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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–785 PDF 2007

THE IMPACT OF AQUATIC INVASIVE

SPECIES ON THE GREAT LAKES

(110–14)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 7, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

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 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi

TESTIMONY 

Page 

Becker, Hon. Gary, Mayor, City of Racine, Wisconsin ......................................... 13

Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Office and Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition ....................... 27

Debeaussaert, Ken, Director, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes ...................... 13

Ettawageshik, Hon. Frank, Tribal Chairman, Little Traverse Bay Bands of 

Odawa Indians; .................................................................................................... 13

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................... 2

Kahabka, John M., Manager of Environmental Operations, New York Power 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 27

Lodge, David M., Professor, Department Of Biological Sciences, University 

Of Notre Dame ..................................................................................................... 27

Ojard, Adolph N., President, American Great Lakes Ports Association, Executive Director, Duluth Seaway Port Authority .................................................... 27

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana .................................................................... 38

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 40

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 43

Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin ............................................................................ 48

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 51

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin ..................................................................... 56

Salazar Hon. John T., of Colorado ......................................................................... 57

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Becker, Hon. Gary ................................................................................................... 59

Buchsbaum, Andy .................................................................................................... 63

DeBeaussaert, Ken .................................................................................................. 166

Ettawageshik, Frank ............................................................................................... 193

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin ....................................................................................... 202

Kahabka, John M., .................................................................................................. 211

Lodge, David M., ...................................................................................................... 217

Ojard, Adolph N., ..................................................................................................... 242

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Office and Co-Chair, Healking Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition:

Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration .............. 74

Ecosystem Shock: The Devastating Impacts of Invasive Species on the 

Great Lakes Food Web ..................................................................................... 113

Lodge, David M., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University 

of Notre Dame, Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great Lakes ........ 226

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Collister Johnson, Jr., Administrator, statement ......................................................................................... 248

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Jennifer McKay, Policy Specialist, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 253

vi


34785.001
vii


34785.002
viii


34785.003
ix


34785.004
x


34785.005
xi


34785.006
xii


34785.007
xiii


34785.008
(1)

HEARING ON THE IMPACT OF AQUATIC 

INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE GREAT LAKES 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

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

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. [Presiding] The Subcommittee will come to order. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today, and thank you 

for being here. 

The Chair of this Subcommittee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, is on 

the Floor managing a bill right now. So as soon as she is finished, 

I think there were three amendments that they were debating to 

the bill. As soon as she completes her work on the Floor, I would 

expect that we will have votes in the next 15 minutes or so. We 

will come back and she will be in the chair at that time. 

So at this time, I would ask unanimous consent that the full 

statements of both the Chairperson of this Subcommittee, Eddie 

Bernice Johnson, and my statement be included in the record, and 

any other opening statements that members would like to submit 

for the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I want to welcome our witnesses here today. The first panel is 

seated, and we will proceed to recognize you in order. We will be 

under the five minute rule. As we proceed under the five minute 

rule, we would ask our witnesses to summarize their testimony 

within five minutes and then we will recognize the other witnesses 

and there will be time for questions as well. 

We are very pleased to have a very distinguished panel of witnesses on our panel here this afternoon. First, we have the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, the Assistant Administrator for Water 

for the United States EPA. Next we have the Honorable Frank 

Ettawageshik, the Tribal Chairman of the Little Traverse Bay 

Band of Odawa Indians. Next we have the Honorable Gary Becker, 

the Mayor of the City of Racine, Wisconsin. He is also testifying on 

behalf of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Finally, we have the Honorable Ken DeBeaussaert, Director of the 

Office of the Great Lakes for the State of Michigan, and also testifying on behalf of the Great Lakes Commission. 

2

So before we go to our witnesses, I would recognize at this time 

Dr. Ehlers, sitting in for the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. I have spent a lot of time on invasive species issues, 

including sponsoring several bills on that. I appreciate your taking 

this issue up. 

Also, I am filling in for the Ranking Member. For those who are 

not familiar with political nomenclature in the Congress, Ranking 

Member does not mean the most rank member——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EHLERS.—but rather the highest ranking Republican. So I 

am filling in for Mr. Baker, who has to be on the Floor for a short 

period of time. He has a statement that he has presented and rather than read it, Mr. Chairman, I will just move that his statement 

be entered into the record. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without objection. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I reaffirm my pleasure at 

being here. As the sponsor of several bills, the sooner we can act 

on this, the better. 

I might also express my pleasure at the panel selected. I know 

all of them personally, I have worked with all of them on this 

issue, and I am sure we are going to hear words of great wisdom 

from all of them. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

I understand that, Mr. Grumbles, you have to leave at 3:00 

o’clock, is that correct? What we will do then is we will ask you to 

present your testimony first. After you conclude, I will ask Subcommittee members if they have questions for you. So before we go 

to the other witnesses, we will let you give your testimony, and 

then we will have an opportunity to ask questions at that time. 

So if you will proceed, and again, thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Ehlers, in particular, I want to thank you for your leadership over 

the years on the Great Lakes. And Congressman Salazar, thank 

you as well for your leadership on this important Subcommittee 

and for convening this hearing on one of the most pressing and important environmental, ecological and economic threats to the 

Great Lakes, and to the Country, and that is invasive species. The 

Great Lakes is a vast but fragile ecosystem, and the focus of this 

hearing is appropriate, it focuses on one of the greatest threats, 

invasive species. 

On behalf of Administrator Steve Johnson of EPA and also the 

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, I am delighted to present testimony describing important actions that are underway and additional actions that are needed to respond to this great challenge. 

The first thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the President’s Executive Order in May of 2004 did several things, one of 

which was to establish an interagency task force. Another was to 

3

support the important work of a regional collaboration. This regional collaboration was an impressive fusion of ecology and democracy to bring together groups, government, non-governmental 

groups from all levels to work on the challenges to the Great 

Lakes. One of the highest and most important priorities has been 

to make further progress in reducing the spread and preventing 

the introduction of invasive species. Seven of the 48 near-term actions that the Administration agreed to in the context of the followup to the executive order and the regional collaboration specifically 

focus on invasive species. 

As you know, and all of the folks in this room know, who are 

here to celebrate and also recommit to the importance of the Great 

Lakes know, that invasive species are one of the greatest challenges. There are approximately 180 aquatic invasive species that 

have been introduced over the years into the Great Lakes, an average of one every eight months, a new invasive species is introduced. We all know that this is an environmental and an ecological 

threat, and a very significant one at that. Some of the estimates 

are that the costs for the treatment and control of zebra mussel impacts on industrial and municipal facilities are estimated at $100 

million to $200 million annually, just in the Great Lakes. And of 

course, there is the ecological damage beyond the economic damage, the ecological damage and disruption of the food chain, as well 

as the potential spread of different type of viruses and diseases 

that can affect birds and fish and people. 

Another one of the menacing species knocking at the door of the 

Great Lakes is the Asian carp. The Asian carp can grow rapidly to 

over 100 pounds. They can breed so fast that Australians have 

named them river rabbits. They could have a devastating impact 

on the Great Lakes by out-competing native fish for plankton. That 

is why we feel it is so important to continue to make progress on 

a sustainable approach of physical barriers, such as the Asian carp, 

or the electrical barriers preventing the introduction of carp to 

Lake Michigan, as well as many other steps. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on some of the important actions 

to date. The testimony goes into great detail. EPA is strongly supported by agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, various councils and task forces and resource groups. The basic point 

is, we all recognize, working with our State and local and non-governmental partners, we need to do more, we need to do much more 

in terms of the invasive species threat. Some of the specific things 

that I would like to comment on are the agreement that EPA has 

with the Coast Guard. We are a cooperating agency in an extremely important effort that the Coats Guard has underway, and 

that is to propose ballast water treatment standards. We think it 

is extremely important for Congress to act on this issue of invasive 

species in the Great Lakes and beyond. We think that there are 

many important tools to use, such as NAISA and reauthorizing and 

strengthening that statute. We think it is important to move beyond just exchange to treatment. That is why we support strengthening of the overall standards and framework for regulating ballast 

water. 

4

And Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to answer questions at 

the appropriate time. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles. 

Let me recognize at this time Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Mr. Grumbles, you commented several times about 

the ecological and economic threat we face. I think it is more than 

a threat, it is an ecological and environmental disaster. The costs 

that we are incurring with this is just outrageous, just in Michigan 

alone, when you look at the figures for dealing with the zebra mussel and some of the other species coming in. 

And I am just getting awfully frustrated with the slow pace at 

which we are addressing this. It is typical Government action. I 

know I am part of the Government. But there is always this dispute about who is supposed to do what. Take for example, the electronic barrier to keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. I have 

been beating people up on that for years. But they says, well, the 

Corps of Engineers has to do it. The Corps says, well, we don’t 

have the money to do it. Then it comes to the problem of maintenance, who is going to maintain it afterwards. The Corps doesn’t 

have maintenance money. The local communities aren’t sure they 

have enough money. And it is just going on and on. If that Asian 

carp ever gets through there into the Great Lakes, we are talking 

at least a $6 billion a year cost, all because we don’t have the 

money to put a few million dollars into electronic barriers. 

A specific question on the ballast water standards, I appreciate 

that the Coast Guard is finally getting into action on that. They 

were given responsibility by the Congress in the early 1990’s to address this and never have. So now they are setting ballast water 

standards. I appreciate that they are setting ballast water standards. But again the point is, where is the research that says what 

the standard should be? Where is the research that is trying to define the basic standards or the basic processes that should be used 

in determining the standards? Is it going to be ballast water exchange? If that doesn’t do it, what about the sediments? How do 

you deal with that? I haven’t seen any answers on that yet. At the 

same time, I have introduced a bill on that for a number of years, 

just to do the research. And I fault the Congress as much as I do 

anyone in the Administration on this. It still is not in law, there 

is still not good research being done by university level researchers 

telling us exactly what the pathways are, how things get in here, 

what we have to do to achieve, to really stop them in every way 

possible. 

So I don’t want to vent on you, Ben, because you have been a 

hero in a lot of this. But it is extremely frustrating that these problems have been there for years now. I have been in the Congress 

13 years, and they were here before I started. And we are still 

spinning our wheels on something as simple as ballast water 

standards, preventing the little critters from getting in, or the big 

critters. I am especially disturbed at the length of time it is taking 

to get that electronic barrier in. If Asian carp ever gets in, there 

is going to be recriminations on every newspaper in the Great 

5

Lakes States, condemning the Government in round terms for not 

having installed that and stopped them. 

Enough sermons. But I would appreciate any comments and advice you have to offer. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, thank you. I think the key is prevention and technology and also awareness of the economic as well 

as the ecological damage that is occurring. I fully agree with you, 

it is not just a threat, it is a current problem. But it can get worse 

if we don’t all work together to be more proactive. 

In terms of the economics, EPA is working with other agencies 

on developing and using bioeconomic tools to really get a better 

number. We think it is important to do that, to help increase 

awareness, and that will help lead to more action. 

In terms of technology, I think it is important to continue to 

push more and more for more information to pursue more science 

to develop those technologies. EPA’s environmental technology 

verification program is an important component of that. We have 

entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Coast Guard. 

We expect that there will be protocols specifically for environmental technology verification testing being validated. What we are 

looking at is a final draft of the protocols being validated by Coast 

Guard and Navy, at Navy’s testing facilities, which has been recently enhanced to support ballast water technology testing and 

verification. 

So I fully appreciate the spirit and also the substance of your 

comments about moving ahead more quickly and accelerating the 

pace on ballast water, not just addressing exchange issues, but also 

getting at treatment and identifying real and practical and effective technologies to treat the spread of invasives and to stop it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Are you doing the research that guides the Coast 

Guard? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. EPA is doing some of the research. I think it is 

truly, as the Interagency Invasive Species Task Force and Council 

would tell you, it is a multi-agency effort. I can tell you that our 

research office within EPA, which you are very familiar with, is 

aware of the need for continued work on the technologies and research and the tools for combating invasive species. 

Mr. EHLERS. I know they are aware of the need, but are they 

doing the research, are they identifying pathways? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes. My understanding is that there is research 

being done. We also, in coordination with other organizations and 

consortia, are carrying out research. There is also an awareness of 

the need for more research and technology deployment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just also add in the tiny bit of time I have 

left, this is an international problem. I was very disappointed with 

the last international conference where we tried to strengthen the 

standard in the international agreements. The other countries 

showed very little sympathy for our efforts and very little understanding of the problem we face here, probably because they have 

so many different invasive species in all their harbors, they have 

given up hope. 

But I think if we can’t get international agreement on this, we 

just have to go ahead and do our own thing. We cannot afford to 

6

let more invasive species in. It is an incredible expense for our 

Country. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

At this time I will recognize Mr. Salazar for five minutes for 

questions of Mr. Grumbles. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I do appreciate this. 

Mr. Grumbles, I think you have listed six invasive species, which 

are fish, plants, mollusks, invertebrates, insects, algae and microorganisms. Which one would you say is the biggest threat, not only 

to the Great Lakes, but to other waterways in this Country? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, from a policy perspective, from a 

scientific perspective, I would be very constrained to identify any 

one single one as the biggest threat. The inattention to the overall 

need is the biggest threat, because in many ways, invasives are a 

silent threat, because you don’t know, like drought, you don’t really 

know it until you are upon it. 

But I think one of the important efforts at the Federal interagency level is linking the terrestrial invasive species group with 

the aquatic invasive species group, recognizing that there is a 

strong linkage there. Also just from the aquatic perspective, we are 

very much aware, our Great Lakes National Program Office at 

EPA is very much aware of the many different types of threats that 

the mussels, it is not just the Asian carp or those celebrated 

invasives. There are others that can pose a greater ecological 

threat. 

And this is a great subject, not just for the Great Lakes, but for 

the whole Country, whether it is in bays and watersheds in the 

east or west coast or in the middle section. But particularly in 

coastal regions, it is one of the greatest challenges, as well as viruses. It doesn’t have to be fish or shellfish. There are also viruses 

that are invasive species. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And the reason I asked you this is because yesterday, I had the Army Corps in my office and we were talking about 

two big invaders that have been introduced in Colorado, within the 

Colorado River and the Arkansas River. One of them is the salt 

cedar, or the tamarisk, which not only is big and uses a lot of water 

along our waterways, but also contaminates the soil, because it actually leaves an area of very salty soil where nothing grows after 

you remove them. 

Now, the Army Corps is in charge of removing some of those species along portions of the Colorado River. You mentioned a little bit 

ago about the plan the President put forward to coordinate all the 

agencies together. How effective do you think that is and who is 

going to be taking the lead in addressing these issues? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Of course, I was referring to the Great Lakes 

Interagency Task Force. On that, pursuant to President Bush’s executive order, EPA chairs that task force with respect to the Great 

Lakes ecosystem. There are other executive orders that have been 

issued relating to other challenges, the invasive task force that is 

not limited to the Great Lakes, Executive Order 13112, the National Invasive Species Council, which I believe Department of Interior is the primary agency on. 

7

But for us, specifically in the Great Lakes, invasive species, there 

is a need for a strong Federal role. We feel that in addition to EPA, 

Interior and Agriculture and Coast Guard and Army Corps and 

Commerce are extremely important agencies, using existing tools 

they have, which often rely on, it can be chemical, physical barriers, but also taking steps working with our colleagues to ensure 

a healthy habitat. Because oftentimes when habitats are 

unhealthy, they are most vulnerable to invasive species. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles, thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to try to get a better assessment, Mr. Secretary, of our 

procedural circumstance. As I understand the district court case, 

Northwest v. EPA is now on appeal, pending a determination of 

whether the incidental discharge question can be reinstated or not. 

Concurrent with that, I understand there are existing MOUs between EPA and Coast Guard relative to establishing a workout 

plan for deployment of new technologies and other perhaps innovative control mechanisms. 

Assuming the best circumstance and outcome, from today looking 

forward, what kind of time frame is it going to take to get some 

substantive deployment in place? Will it require perhaps a final 

legal determination of the pending court matter? Will the MOU be 

the operative lever from which the Coast Guard takes the next 

step? Help us understand, if we are just taking a snapshot today, 

what are we going to look like two years from now? 

I read with disturbing interest that the estimate is a new 

invasive species every eight months. How many more are we going 

to have before we get an answer? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Congressman. Those are really some 

of the key issues that need to be discussed, in Congress as well as 

in the agency hearing rooms. 

You mentioned the court case. I know folks are very familiar 

with this. This was the decision in September, 2006, where a district court in California issued an order vacating a longstanding 

regulatory exclusion from permitting under the Clean Water Act 

for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including ballast water exchanges. 

Mr. BAKER. That doesn’t include, for example, a bilge pump on 

a 16 foot ski boat? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I believe so. I think our estimates and those of 

others, if left undisturbed, that decision could lead to a Clean 

Water Act permit for 13 million recreational vessels, 81,000 commercial fishing vessels, 53,000 freight and tank barges. 

The important point is that because we respectfully disagree 

with that decision, we are appealing that decision. An even more 

important point, though, Congressman, is that we recognize that 

important actions need to occur to continue to combat the spread 

of invasive species. You mentioned the Coast Guard. From our perspective, a key way to proceed with other agencies is to provide 

support to the Coast Guard to use their existing authorities for 

8

their ballast water discharge standard regulation that they are 

going to be working on, but also to provide technical support to you 

and your colleagues in Congress to move forward with a stronger 

and reauthorized national invasive species act legislation that addresses this issue of——

Mr. BAKER. You may not be comfortable in addressing this, since 

it is a question of another agency’s authority, but do you believe, 

from your perspective, the Coast Guard has the regulatory platform 

from which to make judgments and regulate this problem? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. From my perspective, I believe that the framework of the NANPCA 1990 legislation and the 1996 amendments 

from NAISA, that provides the regulatory framework and the primary lead agency, the Coast Guard. An important addition to that, 

though, is to clarify from a Congressional standpoint the role of the 

Clean Water Act in the EPA permitting process. We continue to believe that the Coast Guard has the overall tools, but that it would 

be beneficial for Congress to strengthen the NAISA and to provided 

for a uniform standard for treatment. 

Mr. BAKER. Since my time is about to expire, let me interrupt 

one more time. It would be your view, then, that the Coast Guard 

has the ability and authority to move forward, absent any appellate 

decision on the EPA litigation, they could in your view take whatever steps they believe to be adequate to begin addressing this 

problem, notwithstanding the legal status of the EPA at this time? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I think they do have the authorities to continue to move forward under their existing tools. We think it is important for Congress to strengthen their tools, to provide a uniform 

standard for treatment. An important point is that right now in 

EPA, there is an order by the judge for us to vacate our exemption 

before October 1st, 2008, September 30th, 2008. 

Mr. BAKER. Which is a whole new set of problems. That complicates our circumstance, but it doesn’t address the invasive species issue. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right. 

Mr. BAKER. I thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. [Presiding] Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 

Mr. Grumbles, for coming here today and educating us. Thank you 

also to other members of the EPA for bestowing on me a national 

award for studying the environment and making it more friendly 

for children and patients I took care of for many years. 

Through your testimony you did mention that there is a collaborative research program that has been supported by NOAA, the 

Coast Guard and the EPA. I am wondering if you could share with 

us some of the results of the Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Lab and also the Smithsonian Environmental Research Group. Do 

you have those results available to share with us, particularly as 

it relates to the ballast and the introduction of invasive species into 

the Great Lakes? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I thank you for your excellent question. I don’t 

have the specifics or the details. I would be happy to provide those 

to you and your colleagues on the Committee. It is important, 

though, to re-emphasize the need for working together through 

9

both the Smithsonian Institution, all the work that NOAA is doing 

and other research agencies on this threat. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much. I would appreciate the data, 

since my background is in science and I like data. It is less political 

when you have numbers. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAGEN. I don’t mind working with anybody if it means we 

can help to reduce not just the number but the introduction of additional invasive species. 

But since I am also new here and I am beginning to sort of feel 

my way around, are you willing to take full and complete blame 

for any other additional invasive species that come into the Great 

Lakes? And if it isn’t you or your organization, who do we look to 

to address the issue? 

Because I think the real question is not to prevent the Asian 

carp from coming in, they are going to get in, and then what do 

we do when they get here? Who do we look to to blame? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think agencies at the Federal level, State and 

local level should be held accountable for decisions and being 

proactive. I think—it is hard to——

Mr. KAGEN. It is hard to put a rope around the neck of an agency. It is a lot easier to get someone who is front of us at a microphone. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I certainly will accept part of the blame, or for 

the success. I think we appropriately focus on oftentimes the glass 

that is half empty. We also need to keep in sight that there is 

progress, there are some important collaborations and actions that 

are occurring, there is a commitment to do more, on the issue that 

Congressman Ehlers raised, on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal, working to iron out those issues surrounding the Asian carp 

barrier. 

There are good things, there are actions that are occurring, not 

just in the Federal agencies. But Congressman, we need to be focused on prevention and being held accountable, and that includes 

me, to take steps to help, practical, aggressive steps to reduce the 

likelihood of continued increases of the spread of invasive species. 

Mr. KAGEN. The other thing I am impressed with here in Congress is the good will of everyone, because everyone in the room 

and everywhere beyond has great intentions. It is rather the speed 

at which these intentions are executed and the programs funded 

and the research done. I will just remind you of our stewardship 

that we all share, the stewardship of the Great Lakes, which represents 90 percent of the fresh water in the United States, and 20 

percent for the entire planet. So this is a tremendously important 

role that Congress plays and the EPA as well. 

Would you agree with me that the primary reason we have seen 

such a rapid rise in the number of invasive species throughout the 

Great Lakes has to do with global trade and the introduction of 

these species through the shipping process? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think that is the reality. That is definitely one 

of the major factors, the maritime trade. 

10

Mr. KAGEN. The zebra mussel that I step in in the Fox River in 

Appleton, Wisconsin, doesn’t come in by air. It was delivered by 

some boat and the ballast water. So you would agree with me that 

that is the route of travel and that ought to be then the top priority 

of your organization and of Congress, is that right? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think, and as I have talked with the head of 

the Maritime Administration, and as we have worked, collaborated 

with the Coast Guard, Maritime Transportation, global transportation, ought to be one of the priority, not the sole, but one of the 

priority areas of focus. 

Mr. KAGEN. I look forward to working with you throughout my 

career in Congress. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to commend 

you for holding this hearing today. 

I have been involved in politics for about 30 years, and a principal advocacy of mine throughout all of that has been protecting 

our magnificent Great Lakes, which as my colleague pointed out, 

is fully 20 percent, one-fifth of the fresh water supply on the entire 

planet. In fact, Mr. DeBeaussaert and I have worked together on 

the blue ribbon commission for Great Lakes projects many more 

years than we probably want to talk about. 

But this issue of invasive species, let me be very blunt. When I 

came here, I thought, what is the big deal? Why can’t we do something in Congress or the agencies about invasive species? It is well 

documented the kind of havoc that they are wreaking economically 

on the Great Lakes Basin, as well as the damage that they are 

doing to such a delicate ecosystem. As a Nation, we have not had 

the political will to do so. That is the brutal reality. 

In regard to the shipping that comes in and brings all these critters along with them, we are only talking about a couple of hundred, maybe several hundred at the most, boats. Because the ones 

that are inside the basin, never go out, so who cares? Right? They 

are not bringing any critters in. But the other ones that are coming 

internationally do, as they are coming into the St. Lawrence Seaway. If the Country of France came over and dumped their nuclear 

waste in Wyoming, would the EPA think that maybe we should do 

something about that? 

But yet here you have these international vessels coming into the 

Great Lakes, dumping these critters all over the place, and you 

can’t do anything? Honestly. Why not? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We think we can, and we think that we use our 

statutory tools and responsibilities and look to the agencies and the 

statutes that are best, most appropriately suited to be proactive 

and to deal aggressively with that. I recognize your leadership on 

this issue. I feel honored to sit on the table with folks who have 

been so much, particularly Ken, who helped chair the regional collaboration on invasives, the strategy team on that. 

Congresswoman, as you know, it involves different authorities 

and agencies. EPA is committed to working with Coast Guard, 

working with Congress to help strengthen that underlying statutory framework and approach. We think the Clean Water Act is 

one of the most successful environmental statutes in the Nation’s 

11

history. One of the questions is, how do you use the tools under 

that statute in the most appropriate way. From our perspective, 

over the last 30 years, we interpreted the statute with Congressional acquiescence, essentially, that it wasn’t viewed that EPA, as 

opposed to Coast Guard under other authorities, would be requiring Clean Water Act permits under the Federal Clean Water Act 

for vessels. 

Mrs. MILLER. OK, I am going to run out of time here, so if I 

could interrupt you. That is not the correct answer, although I appreciate your answer. 

Could you give me, at a later time here, a briefing on why you 

think the EPA does not have the proper tools, from a regulatory 

process, regulating policy to do something about that? And my 

other question, for the minute and a half I have left here, because 

we can’t get the EPA to do anything or because the Congress is not 

acting fast enough, Ken DeBeaussaert and others, our Governor, 

our State legislature, has actually tasked our own piece of legislation in Michigan, so that if you are an ocean freighter and you 

come in, we make sure that you have done your spit and swish, 

and that you have done your ballast water discharge, to our own 

negative economic impact. Because we are a State that is trying to 

stand up and do the right thing, they are just going to go to Ohio 

or somewhere else. We are very concerned that we are going to be 

economically disadvantaged because we are trying to do the right 

thing. 

I have introduced a piece of legislation to make that uniform 

amongst the Basin, and I hope that happens. But did you have any 

comments on what Michigan did in that case? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. First of all, I want to just say that absolutely, 

positively, EPA wants to be part of the solution. We are taking 

steps and we are working with other Federal agencies and coordinating with Coast Guard. We also developed a rapid response protocol. We are one agency, and it requires a team to deal with this. 

We do truly recognize this as a threat, and we want to use the appropriate tools and work with Congress to strengthen the NAISA 

statute. 

With respect to the efforts of Michigan, I think is important that 

States have the ability to take additional steps and develop approaches that are within the overall constitution and framework. 

We think the beauty and attractiveness of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration that the President has been encouraging over 

the years is that it brings together the Federal agencies, but also 

the States and tribes and local governments. Individual States may 

have approaches, whether it is a NOBOB challenge, which we 

agree is an extremely important and serious challenge that needs 

to be confronted with action. 

Btu we are committed to working with all of the States and with 

the other agencies to make progress with respect to ballast water 

and also on the NOBOB challenge. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank our panel of 

witnesses. I understand that Mr. Grumbles does have another comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:14 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34785 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
12

mitment and has to leave earlier. Ms. Johnson and I have both 

been on the House Floor on a major piece of legislation from our 

Committee to provide funding to build sewage treatment facilities. 

I have read your statement with interest, Mr. Grumbles, and I 

have one question. Is there a technology that EPA has identified 

that can be effective in eliminating from ballast water non-indigenous species of the kind that we are concerned about here, these 

invasive species? There may be other ways in which they enter, as 

attached to the exterior hulls in the salties that enter the Great 

Lakes. But I am considering just the Great Lakes at the moment. 

But there is ballast water discharge on the west coast and the east 

coast, and the Gulf coast. In fact, all of those coastal port authorities are concerned about it coming from the East China Sea, from 

the eastern, or we would call it the western Pacific Rim. 

We have had studies for year about invasive species. We know 

what they do. What we need to do is get them out of the water column and eradicate them before they get into the water column. Is 

there something in EPA, a technology, a treatment, that EPA said, 

this will do it? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. First of all, Congressman, Mr. Chairman, I 

would say I want to get back to you for the record with much more 

specifics. In terms of the answer, I think we believe there is not 

a silver bullet technology. There are promising technologies. There 

are technologies that are more effective and implementable than 

others. 

I would also say that EPA is one agency with others, such as 

NOAA and USDA, that are very much involved with the Coast 

Guard on developing the standards and providing support to the 

Coast Guard as they develop a ballast water treatment standard, 

which will rely on performance based approach. 

Mr. Chairman, I would say that I look forward to providing you 

with more detail, and before doing that, coordinating with the 

other agencies on what are the most promising technologies to get 

the invasives out of the water column. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate that very much. I think Mrs. Miller, 

with whom I have had extensive discussion on the subject matter, 

would appreciate it, and Mr. Ehlers from Michigan, our resident 

scientist on the Committee. We are at an end of patience with studies. There is a good deal more that needs to be evaluated, studied, 

researched and so on, but there are things that we need to do now 

to prevent the next lamprey eel, spiny echinoderm, zebra mussel, 

round eyed goby, European milfoil, all those that have entered in 

ballast water into the Great Lakes and destroyed the water column 

and the native species. 

We may never be able to get the zebra mussel out. We don’t want 

to import the diving duck from the Black Sea that is its natural 

enemy, because then who knows how quickly that creature will 

proliferate, with no natural enemies for it? We need both control 

mechanisms for those that are already in the water column in the 

Great Lakes, in the saltwater parts and a means of preventing it 

from getting in, species from getting into our water column, treating the ballast water for starters. 

So I would welcome your follow-up and any indication other 

agencies are actively working with EPA in this process. 

13

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Any other questions for Mr. Grumbles? 

Hearing none, thank you very much. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We will see you next time. 

I would like to welcome now Chairman—Ettawageshik? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. Ettawageshik. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I just speak Texas English, that’s why I don’t do 

it well. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. From the Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians. 

Thank you for being here. 

I also welcome the Honorable Gary Becker, Mayor of the City of 

Racine, Wisconsin. We look forward to your testimony as well. And 

Mr. DeBeaussaert. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. DeBeaussaert. [Phrase and greeting in French.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. Our Chairman is multilingual, and I appreciate it, 

because I am not. 

We will now recognize you, Mr. Chairman. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANK ETTAWAGESHIK, 

TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF 

ODAWA INDIANS; THE HONORABLE GARY BECKER, MAYOR, 

CITY OF RACINE, WISCONSIN; KEN DEBEAUSSAERT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT LAKES 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, my name is Frank Ettawageshik, Tribal Chairman for the 

Waganakising Odawak, otherwise known as the Little Traverse 

Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan. 

As Chairman, I also serve as the tribal representative to the 

Chippewa Odawa Resource Authority, otherwise known as CORA. 

That is a coalition of five Michigan tribes that oversees the management and regulation of treaty-based fishing rights in the upper 

Great Lakes. CORA also oversees implementation of a consent decree entered in the year 2000, a negotiated settlement of a longstanding Federal court case among the five tribes, State of Michigan and the Federal Government. The consent decree governs the 

allocation and management of the fishery resources and the 1836 

treaty-ceded waters of the upper Great Lakes. 

With the approval of the CORA board, I speak on their behalf 

today with respect to the issue of aquatic invasive species, an issue 

we consider of great importance for our fishing rights as well as the 

continued successful implementation of the consent decree. 

Our ancestors, who signed the 1836 Treaty of Washington with 

the United States Government, had the wisdom to ensure that future generations could continue utilizing the fish resources of the 

Great Lakes for sustenance and income, and many tribal families 

continue to depend on fishing today. While we were preparing our 

written testimony, we consulted with the Great Lakes Indian Fish 

and Wildlife Commission and also the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, with the staff of these organizations. Together 

14

with CORA, we represent many of the tribes throughout the Great 

Lakes, from one end to the other of the Great Lakes Basin. 

As tribal nations, we often speak, and we are being taught to 

consider the impact of our decision on through to the coming seventh generation. While this teaching causes us to take the long 

view in our planning, there are times within this long view that we 

find ourselves needing immediate action in order to protect the 

needs of those coming generations, in order to meet our sacred duty 

and working to protect all of creation and the beings with whom 

we share it. Today is one of those times we call for immediate action. 

Commercial fishing is one of the oldest industries in the Great 

Lakes, if not the Nation. Historically, the Great Lakes supported 

a vast, vibrant, profitable commercial fishing industry. Sadly, 

today, commercial fishing on the Great Lakes, particularly tribal 

fishing, is on the verge of collapse. Under the various environmental and market forces, the direct and indirect impacts of aquatic invasive species stand out as the leading cause for the precipitous decline in treaty-based commercial and subsistence fishing activity. 

Our primary concern is the continued, steady and destructive invasion of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes, with their 

primary vector for entry being ballast water discharge from transoceanic shipping. To state it bluntly, the transoceanic shipping industry, through ballast water exchange practices and construction 

of canals, has severely impaired and threatens to destroy the treaty-based commercial and subsistence fishing industry. 

The tribes understand that foreign shipping into the Great Lakes 

provides economic benefits to the United States. However, we submit to you that any economic benefits derived from Great Lakes 

foreign shipping, that those benefits pale in comparison to the economic costs resulting from damages caused by aquatic invasive species. We have heard many people talk about that today, both in the 

questions and various statements. 

One of the things that we are concerned about is with these various species that have been there, but the recent discovery of a serious new fish virus in Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, which is 

believed responsible for large fish dieoffs in the spring of 2005, has 

greatly raised the level of concern. Although it has not yet been determined how viral hemorrhagic septicemia, VHS, found its way 

into the Great Lakes, ballast water discharge is implicated. This is 

just another example of the costs associated with this. 

Unfortunately, history has proven that once an aquatic invasive 

species is introduced to the Great Lakes, it can’t be stopped. Therefore, prevention is the only viable approach to combating aquatic 

invasive species. The means by which aquatic invasive species 

enter the Great Lakes must be stopped, and the ballast water vector should be the first priority. We have heard other people speak 

to that today. 

It is really saddening to realize that most of the costs and environmental damages wrought by AIS could have been prevented. 

And all costs for those that are being introduced today, all of those 

costs could have been prevented. So while the solutions may be expensive, we believe that they pale in comparison to the true ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:14 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34785 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
15

nomic costs. So not only is this a Great Lakes issue, but these species that come in and end up working their way throughout other 

ecosystems throughout the area, we have heard recently some reports of the zebra mussels moving their way into other waterways. 

We think that this is a very serious concern. 

On any given day, any given ballast water discharge from a 

transoceanic vessel can carry an organism that could inflict as 

much or even more economic and environmental damage as the sea 

lamprey or zebra mussels or the pathogen VHS. We believe that 

immediate action is necessary. We support the actions that are 

being done, we support the actions of those on the Committee that 

have been taken, and others. And I would be glad to answer any 

questions. 

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

I now recognize the Mayor of Racine, Wisconsin. 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon, 

members of the Subcommittee. 

I also serve as vice chair of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities 

Initiative, a coalition of mayors of some 39 member cities and an 

additional 50 participating cities. Great Lakes mayors are extremely fortunate to be managing cities and towns located along a 

resource as incredible as the Great Lakes Basin. At the same time, 

however, Great Lakes mayors must deal with the problems of the 

Great Lakes on a daily basis, whether it is making sure that the 

water intakes are clear from zebra mussels, dealing with beach 

closings, unreliable water quality standards, operating wastewater 

treatment plans, or managing stormwater, the people that work for 

me, like mayors across the Basin, must make sure things are done 

right. These are very real issues for me and my fellow mayors and 

the people who live in our cities. 

Invasive species are a key issue for Great Lakes mayors, causing 

extensive biological damage and resulting in billions of dollars of 

costs across the Country and in the Basin. Over 180 different species have come into the Great Lakes already and they continue to 

arrive at the rate, as has been mentioned, about one every six or 

seven months. Some of the most notable, of course, have been the 

sea lamprey and zebra mussel. 

Ballast water in ships is the most common pathway for entry 

into the system. Additionally, they are very close to entering the 

Great Lakes, there are several varieties of the Asian carp already 

in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, less than 50 miles from 

the Great Lakes. 

Cities have dealt with the zebra mussel problem for many years, 

with the clogging of drinking water intake structures being the primary concern. In my own City of Racine, we have spent nearly $1.4 

million in 1995 for a new chemical feed system, chemical lines and 

diffusers to address the situation. In addition, it has increased our 

annual operating costs at the water utility between $30,000 and 

$40,000 per year, and we are one medium-sized city along the 

Lakes. 

The tragedy of the situation is that much of the invasive species 

problem could have been prevented. If action is not taken quickly, 

though, things will get worse, as we all know. Man of the issues 

we deal with on the Great Lakes are the results of mistakes we 

16

made in the past. And now we are paying the price. Rarely do we 

have the opportunity to prevent future damage by taking action 

now. This is one situation where we have that opportunity, and it 

would be a mistake not to take full advantage of it. 

Comprehensive invasive species legislation on a national level is 

essential if we want to deal with the problem effectively. This legislation does not need to cost taxpayers a large amount of money. In 

fact, the lack of strong laws is costing taxpayers much more already. The Federal Government needs a strong program to restrict 

ballast water discharges and control other pathways for invasive 

species. Costs incurred in controlling the flow of invasive species 

should be absorbed by the responsible businesses and consumers of 

the products they produce and transport. 

An additional problem with not having comprehensive Federal 

laws is that States, as Michigan was mentioned, and local governments are finding it necessary to move ahead on their own. Having 

a program in one of the Great Lakes States and potentially different programs in others will cause problems for States and for 

the shipping industry. 

One other action by Congress needed in the very near term is authorization and appropriation to complete construction and fund 

the operation of the electronic barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and 

Ship Canal. Mayors and many others in the Great Lakes region 

such as Governors, business groups, environmental organizations 

and members of Congress wish this could have been done several 

years ago. Each day it is not completed perpetuates the unnecessary risk to the multi-billion sport and commercial fishing industry 

on the Great Lakes. 

Although the focus of today’s hearing is on invasive species, it is 

important to recognize that there are many other serious threats 

to the Lakes. Discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from combined sanitary sewer overflows are a major problem 

across the Basin. The infrastructure investments needed are in the 

billions of dollars, and only with significantly increased investments by Federal, State and local governments will the problems 

be solved. 

Other key issues highlighted in the collaboration strategy, which 

the Great Lakes perceives as a blueprint for moving forward, were 

the toxics, habitat and wetlands protection and contaminated sediments. These are the priority issues from the perspective of Great 

Lakes mayors. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to 

provide testimony. Hopefully, we will not have our legacy as today’s 

leaders to have future generations look back and ask, why did they 

not act when they knew it needed to be done? Thank you. 

Ms. OBERSTAR. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Mayor Becker. 

We really appreciate your contribution today. 

Mr. DeBeaussaert. 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee. My name is Ken DeBeaussaert, I am the Director of 

the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes. I am honored to speak 

today on behalf of the Great Lakes States and the State of Michigan’s Executive leadership, our Governor, Jennifer Granholm, and 

17

Lieutenant Governor, John Cherry, who is currently the chair of 

the Great Lakes Commission. 

First to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, for the leadership that you have already demonstrated this 

session in advancing some important legislation and that I know 

you have acted on yet this afternoon. I want also to thank you for 

holding this important discussion about the impacts of aquatic 

invasive species on the Great Lakes. 

Before I begin my remarks, I would also like the personal privilege of acknowledging the great efforts that our members from the 

Michigan delegation, Mrs. Miller and Congressman Ehlers, historically, on so many of these issues. 

In the Great Lakes region we take seriously our stewardship responsibility, and for good reason. The Great Lakes constitute the 

largest surface freshwater system in the world. More than 35 million Americans receive the benefits of drinking water, food, a place 

to live, work and recreate and transportation from these Great 

Lakes. And our national economy depends on the Great Lakes. 

Great Lakes States account for 30 percent of the total U.S. gross 

domestic product, and the Great Lakes are a key national transportation network. Fishing, boating, hunting and wildlife watching 

generate some $53 billion annually in revenue in the Great Lakes 

Region, with boating alone supporting over 250,000 jobs. 

We are especially appreciative of this Committee calling attention to the problem of invasive species in the Great Lakes, because 

curbing their introductions is really a priority once again in 2007. 

Unfortunately, as we have heard, the list of invasive species and 

the problems associated with them continues to grow. As of 2006 

more than 188 species were established in the Great Lakes. 

And they are not just impacting the health of our fishery. They 

are also impcating our economy. The cost of invasive species is estimated as high as $5.7 billion annually, and the cost of just one invader, the zebra mussel, estimated to cost city’s power generators 

and others millions of dollars annually. 

The impact of invasive species on the ecological health of the 

Great Lakes is equally alarming. We know that Lake Erie has developed a 3,900 square mile dead zone in the summer months and 

we know that in Lakes Michigan and Huron we have seen a dramatic decline in the health of fish stock that is believed to be 

linked to the change in the food web that you will hear later, in 

a later panel this afternoon. 

Perhaps most alarming, though, is what we don’t know. Our understanding of the extent of the damage continues to evolve as 

more species are introduced, as viruses are identified, like the 

VHS. And of course, we shudder to think of the potential devastation that the Asian carp could bring to our Great Lakes. 

Unfortunately, we believe Federal action to halt introduction of 

invasive species via ballast water has been too slow. Frustration 

over that inaction led five Great Lakes States to join a lawsuit to 

try to force action by the EPA. And in 2005, as has been mentioned, with broad bipartisan and business support in Michigan, we 

adopted legislation requiring ocean-going vessels that visit Michigan ports to obtain a permit beginning in 2007. We currently have 

18

12 vessels that are in the process or have obtained a permit under 

that law. 

Individual State permitting, though, is far from being a perfect 

solution to this complex problem. But in Michigan, we are resolute 

in our determination that we cannot just sit by and watch the 

Great Lakes teeter on what some scientist describe as the tipping 

point of ecological meltdown. In fact, in addition to Michigan’s law, 

ballast water legislation was introduced in several Great Lakes 

States. If Congress does fail to act, I think it is likely that those 

measures will continue to advance. 

But the Great Lakes States continue to believe that the best solution is a Federal ballast water program, one that is uniform and 

consistent and protective of the Great Lakes. So Chairman Oberstar, we applaud and appreciate your recent statements, expressing 

your commitment to tackle this challenge in 2007. I recommend 

that while solutions to these problems are not simple, that you consider that a good deal of the work from our perspective may already have been outlined in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. One action alone, passage of a national aquatic 

invasive species act, similar to the one introduced by Congressman 

Ehlers and a similar bill in the Senate last session would be a 

monumental step forward. I would note that there was broad consensus in that process about the ballast water provisions of that 

legislation, and worth noting that consensus support included representatives of the region’s maritime industry. 

And finally, whether through a comprehensive NAISA bill or 

WRDA bill or through freestanding legislation, we would hope that 

this Congress would be able to act quickly to authorize and fund 

the Corps of Engineers’ work to complete construction, operate and 

maintain the electrical barriers designed to prevent the Asian carp 

from invading the Great Lakes via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal. 

Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes States pledge to you that we will 

continue to work together to develop solutions for stopping the 

spread of invasive species and we must work together to protect 

and restore this ecological treasure that we call the Great Lakes. 

That will be our legacy for future generations. We thank you again 

for your interest in this issue today. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thanks 

to all three members. Chairman Ettawageshik, megwich. 

Mr. Baker, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mayor, the Secretary earlier testified that he felt that in the 

current scheme of operations, notwithstanding pending litigation in 

California on ballast water discharge, absent any other action by 

the EPA, he viewed that the Coast Guard had the appropriate regulatory foundation from which they could properly act. Do you 

share that view, or do you see other obstacles to some sort of regulatory regime being put into effect that would minimize these problems? 

Mr. BECKER. I am far from the expert on it, but I agree with Mr. 

Grumbles that the authority in law is there. I think one of the 

other things he did touch on is, does the Coast Guard have the capacity, do they have the resource, the number of ships, the number 

19

of men to go ahead and enforce. I don’t think on the Great Lakes 

the answer to that is yes. They are stretched from a number of different missions. But also as Mr. Grumbles said, probably some 

clarifying language, passage of law by Congress to reinforce and 

strengthen their authority would be helpful. 

Mr. BAKER. Let me further clarify, the Coast Guard is involved 

in a process, as I understand it, designated as a NEPA process, to 

come to some conclusion about the most effective way to proceed. 

That has now been ongoing over a period of some number of years. 

If they have the authority to act, they are the party which seems 

to be agreed upon as the responsible entity to make some substantive progress, what do we need to do to draw this regulatory 

public comment period to some sort of conclusion and get a public 

policy produced? I can certainly understand the Chairman’s frustration and members who enjoy the Lakes. I am on the other end 

of the tube down here. We have similar problems with other issues. 

But even in Katrina terms, this has been going on a long time. 

Mr. BECKER. A lot of these issues have. I guess possibly through 

Congress, through Congressional legislation, set a date certain 

where this must be done. I don’t know what other answer to get 

some of these agencies to move. I am not here to criticize the Coast 

Guard or EPA. But I have certainly found running a city that if 

there are not date certains that you give the bureaucracy to get 

things done, they have a tendency to not get done. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, in your public policy position, then you believe 

there has been adequate vetting, public comment and review of the 

matter to adequately reach a conclusion? 

Mr. BECKER. Personally, yes, and I would argue that on most 

issues. There has probably been enough discussion and I think on 

invasives or anything else, I think we have the science, we know 

what needs to be done. It is a matter of getting it done, whether 

through legislation or getting the bureaucracy to implement. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, sometimes controversy breeds caution. I was 

advised by a senior statesman back home one time about pursuing 

a highway project too vigorously. He told me that surveys are a lot 

better for you than the construction. He said, if they think you are 

going to act, that is a good thing. Once you start acting, you are 

in real trouble. So maybe that is where we are. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BAKER. I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your 

testimony. I am sorry I was late, I was double booked at a Veterans Administration hearing, and I am trying to cover everything. 

I am curious, representing a district that spans the Hudson 

River, whether any of the panelists would be able to comment, I 

believe we have our fair share of invasive mussels and other aquatic species. In what ways are the strategies in use or that are being 

contemplated for the Great Lakes applicable to an estuary like the 

Hudson? What special challenges do you know of that a water body 

like the Hudson River present in addressing invasive species? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. Well, we have found that a number of the 

invasive species that have spread throughout the United States 

have found their place first in the Great Lakes. The zebra mussel 

20

is one, for example, that was first identified in Lake St. Clair in 

the mid–1980’s and now has spread not only throughout the Great 

Lakes, but we have seen their advancement to Lake Mead recently. 

So I think that the notion of preventing the introduction of 

invasives into our Great Lakes will have an implication for other 

bodies of water, and part of the recommendations of NAISA goes 

beyond just the simple matter of preventing the introductions, but 

also preventing the spread of current invasive species that are in 

our waters today. There is a whole series of recommendations that 

would be helpful there. 

As it relates to the electrical carp barrier, as an example, that 

was first designed, as I understand it, to prevent some of the exotic 

species in the Great Lakes from getting into the Mississippi, the 

round goby in particular. Unfortunately, that did not occur before 

that round goby passed through. Now we are seeing it as a line of 

defense to protect the Great Lakes from the Asian carp. 

So I think there are ways that these measures that are enacted 

do provide benefit beyond the Great Lakes States. 

Mr. HALL. Are there any, and this is to any of you distinguished 

gentlemen, are there any invasive species hot spots in the Great 

Lakes? Do the species cluster in some areas more than others, or 

do harbors seem to be more susceptible than the rest of the lake? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. I believe that because we are in a—it is 

large, but it is a contained system. It really is, we may find areas 

where we first find an invasive species. But the problem is that it 

eventually gets everywhere. So while we actually are working on 

a rapid response to the finding of aquatic invasive species and we 

have a plan through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and 

the implementation to devise methods for rapid response when we 

find something that has recently been discovered, the problem is 

that by the time we find it, the next problem is already in the lake 

and we don’t know what it is yet, it is already there. It is going 

to cost us millions of dollars to deal with. But we don’t know what 

it is yet, because we haven’t found it yet. 

That is the problem we have right now. The VHS is one that has 

been coming in, the viral hemorrhagic septicemia. This is something that is going to have a major effect. The people that I am 

here representing are fishermen. We are commercial fisherman as 

well as subsistence fishing. This is going to have a major impact, 

and we don’t know for sure what that impact is yet, because we 

just know that it has spread. 

Are there hot spots? The first time you identify a spot, I suppose 

that is a hot spot. We try to deal with it. But usually by the time 

we have found it, it is other places as well. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to ask one more 

question. I guess this is sort of a ship management, 

hydromechanical question. Is water ballast necessary while navigating the Great Lakes, or is it necessary while out on the ocean, 

and something that could reasonably be expelled before entering 

the St. Lawrence? Maybe this question was answered before I got 

here, so excuse me if it is redundant. But I am just trying to understand, is there resistance from the shipping industry to clearing 

their tanks before they enter the system, or if so, why? 

21

Mr. BECKER. No, they do expel the ballast before they enter into 

the system, generally. The problem is the amount of sludge in the 

bottom of the ship, you can’t expel it all. So when they even, they 

come into the Basin and they reload the ballast water, then when 

they drop their freight, their load somewhere, and then they dump 

the ballast water, it’s——

Mr. HALL. Rinsing it out. 

Mr. BECKER. Good analogy, yes. So even though they have expelled the ballast water before they entered the basin, they pick up 

more in the sludge in the bottom of the ship. There are a lot of organisms down there, too. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DeBeaussaert, I am not familiar with the status of the 

Michigan law at the moment. I would be interested if you could explain that. But also, I would like to raise a State’s rights issue, not 

just with Michigan, but you would know what Michigan’s attitude 

would be, and perhaps you can also enlighten me on what the other 

States would be. If we passed a Federal law on invasive species, 

whether it is ballast water or anything else, would the States, do 

you think the States would be happy with their own laws being 

preempted by the Federal Government? Or would they gladly accept our efforts? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. I thank you for the opportunity to expand 

just a bit on the State law first. The law was passed in 2005 and 

it required by 2007 that the ocean-going ships obtain a permit. A 

process was developed over a period of time to develop a general 

permit opportunity to try to streamline that process. The Department of Environmental Quality identified four specific treatment 

technologies that they approved under our State law and also allowed the opportunity for individual ships to seek an individual 

permit if they wanted to use an alternative technology. 

There is also, in Michigan’s situation, the vast majority of ships 

would not be discharging ballast water in our ports, and they 

would be under permit and would be reporting, but would not be 

required to have that technology in place, so long as they weren’t 

discharging. And as I said, as of a couple days ago when I left 

Michigan, I think we had 12 individual ships that either had obtained the general permit or were in the process of doing so. And 

we certainly hope and encourage others to follow that suit. 

As to the second part of your question, about the reaction of 

States to preemption, I can tell you that last year, there was a bill 

that was introduced in the U.S. Senate, I think it was 363, and the 

Great Lakes Governors united in opposition to that letter. One of 

the reasons for their concern was the preemption of the ability of 

the States to act. There were concerns about many other provisions 

of that law as well. 

Similarly, I think the attorneys general for many of the Great 

Lakes States signed a letter to the Congress, to the Senate in particular, outlining their concerns. One of the concerns was that preemption. So I think there is a reluctance to, at the outset, to say 

that the States would be willing to accept that preemption. It is 

something that has been identified both by the Governors and the 

22

attorneys general as a major concern. I guess part of the major 

question would be what the whole overall package was, what the 

program was. Clearly, the bill that was introduced last year did not 

meet that test. 

Mr. EHLERS. Was it because they didn’t feel the law was strong 

enough? And if we did write a strong law that was stronger than 

all the State laws, do you think the States would still be concerned? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. I think there will always be concern about 

the ability of the States to not be able to act under their authorities. But clearly in that case, there were specific concerns about the 

provisions of that bill that the States did not feel were adequate. 

I am not in a position to speak for all of the Governors in terms 

of how they might react to other legislation that might be introduced. But I know it would be a concern at the outset. 

Mr. EHLERS. How many States have passed ballast water laws 

now? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. In the Great Lakes States, Michigan is the 

only one that has passed the legislation. It was introduced in several States in the last session and did not meet the final signature 

into law. I know it has already been introduced in at least one 

State and I expect again, depending on the outcome of the activities here, that other States will consider moving forward as well. 

Mr. EHLERS. What have you learned from the shipping companies so far? Do they seem perfectly willing to get the permits and 

work with the State, or are they simply going to bypass Michigan 

and go elsewhere? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. Well, as I said, we already have 12 individual ships that are either under permit or in the process of doing 

so. We have had concerns raised about this process from others. In 

fact, some that had expressed concern about the practical ability 

within the current year to implement the technology. And there 

were discussions and provisions that were made to allow for, in the 

current year, some ability for those activities to continue under a 

consent order that would require rather than the full technology, 

the reporting requirements, some sampling that would occur as we 

move forward. 

So there have been and there are ongoing discussions, I would 

say, with the industry on this issue. 

Mr. EHLERS. What confidence do you have that the problem is 

really the ballast water, I should say solely the ballast water, as 

opposed to creatures attaching themselves to the hulls of the ship 

during the ocean voyage, then coming in? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. Well, as you know, there are a number of 

vectors for introduction, and ballast water is identified as the primary for many of these issues. But clearly, the comprehensive approach of NAISA that attempted to address a number of the vectors really is what is needed. But as well, we wouldn’t want to 

stand in the way of individual ballast water legislation, if in fact 

it was protective of the Lakes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

Mr. Kagen. 

23

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all of you, 

for taking time to be here today, but more importantly, thank you 

for your advocacy and your hard work for trying to guarantee clean 

and healthy water for successive generations. 

In listening to your testimony, Mr. Becker, about dates and time 

tables, I can tell you from being here for a few weeks, it is hard 

to agree to a time table for anything. But we are still working hard 

to get the job done. 

With regard to the problem of ballast water and ships, it reminds 

me of the history in medicine, forgive me, as I am a doctor, I think 

that way, I look at invasive species much like it is an infectious 

disease. If my good friend, my colleague John Hall from New York 

had dirty hands, I would want him to wash his hands before he 

goes from one sick patient to the next. So in some respects, cleaning up the ballast water is a lot like washing your hands. In the 

very beginning of washing one’s hands, as a physician, going from 

room to room or patient to patient, we didn’t have really good techniques. So we developed better techniques. So it may not be the 

shipping industry’s fault entirely for not knowing how to ‘‘wash 

their hands,’’ but I would think that if that is the concern, whether 

the species are inside the tank or outside on the shell, so to speak, 

of the ship, we ought to as Government officials help them to develop a better technique so we can prevent further infections from 

these invasive species. 

It is really a shame, I think, that you should have to sue your 

Government for them to do their job. I hope that era has ended 

with the last election. 

Chairman Frank, I would ask you, would you agree with me that 

it might be really time to put our minds together to look not just 

at the invasive species issue, but isn’t the invasive species in our 

Great Lakes, the occurrence of them, a symptom of a greater problem that we have failed to really secure and protect not just our 

surface water but our ground water? And wouldn’t you think it 

might be time that we could all come together and move our standards up sufficiently to protect not just the surface water but our 

ground water? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. The tribes have worked with each other and 

also with the Canadian first nations, the tribes in the Great Lakes 

Basin. We have a total of around 160 of the 185 tribes and first 

nations in the Great Lakes Basin that have signed an accord, the 

Tribal and First Nations Great Lakes Water Accord, that works on 

the very issues that you are talking about, that pledges to work together for the protection of both the quantity and quality of the 

water and work hard to assert our rights as both in jurisdiction 

and also our responsibilities to the protection of those waters. 

We look at the water as a whole, not just the lake but the rivers, 

the streams, the ground water, all of this together as a package 

within the basin. And efforts that will work to protect that, we believe, are essential. So we have been working for many years to do 

this as part of our traditional teachings and it is something that 

we try to work on within ourselves. But also realizing that our best 

tools as tribal governments to get things done are to encourage 

those other governments around us to act on these issues as well. 

So yes, I do think it is time to consider this as a package. 

24

Mr. KAGEN. Well, success requires no excuses. So as I see some 

people with excuses, we have failed, everyone has failed somewhere 

along the way, as we have over 150 invasive species now. 

I look forward to working with your tribe and other organizations 

to help guarantee our clean water. And I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

regret not being here earlier. This is a subject of considerable interest to me. I recognize that Mr. Grumbles of the EPA has left, so 

one question that I have may put the three of you at some disadvantage. Yet you may know about what has happened to other 

waterways. Those of us in this region of course also have one of the 

great wonders of the world, one of the great waterways, the Chesapeake Bay. We have focused, it seems to me, quite justifiably, on 

the Great Lakes. 

How national a problem do you think we have here? When you 

consider how far in, well, it is according to how you look at it, the 

Great Lakes are, and that there are waterways that are closer to 

the oceans, one wonders how national, how much worse this problem may be or how much it is a matter of certain waterways? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. I guess I will start. We look at the water 

throughout, all the water is connected. So all of our waterways, 

while I am here specifically talking about Great Lakes, when we 

try to figure out what is a sacred spot or how do we deal with that, 

for our way of thinking, the whole earth, all of creation is sacred 

and all of creation is interconnected. We are within one very large 

ecosystem with the planet. And how things affect the Great Lakes 

also affect everyone else. 

As we heard earlier, when we were talking about where an 

invasive species may first show up and how it may spread, this 

issue is not contained just within one particular region of the 

Country. This has implications that are nationwide. 

Ms. NORTON. I am regarding your testimony as a case in point, 

that is what is so troubling about this. I take it that that is your 

testimony, that while you know the Great Lakes best you believe 

this is a national phenomenon, equally found in other parts of the 

Country? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. Yes. 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. If I could just add to that, we are obviously 

concerned about this unique freshwater ecosystem that we are 

blessed with living in and near. But the fact is that other States 

have, beyond Michigan, outside the Great Lakes, have enacted legislation dealing with ballast water issues, notably California, some 

of the other west coast States have also taken action to try to address this issue. 

So we are here from the Great Lakes States, but we do believe 

that it is also an issue of national significance. 

Ms. NORTON. I think it is today, Mr. Chairman, that we have on 

the Floor the Clean Water Act. If I could, within your expertise, 

bring up another issue that perhaps also you have seen in the 

Great Lakes. My family has lived in this region since the 1850’s. 

Recently, in recent years, we have found in the Chesapeake Bay a 

phenomenon clearly, we believe, of the pollution of the water, of esVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:14 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34785 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
25

sentially freakish species. You talked about invasive species, species that have no predator. 

I wonder if in the Great Lakes you have seen, for example, fish 

with teeth or male/female changes in fish, something that also appears to be a new phenomenon, or at least our ancestors did not 

report such widely spread fish—I don’t know quite what to call 

them, but species in our waterways. Have you seen such changes 

in your waterways and what would you have to tell us about them, 

if so? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. One of the things that, the women from the 

tribes are the people that are keepers of the water. They spend 

considerable time teaching us and talking to us about these things. 

And they talk about mother earth weeping and crying. They talk 

about these things and the symptoms that we get from that. Those 

symptoms that they talk to us about are those very things that you 

are referring to, where things are not the way they were meant to 

be, and we have fish that have tumors, we have fish that are basically being both male and female at the same time. We have all 

different sorts of issues like that that occur. And these do occur primarily in hot spots of pollution and other issues. But these are the 

symptoms of nature responding to all of the abuse that we have 

given to her. 

So these are things that we are taught that we need to try to 

fix, and we need to try to find ways to deal with them. That is our 

sacred duty and it is the duty of our governments to try to make 

that, help bring about those changes that will fix those problems. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you foresee a situation—there are some rivers 

and streams that are known for certain kinds of fish, for example, 

unlike the Chesapeake Bay, where you may have this huge variety. 

Do you foresee any possibility in the near future where you could 

have a catastrophic elimination of fish in such rivers and stream 

where, as we know, there are no natural predators, and the predator embeds itself? And we are talking about, This is a trout 

stream or some particular fish that is particularly known for this 

particularly waterway? 

Mr. ETTAWAGESHIK. We do have those cases. We have cases 

where there are places where we used to catch certain species and 

we no longer can. We have one example within, not just a stream, 

but within the Great Lakes, the lake trout virtually collapsed because of the introduction of the lamprey eel. The predation of this 

lamprey has, without controls that have since been brought into 

place, we would have no lake trout fishery at all. 

As it is, we have done, there has been a significant amount of 

money, in fact, some of the things that we are asking for through 

the various pieces of legislation that we have been talking about 

today is money to help fund that lamprey control project, and to 

adequately fund it. Because as with everything, it has been cut 

back for a variety of different reasons. We are not able to control 

just that one species, that one invasive species that has had serious 

impact on our fishery. 

But we have other varieties where there are different species 

that are in danger. That is of great concern to us. 

Ms. NORTON. Does anyone ever introduce natural predators to 

get the predators out? What would you do if the predators have 

26

embedded themselves, especially if it is a stream or river known for 

one or two kinds of fish? And you didn’t catch them in time, what 

could we do? I guess this is my version of the ice caps melting, I 

don’t think you can do anything about those. 

But can you do anything about a situation where a predator has, 

as will surely be the case at some place, because some of these will 

be smaller streams, some of these will be streams or rivers where 

people don’t have the funds or haven’t recognized what has happened? Is there anything you can do about it? 

Mr. DEBEAUSSAERT. Part of the comprehensive legislation, 

NAISA did include a rapid response component to try to find ways 

of addressing issues. Obviously the key is prevention, preventing 

these new species from being introduced. But if in fact we did see 

an introduction, some ways of addressing quickly and trying to stop 

the spread of those species. The one thing, to get to the earlier 

question and comment about the impact of a single species taking 

over, that is the concern that we have about the Asian carp. We 

need to have that electrical barrier in place, because if those carp 

did enter the Great Lakes, that is our fear, that they would overwhelm the native fishery. 

We are also concerned about this new virus that has been mentioned, the VHS. We have seen significant mortality of fish populations where that virus has been found. 

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlelady for those very thoughtful 

questions, as always. What we are discussing today is just one part 

of a long chain of assaults upon the waters of the Great Lakes. 

When DDT was found to be destructive in the food chain, weakening the shells of eagle eggs, so that the young eagles did not form 

properly, and in the aftermath of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent 

Spring, we went after DDT in the United States, and eventually 

phased it out. 

But eagles were still dying and declining in the Great Lakes. In 

1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, I held hearings as chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee on water quality agreement 

between the United States and Canada. What we learned then was 

that it was DDT still adversely affecting the eggs, where was it 

coming from? We banned it in America. 

But we allowed it to be exported to Central America, where it 

was used to control insects in the banana plantations. And the 

aerosols were caught up in the upper atmosphere from the movement from the Gulf up through the Mississippi flyway and deposited within 10 days of spraying on the Great Lakes. So we had to 

extend the reach of the Federal Government to companies that 

were exporting DDT into Central America. And then we had a witness, Dr. Henry Lickers, who was a Ph.D microbiologist, a member 

of the Akwesasne Tribe at the eastern end of the Great Lakes, also 

known as the Mohawks. And he testified before the Committee that 

for 2,000 years, his people had lived there and lived on fish. And 

they were extraordinarily healthy. 

But all of a sudden, they were experiencing tremors in their 

joints, they were experiencing three times the national average of 

miscarriages, spontaneous loss of fetus and rare types of cancers. 

It was traced to the mercury in the fish and PCBs and toxaphene 

27

that was being taken up by the fish that the people were eating. 

So the Akwesasne people had to change their eating habits. 

And what did they do, I asked? Well, Dr. Lickers said, they 

switched to meat. And what were the health consequences of that? 

Now we have above average arteriosclerosis, heart attack, stroke 

and high cholesterol and diabetes, as we switched to other foods for 

the energy we once got from the fish. 

So here we have this extraordinary chain of life in the Great 

Lakes. They are a total ecosystem. We have to be concerned about 

intra-Basin transfers, waters of Lake Superior that may be carrying species that is deposited in Huron or Erie, Ontario or Michigan. So you have made a great contribution to our fund of knowledge on the subject, and we continue this effort to protect this precious one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the earth. 

Thank you for your contribution. 

I will call the next panel, but Ms. Johnson and I both have to 

go to the House Floor to complete consideration of the Clean Water 

legislation that has been pending and suspended while leadership 

and others went to the White House on some other subject matter 

of far less importance. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have panel two, Dr. David Lodge, from Notre 

Dame University, my son’s school; Adolph Ojard, of the Duluth 

Seaway Port Authority; Andy Buchsbaum, from the National Wildlife Federation; John Kahabka of the New York Power Authority. 

I will ask Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin to assume the Chair. 

Thank you very much, all the members of the panel. We are 

grateful for your contribution today. I read your statements late 

last night. I wish I could stay for the testimony, but I have to be 

over on the House Floor to complete consideration of the bill. I 

know that you will hear penetrating questions from Mr. Baker and 

from Dr. Ehlers. 

Dr. Lodge, please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. LODGE, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT 

OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME; 

ADOLPH N. OJARD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN GREAT LAKES 

PORTS ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DULUTH SEAWAY PORT AUTHORITY; ANDY BUCHSBAUM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION’S GREAT LAKES OFFICE 

AND CO-CHAIR, HEALING OUR WATERS GREAT LAKES COALITION; JOHN M. KAHABKA, MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

OPERATIONS, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY 

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and other 

members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing today. As you may know, I come to this 

issue from the perspective of having worked as a biological researcher for on the order of 24 years or so on this issue of invasive 

species, specializing in aquatic invasives in particular. 

If I could have my Power Point up, I would appreciate it. Together with a number of colleagues, both at Notre Dame and other 

universities, I have collaborations going on addressing a number of 

issues of invasive species, including those involving ships and 

many other related issues. 

28

I am a past chairman of the National Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee and also recently chaired a committee for the Ecological 

Society of America that published a set of recommendations for 

U.S. policy on invasives. That paper includes some consideration of 

ballast water. 

I am a biologist, and the discussions we have had so far have 

been extremely helpful. But to my mind, it is helpful to get below 

sometimes the abstractions and think about real organisms. At 

least that is what biologists like to do. 

So I want to tell you a story, if you will, involving three species. 

And I want to start with one, a reasonably small fish, the round 

goby, but a fish that has some large impacts. What I am illustrating here is the goby can be caught in the thousands, on the 

southern shore of Lake Michigan and unfortunately many other 

places in the Great Lakes, as illustrated by this map from the 

USGS, where you see in red that this goby, having been introduced 

by ballast water, has spread throughout the Great Lakes, and very 

importantly, not only within the Great Lakes, but as you will see, 

is traveling down the Illinois River, having had access to it through 

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and is well on its way to 

colonizing not only the Illinois River but the Mississippi River and 

probably far beyond. 

So one message I want to leave you with is that what happens 

in the Great Lakes does not stay there. The opposite may be true 

of various activities in Las Vegas, but it is not true of the Great 

Lakes. Unfortunately, the organisms that arrive in the Great 

Lakes will come to your Congressional districts before too long, 

whether they are in Oregon or California or Arizona or New York 

or wherever. The Great Lakes are a beachhead for invasions for 

freshwater ecosystems in North America. So wherever one is in 

North America, one has to care about what is going on in the Great 

Lakes. 

Now, I have had the experience in southern Lake Michigan of 

fishing and catching nothing but small, useless round gobies where 

many people used to catch the very highly valued yellow perch and 

other species. So round gobies have damaged both commercial and 

recreational fisheries, and especially in concert with the impacts of 

other species, two others which I illustrate here, two species of 

mussels, the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel. We are seeing 

increasingly large impacts throughout the ecosystems of the Great 

Lakes. 

Let me just quickly go through a few of these, some of which 

have already been mentioned. Many people are familiar with these 

very high, direct financial damages done to industrial facilities for 

zebra mussels. Those damages, a bare minimum estimate, as we 

have already heard, of $150 million a year that doesn’t even begin 

to include the other sorts of ecosystem impacts that I am going to 

go on to describe, which include the loss of recreational and commercial fisheries, especially for whitefish in Lakes Huron and 

Michigan, where we see a very strong association between the increase in abundance of mussels and the decline in the native food 

for these very important whitefish. So that fishery has declined 

about 70 percent since the 1990’s. 

29

Round gobies themselves consume many mussels, from which 

they derive a number of dangerous compounds, including botulinum toxin, because the mussels create a great environment for 

the bacteria that produces this toxin. That toxin in turn is transferred to very valuable fishes, including those consumed by humans, like smallmouth bass. So not only do we see the transfer of 

some dangerous compounds up the food web potentially to humans, 

we also see increasingly, especially in Lakes Erie and Ontario, the 

loss of many fishes in recent years. 

We see direct impacts on human recreation from these windrows 

of mussel shells. We see taste and odor problems in drinking water 

caused by the increasingly abundant blooms of harmful algae 

strongly associated with these mussels. 

And I could go on and on with many species, as I summarized 

in the written testimony, could go on and on, because we know of 

over 180 species in the Great Lakes, which means that they are 

just like the other places that we know about, an increasing number of species. And in the Great Lakes we know that in recent 

years, about 70 percent of those species have come from ballast 

water, about 40 percent of the ship-borne alien animals cause the 

sorts of damages that I have talked about already. 

And this again, to close with the same theme that I began with, 

this is not an issue limited to the Great Lakes. The zebra mussels, 

illustrated here, are a great example of this. The black dots are 

where they already are. They have spread down the Mississippi, 

and this invasion, like many other invasions, is not over. We have 

heard again that quagga mussels were recently discovered in the 

Colorado River and Lake Mead. We in fact predicted in a paper to 

appear in print shortly that this would happen. Unfortunately, that 

prediction has come true. 

So we have to care about the ships that originally introduce organisms into the Great Lakes as the beachhead, and we have to care 

a great deal about what is going to happen from the Great Lakes 

as recreational boaters and other pathways disperse those species 

from the Great Lakes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. [Presiding] Thank you, Doctor. 

Next we have Mr. Adolph Ojard, Executive Director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority. Welcome, and thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. OJARD. Thank you for having me. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, again, I am Adolph Ojard, Executive Director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, Duluth, Minnesota. I am also here today as the President of 

the American Great Lakes Ports Association, an organization that 

represents the 12 public port authorities on the U.S. side of the 

Great Lakes. 

While I am here specifically on behalf of the Great Lakes port 

community, I can assure you that the views I express today are 

shared by the majority of the private maritime interests in the 

Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system. 

Although today’s hearing focuses on the Great Lakes aquatic 

invasive species, I think we need to understand that this is both 

a national and an international issue. While various witnesses tesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:14 Oct 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34785 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
30

tifying today will offer different perspectives, we all agree on one 

thing: Congress must act quickly to enact national programs requiring the treatment of ships’ ballast water. 

The Great Lakes Seaway transportation corridor continues to develop as an essential component of our national transportation policy. This is the longest and most extensive deep draft waterway in 

the world, 2,342 miles from Duluth, Minnesota to the Atlantic 

Ocean. 

Water-borne transportation is widely regarded as the safest, 

cleanest and least costly mode of commercial transportation. Ships 

emit one-tenth of the greenhouses gases of trucks and half that of 

trains. One maritime accident is recorded for every 14 rail accidents and 75 truck accidents. 

Unfortunately, the emergency of aquatic invasive species has become our industries’ Achilles heel. We stand ready to solve this 

problem and let me assure you that we will solve the problem. 

The focus of this hearing is impact of aquatic invasive species on 

the Great Lakes, and for the Great Lakes shipping industry that 

impact is the fear of isolation and the fear of a growing patchwork 

of differing and conflicting State laws, each attempting to regulate 

ships engaged in interstate and international commerce. Since 

most Great Lakes vessels load and discharge in numerous jurisdictions, the potential for chaos is considerable. 

Since the year 2000, the States of New York, Michigan, Illinois, 

Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin have all considered ballast water 

regulations. Many of these efforts have been misguided and reflect 

the lack of maritime experience at the State level. To date, only the 

State of Michigan has actually enacted a ballast water statute. 

That law requires all ships conducting port operations in Michigan 

ports to obtain a permit from the State. Further, it requires that 

a ship owner either certify that it will not discharge ballast in 

Michigan waters or that it will do so only after treating the ballast 

with one of four treatment systems. These systems are arbitrarily 

selected by the Michigan Department of Environmental Management. None of them have been scientifically tested and shown to 

prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species. Minnesota 

and Wisconsin also have bills pending. 

So what is the impact on Great Lakes commerce? Well, if you can 

imagine four ports of call, four permit applications, four permit 

fees, application of an uncertified shipboard treatment system, 

countless opportunities for delay and disruption, and the question 

then really remains, will the ships and the vessels continue to call? 

It is also important to note that the States do not want to get 

involved in the regulation of ballast water. Based on our experience, all branches of State Government recognize the negative consequences of their action. They understand the harm they inflict on 

their own citizens and their own economies by adding costs and isolating valuable Great Lakes maritime commerce. 

Yet the continuing lack at the Federal level has driven States to 

attempt independent remedies. With minimal understandings of 

the intricacies of maritime industry, the legislation that is being 

developed is ineffective at best, impractical at most. Further complicating the issue is that State regulatory bodies have little or no 

knowledge of shipboard issues. 

31

Therefore, when Federal standards are finally enacted, the U.S. 

Coast Guard must be the regulatory agency. Vessel operations are 

highly complex. The Coast Guard is the only agency with the 

knowledge, experience and skill to effectively regulate vessel operations. 

The negative impacts of aquatic invasive species are not in dispute. The need for both the environment and the industry is for 

Congress to create a regulatory framework within which the private sector can begin making necessary investments to solve this 

problem. I believe we can protect the aquatic environment and 

maintain a healthy shipping industry. There is a win-win scenario, 

and it is not far out in terms of our ability to succeed. 

So what is needed? We need to find enforceable Federal standards for ballast water treatment. A Federal preemption over State 

and local jurisdiction. Uniform national standards and regulations. 

Incentives to encourage vessel operators to begin early installation 

of ballast water treatment systems, and the authorization of the 

Coast Guard to exclusively regulate shipboard ballast operations. 

Again, I thank the Subcommittee for hosting this hearing, for 

being sensitive to the need and for moving quickly on this legislation. I would welcome any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you for your considered testimony and your 

opinions. Being a neighbor from Wisconsin, thanks for hiking in 

here today. Your accent was well appreciated. 

Mr. OJARD. I appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAGEN. Next we have Mr. Andy Buchsbaum, Director of the 

Great Lakes Office of the National Wildlife Federation and also testifying on behalf of the Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition. 

Welcome. 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to congratulate you on getting my name right the first time around. I 

don’t know if you know any other Buchsbaums anywhere else, but 

it is a tough name. 

The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a coalition of 90 organizations, State, regional, local and national, dedicated to protecting 

and restoring the Great Lakes. It was founded by generous support 

from the Wege Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and we are very 

involved not only with the invasive species debate, invasive species 

issues, but also with Great Lakes restoration generally. I will get 

to that in a second. 

You have already heard from many people today about the importance of the Great Lakes, the importance not only to the ecology 

of the region but to the economy of the region. You have already 

heard about the general problem of invasive species, so I am going 

to focus on a few things. One hundred eighty-three species so far 

in the Great Lakes that we know of, invasives, you have heard 

that, one every 28 weeks. About eight months, it is accelerating, 

one every 28 weeks comes in. 

Let me follow up on something that Dr. Lodge was talking about, 

and that is one of the huge impacts, which involves a freshwater 

shrimp called diporeia. If I could have one of the slides called up, 

I have a few slides. 

[Slide sown.] 

32

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Diporeia are tiny freshwater shrimp that form 

about 80 percent of the food at the bottom of the Great Lakes. 

Their population gets to about 10,000 organisms per square meter. 

This picture of Lake Michigan, all those dark blue spots are at the 

10,000 per square meter level. As it lightens up, please give me the 

next slide. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. You can see, as it gets lighter and lighter, there 

are fewer and fewer of these things. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. And then finally, what you see here is a crash 

of this fundamental part of the Great Lakes food web. These tiny 

freshwater shrimp have virtually disappeared over large stretches 

of Lake Michigan. Advance it one more time. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Ninety-four percent decline in 10 years. This is 

the basis of the Great Lakes food web. 

Next, slide, please. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Dr. Tom Nalepa is the person who did this 

modeling and who did the sampling to establish that. He is a 

NOAA scientist from the Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Lab. He began sampling for diporeia for other reasons back in the 

1980’s, found this phenomenon and then quickly began sampling 

other places. 

For Lake Huron, he began sampling in the year 2000. Look at 

what has happened in just three years, a 57 percent decline. 

When Congressman Ehlers said that this is an ecological disaster 

happening, this is one huge example of what he meant. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Zebra mussels have been blamed for a lot of the 

decline of the diporeia. But the zebra mussels themselves are now 

declining, because quagga mussels have come in. Look at the increase in quagga mussels in the last 10 years. This is again from 

Dr. Nalepa’s slides. 

One more slide, I think that wraps it up. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. This is also the quagga mussels for Lake 

Huron. 

Next, and we are done. 

[Slide shown.] 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. This is massive. This is something that we featured, the slides you have in my testimony, it is much more 

lengthy. We featured some of this, Dr. Nalepa’s work, in this report 

that you also have called Ecosystem Shock, which is something 

NWF did in 2004. I invite you to read through that and you will 

see some of the statistics and some of the descriptions in more detail. 

Scientists have done another report, though, on the Great Lakes 

and released it just over a year ago. It was called Prescription for 

Great Lakes Protection and Restoration. Some of the region’s leading scientists, joined by some of the Nation’s leading scientists, 

33

over 200 right now, issued this report. They concluded that the 

Great Lakes are suffering right now ecosystem breakdowns. 

What I just showed you, the diporeia crash, is one of the leading 

breakdowns, but it is not the only one. You have heard some others 

today. They say the reasons for the breakdowns is because there 

is a combination of stresses that have injured the Great Lakes. 

They have injured, and you will appreciate this, Mr. Chairman, 

they have injured what they call its immune system, its ability to 

respond to stress, its buffering capacity. 

Invasive species are among probably the lead of those stressors. 

Because how can a system reach equilibrium if once every 28 

weeks another huge stressor comes in that it can’t handle? 

Because of this, the scientists actually recommended doing things 

not just to restore the Lakes but to stop the new stressors from 

coming in. They say we can’t restore the Lakes properly unless 

these new stressors are stopped. 

So the scientists and the Healing Our Waters Coalition and the 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, everyone who studies this 

problem says the top priority has to be a comprehensive approach 

to stopping invasive species like the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act that was introduced last week in the Senate, has been 

pending last year. It is comprehensive, because ballast water, although a huge cause, is not the only cause. There are others. 

The other top priority is to stop the signature species, the signature threat, the Asian carp, from coming up the canal. Ten to twenty million dollars now will save tens to hundreds of billions of dollars later. We saw what happened with inaction with Katrina. We 

know that we can do better. There is a very easy solution out there. 

This one is not rocket science, Congressman Ehlers. This one is a 

lot easier than that, it is an electric barrier, electric current underneath the canal. We need to do that. 

Then finally, if you will indulge me for 20 more seconds, we have 

to restore what we have lost. That is the purpose behind the Great 

Lakes Collaboration and Implementation Act, which Congressman 

Ehlers and others introduced yesterday and which they introduced 

last year. That will restore that immune system that we need. Because given the fact that these things are here to stay, we need to 

bolster the health of the Great Lakes so they can take care of 

themselves. We can’t do it for them, but we can help them do it 

for themselves. 

With that, I have a number of other comments that I can’t get 

to which address some of what Congressman Baker said and others 

in terms of the EPA and Coast Guard role. But I will save that for 

questions. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KAGEN. I appreciate your comments, and if we don’t have 

time for questions because of the vote, I would certainly appreciate 

your written commentary from questions you would have expected 

us to ask. 

And finally we have John Kahabka, the Manager of Environmental Operations from the New York Power Authority. You have 

the floor. 

Mr. KAHABKA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. 

My name is John Kahabka, I serve as the Manager of Environmental Operations for the New York Power Authority. The Power 

34

Authority is the Nation’s largest State-owned electric utility, with 

18 generating facilities and more than 1,400 circuit miles of transmission lines. We own and operate our facilities without the use of 

tax dollars or State credit. We finance our operations with earned 

revenues from sale of electricity and through bonds and notes for 

capital projects. 

In addition, for a number of years, I have also represented the 

American Public Power Association on the Aquatic Invasive Species 

Task Force of the interagency committee established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. 

Among the electrical generation facilities owned by the Power Authority are two major hydroelectric facilities within the Great 

Lakes Basin, several small hydro facilities, a relatively large pump 

storage facility in the northern Catskills, a number of fossil-fired 

plants in New York City. 

At the time when the zebra mussel first made its appearance, 

the Authority owned and operated two additional nuclear power 

plants, one located on Lake Ontario and the other one actually on 

the Hudson River. We have always considered that the impacts on 

our operations by aquatic invasives, especially Dreissena 

Polymorphia, the zebra mussel, to be critical to our continued economic operation. 

Recognizing the need for immediate measures to address this 

problem, in 1990 we instituted a monitoring and mitigation program at all our facilities. In May of 1990, we installed a 

chlorination system at the 2,400 megawatt Niagara Hydro project 

in western New York. The initial system cost us over $100,000 and 

we are currently in the beginning phases of refurbishing that system. We expect those costs to be anywhere between $200,000 to 

$250,000 with annual control efforts ranging between $30,000 to 

$50,000. 

At our St. Lawrence project, we have essentially a similar system. At our 1,000 megawatt pump storage project, Blenheim-Gilboa 

in the Catskills, we installed a state of the art, at the time, experimental copper ion generator in an effort to reduce our chemical discharges. At our Hinckley, Crescent and Vischer Ferry small hydro 

projects within the Mohawk drainage basin, we installed a filtration system and use mechanical cleaning. 

The FitzPatrick plant, which is now owned by Entergy Nuclear, 

back in 1991 when we owned it, we installed a chlorination system 

at that facility that cost about $175,000 at that time. Conversations 

with Entergy Nuclear recently have indicated they are spending 

between $100,000 to $150,000 a year in maintaining that system. 

At the Indian Point facility I referenced earlier, their annual operating costs are roughly about $350,000, just to control biofouling. 

The use of Great Lakes water for power production is significant. 

The 2005 report by the Northeast-Midwest Institute calculated that 

there are some 535 power plants within the U.S. portion of the 

Great Lakes Basin with a combined generating capacity of over 

50,000 megawatts. That comprises roughly 13 nuclear plants and 

175 coal-fired power plants. By interfering with maximum effective 

operations of the power plants, they can jeopardize, zebra mussels, 

that is, or biofoulers, can jeopardize reliable supply of electricity. 

35

The worst case impact from Dreissena in our facilities would be 

the loss of generation. Replacing our hydropower, which we sell 

typically at 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt hour, would force us to go out 

and by it on the market, anywhere from 5 to 10 cents a kilowatt 

hour. In 1995, Chuck O’Neill of Sea Grant reported on the economic impacts of zebra mussels. I want to just bring out that from 

Chuck’s work, it was shown that the expenditure on zebra mussel 

control only at the nuclear power stations was around $786,000, 

and at fossil stations, about $146,000. All these expenditures included plant retrofits, chemical control and prevention projects. 

The Power Authority to date has overcome a lot of these initial 

effects, but it has not been without impacts to our operations and 

our costs. The zebra mussel infestation has proved to be one of our 

more daunting environmental challenges and will continue to challenge us in the future. 

The Power Authority supports the efforts of the State and Federal Government to regulate and control ballast water, as this is 

clearly the vector of choice for the movement of aquatic invaders. 

Continuing funding of the monitoring and control programs and research is essential. Without these, it is certain that additional 

invasives, as you have heard, of course, many times today, will affect the Great Lakes and their tributaries. 

On behalf of the Power Authority, I want to express my appreciation for your taking the attention to hear my testimony. If there 

are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much for enlightening us, with no 

joke being intended. 

Mr. Gilchrest, do you have any questions? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

I represent the Chesapeake Bay, and many of the problems that 

you are describing we have in the Bay area. It seems that the 

shrimp that you are talking about their decline is similar, but I 

think it is worse in the Great Lakes, to our oysters. We have lost 

in the last 100 years about 99 percent of the oysters, which was 

a form of the ecosystem, not at the bottom of the food chain, but 

they had an immense filtering capacity. 

Can you specifically identify the water quality issue that is decimating these shrimp? Or is something else eating them? 

Mr. LODGE. I will take a stab at it. I think the short answer is, 

the exact links are unknown. What is known is that wherever 

these mussels have become abundant, the diporeia, this little 

shrimp-like organism, has declined. I don’t think anyone really understands exactly what is going on. I myself in the past have been 

something of a skeptic about this. But the pattern is absolutely 

compelling to me these days, as you saw from the maps. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So the new mussels have also come in, likely in 

ballast water? 

Mr. LODGE. Yes. Both mussels it seems clear came in ballast 

water. The difference between the mussels, I am almost inclined to 

say, are things that only a biologist can get excited about. 

Mr. GILCHREST. But they are two different species, the zebra 

mussels and the diporeia is another mussel? 

Mr. LODGE. No, the——

Mr. GILCHREST. The diporeia is a shrimp? 

36

Mr. LODGE. The diporeia is a little shrimp. The two mussels are 

called zebra mussels and quagga mussels. They are two different 

species, and in fact, they do have some important ecological differences, with quagga mussel living quite happily more deeply in 

the Lakes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. But the zebra mussels seem not to have an effect 

on the shrimp? 

Mr. LODGE. No, I believe it is the case that both. And in fact, I 

think it may be the case that in the past in many surveys, these 

two mussel species have not been sufficiently distinguished from 

one another, because they are easy to mix up. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, when you look at them, they look the 

same. 

Mr. LODGE. If I had them here today, I would not be able to tell 

them apart. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So as far as our assistance with you is concerned, this aquatic invasive species bill needs to get moving on the 

House side. There is a recognition, and I like the concept that the 

immune system has been degraded. I will start using that in my 

district. The immune system. 

But it is an invasive species problem, it is general human activity and all that involves degrading nature’s design, again, fundamentally. Part of this process, though, is an effort to restore 

habitat and water quality. So we will, Mr. Chairman, we will do 

all we can to move the type of legislation, hopefully in this Congress, on the invasive species, those kinds of pieces of legislation, 

do all we can before this thing is a foregone conclusion. 

One last very quick comment. On top of all this lair of problems 

is global warming, which will have other effects that we are not 

quite sure of at this time. Yes, sir? 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Congressman, a couple of things. First on global warming, there have been three studies that have come out in 

the last few months about the impacts of global warming on the 

Great Lakes that show that it is going to really exacerbate all the 

problems we are talking about. Apparently there is a study that 

just came out last week that shows that Lake Superior’s water 

temperature has raised 4 degrees, which has enormous implications for the entire ecosystem and for the fishing and for everything else. Ice fishing has become an endangered sport in the 

northern climates now. 

In addition to that, there is another study, it is not complete, but 

the information was leaked, apparently, it is coming out in April, 

that says that the lake levels of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 

may decline up to five feet because of global warming, which would 

completely decimate everything, completely change everything. And 

then there is another study that came out a few months ago that 

predicts that Lake Erie may shrink by 15 percent. 

So if we can’t get our house in order before these things happen, 

we will have no chance of responding. That is why, as important 

as invasive species legislation is, that is the prevention piece. We 

also have to do the restoration piece. 

Congressman Rom Emanuel today, in commenting on his bill at 

a press conference, said that he recognized that it is not just the 

Great Lakes that are facing these major restoration problems. He 

37

specifically was talking about the Chesapeake Bay. So I think that 

in the future, we need to begin pooling our resources and knowledge, and also our political strategies to get these major restoration 

bills through. Because a lot of change has already happened, and 

we need to address that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much for referring to the immune 

system, since I am immunologist. I used my fundraising capabilities as an immunologist to get here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAGEN. We are going to have to break and end the meeting, 

but I want to have all of you on record with regard to a question 

that comes up with regard to intra-lake shipping, as to whether or 

not this poses a threat for spreading an invasive species from one 

lake to the other. Would you all agree that the answer would be 

yes, that this is an issue, and that a ship, whether it is traveling 

intra-lake or from overseas should have the same rules applied to 

them? 

Mr. LODGE. I would agree all the evidence would suggest that 

ships, lakers, so-called laker ships moving within the Great Lakes, 

are likely to be an important pathway by which species get spread 

around in a lake. 

Mr. OJARD. Yes, the lakers will spread, but we are not going to 

introduce through the lakers. If we have good ballast water legislation, adequate systems onboard the ocean ships, we are going to 

significantly retard the influx of invasives into the system and 

there would be very little to spread around. 

Ocean ships are moving throughout the Great Lakes, so they in 

essence are spreading as well as the lakers themselves. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you. Andy? 

Mr. BUCHSBAUM. Yes, the lakers definitely spread what is there. 

I think that it is unlikely that the standards you would use for 

lakers would be the same as the standards you would use for 

ocean-going vessels. I think the problems and solutions would be 

different. You could probably find some different solutions for 

lakers than you can for the ocean-going vessels. 

Certainly, if we act quickly on the ocean-going vessels, then I 

agree definitely with Mr. Ojard, that you stop the influx. These 

things are going to spread through the Great Lakes regardless of 

whether the lakers are spreading them or not. So it is a question 

of how you reach equilibrium. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. The Subcommittee would be interested in your written recommendations pertaining to the lakers and the ocean vehicles. 

John? 

Mr. KAHABKA. I would agree with the panelists as well, that the 

movement will happen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much. This will end today’s hearing. 

We appreciate very much your coming here and your hard work. 

It is well appreciated. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

38


34785.226
39


34785.227
40


34785.009
41


34785.010
42


34785.011
43


34785.012
44


34785.013
45


34785.014
46


34785.015
47


34785.016
48


34785.017
49


34785.018
50


34785.019
51


34785.020
52


34785.021
53


34785.022
54


34785.023
55


34785.024
56


34785.025
57


34785.026
58


34785.027
59


34785.028
60


34785.029
61


34785.030
62


34785.031
63


34785.032
64


34785.033
65


34785.034
66


34785.035
67


34785.036
68


34785.037
69


34785.038
70


34785.039
71


34785.040
72


34785.041
73


34785.042
74


34785.043
75


34785.044
76


34785.045
77


34785.046
78


34785.047
79


34785.048
80


34785.049
81


34785.050
82


34785.051
83


34785.052
84


34785.053
85


34785.054
86


34785.055
87


34785.056
88


34785.057
89


34785.058
90


34785.059
91


34785.060
92


34785.061
93


34785.062
94


34785.063
95


34785.064
96


34785.065
97


34785.066
98


34785.067
99


34785.068
100


34785.069
101


34785.070
102


34785.071
103


34785.072
104


34785.073
105


34785.074
106


34785.075
107


34785.076
108


34785.077
109


34785.078
110


34785.079
111


34785.080
112


34785.081
113


34785.082
114


34785.083
115


34785.084
116


34785.085
117


34785.086
118


34785.087
119


34785.088
120


34785.089
121


34785.090
122


34785.091
123


34785.092
124


34785.093
125


34785.094
126


34785.095
127


34785.096
128


34785.097
129


34785.098
130


34785.099
131


34785.100
132


34785.101
133


34785.102
134


34785.103
135


34785.104
136


34785.105
137


34785.106
138


34785.107
139


34785.108
140


34785.109
141


34785.110
142


34785.111
143


34785.112
144


34785.113
145


34785.114
146


34785.115
147


34785.116
148


34785.117
149


34785.118
150


34785.119
151


34785.120
152


34785.121
153


34785.122
154


34785.123
155


34785.124
156


34785.125
157


34785.126
158


34785.127
159


34785.128
160


34785.129
161


34785.130
162


34785.131
163


34785.132
164


34785.133
165


34785.134
166


34785.135
167


34785.136
168


34785.137
169


34785.138
170


34785.139
171


34785.140
172


34785.141
173


34785.142
174


34785.143
175


34785.144
176


34785.145
177


34785.146
178


34785.147
179


34785.148
180


34785.149
181


34785.150
182


34785.151
183


34785.152
184


34785.153
185


34785.154
186


34785.155
187


34785.156
188


34785.157
189


34785.158
190


34785.159
191


34785.160
192


34785.161
193


34785.162
194


34785.163
195


34785.164
196


34785.165
197


34785.166
198


34785.167
199


34785.168
200


34785.169
201


34785.170
202


34785.171
203


34785.172
204


34785.173
205


34785.174
206


34785.175
207


34785.176
208


34785.177
209


34785.178
210


34785.179
211


34785.180
212


34785.181
213


34785.182
214


34785.183
215


34785.184
216


34785.185
217


34785.186
218


34785.187
219


34785.188
220


34785.189
221


34785.190
222


34785.191
223


34785.192
224


34785.193
225


34785.194
226


34785.195
227


34785.196
228


34785.197
229


34785.198
230


34785.199
231


34785.200
232


34785.201
233


34785.202
234


34785.203
235


34785.204
236


34785.205
237


34785.206
238


34785.207
239


34785.208
240


34785.209
241


34785.210
242


34785.211
243


34785.212
244


34785.213
245


34785.214
246


34785.215
247


34785.216
248


34785.217
249


34785.218
250


34785.219
251


34785.220
252


34785.221
253


34785.222
254


34785.223
255


34785.224
256

Æ


34785.225