Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study

Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study
Name	Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study
Abbreviation	GLMRIS
Initiated	2009
Lead	United States Army Corps of Engineers
Region	Great Lakes, Mississippi River
Purpose	Evaluate aquatic species transfer prevention
Status	Completed (final report 2014; supplemental activities ongoing)

Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study examined pathways, risks, and mitigation measures for the transfer of aquatic organisms between the Great Lakes basin and the Mississippi River basin. The study was led by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in coordination with federal agencies including United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and state partners such as the State of Michigan and the State of Illinois. It assessed engineering options, environmental impacts, legal frameworks like the National Environmental Policy Act, and governance mechanisms relevant to invasive species such as the bighead carp and silver carp.

Background and Purpose

GLMRIS arose from long-standing concerns about interbasin transfer facilitating the spread of invasive species following navigation projects such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and historical works by the Chicago River reengineering and the Illinois Waterway. Past incidents involving organisms like the zebra mussel and the round goby highlighted pathways documented by agencies including the United States Geological Survey and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The purpose was to develop a comprehensive, science-based record to inform policy decisions under statutes like the Lacey Act and guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Study Scope and Methodology

The study evaluated potential aquatic pathways between the Great Lakes Basin and the Upper Mississippi River Basin and analyzed corridors including the Chicago Area Waterway System, the Des Plaines River, and the Illinois River. Methodology integrated hydrologic modeling from the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, biological risk assessments using protocols from the National Invasive Species Council, and economic analysis incorporating inputs from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Highway Administration for freight impacts. The scope included screening for priority taxa such as Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (silver carp), Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussel), and pathogens tracked by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Major Findings and Recommendations

Key findings identified the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal as the primary artificial connection enabling bi-directional transfer, with seasonal and event-driven transport risks tied to stormwater and navigation operations overseen by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System. Recommendations emphasized a portfolio approach combining structural controls, operational measures, and monitoring, and suggested near-term actions such as enhanced electric barriers similar to those deployed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. The report recommended continued research partnerships with institutions including University of Michigan, University of Notre Dame, and Cornell University.

Environmental and Ecological Considerations

Environmental analysis considered impacts on habitats like the Lake Superior nearshore, Lake Michigan pelagic zones, and riverine ecosystems of the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The study weighed trade-offs affecting species protected under the Endangered Species Act and migratory corridors designated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and considered implications for commercial fisheries managed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and tribal co-management stakeholders such as the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the Lake Superior Chippewa. Cumulative effects analyses referenced datasets from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and modeling approaches used by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Engineering and Infrastructure Options

Structural options evaluated included separation measures like a permanent hydrologic separation at the Chicago Area Waterway System, reconfiguration of locks operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and upgrades to electric barriers modeled after systems deployed with support from the Department of Homeland Security. Other options included construction of upstream dams, sediment control projects similar to those undertaken by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in other contexts, and experimental biocontrol trials developed with the United States Department of Agriculture.

Stakeholder Engagement and Governance

The study process involved federal, state, tribal, and municipal entities including the State of Wisconsin, State of Indiana, City of Chicago, and sovereign tribal governments, as well as industry stakeholders such as the American Waterways Operators and the National Association of Manufacturers. Governance discussions referenced interagency cooperation models exemplified by the Great Lakes Commission and legal instruments like the River and Harbor Act and intergovernmental memoranda negotiated with entities including the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Implementation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management

Implementation recommendations called for phased deployment with triggers tied to monitoring networks maintained by the United States Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and adaptive management frameworks influenced by precedents at the Everglades Restoration and projects overseen by the Bureau of Reclamation. Long-term monitoring was to include eDNA surveillance protocols developed with academic partners such as Michigan State University and University of Minnesota, and regular reviews coordinated through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers forum. Adaptive responses would balance navigation interests represented by the American Association of Port Authorities with conservation imperatives championed by groups such as The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.

Category:Environmental studies