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
James E. Nichols
Law Clerk
March 31, 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 expanding their range in U.S. waterways, resulting
in a variety of concerns and problems. Two species—bighead and silver carp—are of particular
note, based on the perceived degree of environmental concern. 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 direct actions to avoid the possibility of carp
becoming established in the Great Lakes.
According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Asian carp pose 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 Lake Michigan, 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 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. On February 4, 2010,
Michigan’s Attorney General Mike Cox filed a renewed motion, asking the Supreme Court to
reconsider issuing a preliminary injunction for the closure of Chicago-area locks based on new
evidence that Asian carp are present in Lake Michigan. Michigan’s renewed motion for a
preliminary injunction was denied by the Supreme Court on March 22, 2010.
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 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 additional 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............................................................................................................................ 1
Silver Carp............................................................................................................................ 2
Bighead Carp ........................................................................................................................ 3
Managing Non-Native Species .............................................................................................. 4
Economy at Risk......................................................................................................................... 6
Threat ................................................................................................................................... 6
Economy .............................................................................................................................. 6
The Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)........................................................................... 10
Federal Response to Asian Carp ................................................................................................ 12
Short-Term Prevention Efforts in the CAWS ....................................................................... 13
Nationwide Asian Carp Management and Long-Term Actions ............................................. 15
Recent Developments: Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework.......................................... 16
Litigation .................................................................................................................................. 17
Canadian Concern..................................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Interest ............................................................................................................... 19

Figures
Figure 1. Records of Grass Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010 ................................................ 2
Figure 2. Records of Black Carp Capture, as of February 2, 2010 ................................................ 3
Figure 3. Records of Silver Carp Capture, as of February 1, 2010................................................ 4
Figure 4. Records of Bighead Carp Capture, as of February 3, 2010 ............................................ 5
Figure 5. Chicago Area Waterway System and Lake Michigan .................................................. 11

Tables
Table 1. Great Lakes Recreational Fishing Activity and Economic Impacts in 2006 ..................... 8
Table 2. Great Lakes Commercial Fishing Landings and Revenue in 2008................................... 9
Table 3. Annual Economic Impact of Boating on Great Lakes States in 2003............................. 10
Table 4. Asian Carp Control Strategy Matrix ............................................................................. 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

Background
Four species of non-indigenous Asian carp are expanding their range in U.S. waterways, resulting
in a variety of concerns and problems. Two species—bighead and silver carp—are of particular
note, based on the perceived degree of environmental concern. 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.
Movement of Asian carp into the Great Lakes is ultimately of concern because increased numbers
of carp in the Great Lakes increases the risk that Asian carp will establish reproducing
populations in these waters. Bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress to direct actions to
avoid the possibility of carp becoming established in the Great Lakes.
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 aquatic environments. 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 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish Farming Experimental Station in Stuttgart, Arkansas. By 1970, grass carp had been stocked
in lakes and reservoirs throughout the southeast United States and in Arizona, including some that
were open to stream systems.2 It has since spread widely across the country, including to four of
the Great Lakes (Figure 1). Most grass carp now are stocked as sterile triploids,3 and grass carp
have not established breeding populations in the Great Lakes basin.
Black Carp4
The black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus, arrived in the United States in 1973 with silver and
bighead 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.


1 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=514.
2 F.J. Guscio and E.O. Gangstad, Research and Planning Conference on the Biological Control of Aquatic Weeds with
the White Amur
, prepared for the interagency Research Advisory Committee, Aquatic Plant Control Program, Office of
the Chief of Engineers, Department of Army, 1970.
3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a Triploid Grass Carp Inspection Program in 1985 to certify that only
genetically triploid or sterile grass carp are shipped among a number of states restricting the import of any non-sterile
grass carp. For more information, see http://www.fws.gov/policy/aquatichandbook/Volume_9/Volume9.htm.
4 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=573.
Congressional Research Service
1


Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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
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.
Silver Carp5
Silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, were brought into the United States under an
agreement of maintenance between a private fish farmer and the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission.6 This species has been used to control phytoplankton (microscopic drifting algae) in
nutrient-rich water bodies and is also a food fish. Escapes from a State fish hatchery and possibly
the inclusion of silver carp among other fish shipments contributed to the spread of this species.
Silver carp proved unsuitable for U.S. aquaculture, and were never widely used. The U.S.
distribution of silver carp is confined primarily to the Mississippi River drainage, with no record
of capture 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 can be nearly 90 pounds.

5 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=549.
6 W.L. Shelton and R. O. Smitherman, “Exotic Fishes in Warm-Water Aquaculture,” Distribution, Biology, and
Management of Exotic Fishes
, W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, eds., Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1984, p. 262-301.
Congressional Research Service
2


Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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.
Bighead Carp7
The bighead carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, were brought into the United States under an
agreement of maintenance between a private fish farmer and the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission.8 Bighead carp proved suitable for U.S. aquaculture and continue to be economically
important in some areas. This species was discovered in open waters of the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers in the 1980s, probably after escaping fish hatcheries. In the United States, bighead carp are
found primarily in the Mississippi River drainage. However, a limited number of bighead carp
were captured by commercial fishermen in Lake Erie between 1995 and 2003 (Figure 4).
Like silver carp, bighead carp typically require large rivers for spawning, but inhabit lakes,
backwaters, reservoirs, and other low-current areas during most of their life cycle. They are filter-
feeders, consuming primarily phytoplankton and zooplankton. The maximum size of this species
is 90 to 100 pounds.

7 Information from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=551.
8 W.L. Shelton and R. O. Smitherman, “Exotic Fishes in Warm-Water Aquaculture,” Distribution, Biology, and
Management of Exotic Fishes
, W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, eds., Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1984, p. 262-301.
Congressional Research Service
3


Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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.
Managing Non-Native Species
Non-native species that do become established commonly exist at low populations for several
generations, after which some begin a period of rapid population growth and range expansion.
Although initial captures of wild silver carp were reported in the early 1970s, silver carp only
rarely were captured in U.S. rivers until about 1999, after which their population began to grow at
an exponential rate. Some suggest that floods in the early 1990s may have provided excellent
spawning and recruitment opportunities for silver carp, and stimulated their later exponential
growth phase.9 Field experience in the United States has shown that silver carp generally follow a
few years after bighead carp in colonizing new habitat.10

9 Duane Chapman, research fisheries biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center,
Columbia MO, personal communication, February 26, 2010.
10 Greg Conover, “The Asian Carp Working Group Update,” ANS Task Force Spring Meeting Minutes, May 26-27,
2004, p. 35-37; Available at http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Minutes/Spring04_Minutes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4


Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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.
Many factors may contribute to the introduction and spread of non-native species. For example,
juvenile silver and bighead carp are easily mistaken for native baitfish. Thus, the dumping of
unused bait by sport fishermen may contribute to the introduction and spread of these species. In
addition, Asian carp (as well as a number of other potentially invasive non-native fish species) are
reared, transported, and traded in large numbers as live fish for human food, especially in large
metropolitan areas. Such commerce occurs with relatively limited regulation.
Eradication of non-native species in aquatic environments is difficult and rare, having only
occasionally been successful when efforts were focused on small-scale and closed systems like
reservoirs, ponds, small locks, and marinas. Since eradication of a non-native species, once it has
become established, is unlikely, difficult, and therefore expensive, management more often
focuses on preventing troublesome species for entering new habitats, through regulating imports
of certain nuisance species, preventing or slowing the spread of already introduced species, and
monitoring to detect new invaders when their populations may be localized and at low densities
such that eradication might still be possible.11 While efforts to prevent introduction may be costly,

11 For more background on prevention and control methods, see CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by M. Lynne Corn et al.
Congressional Research Service
5

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

it almost always will be less expensive than continued attempts to eradicate or control non-native
species that have become established.
Economy at Risk
Threat
According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,12 Asian carp pose a significant threat to
fisheries of the Great Lakes.13 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.14
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.15
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 concerns have also been raised about potential effects on recreational
boating and hunting.16 Although the net effects are likely to be negative, it is also possible that the
introduction of Asian carp to the Great Lakes may provide some utility such as the development
of new commercial and recreational fisheries.17
Economy
It has been widely reported that Great Lakes fisheries generate economic activity of
approximately $7 billion annually. One should exercise caution in using this figure for assessing
public policy alternatives or to make comparisons with the value of other economic sectors. The
Great Lakes is composed of many fisheries, each specific to different water bodies, species, and
groups of users. Asian carp are likely to affect each lake and areas within lakes to varying degrees
because of different biological, chemical, and physical conditions. Anglers will be affected to
different degrees depending on local ecological interactions and substitute angling opportunities.
Measures of economic activity such as the $7 billion of 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,18 to assess trade-offs among

12 Established in 1954 under the bilateral U.S./Canada Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
13 See http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/carp.php.
14 See http://www.asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/AsianCarp.pdf.
15 See http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/carp.php.
16 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.
17 Dan Brannan, “Business Hopes to Sell Invasive Carp to Asians,” The Telegraph , March 14, 2010.
18 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
6

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

public policy 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.
Although Asian carp introduction is likely to harm many Great Lakes fisheries, potential changes
to ecosystems and the associated economy are not well understood. It is questionable whether
accurate predictions of changes by lake, species, and associated fishery are possible. Potential
changes resulting from species invasions are difficult to assess because of the underlying
complexity of ecological and economic systems. Data and models required to make these
assessments are not available and complete assessments would be costly and likely require years
of research. The lack of definitive predictions does not mean that the effects of Asian carp
introduction would not be significant or that managers should wait to assess the actual effects as
Asian carp become established in the Great Lakes. Existing information related to Asian carp
movement and population increases in the Mississippi Basin and the magnitude of recreational
activities in the Great Lakes indicate that a major threat exists and the effects are likely to be
significant.
The economic contributions 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 assessing 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.19 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.20
Economic impacts resulting from these expenditures included more than 58,000 jobs, salaries of
$2.1 billion, and total impacts21 throughout the U.S. economy of slightly more than $7 billion.22
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.23 Table 1 provides a breakdown of angling activity and economic
impacts of recreational fishing by state.

19 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.
20 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.”
21 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.
22 Southwick Associates 2007.
23 See http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/FEE/05-504-Economics.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region


Table 1. Great Lakes Recreational Fishing Activity and Economic Impacts in 2006
Retail
Total
Days
Sales
Salaries
Impact
States Anglers
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
Sources: 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.
In 2008, commercial fishing in the Great Lakes produced 18.3 million pounds of fish with a
landed value24 of nearly $17 million (Table 2).25 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, and smelt. Specific lakes contribute the bulk of
commercial landings of certain species—for example, Lake Huron (60% of whitefish), Lake Erie
(84% of yellow perch, and 94% of smelt), and Lake Michigan (80% of chubs).26 Record harvests
occurred in 1899, when 120 million pounds were landed in the United States.27 Landings were

24 In this case, landed value is the amount paid to fishermen at the dock.
25 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States 2008, Silver
Spring, MD, July 2009.
26 Ronald E. Kinnunen, Great Lakes Commercial Fisheries, Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Marquette, MI, August
2003.
27 Norman S. Baldwin, Robert W. Saafeld, and Maragret A. Ross, et al., Commercial Fish Production in the Great
Lakes 1867-1977
, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Technical Report No. 3, Ann Arbor, MI, September 1979.
Hereinafter cited as Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1979.
Congressional Research Service
8

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

dominated by lake herring and chubs (64 million pounds), lake trout (10 million pounds), and
yellow perch (10 million pounds).28 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.
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.
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.29 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 and damaged equipment 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.30 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.

28 Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1979.
29 Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Recreational Boating’s Economic Punch, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004. Hereinafter
cited as “Great Lakes Commission 2004.”
30 Great Lakes Commission 2004.
Congressional Research Service
9

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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).31 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 system of projects comprising the CAWS is shown in Figure 5.
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.
These bodies of water were first connected for navigation in 1848 through a privately-constructed
97-mile canal connecting the Chicago River and the Illinois River known as the Illinois and
Michigan (I&M) Canal.32 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.33 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

31 Although the Corps has the primary authority to maintain the CAWS for navigation, multiple federal, state, and local
entities also possess authorities that must be considered in the context of management actions in the CAWS. Some of
these entities include the State of Illinois, the Metropolitan Water and Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, the
City of Chicago, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
32 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.
33 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
10


Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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.
Figure 5. Chicago Area Waterway System and Lake Michigan

Source:. Adapted by the Congressional Research Service, February 2010.
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 (MWRD) that can provide flood
control in severe rainstorms.34 The MWRD independently owns and operates a third site (the
Wilmette pumping station) on the North Shore Channel that directly connects the CAWS to the
Great Lakes. The Corps also owns and operates the lock at Lockport Powerhouse and Lock,
which is southwest of Chicago on the CSSC. (See Figure 5.) Due to its distance from the Great
Lakes and the fact that the Corp’s electric fish barriers operate upstream on the CSSC, this third
lock has not been as prominent in recent invasive species debates.

34 The Corps and the MWRD coordinate 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

The CAWS plays a significant role in commercial and recreational navigation, although no
analysis of its cumulative economic impact has been completed. Statistics from the Corps indicate
that 22.3 million tons of commodities moved through the waterways of the Chicago Harbor in
2008, including bulk quantities of sand and gravel, coal, and steel. 35 The Chicago Lock, one of
the country’s busiest locks for traffic, handled 36,256 vessels and conducted 11,599 lockages in
2008.36 The O’Brien Lock handled 17,532 vessels and conducted 6,310 lockages in 2008.37 Much
of the traffic on both locks was recreational (approximately 70% of total traffic through the locks
in 2008). Lockage statistics show that the transit of commodity-laden commercial barges is higher
at O’Brien Lock, which allows for shippers to offload onto deepwater vessels.38
Additional analysis, including a comparison to other available means of freight transit, is
necessary to understand the value of the locks to the region. Recently, the Corps estimated that
shippers saved approximately $192 million by using the O’Brien and Chicago locks in 2008, and
that overland shipping by rail and truck would result in an additional cost of approximately $27
per ton of freight shipped.39 The State of Michigan disagrees with this figure, and cites an
economic study of its own, which concludes that closure of O’Brien and Chicago Locks would
lead to considerably lesser impacts on the Chicago area economy. That study estimated that a
shift from barge to overland shipping would result in additional costs of approximately $70
million annually, or an approximately $10 per ton.40 The biggest difference between the two
studies is the amount of freight cargo that is assumed to be affected by closure.
Federal Response to Asian Carp
Federal responses to the introduction of Asian carp in U.S. waters can generally be divided into
two categories. First, Congress has 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 block the inter-basin passage of aquatic nuisance species such as

35 The Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center includes all of the waterways of the CAWS in the Port of Chicago.
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 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.
36 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.
37 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, 2008. http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/
lpms/lock2008web.htm.
38 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.
39 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.
40 The study was included as an Appendix to Michigan’s recent Supreme Court filing, and is available at
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/1-Appendix-Renewed_Motion_310133_7.pdf. For more information on this
litigation, see page 16 of this report.
Congressional Research Service
12

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

Asian carp. In most cases, these activities have been conducted by the Corps, with planning
coordination and limited funding from 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) and other statutes.41 These actions have usually been conducted by the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force (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 Prevention Efforts in the CAWS
In the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332), Congress directed the Corps and the
ANS Task Force to investigate environmentally sound methods to prevent the dispersal of aquatic
nuisance species from the CSSC into the Great Lakes.42 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 Powerhouse and Lock (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.43
The demonstration barrier (Barrier I) became operational in 2002. Based on subsequent
experience operating the barrier and the rapid upstream encroachment of Asian carp around this
time, the Corps determined that Barrier I should be upgraded into a stronger, more permanent
barrier, and that construction of a second large barrier (Barrier II) would provide additional
protection through redundancy in the barrier system.44 Preliminary repairs to Barrier I were
completed in October 2008, and the Corps plans to make Barrier I permanent and enhance its
operating parameters after Barrier II is complete. Barrier II is located approximately 800 feet
downstream from Barrier I, and has two sets of electrical arrays (known as Barriers IIA and IIB).
Construction of Barrier IIA began in 2004, and this part of the barrier became permanently
operational in April 2009 at a total construction cost of approximately $10 million. Barrier IIB is
scheduled to be operating no later than October 2010, at an expected cost of approximately $13

41 16 U.S.C. § 4701.
42 16 U.S.C. § 4722(i)(3). Although the barrier was authorized and designed to repel multiple aquatic invasive species,
one of the primary goals of the original barrier was impeding the downstream movement of rough and round gobies
from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River basin.
43 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.
44 The demonstration barrier was originally authorized in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-332) and
its funding level was increased in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,
and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234). Funding for Barrier II was first provided as an environmental restoration
project under WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662, §1135) in 2002 and required a local cost sharing partner. The project was
subsequently authorized at a level of $9 million in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-335, §
345). In WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114), Congress consolidated the multiple authorizations for barrier construction and
authorized the Corps to permanently operate both barriers at a 100% federal cost.
Congressional Research Service
13

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

million.45 To date, the Corps has not estimated the long-term cost for barrier operations. However,
the Corps requests $7.25 million for barrier operations in the President’s FY2011 Budget.46
Federal agencies have coordinated rapid response activities to supplement the barrier protection
system 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 Canadian and nongovernmental organizations. The most prominent
example of a successful rapid response action by the committee was the chemical treatment of the
CSSC on December 1-7, 2009. More than 400 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
Powerhouse and Lock and downstream from the electric barriers.47 This finding was significant
for its confirmation of the Asian carp’s presence in the CSSC.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007, P.L. 110-114), Congress
directed the Corps to study other means to prevent the spread of Asian carp through the CAWS,
including the range of options for technologies to prevent various means of passage beyond the
electrical dispersal barriers.48 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.49 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 its existing locks can be operated to minimize the
likelihood of Asian carp infestation, and has convened meetings with navigation interests on
potential operational 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.50 This study, known as the Interbasin Transfer Feasibility Study, focuses
on the whole Great Lakes region (in addition to the CAWS). According to the Corps’ FY2011
budget justifications for Civil Works, it has a remaining cost of $8.5 million. In 2008, the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission conducted its own preliminary study on ecological separation that
highlighted major issues and pointed out specific research needs in this area.51 Permanent
ecological separation of the basins and closure of existing locks in the CAWS are two of the most

45 Personal Communication with Charles Shea, Dispersal Barrier Project Director, Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago
District, February 24, 2010.
46Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, FY 2011 Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.,
Washington, DC, February 2010, p. LRD-132.
47 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.
48 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.
49 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.
50 P.L. 110-114, § 345.
51 Brammeier et al., p. 99. The study recommended that the Corps take a more comprehensive look at the available
engineering options for ecological separation.
Congressional Research Service
14

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

contentious issues related to Asian carp, and a long-term solution for either of these issues has yet
to be decided. For more information on efforts to force lock closure and permanent ecological
separation, see the “Litigation” and “Congressional Interest” sections of this report.
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
undergo independent peer review, but an audit of the methodology by EPA in February 2010
concluded that the technique is sufficiently reliable and robust in reporting a pattern of detection
that should be considered actionable in a management context.52 To date, no fish have been
located upstream of the barriers using conventional sampling methods, but positive eDNA test
results for Asian carp found further upstream suggest it is very likely that Asian carp are present
at multiple locations on the lake side of the barriers. As of February 2010, positive test results had
been found at Calumet Harbor, the O’Brien Lock, and the North Shore Channel.53
Nationwide Asian Carp Management and Long-Term Actions
Separate from efforts focusing on short-term prevention 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 found a high potential for black, silver,
and bighead carp to become established in the United States.54 In response to these findings, FWS
listed black and silver carp as injurious under the Lacey Act in 2007.55
Also in 2007, FWS authored a study, 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 goal of extermination of wild Asian carp.

52 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Statement of Professor David Lodge, Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation, hearing on Asian Carp
and the Great Lakes, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., February 8, 2010. Appendix: Laboratory Audit Report, Lodge Laboratory,
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame.
53 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.
54 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.
55 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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).56
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 at least $286 million
over 20 years.57 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, funded by EPA) to implement these recommendations.58 (See Table 4.)
Short-term recommendations in the framework are projected 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 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
includes funding for the Interbasin Feasibility Study and notes 2012 as the release date for the
interim version of the study, which will focus on ecological separation of the CAWS. A more
comprehensive study focusing on all Great Lakes waterways is to be completed subsequently.

56 Greg Conover, Rob Simmonds, and Michelle Whalen, Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass,
and Silver Carps in the United States,
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Asian Carp Working Group, Washington,
DC, November 2007.
57 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.
58 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
16

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

Table 4. Asian Carp Control Strategy Matrix
(summary of items with funding identified)
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
GLRI FY2010
Q-2
Construct Other Barriers
Final Report on Additional
Corps $1,100,000
Corps
2009
Barriers
Inter-Basin Transfer Feasibility
Corps $1,000,000
Corps,
GLRI
FY2010
Study, Lock Closure impacts
Commercial Market
IL DNR
$3,000,000 GLRI
FY2010
Enhancement
Additional Rotenone Actions
IL DNR, FWS, USCG
$5,000,000 Not currently funded FY2010 Q-4
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 for
EPA/FWS $8,800.000
GLRI FY2010
Additional Support
Research & Other Sciencea USGS,
multiple
$4,203,000 Multiple Sources
Multiple start
agencies
dates
Source: Asian Carp Workgroup, Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Matrix. (Adapted by CRS.)
Notes: This summary table combines multiple items in the Administration’s framework. It also omits certain
actions which do not require funding but were included in the framework.
a. Consists of 10 discrete items identified in the matrix to be undertaken by USGS and other agencies.
Litigation
In an attempt to mitigate the movement of Asian carp into the Great Lakes, the state of Michigan
filed suit in the Supreme Court against the state of Illinois, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago on December 21, 2009.59 Michigan
filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a motion to reopen docket numbers 1, 2, and

59 The United States Supreme Court has “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
Congressional Research Service
17

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

3, Original.60 In its motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Michigan sought an order from the
Court that would direct Illinois, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to immediately close the shipping locks near Chicago
and implement temporary emergency measures to prevent Asian carp from invading the Great
Lakes.61 Several other states bordering the Great Lakes supported Michigan’s request for
preliminary injunctive relief.62 The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, filed a
memorandum opposing Michigan’s request for a preliminary injunction.63
Without comment, the Supreme Court issued an order on January 19, 2010, which summarily
denied Michigan’s request to close the shipping locks near Chicago.64
On February 4, 2010, Michigan’s Attorney General Mike Cox filed a renewed motion, asking the
Supreme Court to reconsider issuing a preliminary injunction for the closure of Chicago-area
locks based on new evidence that Asian carp are present in Lake Michigan.65 Michigan’s renewed
motion for a preliminary injunction was denied—again without comment—by the Supreme Court
on March 22, 2010.66
In addition to Michigan’s request for preliminary injunctive relief, Michigan requested that the
Supreme Court reopen docket numbers 1, 2, and 3, Original. In its motion to reopen, Michigan is
requesting a supplemental decree from the Court declaring that the Chicago Waterway System

60 When the Supreme Court exercises its original jurisdiction, disputes between states are filed under “Original”
dockets that are assigned a number. The state of Michigan argued that the Court had original jurisdiction over this
dispute (filed under docket nos. 1, 2, and 3, Original) based on a decree issued in 1967, which resolved a dispute
between the Great Lakes states and Illinois over the amount of water Illinois could withdraw from Lake Michigan for
sanitary and navigational purposes. See Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S. 426 (1967). The Court retained original
jurisdiction over the dispute. Id. Accordingly, docket nos. 1, 2, and 3, Original, remain “open” for the purpose of
resolving additional disputes between Great Lakes states and Illinois, provided that such disputes relate to the operation
of the Chicago Area Waterway System, which links the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan. Michigan’s motion to
reopen docket nos. 1, 2, and 3, Original, is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/SpecMastRpt/
Orig%201,%202%20&%203%20Motion%20to%20Reopen.pdf.
61 The state of Illinois is a party to this dispute because, according to the state of Michigan, Illinois is ultimately
responsible for the operation of the Chicago Waterway System, which is jointly operated by the Army Corps of
Engineers and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Mich. Mot. for Prelim. Injunction. In
response, the state of Illinois and the United States argue that Illinois is not a proper party to this dispute because the
state does not directly exercise day-to-day control over the operation of the Chicago Waterway System. Ill. Response;
U.S. Response
. The parties’ filings are publicly available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/SpecMastRpt/
RecentFilingsinOriginalNos_1_2_3.aspx (links to PDF versions of filings).
62 Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the Canadian Province of Ontario filed briefs in support of Michigan’s
request for a preliminary injunction.
63 Neither the state of Illinois nor the United States denied the threat posed to the Great Lakes by the spread of Asian
Carp in their respective responses to Michigan’s request for a preliminary injunction, but rather argued that the
requested relief is unnecessary in light of current efforts to prevent the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes
through the Chicago Waterway System.
64 The Supreme Court declined to address the merits of Michigan’s arguments and simply denied Michigan’s motion
for a preliminary injunction in a one-sentence order. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/
011910zor.pdf (order denying Michigan’s request for a preliminary injunction at page 3). The Court did not, however,
remand the case to a lower federal court or otherwise decline to exercise its original jurisdiction over the dispute. Id.
65 See http://www.supremecourt.gov/SpecMastRpt/1-Renewed%20Motion%20for%20PI.pdf (Michigan’s renewed
motion for preliminary injunction).
66 See http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032210zor.pdf (order denying Michigan’s renewed request for
a preliminary injunction at page 2).
Congressional Research Service
18

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

constitutes a “public nuisance.”67 Additionally, Michigan has requested that the Supreme Court
grant a permanent injunction requiring Illinois, the Army Corps, and the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago “… to expeditiously develop and implement plans to
permanently and physically separate the carp-infested waters in the Illinois River basin …” from
Lake Michigan to prevent the spread of Asian carp into the lake.68 Although the Supreme Court
has denied Michigan’s multiple requests for the immediate closure of the Chicago Waterway
System, the Court will reportedly review Michigan’s request to reopen docket numbers 1, 2, and
3, Original, in April, 2010.69
Canadian Concern
For many decades, the United States and Canada have conducted a major cooperative program to
deal with the consequences arising from the introduction of the non-native sea lamprey,
Petromyzon marinus, to the Great Lakes. Through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the
governments of the United States and Canada, together with neighboring states and provinces,
spend millions of dollars annually to control this invasive parasite and limit its damage to sport
and commercial fisheries.
Canada has assessed the risks posed by the introduction of Asian carp,70 concluding that the risk
of impact would be high in some parts of Canada, including the southern Great Lakes basin, by
the four species of Asian carp. Canada is currently addressing these concerns through its
participation in the bilateral Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
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. On February 25, 2010, the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing
to examine the science and policy behind efforts to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into 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, H.R. 48, and Section 171 of S. 237) 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

67 Mich. Mot. to Reopen at 29 (available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/SpecMastRpt/Orig%201,%202%20&
%203%20Motion%20to%20Reopen.pdf).
68 Id. at 29-30.
69 See Gabriel Nelson, Great Lakes: Supreme Court again rejects injunction in Asian carp case, GREENWIRE, March
22, 2010, available at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2010/03/22/4.
70 Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/DocREC/2004/RES2004_103_E.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region

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.
• H.R. 4604 would direct the Secretary of the Army to prevent the spread of Asian
carp in the Great Lakes and their tributaries.
• 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.

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
James E. Nichols
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Law Clerk
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
jnichols@crs.loc.gov, 7-5812


Congressional Research Service
20