skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Meleah Geertsma’s Blog

Corps to Cut Back Substance, Public Participation in Asian Carp Study

Meleah Geertsma

Posted November 16, 2012

, , ,
Share | | |

What’s the latest news in the fight to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes? This week in Chicago, the Army Corps of Engineers held the first of several “charrettes” to inform its work on the aquatic nuisance species prevention feasibility study, known as the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS), due to Congress at the end of 2013. According to the Corps, these charrettes will determine which control options the agency will evaluate in its final study. What’s different about this meeting? The public – including citizens and groups who have direct stakes in the matter and have been working on this issue for years – was not invited.

Over the summer, Congress passed the MAP-21 highway reauthorization in which it set a deadline for the Corps’ study of December 2013, compared to the Corps’ previous timeline of 2015. The Corps announced earlier this fall what the shorter timeframe will mean for the study: rather than speed up work that the Corps had committed to do, the new deadline will result in the agency doing less work and cutting the public meetings it had outlined. And the Corps is claiming that it will still meet Congress’ charge to produce a feasibility study setting forth options for preventing the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Mississippi River Basin and the Great Lakes.

We politely disagree.

While the Corps has given some (albeit thin) consideration to public input to date, cutting public participation during the most critical period for the study runs directly afoul of Congress’ charge to undertake its work “in consultation with appropriate Federal, state, local, and nongovernmental entities… [.]” The Corps has suggested that consulting with its Executive Steering Committee during the charrettes is a sufficient substitute for open public meetings. While we greatly appreciate the role that the Committee members have taken – including their own extensive  engagement with the public – these members are all government bodies themselves and thus do not fully represent the interested public. Nothing in MAP-21 suggests that Congress wanted the Corps to curtail its public engagement; rather, Congress directed the Corps to expedite the study by focusing the subject of its inquiry on preventive measures like hydrological separation, without changing the Corps’ consultation obligation. When we asked the Corps at the most recent Great Lakes Commission Asian carp meeting how it intended to make public the charrette discussions and conclusions, we were given a blunt response: you’ll get this information when the December 2013 final study issues.

Nor does the study that the Corps will develop resemble the “feasibility study” that Congress required. In fact, in a meeting with NRDC and several of our colleague organizations, the GLMRIS project leads told us point blank that “the GLMRIS report is not a complete Feasibility Report.” One of the most glaring holes will be in terms of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Rather than provide a full assessment of environmental impacts associated with the prevention alternatives to inform Congress’ (or the Secretary’s) choice, the Corps will present a watered down Environmental Assessment that will compile information that the Corps already has and outline the analysis needed for a full Environmental Impact Statement. The report also will provide a lower level of engineering and design for the alternatives than typically accompanies a feasibility study. While the Corps has provided a crafty legal response as to why it’s allowed to tinker with the bounds of a feasibility study, certain members of Congress seem to disagree with this understanding, given the critiques of the Corps’ new plan by Senator Debbie Stabenow and Representative Dave Camp.

What can be done about this frustrating turn of events? First, we call upon the Corps to reopen its process to the public by making available the contents of the charrettes and providing a mechanism for public input on the final set of alternatives. Second, Congress should do whatever is in its power to move the process along – quickly revise the Corps’ duty to create a more explicit directive during the remainder of the current study period, or be prepared to either choose an option with less-than-complete information or to issue a new and detailed mandate to the Corps to guide their work after December 2013. Otherwise, we will find ourselves six years on and not much further along than we were back in 2007 when Congress initiated this process.

Share | | |

Comments (Add yours)

Michael BerndtsonNov 18 2012 12:38 PM

I have a selfish interest in this issue due to the fact I live about 2 miles directly north of the Stickney Treatment Works, the worlds largest wastewater treatment plant. Stickney discharges right into the Sanitation and Shipping Canal, the main actor in all this mess. The canal connects Lake Michigan with the Illinois River a tributary to the Mississippi River. Things could get backed up so to speak - if an alternative isn't thought through properly.

After reading the letter from USACE you cited, the key take away is from the last two sentences in section 3.a) GLMRIS Study Authority. I believe what is being said is that USACE is being asked to expand the feasibility study (FS) in scope for less time and money. It sounds like they don't want to include additional alternatives into the evaluation and screening process typical of an FS, especially if additional alternatives were to be introduced by others and they are not familiar with them.

In my experience, an FS is the most important document in the planning and design process. It is extremely important when considering highway construction, environmental remediation, etc. Basically any project that impacts people. My guess is that USACE is asking to perform a preliminary feasibility study rather than a final FS - given the new time constraints and money limitations. In my opinion, it is best to run a preliminary FS with many options (alternatives), with limited conceptual design of each, then run a full or final FS with pre-screened limited number of alternatives.

USACE has set the standards for planning, design, construction and operations of project delivery, which is used by almost every government agency and much of the private sector. Messing with USACE project delivery always leads to feather ruffling. I was a project manager on a delivery order of the Total Environmental Remediation Contract (TERC) for USACE back in the early 90s. TERC pretty much put traditional project delivery on its head to accelerate site cleanups using an alternative delivery method called design/build.

In short, it sounds like USACE needs more money to perform a full FS if they can't limit the number of alternatives to look at. Or will do a preliminary FS, with all the alternatives, but with less conceptual design - maybe followed by a full FS upon completion of the preliminary one, but didn't want to really say so.

Of course I really don't know what's going on with any of this except what you wrote in the post and reading the USACE letter your cited. Regardless, don't plug Stickney before letting me know.

Jack PlantDec 30 2012 09:21 AM

The great lakes have already been plagued by a dozen of imported species through the shipping canals for decades which have long devastated its fisheries. I kind of like the Asian carp as it is an extremely productive fish easy and lots of fun to catch. It would revolutionize sport fishing..... and rid us of the not so healthy farmed fish. Let’s face it, what will happen will happen. All we can really do now is go with the flow, it's a sort of evolution like it or not.

zoltanwelvartMay 30 2014 10:18 PM

Feed of carp will determin value as food.i found 2 meter deep deposit plankton. Inland sea . This feeds next bloom all elements, then fish.with normal runoff few elements, like farms, much contamination. Fish will eat about anything, like a cow, they just have to be forced.feed an animal bad stuff, don't expect much.

Join the Conversation

Comment on this post:

All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Meleah Geertsma’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In