A.1.AsianCarpControlStrategyFrameworkMay2010.pdf

ASIAN CARP

Control Strategy Framework

ASIAN CARP

Control Strategy Framework

ASIAN CARP

Control Strategy Framework

May 2010

ASIAN CARP

CONTROL STRATEGY FRAMEWORK

May 5, 2010

Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework

May 2010 i

CONTENTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Participating Agencies – Roles/Authorities/Jurisdictions

1.4 Additional Asian Carp Work

2.0 UNIFIED ACTIONS FOR PREVENTING ASIAN CARP MIGRATION

2.1 Short-term Actions / Action Options

2.1.1 Targeted Removal within Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS)

2.1.2 Enhanced eDNA Testing, Contract Commercial Fishing, and Conventional Monitoring in

“High Risk” Locations

2.1.3 eDNA Calibration Methodology and Increased Capacity

2.1.4 Construction of Des Plaines River and I&M Canal Barriers

2.1.5 Continued Operation of Demonstration Barrier I and Barrier IIA

2.1.6 Expedited Construction of Barrier IIB

2.1.7 Contingency Plan for Rotenone Treatment for Maintenance Shutdowns

2.2 Long-term Actions / Action Options

2.2.1 Final Efficacy Study Report

2.2.2 Great Lakes and Mississippi River Inter-Basin Study

2.2.3 Modified Structural Operations

2.2.4 Commercial Fishing for Removal Below Lockport

2.2.5 Commercial Market Enhancement/Recruitment Overfishing

2.2.6 Investigation of Certification Requirements for Asian Carp Usage

2.2.7 Feasibility Assessment of Inter-Basin Transfer of AIS

2.2.8 Tagged Fish Research to Test Barrier Effectiveness

2.2.9 Investigate Tow Boats and Barges as Potential Vectors

2.2.10 Assessment Study of Potential Impacts of Steel-hulled Barges on Fish Movement Across

Electric Barrier II

2.2.11 Research of Potential Asian Carp Access Vectors on Barge Decks and Between Lashed

Barges

2.2.12 Investigation of Northeast Illinois’ Bait Shops

2.2.13 Efficacy Study for Toxic Zones Using Plant Effluent

2.2.14 Increased Lacey Act Enforcement of Illegal Transport of Injurious Wildlife

2.2.15 State and Interstate AIS Management Plans

2.2.16 Competitive Funding Opportunities

2.2.17 Understanding Asian Carp and Bluegreen Algae Dynamics

2.2.18 Use of Seismic Technology to Divert or Eradicate Invasive Asian Carp

2.2.19 Expand Research on the Identification of Asian Carp Attraction Pheromones

2.2.20 Identify Potential Compounds for Inclusion in a Toxicant Screening Program to Identify

Potential Selective Toxicants for Control of Asian Carp

May 2010 ii

2.2.21 Evaluate Physical Methods to Disrupt Asian Carp Spawning Behavior and Decrease Egg Viability

2.2.22 Characterization of Organism-Level Target Delivery Sites in Native Aquatic Animals

2.2.23 Great Lakes’ Tributary Assessment for Asian Carp Habitat Suitability

2.2.24 Risk Assessment of Asian Carp Establishment in the Great Lakes, Based on Available

Food Sources

2.2.25 Technologies Using Oral Delivery Platforms for Species-Specific Control

2.2.26 Study Efficacy of Reducing Asian Carp Food Source Through Nutrient Removal

3.0 GREAT LAKES STATES’ INVOLVEMENT

4.0 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH

5.0 COORDINATION STRUCTURE

6.0 ACRONYMS

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Artificial Connections to the Great Lakes

Exhibit 2. Annual Flow through Existing Great Lakes Diversions

Exhibit 3. Area Map, Electric Barrier Location, Waterway Entry Points into Lake Michigan and Asian Carp Positive eDNA Locations

Exhibit 4. Coordination Structure

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Control Strategy Matrix

Appendix B: Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework Comments Responsiveness Summary

May 2010 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Great Lakes food web has been significantly degraded in recent decades by aquatic invasive species (AIS). The migration of Asian carp through the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) is the most acute AIS threat facing the Great Lakes today.

Federal, state, and local agencies, working together as the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC), are responding to this threat to prevent Asian carp from establishing populations in the Great Lakes. The main objectives of this Framework are to:

Outline the urgent actions agencies are taking.

Integrate and unify the future actions of responding agencies.

Transition from a single point of defense at the electric barriers to a multi-tiered approach.

Provide general direction while recognizing that agencies require flexibility to best respond.

Recognize potential hurdles that might complicate Framework implementation.

Suggest an approach for stakeholders and other agencies to actively collaborate in future efforts.

The Framework is designed to be updated periodically as needed to reflect an ever-increasing body of knowledge gathered from ongoing research and monitoring. This version differs from the first draft released in February 2010 in that it contains new actions either now underway or whose efficacy will be assessed in 2010. It also includes updated milestones based on activities conducted to date, and a Responsiveness Summary addressing public comments received over the last several months.

Since the release of the draft Framework in early February, responding agencies have used conventional and commercial fishing techniques, including gill and trammel netting and electro shocking, to physically confirm the presence of Asian carp upstream of the electric barrier. To date, no Asian carp have been found. In addition, eDNA (environmental deoxyribonucleic acid) sampling has continued. Out of 221 samples collected and processed in 2010, two have tested positive. Taken together, the fishing and sampling results further the belief that there are not enough Asian carp upstream of the barrier to create self-sustaining populations. Agencies continue to plan and execute intense operations to locate and better characterize any and all populations of Asian carp. In addition, work has progressed on additional physical and electrical barriers, enhanced eDNA sampling, downstream fish suppression, research efforts including biological and technological controls, and modified structural operations.

The best science available underscores this Framework. Widespread agreement exists among scientists and stakeholders that minimizing the escape of Asian carp into Lake Michigan is critical to reducing the probability of Asian carp establishment in the Great Lakes.

This document describes actions, including actions now occurring, actions that are scheduled to occur, and potential actions that agencies could collaborate upon. This Framework is designed to be inclusive, allowing additional government agencies and outside stakeholders to engage in developing and implementing all potential control actions.

While several of the actions will be conducted by a single agency or governmental unit, most require cooperation among two or more agencies. The proposed action items are grouped into two categories: (1) Short-term Actions and (2) Long-term Actions. Environmental considerations, including minimizing impacts on resident aquatic life, will be integrated into the decision-making process and appropriate environmental review will occur as necessary for all proposed actions.

Put briefly, the federal, state, and local action strategy to address the clear threat Asian carp pose to the Great Lakes will be to move quickly on proven solutions, and to consider, develop, and test potential solutions ─ employing those that are most sound.

May 2010 ES-2

Short-term Actions

There is an urgent need to identify and reduce the Asian carp populations and pathways threatening Lake Michigan so that they cannot establish a self-sustaining population in the Great Lakes. To address this need, the following actions are either underway or are expected to commence by May 15, 2010:

1. Operations to confirm and reduce Asian carp populations upstream of the electric barriers:

Intense monitoring, fishing, and netting based on eDNA sampling results in priority zones (currently Cal-Sag Channel, O’Brien Lock and Dam, Wilmette pumping station, Calumet Harbor, Grand Calumet River, and Little Calumet River).

Rapid response preparations and operations including equipment procurement, training and exercises, and establishment of stand-by capability for rapid deployment.

Rotenone (fish toxicant) procurement and use where monitoring suggests Asian carp are present, if necessary.

2. eDNA capacity and indicator refinement:

Increase capacity for processing from 60 samples to 120 samples per week so that eDNA results are able to guide more intensive efforts.

3. Contract for the construction of emergency engineering measures to block passage of water and fish between (1) Des Plaines River and CSSC and (2) Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal and CSSC.

4. Barrier operations:

Begin construction of the additional planned electric barrier (Barrier IIB), and sustain operations of the current electric barriers.

Long-term Actions

Long-term actions encompass actions that address the root causes of the Asian carp threat or require further study.

Actions are briefly outlined below, and listed more comprehensively later in this document.

1. Structural:

Efficacy studies to investigate construction and implementation of additional flood control measures for the Des Plaines River.

Efficacy study to evaluate the implementation of fish deterrent systems incorporating bubble, strobe, and acoustic technologies.

2. Chemical:

Additional possible rotenone applications where testing suggests Asian carp presence, as necessary.

3. Biological:

Suppression of Asian carp populations in CAWS and in downstream areas utilizing a variety of methods, including conventional fishing and recruitment overfishing.

Expedite research on targeted control, including Asian carp specific toxicants, pheromone attractants, disruption of spawning behavior, and sonic disruption to stun or eradicate Asian carp.

Re-stocking of indigenous aquatic species after rotenone applications or other reduction strategies.

4. Operational:

Sustained operations and parameter refinements of electric barriers.

May 2010 ES-3

5. Modified structural operations:

Consider changing the manner in which existing CAWS structures, such as locks and dams, sluice gates, and pumping stations are operated in combination with other management actions, to impede migration of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. Also consider whether modification of lock operations would be needed to support certain fish suppression activities. Such actions would likely be executed incrementally as capabilities become available and are needed.

6. Inter-basin Transfer Study and Ecological Separation:

The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Inter-basin Study is the long-term United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) effort, in collaboration with federal, state, regional, and local agencies and with input from non-governmental organizations (NGO), to explore all options and technologies that could be applied to reduce the risk of AIS transfer between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The study will provide a thorough identification of potential hydraulic connections between the two basins, exploration of potential invasive species, and comprehensive analysis of AIS control technologies, including but not limited to physical or ecological separation.

Initial phases of the study will focus on the CAWS. USACE has expedited the anticipated completion of the CAWS portion of this study to 2012.

7. Other:

Integration of the Great Lake states, provincial, and Tribal capabilities and expertise into the proposed Framework actions.

Funding sources, detailed later in this document, have been secured for these proposed actions, underscoring the seriousness of the inter-agency response to the threat of Asian carp movement towards the Great Lakes. This collection of action items represents the collaborative efforts of participating agencies to prevent establishment of Asian carp in Lake Michigan.

In addition to the above actions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Midwest Region is currently coordinating implementation of the nationwide Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in the United States (Plan), which was approved by the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force in 2007.

The four species addressed by the Plan present a serious threat to North American ecosystems, including the Great Lakes, if self-sustaining populations become established elsewhere. A subset of the 133 priority management actions within the Plan specifically addresses the challenge of protecting the Great Lakes basin from establishment and impacts of Asian carp. This document is available online at http://www.asiancarp.org/Documents/Carps Management Plan.pdf.

This Framework recognizes potential hurdles to accomplishing many of the actions. Nevertheless, this Framework establishes a baseline condition for collaboration among agencies and the interested communities through which a compelling plan of action can be initiated. While preventing establishment of a self-sustaining Asian carp population requires an understanding of ecological, economic, and hydrological complexities, one conclusion is clear: a comprehensive approach is needed to reduce the risk of Asian carp invasion, without relying on any one strategy.

Asian carp are the most recent, but certainly not the last aggressive invasive species to threaten both the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. While agencies are focused on this immediate threat, it is clear a more robust long term solution is needed.

May 2010 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Great Lakes food web has been significantly degraded in recent decades because of aquatic invasive species (AIS). The migration of three species of carp not native to the United States (bighead, black, and silver), also known as Asian carp, into and through the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers and the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS), is the most recent and most acute AIS threat facing the Great Lakes today.

The Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework (Framework) has been prepared by the Regional Coordinating Committee’s (RCC) participating agencies to outline the actions that will be implemented to control Asian carp migration.

This section briefly presents the problem of the Asian carp migration toward the Great Lakes ecosystem, reviews the purposes of the Framework, identifies the agencies and stakeholders that play a role in the Framework, and presents additional work proceeding outside of this Framework. Section 2.0 introduces the unified actions for prevention Asian carp migration and the Control Strategy Matrix (Matrix) (Appendix A), which presents a list of the proposed actions and gives brief narrative summaries of the actions and action items. The actions are divided into two categories:

(1) Short-term Actions and (2) Long-term Actions. Section 3.0 discusses the Great Lakes states’ involvement in protecting the Great Lakes against Asian carp. Section 4.0 describes the communications and outreach actions likely to supplement the Framework by involving the public and additional stakeholders outside the immediate circle of participating agencies. The coordination structure of the Framework Work Group is presented in Section 5.0.

1.1 PURPOSE

The Framework is a dynamic document, reflecting an ever-increasing body of knowledge gathered from ongoing research and monitoring, and builds on the December 2009 deployment of federal, state, local, and Canadian resources to conduct an eradication effort in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC). Many actions described in this Framework, such as research and feasibility studies, are expected to provide additional data that may be included in future Framework updates. However, the main objectives of this initial Framework are:

Outline the urgent actions participating agencies are taking to apply full authorities, capabilities, and resources in order to prevent establishment of Asian carp in the Great Lakes. While scientific opinion is not unanimous that Asian carp would devastate the ecology of the Great Lakes, the participating agencies agree that we cannot wait until the outcome can be predicted with absolute certainty. We must act preemptively with comprehensive measures to prevent establishment of carp in the Great Lakes or their tributaries. Experience has shown that controlling populations of AIS, once established in a new environment, is far more expensive and difficult than preventing their entry to the Great Lakes in the first place.

Integrate and unify the future actions of participating agencies. While agencies have coordinated significantly in the past, this Framework is a comprehensive, integrated approach to address the Asian carp threat to the Great Lakes, and helps to further unify the participating agencies by:

− Describing actions to prevent establishment of carp.

− Identifying lead agencies.

− Establishing funding for actions.

− Determining the most effective approach for implementing actions.

Transition from a single-point defense to a multi-tiered approach. Electric barriers remain the most important defense mechanism against Asian carp expansion through the CAWS. However, success in preventing

May 2010 2

Asian carp from establishing a self-sustaining population in the Great Lakes depends on the ability to build upon this technology, located at a specific geographic point, to a multi-tiered defense encompassing structural solutions, biological controls, eradication response options, and other approaches.

Provide direction while recognizing that the history of Asian carp migration demands flexibility by participating agencies. This Framework allows participating agencies to adjust plans to better serve the goal of preventing carp migration to the Great Lakes. This is meant to be a living document subject to change as the situation dictates.

Identify technical and regulatory hurdles that might complicate Framework implementation. This analysis will also improve future efforts to prevent AIS from migrating through other artificially connecting waterways of the Great Lakes watershed. In addition, several artificially-connecting waterways throughout the Great Lakes basin may include conduits through which AIS may threaten the Great Lakes and Exhibit 1 below highlights these connections and Exhibit 2 shows the annual Great Lakes diversions. Indeed, another purpose of this Framework is to provide what could be analogous measures for controlling potential AIS at these locations.

Identify opportunities for existing stakeholder agencies to actively engage additional stakeholders’ cooperation. The Great Lakes region has a proud and vibrant history of cooperation, as evidenced by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan, and the multi-jurisdictional contributions to the December 2009 effort to prevent Asian carp from penetrating the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) electric barriers. Cooperation is crucial to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. Aggressive outreach at key milestones in this Framework’s development process will result in (1) innovative and effective ideas, (2) more solid stakeholder commitments, and (3) a better chance at lowering the risk of invasion.

Additionally, the intent of this Framework and the actions presented herein is to facilitate cooperation by other agencies, not yet participating, to achieve the common goal of preventing establishment of Asian carp in the Great Lakes.

Exhibit 1. Artificial Connections to the Great Lakes

May 2010 3

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The potential invasion of Asian carp into the CAWS and the Great Lakes poses numerous ecological and economic impacts that have been extensively studied.

Background

The introduction of AIS into the Great Lakes and inland waterways throughout the United States is occurring at an alarming rate. Since the beginning of the 19th century, more than 180 species of AIS have made their way into the Great Lakes region. These fish, invertebrates, viruses, bacteria, and parasites can devastate native populations, as well as cause great economic damage to the Great Lakes commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries. Of critical concern currently are Asian carp, a term used to describe a group of exotic fish originating in eastern Asia, that are expanding their range north through the Mississippi River basin towards the Great Lakes. Historically, successful control of AIS has resulted from focusing on small water bodies or critical control points in a system. The CSSC, which links the Great Lakes with the Mississippi River basin, is one such critical control point.

Historically, poor water quality in Chicago’s urban waterways had controlled the transfer of invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds. Over the last three decades, newly created legislation and regulations aimed at improving water quality, combined with government projects focused on habitat restoration, have considerably improved water quality, resulting in an increased abundance of aquatic life in Chicago’s waterways.1 The artificially connecting waterways in Chicago now form pathways for AIS to expand their distribution between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River System.

In North America, Asian carp usually refers to bighead, silver, black and grass carp. They all are members of the family Cyprinidae. The three species identified for action under this plan for rapid response are the silver carp, bighead carp, and black carp. These fish were originally imported, along with grass carp, to southern United States aquaculture and wastewater treatment facilities to keep retention ponds clean and to serve the food fish industry.

There are many potential ways by which Asian carp may have escaped, including inadvertent releases, overland flooding events, or intentional releases. During 2002 monitoring efforts, Asian carp were detected in the upper Illinois River just 60 miles from Lake Michigan,2 and in 2009, a bighead carp was retrieved considerably closer, within the

Exhibit 2. Annual Flow through Existing Great Lakes Diversions

May 2010 4

Lockport Pool of the CSSC, 43 miles from Lake Michigan. Exhibit 3 below highlights the area of focus, the electric barriers in relationship to Lake Michigan, specific entry points into Lake Michigan, and recent locations where Asian carp eDNA (environmental deoxyribonucleic acid) was present in the water.

Bighead carp can grow to very large sizes of over 5 feet in length and 100 pounds or more. These filter-feeding fishes have “gill rakers,” which are specially adapted for filter feeding plankton, one of the bases of the food chain, and are capable of consuming up to 20 percent of their own body weight in food each day. In the wild, their eating habits allow them to quickly out-compete both small and large native fish such as the gizzard shad and bigmouth buffalo fish. Sexual maturity is reached between 2-7 years, depending on the climate of the region.3 Upon reaching sexual maturity, they begin spawning anytime between April and September, and can spawn multiple times during each season for the remainder of their lives. These fish live up to 20 years.

Silver carp are generally smaller than bighead carp. These highly prolific fish are similar to bighead carp in their feeding and spawning habits. Silver carp are often referred to as “flying fish” and pose a danger to boaters, anglers, and other recreational users—of great concern on the Great Lakes. These fish are disturbed by boat motors and will jump from the water when startled. A motor boat traveling at high speeds causes these fish to jump from the water, potentially causing damage to boats and serious injuries to humans onboard.

Black carp differ from bighead and silver carp in both diet and appearance. They have large distinctive scales that are darker in color than those of the grass carp. Their pharyngeal teeth are large, resemble human molars, and are specially adapted for crushing mollusk shells. The largest black carp on record in its native China is more than 7 feet long and weighed 150 pounds. Black carp were originally introduced in the United States accidentally in shipments of

Exhibit 3. Area Map, Electric Barrier Location, Waterway Entry Points into Lake Michigan, and Asian Carp Positive eDNA Locations

May 2010 5 grass carp. The diet of the black carp, though different from the bighead and silver carp, makes them an equally deadly threat to the waters of the Great Lakes. Black carp consume mollusks and snails; adults can consume an average of 3 to 4 pounds of mussels per day. A single black carp could eat more than 10 tons of mollusks during its life. Black carp could aid in the reduction of invasive zebra and quagga mussel populations throughout the Great Lakes; however, native mussel populations (some of which are already known to be threatened or endangered) would also be negatively impacted. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has two documented reports of black carp in Illinois. The first specimen was caught in Horseshoe Lake, the second along the Mississippi River at Lock and Dam 24 in Calhoun County in 2004. Though not as widely distributed as the silver and bighead species, black carp remain a threat because juveniles are not readily distinguished from grass carp, which are sold and distributed throughout the United States and may be released into open waters.4

Ecological and Economic Impacts to the Great Lakes

The Great Lakes cover more than 94,000 square miles and, while estimates may vary, host an invaluable sport fishing industry. Following introduction of Asian carp into the Great Lakes basin, controlling their spread throughout these areas would be nearly impossible. Establishment of Asian carp in the Great Lakes could have lasting and potentially negative effects. Under conditions in the Great Lakes (especially their tributaries and estuaries), such as water temperature, food abundance, slow moving wetland regions, expansive area for migration, and lack of natural predators, Asian carp populations could expand quickly. These species could significantly impact local ecosystems.

The Great Lakes are home to many important species of food and sport fish such as whitefish, bloater chubs, yellow perch, and rainbow smelt, as well as sport fish including trout, salmon, and walleye. The potential impact of Asian carp on the Great Lakes’ sport and commercial fishing industry can be seen now along the Mississippi River basin where in just a few short years following introduction of Asian carp into an area, many commercial fishing locations have been abandoned, as native fish have been largely replaced by Asian carp. The presence of Asian carp is a concern because they are prolific, grow and mature quickly, and feed on plant and animal plankton. They may alter energy flow in the Great Lakes, which in turn could lead to undesirable consequences for sport and commercial fisheries. A 2002 workshop convened by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, as well as the 2003 Aquatic Invasive Species Summit convened by the City of Chicago and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determined that introduction of Asian carp into the Great Lakes ecosystem would threaten the sport and commercial fisheries, and could result in ecological and economic damages exceeding those caused by the sea lamprey and zebra mussel invasion.5

The Great Lakes are home to nearly 80 federally-listed threatened or endangered fish, mollusks, plants, mammals, insects, and reptiles, and many more species listed as threatened or endangered at the state level. The current invaders of the Great Lakes have been implicated in adverse effects on up to 46 percent of the local federally-listed endangered plant and animal species. Introduction of Asian carp to the region could further harm these organisms and perhaps lead to their extirpation.

One such fish of concern is the lake sturgeon, which is protected by the State of Michigan because its remaining populations are less than 1 percent of the original population due to overfishing and habitat loss. These fish often age to nearly 25 years for females and 12 years for males before reaching sexual maturity, and are bottom feeders with a diet including snails, mussels, and crustaceans.6 They would be especially vulnerable to the introduction of black carp, with which they would directly compete for food. Because Asian carp populations reach self-sustaining levels at or near the confluence of the Lake Michigan tributaries and canals in the Chicago vicinity; it is highly likely that range expansion within the lake’s watershed would occur over time as a result of density-dependant dispersal. As higher concentrations of fish are realized within an established area, fish will move to new areas seeking suitable habitat and resources. Through this natural dispersal process, populations of Asian carp may become established in embayments, estuaries, lagoons, and river mouths of medium to large rivers and streams proximate to the home range of an established population. These types of water bodies are found within Lake Michigan and throughout the entire Great Lakes basin.

Some studies suggest that Asian carp would have difficulty becoming established in the Great Lakes. The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant referenced a report titled, “Evaluating Asian Carp Colonization Potential and Impact in the Great Lakes”:

It is not clear that Asian carp could grow feeding on the relatively sparse plankton typical of most of the Great Lakes. Filter-feeding carp are usually found in more productive waters with higher plankton abundances. Using a combination of laboratory experiments and modeling, we conclude

May 2010 6

Isolated Instances of Bighead Carp Found in Ohio River and Western Lake Erie

In addition to the established populations throughout the Mississippi River and other basin waterways, bighead carp have been found in portions of the Ohio River and Lake Erie. The single instance of a bighead carp found in the Ohio River is believed to have involved traversal through the Mississippi River basin and into the Upper Ohio River. Five bighead carp have been individually collected between 1995 and 2003 in western Lake Erie. Since 2004, USFWS has monitored western Lake Erie in Sandusky and Toledo, Ohio, using trammel nets in response to these discoveries. This surveillance sampling has not resulted in any additional collections of bighead or silver carp. These sampling efforts suggest a reproducing population does not exist in Lake Erie. Additional information on collection points can be found in the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/.

that filter-feeding Asian carp will be unable to colonize most open water regions within the Great Lakes because of limited amount of food (plankton) available there. Productive embayments and wetlands are more likely to support Asian carp growth, and we suggest that resource managers focus monitoring and preventative efforts in these more limited areas of the Great Lakes.

While the results of various scientific studies suggest a varied range of impacts from Asian carp infestation, the potential threat compels immediate precautionary actions. State, local, and federal agencies are taking pre-emptive actions to prevent carp from establishing a population in the Great Lakes or their tributaries.

Robust Monitoring and Assessment Activities Underway

With the overall goal of preventing an Asian carp self-sustaining population from establishing in the Great Lakes, a subgroup to the RCC, the MRR workgroup, identified the following six objectives essential to the overall goal:

1. Determine the distribution of Asian carp in the CAWS.

2. Determine the abundance of Asian carp in the CAWS.

3. Identify and assess vulnerabilities in the current system of barriers to exclude Asian carp from moving into the CAWS.

4. Establish parameters of acceptable risk and determine the current risk level.

5. Remove Asian carp in the CAWS if located upstream of the electric barriers so that they do not have the ability to establish a self-sustaining population in the Great Lakes.

6. Determine the leading edge of major Asian carp populations and reproduction.

To fulfill these six objectives, the MRR work group is identifying the location and population abundance of any potential Asian carp in the CAWS, and then implementing appropriate response actions to address those findings.

Extensive monitoring efforts covering over 200 miles of waterways from the Illinois River to Lake Michigan began in late February of this year as a collaborative effort by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), USFWS, and USACE. Monitoring efforts employ the use of eDNA analysis, commercial fishing contractors, side-scan sonar, electrofishing, and netting crews. Efforts on the waterways downstream of the electric barrier to Starved Rock Lock and Dam, including sections of the CSSC and Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, focus on areas of known high Asian carp density for biological suppression. The areas upstream of the electric barrier include the CSSC, south Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago River, North Branch of the Chicago River, North Shore Channel, Calumet-Sag Channel, the Little Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, the Calumet River, and Lake Calumet.

May 2010 7

Methodologies for Fish Testing and Sampling eDNA genetic testing: In the spring of 2009, genetic testing was conducted using a new technique called the eDNA method to detect for the presence of Asian carp in the Chicago Area Waterway System. All fish, including Asian carp, release DNA into the environment naturally in the form of slime, feces, and urine. These substances and the DNA within them slowly degrade in the environment, but can be collected in water samples if caught soon enough. These water samples are filtered and the DNA is collected and processed to signal the presence or absence of Asian carp.

Positive detection means that Asian carp eDNA was detected in a water sample. Negative detection means that no Asian carp eDNA was detected; negative results can occur when no carp are present and when fish abundance is too low to detect.

Application of rotenone: Rotenone is an odorless chemical that is used as a broad-spectrum poison. Rotenone readily disperses in water both laterally and vertically and penetrates below the thermocline in thermally stratified bodies of water. Rotenone enters the bloodstream of the fish through the gills and causes death. In humans, rotenone is poorly absorbed in the digestive track and is readily excreted from the body, therefore rotenone is not considered highly toxic to humans if ingested orally. However, toxicity is greatly increased through inhalation due to the direct pathway to the bloodstream. In this type of exposure, rotenone is considered to be highly toxic to humans.

Electrofishing: Electrofishing uses electricity to stun fish before they are caught and is a common scientific survey method used to sample fish populations to determine abundance, density, and species composition. When performed correctly, electrofishing results in no permanent harm to the fish, because they float to the water’s surface and are retrieved.

Netting: Block nets or other netting devices are installed in the waterway and prevent the fish from moving further upstream or downstream. Fish can be collected from the netting.

Side-scan sonar: Side scan sonar is a tool that can be used to distinguish Asian carp from other fish that are in the water. It is a type of sonar system that provides an image of objects in the water.

This technique could be used to periodically identify potential or suspected Asian carp. It could also be used to help determine the location of source fish releasing eDNA, to make better determinations on where to apply rotenone or take other actions.

The data obtained from each area indicate that triggers for response operations are being developed. Based on currently available technology, rotenone will be used as the initial, rapid data gathering tool, in response to eDNA evidence of Asian carp found upstream of the electric barrier. If needed, modified structural operations will support the efforts of the MRR work group with both monitoring and fish suppression efforts.

Evaluating the Role of Locks

Some have suggested that a solution to preventing Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes is closure of locks and sluice gates in the CAWS. The locks and structures in the CAWS connect the nation’s two largest freshwater basins, and the CAWS serves as the sole or primary water connection and route by which many goods travel downstream for dissemination to the central United States.

Description of Locks and their Function

The O’Brien Lock has a single chamber of 110 feet x 1,000 feet with a six-barge capacity. This lock, on the Calumet River, currently operates in a “show and go” pattern, with vessels passing through when they arrive.

Much of the Chicago region’s petroleum, coal, road salt, cement, and iron travel through this lock;

approximately 14.6 million tons of these and other commodities transit through the Calumet River System and Harbor (including the Cal-Sag Channel and reach above Lockport Lock) each year.

In addition, over 15,000 recreational vessels traverse this lock. The lock is also used to control the water flow between the lake and river, and is both a piece of the overall flood control plan and the local water treatment process to comply with regulatory requirements. Finally, the lock is used by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), as well as the City of Chicago for emergency uses.

Chicago Lock, the nation’s second busiest lock, has a single chamber of 80 feet x 600 feet with a 22.4-foot depth.

Constructed in 1938 in order to regulate the diversion of water from Lake Michigan, this lock has a 1- to 4-foot lift connecting Lake Michigan to the Chicago River. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) constructed the lock and transferred it to USACE in 1984. The lock is operated by gravity through partially opened lock sector gates and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year round. The lock has more than 11,500

May 2010 8 annual lockages composed of more than 50,000 commercial and recreational boats and 900,000 passengers. The area of the CAWS is a safe refuge on southern Lake Michigan for barges and vessels traveling north from or south to the Port of Chicago. The lock itself provides flood protection on the Chicago River for the downtown area.

Various agencies have authorities over the involved waterways and projects. USACE has direct authority over O’Brien Lock and the navigation channel through various Congressional acts for navigation (commercial and recreational) and flood control. The Chicago Lock is authorized under the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1870, 1880, 1912, 1919, and 1962. The federal channel is authorized to be maintained at a depth of 21 feet between the Chicago Lock, into the Chicago River and north to the North Avenue Turning Basin.

Under the authority of the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, the USCG ensures the safety, security, and environmental protection of the Great Lakes and the Western Rivers. The USCG manages waterways through Regulated Navigation Areas, safety and security zones. Additionally, the USCG regulates the marine industry and supports the marine transportation system. MWRD is charged with meeting certain regulatory discharges from the City of Chicago and, through pollution discharge permits, using the water released from the lock to meet its discharge criteria. MWRD has flood control, water quality, social, and commercial authorities tied to these waterways.

Effect of Lock Operations on Carp Mitigation

Locks may impede some carp migration through the Chicago and Calumet Rivers into Lake Michigan, but by themselves they are not effective for preventing carp establishment in the Great Lakes. When the O’Brien and Chicago Locks are closed, they do not completely stop water flow. As with most locks, leakage occurs around and through the gates. Because Lake Michigan and the Chicago River are very close in elevation, Chicago Lock is designed to control water flow, not accommodate a change in water elevation. That means it may be possible for small fish to swim through the lock into the lake even when the locks are “closed.”

If USACE were to close the locks and take measures to make the lock more water tight, there are other ways that fish could get into the lake, such as the unregulated access point through the Grand Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers in Indiana. Other access could include leaking sluice gates at both federal and non-federal facilities, release of live adult fish into the Great Lakes, or transfer of juveniles in bait buckets.

In major flood events in central Chicago, the Chicago and O’Brien Locks and their associated controlling works serve to prevent or minimize flood damage by allowing water to flow in reverse into Lake Michigan. In the event of future flooding, USACE is considering installing grates in the sluice gates to block the potential migration of any Asian carp that may be present, while allowing water levels to subside. If the structures were permanently closed, in flooding situations, lock and sluice gates would likely not contain Asian carp, as floodwaters carrying fish in the overflow could overtop the structures and flow unrestricted to Lake Michigan. USACE is studying whether modified structural operations discussed in this Framework may be able to limit the migration of Asian carp during flooding or operation of locks, dams, and pumping stations.

Risks and Cost Associated with Closure

Estimates vary as to economic impacts of lock closure, whether intermittent or permanent, on navigation, commerce, tourism, and other activities. For example, one study estimated that marine shipping saved shippers nearly $55 million in 2002 over alternative modes of transportation, though it is also estimated that invasive species entering the Great Lakes as a result of shipping and other modes costs the United States economy nearly $200 million annually.7 A second study8 estimated a $4.7 billion impact over a 20-year period to Chicago’s tourism industry. Much of the Chicago region’s oil, cement, iron, and coal transits through the O’Brien Lock. Without an alternate route that can accommodate the high level of traffic, key industrial building blocks of the regional economy could be damaged, and exports could be delayed or undergo significant increases in shipping costs; in a worst-case scenario, flow of critical commerce would cease. This does not account for secondary and tertiary effects that consumers would likely face in the form of higher costs, shortages, loss of services, and loss of jobs. Indefinitely closing the Chicago Lock would also greatly affect companies that rely on the waterway for tourism.

May 2010 9

Closing O’Brien Lock would lead to several serious difficulties in delivering products. First, diverting vessel traffic from the Calumet River would deprive barges of much of the barge staging areas available in the Chicago Region, thereby increasing congestion in the waterways. Currently, staging areas are very limited for barges in the vicinity of Chicago Lock, the main alternative to O’Brien Lock. This would result in as many as several hundred barges in stationary positions for indefinite periods of time while waiting to be loaded or unloaded─ a major safety concern.

Accessing Calumet Harbor via the Chicago Lock is not a matter of choosing a different route. Arriving at Calumet Harbor without going through O’Brien Lock would require transit through Lake Michigan. Existing regulations preclude carrying liquids such as petroleum products. In addition, the use of Calumet Harbor would require the barges to clear low railroad bridges, which would require ballasting and de-ballasting, thus increasing the cost per barge transit.

According to the MWRD, which serves as the wastewater and stormwater management agency for Chicago and 124 municipalities across the region, permanent closure of lock and sluice gates along the CAWS would likely result in devastating flooding throughout the region without additional deep tunnel or reservoir capacity.

Full consideration of the impacts to the economy such as jobs and businesses, the environment, and other modes of transportation will be evaluated in the environmental review process as part of the USACE Inter-Basin Feasibility Study, expedited for completion to 2012 for the CAWS.

Decision-Making Process and Timeline for Modified Structural Operations

A USACE-led study is underway to assess the concept of “modified structural operations.” Alternatives are under consideration to modify lock operations from constant availability for vessel passage to scheduled intermittent periods of operation for transit. Periods of non-operation would be synchronized with efforts by other agencies to take steps to suppress, eliminate, or reduce Asian carp populations that may be present in a target area of action. This concept envisions controlling the periods during which navigation traffic could pass through the locks, so that effective measures to attack Asian carp populations that may be present in the waterway could occur. Modified structural operations would not impact emergency operation of O’Brien or Chicago Locks for flooding or public health and safety. It is anticipated that an interim report (Efficacy Study, Interim III) will be released this spring to address modified structural operations. This concept, if found feasible, would continue to evolve and be improved in combination with fish suppression activities.

1.3 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES – ROLES/AUTHORITIES/JURISDICTIONS

This section generally describes the jurisdictions, authorities, and roles of the agencies and governmental units participating in this Framework. This is meant to be an informal description of these agencies with respect to the actions discussed in this Framework, and is not meant to restrict or assign responsibilities and authorities belonging to the agencies under their implementing statutes and regulations.

City of Chicago

Jurisdiction: Exercises home rule authority within municipal limits.

Authority: Municipal.

Role: Supports the work of other agencies, particularly those actions within the City of Chicago, and performs law enforcement, patrol, and emergency response duties along the lakefront and inland waterways within the City's jurisdiction.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC)

Jurisdiction: Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act allowing implementation of a convention of Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States.

May 2010 10

Authority: Bilateral treaty.

Role: Coordinate, communicate, and conduct fishery resource management actions on the Great Lakes.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

Jurisdiction: Investigations pertaining to the natural history, entomology, zoology, and botany of the State;

the geology and natural resources of the State; the water and atmospheric resources of the State; and the archeological and cultural history of the State of Illinois.

Authority: State.

Role: Lead agency for work relating to monitoring, sampling, fish removal actions, and rapid response activities within the State.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD)

Jurisdiction: Surface water, municipal wastewater treatment for the metropolitan Chicago area (including almost all of Cook County), control of combined sewer overflows, dry and wet weather operation of the CAWS.

Authority: Regional.

Role: Supports the work of other agencies and implements designated action items to the extent allowed by its statutory wastewater and stormwater authority.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Jurisdiction: Planning, construction, and operation of navigation and flood damage reduction projects;

hydropower operations; environmental protection and restoration; water conservation, recreation, and disaster assistance.

Authority: Federal.

Role: Operation of the CAWS Lock and Dam System and the Electric Barrier.

United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Jurisdiction: Navigable waterways.

Authority: Federal Authority; Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 and other legislation.9

Role: Ensure the safety, security, and environmental protection of the Great Lakes and the Western Rivers.

The Coast Guard manages waterways through Regulated Navigation Areas, and safety and security zones. Regulates the marine industry and supports the marine transportation system.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Jurisdiction: Coordination of federal Great Lakes policy and activities.

Authority: Federal Great Lakes protection and restoration policy and efforts under the Clean Water Act

(CWA) 118 and Executive Order 13340 and other legislation.

Role: Coordination and funding.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Jurisdiction: Implementation of activities in support and enforcement of the Lacey Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, and the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended; and supporting activities to include fish and AIS monitoring, risk assessment, and law enforcement.

May 2010 11

Authority: Federal.

Role: Coordination with federal, state, tribal, and non-governmental partners on actions to prevent the introduction and establishment of AIS, or to mitigate resource impacts from introduced species.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Authority: Federal.

Role: Provide leadership, technical expertise, and information needed to develop management tools to better predict ranges and effects of AIS; and to contain, reduce, or eradicate their populations.

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Authority: Federal – CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White…