The Great Lakes are facing one of the greatest invasive species threats since the arrival of the zebra mussel- the Asian (bighead and silver) carp. Recent DNA tests of waters shows the presence of Asian carp past an electric barrier south of Chicago. The barrier is meant to deter the fish from entering Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River basin. DNA testing is considered the most sensitive technique available to determine the leading edge of a population, which is undetectable using traditional sampling techniques.

While federal and state agencies are working to find and eradicate any carp above the barrier and prevent the movement of more carp past the barrier, recent developments reinforce the belief that swift and aggressive action will prevent an Asian carp invasion to the Great Lakes.

Traditional sampling finds no fish

Since December 2009, federal and state agencies in Illinois have been trying to find the Asian carp that have breached the electric barrier using traditional techniques like netting and electroshocking. No fish have been found above the barrier yet, despite DNA results that indicate some Asian carp have breached the barrier. On May 20th, the state of Illinois took DNA samples and applied rotenone to eradicate any carp close to Lake Michigan in the Little Calumet River near the O’Brien lock. Older DNA samples indicated at least one fish was present in that area last fall and as recently as March 31 2010. But DNA sampling from April 23rd and on the day of the operation (May 20th) came back negative and it appears the fish had moved on, hence the rotenone treatment results were consistent with the eDNA results and no carp were found.

So what does this mean? With no carp found during either the electroshocking, netting sampling, or rotenone treatment, barge and tour boat owners are questioning the validity of the DNA testing, saying it is proof that the existing electrical barriers are sufficient to hold back the carp. But this is not the case.

First, we have no idea whatsoever whether the Asian carp that have breached the barrier did so years ago when the barrier was still being constructed and operated at a lower voltage, or whether there is a trickle of carp still finding their way above the barrier today.

Second, Asian carp expert Duane Chapman, fish biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Missouri has studied the invasive carp for decades and told the Detroit Free Press, “I don’t think it <the results from the most recent rotenone treatment> necessarily means that there are none in the Chicago area waterway system. But it probably does mean that there are not very many of them there,” and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “If there are 100 fish in the canal system, crews could fish and electroshock for months and still never come up with a carcass.”

The variety of sampling and monitoring data scientists are using indicate that we are somewhere in between finding the leading edge of the population and the population being big enough that traditional sampling techniques will reveal their presence. The fact that all efforts to date have produced no Asian carp is good news, since obviously finding Asian carp by netting or electroshocking means the population is large enough to catch. By then, it may be too late to stop them. However, the threat is still very real—until all DNA testing above the barrier starts coming back negative, we absolutely cannot let up in our efforts to find and stop the carp.

We don’t know, and we probably will never know, is exactly how many individual carp above the barrier are enough to successfully establish a reproducing population. Plus, it is nonsensical to try to determine what “critical mass” of Asian carp is needed to invade the Great Lakes, since collecting environmental data linked to an invasion cannot be decoupled from the invasion itself. Simply put, preventing an Asian carp invasion means we never want to find out if we need 2, 20, 200 or 2,000 individuals in our waters to establish a population. Can we be comfortable with not knowing?

Aggressive action today has a likelihood of success. But, if we fall prey to misinterpretation, hesitation and a false sense of security, we could seal our fate and allow the carp to invade. We need to trust and act upon the science behind DNA sampling because it is our strongest preventative weapon against an invasion as we press towards a final solution.

Region moves towards hydrological separation

After the tight-knit Great Lakes community began to splinter and divide over lock closure and Supreme Court petitions, the region began to come together again on May 24th when 13 Great Lakes Senators sent a letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee urging Congress to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study how to build a physical barrier and hydrologically separate the Mississippi River basin from the Great Lakes basin. These two large freshwater ecosystems were artificially connected through a series of canals over a century ago, and now provide a thoroughfare for aquatic invasive species, including the round goby moving south and the Asian carp moving north.

The letter is a regional effort, signed by Great Lakes Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ronald Burris (D-Ill.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) was not interested in supporting any efforts that might be considered “earmarks” and no reason was given for the lack of sign-on by the two Indiana Senators.

In 2007, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to look at ways to stop the spread of invasive species between the two waters. The corps’ study—the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Feasibility Study—however, focuses on a “range of options” to control the movement of species between the two basins, but does not prioritize how to implement the only permanent solution to the problem: building a physical barrier between the two watersheds.

A physical barrier, if done the right way, would involve smart, well-planned investments that establish new infrastructure in the Chicago area that make the region more globally competitive. It would also mean upgraded treatment of wastewater and storm water. The result can be a revitalized Chicago Waterway System that not only closes the aquatic highway for invasive species, but also enhances Chicago’s transportation system, creates local and regional jobs, reduces business costs across the region, and improves water quality, tourism, and recreation.

The time to act is now. Scientific studies and sampling suggest that we are probably still ahead of the Asian carp at this moment. But this moment will pass, and we cannot afford to hesitate. Let’s use this advantageous position to make sure that we keep these voracious invaders out of our Great Lakes. Physically separating the Mississippi River basin from Great Lakes is the best solution we have for protecting both ecosystems, and it is time for the region’s policymakers to end the transfer of invasive species between these two great basins.

A big thanks goes out to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission delegation of:

Tom Trudeau, Ted Lawrence, Al House, and Mike Matta (pictured above,

from left to right, at the Metro station on their way to the Hill).

(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Asian carp crisis was preventable. The United States does not currently require that animal species being imported first be “screened” for invasiveness or disease risk in the century-old Lacey Act. There is no better example of the tremendous and unacceptable threats this antiquated policy creates to our native wildlife species, to the economy, and to human and animal health than the Asian carp. Congress needs to give new authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Lacey Act that allows for proactive screening to keep invasive species out of the country, instead of having to react after they are here and the damage is done. If proactive screening requirements for animals proposed for importation and trade were in place decades ago, it is unlikely that Asian carp would have ever set fin in the United States.

The Hill meetings were held in conjunction with the “National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species” fourth annual AIS fly-in to Washington. Great Lakes United is a founding member of NECIS and works with national groups including as the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife and the Union of Concerned Scientists to host this event every year. This year we prioritized advancing efforts to modernize the Lacey Act and hand-picked concerned citizens, conservationists, fishermen, charterboat captains and scientists from around the country to speak with their elected officials on the need to proactively screen species being imported into the United States before they arrive.

Great Lakes United’s collaboration with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission during this event is an excellent partnership. The GLFC brings in advisors who normally are not well represented at typical ENGO policy events, and lend a powerful and unique voice to our screening message. Participating since the fly-in’s inception, the GLFC delegation has been affectionately nicknamed the “fish guys” and has gained the reputation of being the tireless workers, always pulling off the most aggressive schedule, jam-packing meetings with Great Lakes federal leaders from all 8 Great Lakes states in two days. And as both an advisor to the GLFC and a member of NECIS, Great Lakes United is a bridge between environmental and fishing interests, helping create and coordinate an event where allied groups can work together to protect the nation’s natural resources that they care so deeply for. This year’s event was a great success and we look forward to continuing the campaign next year.

The summit provided a glimmer of hope that state and federal interests could unite around a plan to fight the threatened invasion by the bighead and silver carp which have spread 900 miles north from one end of the country to the other, in less than 20 years.

The federal plan—The Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework—reflects a sense of urgency and represents improvements in federal attention and interagency coordination, but it has major gaps that undermine its effectiveness.

The Framework fails to take all the actions critical to stopping the carp, and reveals a bias against ecological separation.

The plan contains little detail on how or when short term measures would be implemented and how different actions can be used together to increase efficacy. Another problem is that lock closure is not aggressively considered to curb forward movement of the carp. Locks may only be closed, for example, 25% of the time.

Most unnerving, however, is the lack of commitment to ecological separation. The framework only commits to studying it, and over a very long term.

Indeed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reveals a disturbing bias against ecological separation. Within the “Interbasin Transfer Study” the Corps remarks that separation “would severely impact the flow of goods and vessels, and may have far reaching economic impacts”, and it hasn’t even started the study yet.

The plan does include many positives. It addresses one of the biggest risks to stopping the establishment of carp above the electric barrier: floodwaters which can carry carp north of the barrier. The plan to curb floodwaters to move from the infested Des Plaines River into the Chicago canals is essential. It also calls for enhanced eDNA monitoring to determine if the carp are spreading and where, and puts all comprehensive measures needed for Carp control are on the table. This includes chemical controls, traditional netting, shocking and herding, and temporary lock closures.

While we are critical of how ineffectively lock closure is considered, it should be noted that this is the first time that closures of the O’Brien, Chicago River, and Wilmette Locks have been included in a plan.

These actions are being undertaken because both silver and bighead carp are in the waterway north of the electric barrier and appear to be in Calumet Harbor, the opening to Lake Michigan.

These new findings do not mean that a carp invasion has occurred. There is still time to keep a breeding population from developing in the lake, although how much time- months, years? – is impossible to tell. This new discovery, however, was a critical alarm sounding that unless immediate aggressive action is taken the Great Lakes will be changed forever.

In the upcoming months, as agencies work to find and eradicate carp north of the electric barrier, and make improvements to ensure that more carp do not breach the barrier, the most urgent need is for citizens and politicians on both sides of the border to press the U.S. government to implement the Framework more quickly and more aggressively, and commit to ecological separation as the permanent solution for the Asian carp crisis.

To follow this quickly changing story and to take action, visit our campaign site at www.glu.org/asiancarp and sign up for Great Lakes United’s mailing list at www.glu.org.

It also complements the implementation of an educational program for horticultural and landscaping schools called “Les horticulteurs en action!” (2008-2009).

After broadcasting a prevention message among the population and gardeners, Great Lakes United is now focusing on early detection of invasive species. Moreover, the monitoring network will help bridge knowledge gaps on the distribution of these invaders, their population dynamics and the risks they pose to ecosystems.

Across Quebec and throughout the Great Lakes watershed, the extent of the territory makes it difficult to track the invasives who may lie dormant before they invade an ecosystem. But thanks to the network and to the attention of people like you, we can rapidly detect new invasions and better control invasive plants.

To achieve this detection, we need a committed collaboration from observers in all regions. Participation of communities and environmental stakeholders will be essential to assure the success of the Network.

How can you become an observer? It is simple: register online at www.rspee.glu.org and then start reporting for your observation site by describing the habitat characteristics.

To ensure data quality, observation validation will be made by the administrator and / or experts from photos sent in by members. The evolution of invasions will be shown on google maps available online. To learn more about monitored species, observers can consult our plant list and information sheets. In addition, advice on the best ways to prevent their spread is provided.

The observations will be sent to national and international georeferenced databases information system. The project reaches the objectives of the national strategy on invasive alien species which call for reducing their spread through prevention and detection. Our initiative also matches the guidelines of the Biodiversity Convention and the International Union for Nature Conservancy.

The Invasive Plants Monitoring Network was developed in collaboration with the Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec (MDDEP). It is funded by the MDDEP and by the Invasive Alien Species Partnership Program (IASPP), an initiative sponsored by the Government of Canada.

Hope to see you on the observer’s network!

By Hélène Godmaire and Caroline Larivière

It also creates an artificial connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River, a superhighway for organisms – such as the zebra mussel, round goby and now Asian carp- to travel between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

Scientists are warning us that future aquatic invasions put the Great Lakes at risk of an “ecosystem breakdown.”

Given the threat invasive species such as the Asian carp pose to the health of the Great Lakes, we must find a way to stop their migration down the Chicago canal. The most effective, permanent option we have is to re-instate the ecological separation between the Great Lakes watershed and the Mississippi River.

In 2008, the Alliance for the Great Lakes released a report calling for the break up of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes watersheds.

There are at least six locations where permanent physical barriers could be built to separate the watersheds. The report prioritizes them according to a preliminary feasibility analysis. Any solution will likely place barriers at several locations.

A permanent breakup of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins is the only guaranteed way to keep invasive species from traveling between the two and causing devastating irreversible damage.

A feasible separation solution will:

1. Stop aquatic organisms at all life stages from moving between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River via the Chicago waterways;

2. Accommodate the vast majority of commodity traffic within the waterways, as only a fraction of that traffic actually enters Lake Michigan;

3. Provide new methods of moving recreational boaters between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan;

4. Anticipate very occasional overflows into Lake Michigan to prevent local flooding, while improving the water quality of the lake and waterways;

5. Serve as a one-time payment for 100 percent effective, permanent protection against invasive species.

This year, administrative action, in the form of the Coast Guard rule, is poised to make significant progress in addressing this ecological crisis.

Broadly, the rulemaking is excellent in several regards, but needs to be improved in a few critical areas.
The strong points:

• The proposed rule requires vessels to implement on-board technology to clean their ballast water in a two-phased process. The ‘Phase-Two’ national ballast water discharge standard is excellent. It is as strong as California’s—the most stringent standard of any state—and one thousand times stronger than the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO).
• The rule is being made under the National Invasive Species Act, which does not undermine the authority of the Clean Water Act or the ability of states to protect their waters from biological pollution.
• The rule regulates ballast discharges from most lakers, which operate exclusively on the Great Lakes. Lakers do not introduce invasive species, but they can spread them from lake to lake.

The rulemaking can be improved in regards to the following provisions:

• The “Phase-One” standard is set as the IMO standard, and will provide only minimum improvements over ballast water exchange or ballast tank flushing. The “Phase-One” standard should be stronger than the IMO standard.
• The timeline for implementation wouldn’t require existing vessels to begin installing ‘Phase-One’ technology until 2016 at the earliest. Our freshwaters need protection sooner than that!
• A proposed ‘practicability review’ presents a serious concern. The review could allow the Coast Guard to delay implementation of the phase-two standard indefinitely. The rule needs to set a fixed deadline by which all vessels would have to comply with the phase-two standard.

Following the public comment period, the Coast Guard will prepare responses to public comments and the final rulemaking for publication. We may see a final rule in 12-18 months. In the meantime, efforts will shift to advancing improvements to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ballast management program under the Clean Water Act. This contains some of the country’s strongest enforcement provisions to protect water quality. More on the need for efficient and effective coordination between both federal agencies who have clear authority over ballast, will be discussed in future editions of Great Lakes News.

We hope you have had a chance to participate in this important process! When engaging in public comment, it doesn’t matter how long or short, how simple or detailed. What is important is that government hear your voice. In the case of ballast water management we have been fighting to get to this point for decades.

The first policy attempt to control invasive species from ballast was developed back in 1990 in response to the zebra mussel invasion. The U.S. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) established a voluntary Great Lakes ballast water management program.

When this law was reauthorized in 1996, some incremental improvements were made, such as requiring mandatory ballast tank flushing, and it was renamed the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). There are a number of significant gaps in NISA. Ballast water exchange is the main prevention tool, lakers are exempted from regulation and hitchhikers on hulls are not addressed. NISA came up for reauthorization in 2002. Since that time, Congress was first uninterested and then unable to develop a legislative solution to the invasive species being brought to the U.S. from overseas ships.

The administrative approach through the Coast Guard rule represents a huge step forward in the protection of the Great Lakes. And we’ve reached this point because citizens spoke up. Now that the line is in sight we need one more push to get there.

To learn more about how you can help stop invasive species and take part in this public comment, contact Jennifer Nalbone at jen@glu.org.

The Corps recently began working with the University of Notre Dame to detect the presence of Asian carp through a new DNA test of water samples taken below the barrier. The tests are detecting positive results for the silver carp in locations where traditional techniques have failed to find the fish.

The Asian carp are invasive fish that are harming the environment and economies of the Mississippi and threaten to do the same to the Great Lakes. The term captures four different species of fish- the bighead, black, grass and silver carp. They are voracious filter feeders that can grow to more than 3 feet long and quickly come to dominate a waterbody. They would cause irreversible harm to the Great Lakes by consuming large quantities of algae and zooplankton, muscling out native fish populations. Meanwhile, the giant fish’s tendency to jump out of the water when startled makes them a hazard to boaters.

The electric barrier is located near Romeoville, Illinois on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The barrier sends one volt of electricity continually through the waters, an attempt to repel invasive fish species like the Asian carp from migrating between the basins. The canal itself is a man-made waterway that connects Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River basin. Originally intended as a means for the city of Chicago to overcome sewage problems in the early 20th century, it created an artificial connection through which aquatic invasive species can pass in both directions. This is the only waterway connecting the two basins.

There are three actions that should be taken to stop the carp from invading the Great Lakes. First, the voltage of the barrier can be turned up immediately. Currently the Corps is not operating the barrier at full power due to safety concerns for commercial and recreational canal users. The Corps quickly began safety testing of increased “operating parameters,” including operating the barrier at 2 volts and changing the pulse and frequency of the electric current. At press time, a decision to strengthen operating parameters had not yet been made. Given the imminent crisis, the barrier can, and should be, operated at its highest power setting, four volts.

Second, aggressive monitoring must take place for the remainder of the fish migratory season. If the carp are found past predetermined points, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, working with a group of invasive species experts from around the region, should quickly implement an emergency rapid response plan that they have been developing for over 10 years. Such a plan would probably include an application of a piscticide – fish poison – to knock the population back to a safer distance in the short term. Rapid response should not be considered the long term solution to keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.

Thirdly, when the Water Resources Development Act was passed in 2007 the Corps was authorized by Congress to determine how to restore hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and solve this problem once and for all. The Corps must quickly complete and implement a hydrologic separation plan, because we can’t rely on a barrier which isn’t foolproof, inconsistent monitoring results, and chronic chemical treatment as our only lines of defense.

Sidebar: Disconnection
Coalition member, Alliance for the Great Lakes, has explored preliminary feasibility studies for disconnecting the Great Lakes from the Mississippi basin. Their report identifies five scenarios for complete or partial ecological separation of the basins. This would halt the transfer of Asian carp, as well as other invasive species, between the two watersheds and is a critical piece of invasive species prevention and Great Lakes restoration. The full report is available at www.greatlakes.org/invasives/ecosep.

The US EPA and Environment Canada have released
their assessment of the Great Lakes on several indicators.
For much of the report, status is reported as mixed.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada released the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report. The document reports on progress to address several issues facing the Great Lakes, and indicates whether conditions are improving or worsening.

On the whole, the report finds that conditions in the region are mixed. Some areas, are improving, others deteriorating, and conditions range from poor to good.

Human health status is described as “mixed”, though whether this is improving or getting worse is “undetermined”. Similarly, biotic communities are described as of mixed status, and their trajectory undetermined.

However, the report has more information on biotic communities than human health. This failure to more seriously assess the impacts of conditions in the Great Lakes on human health conditions has long been a concern of community activists.

The most negative of the Great Lakes indicators is invasive species, which is given a “poor” status rating and a “deteriorating” trend by the governments.

Contamination is shown as being of “mixed” status and with an improving trend. For the contaminant phosphorus, however, nearshore conditions are found to be “poor” in all lakes except Lake Superior.

The report is produced following the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), where scientific data is reported and discussed. These conferences pull together scientists, governments and activists from across the Great Lakes region.

Typically, they have been held every two years since 1994. However, in order to save resources, the governments have decided to now hold them every three years. This means that the next conference will be held in 2011 and the next report released in 2012.

To obtain a copy of the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report go to www.binational.net/solec/intro_e.html.

The $475 million investment nearly doubles U.S. federal
spending on Great Lakes priorities. The money will be
spent on cleaning up toxic pollution, fighting invasive
species, restoring habitat, non-point pollution
issues, and monitoring results.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Environmental Protection Agency just completed a series of public meetings to collect public comment and determine the best way to implement President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

A total of eight meetings took place in cities across the Great Lakes. The meetings were well attended by the public, NGOs, and state and federal agencies.

Cameron Davis, special advisor to the U.S. EPA, set the tone before a full auditorium in East Lansing, Michigan, by calling for “urgency, action, and accountability.”

“We know the lakes are hurting, it is time for action,” Davis said.

In Rochester, New York, a packed room voiced strong support for the new commitment to Great Lakes restoration. Commenters stressed accountability, as well as the need to address tributary and watershed deterioration, to coordinate with Canada, and to access the expertise at the local level.

The EPA hopes to maximize the effectiveness of the initiative by hearing from those with on-the-ground knowledge of the priorities in restoring the Great Lakes and what might be missing from the draft outline.

Comments geared toward the draft were consistent and solutions-based. Amongst the comments, a theme of collaboration, public education, health, and prevention of invasive species resonated.

The Restoration Initiative aims to fund projects through a grant process. Projects that tackle problems such as toxic pollution, invasive species, near-shore health and non-point source pollution, habitat and wildlife protection, and evaluation that are considered “shovel-ready” will be considered strong contenders.

This funding is also intended to be a new source of funds. It is not intended to supplant existing resources.

The amount to be allocated in the 2010 budget is still being fine tuned. The House of Representatives has passed the initiative at $475 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $400 million. Once the full EPA budget is approved the total amount of the Initiative will be determined. The total is expected to be between $400 and $475 million. This investment increases federal Great Lakes environmental funding to about $1 billion annually.

These funds are the first installment of a $5 billion dollar Great Lakes trust fund that Obama promised during last year’s presidential election. Eleven agency and cabinet organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security, for example, head-up the development and implementation of the Initiative.

If you would like to learn more about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri. The new grant proposals to restore the Great Lakes are being accepted this fall, with over half of the 2010 total federal funding to be allocated at the local and state level.

Melinda Koslow is the Regional Campaign Manager for the Safeguards Program at the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center. She can be reached at koslowm@nwf.org.

Wordwide, invasive species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity. And while the individual boater or fisher may feel they have a minimal impact, their combined actions can have serious consequences. The zebra mussel, which has plagued the Great Lakes for two decades, has now crossed the continental divide and is found in Lake Mead, Nevada. How did it get there? It was attached to a recreational boat.

A number of animals, plants or various other organisms originating from other regions of the world can grow and spread rapidly in the absence of their natural predators or controls. Invasive species can have devastating effects on native species, habitats and ecosystems. The zebra mussel, sea lamprey and round goby are well known examples of invaders that outcompete native wildlife and throw natural ecosystems out of balance.

With more than 185 invasive species now established in the Great Lakes, the risk of spreading them upstream and downstream is increased as boats or fishing gear (clothing, boats and items used in the water) are transported across the basin and other regions.

There are a few things that recreational users can do to help stop aquatic invasive species. By following a simple procedure each time they leave the water, we can stop aquatic hitchhikers.

By Hélène Godmaire with the collaboration of Doug Jensen University of Minnesota