Army Corps: "Our Electric Fish Fence Works, But You Can't See The Study That Proves It"
Posted February 23, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, U.S. Law and Policy
I’ve written here repeatedly about the Army Corps’ refusal to admit that its electric fish fence is not an adequate or reliable defense against Asian carp threatening to colonize the Great Lakes by moving through the Chicago Waterway System into Lake Michigan. Despite repeated positive DNA evidence showing that Asian carp are finding ways past the electric barriers, the Army Corps continues to assume that its science experiment is working, even as it is still studying the barriers’ effectiveness – including what happens when barges cross the barriers (and potentially disrupt the electric field) and whether fish that are radio-tagged and dropped in the waterway are able to swim across it.
It’s remarkable that the Corps is still conducting such critical studies of whether the barrier is actually working, when it has already been operating the barrier for years and is committed to relying on the barrier for many more years to come as the primary means of preventing a potentially devastating Asian carp invasion of the Great Lakes.
At least since last October, the Army Corps has had one of these studies in its hands, by contractors from Smith-Root Inc. who worked at the Corps’ Vicksburg, MS lab to determine how effective the electric barriers should be when operated at different parameters. But the Corps says that the study report is still a draft that it doesn’t have to release because the agency has not yet formally approved it.
Last week, Dan Egan of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that the Corps has refused to release this study report even to its own independent technical advisory panel – even though, at the same time, it insists that the report shows that the electric barriers are working to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.
Dan Egan’s reporting also uncovered that the still-secret report does not even attempt to examine whether the electric barriers will work to stop juvenile fish smaller than 6 inches from swimming past it and into Lake Michigan:
"About 6 inches or so were the smallest fish looked at for two volts per inch for those current settings," Army Corps Lt. Col. David Berczek said.
He said the Army Corps didn't conduct tests with smaller fish because officials don't believe there are any fish that size close to the barrier. Smaller fish have less surface area and therefore it takes a bigger jolt to repel them.
Berczek said the Army Corps could turn up the voltage and adjust other operating parameters such as the pulse rate at which the electricity is fired, but that could pose a danger to barge operators plying the canal, and that would mean a new round of safety tests and possibly more safety measures.
And because the Army Corps doesn't believe there are any fish smaller than 6 inches anywhere near the barrier, it isn't about to do that.
In other words, the Army Corps’ current plan for keeping Asian carp out of Lake Michigan is based on a series of assumptions: that the electric barriers are working, that Asian carp DNA found past the barriers does not prove otherwise, and that there are no small juvenile Asian carp currently attempting to cross the barrier.
These are all questionable assumptions, especially the last one. The Government’s own Asian carp expert, Duane Chapman of the USGS, told Dan Egan that it was “a surprise” and “not good” if the Corps was not studying the electric barriers’ effectiveness at stopping juvenile fish. According to Chapman, juvenile fish can swim at least 60 km (about 37 miles) from where they are hatched.
Right now it looks like the carp are still spawning a bit further down the river. But the same (propagule) pressure moving the fish towards the Lake will also move the spawning closer over time. If the Corps’ timeline for studying this issue holds, no real action will occur in the waterways for at least a decade … and all that time spawning will move closer and closer. Are we sure that we will not have spawning less than 60 km away in 10 years?
By refusing to share openly the information it has in its possession about the effectiveness of the electrical barriers, the Army Corps is trying to insulate itself from having its decision to rely on them indefinitely be questioned. This may be convenient for the Corps, but it is contrary to a bedrock principle of our democracy: that agencies of the Government are there to serve us, the public, not the other way around. We have the right to know what our Government is up to, and whether the actions it takes are adequate to protect us from the threats that we face.
Our friends at the Prairie Rivers Network have been asking the Army Corps to release its study of barrier operating parameters under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) since the study was delivered to the Corps in October. Last week they learned that the Corps had formally denied their request, and I am now representing the Prairie Rivers Network as we pursue legal remedies to compel the release of this report. Yesterday we took our first step, sending an administrative appeal letter to the Corps asking them to change its mind. If the Corps does not respond within 20 business days, we have the right to take it to court for violating FOIA by refusing to release this report.
The Army Corps is claiming that it doesn’t have to release the report now because doing so would harm its “deliberative process” of deciding what changes, if any, it should make to the electric barrier system. I litigate FOIA cases all the time and this often comes up. Agencies have some legitimate rights to withhold information related to a decision they plan to make but are not yet ready to go public with. But the privilege does not apply to purely factual information, and an agency is not allowed to keep the whole study report from the public even if some small portion of it may be legitimately withheld. To the extent that what’s in the report (or any sections of the report) is just facts about how the electric barriers would operate under different conditions, it should be made public without delay.
The Army Corps is not allowed to hide from public scrutiny by sitting on facts that an informed public has a right to know.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Duane Chapman — Feb 24 2011 09:52 AM
By the way, it should be noted that a previous study did indicate that the current voltage would hold back fish as small as 66mm (about 2.5"), and a much more safe level because fish that small should not be in the area. Not a surety to be sure, but a LOT safer than the 6" tested by the Corps. I am not sure what additional work the Corps was testing - perhaps different ways the barrier could be operated. I suspect the 6" fish were used because that was the smallest fish available. Gettings small AC when you want them for tests is problematic, because they don't stay little long.
Thom Cmar — Feb 24 2011 10:59 AM
Thank you for the comment, Duane. After follow-up exchanges with Duane and others, I have learned that the study that Duane is referring to was done by researchers at the Illinois Natural History Survey. My understanding is that this study has not been published or otherwise released publicly, much less peer reviewed. It is good to know that someone might have looked at the issue of juvenile fish challenging the barrier at some point, but until all information related to the effectiveness of the electric barriers is made available for public review (and importantly, review by independent scientists), it is of little comfort.
These studies go to the heart of critical public policy questions. They have to be made public as part of a transparent decision making process in which the public is allowed to participate. We the citizens of the Great Lakes region deserve nothing less.
Thamus — Feb 26 2011 01:56 PM
Hello Thom... Thamus here again. Once again... Silver carp are capable of jumping onto barges or other vessels with low freeboard. That means boats that are sitting low in the water because of weight/load/displacement. Once on the decks, they die and then get transported past the barrier... Where they are kicked (or fall) in the water depositing eDNA. Notice I said E in DNA. Same with bighead caught in barge couplings. Once the couplings are broken apart in port or fleeting areas.
Why aren't these "false positives" being explained in this manner? The fish are not swimming through live. Have you noticed most of the eDNA readings are from silver carp? The kind of carp that jump. I have been saying this for almost 2 years now. I first seen this phenom with my own eyes back in late 2009 when all this came to a head. No doubt the industry is taking careful steps now to clear the decks and clean the couplings BEFORE getting above the barriers... That is why we are seeing a drop-off in eDNA findings? Most fish kicked into the water have broken up and disappeared. Can they tell the difference between a "live" swimming fish dropping feces and scales and a "dead" floating or sunken fish dropping feces and scales? I would like to know that answer... Because if they can't... Hmmmm...
I am not saying that this isn't major... Why not put tighter restrictions on "clean" shipping. Call me crazy, but in late 2009... I have seen DEAD silver with my own eyes as far as O'Brien lock. I take if they are being transported dead now, it is unwittingly being done. Back in 2009 before all the false positives came to light in the media, it was pretty common knowledge.
By all accounts, the way the carp have been swimming in the Illinois river... These fish SHOULD have made it to the lakes 2-3 years AGO. Something is keeping them back and slowing them down. IMO, it is the lock and dam system on the upper Illinois and the barriers. They have seen silver jump in the Hennepin canal which has had its lock and dams closed for 50+ years now. Explain that?