The Asian Carp Problem is Worth Carping About for Ohioans

Just when I thought I could stop carping about the Asian carp, someone sent me a copy of Michael Scott’s Cleveland Plain Dealer article from March 12 about a new Life Science Investigation for middle school students.  Scott’s article is at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/bad_carp_good_algae_and_ugly_u.html and the LSI program can be found at http://wviz.org/lsi .  The program contains eight video segments and a number of links that teachers can give to the students for additional research.  It is an exceptionally thorough piece of work by the Great Lakes Science Center and WVIZ.

In light of the two recent Ontario convictions for attempted importation of Asian carp at the Bluewater and Ambassador bridges, it’s clear that live Asian carp were transported through the Great Lakes watershed by truck.  One of the convicted importers owns a fish farm in Peru, Indiana, which is within about 25 miles of the Lake Erie watershed. 

The Army Corps has acknowledged that feral Asian Carp are in the Wabash watershed within 25 miles of the upper limits of the neighboring Maumee watershed.  There is a valid concern for a transfer between the watersheds in the case of flooding.  However, there had been no mention of fish farm operations in the area.  The owner of the Indiana fish farm arrested at the Canadian border has told reporters that the fish were trucked from a southern United States fish farm.  http://blogs.wlfi.com/2011/03/08/illegal-in-carp-shipment-netted-in-canada/ .

The federal law governing the import of “injurious fish” into the United States is the Lacy Act.  However, the Lacey Act does not regulate intrastate transfers unless the receiving state has regulations in place that criminalize live fish possession.  The Lacey act has recently been updated to include the Big Head carp but is widely regarded as too little too late.  While it prohibits importation, it does little to regulate interstate transport since few states have laws against live Asian carp possession.

In 2007, The Asian Carp Working Group, consisting of 66 government employees and other interested parties, generated a report identifying 22 “pathways” for introduction of the Asian carp into the Great Lakes.  The Working Group roster indicates that Ohio was not represented.  The Working Group’s 223 page report identified a myriad of introduction opportunities and clarified that totally preventing introduction may be next to impossible.  The report can be read at http://www.asiancarp.org/documents/Carps_Management_Plan.pdf .

The latest Control Strategy Matrix (Jan 2011) includes 33 million dollars of requested funding and is online at: http://asiancarp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2011-Matrix-Dec30.pdf .

After reviewing the on-line information, I am convinced that, unless all of the Great Lakes states simply ban possession of live Asian Carp in the same manner that Ontario has, the Asian carp will eventually enter the Great Lakes.  Ontario’s position is clearly and unequivocally stated in their law.  You simply cannot possess live Asian carp anywhere in the Province for any reason.  We should promulgate similar laws in Ohio and in the other Great Lakes states.

Clearly, Ohio’s Lake Erie estuaries, such as Sandusky Bay, Old Woman Creek, East Harbor, and the many Black Swamp marshes will become ground zero for the propagation of the Asian carp if they make it to Lake Erie waters. 

In the 1880’s, the Federal Government intentionally introduced imported German carp to Lake Erie to compensate for over-fishing of the native stocks.  In a span of 130 years the German carp of 1880 became the “common carp” of today.  The effects of “common carp” on our ecosystem are discussed in Video 5 of the Public Television/Great Lakes Science Center middle school video series referenced in the first paragraph of this posting.  http://wviz.org/lsi/interior

If possession of live Asian carp is not banned throughout the Great Lakes region, they seem destined to become the “common carp” of 2111.  It is clear that no one knows for sure what damage these fish can cause.  I don’t think we want to find out and I see no upside to letting them in without putting up a good fight. 

I urge government action to address all of the potential introduction pathways and not just the Chicago River connections on which the Army Corps of Engineers has focused to date.

A Busy Week for the U.S. Carp Professionals and Canadian Carp Cops

February 8 was the twelfth and final regional NEPA Public Scoping Meeting conducted by the Chicago Army Corps of Engineers Office on GLMRIS, (the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study.)  In English, that means “How are we going to keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes”  The meeting was in Ann Arbor and was well attended.

John Goss, President Obama’s Carp Czar attended the meeting.  Mr. Goss’ background includes serving as Indiana’s DNR under two governors and for four years as the executive director of the Indiana National Wildlife Federation.  See: http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/09/us-names-asian-carp-czar.html

As the twelfth in the series of NEPA meetings on the Asian carp problem from Minneapolis to New Orleans, it was a well-orchestrated presentation followed by an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.  Comments can also be submitted in writing or on-line until the end of the month.  Major General John Peabody, head of the Army Corps’ Great Lakes and Ohio River Division led the meeting.

For more background information or to comment, see the GLMRIS NEPA website at: http://glmris.anl.gov/involve/whatisscoping/index.cfm .  All of the public comments, both written and oral, will be put on-line next month.

The oral comments were overwhelmingly in favor of preventing the Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes and doing it quickly.  Many of the public comments sought to clarify that prevention should mean 100% prohibition and not just “discouraging entry” to some level deemed economically feasible based on a Corps analysis.  Many comments also addressed the need for a sense of urgency and considered the five year scoping study timeframe unacceptable, citing the fact that it had been more than a decade since Asian carp escaped from a southern fish farm.  

Reportedly, the fish were first imported in the 1970’s to southern fish farms.  http://detnews.com/article/20110308/METRO/103080373/Feds-defend-carp-strategy-at-Ypsilanti-meeting

A SCARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CARP STORY

While the Carp Czar and the Chicago Corps were meeting with the public to scope their study, reports of live Asian Carp crossing both the St Clair and Detroit Rivers were reaching the press.  Of course, at the present time, the carp had to do this by truck and, fortunately, they were stopped by the Ontario law enforcement officials.  It seems Ontario has wisely already outlawed the transport of live Asian carp.

The Detroit River crossing was first reported over the weekend.  The St. Clair River Crossing was first reported on Tuesday.  During the week the story expanded and, by Friday, we learned from D’Arcy Egan of the Plain Dealer that the Toronto Chinese community sometimes celebrate with a pair of live Carp by eating one and releasing the other for good luck.  Egan’s article is at http://www.cleveland.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/03/sales_of_live_asian_carp_threa.html   

For many of the other carp articles this past week, check the GLIN.net archives at:  http://www.glin.net/news/inthenews.html

ANOTHER EXTENSIVE CARP INFORMATION SOURCE

In an earlier post, I mentioned finding references to the introduction of German carp to the Great Lakes area by the federal government.  At the time, I was trying to understand the differences between historic Lake Erie fishing practices employing seine fishing and pound fishing technology.  As a byproduct of that research, I have now found an excellent on-line information source on the entire German carp importation history and its effects.

For those of you wanting to understand what damages the Asian carp can do in greater detail, check out the 1904 Report of the Bureau of Fisheries.  Pages 524-641 present a factual retrospective analysis of the last carp crisis on the Great Lakes after the damage was done.  The entire report is on-line at:  http://www.archive.org/details/reportofbureauoff1904unit

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?

There are two disturbing things about this week’s Asian carp developments. 

·        First, they are here already, having come by truck. 

·        Second, some were trucked in by a Peru, Indiana, fish farm operator. 

Sort of makes you wonder if the Great Lakes states should copy and enforce the law used in Ontario.  Let’s stop the carp before they reach the Bluewater and Ambassador Bridges.  Doesn’t sound too hard to me and doesn’t require a five year scoping study  - just find and copy the Canadian law.

Unfortunately, I’m sure the Chicago Army Corps Office will correctly find that such laws are beyond their jurisdiction.  However, maybe we can seek the help of the Carp Czar, who is also from Indiana, (a Great Lakes State,) has run a Department of Natural Resources, and is connected in high places.  Just a thought.  Start writing your state officials if you care.

Why Pound Fishing Replaced Seine Fishing on Lake Erie

In a previous post, I  explained how and why the Fisheries Commision encouraged the introduction of (european) carp into the Great Lakes to address the dwindling fish supply in the 1880's.  In that post, I also mentioned that I came upon the references to the carp introduction as a diversion from trying to understand why the Sandusky area commercial fishing industry changed from "seine fishing" to "pound fishing" around 1860.  It's time to get back to understanding seines and pounds and why they were so important to Lake Erie's expanding fishing industry in the second half of the 19th century.

The change in technology was clearly important to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Sloan v. Biemiller
34 Ohio St. 492(1878).  As it turns out, the change was made simply to take advantage of the higher productivity of the pound method.  A smaller crew could harvest more fish in far less time.  After all, the bounty of the lakes was free for the taking and was limitless - at least under the common wisdom of the day. 

The other thing that happened with seine to pound changeover was that fishing was no longer under the control of the landowner in possession of the shore.  Commercial fishing with seines had to be done from the shore.  Pound fishing was done from pound boats.  The pound boats became the pick-up trucks of Sandusky Bay by the 1880's. Shore access was no longer required and was irrelevant for pound fishing. 

In fact, seine fishing continued to be done from the shore on the Detroit River long after the conversion to pound fishing on Lake Erie.  With time, the equipment was vastly improved with mechanical net retreival systems but it remained labor intensive.  Pound fishing was, of course, impractical on the River because of the impairment of navigation created with the net stakes and extensive leaders required for a commercial pound system.  To this day, net stakes are shown on Lake Erie navigation charts.  The following figures are from the Fishery Commision report to the 50th Congress are were obtained from the Washington University sites provided in the links.

Typical Pound Fishing Arrangement

Lifting the Pot on Lake Erie Pound Fishing System

Seine Fishing From Grassy Island on Detroit River

In the near future, we'll begin to explore the past, present and future of East Harbor State Park's once wonderful beach.  We will explore how the East Harbor Beach has responded to past level changes, storm events and  governmental "fixes."  We'll also crystal ball what's likely to happen in the future.

  

Fortunately, East Harbor's Beach has a citizen group intensely interested in it's restoration.  Beachaideastharbor has been a key advocate for the Beach at East Harbor for nearly a decade.  Their website is at http://beachaideastharbor.com/.

New At East Harbor

East Harbor
We took advantage of the sunshire earlier this week to visit East Harbor and see what's new.  It appears that there has been a good ice cover all winter and there has been little sand blown from the beach over the parking lot.  Hopefully, the near shore ice can remain for a few weeks.

The South parking lot is the scene of a pipe welding operation which appears to be assembling lots of plastic sewage pipe - presumably for a restroom upgrade at some point on the beach.  We'll try to find out more.

There is also a new paved parking area near the north turnaround.

Ohioans Should Be Concerned About The Feds Messing With Lake Erie Levels

I had been planning to blog about the International Upper Great Lakes Levels Study (IUGLS)and its implications for Lake Erie in a series of future posts.  When the Army Corps subscription notification of the Monthly Levels Bulletin arrived in my in-box this morning, as is my practice, I clicked my way to the Lake Erie levels chart for the month at:

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=3883

Once there, I realized that there was a strange dip in the Lake Erie level for the past month.  Such a dip, but to a lesser degree, occurred in February 2010 as the result of an ice jam on the St Clair River.  To check the cause of this year’s dip, I clicked the link to the chart which displays the six month projection for all the lakes at:

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=3887

Sure enough, there was another St Clair River ice jam this year.  Amazingly, this year’s jam was apparently worse than last year’s and earned a special note on the Lake St Clair chart.  Even more amazing, this year’s jam was sufficiently bad to affect not only Lakes St Clair and Erie, but also Lake Ontario.  As the chart shows, Lake Ontario was totally unaffected by last year’s St Clair River Jam.

For those unfamiliar with the IUGLS activity, it has been ongoing for about five years.  The documentation of the study activities to date and the overall plan is available at http://www.iugls.org/ .  The study has an extensive public input activity and has held meetings around the Great Lakes over the past years.  The public comments received in 2009 are at the following location:

http://pub.iugls.org/en/Other_Publications/Public_Questions_and_Comments.pdf   

I was the author of “Comment 9” on page 8 which reads as follows.

I attended the IUGLS presentations in Toledo and Cleveland and reviewed the draft report and project summaries. I am a life‐long resident of Northern Ohio, a Great Lakes boater for 40 years, and a lakefront property owner for 18 years.

I was, in general, positively impressed by the preliminary results to date. It is clearly a vast improvement over the control algorithm that has governed the control of the Lake Superior outflow for the past several decades. I hope that the results of the multiple studies will be applied to the improvement of the IJC control algorithms. I do not believe that control structures in the St. Clair River are advisable at the present time and I am deeply concerned that the impact of any such structures on Lake Erie has not been fully evaluated. Lake levels should be allowed to follow their natural seasonal patterns to the extent possible with the minimum amount of human intervention.

There is clearly a conflict between the interests of various lake users as well as conflicts between similar users in different areas. For example, what is good for Georgian Bay property owners is bad for property owners along the Michigan/Lake Michigan coastline and any changes will clearly affect all users of the Great Lakes.

I believe that the most valuable portions of the present study were those dealing with climate change and isostatic rebound. The climate change segments clearly indicated the shortcoming of the Residual NBS determination approach that has been used for decades. I hope alternate approaches will be adopted.

The change in calculation methods for isostatic rebound using the basin outlet locations rather than basin averages is also an improvement over past practice. Isostatic rebound is a fact of nature that all residents must live with. It should be pointed out that Edwin Moseley looked at Isostatic rebound along the south shore of Lake Erie more than a hundred years ago. He predicted that Port Clinton Ohio would be underwater by now. He was wrong. In the future, the science of GPS should allow more and more accurate evaluations/predictions of rebound as the science develops.  I hope it will be used to its fullest capability.

The least encouraging portion of the presently used science is the continued use of outdated and inappropriate approaches for evaluating the river flow conditions. The use of “Manning’s equation” for control purposes by the IJC is inappropriate. When Manning derived it 120 years, he established its limits of applicability and these are not met by the conditions of the St Clair River. The so‐called “weed factors” and “ice factors” seems to have little correlation to what actually exists in the rivers. I see little value in the high resolution static analysis of a highly dynamic river system which is poorly understood even at a gross level.

Hopefully, a specific recommendation of the study will be to implement a new control algorithm for the Lake Superior outflow with a closer connection to actual conditions in the rivers and over the lakes and their watersheds.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments.

The board’s response to my comment can be found on the website.  Since the time of my comments, the study has continued to proceed with its very detailed, albeit flawed, analysis which ignores the effect of the Niagara River flows on levels throughout the lakes. 

While the analysis may be flawed, the study team seems extremely certain of its conclusions, stating that the effect of any “Rounding Errors or Unknowns” is “Negligible.”  (Final Report, December 2009, Figure Ex-2, page vi.)  I respectfully disagree.  I also hope that any readers with property or marine interests in Ohio will urge the study team to leave the river alone unless and until they can get a better handle on what effect any changes they may recommend will actually have on Lake Erie’s levels.

In general, I think Ohioans objectives should follow those of the Lake Michigan residents in Michigan who have asked the Study Team to leave well enough alone.  For some of their comments, see:

 http://www.iugls.org/lake-michiganders-dont-want-to-see-water-levels-raised.aspx

If you agree, drop the IUGLS folks a note at http://www.iugls.org/ContactUs.aspx

Much more on this topic later.