U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–666 PDF 2007

THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY: CAN IT BE

IMPLEMENTED TO RESTORE AND

PROTECT THE GREAT LAKES?

(109–96)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Ambs, Todd, Water Division Administrator, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources .............................................................................................................. 9

Becker, Hon. Gary, Mayor, City of Racine, Wisconsin, and Vice Chair, Great

Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative ........................................................... 9

Berwick, Brigadier General Bruce A., Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio

River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................. 9

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 9

Scavia, Donald, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Natural Resources

and Environment, Director, Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan .... 9

Wooley, Charles, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 9

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 66

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan ...................................................................... 69

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Ambs, Todd ............................................................................................................... 36

Becker, Hon. Gary ................................................................................................... 56

Berwick, Brigadier ................................................................................................... 61

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 70

Scavia, Donald ......................................................................................................... 83

Wooley, Charles ....................................................................................................... 132

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Ambs, Todd, Water Division Administrator, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources:

Letter to Hon. George V. Voinovich, Senator from Ohio, from Hon. Jim

Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, and chair, Council of the Great Lakes

Governors, and Hon. Richard M. Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago, Chair,

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, March 10, 2006 ................ 44

Letter to President George W. Bush, from Hon. Jim Doyle, Governor of

Wisconsin, and chair, Council of the Great Lakes Governors, Hon. Robert

Taft, Governor of Ohio, and Chair, Council of the Great Lakes Governors,

and Hon. Richard M. Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago, Chair, Great Lakes

and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, December 12, 2005 ................................ 47

Great lakes Regional Collaboration Near Term Action Items, report ............. 49

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in congress from Michigan: ...............

Letter, Peter M. Wege, Wege Foundation, August 8, 2006 .............................. 7

Letter, Hon. Gerald R. Ford, former President of the United States of

America, July 26, 2006 ..................................................................................... 8

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, supplemental information ................................ 80

Scavia, Donald, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Natural Resources

and Environment, Director, Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan,

Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes, December 2005, report .......... 93
Page

VI

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, Great Lakes Office of the National Wildlife Federation, Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters---Great Lakes Coalition, statement .. 136

O’Shea, Kevin, Minister, Political Affairs, the Government of Canada, letter,

September 27, 2006 .............................................................................................. 163

Zorn, James E., Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish

and Wildlife Commission, statement .................................................................. 151
(1)

THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION STRATEGY: CAN IT BE IMPLEMENTED

TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE GREAT

LAKES?

September 13, 2006,

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. Good morning. We are going to go ahead and call

this hearing to order. I understand that Ms. Johnson is on her way.

I want to welcome everyone to our hearing on the Great Lakes

Regional Collaboration Strategy. In this hearing, we will look at

how the Strategy is serving as a framework for restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.

Today we will hear from several important participants in implementing the Strategy: the Environmental Protection Agency, the

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Great

Lakes region’s governors and mayors, and the academic community.

The Great Lakes are a high priority to our Members from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

and New York, particularly in the districts that border the Lakes.

However, the Great Lakes are also very important to our entire

Nation. With 6 quadrillion gallons of water, the Great Lakes account for 18 percent of the world’s fresh water supply and 95 percent of the U.S. fresh water supply, 95 percent of the U.S. fresh

water supply. Over 33 million people live in the Great Lakes region, representing over one-tenth of the U.S. population and onequarter of the Canadian population. The Lakes are the water supply for most of these people. The Great Lakes help support $200 billion a year in economic activity in the region, including 50 percent of the U.S. manufacturing

output, 30 percent of all U.S. agricultural sales, and transportation

of 50 million tons of waterborne cargo, half of which is exported

overseas. Recreational benefits in the Great Lakes region amount

to over $35 billion in economic activity and over 246,000 jobs.

Like many ecosystems around the Country, the Great Lakes

have been impacted by industrial growth, urban development, and

agricultural and commercial activity. While most areas of the Great

Lakes can be used safely for swimming, recreation, and as a source
2

of drinking water, the Lakes do not fully support aquatic life and

it is not always safe to eat the fish caught in the Great Lakes.

These water quality problems have a variety of causes. Part of the

problem is from ongoing wastewater discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and air pollution, the same problems faced by lakes,

rivers, and bays all around the Country.

The Great Lakes present a unique environmental challenge. Because they are nearly enclosed water bodies, with limited outflow,

toxic substances have built up in the Lakes, sinking to the bottom

and contaminating lake sediments. In 2002, this Subcommittee and

full Committee moved legislation introduced by Congressman

Ehlers, our colleague, legislation entitled ‘‘The Great Lakes Legacy

Act,’’ to help jump-start remediation of contaminated sediments in

the Great Lakes. President Bush signed this legislation into law in

November of 2002. The Legacy Act is one of many tools available

for addressing ecosystem restoration in the Great Lakes.

Invasive plant and animal species also are impacting the Great

Lakes. There are at least 25 major non-native species of fish in

those bodies of water. Zebra mussels invade and clog water intake

pipes, costing water and electric generating utilities $100 to $400

million a year in prevention and remediation efforts. It is said that

invasive species are discovered at the rate of one every eight

months.

Efforts to improve Great Lakes water quality and restore the

health of the Great Lakes ecosystem are proceeding through cooperative efforts with Canada as well as through the efforts of numerous Federal, State, local, and private parties. The EPA, the

Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Great Lakes States, local

communities, industry, and a lot of other parties are involved. With

so many parties involved in trying to restore the Great Lakes, coordination of the effort can sometimes be difficult.

To improve coordination, on May 18th, 2004, the President

signed an Executive Order creating the ‘‘Great Lakes Interagency

Task Force.’’ The Executive Order called for the development of

outcome-based goals like cleaner water, sustainable fisheries, and

system biodiversity. The President called on the Task Force to ensure Federal efforts are coordinated and targeted toward measurable results. The Task Force, under the lead of the EPA, brings together 10 Federal agencies responsible for administering more than

140 different programs in the Great Lakes region, to provide strategic direction on Federal Great Lakes policy, priorities, and programs for restoring these great bodies of water.

In December 2004, under the leadership of the Federal Great

Lakes Interagency Task Force, the Great Lakes States, cities,

tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other interests formed

a group now known as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.

The Collaboration was formed to develop a strategic plan to restore

and protect the Great Lakes. In December of 2005, the Collaboration released a Strategy recommending eight critical areas to address to restore these areas. These eight areas include coastal

health, toxic pollutants, areas of concern, nonpoint source pollution,
3

invasive species, habitat and native species restoration, information research, and sustainable development.

I look forward to discussing the Strategy’s recommendations and

hearing from the witnesses how the various Federal, State, local,

and other parties plan to implement these proposals.

Let me now turn to the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for any

remarks she may wish to make.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This Subcommittee has had a long history of oversight on the ecological and environmental health of the Great Lakes. Over the

past three decades, the Subcommittee has held numerous hearings

and has investigated and proposed legislation to address Great

Lakes water quality impairment, contaminated sediments and

other sources of pollution for the Lakes.

While some improvements have been made, after almost 20 years

of effort, we have not seen significant progress toward the long

term sustainability of the Lakes. In fact, according to scientists,

quite the opposite is true. The Great Lakes are hovering near the

tipping point, toward total ecosystem breakdown.

Today’s hearing will focus on the recently-developed strategy to

address the continued environmental stressors to the Lakes, as

well as on coordinating Federal, State and local efforts to restore

and protect this vital natural resource.

As the then-General Accounting Office noted in a 2003 report,

more coordinated efforts and funding are needed. Otherwise, the

Nation will witness further degradation within the Great Lakes

community. Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to abandon the more difficult task of funding restoration efforts. While recent efforts to develop a strategic plan for restoration and protection of the Lakes should be applauded, without a corresponding

commitment to fund these efforts, the Collaborative Strategy will

little more than another dusty restoration plan on the shelf.

One has to question whether this Administration has used the

roll-out of the Collaborative Strategy to divert attention away from

its failure to fund restoration efforts. For example, the Administration lauds its decision to increase funding for certain programs,

such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but fails to mention the even

larger decreases in programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, that are of equal if not greater importance to overall

restoration efforts. In the end, it is clear that this Administration

has chosen to walk away from any real commitment to Great Lakes

restoration efforts.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, these restoration efforts in the

Great Lakes have been made more difficult by a recent Supreme

Court decision which at least confuses the scope of the Clean Water

Act, and at worst severely limits its protective reach. Although the

real world impact of the Rapanos case is still an open question, one

thing is certain: limiting the scope of waters protected by the Clean

Water Act will result in more pollution, more fish kills, more beach

closings, more degraded habitat and increased risk of flooding from

the destruction of the wetlands.

According to EPA’s wadeable streams assessment, roughly 50

percent of the waters that potentially drain into the Great Lakes

already have high to medium impacts from the nutrients from the
4

riparian disturbance and excessive sediment. Presumably, some of

the Supreme Court would advocate the elimination of protection for

these already impaired waters and simply hope that these waters

and the Great Lakes restore themselves.

Mr. Chairman, if the reasoning contained in Justice Scalia’s

opinion prevails, we will be able to point to June 19th, 2006, as the

day when Federal efforts to protect water quality ceased to exist.

If this were true, perhaps those prophetic statements on waters

being as clean as they will ever be may come to pass. I hope that

for our sake and for the sake of future generations that this does

not happen.

Clearly, significant challenges remain in this Nation’s efforts to

restore and protect the Great Lakes. I am pleased that this Subcommittee will expose these issues and hope that the witnesses invited to testify will be able to identify the successes as well as the

failures in these efforts, and on ways we can improve our efforts.

I welcome the witnesses here today and look forward to their testimony. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

This Subcommittee has been interested in the Great Lakes for

quite some time. And as both Ms. Johnson and I mentioned, we

passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act and we dealt with that in 2001

and 2002, then we held two hearings in May of 2004 and then a

field hearing, a meeting at Mayor Daley’s request in June of 2004

in Chicago.

But certainly the member of the entire Congress who has been

most active in regard to Great Lakes issues and has always done

the most to bring some of these matters to our attention is our colleague, Congressman Ehlers, from Michigan. I would like to call on

him at this time for any statement he wishes to make.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very

much for holding this hearing. Thank you also for your statement

which you just made, because in fact you and this Subcommittee

have been the most active, as you said, of any committee or subcommittee in the House.

I would also like to take just a moment to disagree slightly with

my good friend from Texas, the gentlewoman from Texas, about her

comment on the Administration. As the Chairman remarked, when

we passed the Legacy Act, I was very pleased that the President,

every year since then, has in his budget recommended maximum

funding for that program, funding equal to the authorization. Unfortunately, our Appropriations Committee has not done as well.

But the President certainly did his share.

The other fact I would like to mention, that the Administration

has been very active in, I worked with Governor Leavitt when he

was Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and since

then have worked with Steve Johnson, who now has that task.

Through their efforts, the President had issued a call for a Great

Lakes Regional Collaboration with an executive order. That has

been carried through and is one of the most outstanding guidances

we have at this point, and is a subject for our hearing.

I am extremely pleased that today we are talking about Great

Lakes protection and restoration. A great deal has happened, as I

just said before, since the last hearing we had on this topic in 2004.
5

It has been a very busy and most productive time. I am eager to

hear from our witnesses about what they have been doing recently,

and more importantly, about the next steps they have planned. I

am also interested in hearing about what role Congress has to play

in this. As you know, I have introduced a bill to try to implement

all the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. I am very anxious to have that bill passed.

I have modeled it after the same process that we used for the

Chesapeake Bay and for the Everglades. I think those have been

successful efforts. Many of you have been involved in both of those

and we are trying to model the Great Lakes approach under that.

The Federal, State and local officials and policy makers, as well

as advocates and experts involved in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration have done a tremendous job of setting out a comprehensive strategic action plan for making all the waters of the Great

Lakes swimmable, potable and fishable, all the time, everywhere.

My staff and I were very closely involved in the work of the Regional Collaboration. I am eager to see its recommendations implemented as soon as possible.

That is why I introduced H.R. 5100, the bill I just mentioned,

which will put in place many of the legislative changes that are

necessary to improve and expand Federal programs to clean up and

protect the Lakes. This bill has more than 50 co-sponsors, including

several members of this Subcommittee. I hope we can take up that

bill soon, Mr. Chairman.

The longer we wait to implement the recommended changes, the

more expensive and more complicated the solutions become. This is

particularly true in two areas: preventing further introduction of

aquatic invasive species, as the Chairman has just mentioned, and

also cleaning up contaminated sediments in areas of concern. I am

very interested in hearing from the witnesses on these two critical

issues.

I also want to emphasize here at the outset of the hearing that

the Regional Collaboration Strategy should be used as it was intended, not just as a wish list of program changes and funding levels, but as a strategic action plan to guide resource allocation, policy decision making and priority setting. That is why we have

structured my bill as indicated.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me bring one other matter to the

Committee’s attention. During the August recess, I received a letter

from Peter Wege, a philanthropist in West Michigan who has been

very active in Great Lakes policy. The Wege Foundation was instrumental in founding and supporting the Healing Our Waters Coalition, an alliance of more than 80 environmental and conservation organizations in and around the Great Lakes Basin. Mr. Wege

sent to me a letter from another old friend, former President Gerald Ford. As you know, he represented the same area in and

around Grand Rapids, Michigan that I now have the pleasure of

representing. The Great Lakes are dear to him and he recognizes

their national and international importance. President Ford wrote

in his letter that the Great Lakes enriched his life and that he

shares my commitment to restoring and protecting the Lakes for

our children and grandchildren.
6

I would like to request that it be made an order to submit a copy

of the letter from President Ford for the record.

Mr. DUNCAN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The referenced information follows:]
7
8
9

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Ehlers.

We are pleased to have, as I mentioned earlier, a very distinguished panel of witnesses. Representing the Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence Cities Initiative is the Honorable Gary Becker, who is

the Mayor of Racine, Wisconsin. Representing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles,

Assistant Administrator for Water, a graduate of this Subcommittee who has moved on to bigger and better things. Representing

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is Brigadier General Bruce A.

Berwick, the Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division from Cincinnati. Representing the U.S. Department of the Interior is Mr. Charles Wooley, who is the Deputy Regional Director

of the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. He has come from Minneapolis. Representing the Council

of Great Lakes Governors is Mr. Todd Ambs, the Water Division

Administrator for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

from Madison, Wisconsin. And finally, representing the University

of Michigan, or from the University of Michigan, is Dr. Donald

Scavia, Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment and Director of the Michigan Sea Grant

at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Gentlemen, it is a real privilege to have each of you here and I

thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedules to be

with us. Almost every committee and subcommittee asks the witnesses to limit their statements to five minutes. I know it is hard

sometimes to do that, so I give the witnesses in this Subcommittee

six minutes. But in consideration of other witnesses, if you see me

start to wave this gavel, then that means to bring your statement

to a close, because we do, as I say, you have other witnesses, and

in addition, some of the Members wish to get to the questions.

We also proceed in the order the witnesses are listed in the call

of the hearing. That means Mayor Becker, we will start with you.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GARY BECKER, MAYOR, CITY

OF RACINE, WISCONSIN, AND VICE CHAIR, GREAT LAKES

AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE; THE HONORABLE

BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR

WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; BRIGADIER GENERAL BRUCE A. BERWICK, COMMANDER, GREAT

LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; CHARLES WOOLEY, DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR; TODD AMBS, WATER DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DONALD SCAVIA, PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE

DEAN, SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN SEA GRANT, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN

Mayor BECKER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the Committee. I am Mayor Becker from Racine, and I am here

today in my capacity as Vice Chair of the Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence Cities Initiative. I appreciate the opportunity to testify

before you today concerning the Great Lakes restoration and pro-
10

tection and more specifically, how we can work together to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy that was released in December of 2005.

The Great Lakes are a resource of tremendous value to the people of our Country and of Canada. The Cities Initiative is an organization with over 80 participating cities. Chicago Mayor Daley is

our founding chair and Toronto Mayor Miller serves as our current

chair. The goal of the Cities Initiative is to advance water quality,

water conservation and waterfront vitality by being an active participant in Great Lakes decision-making by developing and sharing

local best practices and by being strong advocates for the long term

restoration and protection of the Lakes.

Since 2003, when Mayor Daley established the initiative, we

have been actively engaged with the Bush Administration, Great

Lakes governors, tribal leaders, business leaders and a wide range

of advocacy groups on these issues. In May of 2004, President Bush

issued an executive order to develop a regional plan for the Great

Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy released in December 2004 is the product of that executive order. The

Strategy represents the most comprehensive statement ever developed about the problems faced on the Lakes and what it will take

to solve them over the long term.

Equally important, the Strategy represents the very first consensus strategy from all relevant stakeholders in the Great Lakes region about the current and future needs of the Lakes. While the

estimated cost to fully implement the Strategy is $20 billion, mayors and governors recognize that that is an expenditure that will

need to be spread over a number of years. Accordingly, when the

Strategy was released, mayors and governors asked the President

and Congress for an initial investment of $300 million to focus on

the top priorities and address the most urgent problems.

In addition, mayors and governors requested several other steps

to help advance the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes,

including enactment of the Comprehensive Aquatic Invasive Species Legislation, with a special emphasis on ballast water and a

more streamlined approach to Federal wetlands protection. The

mayors appreciate that some Members of Congress have shown interest in moving forward on some of the aspects of the Great Lakes

restoration and protection. I thank you for holding this hearing

today.

In addition, various members of Congress have pushed hard for

action. However, no legislation has been enacted, and with the exception of the Legacy program, no additional Great Lakes funding

is on the horizon.

The mayors are disappointed that there has not been more

progress from the EPA and other Federal agencies in terms of supporting forward movement on the Collaboration. Moreover, the

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, which was established by the

executive order to coordinate Federal Great Lakes policy among

numerous Federal agencies, still has not taken any substantive action. We are also very concerned about other Federal actions that

are wholly inconsistent with the Strategy, such as the proposal to

continue cutting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
11

However, the lack of Federal movement has not slowed the momentum of Great Lakes mayors, governors and tribes in working

toward Great Lakes restoration and protection. Cities are spending

hundreds of millions of dollars annually in capital and operating

expenses to improve the Lakes and its watershed.

Activities are being undertaken in cities across the basin, as

mayors do our part to increase the value of this natural resource

for the enjoyment of our citizens. Mayors want to continue as full

partners with Federal, State and tribal governments in the effort

to restore and protect the Great Lakes.

In summary, the Cities initiative remains strongly committed to its initial request to the President and Congress for a $300 million

investment to begin work toward implementation of the highest

priority items in the Strategy. The Cities Initiative also remains

committed to working toward passage of comprehensive invasive

species legislation and other priority Great Lakes bills consistent

with the Strategy.

We have a unique opportunity with the Collaboration to make a

significant departure from business as usual toward a consensus

approach. The Cities initiative wants to make sure we do that so

future generations will look back with gratitude and say that all

levels of government made a positive change for the Great Lakes

by working together to restore and protect them. I hope we do not

wait until the levees break, so to speak, before we act.

Thank you for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mayor. Fine statement.

How long have you been the Mayor?

Mayor BECKER. Three and a half years, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Three and a half years. My father was city law director for three and a half years and then mayor for six years. And

those nine and a half years were from the time I was 8 or 9 until

I was 17. I sort of grew up at City Hall. I found out how tough it

is, how difficult it is. I believe being mayor of a city is one of the

toughest jobs in the Country. I also found out that, I think everybody and his brother wanted to be a fireman or a policeman. Then

the day after they went on the force they wanted a promotion or

a raise or both.

[Laughter.]

Mayor BECKER. Well, obviously things are not any different in

Tennessee than from here.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Administrator Grumbles.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here before the Committee. It is an honor representing EPA. It is also an honor to follow the Mayor and to be

part of this panel. It requires people at all levels of government

and the private sector working together. So this is a very constructive effort, this hearing, on progress that we are making.

The Great Lakes is a priority of this Administration. We have

taken several important steps. The President, when he issued the

executive order, made it very clear that there would be a Federal

Interagency Task Force and that we would focus on improving the
12

delivery, better coordination and collaboration, streamlining and effectiveness to accelerate the pace of environmental restoration and

protection, while maintaining our Country’s economic competitiveness.

Also, an incredibly important part of that executive order was to

promote the concept of this Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.

The success of the effort depends on all the partners, governmental, non-governmental, Federal, State, local, tribal and working

also in complementary fashion with our important partners in Canada, because this is an international treasure as well.

I would like to focus in on a few things in the amount of time

I have, Mr. Chairman. Some of the specific follow-ups to the executive order, the Interagency Task Force and the Regional Collaboration, the Strategy, the blueprint, if you will, for further progress.

I want to focus in on three specific areas that represent fundamental progress and a reason to be encouraged.

The Task Force is working, we meet periodically. The charge for

us is to improve the delivery, look for streamlining. A perfect example of that is in the wetlands arena, streamlining of process and

improved protection of wetlands. One of the near-term actions that

this Administration is committed to on a regional basis in the

Great Lakes is to improve, to look at the nationwide permit 27,

modifying it or having an alternative regional general permit to

help good Samaritans have less red tape and get to restore wetlands more effectively and efficiently. So that is an important result of the Interagency Task Force.

Another effort of the Task Force is to focus on sustainability and

strategic actions. So we meet periodically and we identify using the

Regional Collaboration Strategy as a guide, as an overall guide. We

identify priority projects for scarce resources to be applied towards.

The Regional Collaboration resulted in a blueprint on December

12th, 2005. Congressman Ehlers was there and was in a way a

master of ceremonies, bringing people together. That was a historic

document. There was a lot of important work to do. All of the partners agreed that it could serve as an overall guide, and that is

what we are using it as.

I want to focus on three things, Mr. Chairman, and three very

important areas that various agencies under the Administration

are focusing on and others as well. One of those is contaminated

sediments. As you know, and the leadership of this Committee has

shown on the Great Lakes Legacy Act, you know that one of the

most important priority areas is to remove those contaminated

sediments, to get progress going. We have five projects that have

received funds. The President has made it a priority, is seeking full

funding. We want to work with Congress to get those funds appropriated. I was just in Ashtabula yesterday and it is a tremendous

sight, Mr. Chairman, to finally see after over a decade of talk to

see real progress, where the dredging is 24/7, they are moving

550,000 cubic yards of sediment out of the harbor. They are cleaning it up, they are making progress, they are cutting red tape. That

has been a charge through the executive order and also following

the requirements of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. That is a priority

area.
13

Another priority area, near-term action that the Administration

is fully committed to is on wetlands, wetlands throughout the

Country, but also wetlands in the Great Lakes. The goal of the Administration is to move beyond no net loss and to gain wetlands.

The way to do that is to continue to use the Clean Water Act. We

have aggressively defended it as a tool before the Supreme Court.

We will continue to do so.

But it is also to use cooperative conservation. Therefore, through

the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, we have committed as one

of our near-term actions to restore, improve and protect 100,000

acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes and work with the States to

have an additional 100,000 acres on their part, so we can see

200,000 acres. We recognize that acreage is one part of the equation, value, quality of those wetlands is another important one.

We have established a subcommittee to track and monitor for

progress, to work with the private sector to put a priority on wetlands in the Great Lakes, to restore them, recognizing that they

are a key component, they are like nature’s kidney. They help not

only provide habitat for waterfowl and a healthier environment,

they also protect against flooding and the threat of loss of life. They

help the economy.

The last area, Mr. Chairman, that is a priority among the agencies, because we are using the Strategy as a guide, is invasive species. Congressman Ehlers has been a leader in this effort in particular. We recognize that that is a threat to the economy and the

ecology of the Great Lakes, and more work needs to be done at the

Federal level. The Coast Guard and other agencies are working together using the guide as a blueprint.

We are committed to improving our efforts. One specific example

in just the last year, EPA issued a document guide for response,

rapid response, when you detect an invasive species, to try to cut

it off at the pass and reduce the adverse impacts. But between the

Asian carp and the zebra mussels and the water fleas and various

other types of invasive species, that is a priority area.

So Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, I would say that the President’s budget for 2007 puts a priority on sediment remediation.

Other agencies put a priority on cleaning up and reducing runoff.

We look forward to working with the Congress on finding sustainable ways and advancing the Strategic Plan and the partnership

among our colleagues in the Great Lakes.

I would be happy to respond to questions when you have them,

sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Grumbles. As

you know, we have gotten into other aspects of your testimony,

even not in regard to the Great Lakes particularly, but particularly

on the invasive species problem for instance, and other things as

well.

General Berwick.

General BERWICK. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the

Committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that contribute to the protection and restoration of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes.
14

The Great Lakes ecosystem is a nationally significant national

resource. And Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on the numbers.

I had never heard 6 quadrillion gallons before, but that is a remarkable number, although I am very familiar with the percentages.

It is the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem, and also provides

millions of U.S. and Canadian residents with water for consumption, transportation, power, recreation and other uses. The Corps

is working together with other Federal agencies, the Canadians

and the affected States, tribes, local governments and stakeholders

groups to help protect and restore this ecosystem. The Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr.,

is the Department of the Army’s representative on the Great Lakes

Interagency Task Force.

The Strategy to restore the Great Lakes which was produced by

the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration addresses eight of the nine

priority issues identified by the governors of the Great Lakes

States. These eight issue areas cover a wide range of environmental concerns, including invasive species, contaminated sediments, loss of fish and wildlife habitat and aging wastewater infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers has a variety of programs and

projects in the Great Lakes that provide for both economic development and aquatic ecosystem restoration. I will briefly mention two

of these.

The Corps of Engineers is operating the electrical barrier on the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal with the goal of preventing, if

possible, the migration of the Asian carp and other invasive fish

species between the watersheds of the Mississippi River and the

Great Lakes. We are continuing to operate the demonstration barrier, which was constructed in 2002, and we are constructing a permanent barrier. This project has been challenging for technical reasons, but we recognize its importance. I am committed to doing everything I can to keep that line of defense in place and to doing

it safely.

In addition, the Corps has launched an initiative which focuses

specifically on wetlands and aquatic habitat. Earlier this year, the

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Mr. Woodley, announced the selection of the Great Lakes Habitat Initiative Project

for $1 million in 2006 funding. This two-year Great Lakes Habitat

Initiative is an example of the type of integrated planning that can

help bridge the gap between general recommendations for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes and site-specific actions.

This initiative will identify on-the-ground projects for habitat protection and restoration, develop performance metrics for

prioritization, create comparable cost and benefit data and link

projects with existing Federal, State, tribal, local and other sources.

The Corps is pleased to have had the opportunity to appear before you to provide an overview of our activities on the importance

of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. We value highly the water resources of the Lakes and the partnerships we have formed. We look

forward to continuing those partnerships.

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this opportunity, and I will

be pleased to answer your questions when the time comes. Thank

you very much, sir.
15

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, General Berwick.

Mr. Wooley.

Mr. WOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I am Charlie Wooley, Deputy Regional Director of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Midwest Region.

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Great

Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy and how it can be implemented to restore and protect the Great Lakes. My statement will

address the Agency’s collaborative role in implementing the strategy. Fish and Wildlife Service survey data indicate that fishing,

hunting and wildlife watching generate nearly $18 billion in annual revenue in the Great Lakes region. In collaboration with others, the Fish and Wildlife Service addresses natural resource issues

that affect the fish, wildlife and habitats of the Great Lakes basin,

as well as the 35 million people that live there.

As the only Federal agency whose mission is to conserve, protect

and enhance fish, wildlife and their habitats, the Service is uniquely positioned to serve the natural resources of the Great Lakes

basin and provide leadership on the Great Lakes governors’ priorities in the areas of habitat and species, aquatic invasive species

and information and indicators. Within the Great Lakes, habitat

loss is a tremendous concern. The Great Lakes region has lost more

than half of its original wetlands, 60 percent of its forest lands.

And the region only has a small remnant of other habitat types,

such as savannahs and prairies.

The Administration strongly supports wetland restoration efforts

as evidenced by the President’s commitment to restore, enhance

and protect 3 million acres of wetlands nationwide over 5 years.

The Federal Government and our many, many partners, including

the Fish and Wildlife Service, will join in a shared effort via the

Regional Collaboration process to develop wetlands restoration

plans that will enhance and protect a total of 200,000 acres over

the next several years in the Great Lakes Basin.

Now, you may ask, what is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role

in wetlands restoration? Well, the Service brings to bear a range

of programs that contribute directly to restoration of fish and wildlife species and their habitats within the basin. For example, in

2005, the Service awarded $2.1 million in North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants to restore, protect and enhance approximately 4,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes basin.

In 2005, the Service awarded $4 million in National Coastal Wetlands Conservation grants for partners to acquire over 1,800 acres

of wetlands along Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Through settlements under the Natural Resource Restoration Program, the

Service has restored and enhanced 955 acres of wetlands and protected almost an additional 900 acres of wetlands in Indiana,

Michigan and Wisconsin. Additionally, in the Fox River, Wisconsin

area, the Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

restored and enhanced over 4,600 acres of wetlands and associated

uplands and protected an additional 5,000 acres in this area.

The Service’s partners for Fish and Wildlife Service program in

2005 and through 2006 have restored 270 individual wetlands restorations, totaling approximately 10,000 acres in the Great Lakes

basin over the last year and a half.
16

Let me switch gears for a minute, please. An excellent example

of collaboration in action is the work of Ohio EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office

are doing to remediate contaminated sediments via the Great

Lakes Legacy Act funding and restore injured natural resources in

the Ashtabula River in Ohio. The Fish and Wildlife Service has received a settlement for injuries to natural resources within the

Fieldsbrook Superfund site, the source of contamination to the Ashtabula River. Those funds are being used to implement restoration

projects along and near the river, which will compensate the public

for those natural resources lost at the Fieldsbrook site, in conjunction with the removal of contaminated sediments out of this river

by EPA utilizing Legacy Act funding. This is a fabulous example

of cooperation and collaboration, right in front of our eyes.

More than 160 non-native aquatic species are established in the

Great Lakes. And during the last several decades, populations of

non-native species have been discovered at an average rate of one

every eight months. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s

aquatic invasive species action plan is an excellent example of how

to prevent new introductions of aquatic invasive species into the

Great Lakes and how to eradicate, control, contain and limit impacts of aquatic invasive species already introduced. Prevention of

invasive species introductions and control of established populations of invasive species are critical to sustaining and enhancing

ecosystem integrity. We utilize the Binational Sea Lamprey Control

Program administered by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to

do this.

Successful restoration strategies for the Great Lakes must also

include informed decision making. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, initially authorized by Congress in 1990, has

enabled the Service to develop partnerships with a wide range of

Federal, tribal, State and local governments and private entities,

as well as with Canada, to create a basin-wide program to monitor

the ecological health of the Great Lakes.

Since 1998, 72 restoration projects totaling $6.6 million, including $4 million in Federal funds, have been implemented under the

authority of the Restoration Act. More than 60 organizations have

contributed matching funds and expertise, and countless aquatic

species, such as lake trout, sturgeon, walleye and perch, as well as

wildlife, have benefitted.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you this afternoon. I will be glad to answer any further questions.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wooley.

Mr. Ambs?

Mr. AMBS. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I come to you from the Freshwater Belt of the Nation, the Great

Lakes. I am happy to be here. I am testifying today on behalf of

the Council of Great Lakes Governors and its chair and my boss,

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.

I want to take a couple of moments to talk about something that

hasn’t been talked about yet today. On December 13th, 2005, ten
17

governments of our water belt, eight States and two Canadian

provinces, came together with a shared vision to announce a remarkable agreement. On that day they signed the Great Lakes St.

Lawrence Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, and the governors endorsed the companion Interstate Compact. These agreements reflect a unique commitment to shared goals and objectives

and reflect the leadership and collaborative spirit of the eight

Great Lakes governors.

These agreements also provide unprecedented protections for the

Great Lakes by banning water diversions with limited exceptions,

initiating water conservation programs in each State and promoting the sustainable use of our water resources. Now the effort has

moved to the State houses for legislative action that will put in

place the authorities needed to formalize the interstate compact.

Once State legislative actions are completed, we will together approach Congress with a request for consent to formally enact the

compact.

I mention this because it is an incredible collaborative effort. It

is the result of cooperation that fundamentally poses the concept

that we should treat the Great Lakes basin as if it is all one ecosystem and that in fact what people do with their water in Duluth

can in fact have an impact on people in Detroit and Cleveland and

Toronto and Buffalo, and they ought to have a say in that. We have

been able to pull that off. We have it on paper. It is a tremendous

collaborative effort.

As a Great Lakes boy, somebody who was born and raised in

Michigan, who spent 12 years in Ohio and now 10 years in Wisconsin, I can tell you in my lifetime I have not seen such a collaborative effort. This effort on the Great Lakes quantity was one of

nine priorities that the governors identified in 2003, that the mayors quickly embraced, and which became the cornerstones of a second landmark event that we have been talking about today, the release of the Regional Collaboration Strategy to protect and restore

the Great Lakes.

This compact I just spoke of is one priority. But the other eight

are contained in the Collaboration.

We have talked about the plan being released. It is not a State

strategy, an agency strategy, a city strategy, a tribal or advocacy

strategy. It is a plan to move us toward our shared restoration vision. More than 1,500 people, representing many additional thousands, put it together.

But this strategy will not be fully implemented in one or even

ten years. Again, no single agency nor single government can succeed without the full support and shared investments of all of our

partners. If we begin to do it now, if we don’t act now, the problems

become bigger and more expensive. Contaminated sediments don’t

go away, they just get more expensive to remove. The same contaminants spread throughout the lake beyond a confined harbor become impossible to manage and solutions unaffordable.

We applaud the efforts of Congress in a number of areas: to institutionalize the collaborative process, recent Senate action to increase the authorization level in the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife

Restoration Act, the Legacy Act, which has been talked about before. However, as previously identified in a joint letter from the
18

Council of Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence Cities Initiative, we need the shared investment from

Federal partners to be stable and long-term.

As the budget process began, we asked the President to support a request of $300 million to jump-start the implementation of

Strategy recommendations. Unfortunately, it appears so far that

our message and the voices of our region’s citizens are not being

heard. We know and hear about difficult fiscal circumstances. We

see that there are priority issues receiving additional funding support. We need additional support at the Federal level.

So what is it that we need to change? Four key areas. We need

stable, long-term funding commitments. We need more efficient delivery systems. One example could be block grants, to get funding

to projects quicker. We need national programs where none currently exists, contaminated sediment management and exotic species being a couple that have already been referenced. And we need

to eliminate duplication, overlapping programs and inefficiencies.

You have seen and heard how this region mobilized to respond

to the President’s executive order. The people who live and work

in the Great Lakes States are counting on all of the levels of government to come together and work on their behalf. The many

thousands who invested their time and energy into this Strategy

development at the request of their government expect that the

governments will respond with meaningful restoration efforts.

We need the continued support of Congress to attain the necessary long-term stable funding. We need the support of Congress

to try more efficient ways with reduced transactional costs to move

money into implementation. We need the support of Congress to

work together in a ‘‘regional collaboration of national significance’’

as directed by the executive order. We need the support of Congress to help restore faith in government for the citizens of the

eight Great Lakes States who supported the restoration actions

identified in the Regional Collaboration Strategy.

Thank you again for this invitation to appear before you today.

I look forward to attempting to answer any questions that you

might have at the appropriate time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambs.

Dr. Scavia.

Mr. SCAVIA. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Don

Scavia, and I come here in several capacities. In addition to being

Professor of Natural Resources and Environment and Michigan Sea

Grant Director at the University of Michigan, I am also the science

advisor to the Healing Our Waters Coalition that has been referred

to recently, and supported by Mr. Wege from Grand Rapids.

Before joining the Michigan faculty, I served in NOAA as a research scientist for 29 years, and research manager. I worked 15

years on the Great Lakes, 14 years at the national level. It provides me with both a regional and a national perspective on the

significance of the Great Lakes, the need for restoration and the

role for science.

One thing I did notice is, testifying as an academic as opposed

to a Fed, no one sits behind you.

[Laughter.]
19

Mr. SCAVIA. My written testimony focuses on four areas: the

need to act now to protect these resources; the need to identify priorities; the need for a strong science-based restoration; and the critical role for an independent voice that Great Lakes universities can

provide. My oral statement focuses on these first two issues.

A significant portion of my testimony is drawn from a white

paper entitled Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection

and Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible

Changes. The report is included as part of my written testimony.

This white paper has been endorsed by over 200 scientists coming

from every State in the Great Lakes basin, as well as scientists

from California, Florida, Maryland, Hawaii, Colorado, and Tennessee. In fact, over one-third of the endorsements come from outside the Great Lakes basin, indicating that the Great Lakes and

its restoration are an issue of national significance.

Our first point is that it is critical to act now. There is widespread agreement among scientists in the Great Lakes that they

are impacted by a wide range of stresses, and that key areas are

undergoing rapid changes where these stresses are interacting. The

Prescription paper points out that the Great Lakes may be nearing

a tipping point beyond which the ecosystem would move to a new

condition, one that is less desirable from a recreational, commercial

and aesthetic perspective, and more importantly, one from which it

may be very difficult, if not impossible to recover.

Food web disruptions are a prime example with regard to this

tipping point. For example, NOAA has demonstrated the dramatic

and rapid disappearance of the once-abundant bottom-dwelling animal called Diporeia. The dramatic declines are likely linked to the

invasions by the zebra and the cargo mussels and may be one of

the clear signs that the Lakes are moving into a new regime where

these mussels maintain high populations and prevent any substantial recovery.

For example, the abundance of the critical member of the Lake

Michigan food web declined from over 5,000 individuals per square

meter in 1994 to less than 300 per square meter in 2005. And Dave

Jude, a colleague of mine from the University of Michigan found

for the first time enormous quantities of quagga mussels in Lake

Michigan at depths where only a few have been found before. At

a 100 meter depth, he pulled up almost 400 pounds of quagga mussels in just a 10 minute bottom trawl. So many members of the fish

community depend on this Diporeia species that their replacement

with this lower food quality mussels may result in tipping the entire ecosystem toward a whole new food structure, far less valuable

to society.

The problem with ecological tipping points, though, is you can’t

be sure you have reached it until it is too late. So we urge a precautionary approach to avoid passing that critical point by acting

now to support high priority restoration and protection efforts. So

our second point is about setting priorities. The Strategy and Collaboration does a really good job of identifying major problems besetting the Great Lakes, recommending concrete solutions, identifying programs to implement those solutions and recommending

funded need for those programs to be successful.
20

The Prescription paper recognizes four categories of efforts. The

first is prevention. That includes efforts to stop new invasive species, new chemicals, new physical modifications from adding

stresses to the already stressed Great Lakes. The second category

is protection. That includes efforts to protect areas that currently

possess the characteristics that we are striving for in restoration.

The third category is restoration itself. That focuses on repairing

the buffering capacity or the resiliency of the Lakes themselves. It

will be impossible to eliminate all stresses, and even when it is possible, it will likely take decades to achieve. So we must restore the

Lakes’ natural buffering capacity to be able to cope with the

stresses. And the highest priority project should address near-shore

regions, tributaries, watersheds and the connecting waters, because

these provide effective buffers between the human enterprise on

land and the valuable resources of the Lakes.

The fourth category is to monitor and assess progress. Because

without effective monitoring and assessment, it will not be possible

to know if the resources spent on the other three categories are

producing the desired result or simply being wasted. The collaboration strategy lists a wide range of efforts in each of these categories, and some estimates of the overall cost of implementation

reach $20 billion over the next decade. While we support those efforts and the appropriations needed for implementation, it is clear

that priorities must be set within each category, because the Nation can neither afford to pay for all this all at once nor wait for

the future funding.

We have been working with the Healing Our Waters Coalition

and others to help identify priorities, and we suggest the following

criteria. First, does the project improve or protect ecosystem resiliency, functioning and sustainability? In many places, this neutral

buffering capacity has been lost, and one of the highest priorities

is to re-establish it.

Second is, do the projects address all the relevant stresses. While

progress has been made in addressing some key stresses on the

Lakes, the interactions of these stresses have now complicated the

Lakes’ recovery and to be most effective, projects need to take into

account cumulative impacts and interactions.

Three, do the projects address clearly documented impacts? The

highest priority should be those projects that demonstrate clear

connections between proposed actions and ultimate impacts. And finally, is there a plan to measure, assess and communicate results?

Many if not most protection and restoration efforts are likely to

take a long time and therefore need to be designated with an

adaptive framework. To be adaptive, they need to have a clear plan

to monitor activities and results, assess progress and potentially

make adjustments to maximize their likelihood.

I would like to close by highlighting two significant impediments

that must be overcome before progress can be made: lack of funding and inflexible implementation. Even with priorities set and the

willingness of all stakeholders to work together, the lack of funding

remains an enormous impediment to making progress. I understand the overall efforts for restoration funding are quite significant. But it is time for the Great Lakes to receive support commensurate to the national significance. This is particularly true when
21

one compares not only the range of stresses that impact the Lakes,

but their enormous size and their contribution to the economy.

Finally, we do need to have an adaptive capacity, which means

we have to have a science base for the monitoring and the effort

that goes forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to

answering your questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Just so you won’t think I am too bad, I let you run

a minute and 15 seconds over the six minutes.

Mr. SCAVIA. I see that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DUNCAN. All the other Members, with the exception of me,

have to get to a Science Committee meeting. I told Ms. Johnson I

would let her go first, and then I will come to the others as soon

as we can.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As I expressed in my opening statement, I am pleased with the

overall efforts to develop a comprehensive plan for the Great Lakes

restoration. But I remain concerned about whether this plan will

ever be implemented. After hearing the witnesses that are working

with the plan, I wonder if you feel optimistic or whether you feel

it might be a wasted opportunity.

What specific actions are your respective agencies taking to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Plan?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, I will just start and say, we

view the plan as an overall guide. So some of the specific actions

we are taking, one is, we are working with our partners, we all

agreed to an implementation framework. That is an infrastructure,

a process to track and follow through and progress on actions that

all of us are taking.

The second thing is that the Administrator, Steve Johnson, Administrator of EPA, designated Gary Gulezian, who is behind me,

the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, to specifically track and monitor Federal agency actions that advance the

Strategy.

The third thing I would mention is that each of the different

areas, each of the eight major categories of themes of recommendations, we do have specific near-term Federal agency actions that we

have committed to take and that we are on track to completing. So

we are focused on that and committed to the Regional Collaboration and getting results such as through the Great Lakes Legacy

Act, cleaning up the sediment sites and seeking the funding at the

Federal level to do just that.

Ms. JOHNSON. It is my expectation that you are probably already

putting together the President’s budget request for fiscal 2008. Is

that right, that would include this plan?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, our agency, like other agencies,

is working internally on developing their recommendations for a

2008 budget, that is correct.

Ms. JOHNSON. My colleague said here, which happens all the

time, that the requests have come over, it has been the Appropriations Committee that has cut the funds. How much has the Appropriations Committee cut each time?
22

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, the most accurate and responsive approach for me to follow up on that would be to say that we

can provide you with specific numbers on items, comparing items

in the President’s budget request with the Appropriations Committee’s or what Congress ended up appropriating. A good example is

in the areas of concern where for the second year in a row, the Administration has requested virtually full funding for the Great

Lakes Legacy Program and Congress has made progress and has

appropriated more each of those years, but still falling short of the

full funding requested.

Ms. JOHNSON. Has this interfered with the implementation of the

plan?

Mr. GRUMBLES. We feel that, specifically with the Great Lakes

remedial actions on the areas of concern, we feel that we have specific work plans, we have a Great Lakes Legacy rule. We are moving forward with the dollars that we have. We do have a surplus

in the fund right now for the Legacy Act, but we also have a lot

of work in the future in the pipeline that we know we can get done.

So we are committed to the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

Ms. JOHNSON. When you start working on the restoration, and

you don’t have the funds, will the delay cause some roll-back in

some of the progress you have made?

Mr. GRUMBLES. We think that the most important component of

accelerating environmental protection is working together. As other

witnesses have pointed out, it is a shared responsibility. Many of

the projects, in fact most of the areas recommended, or the areas

in the blueprint for action contemplate a variety of shared responsibilities. So we think the key, when there are budgetary constraints, and there are significant budgetary constraints, we want

a realistic plan and to move forward to see real results. So we work

with our partners to leverage the scarce dollars.

So that is the key, improved coordination and improved

leveraging.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

I might just explain to the witnesses, I sit on seven subcommittee and three different full committees. Four of those subcommittees are having meetings that started at 2:00 o’clock today. I think

that because, there must be half the subcommittees in the Congress meeting at this time. Unfortunately, this is the fewest number of Members that I have ever had at a subcommittee meeting

that I have chaired. But I do think this is a very important topic,

the status of the Great Lakes, and I do appreciate all of you being

here. There are many other Members, I think, who realize the importance of what we are talking about. But I want to go at this

time to Mr. Gilchrest, he did not have a chance to give an opening

statement, for any comments or questions that you might have at

this time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you for holding the hearing, along with the Ranking Member. I also want to thank Vern Ehlers for his lifelong commitment

to this issue and the Great Lakes. I think he enjoys living in the

belt. I have never heard it called that before, that is interesting.
23

I read a book maybe 20 years ago and I can’t remember the

name of the author, but he was connected with Gerald Ford, I

think maybe even worked for Gerald Ford when they were beginning the whole Great Lakes program. The title of the book was

Making of An Environmental Republican. It was fascinating. If you

can Google that up somewhere and take a look at it, it is interesting. Because it was the first time I had ever heard of problems

with persistent toxic chemicals and their disruption, not only in the

ecosystem, but in the endocrine system of species within the ecosystem. So it was really fascinating.

Just a quick couple of comments, because I have learned some

things that I want to now initiate with the Chesapeake Bay program, which I think will be helpful in this way. A hundred years

ago, we did not know what human activity did to the degradation

of nature’s design and how it disrupted that process. We know

about it now, in extraordinary ways, we know about it. So we have

this magnificent level of science that we haven’t known before.

But people, to some extent, and I see that in my district, outside

that arena of scientific information, who are in fact the people that

make the decisions about land use at the local level, the town level,

the county level, municipalities, have this monstrous certainty that

more is better. Consequently, much of the problem with the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes is a direct result of the local land

use decisions as far as degradation from persistent toxic chemicals,

from stormwater runoff, from sewage treatment plants, from a

whole plethora of things that result from local land use.

Now, we can connect like we are doing here today, with invasive

species, with the Federal Government, the Clean Water Act, air

deposition, those kinds of things we can collaborate on. But it is

the idea now to integrate the information, I am glad to see the

Mayor, Mr. Becker here today. Because to some extent you have

seen this in communities near where you are that feel more construction, more development. What is a non-tidal wetlands? Are we

still dickering about the makeup of the soil, or the plant or the hydrology? What about forested buffers?

But it is those answers, prevention, hold on to what you have,

protection, don’t let it be degraded any further, restoration, bring

back the buffers, the forested buffers and non-tidal wetlands, and

then monitor that. So Dr. Scavia, your idea of prevention, protection, restoration, monitor and assess progress is for each local community to take a look at the big picture and the Great Lakes is

connected across that huge, beautiful belt.

I apologize for my lecture, but I go through the same kinds of

things with the Chesapeake Bay. I think what we know now about

nature’s design, we know that if we do the right things, human activity can be compatible with nature’s design and people will see

a cleaner Great Lakes 10, 15, 100 years from now than the see

right now.

I want to thank Vern for all his efforts in that arena. And I have

to exit myself. But the staff is going to listen closely to your recommendations and follow up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, MR. Gilchrest.

Dr. Ehlers.
24

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I give my thanks to Mr.

Gilchrest, too. He has been one of the heroes of the environmental

movement, particular as it relates to water resources.

I agree with the comment by Mr. Grumbles earlier that Legacy

Act funding that the Administration has proposed every year has

been right where it should be, right at the top, and unfortunately,

the Congress hasn’t done as well. But at the same time, I am very

disappointed that the Administration has taken the position that

it will only undertake those recommendations of the Collaboration

that can be done within existing budget projects. We simply cannot

accomplish what we need to do as outlined in the goals and objectives of the Regional Collaboration Strategy teams with the current

funding. As I said in my opening statement, the solutions to the

many problems facing the Great Lakes, contaminated sediment,

sewer overflows, loss of habitat and so forth, will only become more

expensive, more complicated and more daunting the longer we

wait.

So my question here for the Federal witnesses is, can we expect

that the Administration’s position will change as you develop your

budget proposal for the coming fiscal year? We can just go right

down the line. We will let you go first, Ben.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Congressman.

The hard work that was put together in this unprecedented infusion of ecology and democracy in putting together that Regional

Collaboration Strategy, that overall blueprint, was one that we continue to see the value in. We agree with other partners that it

could be used as an overall guide.

We did want to stress at the time that we are focused on using

the resources that we have, having a blueprint, so that in recognizing what are priorities areas, given the fiscal constraints or the

out-years, we would have the document, have something that help

us all focus in on key areas.

The contaminated sediments is an example where we are seeking

new resources, additional resources, more funding. The last estimates we have indicate that the Federal agencies collectively have

been providing half a billion dollars for direct water quality benefits in the Great Lakes among the various programs. So for us, the

key, without knowing what future budgets will entail, and I certainly can’t make predictions, Congressman.

I think for us the key was to focus in on the areas that we know

within our current budgetary resources we can take action, specific

actions and to really look for areas to better leverage and to cut

process and red tape to get more with the dollars we have, but to

also have out there, as a result of the Collaboration and the partnership, a blueprint for future action if there are additional resources, both governmental and non-governmental, and looking at

various levels and sectors of government, to have a real blueprint.

I think that is a key part to not lose sight of.

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just comment on that. I am a great fan of

zero-based budgeting. What I see, it seems to me what you are saying is all your funding is already budgeted and you are going to

try and squeak out what you can to deal with this new area. What

I am asking for, and not a commitment now, but just asking you

to do, by that I mean all governmental agencies, just look at the
25

whole program and say, this is the world’s greatest water ecosystem. We now have a program of what to do about it. What can

we reduce elsewhere in the agency that is a lower priority than

dealing with the world’s greatest water ecosystem?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right.

Mr. EHLERS. Let’s get the others in before my time expires. General Berwick?

General BERWICK. Thank you, sir.

I, like Administrator Grumbles, am not in a good position to forecast future budgets. But I will cite a couple of things that give me

some reason for optimism. One is as a result of the activity of the

Collaboration, some real national attention has been focused on the

challenge of the fish barrier in the Sanitation Canal. In fact, Administrator Johnson last December specifically highlighted that

and indicated a willingness to work with our agency and with Congress to try to bring about further redundancy in that barrier. So

I am encouraged by that. I was also encouraged by our successful competition to have $1

million for the Great Lakes Habitat Initiative that the Corps of Engineers is undertaking, which will specifically look at wetlands and

implementable projects. So I thought that $1 million doesn’t sound

like much, but since that is study money, that is seed money, that

is quite significant.

Then along the same lines, in terms of developing synergy, I am

encouraged by the activities at Ashtabula, where work is currently

underway under the auspices of the EPA to remove contaminated

sediments. But we are prepared to follow closely behind that and

develop synergy by doing some navigation dredging, which will remove further contaminated sediments, and we are able to use the

same placement facility and therefore get significantly more work

done.

So I think there are some good things that are happening with

regard to resources. Thank you, sir.

Mr. EHLERS. My point on this, just very quickly, one thing I have

learned many times in my life, acting quickly can save a lot of

money that you will have to spend otherwise. It makes sense to act

quickly when the situation develops. I have just been totally dismayed, and I am not totally blaming you, the Congress bears some

fault for this, too, at how long it has taken and how difficult it has

been to put up the carp barrier. Now, that is a non-brainer. And

we are talking about a couple million dollars here, you heard the

testimony. It is an $18 billion a year system that we are dealing

with. And right now, just from the zebra mussels alone, we are

spending $2 billion a year just in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nationwide, it is a cost of $13 billion a year dealing with the invasive

species and the aquatic invasive species. The Asian carp could easily wipe out the fishery in the Great Lakes.

So we are worried about how we can fund a couple million dollar

project. But we have $18 billion hanging there as the penalty if we

don’t do it right. That is the point I am trying to make here. Let’s

really prioritize these and go back and look at some of the other

things we have and say, are they really as important as saving $18

billion a year? Or I should say preserving the $18 billion a year industry.
26

My time has expired. I would love to have Mr. Wooley’s comments, if you can do it very, very briefly.

Mr. WOOLEY. Very quickly, Congressman Ehlers. Last Thursday

in Traverse City, Michigan, the Fish and Wildlife Service dedicated

and christened a 100 foot long vessel called the Spencer Barrett.

That vessel, sir, will be used to increase lake trout stocking in Lake

Michigan and Lake Huron. It will also be utilized to assess lake

and fish populations, particularly stocked fish populations in Lake

Michigan and Lake Huron. I think it is a great example of the Fish

and Wildlife Service contribution to the collaborative nature of this

work, and it is certainly identified in the collaborative report that

we need more of that stocking assessment data. So that is an example, sir, from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s viewpoint. Thank

you.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate that, because as you know, the zebra

mussel and the goby are really entering the fishery in the Great

Lakes. That is a potential huge economic loss. My apologies for

running over, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers. I would

just ask the panel as a whole, since Dr. Ehlers ended up just mentioning the money and how much we could save, but also, I have

noticed that in the Collaboration that we are told that they really

need to do what needs to be done, probably $20 billion over the

next five years. That is $4 billion a year.

Where is the money going to come from? Anybody got any suggestions? Mayor?

Mayor BECKER. We always look to the Federal Govenrment.

[Laughter.]

Mayor BECKER. Understand, cities haven’t been sitting back

doing nothing as the Collaboration was formed and worked through

and the thousands of hours of work done. Cities have been moving

ahead throughout the whole process. I believe the city of Toronto

is investing their own city dollars. This isn’t any province or national dollars, $25 million a year, just in the city of Toronto, on

their shores over the next 20 years, $25 million per year, a half a

billion dollars they have set out to plan.

In Racine, we have totally rebuilt our wastewater plant, our

water intake plant. We have built wetlands. We have continued to

move ahead on planning and ideas to do more.

We again, as Congressman Ehlers said, what can be more important? It is every group ahead of you, I realize, is the most important group, and as it should be, they are advocates for their issues.

But truly, as I said in the opening comments, we have heard people

talk about that tipping point. That is probably in pretty good relation to the levee breaking in New Orleans, that once you go beyond, now you are going to spend a whole lot more trying to bring

those Lakes back to where they are in balance as opposed to letting

them go in the first place. So if you want, I can put together a list of $4 billion in cuts for

you. But as Congressman Ehlers said, I think we have to look at

our priorities. I know we don’t do zero-based budgeting. But there

certainly have to do things that the Federal Govenrment can step

up and play their part like the local and the State governments

have right along to complement each other, really work together.
27

Because you can talk about a collaboration, but a collaboration

without a lot of money and resources makes it very difficult to do.

It is better than no collaboration and things will get done better.

But certainly we all need the resources to move ahead.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I will get on into some other questions. But

I do think that those of you who are serious about this and involved in it, and I think most of you are, you need to come up with

suggestions or proposals about where the money is going to come

from. One of the most interesting things in Dr. Scavia’s testimony

that I read, he said the view from the majority of the science community is that we know enough now to take action to restore and

protect the Great Lakes.

The reason I found that to be so interesting is that most Members of Congress, we don’t always get it, but we want action. And

we get sick and tired of all these things being studied, studied,

studied, studied, studied for years. So we would almost get the impression everything has been studied that could possibly be studied. There comes a time when you have to take action and do something. I was pleased that that was in his testimony.

But I also know that we are discussing now, some of our staff

is meeting right now about the Water Resources Development Act.

And while that bill passes overwhelming in both the House and

Senate, it may end up being in the end difficult to pass or difficult

to get the funding for everything that is in there. That is a bill that

probably is going to end up $13 billion or $14 billion for the water

needs of the Nation as a whole.

So while I regard the Great Lakes as very important and want

to do as much as we can, we need almost as a first step to determine where the money is going to come from. And that is something that those who are directly involved in this really need to

take a hard look at. And Administrator Grumbles wants to comment on that, and that is fine. You go ahead and comment on that.

But I also want to ask you, the Great Lakes Office in the EPA

was established, I am told, in 1987. I am wondering, over this past

20 years, you mentioned going to Ashtabula yesterday. In what

area have you seen the most progress, and in what area are we

having the least progress, are we falling the shortest in?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to mention on the question about funding and where does it come from,

I think everyone agrees that it has to come from a variety of

sources, and certainly not just governments and not just the Federal Government, but the private sector, the corporate community.

One of the things that I think is very exciting, Todd mentioned it

with respect to the compact and the water quantity and the work

that the States and provinces in the Great Lakes are pursuing is,

it embraces the ethic of water efficiency and water conservation.

I wanted to mention that one of the ways EPA feels very strongly

that you can reduce the costs on wastewater and drinking water

infrastructure, maintenance and construction, is by coming up with

more efficient ways that save water and reduce the energy and

water demands on infrastructure. So our new program that is modeled on Energy Star, the WaterSense Program that will have labels

available so the public can choose products that actually work as

well as competing products, but are 20 percent more water effi-
28

cient, is going to have a significant impact and will reduce the demands on the local infrastructure systems. Because they don’t have

to use as much energy to run them and will also reduce occurrence

of sewer overflows, which is a real threat in the Great Lakes. But

sustainable infrastructure, innovative financing and water efficiency are key.

On your question about the Great Lakes National Program Office, Gary Gulezian is a real resource for the agency and for the

Great Lakes region-wide. I will ask him, he can provide more specifics for the record for you, Mr. Chairman, and your Members.

But I know that one of the areas where we have seen progress

over the years is first of all, toxics. There has been a lot of work

and accomplishments that have been made over the last decade,

last couple of decades. Tremendous amount of work that remains.

But the awareness and the goals that people in various levels of

govenrment are working toward, toward the virtual elimination of

toxics, is an important one. It is a threat to the ecosystem and to

public health.

But there has been progress made because of the awareness and

specific actions, the strategies to reduce persistent bioaccumulative

toxics, for instance, PCBs or others, which is a key culprit of a lot

of the legacy contaminated sediment sites that we are putting a

priority towards.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. I really do

think you do a great job in a very difficult position. I also knew,

and everybody in here knew that the funding for all this work is

going to have to come from a variety of sources, as you said. And

everybody is for things like innovative financing. That is a good

high-falutin term and everybody is in favor of things like that.

But I think it would be a good idea for the people who are in

charge of this and the EPA is supposed to be the lead agency, get

everybody together and sit down and say, let’s come up with some

specific plans and details about who is going to come up with what

money and what kind of schedule and so forth. So we actually start

getting some things done.

General Berwick, along that line, I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee for six years and I sit on the Highway Subcommittee.

All these things that we deal with in this Committee, we have

heard, this is my 18th year on this Committee and I enjoy the work

on this Committee, I think it is very important. But we always

hear that all these infrastructure projects, of whatever type, water,

highways, aviation, whatever, that they take three or four times as

long as they really need to because of all the rules and regulations

and red tape, particularly the environmental rules and regulations,

and that these projects are taking on average 10 years, 12 years,

where they could be done in 2 or 3 or 4 years if we streamlined

the process. And you know about that, we are trying to do that,

trying to make some improvements in the Highway Bill.

But when you make these projects cost three or four times as

much, it doesn’t hurt the wealthy, but it hurts the poor and the

lower income and the working people. And I can tell you this, everybody says we are in a global economy, and all these countries

that are coming on the strongest, particularly China, boy, they
29

don’t take long to do these projects. They get them approved and

they do them.

What I am getting at is, is the Army Corps doing anything about

streamlining and improving the permitting process so that we can

start getting these projects that need to be done along the Great

Lakes and in the Great Lakes done in a little faster way?

General BERWICK. Sir, we are absolutely taking a look at that at

a national level from a number of different perspectives. We are excited at the prospect of trying to streamline that process and move

it more swiftly.

In doing so, we are also mindful of the fact that many of these

projects are indeed very complex. So there is a balance that needs

to be struck between going faster and making sure that we have

the right solution before we launch too quickly. So there is a balance there that we are pursuing. But there is no question that

streamlining is being very carefully looked at, and in particular in

the regulatory arena there is a very specific look at trying to advance the opportunity to get permits more quickly.

Mr. DUNCAN. I agree with you that a balance needs to be struck.

That is my point. Because I think that we are out of balance right

now. And when we have rules and regulations that make projects

take three or four times as long as they should, and take 10 or 12

years when they could be done in 3 or 4 years, that is not a good

thing.

Mr. Wooley, what is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing primarily about the aquatic invasive species, and specifically what I

am asking about, one of the things, did you hear General Berwick

say that there are technological or technical difficulties with the

barrier?

Mr. WOOLEY. Yes, sir. We have worked very, very closely with

the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Illinois over the last

four years on that project. We have provided, when requested by

the Corps, technical assistance. We have done an awful lot of

electrofishing and survey work in the area where the barrier is in

the Illinois River, supporting the Corps, supporting the State of Illinois on that project, sir. We have also brought in at times, when

requested, electrical expertise that we have gathered as we utilize

what is known as electrofishing techniques there to assist the

Corps in assessment work.

Mr. DUNCAN. I’m sorry, what fishing technology?

Mr. WOOLEY. It is called electrofishing.

Mr. DUNCAN. Electro?

Mr. WOOLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Tell me about that.

Mr. WOOLEY. It is a means where we just put a controlled

amount of electricity into the water and we are able to assess fish

populations by utilizing that method. That gives us the ability to

survey, to look at the efficiency of the electrical barrier. It is a very

good assessment tool fishery biologists use throughout the Country,

sir.

So our work with the Corps in the State of Illinois has been one

of providing technical assistance and providing some fishery management expertise when requested, sir.
30

Mr. DUNCAN. How big is that problem? I just heard Dr. Ehlers talk about the $13 billion that is being spent nationwide and the

possible savings of $18 billion if we get some of this done. What

do you say about all that?

Mr. WOOLEY. It is a very, very important issue in the Great

Lakes, sir. The impacts that just sea lamprey have on lake trout

populations currently is costing the taxpayer about $15 million a

year. That is a shared project between the United States and Canada where we control sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes.

It is working. It is very labor-intensive and it takes a lot of coordination between the two countries to make it work. So there is

a small but significant example, sir, of how controlling exotics is

paramount in the role of the mission that the Fish and Wildlife

Service has working with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ambs, you are here representing the Council of Governors

from the region, the State governments. From your point of view,

are the local governments doing as much as they should be doing

in handling their pollution or waste from their stormwater and

wastewater runoffs, their sewage runoffs, discharges?

Mr. AMBS. Yes, I do think the local governments are going to

great lengths to address those issues. The challenge that we have,

as I think you well know, is that 30 years ago when the Clean

Water Act went into place, we had a lot of Federal money that

helped set those systems up. Now, 30 years later, the same level

of commitment to maintain that infrastructure has not, is still not

there.

So the concern is, while local governments are going to great

lengths, and frankly, in many cases, having to raise water rates

significantly to pay for those infrastructure improvements, and

while State governments are stepping up, we see unfortunately a

backsliding at the Federal level of a few things like the current

proposal to cut a lot of funding for the State revolving loan fund.

I think one of the excellent questions that you have asked and

certainly excellent comments of other members of the Committee,

when you look at this, look at what the local governments can do,

the States can do, and then tie it into what the Feds can and

should do and use it to prioritize, I think we have a very specific

blueprint for action. We recognized that the $20 billion figure over

10 years actually was a big number. We broke it down, along with

the mayors and other collaborators a $300 million item over one

fiscal year, with specifically identified places where strategically

spending money could really pay benefits.

And it is not just Federal money. We are asking for, as an example in that blueprint, $28 million more for wetlands restoration.

But if we get that $28 million more from the Feds, State

govenrment, local govenrment, tribes, non-governmental organizations, a whole range of folks have promised to match that money.

If the Feds can come up with $28 million, we will figure out a way

to come up with $28 million and to address the very critical infrastructure needs that we have.

It is also not just a funding issue. The last comment I would

make in terms of what the Feds can do, we are glad the Federal

Interagency Task Force is formed, but we are eagerly awaiting
31

them to identify places where they can have more efficient delivery

of services. And we are also hoping that we can see some action

on things that don’t require a lot of additional money but certainly

require some action.

And aquatic invasive species is right at the top of the list. It is

a critical problem. You talk about a tipping point. We have 165 exotic species in the Great Lakes. It is not only a question of the fishery, it is a question of the economic vitality of the region. And we

have, for example, in the State of Wisconsin, the second highest

number of out of State anglers come into Wisconsin, second only to

Florida. It is a critical piece of our economy.

And if we don’t do something about the impact of aquatic

invasives on just Lake Michigan, it is going to have a huge impact.

So a few thoughts, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me say this. We have heard over the years,

nothing but good comments, I think, in this Subcommittee and this

Committee about the State revolving loan funds program. Yet in

both Democratic and Republican administrations, that program

seems to not be real popular. And what I am wondering about is

if the program is as important and as good as people from State

and local governments tell us, and water agencies and so forth

from around the Country, perhaps it might be a good idea of

groups like your Council of Governors got in touch with OMB and

people like that and other people in the various administrations

and let them know of the work that has been done through that

or with those State revolving loan funds. Might be something to

think about.

Dr. Scavia, you mentioned an ecological tipping point. Would you

go into that a little bit more and how close are we, how urgent do

you feel these needs are, or these problems are?

Mr. SCAVIA. Sure. As I mentioned in my testimony, the problem

with the tipping point is you don’t know until you have passed it.

So we are very concerned about it. I think some of the examples

of the approach of the tipping point include the following. One is

this loss of this animal that all the fish species in the Great Lakes

really depend upon. The loss of that species and its replacement by

the zebra mussels and the quagga mussels has been described as

the difference between eating a Big Mac or eating a Big Mac with

the styrofoam shell on it.

The fish in the Great Lakes are already coming up thinner, less

weight than they had been in the past, and we are very concerned

that eventually that fishery may in fact collapse in one way or another. A second example is the Asian carp. If the Asian carp does

get into Lake Michigan, it is a voracious top predator and it may

decimate the population in very short order, completely shifting

that population.

There is another dimension I think is important. That is backsliding.

Mr. DUNCAN. Backsliding?

Mr. SCAVIA. Backsliding. Thirty or 40 years ago, the poster child

for the Great Lakes was Lake Erie.

Mr. DUNCAN. I usually hear that at Baptist churches.

[Laughter.]
32

Mr. SCAVIA. Lake Erie was the poster child, Lake Erie was dead,

the Cuyahoga River was burning. That was the beginning of a lot

of actions that have taken place. A lot of money was spent to build

sewage treatment plants and to take care of the loads into the

Lakes. A lot of progress was made. Lake Erie got a lot better. The

dead zone went away or got very much smaller.

It is back. The dead zone is now back and it seems to be growing

again. The question is, it is because of increased population and inability to maintain the infrastructure that was put in place 30

years ago? Or is it the combination of those loads and now the introduction of the zebra mussel? There is concern that the zebra

mussel is now changing the dynamics of the material in the Lakes

that is actually stimulating the growth of that dead zone again. So

we may be backsliding in the sense of losing progress that we have

made in the Lakes as well as moving toward the tipping point.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. I emphasized to all of you

not running over your time and I have gone way over my time. But

I usually try to stick a little closer to the time limits if we more

Members. But I like to get as many of the witnesses to participate

as possible, and hopefully gain as much knowledge as possible from

each of you and you have each been very helpful and very informative.

Dr. Ehlers has a couple more questions or comments.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, a few comments.

You mentioned in one of our previous hearings that Americans now

pay $8 billion a year for bottled water. We could clean up the Great

Lakes ecosystem in three years with the amount of money that

people pay for bottled water. The issue is priorities and what is important to people. Clearly clean water is important to them. But

putting the money into bottled water is not necessarily the most efficient way of dealing with achieving clean water.

I think what had made the Legacy Act work so well, aside from

the good work this Committee did on perfecting that bill, is that

we included sharing of expenses in that bill. As you recall, 35 percent comes from the local communities or non-profit groups or industries, what have you. And because communities are eager to get

their particular area cleaned up, in my experience none of them

have had any trouble raising that local match, the 35 percent.

So we get a good deal for our money from that program. And that

is partly why it has been so successful.

I did want to ask a question. One of the primary goals of the executive order and the regional collaboration, as we have heard, is

coordination across programs and levels of government. It is not

just about funding, although we have talked about that. But the

real issue is trying to get everything together so we can work well.

This is not true just in instances where your agency decided to undertake a project or decided to change course in an existing project.

But I am curious, are your agencies incorporating the Strategy’s

recommended goals, milestones and tasks into your short range

and long-range planning. Are you really grabbing hold of what the

Collaboration came up with and incorporating it into your plans?

This time we will go the other way and begin talking, just the Federal witnesses. Mr. Wooley?
33

Mr. WOOLEY. Congressman Ehlers, absolutely we are doing that

from the Fish and Wildlife perspective. I can cite two examples, sir.

One is we have utilized the collaboration and the weekly phone

calls that we have with our Federal partners to be more efficient

in the Great Lakes. An example is we are doing some assessment

over in the Detroit River where we are utilizing Fish and Wildlife

Service employees and dollars, but utilizing an EPA vessel in the

Detroit River to do that assessment in concert with EPA and the

State of Michigan. So there is efficiencies, coordination and effectiveness there.

The second example is the Ashtabula River example that I cited

earlier in my testimony, where we are doing that in concert with

the State of Ohio and with GLNPO, the EPA Great Lanes Program

Office in Chicago, taking our tool, utilizing it collectively, cooperatively with the State and with EPA to make a more efficient restoration occur in the Ashtabula River. So those are two examples,

sir, that I can cite, just off the top of my head.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. General?

General BERWICK. Congressman, my short answer would be yes,

absolutely. I see one of the great advantages of this collaboration

as the beginning of discussions and the opportunity to search for

synergy and efficiencies and especially amongst our Federal partners, but even a larger circle beyond that. It has been very helpful

in that regard.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay, that is what I suspected. I know the EPA is

already doing it, so we don’t have to ask them. I am just very

pleased it is accomplishing that, because I think that is one thing

that the President hoped to accomplish, and I really, really admire

him for putting this Collaboration together.

But the fact that it is paying off I think is indicative of that, it

was a very worthwhile effort.

One other thing that came out of this when we were discussing

this with all the tribes, the Governors, the mayors, et cetera, a

great deal of concern, and it is in the report and also in the GAO

report that preceded this. There are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing. There is no one organization that is coordinating restoration efforts. And during the collaboration discussion at

one point I argued for a Great Lakes czar, it is a favorite term

around here, even though it comes from another country. That of

course is not included.

But I want to ask you, any of you who wish to respond, where

is the locus of direction coming from? I know you are working together, but is there some overarching direction coming from one

agency or another? I will open that to anyone. Mr. Grumbles.

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would like to mention a couple of things, Congressman. One of them, there is a tremendous amount of effort and

collaboration and there will be progress, continued progress in implementing the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. In our EPA,

because of the President’s executive order and history of the Great

Lakes National Program Office, I think we are in a position

through the Administrator and also through Gary Gulezian, who

has been designated within the EPA organization as the czar to

manage progress on the regional collaboration.
34

The other point to make, though, Congressman, as you know,

probably better than anyone, there are other forums and mechanisms, too, particularly the international one. And our partners in

Canada are very much a part of the Great Lakes Water Quality

Agreement and the review process. That is equally important and

provides an opportunity to coordinate actions on an international

level, whereas this Great Lakes Regional Collaboration is more of

what can we do among the Federal agencies and working with our

partners.

But we do recognize, as you stated, the importance of having

some accountability and a focal point to help measure and monitor

for progress.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate your doing that. Because my reading

of Section 118 of the Clean Water Act clearly gives the EPA the

authority to do it. And I just want to emphasize, I think it is extremely important for you to do that.

Yes, Mayor?

Mayor BECKER. Thank you, Congressman. I agree. I think all

parties to the Collaboration need to make a more significant commitment to the implementation from the top leadership on down.

If you don’t have the senior leadership involved, it is very hard to

move it forward.

One of the things we would like to see is that there would be a

much clearer set of expectations of actions and some sort of time

line. One of the things I always do with my staff before we leave

a meeting is who is going to do what and when are you going to

get it done. And I understand this is a much bigger project than

most.

But if you don’t have specific things laid out and set up to do,

it is very hard to do. The more agencies you have, the harder it

is. I would very much support having a Great Lakes czar. One of

the things the mayors’ group did, there used to be the Great Lakes

Cities Initiative and the International Association of Mayors. We

merged that, we had basically two groups of mayors doing the

same thing. Not that would ever happen in the Federal bureaucracy, I am sure.

But we merged them into one to make our voices as one, to have

one agenda to drive forward. So any time we can get specific things

with time lines, I think you have much more ability to hold people

accountable for moving the Collaboration Strategy forward.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I was hoping that was developing and I have heard areas that it is developing. I am glad to

hear that it is that extensive.

One last point I want to make is, so that we can continue this,

and I always think long-term, the bill that I have authored, people

are swallowing hard at $20 billion, et cetera. That is a press-generated figure. The point is simply, we are not asking for a $20 billion authorization. But two years from now, we are going to have

a new President. The President is going to appoint new administrators to the EPA and other agencies. I want to make sure that this

continues on and that the pattern is in statute and developed, so

that it will be a blueprint for the ages, not just for the Bush Administration.
35

So I am very interested, Mr. Chairman, in having my bill come

out. And I recognize we are not going to get all that money all at

once. That is fine with me. We have to take it bits and pieces. But

we have to establish that pattern for the future. That is the whole

purpose of my writing the bill. Not changing what the Collaboration has come up with, but just instituting it in statute so that it

is going to be there for the future as well.

I thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your

patience.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers has a good memory. My Tennessee grandfather was a subsistence farmer and a

Presbyterian minister. But I heard my father say, and I knew my

grandfather well, I was in high school when he passed away, but

I heard my father say Papa Duncan probably never made $100

cash money any one month in his life. They had 10 kids and an

outhouse and not a whole lot more. I did express amazement in

here, express that I thought my grandfather would have been

amazed at how much people are paying for bottled water now.

They pay a lot more than they pay for gasoline, for instance.

But I will tell you that my other grandfather spent the last 28

years of his career as a professor and writer at the University of

Iowa. He and my grandparents, though, were both born and raised

in Illinois. They actually had a little tiny cabin on Lake Michigan.

So I have had a lot of relatives, I had an aunt and uncle and three

cousins in Wisconsin, aunt and uncle and six cousins in Indiana,

near Chicago, so I’ve had a lot of people in the region or close to

the areas that some of you have been discussing here today.

I thank you very much. To me at least it has been a very interesting and informative hearing. I thank you very much for taking

time out to be with us.

That will conclude this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was concluded.]
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167

Æ