U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–813 PDF 2010

ASIAN CARP AND THE GREAT 

LAKES 

(111–87) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 9, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Brammeier, Joel, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Chicago, 

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 9 

Davis, Cameron, Senior Adviser to the Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois ...................................................... 9 

Frank, Matt, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin ...................................................................................................... 9 

Hansen, Michael, Chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Humphries, Rebecca, Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

and Environment, Lansing, Michigan ................................................................ 9 

Lodge, David, Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana ....................... 9 

Peabody, Major General John W., Commander, the Great Lakes and Ohio 

River Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio .... 9 

Rogner, John, Assistant Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 

Springfield, Illinois ............................................................................................... 9 

Wilkins, Del, Vice President of Terminal Operations and Business Development, Canal Barge Company, Inc., Channahon, Illinois, testifying on behalf 

of The American Waterways Operators ............................................................. 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Boozman, Hon. John, of Arkansas ......................................................................... 51 

Latta, Hon. Robert E., of Ohio ................................................................................ 54 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brammeier, Joel ....................................................................................................... 58 

Davis, Cameron ........................................................................................................ 68 

Frank, Matt .............................................................................................................. 72 

Hansen, Michael ...................................................................................................... 91 

Humphries, Rebecca ................................................................................................ 99 

Lodge, David ............................................................................................................ 112 

Peabody, Major General John W. ........................................................................... 172 

Rogner, John, on behalf of Marc Miller ................................................................. 179 

Wilkins, Del .............................................................................................................. 182 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Edwards, Hon. Donna F., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland: ..............................................................................................................

Letter, John R. Groundwater, Executive Director, Passenger Vessel 

Association ................................................................................................. 2 

Letter, Conservation Coalition ..................................................................... 4 

Rogner, John, Assistant Director, on behalf of Marc Miller, Director, Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources, Springfield, Illinois, ‘‘Management and 

Control Plan for Bighead, Black Grass, and Silver Carps in the United 

States’’ ................................................................................................................... 19 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Biggert, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois .... 187 

Clean Wisconsin, Melissa Malott, Attorney, written testimony .......................... 189 

Page

VI 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Henry Henderson, Director, Midwest Program, letter ........................................................................................................... 192 

Watershed Council, Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, written testimony ........ 197 

Wendella Boats, Captain Ragna Russo and Captain Robert Davis, letter ......... 203 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 54813.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 54813.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 54813.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 54813.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 54813.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 54813.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 54813.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 54813.008
(1) 

ASIAN CARP AND THE GREAT LAKES 

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donna F. Edwards presiding. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone 

to today’s hearing. Thank you for braving the snow this afternoon. 

As we get started, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, be permitted to participate in today’s 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

I would also like to ask unanimous consent that the following 

testimony be made part of the record: a statement from the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Boozman; a letter from the 

Passenger Vessel Association, dated February 5, 2010; and a letter 

from the Conservation Coalition, dated February 5, 2010, that was 

to be submitted by our Committee colleague Representative Ehlers. 

[The information follows:] 

2 


Insert offset folio 9 here 54813.009
3 


Insert offset folio 10 here 54813.010
4 


Insert offset folio 11 here 54813.011
5 


Insert offset folio 12 here 54813.012
6 


Insert offset folio 13 here 54813.013
7 


Insert offset folio 14 here 54813.014
8 

Ms. EDWARDS. The Chair does not have an opening statement. 

With that, I would like to ask Mr. Petri if you have an opening 

statement. 

Mr. PETRI. I have a brief one. 

I really want to thank you, Representative Edwards, for pinchhitting so that we can get this moving forward. I suspect that we 

will be joined in a few minutes by the Chairman of the Full Committee, and we look forward to that. 

I would also like to thank our witnesses, particularly those from 

out of town, for being here; and I hope you don’t have to stay 

longer than you originally planned. I know you are all working on 

that. 

I want to add that I was particularly happy that the panel includes Matt Frank, who has been our hardworking Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary; and we very much appreciate your being a part of the panel as well. 

It is no exaggeration to say the issue of the Asian carp entry into 

the Great Lakes is one that has raised great fears on the part of 

our States surrounding the Great Lakes. Some predict that the 

carp population has the potential to disrupt the fundamental ecology of the Great Lakes, resulting in tremendous economic damage 

to our States and particularly our fishing industry. 

Yesterday, the Asian Carp Workgroup, a collection of State and 

Federal agencies, released their Control Strategy Framework. We 

all agree, and I would note that the Framework specifically states, 

that the goal is to prevent the introduction of carp into the lakes. 

Under this plan released yesterday, the opening of the locks would 

be minimized while a range of approaches are used to attack the 

carp population and prevent them from entering Lake Michigan. 

Much attention has been focused on a proposal originally from 

the State of Michigan to close the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping 

Canal. I am looking forward to hearing the views of the representatives from Michigan, Illinois, and my own State of Wisconsin on 

this issue. 

It seems to me that we do want to keep the carp from entering 

the Great Lakes, but there must be a way to do it that does not 

hurt the economy of one of our Great Lake State neighbors. If a 

lock is left open, however, we have to proceed with great urgency 

to find effective and permanent solutions to keep the carp out. 

I am interested in hearing both the short- and long-term strategies to prevent the introduction of the carp. We must have a coordinated response and a strong Federal-State partnership to combat 

this threat. So I would hope that this hearing would examine a 

range of options to keep the carp out. Certainly with our human 

ingenuity and know-how, we should be able to outsmart this fish. 

Given the interest in moving this hearing forward, I will end my 

statement here and express my appreciation once again to the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee under such trying 

weather circumstances. Thank you for your work to protect the 

Great Lakes, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

With that, I will introduce the witnesses in the order in which 

we will hear your testimony. Again, thank you very much for being 

here today, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

9 

We will begin with Mr. Cameron Davis, who is the Senior Adviser to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, based in Chicago, Illinois. Major General John W. 

Peabody is the Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in Cincinnati, 

Ohio. Assistant Director John Rogner, Illinois Department of Natural Resources in Springfield, Illinois. Director Rebecca Humphries, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environment from Lansing, Michigan. Secretary Matt Frank, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in Madison, Wisconsin. 

Professor David Lodge, Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation, 

and Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre 

Dame, Indiana. Dr. Michael Hansen, Chair of the Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. And Mr. Del Wilkins, 

Vice President of Terminal Operations and Business Development 

at Canal Barge Company in Channahon, Illinois—I hope that is 

correct—and you are testifying on behalf of the American Waterways Operators. And, finally, Mr. Joe Brammeier, President and 

CEO of the Alliance for the Great Lakes in Chicago, Illinois. 

We will begin our testimony today with Mr. Davis. 

TESTIMONY OF CAMERON DAVIS, SENIOR ADVISER TO THE 

ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; MAJOR GENERAL 

JOHN W. PEABODY, COMMANDER, THE GREAT LAKES AND 

OHIO RIVER DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CINCINNATI, OHIO; JOHN ROGNER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS; REBECCA HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR, 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, LANSING, MICHIGAN; MATT FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN; DAVID LODGE, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR AQUATIC CONSERVATION, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, NOTRE 

DAME, INDIANA; MICHAEL HANSEN, CHAIR, GREAT LAKES 

FISHERY COMMISSION, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN; DEL WILKINS, VICE PRESIDENT OF TERMINAL OPERATIONS AND 

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC., 

CHANNAHON, ILLINOIS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS; AND JOEL 

BRAMMEIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR THE 

GREAT LAKES, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Edwards, Representative Petri. Thank you very much, Members of 

the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the agency’s perspective 

on efforts to prevent Asian carp from becoming established in the 

Great Lakes. 

I would also like to recognize that Bill Bolen with EPA is here 

with me who has put in significant work on behalf of EPA on this 

issue. 

10 

The administration continues to make restoration and protection 

of the Great Lakes a national priority, as evidenced by President 

Obama’s significant investment in the ecosystem under his Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative. EPA understands the extreme level of 

concern by the public and that the public feels for the Great Lakes 

ecosystem. We understand the concern that the public feels for 

their safety while recreating and concern for their jobs. 

We also have an urgent need to keep Asian carp from becoming 

established in the Great Lakes. As we move forward, we are working to keep Asian carp from becoming established in self-sustaining 

populations in the ecosystem. But to do that we require a coordinated, cooperative approach. 

I will address EPA’s role first and the efforts in recent past and 

multi-stakeholder plans moving forward second in my testimony. 

First, EPA is tasked with coordinating Federal Great Lakes protection and restoration policies and efforts under Clean Water Act 

section 118 and Presidential Executive Order 13340. EPA has been 

doing this and will facilitate the integration of efforts by participating agencies and stakeholders moving forward. 

One of the best weapons we have against Asian carp is this coordinated, cooperative approach through which each agency remains accountable for the work under its authorities in order to ensure the most effective efforts possible. We will undercut ourselves 

if we inhibit such accountability and integration. 

This team approach has been successful and will continue to be 

successful if we give it a chance. It was successful in December 

when you saw participating agencies come together under the leadership of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to undertake a rapid response action. The action was needed to defend the 

Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal against Asian carp migration while 

the Corps of Engineers’ electric fences were down for maintenance. 

During that rapid response action, we saw Federal, Canadian, municipal, State, Provincial, binational, and municipal agencies, all of 

whom provided people, funding, and equipment, come together in 

what was by all accounts a highly successful effort despite numerous obstacles. 

This team approach also led to the draft Framework that was released this week, and I will talk about that in just a moment. 

That was the first role of EPA, coordination. The second role of 

EPA is that of funding. 

Nearly a year ago, President Obama proposed and, thanks to 

your help in Congress, passed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, an unprecedented investment for rehabilitating the Nation’s 

largest fresh surface water system. EPA is stepping up its use of 

its funding authority, as evidenced in December when we announced that we were working with the Corps of Engineers to use 

$13-plus million for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate its work 

to help defend the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal against carp migration. That work, as I am sure you will hear about from General 

Peabody, addresses bypasses and other ways in which carp can get 

into the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from adjacent waterways. 

And currently we are working with the other Federal agencies in 

Illinois to fast-track additional investments under the initiative 

11 

that will address Asian carp populations that may be upstream of 

the electric barriers. 

I thought it was very important to talk a little bit about the 

EPA’s role. Let me turn now to the next steps, because using that 

coordinated approach that I just talked about is so incredibly important. 

By using the coordinated team approach, participating agencies 

have come together to produce this draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework this week. We want to accomplish several things 

with this document. 

First, we want to provide direction without restricting ideas and 

initiatives. As we have learned over and over again in this situation the carp are not staying still. The circumstances underlying 

the carp migration continues to evolve. Likewise, we need to evolve 

with the situation. So one of the great benefits of this Framework 

is that it provides a unified direction for the agencies while not 

straitjacketing them so that they can remain deft in their responses. 

Second, with the Framework, we want to establish a multi-teared 

defense. I cannot overstate just how important this is. I believe we 

cannot fight biology with engineering alone. I don’t believe we can 

fight biology with any other mechanism alone. What this Framework does is establish a multi-dimensional defense for the Great 

Lakes. So, rather than just use one tool in the toolbox, the Framework relies on engineering approaches, relies on chemical approaches, biological, managerial, and operational approaches so 

that we have a strong, vibrant effort that we are deploying to help 

prevent Asian carp migration. 

Third, we want to create space for every player to be involved in 

the effort. It is so incredibly important to understand that no one 

agency has all the answers here. What we have tried to do is essentially create a table around which everybody can sit and offer their 

most constructive recommendations and ways in which they can be 

part of the solution. In other words, this Framework belongs to everybody. It does not just belong to the agencies at this table and 

beyond. 

The Great Lakes region must unite in this effort. The December 

rapid response action illustrates just what we can achieve when we 

are working together. And the Framework is not intended to be 

final. It is intended to be continually improved upon. The first step 

is for everyone to have a hand in its development and its execution. 

I want to thank you, Members of the congressional delegation, 

for your concern, your compassion for protecting and restoring the 

Great Lakes. Administrator Jackson, our partner agencies, the 

States, and delegation all share one overriding imperative and that 

is to keep Asian carp from becoming established in the Great 

Lakes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. I 

remember you well from your many years of engagement and involvement in Great Lakes water quality issues. You have been a 

real leader, a practitioner, feet on the ground, and you have given 

an excellent presentation this morning. 

12 

I apologize to all the panels for being delayed. I had a number 

of other Full Committee activities that had been delayed because 

of the Washington snowfall, so I was attending to those. 

I want to thank Ms. Edwards for standing in as Chair as we 

began and Mr. Petri whose long-standing engagement in and contribution to issues in water quality on the Great Lakes is very well 

grounded and well informed and he is very much actively engaged. 

Also, on the Republican side, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Miller, who are 

long-time advocates for the quality of the Great Lakes water and 

protecting and enhancing that water quality out into the future. 

Members on the Democratic side, Mr. Hare, Mark Schauer, our 

newest Member from Michigan, who was active in the State legislature on water quality issues, all of those bring very great commitments and understanding to this issue. Mr. Costello, though he is 

not right on Lake Michigan or the Great Lakes, his district borders 

on the Mississippi River. He understands these issues directly. 

Before I go further, I would just like to make an observation. In 

1953, 3 million pounds of lake trout were caught by sport fisherman and also commercial fishermen on the Great Lakes and 2.5 

million pounds of white fish. The next year, 1954, that fishery 

crashed to 300,000 pounds of lake trout and 250,000 pounds of 

white fish in 1 year because of the lamprey eel. That was before 

the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened. That was due to vessels 

coming in the Welland Canal and discharging this creature that 

came from—most people suspect—from the Black Sea. And it multiplied. It found a happy home. It adapted to freshwater and migrated all by itself without being transported by vessels from the 

Welland Canal segment, what is now the St. Lawrence Seaway, to 

the upper lakes. 

We said then, we have learned our lesson. My predecessor, John 

Blatnik, who was a Member of Congress at that time, was Chair 

of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, a microbiologist himself 

by training. And as the Seaway opened he said, we need to prevent 

ballast water from transporting species into the lakes which are 

not native to the lakes or which can adapt to freshwater. We, the 

U.S., and the Canadians are now spending upwards of $6 to $10 

million a year and will do so forever to contain the lamprey eel, 

spraying lampricide in their spawning beds where rivers discharge 

into the Great Lakes from both Canada and the U.S. side. 

For a while, pollution of those rivers dampened the population 

growth of the lamprey eel and the numbers declined, but that is 

not an adequate solution. We don’t want polluted rivers dumping 

into our freshwater lakes and spreading the damage. 

So when the billions of dollars are spent on Lake Erie, $5 million 

to clean up discharges into the Lake, dig up the bottom sediments, 

stop the toxins from coming in, airborne from as far away as Central America, DDT coming into the Great Lakes, having adverse effects on bald eagles, then the lamprey came back. And then we had 

relaxed our vigilance on inbound cargoes coming in on the salties, 

and we had the zebra mussel and the round-eyed goby and spiny 

akinoderm, and a host of other aquatic species and aquatic plants 

have taken up the water column in the Great Lakes. 

Now we have this huge threat that did not come into the lakes 

but may well find its way in. Those specimens provided by Dr. 

13 

Ehlers give you an idea of how terrifying it is to be out on a boat 

amongst those carp thrashing about and actually jumping into 

boats. 

Now when I first heard about the carp, I said, well, maybe they 

will eat the lamprey, or maybe they will eat the zebra mussels. No, 

they don’t. They filter all the food chain out of the water column; 

and one species has no stomach, so it must continuously feed. 

There is just a slipstream going right through the fish of all the 

water column. So it is taking away the food chain from the rest of 

the species in the water column. It is a treacherous, dangerous species that we cannot allow into the lakes. 

And Mr. Petri and I were exchanging notes that maybe the cold 

freshwater will inhibit the species. I have seen so many species 

adapt to the Great Lakes that I don’t want to take that chance. No 

one wants to take that chance. 

And this has to be a Federal response. We cannot allow eight 

Great Lake States and the Province of Ontario to pass separate, 

disparate laws that may conflict with each other and work against 

each other. We have to have a national response. It has to be a unified response, and we have not had that in the past in reaction to 

other invasive species. 

So, Mr. Davis, I greatly appreciate your comments. You can’t 

fight biology with engineering alone. This is not a final action 

taken by EPA but will continually be improved upon. That is the 

mind-set that each one of our presenters today needs to keep in 

mind. 

As for this committee, I know the lessons of the past. I know the 

treacherous fate that awaits the movement of those ugly critters 

into—they really are. I am not hurting their feelings, am I? 

But, some years ago, scientists from the Great Lakes and Russian scientists who have been studying Lake Baikal for decades 

met in Duluth; and we had presenters from the University of Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, and scientists from throughout the United States 

sharing information. Lake Baikal has about the volume of Lake Superior, except that it is deeper. It is a mile deep. Lake Superior is 

deep, 1,735 feet at its lowest point, which is 125 feet below sea 

level. But each is a unique specimen in the world of freshwater. 

And you think of freshwater, it is 1 percent of all the water on 

the face of the Earth. We have 20 percent of that freshwater in the 

Great Lakes. Lake Superior is half of the total Great Lakes’ volume. 

So we have a unique responsibility here. We have got to marshal 

all the resources, all the brain power, all the technology we can, 

not only to prevent Asian carp from—and all their varieties—from 

getting into that freshwater treasure but to get the others out. 

General Peabody, thank you very much for being with us. 

General PEABODY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Congresswoman Edwards, Congressman Petri, I am here to testify about the Corps of Engineers’ efforts to defeat the risk to the 

Great Lakes posed by the migration of Asian carp through the Chicago area waterway system. 

The Army Corps of Engineers is committed to using all available 

authorities, capabilities, and resources to combat this invasive speVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\54813.0 KAYLA
14 

cies. Because the Corps cannot do this alone, we are working intensively as part of the Federal, State, Provincial, binational, and municipal agency team through the Asian Carp Workgroup. We are 

actively exploring all options to defeat the threat, working within 

the Asian Carp Control Framework and using a strategy that has 

four prongs to it for the Corps of Engineers. 

The Corps’ principal role has been to prevent or reduce migration 

of Asian carp by building, operating, maintaining, and improving 

the electrical dispersal barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and 

Ship Canal. The fish barrier is the largest fielded operational electrical dispersal barrier in the world and constitutes a dynamic 

project with significant research and development components. 

Any assertions that the barrier system is or has been ineffective 

in restricting upstream movement of bighead and silver carp are 

speculative. The facts are that the fish barrier system has been in 

continuous operation since 2002 and has performed as designed, as 

far as we can tell. 

Monitoring Asian carp migration is an essential second part of 

the interagency effort. As part of a comprehensive review of the 

fish barrier’s effectiveness in late 2008, the Corps recognized that 

we did not have adequate information about the location of Asian 

carp migration. As a result of canvassing academic and scientific 

communities, we learned of the environmental DNA research being 

conducted by the University of Notre Dame’s Dr. David Lodge in 

association with The Nature Conservancy. We have been actively 

collaborating with him and his team ever since. 

Environmental DNA is an important emerging technology that is 

providing additional information to indicate the possible presence 

of Asian carp, but because Asian carp eDNA has not yet undergone 

complete, scientific, independent peer review, the results should be 

considered preliminary at this time. We are coordinating with Dr. 

Lodge and his team to execute the needed independent external 

peer review, which we hope to complete by June. 

This approach is consistent with the Corps’ policy of ensuring 

that its technical, engineering, and scientific work undergoes an 

open, dynamic, and rigorous review process to ensure confidence in 

our decisions and policy recommendations. However, we are not 

waiting to take action even in the face of these uncertainties. 

Along with our partner agencies, the Corps is working to address 

the potential threat in a variety of ways. Using the efficacy study 

authorized in WRDA 2007, we are constructing emergency measures recommended and approved through an interim report that 

will be initiated this spring and completed this fall. These measures are designed to prevent fish bypasses via the flanking waterways of the Des Plaines River and the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 

The Corps is also working to develop additional measures to 

apply in the Chicago Area Waterways System this spring once 

warmer weather prompts increased fish activity. These measures 

are under study so have not been defined but may include modified 

operations at existing locks and controlling works, installing other 

types of barriers near the locks, controlling ballast water, and assessing options to block the alternate pathways of the Grand and 

Little Calumet Rivers. To be effective, any measures we take would 

have to be done in concert with the actions by other agencies on 

15 

matters within their expertise or authority to eliminate or reduce 

the numbers of any Asian carp that may be in the vicinity. 

The fourth element of our strategy is to build on all these efforts 

with a long-term focus on the Interbasin Control Study. The Corps 

is undertaking this congressionally authorized study, formally 

called the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin study, to 

explore options and technologies that could be applied to reduce the 

risk of aquatic invasive species of any type that might transfer 

along multiple points between the Great Lakes and Mississippi 

River basins. This study would be developed in coordination with 

all interested stakeholders and will be based on science, leveraging 

the latest technology and the best available information. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I especially want to thank you, General Peabody, 

for coming such a great distance by car. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Seventeen hours? 

General PEABODY. Sir, it was only 10. The view was nice. It was 

covered in snow. But this is an important hearing, sir, and I felt 

a compelling requirement to be here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I must say Mr. Petri and I chose a different 

route. Rather than going back to the safety of Minnesota and Wisconsin, where it is only below zero, we chose to stay here in Washington and risk life and limb in the snow, where they don’t know 

how to remove it. They don’t know what to do with it. They just 

walk on it. They count on the sun to melt it. They are counting on 

global climate change to melt this down. 

It is not happening. I have seen this for 40 years out here. They 

just don’t know what to do with snow. Hell, when I grew up, we 

had a sidewalk snowplow because people didn’t have cars in my 

day. But we know how to handle it. 

You are awfully good to make this journey. And, all of you, I 

thank you very much for making the effort to be here with us. 

Ms. Edwards, thank you. This is not the Chesapeake Bay, the 

Great Lakes, but your concern for both the Bay and its good health 

and your efforts over many years in the State legislature and elsewhere now as a Member of this Committee have marked you as an 

advocate for the environment, wherever it happens to be. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Rogner, give us the Illinois viewpoint. 

Mr. ROGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri, 

Congresswoman Edwards, for this opportunity to testify on behalf 

of Director Marc Miller, Director of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, on the role of the Illinois DNR in battling the 

Asian carp invasion. Since the early 1990s, we have been fully engaged in this effort. 

I will first mention a couple of the recent actions we have taken 

and then outline our action plans for the immediate future as we 

work with our Federal, State, and local partners to prevent the 

spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. 

But, first, I want to be absolutely clear on one important point. 

The Illinois DNR has a firm commitment to this task, and we remain unwavering in that regard. We have been working very closeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\54813.0 KAYLA
16 

ly with our partner States, including Michigan and Wisconsin, and 

also the Federal agencies to develop effective control strategies. 

Illinois has also contributed significant resources to controlling 

Asian carp. A premiere example is that we served as the local 

sponsor for the Corps of Engineers’ electric barrier system, contributing $1.8 million to this effort. 

Most recently, Illinois DNR served as the lead agency for the successful, rapid response effort last December to prevent the upstream movement of Asian carp when the electric barrier system 

was shut down for maintenance. The unified response of the Great 

Lakes States and Provinces I believe was a shining leadership moment for our region and a prime example of how a small group of 

committed people can really make a difference. This unparalleled 

effort demonstrated that Federal, Provincial, State, and local partners can work together to help ensure that this invasive species 

does not establish sustainable populations in the Great Lakes and 

threaten this globally important ecosystem. 

Over 400 people worked together with contributions of supplies, 

equipment, and crews from partners throughout the basin. The 

rapid response team safely applied Rotenone to a 6-mile stretch of 

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Corps of Engineers performed critical maintenance on the electric barrier system, and 

then we led the cleanup and removal of 18,000 fish, including one 

Big Head carp. That one fish documented that Asian carp were at 

the barrier and could have moved past the barrier in potentially 

large numbers had we not conducted this action. 

It is important to note that, as we consider additional operations, the cost of this single action was over $3 million and would not 

have been possible without the substantial donations of equipment 

and labor from the other States and Provinces and financial support of our Federal partners. I want to thank everyone here at this 

table today for that critical support. 

There are several lessons that we have learned from this experience that I would lake to share with the committee: 

First, meeting this challenge will require even greater collaboration and levels of partnership. We must enlist the scientific and 

communication resources as well as the political leadership of every 

State and Province in the basin to join in this effort. 

Second, early and sustained outreach to key stakeholders, 

proactive communication strategies, and operational transparency 

must continue to be maintained as we move forward with our 

Framework strategy and operations. 

Finally, the collaborative approach that has been developed with 

our local, State, and Federal partners is working very well and we 

believe represents the best model for future efforts. 

I now wish to outline the actions to control Asian carp that the 

Illinois DNR proposes to begin immediately or as soon as funding 

can be secured. These actions will be conducted as part of the 

Asian Carp Workgroup that is already firmly in place. 

First, we will conduct a targeted Asian carp removal operation 

throughout the entire Chicago Area Waterways System. This includes the identification, containment, and removal of carp using 

standard fisheries gear, including netting, electro fishing, contract 

commercial fishing, and the use of toxicants such as Rotenone. 

17 

These priority actions will be focused above the barrier in locations 

most likely to hold carp. We propose to begin these operations next 

week. 

The Illinois DNR will contract with commercial fishermen to operate below the barrier system to reduce populations and propagule 

pressure on the barrier system below it. 

Third, informed by Corps of Engineers’ eDNA monitoring, we will 

conduct sampling and removal in hot spots of the Cal-Sag Channel. 

This includes the entire length of the Cal-Sag below the O’Brien 

lock and dam as well as the North Shore Channel below the 

Wilmette Pumping Station. 

We will participate with the Corps of Engineers’ efforts to refine 

the eDNA technology so that it is a better predictor of both location 

and population size of Asian carp. 

In the next 90 days, the Illinois DNR will conduct a survey of 

all retail live bait locations to ensure that Asian carp minnows are 

not being sold in Chicago-area bait shops, something that is currently unlawful in Illinois. This effort is already under way. 

We have also identified several longer-term actions that we are 

proposing. 

We will prepare for rapid response contingency operations, including training, advanced procurement of supplies and necessary 

equipment. 

We will lead the Asian Carp Management and Control Implementation Task Force along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This plan outlines 133 different actions that will be deployed 

nationally in all watersheds where Asian carp are a problem. 

We will participate in additional research into barrier effectiveness using tagged fish and advanced sonar technology. 

And then, finally, we propose to work with our sister State agency, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, to enhance commercial markets for Asian carp and investigate requirements for the use of Asian carp products for humanitarian relief 

purposes. These efforts will promote commercial fishing on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers and help reduce population pressures 

on the electric barrier system. 

This is a problem that is not going to be solved by one State or 

one agency. As a region, we have a long and established history of 

using a proactive and collaborative approach. When we are divided, 

solutions to our problems can remain elusive. We believe our Great 

Lakes region is stronger when we work together in partnership to 

solve common problems, and Asian carp will not be an exception 

to this. 

The Illinois DNR looks forward to working with the other Great 

Lake States and Federal agencies in preventing Asian carp from 

establishing sustainable populations in the Great Lakes and in the 

larger problem of the exchange of invasives between the Great 

Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for that splendid presentation. 

I will have a couple of questions and comments later, but I think 

it is a well-thought-out approach, and your emphasis on the multidisciplinary approach to the issue, that is what I am looking for. 

I think that is what people all throughout the lakes are looking for. 

18 

The Carp Management and Control Implementation Task Force 

plan of 133 different actions, is that available to the committee? 

Mr. ROGNER. Yes, it is. We can make it available. 

[The information follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 169 here 54813.169
20 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Director Humphries, thank you very much for being with us. 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Edwards. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Did you drive here too? 

Mr. HUMPHRIES. No, I did not. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You caught the last Northwest Airlines flight 

out? 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. I did. I arrived yesterday. However, getting 

home might be much more difficult than it was getting here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, leave quickly before they shut everything 

down. 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. I think that might be the game plan. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is much safer out there than it is here, believe 

me. 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

about the looming catastrophe that we face if Asian carp become 

established in the Great Lakes. I also appreciate the Members in 

the Michigan congressional delegation for their past work on this 

and other Great Lakes issues. I have been a conservation professional for over 30 years, and my role with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment is to protect our resources while maximizing recreational opportunities. Allowing 

Asian carp to populate our Great Lakes will destroy the resource 

as well as recreational opportunities, and we must act swiftly, collaboratively and wisely to address the crisis. Invasive species have 

already created havoc, as you have so aptly described earlier. Reports indicate that the cost of biological pollution from invasive species is both massive and it is rising. In the Great Lakes, total cost 

for treatment and control of zebra mussels alone reaches $100 million each year. The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission reports that 

for sea lamprey, program requirements are on the order of $30 million per year. Invasive species have profoundly changed the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, significantly impacted the Great Lakes 

sport and commercial fisheries and have hampered recreation, all 

of which have a negative effect on Michigan’s economy. 

Let me give you one example, a little more recent example than 

we heard earlier. Lake Huron once had a vibrant salmon sport fishery with hundreds of charter boats attracting thousands of anglers 

each year to ports up and down its long coastline. Fishing derbies 

attracted additional anglers who launched their boats and kept 

their boats at local marinas, but invasive zebra and quagga mussels, which are Eurasian invaders, have caused the collapse of the 

salmon population and thus the sport fishery. This was a several 

million dollar industry, and it is gone. 

Michigan has taken aggressive steps to stop the further spread 

of these foreign invaders, including requiring Great Lakes ships to 

adhere to ballast water management practices, enacting legislation 

requiring all oceangoing ships to obtain a permit for ballast water 

discharges, taking legal action to address ballast water issues, including successfully defending our State laws in Federal court and 

challenging Federal agencies for their failure to appropriately use 

existing regulatory authority to act, and by administering State 

regulatory programs to control aquatic nuisance species in our 

21 

lakes and our rivers, including restrictions on the transport of 

invasive species of fish, establishment of a list of invasive species 

prohibited in Michigan and participation and actions to control sea 

lamprey in the Great Lakes and its tributaries. 

Despite our best efforts, Asian carp are now at our doorstep. 

Michigan has its own steps and has taken those steps to prevent 

Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. We have contributed financially to the construction of the electrical barrier in the Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal, and we have prohibited the possession of 

live Asian carp in the State. We also participated in the actions 

this past December that treated the canal to remove Asian carp 

prior to the maintenance of the second electrical barrier. I cannot 

stress the following in simpler terms. Once an invasive species gets 

established in the lakes, we cannot eradicate it. The threat of 

Asian carp must be treated as a crisis and steps must be implemented immediately to address them. As early as 2003, scientists, 

government officials and stakeholders were calling for ecological 

separation to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watershed, 

but we did not act quickly enough. 

Short-term fixes have become long-term projects. For example, 

the installation of the second electrical barrier took over 6 years 

and is still not fully operational. It took several years to ban the 

importation of black carp and silver carp under the Lacey Act and 

bighead carp are still not covered under that Act. 

I started by saying that we must act swiftly, cooperatively and 

wisely to address the threat posed by Asian carp. 

Here are my recommendations to meet those objectives. We must 

immediately take all available measures, consistent with protection 

of public health and safety, to prevent the migration of bighead and 

silver carp into Lake Michigan, including closing and ceasing operation of the O’Brien lock and the Chicago lock until a permanent 

ecological barrier is constructed between the Great Lakes and the 

Mississippi River Watersheds. The Army Corps of Engineers must 

have the authority to close the locks on the emergency basis and 

also a permanent basis if necessary. 

We must initiate studies to be completed by the end of this year 

to examine the feasibility of transferring cargo via other transportation systems. We must operate other water control structures 

near Lake Michigan, the O’Brien lock, the Chicago controlling 

works and the Wilmette Pumping Station in a manner that will not 

allow fish to pass into the lake. 

We must install inner barriers at other locations this year, including barriers between the Des Plaines River and the canal and 

the Indiana Harbor and Burns Ditch from the Grand Calumet and 

Little Calumet Rivers to eliminate the potential for flooding between these two watersheds. We need to complete additional studies related to the biology and the ecology of carp and predictive 

models to determine the areas at highest risk for colonization within the Great Lakes. We need to provide additional dollars for continuous monitoring of carp based on risk analysis with funding on 

reserve for chemical treatment as a rapid response mechanism is 

warranted, and we must communicate with the States any actions 

and data in a timely manner. 

22 

Operating electrical barrier 2a at optimum voltage and completing electrical barrier 2b this year is important. In developing 

and implementing plans for a permanent solution to the problems 

that would ecologically and physically separate the carp-infested 

waters of the Mississippi watershed from the Great Lakes. We also 

have to be very proactive with our citizens so that they don’t knowingly or unknowingly move these fish into waters where they are 

not found now. We all treasure the Great Lakes, and we all share 

a commitment to its continued vitality. 

Now we must share in a similar commitment to more aggressively move forward and stop the spread of Asian carp. I have additional attachments that I have included in my testimony. I would 

like to thank you, and I am available to take any questions you 

might have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for the wide-ranging statement. Now we will proceed with Secretary Frank. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing, Representative Petri and Representative Edwards. 

We really appreciate you bringing the attention to this issue that 

it truly deserves. I want to start off by thanking this Committee 

and acknowledging the Congress and the President’s initiative on 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. I can’t tell you how excited 

we are by that initiative. You know, we have been talking about 

these issues, as you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, for a long 

time. This unprecedented opportunity we have, I want to let you 

know that we are all working hard together to make sure that that 

money is put to good use. It is long overdue, and we are committed 

to improving the Great Lakes with the resources that Congress and 

the President have set aside. So that is a very positive thing. You 

eloquently set forth the history of how we have been dealing with 

invasives in the Great Lakes, from the lamprey eel to zebra and 

quagga mussels to the round goby to VHS. 

I can tell you, all of our agencies have been struggling with these 

issues for some time, and there is a great deal of frustration that 

we all have and that the people of our States have to cut off the 

flow of these invasives into the Great Lakes. This is a threat not 

only to our Great Lakes, but it is a threat to all our inland waters. 

Once they are in the Great Lakes, they move inland, and this becomes a problem not just in our States, but then throughout the 

United States. Whether it is the vector in the Mississippi River or 

the Great Lakes, this truly is a national issue. 

Before I talk about the specific issue at hand, I do want to follow 

up on Director Humphries’ comments about ballast water because 

this is an incredible opportunity, I think, to really reemphasize how 

important it is to deal with that issue as well. The Congress last 

year, the House of Representatives passed a strong ballast water 

measure. It passed overwhelmingly in the House. It did not get 

passed through the Senate. And that was following on years of inaction by Federal agencies. A new administration is in town. The 

Coast Guard is taking a close look at this issue. 

Wisconsin and some other States have submitted comments to 

the Coast Guard about regulation. We are glad to see that the 

Coast Guard is taking this issue more seriously, but we are concerned that we need to get strong action on ballast water. We 

23 

would welcome this committee’s oversight of what is going on with 

the ballast water issue so that we can finally move on that issue. 

We know that ballast water continues to dump new invasives into 

our waterways, and we need to deal with it. We need to deal with 

it effectively. 

Wisconsin passed a very strong ballast water permit recently, 

but we still think the best solution is a strong Federal standard 

that goes beyond IMO to make sure that we are treating this ballast water so we are not continuing to dump new invasives. It is 

a critical issue, and I appreciate having the opportunity just to 

raise that as another important issue we are dealing with right 

now. 

Now as to Asian carp, there is a lot that has been said. I will 

try not to replow ground. A lot of important points have been 

made. We do think it is important that there is Federal agency coordination, and again, I applaud the White House for their leadership. We had a summit yesterday. The Governors came in to meet 

with Federal agencies. We are encouraged that this is being taken 

seriously. We are encouraged that there are resources being devoted to this serious issue. 

Having said all that, we have a sense of real urgency and concern about where this is all going. We can all think that we are 

doing as much as we can, but the fact is, we may not have much 

time, and we really need to make sure that we are looking at all 

alternatives. I think an immediate expansion of monitoring and 

fish control efforts in the Chicago waterways system are absolutely 

critical. We need, as has been said, to get the second barrier up. 

We share Michigan’s frustration that we have a little different perspective on that issue than some other folks do. It is long overdue. 

It has taken too long, and we were pleased to hear yesterday 

that the Corps said that it would be up and running this year. 

That needs to get done. But having said all that, we need to look 

at the ecological separation between the Chicago waterway and the 

Great Lakes. There are a number of vectors. We agree it is a complex issue. There is another number of vectors that have to be 

closed off. We think there is good initial work that is being done. 

But we need to move faster, and the issue of the locks, what to do 

with the locks is certainly out there. 

It is an easy call from Wisconsin’s perspective. We are concerned 

about commerce and the health of the Great Lakes. We think the 

lock should be closed. We hope that people don’t see that as some 

sort of simplistic answer, that even in closing the locks, you don’t 

guarantee that fish don’t get through there. They were designed for 

navigation, not as a fish barrier. Also there are other vectors that 

have to be dealt with. So in advocating for that, we do not mean 

to demean all of the other things that are in some of the Federal 

planning that we have seen so far. 

We really have to work together on this, and I can’t stress 

enough how urgent this is and that we need to move from talk to 

action. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank, Mr. Secretary, 

for your splendid presentation and your broad view of the issue and 

the approaches. 

24 

Professor Lodge, I want to say, I read with great interest the release of your research work on DNA. I look forward with great interest to your testimony. 

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much. I will draw your attention to 

the PowerPoint that I will use this afternoon. 

Chairman Oberstar, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Petri, thank you very 

much for the opportunity to talk about what my collaborative team 

and I have learned in the last few months about Asian carp in the 

Chicago waterway and for the opportunity to share our perspectives on what that means. I was last before this Subcommittee 

about 2 years ago to testify about the impact of ship-borne invasions, the ballast water issue that Mr. Frank was just talking 

about. And in that testimony, I pointed out to the Subcommittee 

that while ships were a major contributor of alien species to the 

Great Lakes, they were not the only one. And in fact, that canals, 

like the one that we are here to talk about today, are a major pathway by which harmful alien species gain access to the Great Lakes 

and, indeed, by which other species leave the Great Lakes. In my 

written testimony, I outlined answers to six questions, and for the 

sake of brevity, I am going to focus only on four questions in my 

verbal testimony this afternoon. The first question I want to answer, which stems directly from the work that the Army Corps has 

supported and that General Peabody referred to, is our work in the 

canal in the last few months on how close are the carp to Lake 

Michigan. Now before I really answer that question, I need to say 

a few things about the method by which we have learned where silver and bighead carp are in the canal system. 

We have used some very standard technologies from molecular 

genetics but we have combined those protocols into an unusual 

combination and a new application to surveillance of Asian carps 

in the canal. You can think about what we have done as the environmental protection equivalent of what forensic experts do every 

day and what our justice system has in many ways come to rely 

on, for example, to determine whether a suspect was at a crime 

scene. We and Asian carps leave a trail of DNA behind us, and it 

is that trail that we have been detecting in the Chicago waterway. 

We have invited an audit, a review, which is in many ways a 

more rigorous peer review than is typical for scientific work. That 

review was completed by the EPA, an independent audit team. 

They issued their final report on our work this past week, and I 

have provided that to the Committee to become part of the permanent record of this hearing. The conclusion of the EPA audit 

team—I have put one summary statement up here on this slide— 

the bottom line is that it is uncontroversial that we are detecting 

the DNA of only silver and bighead carp and secondly, this EPA 

audit team, including experts in molecular genetics, concluded that 

our results are actionable in a management context. 

So with that as a background—and I am happy to address any 

questions you may have in a more detailed nature about that— 

what we have discovered, unfortunately, in recent months is that 

both silver and bighead carp are in the waterway north of the electric barrier. I have just indicated with these red blobs on that map 

where we have detected either silver or bighead carp, and you have 

received a more detailed map in my written testimony. 

25 

The most troubling result is that silver carp are not only at the 

doorstep of the lake up in Wilmette in northern Chicago, but, in 

fact, appear to be in Lake Michigan or at least in Calumet Harbor 

opening to Lake Michigan. Bighead carp are not yet—at least we 

have not yet detected, and I hope we do not detect bighead carp 

DNA in the lake. However, my conclusion from these data is that 

it is not inevitable that an invasion of these species—either species 

is underway, and I believe that an invasion, that is establishment 

of a self-sustaining, reproducing and spreading population, is still 

possible to prevent. That begs a question, however, about how 

many carp will it take to launch an invasion? 

The short answer is, I don’t know, and no one knows. The slightly longer and more helpful answer is that it is a numbers game. 

If the goal is to prevent invasions in Lake Michigan, then the proximate management goal has to be to prevent additional individual 

fish of either species from entering Lake Michigan. It is not inevitable that an invasion by either one of these fishes will occur, and 

our most recent results finding silver carp in the lake make it even 

more urgent that steps are taken to prevent additional fishes from 

entering the lake. 

The third question I want to address is, Is this issue only about 

Asian carps? And the answer to that is no. I think that is a very 

important point for the Committee to consider. This canal has already been a pathway by which very harmful species which Chairman Oberstar referred to earlier on—zebra mussels and quagga 

mussels—this canal is how those species have gotten, for example, 

to California. It is how they first escaped the Great Lakes and then 

made their way across the country by other means. But their escape of the Great Lakes was made possible by this canal. This 

canal is a two-way highway for many species. So these species that 

I am picturing have already used it. There are many other species 

poised to use the canal. They either have or are poised to do so. 

And I will highlight just a few of those on this slide. Spiny water 

flea, already mentioned by Chairman Oberstar. Water chestnut, a 

highly damaging aquatic weed. A variety of parasites and pathogens that can be deadly to a variety of fish species. New Zealand 

mud snail, the bloody red shrimp. All of these species are in the 

Great Lakes but not yet in the Mississippi River Basin. And, of 

course, going the other way, I don’t need to tell you about bighead 

and silver carp but don’t forget there are other species waiting to 

go in the same direction. Brazilian water weed, a very expensive 

water weed further south could use the canal to go north. And then 

a final example would be the northern snakehead, present in the 

Mississippi River basin but not yet present in the Great Lakes. 

So it is very important that you look at this canal and not just 

as a conduit for Asian carps, but as a conduit for many species, 

past and future. Therefore, any management actions will bring 

benefits far beyond the benefits of preventing damages by the 

Asian carps. I will just finish by suggesting what I believe are some 

of the management implications of this, and I won’t go through all 

of this. In fact, many of the previous speakers have already addressed these and the new framework that came from the administration yesterday includes many, but not all of, these points. 

26 

I draw your attention in particular to the last one which I think 

Mr. Brammeier will also address, which is that especially when you 

consider this whole suite of species that I mentioned, it is very important to think about the benefits of the canal being far beyond 

management taken with respect to Asian carps. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very, very much, Dr. Lodge, for that 

excellent presentation. And all your accompanying data will be concluded in the Committee record, in the hearing record. 

And now Dr. Hansen. Welcome, and thank you for joining us. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to discuss Asian carp and the threat they 

pose to the Great Lakes. 

I am Mike Hansen, Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I am also a professor of fisheries at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 

The commission understands the destruction that invasive species cause to ecosystems. Since the 1950s, the commission has been 

responsible under a treaty between the U.S. and Canada to control 

the sea lamprey, an invasive species that destroyed fisheries after 

invading the upper Great Lakes in the 1920s. 

The Great Lakes are tremendously valuable and worth pro- tecting. Annually, Great Lakes fisheries are worth more than $7 

billion and have enormous cultural value to the diverse peoples 

who live and fish in the region. 

Globalization and trade have provided more species more opportunities than ever to invade waters of the United States. Currently, 

more than 180 non-native species have entered the Great Lakes, 

and harmful species have cost the region billions of dollars. Permanent impacts on the environment and benefits our children will 

never see are unquantifiable. 

We are concerned about Asian carp because we have seen what 

these fish have done to the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Asian 

carp spread rapidly by reproducing in large numbers to become the 

predominant species in an ecosystem. Asian carp eat plankton that 

is the foundation of food webs. Once loose in the wild, where plankton is abundant but predators are few, Asian carp have proliferated. Strong dietary overlap between Asian carp and native 

fishes suggest that Asian carp could outcompete native fish for 

food, especially because an Asian carp can eat 40 percent of its 

body weight each day. 

Between 1991 and 2000, bighead carp increased exponentially in 

the Illinois River. So, by fall 1999, Asian carp made up 97 percent 

of the biomass of a fish kill in a national wildlife refugee near St. 

Louis. Today, commercial fishers in the Illinois River regularly 

catch more than 25,000 pounds of bighead and silver carp each 

day—an amazing amount of fish. 

The silver carp has a unique characteristic that makes it particularly dangerous to humans. The sound of a motorboat startles the 

fish into leaping up to 10 feet out of the water. These flying fish, 

some weighing more than 20 pounds, are projectiles that land in 

boats, damage property, and injure people. 

To understand potential risks of Asian carp to the Great Lakes, 

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey assessed the risk of invasion by Asian carp. SpecifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\54813.0 KAYLA
27 

cally, these risk assessments tell us the following: First, Asian carp 

are likely to tolerate the climate of the Great Lakes because the 

basin’s climate is within the fish’s natural rage. Second, Asian carp 

feed on plankton, the low end of the food web, so they eat the same 

food that most other fish eat for their own growth and survival. 

Third, the Great Lakes Basin contains numerous tributaries with 

suitable spawning habitat and large areas of vegetative shorelines, 

which they need, particularly in large bays, river mouths, connecting channels, and wetlands. 

Silver carp will likely be harmful because nearly 1 million boats 

and personal watercraft operate in the lakes, placing millions of 

people in potential contact with silver carp. Overall, people of the 

Great Lakes Basin should be deeply concerned about the possible 

negative effects of Asian carp. 

Let me conclude with some thoughts about policy responses. 

Other witnesses during today’s hearing described actions to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission has been a supportive partner in all of these 

efforts. I would like to especially thank Cameron Davis for his determination to coordinate a multi-agency response. 

The question remains, however, what can be done if Asian carp 

enter the Great Lakes? Unfortunately, the answer is not much, at 

least not much at the moment, because control mechanisms do not 

currently exist for Asian carp. While current work to prevent Asian 

carp migration is appropriate, the only solution to this problem is 

to achieve what is called ′′ecological separation′′ by altering the 

canal system to prevent species of any kind from moving between 

the Mississippi River and Great Lakes Basins. 

We appreciate the work, which we cofunded, that Mr. Brammeier 

and his colleagues conducted to take a good, hard first look at ecological separation. He will describe that in more detail shortly. 

But this is just the start. The Water Resources Development Act 

of 2007 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a 

full-scale engineering analysis to identify and propose ways to 

achieve ecological separation. We urge Congress to clearly express 

that the end objective is ecological separation, not to reduce the 

risk or try to achieve separation while maintaining the status quo. 

The goal must be ecological separation. 

We also urge Congress to provide the Corps with adequate resources and authority to accelerate development and implementation of solutions to achieve ecological separation. The Great Lakes 

cannot wait. 

Mr. Chair, I again thank you for holding this important hearing. 

I appreciate the committee’s interest in taking steps necessary to 

protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other invasive species. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you are so right, Dr. Hansen; the Great 

Lakes can’t wait. And, as I said at the outset, we thought we 

learned that lesson 50 years ago. We are learning it all over again 

with every one of these new species that come into the Great 

Lakes. This is not an inexhaustible resource. 

Mr. Wilkins, thank you for being with us. You may proceed with 

your testimony. 

28 

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you, 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Mr. Petri. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American Waterways 

Operators, the national trade association for the tugboat and barge 

industry. 

I am vice president for Canal Barge Company, a family-owned 

business headquartered in New Orleans that has been in business 

for 76 years. Canal operates throughout the inland waterway system and also owns Illinois Marine Towing Corporation, a Chicagoarea towing and barge fleeting company. 

I would like the Subcommittee to know, first and foremost, that 

the members of AWO fully support robust measures to protect the 

Great Lakes from the spread of Asian carp. As we put these protections into place, we must also protect human health and safety and 

maintain the free flow of waterborne commerce that is critical to 

our economy. 

Our fundamental message is this: The choice whether to protect 

the environment or ensure the continued flow of vital maritime 

commerce is an unnecessary one and, quite frankly, a choice our 

Nation cannot afford to make. We are confident that congressional 

leadership, coupled with Administration and stakeholder cooperation, will lead to us a sustainable long-term solution that protects 

the Great Lakes ecosystem without sacrificing critical jobs and the 

environmental and economic benefits of barge transportation. 

Mr. Chairman, finding such a solution is critical because inland 

waterways navigation is essential to our economy, and it is the 

safest, most economical mode of domestic freight transportation 

with the smallest carbon footprint of any mode. Barging plays a 

key role in the transportation system by reducing congestion on our 

overcrowded highways and rails. And as commercial users of the 

inland waterway rivers, coastal waterways, and Great Lakes, our 

industry has a deep commitment to environmental stewardship. 

Since 2004, our industry has cooperated with Federal and State 

agencies concerning the safe operations of the electric fish barriers 

currently on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Our industry 

has also promoted the recovery of threatened and endangered species and established practices to reduce emissions from tank 

barges. 

Cooperative and balanced solutions to the problems of invasive 

species are, in fact, achievable. An integrated approach can arrest 

the advance of the Asian carp, protect the Great Lakes ecosystem, 

and maintain safe, efficient, and reliable navigation on vital commercial waterways. 

My testimony will now address what we feel are nine specific actions as part of that integrated strategy. 

First, expedite construction of the Barrier 2-B, which is on the 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Secondly, design and implement 

bubble and acoustic fish barriers to prevent Asian carp from moving into the Great Lakes, as commonly done in Europe. Thirdly, 

immediately complete structures to stop carp from entering the 

Great Lakes during floods. 

Fourth, conduct tag-fish research to validate the effectiveness of 

all primary and secondary barriers, including electric, bubble, and 

acoustic barriers. Fifth, employ consistent measures to identify the 

29 

location of this invasive species, such as electric fishing or 

electrofishing, netting, and commercial fishing that do not delay 

the movement of commerce. Sixth, fund research on Asian carp 

specific biological control agents, which has proven to be an effective strategy with other invasive species on the Great Lakes. 

Seventh, sample barges and other vessels for juvenile carp and 

their eggs. We are currently serving on a public-private-sector 

working group to conduct such sampling and ensure our that our 

industry is not a vector to move this invasive species. Eighth, impose further restrictions on the importation of aquatic invasive species. And, finally, conduct more scientific studies about the ability 

of carp to survive within the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

Mr. Chairman, proposals have been made recently in both legislation and litigation to permanently close the locks on the Chicago 

Waterway System. We strongly oppose lock closures. Recent proposals by Federal agencies to implement a program of scheduled 

lock closures are equally troubling because they will impede essential commerce without stopping the advance of the carp. Let me repeat that and underscore that: Closing the locks just will not stop 

carp. 

Speaking personally, closing the locks would also be devastating 

to Illinois Marine Towing Company and may even put that company out of business, with a loss of a hundred or more jobs for our 

shore-side and vessel operations. Other vessel operators who work 

in the same Illinois waterway in the same region who provide family-wage employment to hardworking Americans would likely suffer 

the same fate. Together with State, Federal Government agencies, 

and concerned stakeholders, we feel that we can develop effective 

solutions to stop the Asian carp in a way that doesn’t sacrifice jobs 

at a time when jobs are on such short supply. 

Mr. Chairman, this prestigious Committee has a history of leadership and finding solutions to complex and challenging public policies without framing them as an either/or decision. The American 

Waterways Operators has committed to working cooperatively to 

ensure a balanced approach to environmental stewardship and economic sustainability for the Great Lakes and the western rivers. 

We are convinced that both goals can be realized. 

We thank you for the opportunity to present today, and we certainly are here to answer any of your questions and concerns. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for testifying on behalf of 

the waterways users. I will come back to you with some further 

questions and comments after we hear all the testimony. 

Mr. Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes, please proceed. 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman 

Edwards and Congressman Petri, for hosting the hearing today. 

My name is Joel Brammeier, and I am the president and CEO 

of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. I am also a steering committee 

member of the Healing Our Waters Coalition. 

I and dozens of dedicated citizens and experts have, for more 

than a decade, advised Federal agencies and the State of Illinois 

on how to stop Asian carp from establishing in the Great Lakes. 

And many of those folks are in this room today. As Dr. Lodge said, 

we can accomplish that task, but only if every choice we make 

30 

today is dedicated to the permanent prevention of Asian carp invasion. 

Behind nearly every invasive species are the hands of human 

intervention. The noble intent for the artificial connection to the 

Mississippi River at Chicago was protection of the city’s drinking 

water. As the 19th-century city grew, sewage-laden rivers flowed 

into Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois reversed the rivers, binding the ecology of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River and 

ultimately leading this potentially devastating invader to the 

shores of Lake Michigan. 

Now, 120 years on, we have added layers of complexity to that 

system. 2.1 billion gallons of water streams past those channel 

walls every day. The system allows more than 35,000 recreational 

boat movements and supports a slowly declining traffic of 20 to 25 

million tons of bulk commodity movements every year. 

The city has built itself with pride on this backbone of a 19thcentury engineering marvel. This connection opened the continent 

to trade, and it kept the city’s rivers from reverting to open sewers. 

But the stark reality that the system created an aquatic superhighway for Asian carp and other invaders calls the question of 

whether it is as critical today as it seemed 120 years ago. 

On the threat itself, others have spoken to that, and I will only 

say that the only reasonable response to the biological pollution of 

invasive species is zero tolerance. There is no diluting their impacts 

to some unnoticed background level. And even if the electrical barriers operate as designed, they will not last forever and they will 

not achieve 100 percent effectiveness. 

The permanent solution is not technology but what we call ′′ecological separation′′ or, simply, no movement of live organisms 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River via the canals, 

up to and including permanent physical barriers. 

Now, this simple idea seems audacious. A close look illuminates 

that sewerage treatment operations over 30 years have dramatically reduced the need for a direct connection between Chicago and 

Lake Michigan. Commodity deliveries and loading are clustered at 

specific parts of the waterways with comparatively little traffic 

moving through downtown Chicago or into Lake Michigan itself. In 

fact, less than 1 percent of freight movement in metro Chicago 

moves between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. Barely 

more than a thousand recreational boats move through Lockport 

Lock annually. We can simply no longer afford to assume that 71 

miles of century-old canals are required to get the job done if the 

job creates a massive liability for the Great Lakes. 

Now, a feasible separation scenario can accommodate the vast 

majority of commodity traffic. It can provide new methods of moving recreational boaters. And, most importantly to this committee, 

it can serve as a one-time payment for 100-percent effective permanent protection. 

Now, this is not a new concept. A 2003 gathering of experts from 

around the world in Chicago set an agenda beyond the electrical 

barriers and agreed that stopping water was the only way to stop 

the stream of invaders. 

Now, we are encouraged that the Corps has committed to an 

interbasin feasibility study, but we are concerned that few steps 

31 

have been taken besides agency coordination nearly 2 years after 

original authorization. The unclear analysis by the Corps of the 

economic impact of short-term changes to the waterway does not 

herald a good start to this process. A rapid, transparent process 

that stands up to citizen and expert scrutiny is the only way to 

yield meaningful results. 

To that end, Federal agencies should do three things: immediately execute a short-term contingency plan with a clear and singular goal of no establishment of Asian carp; take all action necessary, including temporarily altering navigation, to prevent movement of existing carp populations; and, probably most importantly, 

expedite the Chicago portion of the authorized Interbasin Transfer 

Study to be completed by September 30, 2011, with a clear goal of 

100 percent prevention. 

We understand the damage that has already occurred. We can 

predict irreparable harm to the Great Lakes if we fail. We have the 

tools and the knowledge in hand to stop this problem before it 

starts. But a solution is being held hostage by outmoded infrastructure and assumptions that how business has been done is the way 

business has to be done. 

The engineering feat of the Chicago waterway protected Lake 

Michigan, but it transferred costs to others, costs that were not apparent in 1890 but are a hole in the wallet today. This backbone 

of the largest Great Lake’s city must either stretch and strengthen 

with time or it will collapse under its own weight. I look forward 

to working with this Subcommittee and everyone engaged on this 

matter to create a legacy for the waterway that outlasts both me 

and the original projects. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to assisting on any actions the Committee can take to support 

this effort. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Brammeier. 

And to all of the witnesses this afternoon, I would say that, were 

it not for the storm of the half-century, most of the chairs here 

would be filled. The level of Member interest and concern about 

this issue of the Asian carp in the Great Lakes is very high. I had 

numerous requests from Members, nearly everybody in the Subcommittee. And those who are not on our committee, those who 

serve on other committees are very, very deeply concerned. They 

are hearing from their constituents. They are seeing the news reports. This carp has galvanized public concern like no other such 

issue except, perhaps, for the 1968 fire on the Cuyahoga River that 

moved the Nation and the Congress eventually to pass the Clean 

Water Act of 1972. 

Coleridge, in ′′The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,′′ describes the 

ocean as dark, endless, heaving, and mysterious. Dark it certainly 

is. So is Lake Superior on its worst days. Heaving in the midst of 

storms, typhoons, hurricanes. We are beginning to unlock the mystery of the oceans, going deeper than ever before, going down to the 

bottom of the Marianas trough, finding vents in the ocean that 

have temperatures of 700 degrees-plus with creatures still living 

there. 

But endless the oceans are not. It was a form of image by 

Coleridge. And neither are the Great Lakes endless. We haven’t 

32 

unlocked all of their mysteries, but we are getting there. But faster 

than we can address those mysteries, the species that don’t belong 

there, that were not there to begin with, are getting ahead of us. 

And the lakes can’t heal themselves. The native species can’t protect themselves against these invasive predators or plants, like 

purple loosestrife and others. It is only us, who are the custodians, 

who can take these actions. 

And I cited earlier the lamprey eel. So many efforts were made 

to find something to do with the lamprey—catch them, smoke 

them, export them to Sweden. The Swedes had an appetite for 

them for a while, and then that waned. Norwegians thought that 

might be a delicacy, but soon they abandoned it in favor of lefse. 

And there just isn’t anything you can do with these species. 

I mentioned the DDT. I held hearings on the U.S.-Canada Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1985, and we found that the 

United States had banned DDT after Rachel Carson, and yet it was 

being exported to Central America, sprayed on banana plantations 

and the aerosols were caught in the upper atmosphere. And in 14 

days, faster than President Reagan said the Sandinistas could 

reach the U.S. border, DDT was in the Great Lakes. And bald eagles were eating the fish that absorbed the DDT, and the bald 

eagle eggs weren’t forming and the hatchlings died. And something 

was happening far from our shores that we had no way of controlling, except prevent the exportation of DDT. 

Dr. Humphries, you said the carp are at our doorstep. It reminds 

me of an image in the language of my ancestors, the Slovenes: 

[Speaking in foreign language.] ′′We just think about the wolf, and 

it is at our doors.′′ And that is what the carp is; it is at our doors. 

And the Great Lakes can’t wait, said Secretary Frank, which I 

thought was so compelling. 

So what I want all of you to discuss now is we have this draft, 

Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. We have the language of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, which took a great 

deal of bipartisan effort, I must say. And in so expressing, I want 

to once again express my great appreciation for the splendid work 

of Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member on the Republican side, to bring 

a bill forward in a way that had never been done before, open this 

transparency and bipartisanship. And we overrode a presidential 

veto to get that bill passed. 

But it had this particular language, the interbasin study, a longterm action to address the problem of the Asian carp. So all the 

authority necessary exists to bring all of you and all of the other 

entities together. 

Now, I want your commitment and your expression of how you 

are going to do this, both in the short term and the long term. We 

have an immediate issue to be addressed; we have a longer-term 

issue. We have the invasive species that come in through ballast 

water. We have this species that is moving up-lake. 

And, by the way, Mr. Wilkins, that didn’t come in any ballast 

water. The waterway users, the barge operators, they didn’t bring 

this in. It escaped, as we all know, from a fish farm, a catfish farm, 

and didn’t belong there in the first place. 

The Lacey Act is good law, but if it isn’t enforced—just as in the 

late 1970s we passed legislation to outlaw scrimshaw and impose 

33 

enormous penalties to save African elephants and save whales. And 

yet, if you don’t enforce the act, you don’t impose the penalties. We 

have penalties on whaling in our territorial waters, but if it isn’t 

enforced, the whaling continues. Same here, if these laws aren’t enforced, if we don’t have multidisciplinary strategies, we don’t engage the province of Ontario, the Canadian National Government 

and all the States and the Federal agencies together, we are not 

going to be effective. 

So, first of all, while you are thinking about that, about what you 

are going to do and how you are going to continue and how you 

are really going to vigorously implement the authorities available, 

General Peabody, tell me—and thank you again for making the 

long journey, for each of you, for making the extraordinary effort 

to be here. 

We worked out the funding, the shift of authorities and the availability of funds, both under the stimulus program and under the 

regular programs. So describe the work under way now and your 

timeline to meet the completion goal of fall 2010 for this second, 

bigger, more robust electric barrier. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Sir, originally, Barrier 2-B, which, the way I think of it, is effectively a better-looking twin to Barrier 2-A will be executed, thanks 

to $7 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by 

September of this year. 

If we can pull that to the left once the final design for all the 

electronic components, which is under way right now is complete 

and we have awarded the contract and examined the schedule, we 

will do that. 

This barrier gives us redundancy in the Sanitary and Ship 

Canal, which, although there are other vectors, remains the primary avenue of approach for Asian carp up into the Chicago Area 

Waterway System. 

Barrier 1, as a reminder, is a demonstration barrier, which has 

lower operating parameters than Barrier 2-A. Barrier 2-A, as a result of the information that Dr. Lodge and his team provided to us 

this past summer, was taken to higher operating parameters, 

which we know to be, based on laboratory testing of Asian carp of 

all sizes, juvenile and adult, in tanks, to be the optimal parameters 

for the barrier. So the barrier is operating today at its optimal parameters. 

Barrier 2-B will give us that redundancy so we don’t have to go 

through the intensive rotenone application that Mr. Davis talked 

about during his testimony ever again. We would probably have to 

do a minor application, but it would be in a very short, narrow 

stretch of the canal, just a few hundred feet, as opposed to nearly 

six miles. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Does that mean September of this year? 

General PEABODY. Sir, the construction will be done in September. It will take about a month for us to do the operational testing that we need to do to turn it on and make it effective. We expect by the end of October that it will be operating as an effective 

barrier. 

Again, sir, I want to emphasize, once I have a construction 

schedule, I can put that schedule under a microscope, and if there 

34 

is a way for us to accelerate that in any way, we will do so. But 

we have to get the design pieces right now. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Has the electrical current power of the steppedup version been tested on critters that size? 

General PEABODY. I don’t know if they were that large, sir. But 

I think they were as large as a foot and a half in length. I can get 

you the exact dimensions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, if the sound of a motorboat can stimulate 

those size fish that are on display here—and I realize the record 

can’t see my finger pointing over to these models—but if it can 

scare them to jump out of the water, then how much electrical current is needed to do that? 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. Great question. 

The original dispersal barrier, the demonstration barrier, was 

built based on information generally available at the time about 

other dispersal barriers that had been built. And the information 

indicated that fish responded to one volt per inch, which is the primary, but not the only parameter. 

As a result of studies Dr. Mark Pegg did in 2004, he indicated 

that the voltage required to repel the specific species of Asian carp 

could be as high as four volts per inch. Subsequently, we conducted 

(or ‘‘ran’’) additional studies, and what we found was Dr. Pegg had 

it at least partly right. One volt per inch did not seem to be adequate, but, in fact, it was a combination of three variables: the voltage, in this case two volts per inch; the frequency, or how fast this 

pulse rate goes out, because it is not a constant current, it is a 

pulsing DC current that goes out, and 15 hertz is the frequency; 

and then the periodicity of the pulse, which is 6.5 milliseconds, in 

other words, the duration of the pulse. 

Those are the parameters that we are currently applying in Barrier 2-A. I want to caution: These are parameters that have shown 

to be effective in laboratory tank tests, where fish cannot escape 

the electricity. One of two things happens. The fish either attempt 

to swim away, or they swim into the current at these parameters 

and they are rendered unconscious, they are stunned, they float to 

the surface, and they flow away. 

We need to do additional testing using flume tests, with our Engineer Research and Development Center, that will replicate field 

conditions. Right now we don’t have flumes that are large enough 

to replicate those conditions. This is being built this spring. Over 

the course of the summer, we will execute those additional tests, 

and that will further inform our optimal parameters research. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will that include testing this volume of current 

against juvenile fish, as well? 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, all size fish. It is interesting, we were 

going to start testing in smaller flumes this week, and we were unable to do so because when our research and development lab folks 

went out to the laboratories that farm these fish for testing purposes, there were not enough fish available to do the tests. So we 

have had to go to alternative sources. But we will start that next 

week, the small flume test. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Cam Davis, what about my question? Speak for the whole group 

here. What is it going to take to keep this group together under 

35 

the existing legislative authorities provided? And what about funding to sustain this effort in the short term and the long term? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What is it going to take to keep this group together? I have been 

so impressed by how it actually hasn’t taken much. Every single 

agency around this table has come willingly and very helpfully, in 

terms of helping with the rapid response action that we saw in December, in terms of the drafting of this framework. We have seen 

everybody drop everything and push really hard to get this document in front of you that you see now. 

So I don’t see any of that commitment wavering, from where I 

sit. And that is something I can say for the whole group. There is 

not a lot I can say for all other agencies because I don’t represent 

them, but that is one thing I can say absolutely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Are EPA and the Corps the lead agencies here? 

Mr. DAVIS. The EPA has a coordination role. We facilitate the integration of the various steps and actions that you see in this document. We, for example, at EPA do not have authority over the 

locks. We do not have fishery management authority with any one 

of these States, certainly Illinois. 

And, in terms of the lead, we consider ourselves the lead for purposes of making sure that our actions are integrated, that we are 

taking a coordinated approach to solving this problem. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. General Peabody, how is this going to work now? 

Do we have a two-headed leadership here, or do we have one single 

source of direction? 

And I say, the opportunity is greater than we have ever had before. We have a President from the Great Lakes who understands 

the value of this great resource. We have the funding in place, we 

have mechanisms available to us, the scientific community alerted, 

the public is anxious. There has never been a better time than now. 

So I don’t want to lose this momentum by a lack of central leadership. 

General PEABODY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Davis’s remarks. I think the team is united in its intent to come to solutions 

that are effective. The challenges that we have going forward are, 

can we get adequate information upon which to make the best informed and reasoned decisions in a timely manner? That is the 

fundamental challenge. 

I will give you an example. One of the things that we are examining is whether we can apply acoustic and bubble barriers and 

whether we can apply CO2 in or near the locks, to use the locks 

as an effective barrier to the migration of Asian carp. But this is 

just a concept. These are just ideas. We need to go from ideas to 

drawing board to execution. And so we don’t know all the stumbling blocks that we may encounter to execute the engineering that 

will take these ideas and implement them. 

But I can assure you that we intend to implement them as fast 

as possible and that, in coordination with EPA and our other agency partners, we will try to make these measures as effective as possible, as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I can assure you that there will be 

vigilance from this committee, beginning with Mr. Petri, who has 

long been a protector of the Great Lakes. 

36 

Mr. PETRI. May I ask a question? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Such time as the gentleman may consume. 

Mr. PETRI. Okay, I do have a couple of questions. 

First of all, I wondered if I could provide Mr. Wilkins an opportunity to respond to Mr. Brammeier’s testimony about the locks. It 

didn’t sound like you were talking about the same world, because 

you were talking about the tremendous volume of commerce going 

through the locks and the importance to the local community, and 

he was saying it is only 1 percent that goes all the way through, 

and, really, it would not be particularly disruptive to figure out 

strategies to put in a physical barrier between the Great Lakes and 

the Mississippi River. 

Mr. WILKINS. Well, sir, I cannot speak to Mr. Brammeier’s data, 

so I will not. But I can say to you is that, when I hear the statement about the lock closure, basically what it says to me is that 

the U.S. Solicitor General has already stated that the locks themselves are not watertight. I can tell you that in my previous life 

prior to be an administrator, I was a former captain on the inland 

waterway system, and they leaked and they permit the escape of 

water. 

I guess my short answer is that the locks just won’t be a permanent barrier because there is no type of bulkhead in the chamber. 

Given what the major general was saying, how can we use other 

resources to come to a final means of trying to control, because I 

can tell you that we, as AWO, certainly are excited and want to 

continue working with the full team with rational outcomes. 

Mr. PETRI. But could you elaborate on your testimony? I think 

you were talking about a physical barrier, not necessarily relying 

on the locks. 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Certainly, Mr. Petri. I do want to be clear that 

there are two questions at hand today. One is the short term, and 

the other is the long term. And, in my comments, I am speaking 

to the long-term need to separate the Mississippi River from the 

Great Lakes, which is going to require significant investment, new 

authority, and a change in the way we think about the system. 

Just to clarify the data, the numbers that I cited were reflective 

of the volume of commodities moving through the O’Brien Lock on 

the south side of Chicago relative to the total volume of freight 

moving in the Chicago metropolitan area annually. 

Mr. PETRI. And that is—well, you said it was 1 percent of the 

total movement or something? 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Less than 1 percent, yes. And those are the best 

numbers we have, reflective of how much of that cargo actually 

moves from the Mississippi River into the Lake Michigan Basin. 

Now, to be frank, even less of that actually requires a trip into 

Lake Michigan. And so my point here is that the volume of traffic 

that needs to move from the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes 

on the waterway is a very small number relative to the total 

amount of movement on the waterways and, certainly, to the total 

volume moving through the Chicago metro area. 

Mr. PETRI. So most of the movement is going to depots or other 

destinations within the Chicago area but not in Lake Michigan? 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Most but not all, certainly. 

Mr. PETRI. You are saying it is only 1 percent? 

37 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Of the total volume of cargo moving on all 

modes, through all mechanisms through the Chicago metro area, 

yes. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Wilkins? 

Mr. WILKINS. Well, first, I would say ecological separation is a 

huge game changer. Nationally, the policy—that would become a 

policy judgment which says navigation may not be important, and 

I don’t think that is the answer. And regionally, it would eliminate 

a lot of jobs, not just jobs for us in the barge industry, but all the 

subsequent services that rely on that, which is manufacturing, terminals, docks, all of the above. 

As far as the tons that move through the system, it is certainly 

a viable system. It is certainly a system that is continuing to grow. 

We look at the inland waterways system as the most economical 

means of transporting on a cost-per-ton basis when compared to 

other modes. It is very green, very environmentally friendly. So I 

don’t look at it as a dying business or a business that is still not 

viable today and in the future. 

Mr. PETRI. I wish I had more time to go further, but this is an 

area that I think will be of considerable discussion, and we will try 

to come up with a permanent solution, not just for this problem but 

for other invasive species moving both ways through the area. 

And I guess I wanted to ask Mr. Lodge about that. You indicated 

that DNA testing indicates that these Asian carp are already in the 

Great Lakes. And I wanted to ask General Peabody, finally, about 

other vectors. Because in some of the information the Chairman 

has, there is an indication that people may be buying minnows or 

something for fishing, and they could be Asian carp minnows. And 

the next thing you know, the sports fisherman or others are—they 

don’t all get eaten by another fish. Some of them might wiggle off, 

and the next thing you know, they are living in the Great Lakes. 

A lot of different ways that these creatures can get into the lakes. 

People might even inadvertently move them, or intentionally, 

thinking it is a cool thing to do, discharge them into the Great 

Lakes. 

So I guess I wonder if there is no magic bullet, probably, in dealing with the range of possibilities for species getting from the Mississippi Basin into Lake Michigan. But I just wondered if you could 

comment on that a little bit. 

And then, secondly, talk about the habitat in the Great Lakes. 

Is it really conducive to these fish? I mean, there seem to be bottom 

feeders and, sort of, river and pond type fish. The Great Lakes are 

colder and vast. How realistic is the possibility that they will, in 

fact—I mean, maybe a few—but really multiply and dominate the 

food chain, given the different natures of the habitat? 

Mr. LODGE. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I think what I hear is two different questions. One is about what are the pathways and the relative importance of the pathways by which fish might get into the 

canal system above the electric barrier. And the second is about potential impact in the Great Lakes. So let me take those one at a 

time. 

It seems quite clear that the largest potential source of individual Asian carps into the canal system close to Lake Michigan is 

via the canal. We know from lots of lines of evidence, from many 

38 

State and Federal agencies now, that the silver and bighead carps 

are both very abundant south of the electric barrier. So those fish 

are, if you will, stacked up down there, spreading and pushing, if 

you will, against the electric barrier. 

If the electric barrier is less than 100 percent effective or fails 

on occasion or can be circumvented during floods that unite the 

Des Plaines and I&M canal with the Chicago canal, then that is 

a large potential source. So it is reasonable to put the greatest attention on the canal and the barrier system and the steps that 

have already been outlined in the framework for preventing additional fish from south of the barrier from joining those north of the 

barrier. 

Having said that, there clearly are other potential pathways. And 

you have mentioned both, both of the ones that I see as being potentially important. Bait—and Mr. Rogner has already talked 

about a survey the Illinois DNR is going to do to try to assess that. 

I think that is possible. I think that is probably—I mean, we will 

have to see what the data say, but I think these fish, I think particularly the juveniles, are unlikely to do very well in a bait store 

kind of setting. So I doubt that is going to be particularly important, but it could be of some importance. 

The thing that I think has, in the past at least, been clearly more 

important is the intentional release of adult carp. There are several, if not many, ponds in the Chicago metropolitan area that we 

know are inhabited by bighead and/or silver carp. Those carp didn’t 

get there from the canal. They got there because individuals bought 

them and released them. There are some cultural practices that 

have encouraged people to do that in the past. 

Now, in Chicago, in the last few years, that was outlawed, and 

I think Ms. Humphries suggested that is not legal in Michigan anymore. But it could be that that is still happening illegally. It could 

also be that some of those fish north of the barrier have been there 

for a long time. They live 10 years or more. 

So that was perhaps a too-long answer to your first question. 

The second question was about impact to the Great Lakes. I 

think none of us know for certain what the impact would be in the 

Great Lakes. There is only one way to find out, and I don’t think 

any of us want to try that way. 

I think what I would say is that it is very hard to imagine the 

result of an invasion by either silver or bighead carp being positive; 

very difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a net positive outcome. 

And, on the other hand, it is very easy to imagine a catastrophic 

outcome. So somewhere in between those two perhaps is the most 

likely outcome if either silver or bighead were to invade. 

I would offer you a metaphor. We are playing Russian roulette 

with the environment and the economy of the Great Lakes systems 

when we allow access to those species and the other ones that I 

outlined. And, in fact, probably Russian roulette isn’t a very good 

metaphor because it is not like there is only one chamber loaded. 

We have it loaded with two chambers full of Asian carp, silver and 

bighead, and then we have all those other species. So it is not even 

a good metaphor. 

We know that these invasions will happen if additional management steps are not taken to make the canal less permeable to orgaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\54813.0 KAYLA
39 

nisms. And, of course, while we are all sitting here talking, the fish 

are swimming. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for that very thoughtful response and 

for those very thoughtful questions. 

I will come back to Mr. Petri in a bit. Now I want to recognize 

Ms. Edwards and thank her again for beginning the hearing and 

for being here today. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, as always, when 

I show up at the hearing, I learn something, and then I end up 

with questions. So I appreciate the opportunity. 

Since I do come from the Chesapeake Bay region, I mean, one 

of the things that I have been, you know, trying to focus on in this 

hearing are areas of coordination and collaboration among the 

States and Federal agencies. And so, Mr. Davis and General Peabody, I appreciate your indicating the level of enthusiasm that the 

various partners have shown, at least at this stage, in working together and coordinating. 

But some of the experience that I think we have here with the 

Chesapeake Bay and the restoration of the bay and the coordination of efforts within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is that it really does require both presidential leadership, an agency that is really designated to coordinate, and, of course, a Congress that commits the resources that it takes to match the enthusiasm of the 

participating States. 

And there is a piece of that that seems lacking here, in terms of 

really designated coordination. And, Mr. Davis, I would appreciate 

your commenting on that. Because some of the things that we learn 

about the bay and our other regions with invasive species, you 

know, are transferable, and we don’t always have to start from 

scratch. And I wonder if EPA has some thoughts about that and 

what we might gain in terms of its application with the Great 

Lakes region. 

Mr. DAVIS. Sure. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

I think you have pointed out a good trifecta. Presidential leadership: check, we have it. Agency coordination: check, we have it. 

Funding: check, we have it. 

What we haven’t had, to me, in the past is a roadmap that clearly tells the public who has to do what by when using which sources 

of funding. There hasn’t been any one place that people can go to 

say, okay, if I am interested in the locks issue, here is where I go 

to find out about it. If I am interested in fishery carp suppression, 

population suppression measures, here is where I go to find out 

who is in charge of that, when are they going to act, how are they 

going to fund those efforts. 

That is why the release of this yesterday is so absolutely critical. 

Because, for the first time ever, what we have done is we have 

pulled together those answers, in terms of what actions are going 

to be taken, by whom, when, and what the funding sources are. 

So there is nothing about this situation where, as much as we 

all would love to see this, where any one person or any one agency 

can simply pull a lever and this problem goes away or mitigates 

itself in some way. But what we can do is clearly articulate what 

the authorities are, which agencies are undertaking which actions, 

40 

and what the expectations are for when those actions will be started and completed so there is some sense of accountability. 

I think communicating that accountability structure has been 

something that we have desperately needed. And I think we have, 

with this framework, a very good tool for ensuring that accountability. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And do you have any thoughts as to whether you 

have the tools that will be applicable across administrations and 

across Congresses? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I wish I could predict the future with a lot more 

clarity than I have been able to do so far. So it is a great question, 

and it is a tough question to answer. 

I do think that it is worth a try to see this. This framework just 

came out yesterday, and I think we need to give it some time to 

bake and for us to take action with it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But you don’t have a statutory tool? 

Mr. DAVIS. For coordinating? 

Ms. EDWARDS. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Under Clean Water Act Section 118, the EPA does 

have authority to coordinate actions among the Federal agencies. 

So I think that that is clear. We have invoked that authority for 

purposes of this particular issue. 

I think the real question on the table is, have we been able to 

act fast enough? And I think the clear answer is, no, we haven’t. 

I know I have been mindful of and trying to draw attention to this 

issue for more than a half a decade. And now that I am in the job, 

now that we have invoked that authority, I think we are getting 

some traction here. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do any of our other witnesses have a comment 

about the need for that authority more directly than through the 

Clean Water Act? 

General Peabody? 

General PEABODY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Let me just make clear what I understand the Corps’ authorities 

to be and their duration. The authorities that we have specifically 

related to this issue are derived from the authorities to build, operate, and maintain the fish barriers, first of all. 

Second, the study authorities that we have, which are two-fold— 

one is the so-called efficacy study, again authorized in WRDA 2007, 

which tells us to find out whether the fish barrier is effective, one 

of the issues that people have articulated here. We have a variety 

of things that we are doing to address that, to include an interim 

report (approved by Secretary Darcy last month) to go ahead and 

work on these flood bypass potential avenues that Dr. Lodge talked 

about along the Des Plaines River and the Illinois-Michigan canal 

during flood events. 

The third authority is the Great Lakes/Mississippi River 

Interbasin Study, which is the long-term part of the strategy that 

both Mr. Davis and I talked about in our testimony. 

What we don’t have is authority for execution in all cases. We 

have a stop-gap authority that was in the 2010 Energy and Water 

Appropriations Act, Section 126, which gives the Secretary of the 

Army emergency authority to take unspecified measures to prevent 

Asian carp from dispersing northward of the barriers and into Lake 

41 

Michigan. That is a 1-year authority that expires a year from the 

enactment, which I believe is October 28th of this year. 

We have used that authority to execute the construction of these 

flanking waterway barriers that I just referred to. We will continue 

to use that authority going forward through the rest of the year to 

execute some of the ideas in our modified lock operations concept. 

But we lose that execution authority when it expires at the end of 

this fiscal year. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, but if we are going to go back around, I will save them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before I go to Mr. Petri, I think we need a midcourse review. And I would suggest that we convene, optimally this 

panel again, not necessarily in a hearing, but in a roundtable discussion that would be public, and get your assessment of where 

matters stand, where progress is being made by the Corps, by this 

interagency group on the control strategy, so that, as I have discussed informally with Mr. Petri, that is sort of a point of importance for the appropriations cycle. If we need to do something further, appropriations measures are an effective means of doing so. 

If we need more funding or we need additional authority that we 

can include in an appropriations bill, that all would be agreed 

upon, that would be a legislative action, that would be the time to 

do it. 

So we will share our thoughts on what might be an optimal time 

to do that, and we will notify you. But I want all of you to be thinking about early to mid May. 

General PEABODY. When it is warm, that would be preferable, so 

that it is not snowing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ahead of the hurricane season and after the snow 

melts, and come together to discuss where we are, where we are 

going, where we need to go. 

Mr. Petri? 

Mr. PETRI. Well, we are going to be having other meetings, I 

guess, so I just had one quick question that I—do these carp have 

any natural predator in our system or where they come from—I 

guess it must be somewhere in Asia, southeast Asia or wherever— 

in their own habitat? Or are they at the top of their particular situation? 

Yeah, Dr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we should assume that they have no natural predators here, but neither did the common carp. And if you 

give almost any of our native predators a choice, they seem to like 

common carp. So they do tend to select fish with soft rays. 

I don’t think we should persuade ourselves that the fact that 

other fish will eat them will actually impede them from colonizing 

these Great Lakes and doing great harm. We should be pleasantly 

surprised that they are feeding some of our native fishes, but that 

is not really the point, is it? Because they are likely to do their 

damage in the way that they interact in the food web. 

And because they interact in the food web at a low level, they 

could well have the same sort of catastrophic effects that we have 

seen from zebra mussels, where they have essentially rerouted the 

food chain and led to wholesale changes. And our secretary from 

the State of Michigan pointed out that Lake Heron just recently 

42 

underwent a dramatic shift in how that whole ecosystem was structured, probably owing to how zebra mussels restructured things. So 

the Asian carp is a very different animal but in the same position, 

and almost certainly its damage will be caused through that mechanism. 

And I would also like to say that I agree completely with Dr. 

Lodge. These animals will almost certainly be harmful, not helpful. 

So we probably could see some benefits because something will eat 

them, but it is more likely they will be very, very damaging. 

And another point probably needs to be made. The deep cold portions of the Great Lakes probably aren’t where these animals are 

going to be happiest. They are going to be happiest in the nearshore waters, where we have an abundance of streams they can 

swim into to spawn, where we have warmer waters that will be 

more suitable. But those are also some of the most productive systems in the Great Lakes. And history would already show us that, 

at the peak of their productive potential, Lake Erie outproduced all 

the Great Lakes combined. And one species, the cisco, produced 

more fish production than all of the rest of all the species in the 

rest of the lakes combined. 

So Lake Erie is probably the one at greatest risk, and the nearshore waters of Saginaw Bay and Green Bay, where we have extremely valuable fisheries. Those are probably the places where 

this animal will do its greatest damage. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

Just to supplement that, so eagles, fish hawks, osprey have no 

interest in the carp? 

Mr. HANSEN. I certainly didn’t mean to say that. Carp are probably—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. No, you didn’t, I know. But you say they really 

don’t have much challenge from predators. Given the abundance in 

the Illinois River—— 

Mr. HANSEN. They are almost certainly being eaten by things. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. An eagle is not going to pick up a forty-pounder. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, Dr. Lodge? 

Mr. LODGE. If I can just add and build on your point, even if juvenile silver or bighead carp provide food for native fishes, the 

problem is the size of those specimens over there. And those are 

perhaps average size, not even big ones. There is no predator that 

is going to be able to consume an adult. So, from a biological perspective, we refer to that as a size refuge. These fish grow very 

quickly to a size where there will be no predator where they can 

be consumed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, the idea of a fish that has no stomach and 

must continually process water is astounding. 

And, Dr. Hansen, I understand they can be smoked and some 

people might eat them, but they are rather bony, aren’t they? 

Mr. HANSEN. They do support native fisheries in their native 

range. And I guess you could always say, well, that would be a benefit. But, gosh, I hope we don’t go there. So they are probably perfectly suitable in some forms for food. And obviously they could 

43 

support the same kind of economies here if we let them loose, but 

hopefully we wouldn’t. 

One more point about their colonization ability, it seems to me 

this animal is built to colonize new habitats. These fish grow very 

fast, and you can see how big they get. Those fish are probably— 

you would need to look at their ear bones to figure out how old they 

are, but they are probably only 7 or 8 years old. They mature at 

a very young age, and they produce lots of eggs. So they are built 

to colonize these habitats. So if you let too many out, the odds are 

much, much better that they will get a foothold. 

So I think you can probably rest assured that Dr. Lodge detected 

fish upstream of that barrier. His methods are convincing and 

proven. The idea now is, is it enough? Are there enough up there 

to start this off? We should hope there are not. And we should 

probably try at least to get rid of the ones that have gotten above 

there. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think we are all agreed on that point. 

General Peabody, what is the rate of flow of the current through 

the ship canal? And it is from Lake Michigan into the Illinois 

River; therefore, fish have to swim against that current. So a large 

fish can do that rather readily, I suspect. What is the smallest 

size? 

And then, Dr. Lodge, if one of these carp females can produce 

50,000 to a million eggs, can those eggs make their way all by 

themselves against the current? 

General PEABODY. Sir, with reference to the current, it is very 

slow in the Chicago Area Waterway System. As Mr. Davis talked 

about, it is very flat topography. And even though 1 billion gallons 

of water sounds like a lot, it is not a lot when you consider the web 

of canals and rivers that—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, in cubic feet per second, what is the rate? 

General PEABODY. It is less than a foot per second, generally, sir. 

Now, that varies with whether or not you have rains, and it picks 

up during that period. But in terms of how the fish behaves, I 

would defer to the fish experts on the panel. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Dr. Lodge? 

Mr. LODGE. I think you asked specifically if the egg could go upstream, and the answer to that is clearly no. But what is clear from 

the studies that many other biologists have done—I am thinking 

of Duane Chapman at USGS and the book produced by Cindy 

Kolar at the USGS which reviews work from around the globe— 

it is clear that adult Asian carps of both species are oriented toward swimming upstream, particularly in search of spawning 

areas. 

And that is what you see in the canal, both from traditional work 

and from our work. They seem to stack up below barriers, below 

structures. And when they are in the spawning mood, they are 

swimming upstream and can readily do so against substantial currents. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, the experience with salmon, which have to 

swim against tremendous currents in the Fraser River and in the 

Yukon and elsewhere on the west coast, you see them going against 

the falls, and the drive to spawn is just so powerful. And those are 

44 

much smaller than these large-scale carps, so they have huge 

power. 

Director Humphries, it was the State of Michigan that initiated 

legal action, and that action was denied by the U.S. Supreme 

Court, but the underlying issue of authority to act was not addressed by the Court. 

What motivated the State of Michigan to initiate the lawsuit? 

Will the State be satisfied now that there is enough Federal-State 

multi-agency coordination, a concentrated program, a clear strategy 

to attack this issue? Will they be satisfied now to continue cooperating, coordinating? 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. We will continue to cooperate and coordinate 

with our sister States. We have been an active participant despite 

the lawsuit. We worked as part of the rotenone treatments that 

were done last December with our sister agencies, and we will continue to do that. 

Will it satisfy our legal challenges? No. I will tell you, our attorney general office refiled this case last week. The decision was 

made before the latest DNA information was made public, and so 

they have refiled. 

What is at the crux of this is really where we are going with this 

long term. Is our goal to biologically, ecologically, and physically 

separate these watersheds or is it not? And that is what, in our 

conversations with our other agencies and with the Federal Government, we have tried to ascertain, is what is our long-term goal 

here. Because it does make a difference in terms of how we approach the short-term strategies. 

We applaud the efforts that have been done to coordinate activities. We applaud the effort that has been done by the Federal agencies to bring funding to this and to Congress. But, quite frankly, 

we need to do more. And we do not feel that continuing to operate 

the lock structure and the opening waterways that are in place and 

poisoning off those waters on a regular basis in order to facilitate 

that is a sustainable strategy. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So, in short, the State of Michigan welcomes the 

efforts under way but does not consider them to be sufficient. 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. That is correct, at this point in time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. General Peabody, in Louisiana, many, many 

years ago, it was believed to be a great benefit to shipping to dig 

an additional channel to New Orleans from the Gulf, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, commonly known as ′′Mr. Go.′′ On the 

order of six or so freighters use that waterway annually. 

What was perhaps not anticipated—or if it was, it was dismissed—was that the waterway would allow saltwater to penetrate 

all the way up to New Orleans. In that action, the area between 

Lake Borgne and the Mississippi River was destroyed, the wetlands with huge reeds and plant growth that proved to be the barrier against surges in storms and in hurricanes from Lake Borgne, 

such that St. Bernard Parish in Hurricane Katrina was not just hit 

by water, it was washed away. 

The force of the surge from Lake Borgne, with nothing standing 

in its way, swept away—I was there just 6, 7 months after Katrina 

and took a photograph of the first home that bore the brunt of that 

storm. All that was left was a commode. That porcelain piece domiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\54813.0 KAYLA
45 

nated the landscape. It was the only thing that was left. There 

were no watermarks on the homes of St. Bernard Parish because 

they were all overtopped. And several I saw were lifted up with 

their concrete base and floated as much as three blocks away from 

home until they ran into another object that didn’t move. 

And this is all, sort of, parenthetical. But the owner of the home 

that didn’t move and was struck by a moving home sued the intruder for collision damage. And I asked him why. He said, ′′Well, 

there is nothing else for us to do. No one is fixing our problem 

here.′′ 

So we moved, in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 

to close off—give the court authority to close off ′′Mr. Go′′ and divert the Mississippi River, reintroduce fresh water and sediment, 

and to hopefully in time restore the wetland that once was the 

buffer for St. Bernard Parish, which is the home of the Islenos people, the Canary Islanders who came to that area in the 16th and 

17th century. 

So is it possible that closing off navigation, closing off the outlet 

from Lake Michigan would be the definitive answer to movement 

of carp into Lake Michigan and the rest of the Great Lakes? 

General PEABODY. I think your question gets to the heart of the 

matter, sir. 

If I could get the topography slide up, not the structural operations. Great. Thank you. 

Sir, as Mr. Davis indicated in his testimony, this is relatively flat 

topography. If you look, it is a little bit hard to see on the slide, 

but there are some green dots along the edge of Lake Michigan in 

the Chicago area. Starting from north to south, you have the 

Wilmette Pumping Station. And then in the heart of Chicago, you 

have the Chicago locks and controlling works. And then a little bit 

further to the south of that, near the bottom of the dark yellow aspect of the slide, is the O’Brien Lock, a little bit inland, about eight 

miles inland from the lake. Those are the only potential physical 

obstacles, for aquatic species to move between Lake Michigan and 

the Chicago Area Waterway System above the fish barrier. 

If you will notice, to the south and east of the O’Brien Lock and 

Dam, there are two waterways—and it appears there are three 

egress points into Lake Michigan; there are actually only two: the 

Grand Calumet River to the north and the Little Calumet River to 

the south. You are familiar with them, sir, I know. And both of 

those egress into Lake Michigan through the Indiana and the 

Burns Harbor, respectively. 

So one of the challenges that we have is, in addition to the authority that the Corps has to operate those locks and dams for purposes of navigation—and there are some other associated purposes, 

such as water flow management and flood damage reduction—if we 

were to close the locks, this would need to be shown to be effective 

as impediments to Asian carp migration. 

We are actively studying—I want to emphasize this—actively 

studying whether or not we should close the locks, but we need a 

vast amount of information to assess impacts and consequences on 

both sides of the equation; not just impacts and consequences to 

the Great Lakes but the impacts and consequences to commerce, 

transportation, flood damage reduction, and so forth in the Chicago 

46 

area system. This is a very complex issue. There are orders of magnitude impacts, second- and perhaps third-order impacts, that we 

cannot yet understand until we complete our studies, and we are 

going forward with our studies to do that. 

In the meantime, we are actively studying this concept of modified lock operations, which would envision operating the locks differently than we do today. This concept is just an idea that we are 

still considering. I hope to give Secretary Darcy a recommendation 

early next month, about a month from now. But the concept would 

be, instead of just operating the locks so whenever traffic shows up 

we allow it through, we could do a variety of things to impede, not 

prevent, not stop, but impede Asian carp migration through those 

structures. 

They could include such things as maximizing traffic through the 

locks so we reduce the total number of openings and closings of the 

lock gates. They could include taking actions in areas near the 

locks that would attack the Asian carp populations that might be 

present so that, when we do have periods where the locks are open 

for navigation traffic, there is a lower or reduced likelihood that 

the Asian carp might pass through. And they could include putting 

screens during flooding events in the locks, as well as the sluice 

gates, which need to be open for reverse flows to prevent really 

massive flooding in the Chicagoland area. 

The bottom line is, whatever measures we take, they need to be 

effective. And we definitely need to take actions along the Little 

Cal and the Grand Calumet Rivers in association with any actions 

we are considering to take along the locks. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for that thorough and complex response. I appreciate it very much. The question is a hard one. It 

has to be asked, and I asked it in the context that I did because 

I think it is very instructive for us to learn from the experience of 

the lower Mississippi River. 

And I appreciate very much, also, your attention, attentiveness 

to the consequences for navigation or shipping for commerce as 

well as the environmental importance of this. We cannot have one 

instead of the other or say they cancel each other out. I think we 

have to do this in the context of the way you presented it. I think 

that is well thought out. 

Mr. Petri? 

Mr. PETRI. No, I am fine. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple of questions for you, Professor Lodge and Dr. Hansen, about biology. 

Can you tell me, Professor Lodge, what a positive test for Asian 

carp DNA means on the likelihood that a live carp has passed by 

the location where the sample is taken? And I think that there is 

some variation in terms of how long that sample lasts to show 

presence. 

And, also, if you could answer for me whether there is some entity that coordinates research about the biology of the carp, its habitat, et cetera, and who pulls all that together. 

Mr. LODGE. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards. 

47 

Your first question, what does a positive DNA result mean? With 

a very high probability, it means that a live carp has been or is 

close by or close upstream within the last 6 to 48 hours. That is 

what I believe it means. 

While it is possible that—I mean, you can imagine a number of 

scenarios by which DNA might be present without a live carp being 

present, while there are possibilities, they are not very plausible. 

And they are certainly insufficient to explain the overall repeated 

spatial pattern that I showed you in the canal. So when we have 

been back to places three or four times, the result is the same. 

So, while there are other possibilities, they are not a plausible 

explanation for the overall pattern. So the short answer is, it 

means there is a live fish close by, and it has been there in the 

not-very-distant past. 

Your second question is about—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. About coordination of research. 

Mr. LODGE. I think there is no entity. There may be other panel 

members who can speak to that better. I think perhaps the framework document and the plans that were put out yesterday may be 

the closest thing that exists to a coordinated plan of study of Asian 

carps. But others may have a more informed answer than mine. 

Ms. EDWARDS. If not, I mean, I guess my question goes to whether, for example, we know enough about the reproductive cycle to 

begin to interfere with that? And what research is available, for example, that might tell us whether we could perhaps pretreat vessels coming through so that it would potentially kill eggs passing 

through? Things like that. 

Because, I mean, there must be some way that, either through 

your university research or other research, that the participating 

States are able to identify the need-to-know list and then check 

that off to get to some of the prevention efforts that I think, Dr. 

Hansen, in your testimony, you indicated a need to focus more on 

that prevention. And I don’t know how you do that without identifying and coordinating research. 

Mr. HANSEN. I agree with Dr. Lodge, I don’t think any single entity coordinates all the research. But the thing to remember about 

these animals is that they have been fairly well studied in their native range, so the overall biological attributes that they have are 

fairly well understood. 

And that information was essentially assembled in the two risk 

analyses that were done, one in the U.S. by the people that Dr. 

Lodge mentioned and there was a companion or similar piece done 

in Canada. So we know quite a bit about their biology. 

And the studies that have been done on the Illinois River by researchers in Illinois basically converge on the same sort of information. Hence, we know that they have a fundamental ability to grow 

fast, get large, have lots of eggs. We know approximately when you 

would expect them to spawn, what they look for. 

And those elements of their biology were used in the risk analysis to essentially say, we think we know where they will live, like 

these near-shore waters or shallower, cooler habitats, and they are 

probably not going to like the really open, colder waters. They 

would likely want to spawn in streams. So we would find them in 

those areas. 

48 

I think many of the things we would want to know from a control 

perspective we probably already know. The question is, what tools 

do we have to bring to bear on some of those control methods? 

We studied the lamprey very hard to find a very specific toxicant 

that would target its juveniles when they were living in streams. 

And we got maybe lucky or not, but we have found a chemical that 

has worked and is the primary thing that we fire against them. We 

don’t have that same sort of technology sitting there waiting for the 

Asian carp, so we would have to think about this more broadly and 

employ some of the things we can do, like catch them. We now apparently can detect them at fairly low numbers using Dr. Lodge’s 

technology, but what do we do to control them? 

That is what I meant about we don’t have a lot that we have in 

the gun right now that we could shoot that specifically aims at 

these species. The things we do know are more general, like rotenone, like fishing, and those sorts of things. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But rotenone just kills everything. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, absolutely. It is not specific like the chemical 

we deploy for lampreys. And that is obviously what the best thing 

would be. If we had a chemical you could throw into the river and 

it only killed carp, that would be great. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, this idea of biological control, I remember at 

the height of the zebra mussel concern, some researcher said, ′′Oh, 

we have found a diving duck in the Black Sea that eats the zebra 

mussels, and maybe we could bring that over here.′′ My first question was, who is its control? There are so many of these control 

mechanisms in species that we have brought in to control a runaway creature or plant that then become runaway on their own. 

Whoever or whatever that creature is, let’s not bring it in, because 

they will become a menace on its own. 

Well, before I close, I want to ask unanimous consent for Members who were not able to be present today to submit questions in 

writing to members of the panel and for you to submit responses 

for the record. 

And, secondly, I will ask staff to work with the stenographer 

team to produce the transcript as soon as possible so we can distribute it to Members who were not able to be here, for them to 

review and upon which to ask for their questions. 

But now we have been firing at you. Do you have any questions 

for each other or for us? It is not like church, you know. You don’t 

have to pray about this. 

Mr. Wilkins? 

Mr. WILKINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just come back to underscore one point around the sense of urgency. 

And the Federal framework currently in place, I mean, it has 

promising measures that we all support. And I think that if it 

comes down to looking at modified lock schedules or something of 

this sort, we would highly recommend that we exhaust every other 

option to stop the carp or impede the carp before we look at the 

effectiveness of closing the locks, and certainly take time to understand that. 

We work closely with the Corps of Engineers and with the Coast 

Guard. AWO has had a long history of that type of collaboration 

49 

and working-togetherness, and we think we can apply that to this 

measure, as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. No question about the AWO and their 

participation and their cooperation. It is a great organization, and 

they have a very balanced view on matters of this kind, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. Brammeier? 

Mr. BRAMMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to draw some attention to something you noted 

earlier, which is that these next few years are a tremendous opportunity. You pointed out that we have a Great Lakes President who 

understands what the lakes means to the region. This is a great 

time to be thinking about thinking big and what we need to do, not 

just in the short term to stop these fish from getting in tomorrow, 

but how we can make changes for the long term so we don’t have 

to be here 5 or 10 years from now, having this same discussion. 

So now is certainly the time, and this is a tremendous opportunity to think big about solving this problem. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. And the Chair intends to seize this 

opportunity and pursue it, as we did in the Water Resources Development Act and in the Coast Guard authorization bill that has 

passed the House twice and is languishing over in the place I affectionately called the black hole, the other body. It is a galactic black 

hole. You know what happens in outer space? Stars become bigger 

and bigger, and finally they condense and collapse upon themselves, becoming enormous powers and suck everything else into it, 

from which not even light can escape. That is what is happening 

in the other body. 

None of you need comment, but that is the way I feel about 

them. This Committee has sent them a lot of legislative authority; 

they just haven’t acted on it. So we are hoping that maybe some 

light will escape from the other body and we will see something 

happen. 

But we have put in place a framework within which EPA for ballast water will set the standard and the U.S. Coast Guard will be 

the implementing agency, drawing upon all other authorities and 

resources from the Great Lakes and the universities, the intellectual capabilities that we have. And we had in place a protocol and 

an agreement with one of the lake carriers on the Great Lakes and 

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory to test various 

methods of treating ballast water, both for the lakers and for the 

salties. And something fell apart. We just couldn’t get it together 

at the right time. Actually, we needed further authority in the 

Coast Guard bill that we passed; the Senate never acted on it. 

Those are the kinds of missed opportunities. Let’s not miss that 

opportunity here. So we will convene this group again in May in 

the understanding that this is a continuing effort. Today’s hearing 

is not definitive. 

Your work is much appreciated. I know that my colleagues on 

the Committee were very much looking forward to this testimony, 

to this day. And I know that Mr. Petri will continue to support the 

effort and lead, as he has done, in cooperation with Mr. Ehlers, 

Mrs. Miller, and others on our committee. 

Mr. Petri, any final comment? 

50 

Mr. PETRI. No, just thank you, and thank all of you for the time 

that you have put in preparing this testimony. And we hope you 

make it safely back whence you came. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, we wish you all a safe journey home, despite 

the Washington snows. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 54813.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 54813.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 54813.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 54813.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 54813.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 54813.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 54813.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 54813.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 54813.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 54813.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 54813.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 54813.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 54813.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 54813.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 54813.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 54813.030
67 


Insert offset folio 31 here 54813.031
68 


Insert offset folio 32 here 54813.032
69 


Insert offset folio 33 here 54813.033
70 


Insert offset folio 34 here 54813.034
71 


Insert offset folio 35 here 54813.035
72 


Insert offset folio 36 here 54813.036
73 


Insert offset folio 37 here 54813.037
74 


Insert offset folio 38 here 54813.038
75 


Insert offset folio 39 here 54813.039
76 


Insert offset folio 40 here 54813.040
77 


Insert offset folio 41 here 54813.041
78 


Insert offset folio 42 here 54813.042
79 


Insert offset folio 43 here 54813.043
80 


Insert offset folio 44 here 54813.044
81 


Insert offset folio 45 here 54813.045
82 


Insert offset folio 46 here 54813.046
83 


Insert offset folio 47 here 54813.047
84 


Insert offset folio 48 here 54813.048
85 


Insert offset folio 49 here 54813.049
86 


Insert offset folio 50 here 54813.050
87 


Insert offset folio 51 here 54813.051
88 


Insert offset folio 52 here 54813.052
89 


Insert offset folio 53 here 54813.053
90 


Insert offset folio 54 here 54813.054
91 


Insert offset folio 55 here 54813.055
92 


Insert offset folio 56 here 54813.056
93 


Insert offset folio 57 here 54813.057
94 


Insert offset folio 58 here 54813.058
95 


Insert offset folio 59 here 54813.059
96 


Insert offset folio 60 here 54813.060
97 


Insert offset folio 61 here 54813.061
98 


Insert offset folio 62 here 54813.062
99 


Insert offset folio 63 here 54813.063
100 


Insert offset folio 64 here 54813.064
101 


Insert offset folio 65 here 54813.065
102 


Insert offset folio 66 here 54813.066
103 


Insert offset folio 67 here 54813.067
104 


Insert offset folio 68 here 54813.068
105 


Insert offset folio 69 here 54813.069
106 


Insert offset folio 70 here 54813.070
107 


Insert offset folio 71 here 54813.071
108 


Insert offset folio 72 here 54813.072
109 


Insert offset folio 73 here 54813.073
110 


Insert offset folio 74 here 54813.074
111 


Insert offset folio 75 here 54813.075
112 


Insert offset folio 76 here 54813.076
113 


Insert offset folio 77 here 54813.077
114 


Insert offset folio 78 here 54813.078
115 


Insert offset folio 79 here 54813.079
116 


Insert offset folio 80 here 54813.080
117 


Insert offset folio 81 here 54813.081
118 


Insert offset folio 82 here 54813.082
119 


Insert offset folio 83 here 54813.083
120 


Insert offset folio 84 here 54813.084
121 


Insert offset folio 85 here 54813.085
122 


Insert offset folio 86 here 54813.086
123 


Insert offset folio 87 here 54813.087
124 


Insert offset folio 88 here 54813.088
125 


Insert offset folio 89 here 54813.089
126 


Insert offset folio 90 here 54813.090
127 


Insert offset folio 91 here 54813.091
128 


Insert offset folio 92 here 54813.092
129 


Insert offset folio 93 here 54813.093
130 


Insert offset folio 94 here 54813.094
131 


Insert offset folio 95 here 54813.095
132 


Insert offset folio 96 here 54813.096
133 


Insert offset folio 97 here 54813.097
134 


Insert offset folio 98 here 54813.098
135 


Insert offset folio 99 here 54813.099
136 


Insert offset folio 100 here 54813.100
137 


Insert offset folio 101 here 54813.101
138 


Insert offset folio 102 here 54813.102
139 


Insert offset folio 103 here 54813.103
140 


Insert offset folio 104 here 54813.104
141 


Insert offset folio 105 here 54813.105
142 


Insert offset folio 106 here 54813.106
143 


Insert offset folio 107 here 54813.107
144 


Insert offset folio 108 here 54813.108
145 


Insert offset folio 109 here 54813.109
146 


Insert offset folio 110 here 54813.110
147 


Insert offset folio 111 here 54813.111
148 


Insert offset folio 112 here 54813.112
149 


Insert offset folio 113 here 54813.113
150 


Insert offset folio 114 here 54813.114
151 


Insert offset folio 115 here 54813.115
152 


Insert offset folio 116 here 54813.116
153 


Insert offset folio 117 here 54813.117
154 


Insert offset folio 118 here 54813.118
155 


Insert offset folio 119 here 54813.119
156 


Insert offset folio 120 here 54813.120
157 


Insert offset folio 121 here 54813.121
158 


Insert offset folio 122 here 54813.122
159 


Insert offset folio 123 here 54813.123
160 


Insert offset folio 124 here 54813.124
161 


Insert offset folio 125 here 54813.125
162 


Insert offset folio 126 here 54813.126
163 


Insert offset folio 127 here 54813.127
164 


Insert offset folio 128 here 54813.128
165 


Insert offset folio 129 here 54813.129
166 


Insert offset folio 130 here 54813.130
167 


Insert offset folio 131 here 54813.131
168 


Insert offset folio 132 here 54813.132
169 


Insert offset folio 133 here 54813.133
170 


Insert offset folio 134 here 54813.134
171 


Insert offset folio 135 here 54813.135
172 


Insert offset folio 136 here 54813.136
173 


Insert offset folio 137 here 54813.137
174 


Insert offset folio 138 here 54813.138
175 


Insert offset folio 139 here 54813.139
176 


Insert offset folio 140 here 54813.140
177 


Insert offset folio 141 here 54813.141
178 


Insert offset folio 142 here 54813.142
179 


Insert offset folio 143 here 54813.143
180 


Insert offset folio 144 here 54813.144
181 


Insert offset folio 145 here 54813.145
182 


Insert offset folio 146 here 54813.146
183 


Insert offset folio 147 here 54813.147
184 


Insert offset folio 148 here 54813.148
185 


Insert offset folio 149 here 54813.149
186 


Insert offset folio 150 here 54813.150
187 


Insert offset folio 151 here 54813.151
188 


Insert offset folio 152 here 54813.152
189 


Insert offset folio 153 here 54813.153
190 


Insert offset folio 154 here 54813.154
191 


Insert offset folio 155 here 54813.155
192 


Insert offset folio 156 here 54813.156
193 


Insert offset folio 157 here 54813.157
194 


Insert offset folio 158 here 54813.158
195 


Insert offset folio 159 here 54813.159
196 


Insert offset folio 160 here 54813.160
197 


Insert offset folio 161 here 54813.161
198 


Insert offset folio 162 here 54813.162
199 


Insert offset folio 163 here 54813.163
200 


Insert offset folio 164 here 54813.164
201 


Insert offset folio 165 here 54813.165
202 


Insert offset folio 166 here 54813.166
203 


Insert offset folio 167 here 54813.167
204 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 168 here 54813.168