Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Stopping the Asian Carp and Other Nuisance Species: Cost Projections for Separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins Using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inputs

Abstract

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study, released in 2014, evaluates strategies to lessen the risk of Asian carp and other aquatic nuisance species transferring between these ecosystems. Due to the voluminous nature of the report and manner in which the results are presented, however, many important questions remain difficult to answer, such as: How do the costs of the different strategies differ; and How would the costs be distributed across various stakeholders? To help evaluate the results, this article uses the study's many estimates, considerations of net present value, and other tools to show how the costs of the alternatives differ over a 50-year time period. This information can help inform policymakers about the best way to move forward with a cost-effective strategy to deal with aquatic nuisance species.

Notes

Notes

1. For a discussion of these strategies, see Kolar et al., 2007. See also Moy, Polls, and Dettmers, 2011.

2. See especially Taylor and Roach, 2010.

3. See “Michigan Sues to Protect the Great Lake,” Washington Post, December 27, 2009, accessed on August 28, 2015, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/26/AR2009122601568.html.

4. For an informal timeline of the spread of Asian Carp, see “The Asian carp time line,” Petoskey (MI) News, September 30, 2011, available at http://articles.petoskeynews.com/2011-09-30/electric-barrier_30231894.

5. Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Evaluation of Physical Separation Alternatives for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins in the Chicago Area Waterway System, January 2012.

6. The estimate that cargo traffic will rise by 45% also includes traffic that already exists but is not captured in Army Corps of Engineers reports.

7. These estimates are based on the author's findings in his 2010 report, Costs of Terminating Lock Operations on the Chicago Area Waterway System, listed in the reference section.

8. While the GLMRIS study measures the acreage needed and probable sites for such reservoirs, it shies away from estimating the cost of land acquisition. Due to the expedited timeframe in which the Corps was required to submit the final GLMRIS report to Congress, the flood risk management portion is predominantly focused upon the Chicago impact. Whereas the proposed new tunnels to divert storm water from Indiana's Grand and Little Calumet River watersheds are included in a cost estimate, the report does not appear to go beyond those costs estimates and impacts. To date, over $500M has been spent on the two river systems for flood control as well as remediation/restoration efforts. Without evaluation of impacts to these projects, the costs associated with the flood-risk management section are woefully short as it relates to Indiana impacts. (I have a request for clarification from Corps on this but do not anticipate a speedy response.)

9. In a separate analysis, I considered these costs based on an average acquisition cost of $50,000/acre in areas outside of downtown Chicago, a standard used by the Cook County Forest Preserve District for its land acquisition, and $7.5 million per acre of land purchased in downtown Chicago. These estimates are available from the author upon request.

10. For a discussion of this, see Melissa Luttrell, The Case for Differential Discounting: How a Small Rate Change Could Help Agencies Save More Lives and Make More Sense, William & Mary Policy Review, Vol. 3, p. 80, 2011, accessed on August 18, 2015, at https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/wm_policy_review/archives/volume-3/Luttrell.pdf.

11. The Great Lakes Legislative Caucus estimates that 25 million Americans and 8.5 million Canadians live in the Great Lakes Basin. See: www.greatlakeslegislators.org/AboutUsAndTheLakes/GreatLakesFactsAndFigures/tabid/70/Default.aspx.

12. Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.

13. See “Asian Carp Invasion Barriers Evaluated in New Great Lakes Study,” Nature World News, July 29, 2014, accessed on August 20, 2014 at http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5818/20140129/asian-carp-invasion-barriers-evaluated-new-great-lakes-study.htm.

14. “Minnesota Invasive Carp Action Plan: A plan to assess the threat posed by bighead, black, grass and silver carp, and actions to minimize their impact in Minnesota,” Invasive Carp Work Group, December 15, 2014, accessed on August 18, 2015 at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/invasives/carp-action-plan-draft.pdf.