.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
February 26, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41082
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Summary
Four species of non-indigenous Asian carp are invading U.S. waterways, resulting in a variety of
concerns and problems. Two species—bighead and silver carp—are of particular concern, based
on the perceived degree of potential danger. Current controversy relates to what measures might
be necessary and sufficient to prevent movement of Asian carp from the Mississippi River
drainage into the Great Lakes through the Chicago Area Waterway System. Bills have been
introduced in the 111th Congress to improve control of these species.
According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Asian carp are a significant threat to
commercial and recreational fisheries of the Great Lakes. Asian carp populations could expand
rapidly and change the composition of Great Lakes ecosystems. Native species could be harmed
because Asian carp are likely to compete with them for food and modify their habitat. It has been
widely reported that Great Lakes fisheries generate economic activity of approximately $7 billion
annually. Although Asian carp introduction is likely to modify Great Lakes ecosystems and cause
harm to fisheries, studies forecasting the extent of potential harm are not available. Therefore, it is
not possible to provide estimates of potential changes in the regional economy or economic value
(social welfare) by lake, species, or fishery.
The locks and waterways of the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) have been a focal point
for those debating how to prevent Asian carp encroachment on the Great Lakes. The CAWS is the
only navigable link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, and many note the
potential of these waterways to facilitate invasive species transfers from one basin to the other.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has constructed and is currently operating electrical barriers to
prevent fish passage. However, in light of recent tests indicating the potential presence of Asian
carp in the Great Lakes, increased federal funding to prevent fish encroachment has been
announced by the Obama Administration, and calls to permanently separate the two basins have
grown. The potential closure of existing navigation structures in the CAWS and the permanent
separation of the basins remains the most contentious issue related to Asian carp control, and a
long-term solution has yet to be decided.
On December 21, 2009, the State of Michigan filed suit against the State of Illinois, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Michigan has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to order closure of shipping locks near Chicago to
prevent Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes. On January 19, 2010, the Supreme Court
refused to order emergency measures sought by the State of Michigan to stop the migration of
invasive Asian carp toward Lake Michigan from rivers and a sanitary canal in Illinois. Without
comment, the Court refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have closed waterway
locks and required other temporary measures in reaction to the discovery of Asian carp upstream
in Illinois rivers.
In the 111th Congress, Section 126 in Title I of P.L. 111-85 directed the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to implement additional measures to prevent aquatic invasive species from bypassing
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project and dispersing into the Great
Lakes. Other bills have been introduced to list Asian carp species as injurious under the Lacey
Act (H.R. 48, H.R. 3173, S. 237, S. 1421), and to direct various federal agencies to take specific
actions to increase control over and restrict the spread of Asian carp (H.R. 51, H.R. 4472, S. 237,
S. 2946).
Congressional Research Service
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Grass Carp ............................................................................................................................ 1
Black Carp............................................................................................................................ 2
Silver Carp............................................................................................................................ 3
Bighead Carp ........................................................................................................................ 4
Economy at Risk......................................................................................................................... 5
Threat ................................................................................................................................... 5
Economy .............................................................................................................................. 5
The Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)............................................................................. 8
Federal Efforts to Control Asian Carp........................................................................................ 11
Short-Term Efforts in the CAWS ......................................................................................... 11
Nationwide Asian Carp Control and Long-Term Actions ..................................................... 13
Recent Developments: Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework.......................................... 14
Litigation .................................................................................................................................. 15
Congressional Interest ............................................................................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1. Records of Grass Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010 ................................................ 1
Figure 2. Records of Black Carp Capture, as of February 2, 2010 ................................................ 2
Figure 3. Records of Silver Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010................................................ 3
Figure 4. Records of Bighead Carp Capture, as of February 3, 2010 ............................................ 4
Figure 5. Chicago Area Waterway System and Lake Michigan .................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Great Lakes Recreational Fishing Activity and Economic Impacts in 2006 ..................... 7
Table 2. Great Lakes Commercial Fishing Landings and Revenue in 2008................................... 7
Table 3. Annual Economic Impact of Boating on Great Lakes States in 2003 ............................... 8
Table 4. Asian Carp Control Strategy Matrix ............................................................................. 15
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Background
Four species of non-indigenous Asian carp are invading U.S. waterways, resulting in a variety of
concerns and problems. Two species—bighead and silver carp—are of particular concern, based
on the perceived degree of potential danger. Current controversy relates to what measures might
be necessary and sufficient to prevent movement of Asian carp from the Mississippi River
drainage into the Great Lakes through the Chicago Area Waterway System. Bills have been
introduced in the 111th Congress to improve control of these species.
Grass Carp1
The grass carp or white amur, Ctenopharyngodon idella, was first imported to the United States
in 1963 for biological control of vegetation in aquaculture operations. Grass carp have also been
stocked to biologically control invasive aquatic plants in other settings. Shallow, quiet waters are
the grass carp’s typical habitat, and this species easily tolerates waters near freezing. Its maximum
size is about 100 pounds. The species initially escaped a fish farming experiment station in
Arkansas, and was subsequently stocked in Arkansas lakes and reservoirs open to stream systems.
It has since spread widely across the country, including to four of the Great Lakes (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Records of Grass Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Fact Sheet on grass carp.
Notes: HUC is an abbreviation for “Hydrologic Unit Code,” used to indicate to how much of a drainage basin
the data apply. HUC 6 indicates that one or more grass carp have been captured in the drainage basin. HUC 8
1 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=514.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
indicates that one or more grass carp have been captured in the drainage subbasin. These records should not be
interpreted as indicating the current presence of grass carp in all of these areas.
Black Carp2
The black carp or black amur, Mylopharyngodon piceus, arrived in the United States in the early
1970s unintentionally among imported grass carp. Subsequently, this species was imported as a
food fish and as a biological control agent to combat a pest in aquaculture ponds. Of the four
species of carp in U.S. waterways, black carp has the most limited distribution (Figure 2).
The preferred habitat of black carp is along the bottom in deep water of large rivers. Owing to
this habitat preference for deeper waters, sampling to determine black carp distribution is
considered incomplete, since sampling is more difficult in deeper waters. Black carp feed
primarily on mussels and snails, and can pose a significant threat to native mollusks, many of
which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The maximum
size of this species is about 150 pounds.
Figure 2. Records of Black Carp Capture, as of February 2, 2010
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Fact Sheet on black carp.
Notes: HUC is an abbreviation for “Hydrologic Unit Code,” used to indicate to how much of a drainage basin
the data apply. HUC 8 indicates that one or more black carp have been captured in the drainage subbasin. These
records should not be interpreted as indicating the current presence of black carp in all of these areas.
2 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=573.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Silver Carp3
Silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, were first imported to the United States in 1973 by a
private fish farmer in Arkansas. This species has been used to control phytoplankton (microscopic
drifting algae) in nutrient-rich water bodies and is also a food fish. Escapes from aquaculture
facilities and unintended inclusion of silver carp among shipments of grass carp stocks have
contributed to the spread of this species. The U.S. distribution of silver carp is confined primarily
to the Mississippi River drainage, with no proven occurrence in the Great Lakes (Figure 3).
The silver carp is a filter-feeder, capable of consuming large amounts of phytoplankton,
zooplankton (small drifting and/or swimming invertebrates), and detritus. Silver carp are easily
startled by outboard motors, causing them to jump several feet out of the water. The maximum
size of this species is about 60 pounds.
Figure 3. Records of Silver Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Fact Sheet on silver carp.
Notes: HUC is an abbreviation for “Hydrologic Unit Code,” used to indicate to how much of a drainage basin
the data apply. HUC 6 indicates that one or more silver carp have been captured in the drainage basin. HUC 8
indicates that one or more silver carp have been captured in the drainage subbasin. These records should not be
interpreted as indicating the current presence of silver carp in all of these areas.
3 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=549.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Bighead Carp4
The bighead carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, was first imported to the United States in 1972 for
use in a private aquaculture operation in Arkansas. This species was discovered in open waters of
the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers in the 1980s, probably after escaping aquaculture facilities. In the
United States, bighead carp are found primarily in the Mississippi River drainage, but they have
been reported in Lake Erie (Figure 4).
Bighead carp inhabit large rivers. They are filter-feeders, consuming primarily phytoplankton and
zooplankton. The maximum size of this species is about 90 pounds.
Figure 4. Records of Bighead Carp Capture, as of February 3, 2010
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Fact Sheet on bighead carp.
Notes: HUC is an abbreviation for “Hydrologic Unit Code,” used to indicate to how much of a drainage basin
the data apply. HUC 6 indicates that one or more bighead carp have been captured in the drainage basin. HUC 8
indicates that one or more bighead carp have been captured in the drainage subbasin. These records should not
be interpreted as indicating the current presence of bighead carp in al of these areas.
4 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=551.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Economy at Risk
Threat
According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,5 Asian carp are a significant threat to
fisheries of the Great Lakes.6 Asian carp populations could expand rapidly and change the
composition of Great Lakes ecosystems. Direct ecological effects are likely to result from their
various diets: silver carp eat phytoplankton, bighead carp eat zooplankton, black carp eat
invertebrates such as snails and mussels, and grass carp eat aquatic plants. Native fish species
could be harmed, because Asian carp are likely to compete with them for food and modify their
habitat. Species at greatest risk include native mussels, other aquatic invertebrates, and fishes.7 As
bighead and silver carp have dispersed and migrated within the Mississippi River drainage, these
species have out-competed native fish to become the most abundant fish in certain areas.8
Recreational and commercial fisheries of the Great Lakes depend on fish populations that could
be affected by Asian carp. The primary economic impacts of Asian carp are likely to be related to
these fisheries, although additional concerns have also been raised because of potential effects on
recreational boating and hunting.9 Although undetermined at this point, it is also possible that
there could be positive consequences to the Great Lakes ecosystem from the introduction of these
fish.
Economy
It has been widely reported that Great Lakes fisheries generate economic activity of
approximately $7 billion annually, and these fisheries are threatened by the introduction of Asian
carp. Potential economic effects of Asian carp movement into the Great Lakes should be put in
the proper context for several reasons. The entire Great Lakes fishery and its associated value are
not likely to be at risk. Although Asian carp introduction is likely to harm many Great Lakes
fisheries, potential changes to the ecosystem and associated economy are not fully understood.
Additional biological and economic data and analyses would be required to estimate the
magnitude of potential changes to these fisheries. This information is not available for predicting
biological and economic changes by lake, species, or fishery. Measures of economic activity such
as economic impacts are only one dimension of economic analysis. The economic input-output
studies of the recreational and boating sectors provided below cannot be used to estimate changes
in social welfare,10 to make comparisons of the economic efficiency of alternatives, or to conduct
benefit-cost analysis. To more fully understand how society would be affected, valuation studies
would be required to estimate the potential changes in social welfare resulting from Asian carp
introduction.
5 Established in 1954 under the bilateral U.S./Canada Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
6 See http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/carp.php.
7 See http://www.asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/AsianCarp.pdf.
8 See http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/carp.php.
9 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asian carp degrade waterfowl habitat and put waterfowl production
areas at risk. Reductions of waterfowl populations could decrease hunting opportunities and associated economic
impacts from hunting expenditures.
10 Social welfare is a measure of the well-being of society or of a community. Estimates of changes in social welfare
determine whether society loses or gains from a given action.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
The economic impacts of recreational and commercial activities on state and regional economies
of the Great Lakes region are significant. The economic input-output data cited below measure
financial activities associated with the money people spend to buy goods and services on their
fishing trips. Expenditures at businesses that provide goods and services have direct, indirect, and
induced effects on business revenues, jobs, and personal income in the local area and at the state
level. This approach to valuing recreational fishing is the expenditure and economic impact
approach. The following descriptions provide recent economic information, but do not consider
the effects of Asian carp introduction.
The Great Lakes’ recreational fisheries target perch, black bass, walleye, lake trout, salmon, pike,
steelhead, and others. In 2006, approximately 1.5 million anglers fished 17.9 million recreational
days on the Great Lakes.11 These anglers spent an estimated $1.2 billion during Great Lakes
fishing trips and $1.3 billion on equipment for activities related to Great Lakes fishing.12
Economic impacts resulting from these expenditures included more than 58,000 jobs, salaries of
$2.1 billion, and total impacts13 throughout the U.S. economy of slightly more than $7 billion.14
Great Lakes fisheries also support charter boat fishing businesses that provide recreational fishing
services to anglers. In 2002, an estimated 1,746 charter firms made more than 93,000 charter trips
in the Great Lakes region.15 Table 1 provides a breakdown of angling activity and economic
impacts of recreational fishing by state.
In 2008, commercial fishing in the Great Lakes produced 18.3 million pounds of fish with a
landed value16 of nearly $17 million (Table 2).17 Commercial fisheries are important to many
coastal communities, and except for Lake Erie, each lake supports tribal fisheries. The top species
are lake whitefish, yellow perch, walleye, chubs, smelt, and lake trout. Specific lakes contribute
the bulk of commercial landings of certain species—for example, Lake Huron (60% of
whitefish), Lake Erie (97% of walleye, 84% of yellow perch, and 94% of smelt), and Lake
Michigan (80% of chubs and 42% of lake trout).18 Record harvests occurred in 1899, when 147
million pounds were landed.19 Landings and value of commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes
have declined dramatically because of many factors such as invasive species, pollution, habitat
degradation, overfishing, competition with imports, personal tastes and preferences, and
regulatory changes.
11 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2006
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Washington, DC, 2007.
12 Southwick Associates, Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse, American
Sportfishing Association, Multistate Conservation Grant Program, 2007. Hereinafter cited as “Southwick Associates
2007.”
13 Total impacts include direct, indirect, and induced impacts as money is cycled through the economy, in this case as a
result of expenditures on recreational fishing equipment and trips.
14 Southwick Associates 2007.
15 See http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/FEE/05-504-Economics.pdf.
16 In this case, landed value is the amount paid to fishermen at the dock.
17 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States 2008, Silver
Spring, MD, July 2009.
18 Ronald E. Kinnunen, Great Lakes Commercial Fisheries, Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Marquette, MI, August
2003.
19See http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/envt/fish/fish_1.html.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Table 1. Great Lakes Recreational Fishing Activity and Economic Impacts in 2006
Retail Sales
Salaries
Total Impact
States Anglers
Days
Fished
(000s)
(000s)
Jobs
(000s)
Illinois 56,000 728,000 $93,589 $55,158 1,511 $175,074
Indiana 46,000
759,000
$224,588
$117,321
4,170
$394,866
Michigan 461,000
6,981,000
$562,654
$312,197
8,283
$1,001,641
Minnesota 48,000
272,000 NR
NR
NR NR
New York
247,000
2,060,000
$213,174
$122,147
3,288
$369,194
Ohio 328,000
2,807,000
$480,482
$248,301
9,915
$801,817
Pennsylvania 85,000
598,000
$399,342
$213,921
5,200
$725,705
Wisconsin 235,000
3,705,000
$315,336
$159,420
6,153
$528,274
Totals (Great
Lakes States)
1,506,000 17,910,000 $2,289,165 $1,228,465
38,520 $3,996,571
Totals (United
States)
$2,524,266
$2,189,490
58,291
$7,089,230
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Washington, DC, 2007.
Southwick Associates, Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse, American
Sportfishing Association, Multistate Conservation Grant Program, 2007.
Notes: Great Lakes fishing includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario, Erie, and St. Clair, connecting
waters, and fishing in tributaries for smelt, steelhead, and salmon.
Minnesota economic impacts were not reported (NR) because of small sample size. Illinois (<10), Indiana, and
Pennsylvania estimates should also be used with caution because of smal sample sizes (10 to 30).
Retail sales include trip and equipment expenditures. Equipment expenditures were prorated according to how
and where equipment such as boats were used.
United States totals include economic impacts outside Great Lakes states that resulted from trip and equipment
expenditures for Great Lakes fishing.
Table 2. Great Lakes Commercial Fishing Landings and Revenue in 2008
State
Landings (pounds)
Revenue
Michigan 9,998,000
$7,448,000
Minnesota 318,000
$158,000
New York
44,000
$65,000
Ohio 4,493,000
$5,315,000
Pennsylvania 50,000
$140,000
Wisconsin 3,376,000
$3,641,000
Total 18,279,000
$16,767,000
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States 2008,
Silver Spring, MD, July 2009. p.6.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
There are 4.3 million boats registered in the Great Lakes states, and it has been estimated that
911,000 operate on the Great Lakes.20 When disturbed by a boat motor, silver carp may jump as
high as 10 feet out of the water. In parts of the Mississippi River drainage, silver carp have caused
injuries when large fish have jumped into moving boats. Silver carp also could injure boaters and
water-skiers and detract from boating in the Great Lakes. As in the case of fisheries, predictions
of the potential magnitude of economic effects on Great Lakes boating are not available.
In 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the Great Lakes Commission
undertook a study of recreational boating in the Great Lakes states. Recreational boaters spent
approximately $9.8 billion during trips and $5.7 billion on craft in Great Lakes states.21 Economic
results from these expenditures included more than 246,000 jobs and salaries of $6.5 billion.
Table 3 provides economic measures of boating on Great Lakes states. The study found that a
significant share of boating expenditures took place at Great Lakes marinas. It is also likely that a
significant portion of boating expenditures are related to fishing activity.
Table 3. Annual Economic Impact of Boating on Great Lakes States in 2003
(includes all registered boats and boating in Great Lakes states)
State
Boats (000s)
Sales (000s)
Jobs
Salaries (000s)
Illinois
360,252 $1,958,000 22,407 $678,000
Indiana 216,145
$2,203,000
30,437
$710,000
Michigan
953,554 $3,905,000 51,329 $1,342,000
Minnesota
845,094 $3,709,000 49,060 $1,247,000
New York
528,094
$2,749,000
28,901
$987,000
Ohio 413,048
$1,959,000
26,148
$656,000
Pennsylvania 355,235 $71,000 1,195 $24,000
Wisconsin 610,800
$2,493,000
36,640
$825,000
Total 4,282,222
$19,047,000
246,117
$6,479,000
Source: Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Recreational Boating’s Economic Punch, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004.
The Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)
The Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) is a segment of the Illinois Waterway in
northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana. The Illinois Waterway is a 327-mile channel
maintained at a minimum depth of 9 feet by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter
referred to as the Corps). It is the only navigable link between two of the largest freshwater
drainage basins in the world, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. The CAWS portion of
the Illinois Waterway includes modified rivers, canals and other structures that control the flow of
water through the Chicago metropolitan area. It has recently received attention for its potential to
provide a pathway for Asian carp to migrate from the Mississippi River and its tributaries into the
Great Lakes. The full system of projects comprising the CAWS is shown in Figure 5.
20 Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Recreational Boating’s Economic Punch, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004. Hereinafter
cited as “Great Lakes Commission 2004.”
21 Great Lakes Commission 2004.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Figure 5. Chicago Area Waterway System and Lake Michigan
Source:. Adapted by the Congressional Research Service, February 2010.
An important geologic feature in the Chicago area’s watershed is the Chicago Portage. The
Chicago Portage separates the drainage basins of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. The
Corps first connected these bodies of water for navigation in 1848 by constructing a 97-mile
canal connecting the Chicago River and the Illinois River known as the Illinois and Michigan
(I&M) Canal.22 The I&M Canal was maintained for commercial use from 1848 to 1933, and was
eventually replaced by the network of canals and locks that comprises the CAWS.23 Canals within
the CAWS currently include the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (or CSSC, completed in 1900),
the North Shore Channel (completed in 1910) and the Cal-Sag Channel (completed in 1922).
During construction of these canals, the flows of the Chicago River and the Calumet River were
also permanently reversed away from Lake Michigan and toward the Mississippi River drainage
basin. The altered flow of the rivers prevented sewage discharge into the canals from
contaminating Chicago’s drinking water supply intakes on Lake Michigan. Currently, pumping
continues to alter the natural flow of the CAWS.
22 Both before and after anthropogenic intervention, this divide has also been breached on occasion through flooding
events on the Des Plaines and Chicago Rivers that connect the two drainage basins. However, the I&M Canal was the
first permanent connection between the drainage basins.
23 Today the I&M Canal remains open as a state park site. The I&M Canal’s own potential to convey Asian carp into
other CAWS canals has been an additional item of discussion in recent invasive species debates.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
The locks of the CAWS have been a focal point for those debating how to prevent Asian carp
encroachment on the Great Lakes. The Corps operates multiple lock sites that connect the CAWS
to the Great Lakes, including the O’Brien Lock (on the Cal-Sag Channel) and the Chicago Lock
(on the Chicago River; see Figure 5). Both of these locks include sluice gates operated by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWD) that could provide flood
control in severe rainstorms.24 The MWD independently owns and operates a third site (the
Wilmette pumping station) on the North Shore Channel that directly connects to the Great Lakes.
The Corps also operates Lockport Lock and Dam (completed in 1933) southwest of Chicago on
the CSSC in Lockport. (See Figure 5.) Due to its distance from the Great Lakes, this lock has not
been as prominent in recent invasive species debates.
The CAWS plays a significant role in commercial and recreational navigation, although no
analysis of its cumulative economic impact on the region has been completed. Statistics from the
Corps indicate that 22.3 million tons of commodities moved through the waterways that comprise
the Chicago Harbor in 2008,25 including bulk quantities of sand and gravel, coal, and steel.26 The
Chicago Lock is one of the country’s busiest locks for traffic, and handled 36,256 vessels and
conducted 11,599 lockages in 2008.27 The O’Brien Lock handled 17,532 vessels and conducted
6,310 lockages in 2008.28 Much of the traffic on both locks was recreational traffic, accounting
for approximately 70% of total traffic through the locks in 2008.29 Lockage statistics show that
the transit of commodity-laden commercial barges is much higher at O’Brien Lock, which allows
for shippers to offload onto deepwater vessels.30 Recently, the Corps has estimated that shippers
saved an estimated $192 million in 2008 by using the O’Brien and Chicago locks instead of
overland shipping.31 However, calculations underpinning this figure have not been released
publicly.
24 The Corps and the MWD coordinate action during severe rainstorms, and may open both the locks and the sluice
gates to discharge floodwaters into Lake Michigan and prevent flooding of downtown Chicago. This last occurred in
2008.
25 The Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center includes the following waterways in the Port of Chicago: Chicago River
(both north and south branches), the CSSC, the Cal-Sag Channel, and Calumet Harbor and River in Illinois and
Indiana. Since each segment’s movements are counted individually, total tonnage double-counts tonnage carried on
multiple segments within the Chicago Harbor. For data on individual segments, see http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/
ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcusgl08.pdf, pp. 3-7.
26 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 2008, Part 3—
Waterways and Harbors, Great Lakes, IWR-WCUS-08-03, Alexandria, VA, 2008, p. 7. Available at
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/pdf/wcusgl08.pdf.
27 The Corps defines a “lockage” as the movement of either vessel(s) or extraneous matter through a lock. Since a
movement of a group of vessels (such as a group of recreational vessels) is counted as one lockage, the total number of
vessels transported through a lock typically exceeds the combined number of commercial, recreational, and other
lockages at a chamber. For additional information, see http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/lpms/pdf/lpmsstat_v3.pdf.
28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, 2008. See
http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/lpms/lock2008web.htm.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid. According to Corps statistics, approximately 6.8 million tons in bulk commodities transported through the
O’Brien Lock in 2008, while 105,000 tons of commodities transported through the Chicago Lock in 2008. For
additional analysis of vessel movement and lockages based on Corps data, see Joel Brammeier, Irwin Polls, and
Scudder Mackey, Preliminary Feasibility of Ecological Separation of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes to
Prevent the Transfer of Aquatic Invasive Species, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2008 Project Completion Report,
Chicago, IL, November 2008, pp. 50-55.
31 Asian Carp Workgroup, Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 8.
Available at http://www.asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/AsianCarpControlStrategyFramework.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Federal Efforts to Control Asian Carp
Federal efforts to control the introduction of Asian carp in U.S. waters can generally be divided
into two categories. First, beginning in 1996, Congress directed the Corps and other agencies to
undertake a limited number of studies, engineering projects, rapid response actions, and
monitoring activities that focus on the immediate need to keep Asian carp out of the CAWS and
Great Lakes. In most cases, these activities have been conducted by the Corps, with planning
coordination with other agencies. Second, the federal government is engaged in long-term,
nationwide planning and management of Asian carp under authorities codified in the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646, as
amended), as well as in other statutes.32 These actions have usually been conducted by the
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, chaired by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with support provided by
various other agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and the Corps.
Short-Term Efforts in the CAWS
In 1996, Congress directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army and the ANS Task Force to
investigate environmentally sound methods to prevent the dispersal of Asian carp and other
aquatic nuisance species from the CSSC into the Great Lakes.33 In response, an advisory panel of
agency representatives recommended an electronic dispersal barrier demonstration project
operated by the Corps at the southwestern end of the CSSC north of Lockport Lock and Dam (see
Figure 5) as the preferred short-term method to stop the movement of Asian carp. This type of
barrier uses steel cables secured to the bottom of the canal to create a pulsating field of electricity
that discourages fish from passing. It was selected because it was determined to be a non-lethal
deterrent that would not impede navigation or water flow in the canal.34
After construction and testing to ensure the safety of vessels on the CSSC, the demonstration
barrier became operational in 2002. It has subsequently been tested and verified as effective in
blocking the attempted upstream passage of tagged common carp. However, independent review
suggested that deterrence of some smaller fish may require minor modifications to voltage and
other operating parameters, and the barrier itself was not built for operation beyond a few years.
As a result, in 2004 Congress authorized construction of a larger, more permanent barrier (Barrier
II) with enhanced capabilities.35 Barrier II is located approximately 800 feet downstream (toward
the Mississippi River) from the demonstration barrier and has two sets of electrical arrays (known
as Barriers IIA and IIB) that provide redundancy.36 Barrier IIA was constructed at a total cost of
approximately $10 million and became permanently operational in April 2009. Barrier IIB is
32 16 U.S.C. § 4701.
33 16 U.S.C. § 4722(i)(3).
34 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier System, Fact Sheet, November
13, 2009. Available at http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/fish_barrier_fact_sheet.pdf.
35 P.L. 108-335, § 345.
36 In addition to providing increased protection, redundancy in the barrier system eliminates the need for major
chemical treatments and fish kills during routine maintenance of a single barrier.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
scheduled to be operating no later than October 2010, at an expected cost of approximately $13
million.37
Federal agencies have also coordinated rapid response activities to supplement the demonstration
barrier’s protection through the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee. This committee is
led by EPA’s Great Lakes Program, and includes representatives from federal, state, and local
governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations. One example of a recent successful
rapid response action by the committee was the chemical treatment of the CSSC on December 1-
7, 2009. More than 400 federal and nonfederal partners combined resources to conduct a mass
rotenone poisoning on a 5.7-mile stretch of the CSSC while Barrier IIA was taken down for
scheduled maintenance. This effort located a single bighead carp, 500 feet above the Lockport
Lock and Dam and downstream from the electric barriers.38
In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007, P.L. 110-114), Congress
consolidated the multiple authorities for electrical barrier construction and operations by the
Corps, and directed the Corps to study other means to prevent the spread of Asian carp through
the CAWS, including the range of options for technologies that could potentially mitigate various
means of ANS passage beyond the dispersal barriers.39 In response to this directive, the Corps
produced an interim study in January 2010 that recommended a network of concrete and chain
link barricades to deter fish passage over the Des Plaines River during flooding or through
culverts connecting the CSSC to the I&M canal.40 This project is expected to be built with
approximately $13.2 million in funding from the EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GLRI), and is scheduled for completion by October 2010. The Corps is also exploring how
existing structures, such as locks, can be operated to minimize the likelihood of Asian carp
infestation, and has convened meetings with navigation interests on potential changes. An Interim
III study exploring options for these operational changes is expected in March 2010.
Also in WRDA 2007, Congress authorized a long-term study on the feasibility of approaches to
permanently eliminate the risk of interbasin transfer of ANS, including permanent ecological
separation of the basins.41 This study, known as the Interbasin Feasibility Study, is ongoing.
According to the Corps’ FY2011 budget justifications for Civil Works, it has a remaining cost of
$8.5 million and no projected completion date. In 2008, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
conducted its own preliminary study on ecological separation that highlighted major issues
pointing out specific research needs in this area, and recommended that the Corps give priority to
studying this issue.42 The potential closure of existing navigation structures in the CAWS and the
permanent separation of the basins remains the most contentious issue related to Asian carp
control, and a permanent solution has yet to be decided. For more information on lock closure,
see the “Litigation” and “Congressional Interest” sections of this report.
37 Personal Communication with Chuck Shea, Dispersal Barrier Project Director, Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago
District, February 24, 2010.
38 Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Bighead Asian Carp Found in Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
December 3, 2009. Available at http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/December/asianCarp3Dec2009.htm.
39 See 121 Stat. 1121. The Corps is studying four areas in this regard: optimal operating parameters for the barriers,
ANS barrier bypass, ANS human transfer, and ANS abundance reduction.
40 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Chicago District, Interim I Dispersal Barrier Bypass Risk Reduction Study &
Integrated Environmental Assessment, Final Report, Chicago, IL, January 2010. Available at
http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/ANS_DispersalBarrierEfficacyStudy_Interim_I_FINAL.pdf.
41 P.L. 110-114, § 345.
42 Brammeier et al., p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
The Corps and other agencies, including the FWS, EPA, and USGS, are also contributing
resources toward monitoring efforts to evaluate the movement of Asian carp in the CAWS. In
addition to conventional sampling methods, such as electrofishing and netting, the Corps is
working with the University of Notre Dame to conduct an experimental fish sampling method
known as environmental DNA (eDNA) testing. This method filters water samples, then extracts
fragments of shed DNA to search for genetic markers unique to Asian carp. The method has yet to
complete independent peer review, but a preliminary scientific audit of the methodology by EPA
in February 2010 indicated that the technique is likely to be uncontroversial and that management
decisions can be based on the results of eDNA testing.43 To date, no fish have been located
upstream of the barriers using conventional methods, but positive eDNA test results for Asian
carp found further upstream suggest it is very likely that Asian carp are currently present at
multiple locations on the lake side of the barriers, including Calumet Harbor, the O’Brien Locke,
and the North Branch of the Chicago River.44
Nationwide Asian Carp Control and Long-Term Actions
Separate from the efforts focusing on short-term engineering and other actions in the CAWS, the
ANS task force has studied and initiated a number of nationwide management actions through its
Asian Carp Working Group. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the working group requested and co-
funded USGS risk assessments of multiple Asian carp species that determined a high potential
that black, silver, and bighead carp could become established in the United States.45 In response
to these concerns, in 2007 FWS listed black and silver carp as injurious under the Lacey Act.46
Also in 2007, FWS authored Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and
Silver Carps in the United States, produced in collaboration with federal and non-federal
stakeholders. The final plan outlines seven broad goals (divided into 133 short- and long-term
recommendations) that would contribute to a long-term goal of extirpation of wild Asian carp.
Recommendations in that report include a wide array of methods, including those intended to stop
Asian carp encroachment (such as electric barriers, bubble curtains, and sonic barriers to control
carp movement) as well as those that would eliminate wild Asian carp populations outright
(including concentrated fishing operations, genetic manipulation, and pheromone baiting).47
43 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Statement of Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
hearing on Asian Carp and the Great Lakes, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., February 8, 2010.
44 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Agencies Accelerate Action in Response to New Test Results Suggesting Asian
Carp Presence in Calumet Harbor,” press release, January 19, 2010. Available at http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/
Release_eDNA_19Jan2010.pdf.
45 See Leo G. Nico and J. D. Williams, Black Carp: A Biological Synopsis and Updated Risk Assessment, U.S.
Geological Survey, Final Report to the Risk Assessment and Management Committee of the ANSTF., Gainesville, FL,
2001, available at http://www.fisheries.org/html/publications/catbooks/x51032C.shtml; and C. S. Kolar, D. C.
Chapman, and W. R. Courtenay et al., Asian Carps of the Genus Hypophthalmichthys (Pisces, Cyprinidae):A
Biological Synopsis and Environmental Risk Assessment, U.S. Geological Survey, Report to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, LaCrosse, WI, 2005, available at http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/OtherDocuments/
ACBSRAFinalReport2005.pdf.
46 The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, makes it unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife
or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold (1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law or (2) in interstate or foreign
commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken, possessed or sold in violation of state or foreign law. Under this
law, designated injurious species are identified at 50 C.F.R. § 16. See also http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/
Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf.
47 Greg Conover, Rob Simmonds, and Michelle Whalen, Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Through its Midwest regional office, FWS is in the process of implementing some of these
recommendations, although full implementation of the plan would require additional resources;
FWS estimated that full implementation of all of the measures would cost approximately $286
million over 20 years.48 As outlined in the plan, other federal agencies, including the Corps,
USGS, EPA, and the U.S. Coast Guard, would also contribute resources under their respective
authorities.
Recent Developments: Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework
Recent positive eDNA test results in the Great Lakes and the December 2009 rapid response
chemical treatment of the CSSC have raised the profile of efforts to control Asian carp. On
February 8, 2010, the White House convened a Summit for Great Lakes governors on the threat
of Asian carp to the Great Lakes. This meeting focused on defining strategies to combat the
spread of Asian carp and improving coordination and effective response across all levels of
government. At this summit, the Obama Administration unveiled a Draft Asian Carp Control
Strategy Framework. The framework outlines future actions and funding sources to eliminate the
threat of Asian carp in the Great Lakes. It builds on both the existing Corps barrier and
monitoring projects and the 2007 FWS national management plan. The draft plan identifies 25
short- and long-term actions and $78.5 million in new funding ($58 million from the President’s
GLRI) to implement these recommendations.49 (See Table 4.)
Short-term recommendations in the framework are expect to be implemented by May 15, 2010.
They include (1) ensuring proper supplies for future rapid response operations, including
rotenone, netting, and personnel; (2) intensifying fish collection and other monitoring efforts
(including eDNA); (3) modifying structural operations for locks, dams, sluice gates, and pumping
stations; (4) expediting construction of the 13-mile barrier and sustained operations of Barrier
IIA; and (5) researching applications of targeted biological controls (such as pheromone
attractants). Long-term actions that are to be undertaken between now and 2020 include (1)
feasibility studies of additional structural enhancements (electric and other barriers); (2) future
rotenone applications; (3) implementation of biological controls; (4) sustained operations of
barriers and continued exploration of monitoring techniques; and (5) various other items,
including controlled lock operations and development of a market for Asian carp.
A preliminary review of the framework’s recommendations indicates sustained or increased
funding for most of the major ongoing federal efforts mentioned earlier in this report.
Significantly, the framework highlights funding for the Interbasin Feasibility Study. This study
would investigate the feasibility of permanent ecological separation and will likely attract
significant attention in the future. It is expected that an interim study focusing on ecological
separation for the CAWS will be completed by 2012. A more comprehensive study focusing on
all Great Lakes waterways is to be completed subsequently.
(...continued)
and Silver Carps in the United States, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Asian Carp Working Group, Washington,
DC, November 2007.
48 Asian Carp Workgroup, Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, Washington, DC, February 8, 2010, p. vi.
Available at http://www.asiancarp.org/RegionalCoordination/documents/AsianCarpControlStrategyFramework.pdf.
49 For a complete summary of each recommendation, including funding sources, see Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework, ibid., pages 13-33, or Table 1 in that report.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Table 4. Asian Carp Control Strategy Matrix
Action Item
Agency Funding
Source
Start
Date
Ongoing Barrier Operation
Corps
$3,750,000 Corps
FY2010
Increase eDNA, Other
Corps, IL DNR, FWS
$3,540,000 GLRI, Corps, FWS, Ongoing
Monitoring Capacity
ILDNR
Barrier IIB Construction
Corps
$13,000,000 Corps
2009
Implement Interim Study I/
Corps $13,200,000
Corps
FY2010
Q-2
Construct Other Barriers
Final Report on Additional
Corps $1,100,000
Corps
2009
Barriers
Inter-basin Feasibility Study
Corps $1,000,000
Corps
FY2010
Commercial Market
IL DNR
$3,000,000 GLRI
FY2010
Enhancement
Additional Rotenone Actions
IL DNR, FWS, USCG
$5,000,000 Not currently
FY2010 Q-4
funded
Interbasin Transfer Assessment
USGS
$500,000 GLRI
FY2010 Q-2
Targeted Removal
RR Team
$2,000,000 GLRI
FY2010 Q-2
Commercial Fishing Removal
IL DNR, USCG
$300,000 GLRI
FY2010
Lacey Act Enforcement
FWS
$400,000 GLRI
FY2010
Integrated Pest Management
FWS
$4,223,000 GLRI
FY2010
State Aquatic Nuisance
FWS $11,000,000
GLRI
FY2010
Management Plans
Activities to Support ANS
FWS $8,500,000
GLRI
&
FWS
FY2010
Priorities
Competitive Funding
EPA/FWS
$8,800.000 GLRI
FY2010
Research Projects, Other
USGS, multiple
$4,203,000
Multiple
start
Science
agencies
dates
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework Matrix.
Notes: Some items from the framework and matrix documents have been combined. This table omits actions
without funding (but that were identified in the framework).
Litigation
On December 21, 2009, the State of Michigan filed suit against the State of Illinois, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to order closure of shipping locks near Chicago to prevent Asian
carp from invading the Great Lakes.50 Michigan was subsequently joined by several other Great
Lakes states in this action.
50 For detailed filings, see (1) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/SpecMastRpt/Orig%201,%202%20&
%203%20Motion%20to%20Reopen.pdf; (2) http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2010_01/
ILLINOIS_RESPONSE_01-05-2010_15-04-18.pdf; and (3) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/SpecMastRpt/
US_Memorandum_in_Opposition.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
On January 19, 2010, the Supreme Court refused to order emergency measures sought by the
State of Michigan to stop the migration of invasive Asian carp toward Lake Michigan from rivers
and a sanitary canal in Illinois. Without comment, the Court refused to issue a preliminary
injunction that would have closed waterway locks and required other temporary measures in
reaction to the discovery of the Asian carp upstream in Illinois rivers.
The Court’s action did not dispose of Michigan’s plea to reopen a decades-old decree to address
the Asian carp migration issue on its merits. That will come later in cases 1, 2, and 3 Original,
Wisconsin, Michigan and New York v. Illinois. On February 4, 2010, Michigan’s Attorney General
Mike Cox filed a new motion, asking the Supreme Court to reconsider issuing a preliminary
injunction for the closure of Chicago-area locks.
Congressional Interest
Section 126, Title I, of P.L. 111-85 directed the Corps to implement additional measures to
prevent aquatic nuisance species from bypassing the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier Project and to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes. On
February 9, 2010, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing on Asian carp in the Great Lakes. In addition, several bills have
been introduced in the 111th Congress to address multiple concerns about Asian carp.
• Several bills propose to amend the Lacey Act to add bighead carp (S. 1421/H.R.
3173 and Section 171 of S. 237) or both bighead and silver carp (H.R. 48) to the
list of injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped
interstate. The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water
and Wildlife held a hearing on S. 1421 on December 3, 2009, and the full
committee ordered this bill reported on December 10, 2009.
• H.R. 51 would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study the feasibility of
various approaches to eradicating Asian carp from the Great Lakes watershed.
• H.R. 4472 and S. 2946 would direct the Secretary of the Army to take action with
respect to the Chicago waterway system to prevent the migration of bighead and
silver carp into Lake Michigan, including closing O’Brien and Chicago Locks.
• Section 172 of S. 237 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish an
interbasin and intrabasin monitoring program to monitor the movement of
aquatic invasive species in interbasin waterways, assess the efficacy of dispersal
barriers and other options for preventing the spread of invasive species, and
identify potential sites for dispersal barrier demonstration projects.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region
Author Contact Information
Eugene H. Buck
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
gbuck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7262
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
Congressional Research Service
17