APPENDIX Table of Contents Page State of Wisconsin, Et Al.

8/14/2019 APPENDIX Table of Contents Page State of Wisconsin, Et Al.

1/142

APPENDIX


2/142

-ia - APPENDIX

Table of Contents

Page

State of Wisconsin, et al. v State of Illinois,

et. al., 388 U.S. 426; 87 S. Ct. 1774;18 L. Ed. 2d 1290 (1967)1967 Decree with 1980 Amendments 1a

State of Wisconsin, et. al. v State of Illinois,et. al., U.S. Supreme Court, October Term 1978Memorandum for the United States 7a

Excerpts from Economics of Great LakesFisheries: A 1985 Assessmentby Daniel R. TalhelmNovember 1988(Accessed at: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/TechReports/Tr54.pdf) 11a

Excerpts from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Asian Carp-An Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesMarch 2004(Accessed at: http://www.asiancarp.org/Documents/AsianCarp.pdf) 13a

Excerpts from 50 C.F.R. Part 16Injurious Wildlife Species; Silver Carp andLargescale Silver Carp72 Fed. Reg. No. 131 (July 10, 2007) 17a


3/142

-iia -Table of Contents

(Continued)

PageChicago Sanitary and Ship Canal AquaticNuisance Species Dispersal Barriers

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers August 27, 2009(Accessed at: http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/projects/fish_barrier/index.html) 27a

Excerpts from Risk Reduction Study Fact SheetEnvironmental DNA (eDNA)U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSeptember 18, 2009(Accessed at: http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/eDNA_FactSheet_20090918.pdf) 35a

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersEnvironmental DNA Sampling Locations

As of 10 Oct 2009:888 Water Samples Collected(Accessed at: http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/calsag_eDNA.pdf) 39a

Illinois Department of Natural ResourcesFAQs November 13, 2009(Accessed at: http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/November/faqs.pdf) 44a

Excerpts from Asian Carp and the Great LakesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Web Site last updated November 25, 2009)(Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/) 48a


4/142

-iiia -

Table of Contents(Continued)

Page

Excerpts from Dispersal Barrier Efficacy StudyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDecember 200 9 Draft Report(Accessed at: http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdf ) 50a

Excerpts from Asian Carp ManagementInvasive Species Coordination Web SiteDecember 2009(Accessed at: http://asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/greatlakesthreat.htm) 57a

Illinois Department of Natural ResourcesBighead Asian Carp Press ReleaseDecember 3, 2009(Accessed at: http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/December/asianCarp3Dec2009.htm) 61a

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Asian Carp Rapid Response Press ReleaseDecember 6, 2009(Accessed at: http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/December/asiancarpwrapup.html) 63a
http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdfhttp://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/%0Bpao/ANS_Dispersal_Barrier_Efficacy_Study-Interim_I_Public.pdf


5/142

-iva -

Table of Contents(Continued)

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Asian Carp Rapid Response Press ReleaseDecember 8, 2009(Accessed at: http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2009/December/asiancarpwrapupcalsag.html) 68a

Excerpts from Fish Barrier UpdateU.S. Army Corps of EngineersMajor General John Peabody, CommanderGreat Lakes and Ohio River DivisionDecember 2009 71a

Affidavit of Thomas E. Knueve withExhibits A and BDecember 17, 2009 74a

Affidavit of Tammy J. Newcomb, Ph.D. withExhibits A and BDecember 17, 2009 109a


6/142

1967 Decree with1980 Amendments

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREEDthat:

1. The State of Illinois and its municipalities, politicalsubdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities,including, among others, the cities of Chicago,Evanston, Highland Park, Highwood and LakeForest, the villages of Wilmette, Kenilworth,Winnetka, and Glencoe, the Elmhurst-Villa Park-Lombard Water Commission, the Chicago ParkDistrict and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, their employees and agents and allpersons assuming to act under their authority, arehereby enjoined from diverting any of the waters of Lake Michigan or its watershed into the Illinoiswaterway, whether by way of domestic pumpage fromthe lake the sewage effluent derived from whichreaches the Illinois waterway, or by way of stormrun-off from the Lake Michigan watershed which isdiverted into the Sanitary and Ship Canal, or by wayof direct diversion from the lake into the canal, inexcess of an average for all of them combined of 3,200cubic feet per second. "Domestic pumpage," as used inthis decree, includes water supplied to commercialand industrial establishments and "domestic use"includes use by such establishments. The waterpermitted by this decree to be diverted from LakeMichigan and its watershed may be apportioned bythe State of Illinois among its municipalities, politicalsubdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities fordomestic use or for direct diversion into the Sanitaryand Ship Canal to maintain it in a reasonably

-1a-


7/142


8/142

decree, the amounts of domestic pumpage from thelake by the State and its municipalities, political sub-divisions, agencies and instrumentalities the sewageand sewage effluent derived from which reaches theIllinois waterway, either above or below Lockport,shall be added to the amount of direct diversion into

the canal from the lake and storm runoff reachingthe canal from the Lake Michigan watershedcomputed as provided in Paragraph 2 of this decree.The annual accounting period shall consist of twelvemonths terminating on the last day of September. A period of forty (40) years, consisting of the currentannual accounting period and the previous thirty-nine (39) such periods (all after the effective date of this decree), shall be permitted, when necessary, forachieving an average diversion which is not in excessof the maximum permitted amount; provided,however, that the average diversion in any annualaccounting period shall not exceed 3680 cubic feetper second, except that in any two (2) annualaccounting periods within a forty (40) year period, theaverage annual diversion may not exceed 3840 cubicfeet per second as a result of extreme hydrologicconditions; and, that for the first thirty-nine (39)years the cumulative algebraic sum of each annualaccounting period's average diversion minus 3200cubic feet per second shall not exceed 2000 cubic feetper second-years. All measurements andcomputations required by this decree shall be madeby the appropriate officers, agencies orinstrumentalities of the State of Illinois, or the Corpsof Engineers of the United States Army subject toagreement with and cost-sharing by the State of Illinois for all reasonable costs including equipment,using the best current engineering practice andscientific knowledge. If made by the State of Illinois,

-3a-


9/142

the measurements and computations shall beconducted under the continuous supervision anddirection of the Corps of Engineers of the UnitedStates Army in cooperation and consultation with theUnited States Geological Survey, including but notlimited to periodic field investigation of measuring

device calibration and data gathering. Allmeasurements and computations made by the Stateof Illinois shall be subject to periodic audit by theCorps of Engineers. An annual report on themeasurements and computations required by thisdecree shall be issued by the Corps of Engineers. Bestcurrent engineering practice and scientific knowledgeshall be determined within six (6) months afterimplementation of the decree based upon arecommendation from a majority of the members of athree-member committee. The members of thiscommittee shall be appointed by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The members shall be selected on thebasis of recognized experience and technical expertisein flow measurement or hydrology. None of thecommittee members shall be employees of the Corpsof Engineers or employees or paid consultants of anyof the parties to these proceedings other than theUnited States. The Corps of Engineers shall convenesuch a committee upon implementation of this decreeand at least each five (5) years after implementationof this decree to review and report to the Corps of Engineers and the parties on the method of accounting and the operation of the accountingprocedure. Reasonable notice of these meetings mustbe given to each of the parties. Each party to theseproceedings shall have the right to attend committeemeetings, inspect any and all measurement facilities

-4a-


10/142

and structures, have access to any data and reportsand be permitted to take its own measurements.

4. The State of Illinois may make application for amodification of this decree so as to permit thediversion of additional water from Lake Michigan for

domestic use when and if it appears that thereasonable needs of the Northeastern IllinoisMetropolitan Region (comprising Cook, Du Page,Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties) for waterfor such use cannot be met from the water resourcesavailable to the region, including both ground andsurface water and the water permitted by this decreeto be diverted from Lake Michigan, and if it furtherappears that all feasible means reasonably availableto the State of Illinois and its municipalities, politicalsubdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities havebeen employed to improve the water quality of theSanitary and Ship Canal and to conserve and managethe water resources of the region and the use of watertherein in accordance with the best modern scientificknowledge and engineering practice.

5. This decree shall become effective on March 1,1970, and shall thereupon supersede the decreeentered by this Court in Nos. 1, 2, and 3, OriginalDocket, on April 21, 1930, as enlarged May 22, 1933,provided that for the period between January 1, 1970,and March 1, 1970, the amount of water diverted byIllinois into the Sanitary and Ship Canal (determinedin accordance with paragraph 2 of this decree) shallnot exceed an average of 1,500 cubic feet per second.The amendment to Paragraph 3 of this decree shalltake effect on the first day of October following thepassage into law by the General Assembly of theState of Illinois of an amendment to the Level of Lake

-5a-


11/142

Michigan Act providing that the amount used fordilution in the Sanitary and Ship Canal for waterquality purposes shall not be increased above threehundred twenty (320) cubic feet per second, and thatin allocations to new users of Lake Michigan water,allocations for domestic purposes be given priority

and to the extent practicable allocations to new usersof Lake Michigan water shall be made with the goalof reducing withdrawals from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer.

6. The complaint of the State of Illinois in No. 11,Original Docket, on behalf of its instrumentality, theElmhurst-Villa Park-Lombard Water Commission, ishereby dismissed, without prejudice to thatCommission sharing in the water permitted by thisdecree to be diverted from Lake Michigan.

7. Any of the parties hereto may apply at the foot of this decree for any other or further action or relief,and this Court retains jurisdiction of the suits in Nos.1, 2, and 3, Original Docket, for the purpose of making any order or direction, or modification of thisdecree, or any supplemental decree, which it maydeem at any time tobe proper in relation to the subject matter incontroversy.

8. All the parties to these proceedings shall bear theirown costs. The costs and expenses of the SpecialMaster shall be equally divided between the plaintiffsas a group and the defendants as a group in Nos. 1, 2,and 3, Original Docket. The costs and expenses thusimposed upon the plaintiffs and defendants shall beborne by the individual plaintiffs and defendants,respectively, in equal shares.

-6a-


12/142

In the Supreme Court of the United StatesOCTOBER TERM, 1978

________

No. 1, OriginalSTATES OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO

AND PENNSYLVANIA, COMPLAINANTSv. ________

No. 2, OriginalSTATE OF MICHIGAN, COMPLAINANT

v.STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE

METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OFGREATER CHICAGO, DEFENDANTS,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR ____________

No. 3, OriginalSTATE OF NEW YORK, COMPLAINANT

v.STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE

METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,

DEFENDANTS,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR

___________

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECREE

___________

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES __________

(1)

-7a-


13/142

2The history of this litigation is sufficiently recited inIllinois motion (at 15-21). As there indicated, theUnited States has been an active participant in thesecases for many years, first as an amicus curiae (e g,352 U.S. 983, 984; 359 U.S. 963; 360 U.S. 712, 713,

714), later as an intervenor (361 U.S. 956), and wecontributed to the formulation of the proposed decreethat the Court entered on June 12, 1967. 388 U.S.426. The potentially affected interests of the UnitedStates are many. Those concerns include navigationin the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway and theIllinois Waterway, hydroelectric power developmenton the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, pollutionand other threats to public health in and around theGreat Lakes, the national interest in the GreatLakes-St Lawrence system as a unique naturalresource, and, finally, the maintenance of friendlyrelations with Canada. It is accordingly with specialcaution that we approach any proposal for change.

1. Procedurally, we agree with Illinois that theCourt has retained jurisdiction to entertain thepresent petition for modification. On severalprevious occasions, the original decree was reopened,in major or minor respects. See, e g, 289 U.S. 395;311 U.S. 107, 352 U.S. 945; 360 U.S. 712; 388 U.S.426. Those precedents are persuasive here.Moreover, the 1967 decree which is sought to bechanged expressly permits [a]ny of the parties * * * [to] apply in future for any other or further actionor relief, and provides that jurisdiction is retainedfor the purpose of making any *** modification of [the] decree. Para.

37, 388 U.S. at 430. In our view, these words fullyauthorize the pending application.

-8a-


14/142

2. On its merits, the modification sought by Illinoisseems to us unobjectionable. The objective is topermit the State to make more efficient use of thewater it diverts from Lake Michigan and this wouldbe accomplished by a new method of accounting.Specifically, Illinois proposes (a) that the diversion

measurement points be moved from Lockport on theIllinois Waterway to three lakefront intake points; (b)that a fixed value for stormwater runoff of 550 cubicfeet per second be used for accounting purposes; and(c) that the accounting year for computing thediversion be changed to begin on October 1 and endon September 30.

Since the proposal was filed, we have consulted theCorps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection

Agency, and are advised that no adverse effects areanticipated from the proposed modification. TheDepartment of State has also consulted with theGovernment of Canada, whose representatives havevoiced no objection. We have accordingly no reason tooppose entry of the modified decree.

It is not possible, however, fully to assess the impact of the changed accounting system until actualexperience has demonstrated the exact effects. Forthis reason, it has been suggested that the decreerequire Illinois to file a detailed report in due course,and the State has agreed to do so within five years.We believe that is not sufficient. Our own suggestionis that Illinois be required to submit to all parties an

4annual progress report on the actual experienceunder the new accounting system. Accordingly, we do not oppose the granting of the

pending motion or the entry of the proposed modified

-9a-


15/142

decree, subject only to the inclusion of an annualreporting requirement.

Respectfully submitted.

WADE H. McCiis, JR. Solicitor General

DECEMBER 1978

-10a-


16/142

ECONOMICS OFGREAT LAKES FISHERIES:

A 1985 ASSESSMENT

by

DANIEL R. TALHELMDepartment of Park & Recreation Resources

Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824

TECHNICAL REPORT No. 54

Great Lakes Fishery Commission145 1 Green Road

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2898

November 1988

-11a-


17/142

The total economic impact of the Great Lakessport and food fishery on the regional economy is $2.3to $4.3 billion (U.S. dollars). This means that if this

fishery were stopped, and anglers and food fishconsumers reallocated their $1.1to $2.1 billion directexpenditures to other purposes, up to $4.3 billion insales would be shifted from present businesses andindividuals, to other businesses and individuals inthe region or in other regions. About 35 percent of that would be personal income, shifted to otherpersons. [Page 3]

-12a-


18/142

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Asian Carp -An Aquatic Nuisance Species

Region 3-Great Lakes/Big Rivers

Leadership in Conserving, Enhancing, and Restoring Aquatic Ecosystems

Asian Carp: Huge Fish with Huge Impacts

Pathways and Introductions into the United States

Bighead, silver, grass, and black carp are native to Asia.Grass carp were first introduced into the United Statesin 1963, whereas bighead, silver, and black carp arrivedin the 1970s. All four species escaped into theMississippi River Basin, and all but the black carp areknown to have developed self-sustaining populations.Bighead and grass carp were captured in the GreatLakes Basin, but there is no evidence of reproduction todate.

Biology and Ecology

Bighead carp grow to a maximum of about 60 inches and110 pounds. Silver carp also grow very fast compared tomost native fishes in the United States. In aquaculturefacilities, silver carp have grown to 12 pounds in oneyear, and may grow to a maximum of 39 inches and 60pounds. Grass carp can eat up to 40% of their bodyweight per day, and grow to a maximum of 59 inches, 99pounds, and live up to 21 years. Black carp can grow to amaximum of 48 inches, and 71 pounds, on a dietcomposed almost exclusively of snails, mussels, andother invertebrates.

-13a-


19/142

Distribution and Abundance

Grass carp inhabit waters within and bordering 45states, whereas bighead carp have been collected from 18states, silver carp from 12 states, and black carp fromonly Illinois (some escaped from an aquaculture facility

in Missouri). . . .

Data from the Illinois Natural History Survey indicatesthat bighead carp abundance has been increasingexponentially in a portion of the Upper MississippiRiver. The population has tended to double there everyyear. Bighead carp populations may be increasing atequally fast rates on portions of the Illinois and MissouriRivers, while silver carpabundance may be increasing at similar rates in all of those rivers.

Ecological Risks and Impacts

Detailed ecological risk assessments are being completedfor bighead, silver, and black carp. Known risks includerapid range expansion and population increase whichcould decrease abundance of native mussels, otherinvertebrates, and fishes. Grass carp can eliminate vastareas of aquatic plants that are important as fish foodand spawning and nursery habitats. Losses of thosehabitats can potentially reduce recruitment andabundance of native fishes. Black carp could reduceabundance of already rare snails, mussels, and otherinvertebrates. Silver carp can jump at least 10 feet out of the water and that behavior has resulted in injuries toboaters. Collisions between boaters and jumping silvercarp have the potential to cause human fatalities.(see . . . video at: http://www.protectyourwaters.netl)

-14a-


20/142

Threats to the Great Lakes Basin

Bighead and silver carp are in the Illinois River, which isconnected to the Great Lakes via the Chicago Sanitaryand Ship Canal. Asian carp pose the greatest immediatethreat to the Great Lakes ecosystem. An electrical

barrier designed to repel fish was placed in thewaterway. It is experimental and may not be 100%effective but remains the only defense against theupstream movement of bighead and silver carp from theIllinois River into the Great Lakes. Bighead and silvercarp could colonize all of the Great Lakes and sustainhigh-density populations. High densities would likelyresult in declines in abundance of many native fishes.Presently, bighead and silver carp are known to bewithin 22 miles of the electric barrier which is about 25miles from Lake Michigan. Both species could reach theGreat Lakes by swimming through the electrical barrier,or by release of bait fish or fish sold live for food.

Great Lakes sport and commercial fisheries are valuedat $4.5 billion dollars annually, without including theindirect economic impact of those industries.Degradation of those fisheries would have severeeconomic impacts on Great Lakes communities thatbenefit from the fisheries. Waterfowl production areasare also at risk from Asian carp. Hunters spend morethan $2.6 billion annually on their sport in the GreatLakes, so reduction of waterfowl populations there woulddecrease the economic value to communities that benefitfrom hunting. The effects of Asian carp on wetlands inthe Prairie Pothole Region would have an even greatereffect on hunting and the economies it supports.

-15a-


21/142

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service1800/344 WILDhttp://www.fws.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceBishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal DriveFt. Snelling, MN 55111

For more information please contact:Mike Hoff, Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator612/713-5114 or visit our website at:http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/

March 2004

-16a-


22/142

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 16RIN 1018-AT29

Injurious Wildlife Species; Silver Carp(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and LargescaleSilver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys harmandi)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service or we) adds all forms of live silver carp(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) , gametes, viable eggs,and hybrids; and all forms of live largescale silvercarp (Hypophthalmichthys harmandi) , gametes,viable eggs, and hybrids to the list of injurious fish,mollusks, and crustaceans under the Lacey Act. Thebest available information indicates that this actionis necessary to protect the interests of human beings,and wildlife and wildlife resources, from thepurposeful or accidental introduction, andsubsequent establishment, of silver carp andlargescale silver carp populations in ecosystems of the United States. Live silver carp and largescalesilver carp, gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids can beimported only by permit for scientific, medical,educational, or zoological purposes, or without apermit by Federal agencies solely for their own use;permits will also be required for the interstatetransportation of live silver or largescale silver carp,

-17a-


23/142

gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids currently within theUnited States. Interstate transportation permitsmay be issued for scientific, medical, educational, orzoological purposes.

DATES: This rule is effective August 9, 2007.

***

Biology

The commonly named silver carp belongs tothe family Cyprinidae, with the species name of Hypophthalmichthys molitrix . Silver carp are nativeto Asia (China and Eastern Siberia), from about 54N southward to 21 N. Silver carp are primarilyphytoplanktivores, but are highly opportunistic,eating phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, anddetritus. Silver carp are well established throughoutmuch of the Mississippi River Basin, and its range isexpanding in that basis.

***

Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness forSilver Carp

Introduction and Spread

The major pathway for introduction of silvercarp in the United States was importation forbiological control of plankton in aquaculture pondsand sewage lagoons. The pathway that led to thepresence of this species in open waters of the UnitedStates was likely escape from these facilities.Subsequent escapes and the mixture of silver carp

-18a-


24/142

with other species that were stocked likelycontributed to the expansion of the species' range,along with natural reproduction.

Other probable pathways that may aid thespread of existing populations of silver carp include

connected waterways, contamination of pond-grownbait fishes with silver carp, ballast water release,release or escape from livehaulers that supportcommercial fisheries, or spread by commercial fishersthemselves.

***

Silver carp have survived, have becomeestablished in river systems, and have beenreproducing in natural waters of the United Statessince at least 1995. Because silver carp can occupylakes, there is serious concern that this species willfurther expand its range beyond riverineenvironments and into lake environments includingthe Great Lakes. If introduced, it is highly likely thatsilver carp will establish reproducing populations inother major river systems, such as thePotomac/Chesapeake, Columbia, andSacramento/San Joaquin Delta. In their nativerange, juveniles and adults are also found in lakes,reservoirs, and canals where they grow well, butprobably cannot spawn and recruit without access toan appropriate riverine habitat.

***

Potential Effects on Native Species

-19a-


25/142

Silver carps' food consumption rate is high, butwidely variable. Fry at the smallest size classconsumed up to 140% of their body weight daily;63 mg fingerlings consumed just more than 30% and70-166 mg fingerlings consumed 63% of their bodyweight. Adult silver carp have been shown to

consume 8.8 kilograms (kg) of food per year, with 90%of the consumption occurring during the threewarmest months of the year.

Silver carp are quite tolerant of broad watertemperatures from 4 C to 40 C. Silver carp cangrow quickly (20 to 30 kg in 5 to 8 years), and largeadults can reach over 1.2 meters in length and 50 kgin weight. Silver carp are difficult to age, but havebeen reported to live 15-20+ years.

The reproductive potential of silver carp ishigh and increases with body size. It has beenestimated that silver carp weighing 3.18 to 12.1 kgcan produce 145,000-5,400,000 eggs. Silver carpmature anywhere from 3-8 years, and males usuallymature one year earlier than females. The samefemale may spawn twice during one growing season.Silver carp exhibit a prolonged spawning period, intolate summer or early fall, in the United States.

Due to the large size, fast growth rate, highfood consumption rate and high reproductivepotential of silver carp, competition for food andhabitat with native planktivorous fishes and withpost-larvae and early juveniles of most native fishesis likely high. Since nearly all larvae and juvenilefishes are planktivorous and based on otherdemonstrated impacts, it is highly likely that silvercarp are adversely affecting many native fishes in the

-20a-


26/142

Mississippi River Basin, particularly in waters wherefood may become limited, though long-term studieshave not yet been conducted. Affected native speciesinclude paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) , bigmouthbuffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus) , gizzard shad (Dorosomacepedianum) , emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides) ,

and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenens) . It is highlylikely silver carp would adversely affect fishes in theGreat Lakes basin or other watersheds if theyestablish.

***

Because silver carp are likely to negativelyaffect important planktivorous forage fishes such asthe gizzard shad and emerald shiner, scientists haveindicated that fishes and birds that prey on thesespecies would likely also be negatively affected.

Adult silver carp are too large to be preyed on byalmost any native predator. Young silver carp havelikely been incorporated into the diets of piscivorousbirds and fishes to some degree, but the extent of thispredation is not known. Ecosystem balance is likelyto be modified if silver carp populations become largeenough to dominate other planktivorous fish species.The most likely negative effect would be an alterationof fish community structure through competition forfood.

***

Adverse effects of silver carp on somethreatened and endangered freshwater mussels andfishes are likely to be moderate to high. There arecurrently 116 fishes and 70 mussels on the FederalList of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

-21a-


27/142

Because silver carp have the same habitatrequirements as approximately 40 fishes and 25mussels currently on the endangered or threatenedspecies list, these listed species will likely beimpacted by competition for food and habitat by theintroduction and establishment of silver carp.

Habitat requirements, springs and smallstreams, of the remaining listed fishes and musselswould probably preclude any detectable effects as it isunlikely that silver carp could survive in such smallbodies of water.

Adverse effects of established populations of silver carp on endangered and threatened fisheswould most likely be through direct competition forfood resources, particularly phytoplankton and, to alesser extent, zooplankton, in the water columnduring the larval stage. Potential for direct predationand injury of drifting fertilized eggs and larvae of native fishes also exists. The fact that silver carp canbecome extremely abundant and reach a very largesize (> 1 m in length) in rivers, lakes, and reservoirsincreases the probability of a negative impact onaquatic ecosystems they invade as high densities of silver carp decrease food availability for nativespecies....

-22a-


28/142

Habitat Degradation

***

However, due to the impacts listed above, it ishighly likely that silver carp would have adverse

effects on designated critical habitats of threatenedand endangered species. There are currently 60species of fishes and 18 mussels with designatedcritical habitat. Of those, at least 26 inhabit lakes orreaches of streams large enough to support silvercarp. Therefore, dense populations of silver carp arelikely to affect the critical habitats upon which thethreatened and endangered species depend.

***

Impacts to Humans

Silver carp in the United States causesubstantial impacts to the health and welfare of human beings who use waterways infested withsilver carp. There are numerous reports of injuries tohumans and damage to boats and boating equipmentbecause of the jumping habits of silver carp in thevicinity of moving motorized watercraft. Somereported injuries include cuts from fins, black eyes,broken bones, back injuries, and concussions. Silvercarp also cause property damage including brokenradios, depth finders, fishing equipment, andantennae. Some vessels have been retrofitted with aPlexiglas pilot's cab as protection against jumpingsilver carp.

Factors That Reduce or Remove Injuriousnessfor Silver Carp

-23a-


29/142

Detection and Response

If silver carp were introduced or spread intonew U.S. waters, it is unlikely that the introductionwould be discovered until the numbers were high

enough to impact wildlife and wildlife resources.Widespread surveys of waterways are not conductedto establish species' presence lists. Delay in discoverywould limit the ability and effectiveness to rapidlyrespond to the introduction and preventestablishment of new populations. It is unlikely thatsilver carp could be eradicated from U.S. waterwaysunless they are found in unconnected waterbodies.

Potential Control

***

Due to the extensive established range of silvercarp in the Mississippi River Basin, conventionalcontrol methods are not feasible to reduce establishedpopulations. Massive fishing efforts utilizing nettingand electrofishing may be effective in reducingpopulations, but many non-target fish species wouldalso be killed. Justifying the expense of such effortswould require a large commercial demand, whichdoes not currently exist, nor is likely given the

jumping behavior of silver carp that makes fishingdifficult. Selective removal of silver carp is possiblegiven their location in the water column, but watertrawling could also remove other non-target fish suchas paddlefish.

The large and growing range of silver carp inU.S. waterways makes chemical control of

-24a-


30/142

established populations highly unlikely, bothphysically and fiscally. Use of chemical treatments,such as rotenone, would be expensive, only locallyeffective, and would negatively affect all fishes andinvertebrates, not just the target carp. At present,there is no method known to substantially reduce

established populations of silver carp. Eradication isnot possible with presently available technology.

Conclusion

In summary, the Service finds all forms of livesilver carp, including gametes, viable eggs andhybrids, to be injurious to wildlife and wildliferesources of the United States and to the interests of human beings because:

Silver carp are highly likely to spread fromtheir current established range to new waterbodies inthe United States;

Silver carp are highly likely to compete withnative species, including threatened and endangeredspecies, for food and habitat;

Silver carp have the potential to carrypathogens and transfer them to native fish;

Silver carp are likely to develop densepopulations that will likely affect critical habitat forthreatened and endangered species and could furtherimperil other native fishes and mussels;

Silver carp are negatively impacting humans;

-25a-


31/142

It would be difficult to eradicate or reducelarge populations of silver carp, or recover ecosystemsdisturbed by the species; and

There are no potential ecological benefits forU.S. waters from the introduction of silver carp.

-26a-


32/142

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal AquaticNuisance Species Dispersal Barriers

Project Manager: Shea, Chuck

Introduction:

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) is aman-made waterway that provides a direct hydraulicconnection between Lake Michigan and theMississippi River Basin. As non-indigenous aquaticspecies

use the CSSC to move between the two basins, theyprey on native species and compete for food, livingspace and spawning areas. Currently the greatestconcern is the potential movement of Asian carp into

the Great lakes.

Mississippi Basin Great Lakes BasinBighead Carp Round GobySilver Carp RuffeBlack Carp White Perch

The Corps was authorized to conduct ademonstration project to identify an environmentally

-27a-
http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/projects/fish_barrier/file/Image_example.gif


33/142

sound method for preventing the dispersal of aquaticnuisance species through the CSSC. The Corpsformed an Advisory Panel, including other agenciesand stakeholders, to evaluate potential methods.

Project Description :

An electric barrier was selected because it is a non-lethal deterrent that does not interfere with waterflow or navigation in the canal. The DemonstrationBarrier (Barrier I) is formed of steel cables that aresecured to the bottom of the canal. A low-voltage,pulsing DC current is sent through the cables,creating an electric field in the water. The electricfield is uncomfortable for the fish and they do notswim across it.

Based on the effectiveness of Barrier I, a second morepermanent barrier (Barrier II) was authorized.Barrier II is a similar electric field barrier, thatcovers a larger area within the CSSC, has a longer

-28a-
http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/projects/fish_barrier/file/DB1.jpg


34/142

service life and includes design improvementsidentified during monitoring and testing of Barrier I.Barrier II consists of two sets of electrical arrays andcontrol houses, known as Barriers IIA and IIB. Eachcontrol house and set of arrays can be operatedindependently, but the ultimate goal is to operate

oth at the same time.

ver, WA nder contract to the Corps of Engineers.

b Barrier I is located at River Mile 296.5 in the CSSC.Barrier II is located 800 to 1,500 feet downstream of Barrier I. Both barriers have been designed andconstructed by Smith-Root, Inc. of Vancouu

-29a-


35/142

Project History:

In April 2002, the Corps of Engineers beganoperation of the first barrier (Barrier I) as ademonstration of a new technology for preventing thespread of aquatic nuisance species. Barrier I, which is

located at river mile 296.5 in Romeoville, IL, isformed of steel cables (see diagram below right) thatare secured to the bottom of the canal. A low-voltage,pulsing DC current is sent through the cables,creating an electric field in the water. The electricfield is uncomfortable for fish and they do not swimacross it. Since Barrier I was originally built as ademonstration, it was not intended to be operated formore than a few years. In 2004, the Corps initiatedconstruction of a permanent barrier (Barrier II) toprevent the migration of fish, including Asian carp,between the watersheds. Barrier II, which is located800 to 1,300 feet downstream of Barrier I, also uses apulsed electric field, but includes several designimprovements identified during monitoring andtesting of Barrier I. Barrier II is able to generate amore powerful electric field over a larger area andconsists of two sets of electrical arrays and controlhouses, known as Barriers IIA and IIB. Each controlhouse and set of arrays can be operatedindependently, but the ultimate goal is to operateboth at the same time. In 2007, Congress authorizedthe Corps to complete Barrier II, to upgrade Barrier Iand make it permanent, and to operate the barriersystem at full federal cost.

Current Status:

Barrier I and Barrier IIA are operating continuously.Barrier IIB is partially constructed. Due to its

-30a-


36/142

original demonstration status, Barrier I was designedand built with materials that were not intended forlong-term use. It was taken off-line for approximatelya month in September-October 2008 for significantrepairs. These repairs were successfully completedand will allow Barrier I to remain in service for

several more years until Barriers IIA and IIB arecompleted and fully functional. Once Barrier II isfully operational, Barrier I will be taken off line andreplaced with a more permanent facility.

Construction of Barrier IIA was completed in 2006and, after completion of extensive operational andsafety testing, Barrier IIA was continuously inoperation at a maximum in-water field strength of 1volt/inch during the 2008 repairs to Barrier I. This isthe same electrical field strength that Barrier I hasoperated at since it was activated. After a final periodof maintenance and repairs, Barrier IIA was

activated for long-term continuous operation in April2009 at a maximum in-water electric field strength of 1 volt/inch.

-31a-


37/142

Preliminary results of a new monitoring methodcalled eDNA indicate that Asian carp may be closerthan pervious thought. After extensive collaborationwith partner agencies, the Corps increased theoperating parameters of the barrier to a setting of

two volts per inch, 15 Hertz frequency and 6.5milliseconds duration, which is the combination of voltage, frequency an pulse rate that research to datehas shown to be most effective in deterring AsianCarp.

Most fish are repelled by an electric field operating ata maximum in-water field strength of 1 volt/inch.However, an independent study has indicated thathigher voltages may be necessary to deter smallerfish. Barrier IIA has the capability of operating athigher voltages, but such operation will increasepublic safety risks. The Corps is conducting ongoingresearch to verify the optimal operating parametersfor deterring fish of all sizes. Based on newmonitoring results indicating that the Asian carphave moved within approximately five miles of thebarriers, the Corps is currently preparing foroperations at the optimum operating parametersidentified to date. Additional safety tests will becompleted for these new operating parameters.

Preliminary results of a new monitoring methodcalled eDNA indicate that Asian carp may be closerthan previously thought. After extensivecollaboration with partner agencies, the Corpsincreased the operating parameters of the barrier to asetting of two volts per inch, 15 Hertz frequency and6.5 milliseconds pulse rate, which is the combinationof voltage, frequency and pulse rate research has

-32a-


38/142

shown to be effective in deterring both adult and juvenile Asian carp.

Final design of Barrier IIB will not be completeduntil research on optimal operating parameters isfully completed and operational and safety testing at

Barrier IIA is completed. Construction of Barrier IIBis expected to begin in fall 2009 and will be completedin 2010.

Costs:

Barrier I is 100% Federally funded. Through Fiscal Year 2007, approximately $4 million has been spenton the demonstration project for planning, design,construction, and ongoing operation andmaintenance. The demonstration project has nofunding ceiling. Operation can continue as long asCongress continues to appropriate funds to theproject.

Barrier II is 75% Federally funded. The IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources (IDNR) is the non-Federal sponsor and, with some assistance from otherGreat Lakes states, is providing the remaining 25%of the project cost. Through Fiscal Year 2007,approximately $8.5 million has been spent onplanning, design, and construction.

Barrier II is authorized for a total project cost of $9.1million. However, the estimated total project cost forcompletion of both Barrier IIA and Barrier IIB is now$16 million. Additional laws must be passed toincrease or waive the $9.1 million funding ceiling andappropriate further funds to the Barrier II project orBarrier IIB can not be completed.

-33a-


39/142

Authorizations:

Demonstration Barrier: Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPACA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-636, as amended in 1996) and Section

2309 of P.L. 109-234, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. Permanent Barrier: Section1135, WRDA 1986 and Section 345 of PL. 108-335,District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005.

Page Last Updated: 27 Aug 2009

-34a-


40/142

Center for Aquatic Conservation, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame,Notre Dame, IN 46556

Risk Reduction Study Fact SheetEnvironmental DNA (eDNA)

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal AquaticNuisance Species Dispersal BarrierChicago Sanitary and Ship Canal AquaticNuisance Species Dispersal BarrierContacts:

David M. Lodge, Professor, Director of the Centerfor Aquatic Conservation, Univ. of Notre Dame; Ph.(574) 631-6094/2849, [email protected]

Andrew R. Mahon, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Univ. of Notre Dame

Christopher L. Jerde, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Univ. of Notre Dame

W. Lindsay Chadderton, Director of AquaticInvasiveSpecies, Great Lakes Project, The NatureConservancy

Overview: Fishes, including Asian carp, releaseDNA into the environment in the form of mucoidalsecretions, feces, and urine. DNA degrades in theenvironment, but this process is not instantaneous,

-35a-


41/142

and DNA can be held in suspension and transported.The presence of species can be detected by filteringwater samples, and then extracting and amplifyingshort fragments of the shed DNA. In contrast to othersurveillance methods, the environmental DNA (eDNA) method does not rely on direct observation of

Asian carp to evaluate presence.

Scope: Laboratory and field studies using eDNA methods confirm that Asian carps can be detected in2 liter water samples from sites that electrofishingindicates have high, moderate, and low densities of carp. Water samples are collected in the field andfiltered in the lab. DNA is extracted from the filtrate,and any DNA from bighead and silver carp isamplified with PCR using genetic markers that areunique to bighead and silver carp. The eDNA approach uses standard genetic identificationmethods in a novel application the extraction of lowconcentrations of DNA from water sampled in thefield that allows for species-specific detection (Plate1).

The objectives of this study are to locate the invasionfront using the eDNA and provide an early detectiontool to inform rapid responses and othermanagement. We will complete a longitudinal studyof CSSC, sampling both the main-stem and differentmicrohabitats where eDNA may accumulate,resulting in an increased probability of detection.From this information, locations above the currentdetection front, at the electric barrier, and above theelectric barrier, that are identified as optimal eDNA detection sites, will be targeted for continualsurveillance.

-36a-


42/142

How will this improve our current monitoring?The eDNA approach to surveillance will allow greatergeographiccoverage throughout the CSSC andconnected waterways, and is more sensitive atdetecting low abundance of fish than the methodscurrently employed. Adult and juvenile eDNA can be

detected using this technique, and while the former ismore likely, themethod does not allow size or sex of fish to be differentiated. Water sample collection canbe accomplished from boats, bridges, shorelines, andin habitats that are difficult to sample with thecurrent approaches (such as shallow channels of theDes Plaines River or deep sections of the CSSC whereelectrofishing can be ineffective and where highboater traffic precludes the application of nets).

Current Results: As of 17 September 2009, theeDNA method has detected silver carp DNA approximately 1 mile south of the electric barrier. Allanalyzed CSSC samples above the electric barrierhave been negative for silver carp eDNA. Testing forbighead eDNA in the Lockport pool is underway.

Authority: The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Section 3061, Chicago Sanitary and Ship CanalDispersal Barriers Project, Illinois, and a CooperativeEcosystems Study Unit (CESU) with the EngineerResearch Development Center (ERDC), authorizedthis project.

The current budgetary support covers eDNA surveillance methods as part of a larger and ongoingCESU agreement through June 2010.

-37a-


43/142

For additional project information please visit ourwebsite shttp://www.nd.edu/~lodgelab/ http://aquacon.nd.edu/

-38a-


44/142

-39a-


45/142

-40a-


46/142

Close-up of reach of Cal-sag near O'Brien lockwhere DNA for Asian carp was recentlydetected

'

-41a-


47/142

Detail of reach of Cal-Sag near confluencewith CSSC where DNA for Asian carp wasrecently detected

-42a-


48/142

-43a-


49/142

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Asian Carp FAQs

November 13, 2009

What are Asian carp?There are three species of Asian carp that areconsidered invasive and a threat to the Great Lakes,the bighead, silver and black carp. Silver and bigheadcarp are filter-feeding fish and consume plant andanimal plankton at an alarming rate. Bighead carpcan grow to very large sizes of over five feet in lengthand can weigh 100 pounds or more. Black carp differin that they consume primarily mollusks, andthreaten native mussel and sturgeon populations.They can grow to seven feet in length and 150pounds.

Where did Asian carp come from? Asian carp were originally imported to the southernUnited States in the 1970s to help aquaculture andwastewater treatment facilities keep retention pondsclean. Flooding throughout the 1990s allowed thesefish to escape into the Mississippi and migrate intothe Missouri and Illinois rivers.

Why are they a problem in Illinois? Asian carp are a problem because of their feeding andspawning habits. Bighead carp are capable of consuming 40% of their own body weight in food eachday. Silver carp are smaller, but pose a greaterdanger to recreational users because of theirtendency to jump out of the water when disturbed byboat motors. They have severely impacted fishing andrecreation on the Illinois River. They can spawn

-44a-


50/142

multiple times during each season and quickly out-compete native species by disrupting the food chaineverywhere they go.Click the link to see how they have devastatedthe Illinois River.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7zkTnQVaM

What happens if Asian carp enter the GreatLakes?

Asian carp could have a devastating effect on theGreat Lakes ecosystem and a significant economicimpact on the $7 billion fishery. Once in LakeMichigan, this invasive species could access manynew tributaries connected to the Great Lakes. Thesefish aggressively compete with native commercial andsport fish for food. They are well suited to the watertemperature, food supply, and lack of predators of theGreat Lakes and could quickly become the dominantspecies. Once in the lake, it would be very difficult tocontrol them.

Where are the Asian carp now?During 2002 monitoring efforts, Asian carp weredetected in the upper Illinois River, just 60 milesfrom Lake Michigan. In 2009, by using a new methodcalled eDNA testing, silver carp were detectedconsiderably closer, within the Lockport Pool (DesPlaines River, and I&M Canal).

What is eDNA testing/How does it work?Environmental DNA testing (eDNA) was developedat the University of Notre Dame to improvemonitoring of invasive species. All fish, including

Asian carp, release DNA into the environment. Thepresence of individual species can be detected byfiltering water samples, and then extracting and

-45a-


51/142

amplifying short fragments of the shed DNA. Theobjective is to use eDNA testing as an early detectiontool to identify Asian carp locations. Formore information on eDNA testing click the linkbelow.http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/pao/eDNA_FactSheet_

20090918.pdf.

Why have no actual Asian carp been found inthe areas where eDNA testing has identifiedthem?

Asian carp are still below a threshold of detectionusing traditional fishing gear. Electro- fishing issuccessful in detecting bighead and silver carp whenthey are in high abundance. The Chicago Sanitaryand Ship Canal is, in some places, nearly 30 feetdeep, which is another disadvantage to usingtraditional sampling methods. In the early spring andlate fall, the water is cooler and produces less algae (amain food source of bighead and silver carp diets),and the fish tend to reside a bit deeper than theywould during warmer months. With decreasedmetabolism (not as much food), they are also lessactive and therefore harder to detect.

How would the fish enter Lake Michigan?The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) is amanmade waterway that provides a direct connectionbetween the Mississippi River system and LakeMichigan. eDNA sampling suggests that the carp arealready about a mile from the electric barrier locatedwithin the CSSC that is designed to deter them fromadvancing through the canal to Lake Michigan.

-46a-


52/142

Are there other navigation points for fish toswim around the electric barrier?Other points of possible entry to the CSSC above theelectric barrier are the low lying areas of landpositioned between the Des Plaines River, the Illinoisand Michigan (I&M) Canal and the Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal. During heavy rainfall events, theseareas are prone to flooding. A significant rain couldflood the banks, joining the Des Plaines with theCSSC or the I & M canal with the CSSC, andallowing these fish to bypass the barrier and advancetoward Lake Michigan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others are currently investigatingpotential solutions to these bypass issues.

-47a-


53/142

Invasive Species Great Lakes US EPA

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/Last updated on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Photo courtesy of USFish and Wildlife

Service

Asian Carp and the Great Lakes

Asian carp have been found in the Illinois River,which connects the Mississippi River to LakeMichigan. Due to their large size and rapid rate of

reproduction, these fish could pose a significant riskto the Great Lakes Ecosystem.

* * *

How did Asian carp get so close to the GreatLakes?

-48a-


54/142

Two species of Asian carp -- the bighead and silver --were imported by catfish farmers in the 1970's toremove algae and suspended matter out of theirponds. During large floods in the early 1990s, manyof the catfish farm ponds overflowed their banks, andthe Asian carp were released into local waterways in

the Mississippi River basin.

The carp have steadily made their way northward upthe Mississippi, becoming the most abundant speciesin some areas of the River.

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, where thebarrier is being constructed, connects the MississippiRiver to the Great Lakes via the Illinois River.

What effects might Asian carp have on theGreat Lakes?

Asian Carp are a significant threat to the GreatLakes because they are large, extremely prolific, andconsume vast amounts of food. They can weigh up to100 pounds, and can grow to a length of more thanfour feet. They are well-suited to the climate of theGreat Lakes region, which is similar to their native

Asian habitats.

Researchers expect that Asian carp would disrupt thefood chain that supports the native fish of the GreatLakes. Due to their large size, ravenous appetites,and rapid rate of reproduction, these fish could pose asignificant risk to the Great Lakes Ecosystem.

-49a-


55/142

12/4/2009

Dispersal Barrier Efficacy Study

INTERIM I Dispersal Barrier Bypass RiskReduction Study & Integrated Environmental

Assessment

December 2009 Draft Report

-50a-


56/142

1.1 Dispersal Barrier Efficacy Study

The fish dispersal barrier project represents aunique, but temporary solution to an imminentthreat: the risk of an inter-basin transfer of fishbetween the Mississippi River and Great Lakes

basins. The dispersal barriers were designed andconstructed to reduce this risk of inter-basin transferof fish via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal(CSSC).

Although the dispersal barriers were designed toprevent the movement of any Aquatic NuisanceSpecies (ANS) fish species in either direction throughthe canal, the current species of concern are the

Asian carp (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Asian carphave the potential to damage the Great Lakes andconfluent large riverine ecosystems by disrupting thecomplex food web of the system and causing damageto the sport fishing industry. Two species of Asiancarp, bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) andsilver carp (H. molitrix) , have become wellestablished in the Mississippi and Illinois Riversystems exhibiting exponential population growth inrecent years. Certain life history traits have enabledbighead and silver carp to achieve massivepopulation numbers soon after establishing.Currently, the Illinois River is estimated tohave the largest population of bighead and silver carpin the world. The prevention of an interbasin transferof bighead and silver carp from the Illinois River toLake Michigan is paramount in avoiding ecologic andeconomic disaster.

This Interim Report (Interim I- Dispersal BarrierBypass Risk Reduction Study & Integrated

-51a-


57/142

Environmental Assessment) investigates emergencymeasures (various structures and no action) thatreduces risk of the Asian carps bypassing theDispersal Barrier vis--vis overlandflow from the Des Plaines River to the CSSC and flowthrough culverts in the Illinois and Michigan (I&M)

Canal to the CSSC. The emergency measures wouldneed to be implemented as soon as possible, but nolater than 28 October 2010, based on the projectauthorization. Inaddition, preliminary discussions are included on thepossibilities of transfer via ballast water of navigational vessels that traverse through thedispersal barrier and Asian carps abundancereduction. These additional areas of study will befurther expanded upon in subsequent InterimReports. [Page 7]

***1.3 Study Background

***

[T]he I&M Canal gave way to a much larger Sanitaryand Ship Canal started in 1892 that connected LakeMichigan with the Illinois Waterway. The permanentconnection between the Lake Michigan and theMississippi drainage was finalized with thecompletion of the Sanitary and Ship Canal in 1900.On the Calumet River, the Corps of Engineersremoved sandbars and built piers at the mouthduring 1870-1882; between 1888-1896 the riverbetween Lake Michigan and LakeCalumet was straightened; between 1899 and 1916the Calumet River was dredged to a depth of 16 feet;between 1911-1922 the Calumet Feeder Canal was

-52a-


58/142

obliterated by the construction of the Cal-SagChannel, which was incised through a vast andunique dolomite prairie, formerly the Saganashkeemarshland. With the completion of joining the Cal-Sag Channel with the Calumet River, the CalumetRegions drainage was chiefly reversed; and in 1965

the Calumet River was completely reversed by theconstruction of the OBrien lock and dam near theoriginal confluence with Lake Michigan. The I&MCanal is no longer in operation. Since the creation of the canal system, poorly treated wastewater, lowdissolved oxygen concentrations, high ammoniaconcentrations and other contaminants formed aneffective barrier not only to colonization of the canalby native pioneer species, but to introduced species aswell. Significant improvements in water quality overthe last two decades have allowed the aquaticconditions in the canal to become accommodating fornative and introduced species of the tolerant sort,which both share pioneering attributes. [Page 9]

***

1.4 Study Purpose

***

The failure of the barriers to prevent the spread of the Asian carps to the Great Lakes could becatastrophic to its ecosystem and the planktonic-fisheries interactions. The rapid implementation of measures to ensure the Efficacy of the DispersalBarrier project is critical. The design analysescontained in this report address the potential forbypass of the Barriers via:

-53a-


59/142

1) overland flow from the Des Plaines River to theCSSC, 2) bypass through culverts via the I&M canal,and 3) ballast water transfer. The potential DesPlaines River and I&M Canal bypasses are locatedupstream of the Barriers. The intent of this report isconsistent with the national plan for managing and

controlling Asian carps, which was developed by the Asian Carp Working Group, Aquatic NuisanceSpecies Task Force. Strategy 3.2.2.1 of the NationalPlan states: (To) Develop and implement redundantbarrier systems within the CSSC to limit theunrestricted access of Asian carp to Lake Michigan.[Page 11]

***CHAPTER 4 INTERIM RISK REDUCTION

The purpose of the Efficacy Interim I report is toquickly determine the best way to keep Asian carpsfrom bypassing the barrier project in the CSSC anddispersing into the Great Lakes. Based uponenvironmental DNA tests the silver carp areupstream of the dispersal barrier system in the DesPlaines River and the next flood on the Des Plainescould allow silver carp to bypass the barrier. A floodin the Des Plaines River determined to be a 125-yearevent occurred in September 2008. Another floodcould occur at any time but are usually in the spring.If the Asian carps bypass the barrier they couldultimately disperse into the Great Lakes via one ormore of the 5 possible points of entry into LakeMichigan, the other Great Lakes and a significantnumber of the Great Lakes tributaries. The economicimpact of Asian carps establishing in the Great Lakesis estimated by others to be between $4 billion and $6billion annually. Further ecological disruption in the

-54a-


60/142

Great Lakes food web would have dire consequencesfor planktivorous fishes and mussels. The emergencynature of this threat requires expedited developmentof a USACE project, including an abbreviatedplanning process, review and approval. [Page 32]

***

[A] primary level of protection was achieved when theelectrical CSSC Dispersal Barrier was constructedand place in operation in the CSSC which is the mainartery of dispersal for invasive fishes from theMississippi River system to the Great Lakes and viceversa. More in-depth study of the project area and atell-tale September 2008 flood have revealed thatthere are secondary intermittent hydraulicconnections that could allow invasive species todisperse around the existing electric barrier system.These secondary intermittent hydraulic connectionsneed to be addressed quickly to prevent or slow theinvasive Asian carps from entering the Great Lakesbasin. The electric barrier system is consideredexperimental and temporary fix to this problem of aquatic nuisance species dispersal, with fish beingthe first target. New measures must be implementedto control the movement of other non-nativebiological organisms such as plants, plankton, andmussels. Additional study is being undertaken toremedy the unnatural connection between basins, butuntil a permanent solution is recognized and agreedupon, it is anticipated temporary solutions willcontinue to be implemented and changed as needed.

Without immediate implementation of emergencymeasures to prevent Asian carp dispersal around thebarrier system via the Des Plaines Rive and/or I&M

-55a-


61/142

Canal, there is a high level of certainty that Asiancarp will gain access to the Great Lakes. The efficacyof the in place electric barriers is quite dependentupon all other routes of dispersal being sealed off.Only adult through juvenile fish are of concern withthis issue. Eggs and larvae that get swept over these

points would quickly be washed back down streamsince they do not have swimming capability. Takingno action would allow Asian carp to disperse to theGreat Lakes basin thereby making the placement of an electrical barrier system in the canal useless.[Page 34]

-56a-


62/142

Asian Carp ManagementInvasive Species Coordination Web Site

The Threat to the Great Lakes

The presence of Asian carps in the Great Lakescould cause catastrophic declines in abundances of native fish species, cause economic impacts to sportand commercial fisheries, and result in injuries toboaters.

The presence of Asian carp in the Great Lakescould cause declines in abundances of nativefish species. Asian carps can consume 40 percent of theirbody weight in food daily. Great abundance of Asiancarps will result in competition for food with nativespecies including cisco, bloater, yellow perch, whichare fed on by predator species including lake troutand walleye.

Under the conditions found in the Great Lakessuch as water temperature, food abundance, Asiancarps could outnumber all other native species, as is

happening in parts of Illinois, Mississippi andMissouri Rivers.

The Great Lakes are home to federally and/orstate listed threatened or endangered fish, mollusks,plants, mammals, insects, and reptiles. Other GreatLakes invasives have been implicated in adverseeffects upon up to 46% of the local federally listedendangered plant and animal species. Introduction of

-57a-


63/142

Asian carp to the region could further harm theseorganisms and perhaps lead to their disappearancefrom the Great Lakes.The establishment of Asian carps could causegreat economic impact to the Great Lakescommercial, and sport fisheries collectively

valued at more than $7 billion annually.

2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation

Reduced abundance of native fishes will resultin reduced harvest by sport and commercial fishers.Reduced harvest will cause reduction in anglingquality, and economic impact to those whoselivelihood depends on sport and commercial fisheries.

The potential impact of Asian carps on theGreat Lakes sport and commercial fishing industrycan be seen now along the Mississippi River basin where in just a few short years following introductionof Asian carp into an area, many commercial fishinglocations have been abandoned, as native fish havenearly disappeared from the catch, replaced by Asiancarp.

In 2002, a workshop convened by the GreatLakes Protection Fund predicted that introduction of

Asian carps into the Great Lakes would threaten thesport and commercial fisheries, and could result inecological and economic damages far exceeding thosecaused by the sea lamprey and zebra musselinvasions.

The presence of Asian carps could result ininjuries to boaters and other waterway users .

-58a-
http://asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/2006survey.pdfhttp://asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/2006survey.pdfhttp://asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/2006survey.pdfhttp://asiancarp.org/rapidresponse/documents/2006survey.pdf


64/142

Silver carp are often referred to as flying fishbecause when they are disturbed by boat motors,silver carps will jump from the water up to 6 feet.

These jumping silver carps are causing injuries

to boaters in the Illinois, Mississippi and MissouriRivers. If silver carp become abundant in the GreatLakes, then that species will cause injuries to boatersand other waterway users there.

Such injuries will result in reduced pleasureboating and other recreational activities in the GreatLakes, which will cause economic impacts to thosewhose livelihoods are supported by recreationalboating.

-59a-


65/142

Development of this web site is supported by the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service through a partnership withthe University of Texas - Arlington and containsinformation and resources derived from a variety of other partners and sources. Materials on this website are free for public use and are not intended to be

used for profit.

-60a-


66/142


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEDecember 3, 2009

Bighead Asian Carp Found in Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal

LOCKPORT, IL The Asian Carp Rapid ResponseWorkgroup announced Thursday evening that abighead Asian carp was found in the ChicagoSanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) just above theLockport Lock and Dam. This is the first physicalspecimen that has been found in the CSSC sinceeDNA testing earlier this year suggested thepresence of Asian carp in the area.

"This is clearly a significant find in this operationthat validates why it is so important for this work tobe done," said Illinois Department of NaturalResources Assistant Director John Rogner. "We willcontinue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and our partners on maintaining theintegrity of the area around the barrier."

Concentrations of Asian carp in the Lockport Pool areexpected to be low compared to total biomasscollected.

The bighead carp was found 500 feet above theLockport Lock and Dam near the west bank by a U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Assistant Project Leaderfrom the Carterville, Illinois office. The fish is 21 and7/8 inches long.

-61a-


67/142

Biologists working with the Asian Carp RapidResponse Workgroup began applying RotenoneWednesday evening on a 5.7-mile stretch of the canal.Rotenone application was chosen as the best option of keeping Asian carp from breaching the electricbarrier while it is taken down for scheduled routine

maintenance. The application went as planned andclean-up efforts began around 8am this morning. Thediscovery of the bighead was found during thoseefforts.Clean-up operations ended at sundown Thursdayevening and resumed at 7a.m. Friday. More than 350people have contributed to the efforts on the groundduring this weeks operation.

The media access area on the canal will be open tomedia at 8am Friday morning.

-62a-


68/142


69/142

The U.S Coast Guard (USCG) began enforcing asafety zone on the CSSC on December 2 in support of

Asian Carp Rapid Response Operations. USCG hasalready restored access to parts of the canal and willcontinue to reduce the safety zone as the workgroup

completes final phases of the operation.

In support of scheduled routine barrier maintenance,biologists working with the Asian Carp RapidResponse Workgroup began applying Rotenone, a fishtoxicant, on Wednesday, December 2 on a 5.7-milestretch of the canal.

"I want to thank each and every person andorganization who put forth an extreme amount of time, energy and resources to make this project asuccess," said Illinois Department of NaturalResources Assistant Director John Rogner. "TheeDNA testing worked to give us an early warning. Wetook it seriously and we took action. The alternativewas to do nothing and that would have been amistake."

Rotenone application was chosen as the best optionfor keeping Asian carp from breaching the lowervoltage demonstration barrier while the morepowerful Barrier IIA was taken down for scheduledroutine maintenance. The application of rotenone anda detoxifying agent was successful and the clean-upof visible dead fish are complete at this time.

One Bighead Asian carp was discovered nearly 500feet above the Lockport Lock on Thursday afternoon,December 3. Biologists with the workgroup believethere is a high probability that additional Asian carp

-64a-


70/142

were killed during the toxicant application but maynot be found.

"The cold water temperatures on the canal this weekmeans far more fish are sinking to the bottom of thewaterway than will float to the top. Over the next

several weeks and months, some fish may float to thesurface but the majority of fish will break downnaturally below the surface," said IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources Fisheries Chief Steve Pallo.

The workgroup has collected thousands of fish,mostly common carp, from the canal since cleanupefforts began on December 3. Those fish are beingdisposed of properly in a landfill.

The public should be advised that dead fish may beobserved from time to time over the next severalweeks as some fish may rise to the surface. Publichealth officials always caution against eating dead ordying fish in any instance that have not been caughtalive.

The workgroup is now focused on efforts above theelectrical barrier system near T.J. Obrien Lock in anattempt to find Asian carp in areas where positiveeDNA tests have been found. Positive Asian carpDNA evidence exists over nearly 10 miles of the Cal-Sag Channel and Sanitary and Ship Canal above thebarrier.

The workgroup is using commercial fishermen,augmented with state and federal fisheries personnel,to deploy commercial fishing gear in a 5.5-milestretch of the Cal-Sag Channel. Fishing operations

-65a-


71/142

are using nearly 2,000 yards of fishing nets deployedfor two overnight periods. Nets have been deployedover portions of the reach since Dec. 1 and have beenhighly successful in collecting fish, although no Asiancarp have been collected.

While the workgroup considered additional Rotenoneapplication in specific areas above the barrier as asampling option, there is no evidence to suggest

Asian carp might be concentrated in any specific partof the 10-mile stretch of the canal where eDNA testshave been positive.

Water temperatures above the barrier are muchcolder than downstream where Rotenone was appliedfor the main project in support of scheduled barriermaintenance. At these temperatures, dead fish wouldlikely never surface to be identified. Withoutidentification, Rotenone would be ineffective as asampling tool.

In contrast, fishing nets would effectively sample theentire reach and provide the best evidence of thepotential presence and relative abundance of Asiancarp in this stretch of channel. It would also confirmthe exact location of any fish collected. Any Asiancarp collected will be removed from the system,thereby providing a measure of population reduction.

"The effort near the O'Brien Lock is fundamentallydifferent from the action below the barrier. Thepurpose of applying Rotenone below the barrier wasto ensure no Asian carp advanced up the channelwhile the barrier was powered down. In addition,Rotenone would provide us little if any informationabout the presence and abundance of carp in this

-66a-


72/142

reach upstream," said IDNR Assistant Director JohnRogner.

The Asian Carp Rapid Response Workgroup and itspartners are committed to remaining vigilant in thefuture and to explore all options available to prevent

the spread of Asian carp to the Great Lakes.

The Asian CarpRapid Response Workgroup includesthe Illinois Department of Natural Resources, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,U.S. Coast Guard, USDA Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, Chicago Department of Environment, Metropolitan Water ReclamationDistrict of Greater Chicago, Midwest Generation,Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes FisheryCommission, International Joint Commission, andWisconsin Sea Grant. Fisheries managementagencies from Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan,Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York andCanada have also provided support to the operation.

For more information about Asian carp and the RapidResponse operations on the CSSC, the public andmedia are encouraged to log on towww.asiancarp.org/rapidresponse.

-67a-


73/142


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEDecember 8, 2009

Asian Carp Rapid Response Workgroup

finishes operation on Cal-Sag Channel

No Asian carp collected above electricalbarrier; safety zone rescinded

CHICAGO The Asian Carp Rapid ResponseWorkgroup has completed fishing operations near theT.J. O'Brien Lock in an attempt to locate Asian carpafter eDNA sampling in the area tested positive forthe invasive species. The Workgroup usedcommercial fishermen and federal fisheries personnelto deploy nearly 3,000 yards of fishing nets along a5.5-mile stretch of the Cal-Sag Channel. While thenets were successful in collecting more than 800 fish,no Asian carp were found. The catch included morethan 700 common carp and 10 other species.

The fishing operations that began on Dec. 1, wrappedup late yesterday, Dec. 7. On Monday evening, theU.S. Coast Guard reopened the Cal-Sag Channel andLittle Calumet River to vessel traffic.

While the fishing operations and the ChicagoSanitary and Ship Canal rotenone application havethus far confirmed just one Bighead Asian carp, theWorkgroup expects their work to continue for sometime.

eDNA is serving its purpose as an early warningsystem and suggests that Asian carp may have

-68a-


74/142

reached the Cal-Sag Channel. Based on recentsampling and the fish collection efforts there, theWorkgroup believes that if Asian carp are present,their numbers are likely very small. The Workgroupand its partners are committed to remaining vigilantin the future and exploring all options available to

prevent the spread of Asian carp to the Great Lakes.

Among the next steps already underway to preventthe spread of the destructive fish to the Great Lakes:

Illinois Department of Natural Resources andother partners will evaluate the week's efforts anddevelop options for additional carp populationassessment and control in the Cal-Sag Channel andChicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will continuetheir eDNA sampling effort with the University of Notre Dame

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are focused onaddressing potential bypass issues (along the DesPlaines River, I&M Canal, Grand Calumet and LittleCalumet River), the interbasin study and expeditedconstruction of barrier IIB

The Rapid Response Workgroup partners areevaluating a range of additional options andconsequences for Asian carp prevention managementstrategies in the waterwaysand potentially, furtherinto the Great Lakes

The Asian Carp Rapid Response Workgroup includesthe Illinois Department of Natural Resources, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental

-69a-


75/142

Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, ChicagoDepartment of Environment, Metropolitan WaterReclamation District of Greater Chicago, MidwestGeneration, Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes

Fishery, Commission, International JointCommission, and Wisconsin Sea Grant.

Fisheries management agencies from Indiana,Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,New York and Canada have also provided support tothe operation.

For more information about Asian carp and the RapidResponse operations, seewww.asiancarp.org/rapidresponse.

-70a-


76/142

-71a-


77/142

-72a-


78/142

-73a-


79/142

In The

Supreme Court of the United StatesOctober Term, 1966

STATES OF WISCONSIN,

MINNESOTA, OHIO, ANDENNSYLVANIA,

Complainants , v. STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THEMETROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICTOF GREATER CHICAGO,

Defendants,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor .

No. 1Original

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Complainant,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THEMETROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICTOF GREATER CHICAGO,

Defendants,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor .

No. 2Original

-74a-


80/142

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Complainant ,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THEMETROPOLITAN SANITARY

DISTRICTOF GREATER CHICAGO,

Defendants ,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor .

No. 3Original

AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E. KNUEVE

1. My name is Thomas E. Knueve. I make thisaffidavit based upon my personal knowledge. If called upon as a witness, I can testify competently tothe contents of this affidavit.

2. I am employed by the State of Michigan as anEnvironmental Engineer in the Permits Section,Water Bureau (WB), Department of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ). I have worked in the capacity of anEnvironmental Engineer for 31 years. Prior to thattime period, I worked in the Municipal ConsultingEngineering field as a Civil Engineer for 6 years.

3. I have a Bachelor's of Science Degree in CivilEngineering from Michigan State University. I am aregistered Professional Engineer with the State of Michigan under Registration No. 26132.

-75a-


81/142

4. I am the statewide specialist for the planning,design, and construction of Combined SewerOverflow (CSO) systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflow(SSO) systems, and wastewater transportationsystems.

5. I have reviewed publicly available informationregarding the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal andits associated waterways. Specifically, I reviewed theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission 2008 ProjectCompletion Report, entitled "Preliminary Feasibilityof Ecological Separation of the Mississippi River andthe Great Lakes to Prevent the Transfer of AquaticInvasive Species," by Joel Brammeier, Irwin Polls,and Scudder Mackey, published November 2008(relevant portions excerpted and attached as Exhibit

A). I also reviewed the Dispersal Barrier EfficacyStudy, entitled "Interim I Dispersal Barrier BypassRisk Reduction Study & Integrated Environmental

Assessment, December 2009 Draft Report," publishedby the United States Army Corps of Engineers,Chicago District.

6. The Chicago Waterway System includes theChicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Chicago River(which is connected to Lake Michigan via the NorthShore Channel), and the Calumet River (which isconnected to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canalvia the Calumet-Sag Channel). (Exhibit A at 3-4.)

7. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, NorthShore Channel, and Calumet-Sag Channel werecreated as part of a diversion project, wherein waterwas diverted from Lake Michigan into the ChicagoWaterway System in order to wash sewage awayfrom the Chicago River and Lake Michigan (the

-76a-


82/142

source of Chicago's drinking water supply). (Exhibit

A at 11 and 20-21.)

8. There are three navigational locks in theChicago Waterway System: the LockportPowerhouse and Lock, the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock

and Dam, and the Chicago Lock (which is part of theChicago River Controlling Works). (Exhibit A at 22-23 and 26.)

9. The Lockport Powerhouse and Lock are locatedin the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,approximately one mile north of the junction of theCanal and the Des Plaines River. The lock isoperated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), while the Powerhouse is operatedby the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District). (Exhibit A at 26.)

10. The O'Brien Lock and Dam are located on theCalumet River near where it connects to LakeMichigan. The Lock and Dam are operated by theCorps. There are also sluice

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	api-26432619
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times