Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. It is a real pleasure to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is David Ullrich. I am executive director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. I also serve as a U.S. commissioner on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a joint U.S.-Canadian effort to work with the fisheries in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is a coalition of 90 U.S. and Canadian mayors who have banded together to advance the long-term sustainability—economically, socially, environmentally—of this great resource that we share in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence.
Invasive species pose really one of the greatest threats that we face on the Great Lakes as two countries trying to protect the resource. With well over 180 invasive species introduced over the years, the biological balance has been severely disrupted by such things as sea lampreys, round gobies, zebra and quagga mussels, and many more.
Even with all of the damage that already has been done by these invasive species, the Great Lakes community is exceedingly concerned over the threat posed by the silver, black, and bighead, collectively referred to as Asian carp. Many believe they could have a devastating effect on the $7-billion Great Lakes fishery that we enjoy.
Because it is virtually impossible to eradicate an invasive species once they are established, by far the most effect way to deal with them is to prevent their introduction in the first place. The invasive carp, I am embarrassed to say, were introduced legally into the southern part of the United States to control algal growth and plankton in fish farms back in the 1970s. They escaped into the Mississippi River system over the years as a result of flooding and by other means. They have spread as far north as Minnesota and Wisconsin, and have as many as 19 separate places where they could enter into the Great Lakes.
The cities initiative, that is, our organization in collaboration with the Great Lakes commission—amounting to eight Great Lakes states and two Canadian provinces as affiliate members—completed a report on January 31, 2012 that focused on one of the places of potential introduction known as the Chicago Area Waterway System, or CAWS, because it appears to present the greatest risk of entry to the Great Lakes. The report also concentrates on physical separation as the approach most likely to stop the invasive carp and a total of 39 invasive species likely to move between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins in the near future. It is very much a two-way street.
The report demonstrates that physical separation is feasible, and provides reliable information to decision-makers on a much more accelerated schedule than the normal government processes. The report demonstrates not only the feasibility of installing barriers of earthen fill, concrete, and sheet piling to create the physical separation, but also that it can be accomplished while maintaining or improving water quality, flood control, and transportation.
This is no easy task, as the 130-mile waterway system constructed over the past century resulted in a reversal of the flow away from Lake Michigan toward the Illinois River. As with any major infrastructure project, it would not be inexpensive. Initial estimates range from $3.25 billion U.S. to $9.5 billion U.S., with the cost of the actual barriers being a very small portion of the total, estimated in the range of $100 million to $150 million.
The report develops three alternatives after considering 20 potential barrier locations. The three alternatives are “near lake”, using a group of five barriers; “mid-system”, using four barriers; and “down river”, using one barrier. They are named based on their proximity to Lake Michigan.
I did provide the staff a copy of a map. I don't know if it got translated and into your materials, but this will give you a sense of the system we are working with.
Because there are five entry points to the lake in this system, more barriers are needed if they are constructed closer to the lake. Although there is not a consensus recommendation, the mid-system alternative seems to represent the most cost-effective solution. These alternatives were developed over a 12-month period with extensive public, private, and non-governmental participation, including representation from Canada.
With the results of the report available, the cities initiative and the Great Lakes Commission are working with a variety of interests to accelerate the process of selecting the best solution to the problem of invasive carp and other invasive species in and near the Chicago Area Waterway System and proceeding with implementation. Time is of the essence, and full cooperation between the United States and Canada will be essential for the ultimate success of this effort.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to entertain any questions any of the members might have.