closure of the Chicago River waterway and the federally-operated lock
in downtown Chicago connecting the river with Lake Michigan.
On behalf of its Chicago-area members, PVA urges you to actively
resist efforts to close the river and lock and instead support other
more effective, less destructive measures to prevent the Asian carp
from entering Lake Michigan.
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) is the national trade
association for U.S.-flagged passenger vessels of all types. PVA
members in the Chicago area that operate vessel tours and charters that
move through the Chicago River Controlling Works lock connecting Lake
Michigan and the Chicago River include:
Chicago Cruises (Great Lakes Development LLC)
(www.chicagocruises.com)
Chicago's First Lady Cruises (www.cruisechicago.com)
Chicago from the Lake, Ltd. (www.chicagoline.com)
Mercury Sightseeing Boats (www.cruisechicago.com)
Shoreline Marine Company (www.shorelinesightseeing.com)
Wendella Sightseeing Boats (www.wendellaboats.com)
Most operators offer the famous boat tours to showcase Chicago's
architecture. Should the lock be closed, each would be prevented from
providing lake-to-river and river-to-lake excursions, upon which their
businesses rely. For Chicago vessel companies and their hundreds of
employees, lock closure would be economically injurious or completely
crippling. A vibrant, successful part of Chicago's tourism industry
would be tossed aside.
PVA member companies operate at least 36 vessels with a combined
passenger capacity of 4,115 that must pass through the Chicago River
lock. Their vessels carried at least 691,674 passengers and made at
least 7,790 transits through the lock in 2009. These PVA members employ
at least 604 workers in high-quality, good-paying jobs and have an
annual payroll of at least $7,033,396. Tens of millions of dollars of
investment assets and resources are at risk if the passenger vessels
cannot be employed in their normal income-producing activity.
In addition, another PVA company--American Canadian Caribbean Line
of Warren, RI--operates the U.S.-flagged Niagara Prince, a small-ship
overnight cruise vessel, on a route between New Orleans and Chicago.
That vessel must transit the O'Brien Lock twice in May and June of this
year.
Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers distributed a document
describing several different possible modifications in lock and
waterway navigation operations. While PVA understands that the Army
Corps of Engineers put forward the alternate scenarios in good faith,
and while PVA acknowledges that there is intense public pressure on the
Corps to make changes in waterway management to impede the spread of
the Asian Carp toward the Great Lakes, PVA must report frankly that the
alternatives presented, including Alternative 2, will cause grievous
economic harm to the Chicago-area passenger vessel operators. This is
because continued operation of the Chicago Harbor Lock and the nearby
Chicago River are essential to the thriving passenger vessel industry
in Chicago. Because of this industry's integral role in Chicago's
tourism industry, jeopardizing passenger vessel operations, including
the famous Chicago Architectural Tours, will eliminate jobs, cause
widespread economic harm as ``ripple effects'' engulf businesses that
service, support, and supply the passenger vessel operators, and
deprive Chicago of a unique attraction to visitors and tourists.
Rather than closing (in full or in part) the Chicago Harbor Lock
and restricting navigation on the nearby Chicago River during the
operating season of the commercial passenger vessels, PVA urges the
Corps to adopt countermeasures against the Asian Carp that are more
effective and less destructive economically. PVA stands ready to assist
the Corps and federal agencies in identifying such measures.
Federal policymakers must understand the business operating model
of the passenger vessel companies. Most of them use the same vessels to
provide two services, often on the same day: scheduled ticketed tours
open to the public at large and private chartered events. One operator
confines itself to charters only.
Despite being ``small businesses,'' the Chicago passenger vessel
companies employ more than 600 individuals each year. In responding to
a PVA inquiry in December, the operators declared that they provide at
least 604 workers in high-quality, good paying jobs. The combined
payroll for these workers exceeds $7 million.
At a meeting hosted by the Army Corps of Engineers in Chicago
earlier this month, several of those employees spoke publicly of their
fears about their jobs. The harm that will be inflicted on them if the
passenger vessel operators cannot maintain these jobs is real. We know
what will happen if the operators cannot sail because of closures of
the lock and river; these jobs will go away and will do so this very
year. With respect to the captains and other maritime workers on the
vessels, it will be difficult if not impossible to locate replacement
jobs in the maritime sector without leaving Chicago. PVA does not wish
to denigrate the predictions of economic harm that might occur if Asian
Carp reach the Great Lakes and establish a destructive population
there; nevertheless, predictions of that harm are just that--
predictions. In PVA's view, the Corps should give greater weight to the
foreseeable, immediate loss of existing jobs in Chicago.
It would be ironic if, at the same time that the Congress of the
United States is on the verge of enacting multi-billion dollar
legislation to create jobs, federal agencies adopted an Asian Carp
prevention strategy that would cause substantial jobs loss this year!
Alternative 2 will prevent the passenger vessel operators from
conducting their tours at least half of the time during their
restricted business season; no small entity can absorb such a blow and
still survive. It is essential for the Corps to understand that these
businesses don't conduct their vessel tours year-round but instead do
so in the months between spring and fall. Their operating seasons
differ somewhat, but most have a business season of seven months or so.
However, their peak revenue periods are concentrated in just a few
weeks in mid-and late summer.
At its meeting in Chicago, the Corps made clear that operators
should expect that additional preventive measures would take place in
conjunction with closures of the Chicago Harbor Lock. Therefore, the
passenger vessel industry is to assume that commercial navigation on
the Chicago River would be shut down at the same time the lock is
closed. As a result, under Alternative 2, at the same time lake-to-
river and riverto-lake vessel tours would be blocked by the closed
locks, all-river tours would also be shut down because of the
complementary preventive measures. In essence, under Alternative 2,
nearly all passenger vessel operations would have to cease from 3-4
days each week during the vessel operating season, including the peak
revenue periods.
The economic damage to the passenger vessel operators cannot be
calculated by simply using a ``straight-line'' method (that is,
shutting down navigation for three days out of seven would result in
loss of 3/7 of expected revenue). A business that caters to tourists
and visitors must be available when they wish to enjoy it. The
scheduling uncertainty and unreliability that would be introduced under
Alternative 2 would deter and repel customers, especially the many that
make relatively ``spur of the moment'' decisions to take advantage of
the tours.
Passenger vessels compete for charter business against shoreside
venues; moreover, advance contracting is common. At the Chicago
meeting, one operator told the Corps of how many charters she has
already booked for the coming summer season. The Corps must reasonably
expect that implementation of Alternative 2 under any configuration
will inevitably mean that many of those contracted-for charters will
fall on days when the lock and river will be shut down. The Corps must
also understand that it will be extremely hard, if not impossible, for
the vessel operators to reschedule those weddings, prom dinners, and
other date-sensitive events to times and days when vessel operations
will be achievable. The result will be the loss of those contracts as
the chartering parties make arrangements for other venues. Furthermore,
the loss of good will and reputation, and the perception that the
vessel operator is an unreliable business that is unable to perform a
contracted-for service will impede the ability to attract and contract
for other charters.
Customers, especially those who charter vessels, want river-to-lake
and laketo-river vessels tours. A vessel operator who cannot provide
this risks losing the charter altogether. The vessels of tour companies
are usually based entirely at river facilities or based entirely on
Lake Michigan. They don't have some vessels at one location and more at
the other (although one company does have boats so located). Thus, it
is not possible, as Michigan's Attorney General recently suggested,
that a single company can offer lake tours with its lake-based. vessels
and river tours with its river-based vessels. To provide its customers
with both lake and river experiences on the same cruise, the vessel
operator must transit the Chicago Harbor Lock. If it is closed for 3-4
days each week, the customer will not receive the desired experience
and the likelihood of the charter goes down immensely.
Alternative 2 will jeopardize the world-famous Chicago Architecture
Vessel Tours. One might be tempted to conclude that these tours, so
much a part of the city's tourism draw, would be unaffected by closures
of the Chicago Harbor Lock. This is not the case. Other preventive
measures will render the nearby Chicago River unavailable to commercial
navigation when the lock is closed. Thus, for 3 or 4 days per week, the
Chicago Architecture tours could not be performed. Also, there is great
concern about the water level and quality of the Chicago River. Would
closure of the lock and other associated measures alter the river's
water levels? Would it make the river stagnant, or dirty, or smelly?
Anything that might make the river experience less appealing to someone
on the passenger vessel will jeopardize this tour. In its Architecture
Tour, Chicago can offer a visitor an experience unlike anything
available in any other American city. The federal government must do
everything it can to ensure that this experience is preserved.
PVA takes seriously any credibly-demonstrated harm that could ensue
to the ecology of the Great Lakes should the Asian Carp establish a
presence there. Maintenance of healthy natural aquatic communities is
critical to PVA's vessel members wherever they operate, and PVA members
operate throughout the Great Lakes in addition to Chicago.
Nevertheless, PVA believes that the federal government can prevent the
migration of the Asian Carp into the Great Lakes by employing a range
of concerted actions other than closure of the Chicago River and
Chicago Harbor Lock pursuant to the alternatives presented (including
Alternative 2).
Cannot the Corps concentrate its ``defense in depth'' strategies in
locations further down the South Branch of the Chicago River below the
area of navigation for Chicago's passenger vessels? Could not the Corps
also employ defensive measures in the 15-mile downriver zone discussed
by several speakers at the Chicago meeting? Would it not make sense to
employ the anti-Carp techniques in spots that inflict the least
economic harm on existing going concerns, including the Chicago
passenger vessel operators? PVA encourages the Army Corps of Engineers
to rethink its strategies along these lines and not confine itself to
the economically damaging alternatives recently presented, especially
Alternative 2.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these observations. PVA
stands ready to provide this subcommittee with more information about
the Chicago-area passenger vessel industry and to work with all federal
agencies on a viable, effective, and economically constructive strategy
to fight the Asian Carp.