U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

98–182 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–772 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 

ITEMS: S. 571, GREAT LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; 

S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE PREVENTION 

ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION AND 

HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE 

ACT; S. 1232, GREAT LAKES ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND 

THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY 

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 1381, 

BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT; S. 

1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY 

ACT TO EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES 

FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 

18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN 

GENUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 16, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 16, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared statement . 2 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ............ 4 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 5 

Kirk, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................................... 6 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ................................. 8 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 10 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 123 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 124 

WITNESSES 

Shapiro, Mike, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 27 

Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senatory Cardin ........................................................................................ 39 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 41 

Stein, Bruce A., Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Adaptation, National Wildlife Federation ...................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Lord, Chad, Policy Director, Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition, 

and Senior Director, Water Policy, National Parks Conservation Association ........................................................................................................................ 61

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Wasley, Tony, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife ..................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from the Alliance for the Great Lakes to Senators Cardin and 

Boozman ................................................................................................................ 126 

Letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Senators Cardin and 

Kirk ....................................................................................................................... 129

Testimony of the Alaska Federation of Natives .................................................... 131 

Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency to Senator Tom Udall ................. 134 

Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senator Tom Udall ........ 135 

Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senators Tom Udall 

and Chambliss ...................................................................................................... 137 

Letter from Plumbing Manufacturers International to Senator Tom Udall ....... 139 

Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists to Senator Tom Udall ............... 141 

Letter from the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species to 

Senator Heller ...................................................................................................... 143 

Letter from the Western Governors’ Association to Representative Heck .......... 144 

Testimony of the National Wildlife Refuge Association ....................................... 145 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 

ITEMS: S. 571, GREAT LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 

1153, INVASIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE PREVENTION ACT; S. 

1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION AND HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S. 1232, GREAT 

LAKES ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF 

2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 

1956 TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND 

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 

1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT; S. 

1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 

TO EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2014; S. 2530, A 

BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF 

CERTAIN GENUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESOURCE 

PROTECTION ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Boozman, Gillibrand, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee. 

I thank Senator Boozman for his help in putting together today’s 

hearing and thank the Chair and Ranking Member for their cooperation. 

We have 11 bills that we are going to hear today that are under 

the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. We will have an opportunity 

for the sponsors to explain their bills and make their statements. 

We then have representatives of the Administration who are here 
2 

and also outside interest groups who are interested in some of 

these bills. 

We welcome all of your comments. We would ask, without objection, that your written statements will all be made a part of the 

record. 

Let me first state this is the way we should proceed on legislation pending before the Congress. We should have an opportunity 

for a full hearing and hope the committee can take advantage of 

the information that is made available. I know in a couple cases 

we have received written comments, and all that will be extremely 

helpful. 

I want to use my time to explain one of the 11 bills before the 

committee, S. 2560, the Service Resource Protection Act that I have 

sponsored at the suggestion of the agency. 

Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have explicit statutory authority to seek compensation from responsible 

parties that injure or destroy national wildlife refuge system or 

other Service resources. This is in contrast to the authority that 

the National Park Service has and exercises under the Park System Resource Protection Act and a similar authority to NOAA that 

it uses under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. 

In other words, if someone causes harm, we can hold them responsible up to the amount of damage they have caused and that 

can be used to compensate and fix the damage that has been 

caused without additional burdens to the taxpayers of this country 

or the budgets of the different agencies. 

The Service Resource Protection Act gives similar authority to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to damages caused 

to our national wildlife refuge system. I know the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is going to be testifying so we will have an opportunity to get their views in that regard. 

Let me also point out that we have received, I believe, statements from two of the sponsors who will not be testifying personally, Senator Levin in regard to the Great Lakes Ecological and 

Economic Protection Act and Senator Murkowski in regard to a bill 

that amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski was not received 

at time of print. The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Boozman, for holding this 

hearing on the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act of 2013 (S. 

1232), which would help restore and protect the Great Lakes, the largest source of 

surface freshwater on the planet. Senator Kirk and I, as co-chairs of the Senate 

Great Lakes Task Force, introduced this bill to target the most significant problems 

facing the Great Lakes and ensure that we implement these projects cost effectively. 

I want to thank the other eight Senators who cosponsored the bill, in particular 

Senator Gillibrand, who is a member of this subcommittee. I am also pleased that 

Congressman Joyce is the sponsor of a companion measure in the House of Representatives, which has 23 bipartisan cosponsors. 

The Great Lakes are one of the world’s great treasures, providing drinking water 

to more than 40 million people; supporting 1.5 million U.S. jobs and $62 billion in 

wages; transporting critical supplies for manufacturing, electricity generation and 

food for the world; and supporting the region’s $4.6 trillion economy. 

The Great Lakes brought industrial and natural resource development to the region which resulted in tremendous economic development and population growth. 

This development, however, also resulted in toxic substances polluting the waters 
3 

and sediments, untreated wastewater threatening public health, and polluted runoff 

choking habitats and killing aquatic life. 

The Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (S. 1232), also known 

as GLEEPA, would tackle problems from past pollution and protect the lakes from 

current and future threats. GLEEPA would formally authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), an inter-agency program that President Obama launched 

in 2009 to implement a regional collaboration strategy developed in 2005 by about 

1,500 stakeholder participants. This collaborative process was formed through an 

Executive Order by President Bush. The history of the restoration strategy clearly 

shows the work of restoring and protecting the Great Lakes is founded on a plan 

that reflects a broad range of viewpoints and has strong bipartisan support. It is 

critical that this collaborative strategy guide restoration of the Great Lakes because 

the region encompasses not only eight States, but also two countries. This process 

will also help ensure that progress can be made over the long term, as clean up of 

decades of pollution will take time. 

GLEEPA would focus Federal resources on the areas of highest priority identified 

in the collaborative plan, which would be further refined as new science and information become available. While the GLRI is broadly authorized in the Clean Water 

Act, passing this legislation would help ensure the program has clear congressional 

direction and goals, is results driven and transparent, and implements the most cost 

effective solutions. The bill would also formally establish the Great Lakes Advisory 

Board to provide advice and recommendations concerning restoration and protection. The board would reflect many different viewpoints, including from local, State 

and tribal governments; environmental, agricultural, and business organizations; 

hunters and anglers; and academia. Finally, the bill would formally establish a 10- 

member interagency task force to coordinate restoration efforts, ensure projects are 

not duplicated and that they use existing successful programs. GLEEPA also would 

accelerate progress toward the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 

a formal agreement between the U.S. and Canadian governments establishing 

shared goals for protecting and improving water quality of the Great Lakes. 

The GLRI has achieved real progress: clean up of more than 1.3 million cubic 

yards of contaminated sediment; control of the destructive sea lamprey and restoration of sturgeon, trout and other important fish species; construction of barriers to 

prevent an invasion by destructive Asian carp and planning for additional measures 

to keep these fish out of the Lakes; and prevention of precious Great Lakes water 

diversions through the Great Lakes Compact. GLEEPA would help ensure that 

progress continues to be made using a solid framework for achieving measurable 

and outcome-based results. 

The Great Lakes are precious and irreplaceable. As temporary stewards of this 

invaluable resource, we must do all we can to restore and protect the Great Lakes 

for the millions of people who depend on them today and the millions more who will 

in the future. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope you will soon advance 

this bill to the full Senate. 

Senator CARDIN. With that, let me recognize Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this very, very important hearing as we discuss these various bills. I agree with you totally that this is the right way to do 

it, to have the witnesses so that we can discuss and see how we 

can improve the ideas being brought forward. 

I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the 

record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I am so excited about this first panel that in 

the interest of time, I will do that. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. We are very pleased to have three of our colleagues here today, all who have brought forward legislation we 

are hearing today. We will start with Senator Blumenthal, the 

principal sponsor of S. 1381, the Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act. 

Senator Blumenthal. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee here today, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee 

and speak about the Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act and 

thank the co-sponsors who have introduced this bill with me. 

It is really a common sense solution to the serious dangers associated with private ownership of wild animals such as lions, tigers, 

leopards, cheetahs and more. 

Incredibly, even in the 21st century, even in the United States 

of America, this problem is real and serious. There are at least 

10,000 big cats currently in private ownership around the country. 

In fact, there are more captive tigers in the United States than 

there are in the wild. Think about it: more captive tigers in the 

United States than in the wild. 

Some people buy them as wild animals, as cubs, thinking it 

would be fun to own an exotic pet like a tiger or a lion or a leopard 

but as soon as they begin to mature, private owners quickly find 

themselves in over their heads, literally and figuratively, and frequently subject these animals to utterly inhumane living conditions. 

Other people purchase big cats to use in traveling roadside zoos 

which charge fees to allow unwitting members of the public to take 

pictures with the animals, they are literally side by side with the 

animals, dangerously so. The exhibitors of these roadside zoos often 

use abusive training techniques in an attempt to prevent the animals from attacking any of the customers. 

No matter what the setting, private ownership of big cats poses 

gravely serious safety threats for anyone who happens to live in 

the surrounding community. 

Over the last two decades, captive big cats have killed 24 people 

in the United States, 24 people killed by these big cats including 

5 children. In addition, these cats have mauled and injured over 

200 people. 

In short, private ownership and breeding of big cats has been a 

very, very serious problem for law enforcement officers and first responders. Brave men and women who go to the scene of a big cat 

incident have to put their lives on the line. They are not always 

trained to deal with them and they often lack the equipment necessary to properly deal with them. 

In fact, I have talked to members of the firefighting community 

as well as the law enforcement community who frequently go to 

homes that may be on fire or dealing with the threat of fire and 

find these animals there without even knowing what they are going 

to encounter. 

Conservation experts overwhelmingly agree that breeding and 

possessing an animal outside of its natural environment is not an 

example of conservation. These wild animals are just what are 

called, wild. They are wild and people should respect the expertise 

that is required to deal with them and they should not be allowed 

to own them. 

My legislation would prohibit private possession and breeding of 

big cats, but it is all too common sense which requires this bill and 
5 

also requires reasonable exceptions for properly accredited zoos, 

State colleges and universities and traveling circuses that do not 

allow public handling of these wild animals. 

The bill would also allow those who currently own big cats to 

keep them as long as they register the animals with the United 

States Department of Agriculture. In other words, there is a kind 

of grandfather clause. 

I urge the members of this subcommittee to support this legislation so that we can put an end to inhumane, dangerous and wasteful private ownership of big cats. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, 

I am going to recognize Senator Gillibrand. I apologize for overlooking you for your opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I was grateful to hear Senator Blumenthal’s 

very interesting legislation that I will support. 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for 

holding this hearing and for including several pieces of legislation 

that are vital not just to New York but all across our country. 

I am particularly pleased that our subcommittee was able to include S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act, on 

the list of legislation to be discussed today. I have worked closely 

on this legislation with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in response to the real and severe threats that my State of New York 

faces with regard to invasive species as well as Senator Nelson who 

knows all too well the harm that invasives can cause through Florida’s recent experiences battling the Burmese python in the Everglades. 

Whether it is the Asian clam in Lake George, zebra mussels in 

the Finger Lakes or the imminent danger of Asian carp in the 

Great Lakes, New York’s water bodies are affected by aquatic 

invasive species that threaten our regional economies, disrupt the 

balance of our ecosystems and cost our local communities scarce resources to control their spread. 

Across the United States, invasive species cost more than $120 

billion each year and result in more than $13 billion in damage to 

agriculture annually. Those numbers will only continue to grow if 

additional species that could cause harm are allowed to be imported into the United States. 

Currently, 236 species of animals are listed as injurious under 

the Lacey Act, including zebra mussels. However, despite the fact 

that since 2010, the Asian clam has caused harm to Lake George, 

that species is not listed. It makes no sense, and we have to improve the Federal Government’s ability to quickly respond to these 

threats. 

Once a species is listed as injurious, it cannot be imported into 

the United States. However, the current process can take 4 years 

to complete, giving an invasive species more time to establish itself 

and damage our ecosystems. 

To fix this problem, I have introduced the Invasive Fish and 

Wildlife Prevention Act to strengthen the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
6 

Service’s ability to proactively address the threat of invasive species by requiring an analysis to determine whether any non-native 

animal species have the potential to become invasive and harmful 

to the U.S. before they can be imported or enter interstate commerce. 

Specifically, the bill would establish an injurious species listing 

process based on the clear risk assessment and risk determination 

process. It would also allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to take 

emergency actions to ban non-native wildlife like the Asian clam 

and others that pose an imminent threat to our waterways and 

other ecosystems. 

I believe this is a common sense approach to prevent the further 

spread of invasive species and look forward to continuing to work 

with my colleagues in the Senate to advance the legislation. 

I would also like to briefly speak on another piece of legislation 

I have co-sponsored, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Action of 2014. As the only Senator on the EPW who represents a Great Lakes State, I know firsthand how important the 

Great Lakes restoration initiative has been to my State and the entire region. 

The Great Lakes face a number of challenges from Asian carp to 

blue-green algae. Ensuring that we have a long term Federal commitment to restoring and protecting the environmental quality of 

the Great Lakes is critical to regional economies that rely on the 

lakes for fishing, tourism and other economic activity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our 

other witnesses today. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Kirk. I believe you are here in regard to S. 571. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KIRK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator KIRK. S. 571, that would propose a total ban on sewage 

dumping in the Great Lakes is already backed by Stabenow, Levin, 

Durbin and Kirk. 

This chart shows the dirty dozen dumpers in the Great Lakes 

area. Let me point to some of the details. The worse dumper in the 

Great Lakes area is the city of Detroit which far eclipses most of 

the other cities. 

Just to get further support from my colleagues for Buffalo, this 

legislation also has a fining mechanism that would refund to the 

publicly owned sewage treatment systems so that they can clean up 

their act, a virtual cycle of stopping. 

The reason why Senators from various States should care about 

this is the Great Lakes are the source of 95 percent of the fresh 

water in the United States, and 30 million Americans will pull 

their drinking water from the Great Lakes, including a few Canucks in Canada. That is why I think we should treat this ecosystem with the reverence that it should enjoy and make sure we 

ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. 

I would say it is really good bipartisan legislation which we have 

put together with several members of the current Senate onboard. 

I introduced this in the House when I was a House member. We 
7 

had the current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, when he was 

a Congressman, onboard. 

With that, I would conclude my remarks and urge your support 

to rapidly pass this legislation out of the subcommittee to make 

sure we protect this central ecosystem of the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kirk follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KIRK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing me to testify this afternoon on critical legislation that would 

improve water quality and protect the Great Lakes. As the largest source of surface 

fresh water in the world, the Great Lakes provide food, recreation, and drinking 

water for more than 30 million Americans. Yet year after year, our most precious 

natural resource continues to be harmed by billions of gallons of sewage that are 

discharged into the lakes, degrading water quality, threatening public health and 

safety, and causing beach closures across the Great Lakes. 

Home to more than 200 globally unique species of plants and animals, the Great 

Lakes are an invaluable ecological treasure that account for 84 percent of the surface fresh water in North America. With more than 10,000 miles of coastline, the 

Great Lakes offer unmatched recreational and tourism opportunities, attracting 

businesses and families looking to relocate and drawing millions of tourists to their 

shores every year. The Great Lakes support an estimated 1.5 million American jobs, 

generate $62 billion in annual wages and transport approximately 145 million tons 

of commodities across the system’s channels. 

Yet despite their great size and numerous benefits, the lakes are under siege. 

More than 24 billion gallons of untreated waste and stormwater are diverted into 

the Great Lakes each year, contaminating the water supply with harmful toxins and 

pathogens, like E. coli. While cities across the Great Lakes have taken strides to 

reduce the amount of sewage discharged into the lakes and their tributaries, not 

enough is being done to put an end to this harmful practice. For example, in 2011, 

Detroit, Michigan, dumped 6.9 billion gallons of untreated and partially treated sewage into the lakes, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, dumped another 7.5 billion gallons of 

combined sewage into the tributaries of Lake Erie. Closer to my home in Illinois, 

2.3 billion gallons were discharged into Lake Michigan from the Chicagoland area. 

Sewage pollution is devastating to the region’s tourism sector. It contributes to 

hundreds of beach closures and advisories across the Great Lakes annually and negatively impacts the cash strapped budgets of our local communities. According to the 

Illinois Department of Public Health, the number of beach advisories and closings 

on the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois alone has remained between 300–600 a 

year over the last 5 years. In addition to the negative impacts on the environment 

and public health, a University of Chicago study showed swim bans at Chicago’s 

beaches due to E. coli levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue 

every year. This is unacceptable. 

The path forward is clear. To protect the source of drinking water for millions of 

Americans and the economic vitality of the region, we must work together to put 

an end to the billions of gallons of municipal sewage that are discharged into our 

lakes. For these reasons, I urge this committee to consider S. 571, The Great Lakes 

Water Protection Act, bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL). This legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping 

in the Great Lakes and would increase the fines for dumping to $100,000 per violation, per day, which are currently capped at $37,500. S. 571 gives municipalities 20 

years to make the necessary upgrades to their sewer systems and creates a level 

playing field for all communities throughout the Great Lakes region. The fines collected would be funneled into a new Great Lakes clean up fund within the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund to generate financial resources for the Great Lakes 

States to improve wastewater treatment options, habitat protection and wastewater 

treatment systems. 

This bill also enhances transparency and public awareness requirements surrounding overflow events, requiring rapid public notification about when an overflow event occurs, the total volume that was released, and where it took place. This 

gives individuals, businesses, and local municipal planners the tools they need to 

protect public health and ensure that beach closures and advisories reflect the most 

accurate and up-to-date information. 
8 

I am committed to helping improve water quality, wastewater infrastructure, and 

ensuring our existing Federal policies effectively prevent the negative impacts of 

sewage pollution on the Great Lakes ecosystem. I appreciate the committee’s attention to this issue, and I hope my colleagues will support me in ensuring this important resource becomes free from the threat of sewage pollution and is preserved for 

future generations. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Kirk. 

Senator Heller on S. 2530. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member 

Boozman and the rest of the committee. Thank you very much for 

having this hearing today and allowing me to testify on this particular bill, the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act. I was looking for a sexier name for this but I couldn’t come up with one so 

we will stick with the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Nevada’s quagga mussel 

efforts and my bill which can be an important part of a nationwide 

solution. 

Quagga mussels are freshwater mollusks with razor sharp shells. 

Each mussel is usually no bigger than a man’s thumbnail, but they 

wreak havoc on water bodies and infiltrate by multiplying at an 

alarming rate clogging water pipelines, powerplant cooling systems, 

marine equipment, damaging boats, water infrastructure and native wildlife. 

They were first introduced to the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s 

and have since spread through a boat to Lake Mead in southern 

Nevada, a heavily recreated reservoir on the Nevada-Arizona border that also provides over 90 percent of the southern Nevada 

water supply. 

Until January 2007, when they first turned up at Lake Mead, 

quaggas had never been found west of the Mississippi River. Since, 

they have been detected at Lahontan Reservoir, Rye Patch Reservoir, Lake Tahoe and many other western lakes and reservoirs. 

The only way for these mussels to spread from lake to lake is by 

hitchhiking on recreational boats. Preventing their spread sounds 

easy. All it takes are boat inspections to make sure they are not 

attached to boat holds or hidden in the bilge water. 

That work is difficult and expensive. Quagga and zebra mussels 

have cost more in prevention and control than any other aquatic 

species to invade the United States, costing an estimated $5 billion 

in prevention and control efforts since 1987. The Bureau of Reclamation alone spends $1 million annually on quagga mussel control just at Hoover Dam. 

A lot of great work is currently being done on the ground to prevent the spread of quagga but the problem is not going away. Just 

last week, a Lake Tahoe watercraft inspector inspected a boat with 

quagga mussels and had an unidentified snail species hidden in the 

anchor locker. 

The boat, coming from Lake Mead, was inspected at the Spooner 

Summit Inspection Station on Highway 50 in Nevada, fully decontaminated and ultimately cleared to launch on Lake Tahoe. 

Since the start of the summer boating season May 2014, inspectors have intercepted 24 boats containing invasive species bound 
9 

for the waters of Lake Tahoe. Eight of these boats contained 

invasive mussels, and another four boats were carrying several different types of snail species. 

Over the 4th of July holiday, more than 725 boats were screened 

for invasive species at four inspection stations surrounding the 

lake, a 17 percent increase from 2013. 

The Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act is a straightforward, 

common sense proposal that will assist ongoing efforts to stop the 

spread of these destructive invasive species. It adds the quagga 

mussel to the National List of Invasive Species covered under the 

Lacey Act. Currently the zebra mussel is listed, but the quagga is 

not. 

A listing will allow for increased inspection of boats crossing 

State lines and entering Federal lands to further prevent quagga 

hitchhiking. 

My bill garners support from a diverse range of stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Western Governors Association, the 

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency, National Parks Conservation Association and the 

National Wildlife Federation. 

Additionally, friend and fellow Nevadan, Dr. Joe Heck introduced 

similar legislation last year in the House that has garnered 22 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors across the political spectrum, 

many from the affected States. 

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Nevada Department 

of Wildlife Director, Tony Wasley, for being here today. Tony is a 

qualified leader with a distinguished 17-year NDW career. 

He was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval last April. Since, 

he has done a tremendous job leading our State’s efforts to eliminate aquatic invasive species as well as managing Nevada’s statewide game and conservation projects for species such as sage 

grouse, mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep. 

Nevada is fortunate to have Tony’s leadership at NDW, and I am 

greatly appreciative of his coming to DC to testify in support of this 

bill. He and I know firsthand that providing our local authorities 

more tools to prevent aquatic travel will help stop the spread of 

these pests and potentially save billions of dollars in future maintenance costs. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today on this important Nevada priority. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I thank all of our colleagues for 

being here today. 

Senator KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I didn’t bring 

any charts. 

Senator CARDIN. You did just fine. 

You all are excused to carry on your business. 

Let me recognize Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. With all those wild cats, it would have 

been quite a good chart. 

Senator KIRK. I thought about it. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Whitehouse will discuss S. 1202. 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted. 

The acronym is the SAFE Act, which stands for Safeguarding 

America’s Future and the Environment. This was a piece of legislation developed in an east-west-coastal-mountain coalition with Senator Max Baucus when he was here. 

As we prepared it, we asked the Government Accountability Office for a report on the adaptation efforts by the Federal Government within our natural resource agencies. The report was pretty 

stark and explained the vulnerability of some of these vital natural 

resources from rising temperatures from worsening drought, wildfire, rising sea levels, shrinking snow coverage and flow. 

GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and natural resources, the Federal Government has real fiscal risk from 

climate change through these properties and manages nearly 30 

percent of land in the United States, in addition to the marine resources that run 200 miles from our shore. 

The GAO report found that the status quo management and 

planning will not be good enough: ‘‘Natural resource management 

has historically been based on the idea of maintaining current environmental conditions or restoring species and habitats to some desired former condition.’’ 

As the climate continues to change, this approach will become increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to maintain. The SAFE 

Act requires implementation of the National Fish, Wildlife and 

Plants Adaptation Strategy and asks that the Federal national resource agencies, NOAA, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, BLM, to complete coordinated climate change adaptation plans. 

This is something the Administration is already moving forward 

on, so the SAFE Act would codify these efforts and also support 

smart actions taking place at the local level. 

We had an Oversight Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Chairman, on 

natural resource adaptation in February. One of the witnesses was 

Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman’s Association President Chris 

Brown, who testified about the toll that climate change is already 

taking on his industry: ‘‘I fish on a much different ocean today than 

when I first started fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the 

mid-1960s. Regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species 

of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum and tarpon. My grandfather never 

saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.’’ 

The wild-caught fisheries of the northeast may ultimately prove 

to be the coal miner’s canary for this Nation as we grapple with 

the issue of climate change. A reconsideration of strategy is called 

for given the enormous chasm between what we have endured and 

what we have gained. 

Our oceans remain ground zero for damage from carbon pollution. They are warming. That is easily measurable with things like 

thermometers, and you don’t have to be a theoretician to understand that. They are rising, also easily measurable at tide gauges 

with something that is not much more complicated than a yardstick, not much room for dissent about that, I would think. 
11 

They are becoming more acidic, something that children measure 

in their aquariums. It is not that complicated. Without a doubt, the 

changes we are seeing put the jobs and livelihoods of our fishing 

community at risk. 

Those same changes we also see affecting forest health, wildlife 

habitat and species migration which in turn affects the outdoor 

recreation and hunting industries which account for nearly $650 

billion in consumer spending each year. 

To protect these vital natural resources and help them adapt in 

the face of climate change, I would hope we can move this bill forward. It would be a step toward protecting our economy and our 

outdoors way of life. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding this legislative hearing to discuss a 

number of bills on which the committee may have the opportunity to vote in the 

weeks and months ahead. 

One of the bills on the agenda today is S. 1202, the Safeguarding America’s Future and the Environment Act—the SAFE Act, for short. This bill provides local 

communities with better tools to help our natural resources adapt to climate change. 

These resources help keep our air and water clean, sustain our economy, and provide a deep-seated sense of place. 

I introduced this bill with then-Senator and now-Ambassador Max Baucus from 

Montana, with whom I was proud to work on this issue. He and I also requested 

a GAO report on adaptation efforts at our natural resource management agencies. 

The report explains just how vulnerable America’s natural resources are to the 

changes we’re seeing in the Earth’s climate, including rising temperatures, worsening drought and wildfire, rising sea levels, and shrinking snow cover. 

GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and natural resources, 

the Federal Government is at great fiscal risk from climate change. The Federal 

Government manages nearly 30 percent of land in the United States as well as marine resources, like fisheries, in our exclusive economic zone that extends 200 miles 

from our shore. 

The GAO report found that status quo management and planning will not be good 

enough: it says, ‘‘natural resource management has historically been based on the 

idea of maintaining current environmental conditions or restoring species and habitats to some desired former condition. As the climate continues to change, this approach . . . will become increasingly more difficult if not impossible to maintain.’’ 

So, the SAFE Act requires implementation of the National Fish, Wildlife, and 

Plants Adaptation strategy and asks Federal natural resource agencies—such as the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management—to complete coordinated climate change adaptation plans. 

The Administration is already moving forward on this front. The President’s Climate Action Plan includes sensible steps to prepare us for the effects of climate 

change. An Executive Order issued in November further focused the Administration’s adaptation strategy. The SAFE Act would codify these efforts and support 

smart actions at the local level. 

At an Oversight Subcommittee hearing I chaired on natural resource adaptation 

in February, witnesses discussed the need for strategic adaptation planning in the 

face of climate change. Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association President 

Chris Brown testified about the toll climate change is already taking on his industry. He put it like this: ‘‘I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first 

started fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s . . . Regularly caught 

now in Rhode Island are the species of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. 

My grandfather never saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.’’ 

He continued: ‘‘The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately prove 

to be the ‘coal miner’s canary’ for this Nation as we grapple with the issue of climate 

change. A reconsideration of strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we have endured and what we have gained.’’ 
12 

Our oceans are ground zero for damage from carbon pollution. They are warming, 

they are rising, and they are becoming more acidic. These are measurements, not 

theories or projections. Without a doubt, these drastic changes put the jobs and livelihoods of fishermen at risk. 

Likewise, the changes we are seeing in forest health, wildlife habitat, and species 

migration patterns affect the outdoor recreation and hunting industries, which account for nearly $650 billion in consumer spending each year. 

America’s natural resources—our rivers and bays, our forests and marshes, our 

fish and animals—are our birthright and our legacy. To protect them and help them 

adapt in the face of climate change is to protect our economy and way of life. I appreciate the committee’s consideration of this important legislation. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. We appreciate 

your leadership on this issue. You have been a strong leader in the 

areas of adaptation. We appreciate this legislation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If I may ask unanimous consent to have 

a letter from the groups that support this legislation added to the 

record. 

I would point out that Senator Kirk’s display of Lake Erie omitted one salient fact which was the Battle of Lake Erie was won by 

a Rhode Islander, Oliver Hazzard Perry, in the War of 1812. 

Senator KIRK. I am sure it was an oversight. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, the statements will be made 

a part of the record but not the correction of the record. We need 

Senator Kirk here in order to approve that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Senator CARDIN. We will now go to our panel. Mike Shapiro is 

the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Shapiro has 

been at the EPA since 1980 working and surviving through Democrat and Republican administrations. He has served as Deputy Assistant Administrator since 2002. 

Steve Guertin is the Policy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Steve is a long-time public servant with the Service, playing key leadership roles in the Service’s efforts to help fish, wildlife 

and plants adapt to the effects of landscape scale challenges, including climate change, energy development, water scarcity, fire 

and invasive species. 

Welcome to both of you. As is the custom of our committee, your 

full statements, without objection, will be made a part of the 

record. You may proceed as you wish, starting with Mr. Shapiro. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE SHAPIRO, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s work to protect 

our Nation’s waters and several pieces of proposed legislation that 

would impact our agency’s programs. 

The Administration has not taken a position on these pieces of 

legislation, but I am pleased to briefly describe EPA’s current work 

relevant to the issues that four of these bills would address. I have 

provided additional detail in my written testimony. 

Addressing the Great Lakes first, it is tempting to think that 

protecting and restoring the Great Lakes is a regional issue. It is 

anything but that. With some 95 percent of the Nation’s and 20 

percent of the Earth’s fresh water, protecting and restoring the 

Great Lakes is a national and even an international imperative. 

The EPA manages the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force of 11 

Federal departments per Presidential Executive Order. Chaired by 

EPA Administrator McCarthy, the task force coordinates the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. 

In its most recent report to the President and Congress, the 

GLRI is meeting or exceeding most of its annual measures of 

progress for Great Lakes restoration. EPA strongly supports the 

goals of S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act which would specifically authorize GLRI. 

We also agree with the purpose of S. 571, the Great Lakes Water 

Protection Act, but would be interested to work with committee 

staff on technical issues as they move forward with this bill. 

Second, dealing with water and energy efficiency, too often we 

take for granted a system that provides clean and safe water from 

the drinking water that automatically appears when we turn on 

our taps or take a shower to the water found in our local watersheds where we live, work and play. 

Water is not a limitless resource. As we all know, many communities across the Nation are facing difficult challenges in meeting 

their water resource needs. The EPA is working to raise awareness 
18 

and foster the understanding that water is a valuable resource that 

should be used wisely. 

For example, in 2006, we launched the Water Sense Program, an 

innovative partnership that helps American consumers, businesses 

and governments make smart water choices by looking for the 

water sense label. Through 2013, we estimate the program has 

saved more than 757 billion gallons of water, an amount equal to 

the water needed to supply all the homes in the United States for 

26 days. 

S. 2225 would create a Smart Water Resource Management Pilot 

Program managed by the Department of Energy. This program 

would award grants for innovative solutions to increase water and 

energy efficiency. 

The EPA generally supports further efforts to promote energy 

and water efficiency and we have collaborated with the Department 

of Energy in examining this issue. We would defer to DOE on the 

specifics of the legislation. 

Third is climate adaptation and water. Water resources are important to both society and ecosystems. We depend on a reliable, 

clean supply of drinking water to sustain our health. We also need 

water for agriculture, navigation, recreation and manufacturing. 

A changing climate may result in water shortages in some areas 

and increased runoff, flooding or sea level rises, as Senator 

Whitehouse described, and other areas. 

The EPA recently released a policy statement on climate change 

adaptation and each of the major EPA programs and regional offices have developed more detailed climate change adaptation implementation plans. In 2012, the EPA’s National Water Program 

developed a climate change strategy to guide our ongoing work in 

coordination with our State, tribal and local partners. 

S. 1202 would create an Interagency Natural Resources Climate 

Change Adaptation Panel which would include the EPA Administrator to help coordinate development and implementation of the 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. 

If this bill were enacted, the EPA would continue its work with 

other Federal agencies on the strategy’s implementation. We would 

look forward to doing so. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the EPA’s work 

in these areas and the potential impacts of the legislation you are 

considering today. I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. 

Mr. Guertin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

POLICY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. GUERTIN. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and 

members of the subcommittee, I am Steve Guertin, Deputy Director 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on bills that address a range of service responsibilities to conserve and protect America’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of our citizens. 

The hearing today comes at a time when the Nation’s living resources are impacted by forces acting upon larger landscapes and 

ecosystems such as habit fragmentation or loss due to land use 

changes, invasive species, fish and wildlife disease, contamination, 

wildfires, floods and drought, all exacerbated by climate change. 

Mr. Chairman, the Service greatly appreciates your leadership 

on the United States Fish and Wildlife Resource Protection Act. We 

strongly support this legislation which mirrors the Administration’s 

proposed draft bill. 

When national wildlife refuge lands and national fish hatcheries 

are damaged or injured, the taxpayer bears the cost of restoration. 

We currently do not have statutory authority to seek compensation 

from responsible parties who injure or destroy Service resources 

and we are unable to then apply compensation to directly address 

those damages. 

Therefore, the cost of restoration either comes from appropriated 

dollars or is added to the operations and maintenance project list 

to be addressed when funds are available down the road. 

The Resource and Protection Act provides a much needed remedy 

to this situation. It would authorize the Service to seek compensation from responsible parties that injure or destroy national wildlife 

refuge system or other Service resources. This legislation is one of 

the Service’s top legislative priorities and we look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee to enact this 

bill. 

Senator Whitehouse, the Service applauds your efforts in introducing the SAFE Act. We are very supportive of the need for and 

intent of this legislation and greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s 

continued work to highlight the impacts of climate change on natural resources and the need for adaptation measures. 

We also recognize Senator Gillibrand’s efforts, and we support 

the purpose of the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Protection Act. Adverse impacts from invasive species are among the most significant 

challenges facing the conservation of native fish and wildlife. Preventing the introduction and spread of these invasive species is the 

most cost effective approach to eliminating or reducing these 

threats. 

Our written testimony provides additional information on these 

and other bills you are considering today. Many of the bills that are 

the subject of the hearing today are important steps in natural resource conservation. 

In addition to these efforts already underway, the Fish and Wildlife Service believes there is much work to be accomplished on the 
29 

legislative front in the conservation of our Nation’s fish and wildlife. 

Among the Service’s other top priorities are the Administration’s 

proposal for full and permanent funding of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, the authority to increase the price of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, known as 

the Duck Stamp, and reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to leverage funds for projects that conserve 

and protect water fowl habitat. 

These legislative actions are critically important to conserving, 

protecting and restoring habitat for trust species. These actions 

would also support the U.S. economy because of Nation’s natural 

resources are among our most valuable economic assets. 

We are happy to answer any questions you have today and look 

forward to working with the subcommittee on these bills. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank both of you for your service. 

Mr. Guertin, let me start in regard to the legislation I have authored. I fully recognize the need for you to have the authority to 

go after those who have damaged our refuges and to be able to get 

the compensation you need in order to restore and repair what has 

been done. 

We do allow legitimate use of our refuges for hunting and recreation and so forth, and there is at least some concern that this authority could be used in a way that would be intimidating to lawful 

users of the services. 

Can you give us some assurance as to how this authority would 

be screened to make sure it is only used where there is culpable 

activity that would warrant such action? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We can fully assure you that if enacted, we would 

only use this legislation to seek restitution from responsible parties 

who injured natural resources. There is no intention to use this to 

do anything to detract or take away the right of Americans to hunt 

and fish on open national wildlife refuges and otherwise enjoy public access to these lands. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for that. 

Let me address invasive species for one moment because there 

are several bills that deal with that. Senator Gillibrand’s proposal 

that would set up a reviewing process where you could deal with 

changing what is permitted to be imported into the United States, 

do you have comments in regard to that specific approach in regard 

to adding additional species that could be subject to import restrictions? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We are supportive of the overall policy intent of 

the Senator’s proposed legislation. We think that the idea of putting in place some risk screening concept or methodology to identify 

in Tier Category 1 and 2 threats to the U.S. would be critically important to an overall strategy. 

We are very interested right now in focusing our resources on 

further species coming to the North American continent and then 

our ongoing efforts to contain species once they do come into the 

North American continent. 

We are very interested in partnering with the Senator, her staff 

and your staff, Mr. Chairman, on some program implementation 

aspects of the bill which we think would make it easier for the 

Service and the State Fish and Wildlife agencies to implement. 

That would include stepping down some of the implementation 

ideas as well as looking at some of the exceptions that might be 

envisioned in the current version of the legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. It would be helpful if you could get specific comments to us as soon as possible as far as legislative changes because I cannot speak for the Chairman of the committee, but I 

know the calendar is moving. There might be efforts made to move 

legislation as quickly as possible. 

Any specific comments you have about language, it would certainly be helpful to get it to the committee and to Senator 

Gillibrand obviously. 

Senator Blumenthal’s proposal regarding the big cats, I didn’t 

hear any specific reference to that in your presentation. Do you 

have comments regarding that specific bill? 
44 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We support the overall intent 

of the legislation which would amend the Lacey Act by clarifying 

provisions of the underlying Captive Wildlife Safety Act which 

would prohibit individuals from breeding and possessing prohibited 

wildlife species. 

This would address the larger impact to public health and safety 

and we support the idea of grandfathering in those who already 

possess these animals. 

We would like to work with the Senator and the committee leadership on some of the exemptions that we think are applied a little 

too broadly. Certainly main accredited institutions, zoos, universities and other programs would be fine under the language but we 

would like to take a critical look at some of the potential exemptions that might fall under that. 

At the same time, we would like to work on other program implementation issues but we would be glad to set up a follow on staff 

level meeting to work through these kinds of program implementation issues, not policy level issues. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Heller’s proposal dealing with the 

quagga mussel, do you have a view on that? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Senator, we do not oppose listing the quagga mussel as injurious under the Lacey Act. We do have some concerns 

about the vision in there which would exempt a lot of publicly managed waterways. As currently worded, we believe that might be too 

big of a blanket exemption. 

We know that the States are really leading the charge on combating quagga mussels and other invasive species. We recognize 

concerns from public water managers and others, but we think we 

need to sit down with folks to try and hammer out some way to 

address that. 

Because of that, we cannot currently support the legislation because it includes that exemption. 

Senator CARDIN. The exemption is too broad in that bill? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. You have some concerns with Senator 

Blumenthal’s bill, that the exemption may be too broad also, did I 

hear you correctly, some of the language in the Big Cats bill? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. You will try to get information and work with 

the sponsors on both of those bills? It would be helpful to us. 

In one example, we have legislation that would ease the restrictions related to Alaskan Native articles currently prohibited from 

sale, migratory bird parts. Do you have any advice to the committee on that? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act which ratifies four international treaties that guide 

step-down provisions within each of the host countries to manage 

migratory birds. 

In looking at the language as written in the current bill, we believe there are some potential violations of the larger policy goals 

of those four international treaties and would like to take a look 

at that. 

We also think a way to get after this issue exists. That is using 

the ongoing leadership and work of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co- 
45 

management Council which comprises representatives of the State 

of Alaska, Alaska Natives, Native corporations, as well as the Fish 

and Wildlife Service who are currently evaluating what kind of 

flexibility there might be, if any, under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act to allow Native American use in Alaska of some of these bird 

species. 

An interesting footnote to all of this is the only time the larger 

international treaties have been amended was with Canada and 

even then did not address the subsistence use of bird parts and 

things like that. 

We would like to sit down with the bill sponsors to look at that 

but urge the committee to allow the ongoing work of the commission in Alaska to potentially find a way forward on that situation 

as well. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your comments. 

Mr. Shapiro, in regard to Senator Kirk’s bill, you indicated you 

had some technical issues with the way that bill was drafted. Can 

you get those comments to us as quickly as possible? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. We can provide specific comments. We may also 

want to discuss with the staff what we view as some lack of clarity 

in some of the provisions around the bypass portion of the bill. We 

would be happy to do that. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate both of you being here and also appreciate your 

hard work. 

Mr. Shapiro, in the absence of legislation, does the Administration lack the needed authority to carry out its Great Lakes Restoration Initiative? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. No, we continue to operate the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative under annual appropriations. The structure that 

has been set up is very similar to the one that would be put in 

place if the legislation we are discussing was passed. 

The legislation would provide a firm statutory foundation for the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as well as the advisory board 

that would be created and the Interagency Task Force. That would 

provide some continuity and more ability to plan going forward 

knowing that those entities existed and had a statutory foundation. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Guertin, you mentioned on the Resource 

Protection Act that currently criminal and vandalism fines are collected. What happens to the revenue now? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Senator, that is a great question. Currently, if 

there is damage on a refuge, we have the authority to write the violator a ticket and collect a penalty which might be several hundred dollars. It goes to the General Fund of the Treasury, it does 

not come back to the refuge or hatchery where the damage took 

place. 

If this legislation were enacted, it would give the Service the 

ability to also pursue restitution or recovery of the actual damages 

much as we do with an oil spill or something similar and directly 

allocate that money back to the field station to remedy the damages on the ground. 
46 

Senator BOOZMAN. You actually determine the amount of the 

ticket and then the Department of Justice—who collects it? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Under current authority to write a citation, we 

have authority to collect a couple hundred dollars for a minor infraction up to $100,000. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Then it goes into the General Fund? 

Mr. GUERTIN. The Treasury. 

Senator BOOZMAN. If this were to pass, do you envision increased 

law enforcement in these? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Not necessarily, sir. We would have our ongoing 

eyes and ears of the refuge law enforcement program and other refuge personnel who would have this as a collateral duty. 

Currently their frustration is if damage occurs, there is no way 

to pursue damage restitution and the bill is passed to the taxpayer. 

The same people on the ground now would be able to be leaders 

in moving forward on a potential solution for damage restoration. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Shapiro, regarding the Cardin bill for trying to clean up the Great Lakes with the overflow from sewage, 

what would be required? What would the guilty or the dirty dozen 

be required to do to make it such that those overflows wouldn’t 

happen? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. The decisions they would have to make with regard 

to preventing overflows would have to be evaluated on a case by 

case basis. Some of that work may have already been done but I 

am not familiar with it. 

In general, the kinds of things you would have to do is look at 

the sources of the excess water; in some cases you may want to use 

additional storage, expand certain kinds of treatment capacity and 

in some cases, there may be leakage of stormwater into parts of the 

system that can be avoided. There are a variety of measures that 

would be considered to be undertaken. 

I would also note that in the bill, there are exemptions for extraordinary circumstances that would not result in a penalty. In 

general, some form of additional engineering would be necessary, 

an investment in order to prevent conditions leading to the overflow occurring. 

Senator BOOZMAN. It must be there that there are a bunch of 

non-extraordinary circumstances occurring or you wouldn’t need 

the bill. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Correct. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Are these older treatment plants, do you 

think? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Are they older treatment plants? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. Would a newer sewage treatment plant 

be subject to as much problem with stormwater runoff or whatever 

the problem is? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Often, these problems are an accumulation 

throughout the entire system. It may not be a problem at the plant; 

it could be a problem dealing with how stormwater and in some 

cases, combined sewer discharges are collected and transported to 

the plant and leakages into the system. 

Generally speaking, if it was a new plant, it would be designed 

for the right capacity. In some cases, it could be that the plant is 

simply pushed to the extreme of its capacity and needs more capac-
47 

ity. That is a potential problem but there are other issues with the 

collection system and the management of water that could lead to 

problems that would force a bypass in the system. 

Essentially, you have to bypass when there is just too much volume coming into the treatment units and rather than run the risk 

of destroying or damaging the treatment units, you are forced to 

have a bypass. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Guertin, you were involved in the field, your organization, 

and taking care of a lot of the precious natural resources that 

many Americans enjoy from mountains to coasts and very warm 

areas to very cold areas. 

Across that great span of geography, what are the sort of consequences you are beginning to see already in those properties as 

the result of climate change? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Certainly we are seeing along many of our coastal 

refuges, particularly here on the eastern seaboard, the impacts of 

sea level rise which is starting to inundate a lot of coastal and estuarine habitats. We can point to a lot of that being caused by climate change. 

As we move into the interior of the country, there is a growing 

belief that a lot of the severity and impacts from the big wildfires 

can be attributed as well. We are wildlife managers so we don’t 

necessarily claim to be experts on the science behind the changing 

climate in and of itself. 

Our mission is to evaluate what climatic changes are doing to the 

trust species the Fish and Wildlife Service oversees. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are seeing habitat changes, species 

moving into new areas where they weren’t before, you are seeing 

invasive species and pests? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes. The sad story is over and over again, when 

you add up the cumulative impacts of drought, fire, invasive species, exacerbated with an overlay of climate change, there are dramatic shifts in the composition of flora and fauna on many of the 

landscapes. 

How the species are responding to that is what we are working 

on now and developing adaptation strategies under the Administration’s Wildlife Adaptation Management Plan and stepping that 

down into the action agencies for implementation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Some of the natural resources that we find 

on this earth that are at risk and are actually suffering some consequences already are ones that in turn provide benefit to the environment. When you lose them, you don’t just lose them, it creates 

a knock-on effect. A dune on a coast, when it is gone, doesn’t protect the headlands behind it. A forest, when it is dead, doesn’t protect the streams that run through it. 

Could you elaborate a bit on the extent to which some of this 

natural infrastructure is actually providing ongoing value beyond 

its mere existence into the larger natural resource we all enjoy and 

depend on? 

Mr. GUERTIN. I think a good example would be the intermountain west, Senator. When you add up the impacts from ongo-
48 

ing drought and invasive species, pine bark beetle, and overlay that 

with a series of wildfires, overlay that with changing climatic conditions, we are seeing a large change in the composition of forests 

out there and the Rocky Mountain region in particular and the 

kind of animals that utilize those habitats out there. 

That is a pretty striking example that comes home to roost every 

summer as communities and the wild urban interface have to 

struggle with the severity of these fires and the large amount of 

Federal dollars now being expended to protect the citizens, protect 

the public investment and infrastructure and protect these valuable natural resources well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Along the coasts, is it correct that there 

are often wetland verges between the upland and either the ocean 

coast or a lake or river coast that exist in a kind of dynamic environment? If they are overwhelmed and are no longer successful at 

maintaining themselves and disappear, you can then get considerable follow on changes. 

I heard some of this when I was traveling along the southeastern 

Atlantic coast. There is a lot of storm protection, for instance, from 

these oceanside marshlands but if they get flooded so that creatures and grasses who maintain them cannot survive, then they 

turn into mud and wash away, and you have lost all that protection on the shore. Is that a simplified understanding? 

Mr. GUERTIN. You are talking about seawater intrusion into 

freshwater habitats. There is a lot of that going on along the coast. 

Our understanding is if you add up the cumulative impacts of 

changes in climatic conditions, erosion, invasive species, depending 

on where you are, fire or not, drought and such, we are seeing a 

change in the underlying habitat composition certainly on the eastern seaboard. 

A lot of the Administration’s work with congressional support 

moving forward is trying to develop more resilient coastlines by engineering natural systems to provide storm surge protection, a lot 

of work to try and prioritize where these key habitats are left and 

things like that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Guertin. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the Senator from Maryland and me representing Rhode Island, coastal resiliency is something we have to pay a lot of attention to. I appreciate Mr. Guertin’s testimony. 

Senator CARDIN. You are absolutely right. Looking at your legislation, I see how it could very much benefit the State of Maryland. 

Thank you for being so concerned about the State of Maryland. 

Thank you both very much. That will complete that panel. 

We will now go to our non-governmental, non-Federal panel. Dr. 

Bruce Stein is the Director of Climate Change Adaptation at the 

National Wildlife Federation. Chad Lord is the Policy Director, 

Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition and Senior Director, 

Water Policy, of the National Parks Conservation Association. Last, 

we have Mr. Tony Wasley, Director of the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife. 

We welcome all three of you. As I pointed out earlier, your written statements will be made a part of the record, without objection. 

You may proceed as you wish. 
49 

Dr. Stein, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. STEIN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CLIMATE 

CHANGE ADAPTATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. STEIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardin, Ranking 

Member Boozman and Senator Whitehouse, for the opportunity to 

share the National Wildlife Federation’s view on several of the important bills with the potential to benefit the Nation’s wildlife. 

The National Wildlife Federation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization whose mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife 

for our children’s future. NWF is supported by 49 State and territorial affiliates and more than 4 million members and supporters, 

including hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts from across the 

Nation. 

My written testimony addresses a number of the bills under consideration by the subcommittee at this hearing. Here, I would like 

to focus on several bills that we support of particular interest to 

NWF. 

Regarding climate change, climate change is no longer a distant 

concern but already is affecting people and wildlife across the Nation. A rapidly changing climate, in fact, is emerging as the primary conservation challenge of our time. National resource managers increasingly will need to adopt climate smart approaches to 

conservation. 

S. 1202, the SAFE Act, introduced by Senator Whitehouse, is designed to help Federal and State agencies more effectively prepare 

for and adjust to the growing impacts of climate change on our Nation’s natural resources. 

Considerable progress is now being made to incorporate climate 

adaptation and resilience into work across the Federal Government. The SAFE Act builds on a number of these important initiatives. 

In particular, the legislation would codify the National Fish, 

Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy and encourage 

implementation of this comprehensive blueprint for adaptation and 

resilience. It would also authorize key programs in the U.S. Geological Survey that focus on improving the scientific basis for reducing climate-related risk to wildlife and ecosystems. 

Climate adaptation will have costs but the cost of inaction would 

be far higher. The sooner we begin taking meaningful adaptation 

action, the more successful these efforts ultimately will be. 

Invasive species are another issue of grave concern to the National Wildlife Federation. We believe that the most effective approach to combating invasive species is by closing the pathways 

through which these species enter the country and spread; in other 

words, prevention. 

S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act, introduced by Senator Gillibrand, would help close those invasion pathways by modernizing the Nation’s antiquated systems governing 

the import and interstate transport of harmful, non-native animals. 

Current law provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with only limited powers to declare a species as injurious, a process that is painfully slow and expensive. S. 1153 would strengthen the ability of 

the Service to make timely, science-based decisions as to whether 
50 

a candidate for import is likely to be harmful to the Nation’s ecosystems and economy. 

The legislation would also give the Service emergency listing authority similar to what USDA and the CDC already have to regulate imports that present disease risks. 

Quagga mussels, in fact, are an example of this need for modernization. A close relative of zebra mussels, as you have heard, 

they are spreading through western waterways, and listing is urgently needed to contain their damage. 

To expedite their listing as an injurious species, S. 2530, the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act, would provide statutory listing 

of this species. 

The Great Lakes are a unique and vital ecosystem that face a variety of serious ecological threats from polluted runoff such as we 

just heard about to a potential invasion of veracious Asian carp. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI, was established to 

address various threats to the Lakes. Since its inception, it has 

been enormously effect. 

S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act, 

introduced by Senator Levin, would provide formal authorization 

for the GLRI and ensure continued progress in restoring the Great 

Lakes. 

NWF is a member of the Healing Our Waters Coalition. Chad 

Lord, to my left, will be offering additional testimony on this bill 

on behalf of that coalition. 

Finally, S. 2560, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Protection Act, introduced by Chairman Cardin, would provide the Service with needed authority to receive compensation for 

damage caused by others to national wildlife refuges. 

Most refuges already are underfunded and currently repair of 

such damage must come from already strained budgets. The National Park Service and NOAA, in contrast, can recover any use 

damages for harm done to their property or resources. This legislation would confer similar authority to the Service and is a common 

sense solution to paying for the damages from vandalism and other 

destructive acts. 

In closing, healthy wildlife populations and habitats are core to 

who we are as a Nation. NWF is pleased to see Members of Congress put forward legislation to address a number of important 

wildlife related issues. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you to develop and 

pass legislation designed to protect wildlife and the habitats on 

which they and we depend. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Dr. Stein. 

Mr. Lord. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD LORD, POLICY DIRECTOR, HEALING 

OUR WATERS—GREAT LAKES COALITION, AND SENIOR DIRECTOR, WATER POLICY, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LORD. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and 

Senator Whitehouse, thank you for inviting me to testify here 

today. 

The bills before the subcommittee all seem to do the same thing, 

protect our country’s natural resources for future generations. Most 

of these bills benefit either our national parks, our Great Lakes or 

both. 

First, we appreciate the subcommittee considering legislation 

that helps our environment adapt to a changing climate. Senator 

Whitehouse’s bill is a non-regulatory bill that builds upon existing 

Federal initiatives to set a framework for coordination on natural 

resource adaptation planning. This is important to our national 

parks. 

Rising waters and intense storms threaten our national monuments in Washington, DC, historical structures in the southeast 

and archeological evidence of the earliest settlers in Alaska. Glaciers that have for decades brought families to national parks in 

Montana, Alaska and Washington are vanishing. 

Though we cannot prevent some of the effects of climate change 

from occurring, we can slow climate-related changes by reducing 

the amount of carbon dioxide we emit to the atmosphere. We can 

and need to also ensure that we are as well prepared as possible. 

This principle also applies to Senator Heller’s invasive species 

bill that addresses the damage caused by a particularly nasty 

invasive mussel by listing them as injurious under the Lacey Act. 

If there is any experience the Great Lakes does not want to share 

with western waters, it is the damage caused by the quagga mussel. 

These little creatures have caused billions of dollars in damage 

throughout the Great Lakes region and have undermined entire 

lake ecosystems. Six hundred waterways and 27 States are also 

now dealing with this problem. 

Invasive species are destroying the natural resources in our national parks and wrecking the Great Lakes and other waters 

around the country. Invasive species cost the United States more 

than $120 billion in damages every year. It would be much better 

for our national parks, Great Lakes and all our ecosystems if we 

weren’t intentionally importing things that cause such damage to 

American landscapes. 

Senator Gillibrand’s bill goes a long way in updating a 114-yearold law, bringing U.S. screening standards into the 21st century, 

reducing the damage to our economy and environment and allowing our public lands agencies to focus on other critical problems. 

Wearing my Great Lakes hat, I want to particularly thank the 

subcommittee for considering two bills designed to help restore and 

protect 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water. To put that 
62 

in perspective, the water in Lake Superior alone is enough to submerge all of North and South America in 1 foot of fresh water. 

Even though they are huge, they are still vulnerable to a number 

of threats from invasive species, habitat loss, toxic pollution and 

sewer overflows which is the focus of Senator Kirk’s bill. His bill 

would prohibit sewer overflows on the Great Lakes Basin after 

2033. His bill also sets region-wide reporting standards so everyone 

everywhere throughout this region knows when overflows occur. 

Even if sewer overflows end tomorrow, the region is still left with 

a legacy of environmental damage caused by years of neglect. A 

new legacy is being written right now in the region, one where 

States, cities, tribes, Federal agencies and citizens have come together to do something about the Great Lakes’ problems. 

In 2005, the region established for itself a restoration blueprint, 

the result of a process kicked off by an Executive Order from President George W. Bush. President Obama followed up with an implementation plan and Congress has provided the resources for the 

restoration work through something called the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. 

The results of all this bipartisan support have been impressive. 

Toxic hot spots cleaned up after years of waiting create new economic opportunities. Thousands of acres of wetlands have been restored creating new, self-sustaining populations of fish like Lake 

Sturgeon. Ag lands put into conservation practices reduce algae 

producing runoff. 

Now is the time for Congress to authorize the GLRI for the long 

haul. The GLRI has broad based support from cities, States, chambers of commerce, tribes, industry and the more than 115 non-governmental organizations that make up the Healing Our Waters Coalition. 

This initiative is driven from the ground up, coordinates implementation activities and has created what your former colleague, 

Senator George Voinovich, kept calling for, an orchestra leader at 

the USEPA. It creates an effective and efficient mechanism for getting resources to the right places to do the right things on the 

ground and responds to the GAO. Most importantly, it is producing 

results. 

Senator Levin’s bill authorizes the GLRI, among other important 

Great Lakes programs, putting in place a framework needed for ongoing and future success. Congresses and Presidents change; the 

Lakes are with us forever. 

We hope this committee will mark up this bill and send a strong 

message of support for this continuing work to transform last century’s rust belt into this century’s water belt of America. Moving 

Senator Levin’s bill would also be a fitting tribute to one of your 

colleagues, a man who has fought for the Great Lakes his entire 

career. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I am happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lord follows:] 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Lord. 

Mr. Wasley. 

STATEMENT OF TONY WASLEY, DIRECTOR, NEVADA 

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 

Mr. WASLEY. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member 

Boozman for the opportunity to provide the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife’s views on S. 2530, the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas 

Act of 2014, introduced by Senator Dean Heller on June 25, 2014. 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife fully supports the legislation 

to add the genus Dreissena, specifically quagga mussels, to the National List of Invasive Species covered under the Lacey Act. 

In addition, the Department supports the exclusion of the listing 

on operation of public water systems, water conveyances, storage 

and distribution facilities noted in the Act. 

The State of Nevada has both quagga-infested waters and 

quagga-free waters and therefore must face the issue of quagga 

mussel infestation from a unique perspective. Nevada had the first 

documented population in the United States west of the Rocky 

Mountains in Lake Mead. Containment of this threat to the waters 

in which it presently exists requires creative and adaptive strategies. 

Additionally, in order to provide and protect priceless national 

resources such as the Lake Tahoe Basin, we must maintain its 

quagga-free status. Quagga and zebra mussels cause significant ecological and economic harm in the United States. The transport 

and introduction of aquatic invasive species into uninfected waters 

require shared responsibility at both the Federal and State level. 

In 2011, Nevada enacted the Nevada Aquatic Invasive Species 

Act, AB 167, which established provisions for protecting the waters 

of the State from aquatic invasive species. Established in the language were provisions providing the Nevada Department of Wildlife with the necessary authority to prohibit the transport of 

quagga and zebra mussels within the State. Other States have established similar language. 

At the Federal level, zebra mussels are currently listed as a prohibited species under the Lacey Act making the transport across 

State borders illegal. However, quagga mussels are excluded from 

coverage under title 18 of the U.S. Code because they are not previously recognized as a distinct species of Dreissena mussels. 

Quagga mussels are one of the greatest aquatic invasive species 

threats to the waters of the western States. For the Columbia 

River Basin, a 2010 Independent Economic Analysis Board report 

estimates that roughly $100 million annually would be required to 

maintain infrastructure operations for irrigation, fish passage and 

propagation, navigation and other Columbia-Snake River functions 

in response to an invasive mussel invasion. 

Such infestations have occurred in the Great Lakes and other 

eastern waterways as well as the southwestern part of the country. 

In another western State study, the invasion of quagga mussels 

into Lake Tahoe Basin could devastate Tahoe’s fragile ecosystem 

and native fisheries, impact boats and recreation areas and could 

cost the Tahoe Basin more than $20 million annually. 
78 

In 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead and are 

believed to have been introduced there by the movement of an infested watercraft trailered from the Great Lakes region. Since their 

discovery at Lake Mead, the mussels have spread throughout the 

lower Colorado River system, including Federal and State water 

supply networks. 

Currently, there are no feasible eradication methods available. 

However, when the States and Federal Government work together, 

we have increased capacity for preventing the movement and introduction of these invaders into uninfected waters. 

In 2013, in a joint effort between the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nevada Department of Wildlife, a prevention program was developed to assist 

in preventing quagga contaminated watercraft from exiting the 

park. Although still in its infancy, the program has provided the 

public with free decontaminations for fouled watercraft moving to 

other States and uninfected waters. 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area Project has struggled 

with long term Federal funding and exists on a year-to-year basis. 

Regardless of funding issues, the program is a prime example of 

the State of Nevada and agencies within the Federal Government 

working together to prevent the spread of quagga mussels into 

uninfected waterways. 

However, current Federal law, because of the exclusion of quagga 

mussels, does not provide adequate regulatory authority to assist 

the States in situations when a watercraft owner knowingly ignores decontamination stations and other State level requirements 

and transports quagga mussels across State lines. 

Further, the provisions of S. 2530 will significantly aid collaborative efforts between State and Federal partners when addressing 

invasive species issues on Federal lands such as units of the National Park Service. 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife supports the Act entitled 

Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act of 2014. The legislation is 

also supported by the Western Governors Association, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of 

Arizona and the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive 

Species. 

The wide array of supporters indicates this legislation is both 

necessary and warranted from an economic and natural resource 

management perspective. The Act will assist the States by 

strengthening the Federal Government’s authority and preventing 

the interstate transport of quagga mussels and by providing increased opportunity for Federal and State collaboration. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasley follows:] 
79 
80 
81 

Senator CARDIN. I thank all three of you for your testimony. 

Let me ask all three of you to respond. I think I will start with 

Mr. Wasley first. 

Dealing with the quagga mussels, the Department has raised 

some concerns about the exception related to the operation of public water systems or related water conveyance storage or distribution facilities. 

Mr. Wasley, as I understand, you support that exemption. Could 

you explain the rationale for the exemption? Dr. Stein or Mr. Lord, 

if you have any comments, I would welcome them. 

Mr. WASLEY. I guess I would say that as a trained biologist and 

not having expertise in engineering or water conveyance systems, 

part of my concern is the timeliness of this and not letting perfect 

stand in the way of progress. 

The challenges of water conveyance are not insignificant. Water 

comes and goes from States throughout the west, and I would hate 

to see something like that hinder our ability to address this issue 

in a timely manner. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Stein. 

Mr. STEIN. We are very concerned about the spread of quagga 

mussels across the west and very much support the statutory listing of quagga mussels in this manner. 

The House bill, to which this is a companion, did not have that 

broad exemption for water conveyance systems, and quite honestly, 

we have not looked seriously at what some of the implications of 

that exemption are. 

We understand the concerns of the public water managers, but 

there is also a concern that transporting water in this way could, 

in fact, be a pathway for continued spread of the mussels. There 

is an open question, I think. 

Senator CARDIN. There seems to be general agreement that the 

quagga mussel should be listed. If the Gillibrand bill were law, 

could it be handled through that bill by determination made as a 

result of the criterion that is established in that legislation? 

Mr. LORD. For something like the quagga mussel, probably not. 

The quagga mussel was introduced to the Great Lakes through the 

ballast tanks of ocean going vessels back in the 1980s, so there 

would have been no chance to screen for that type of invasive species. 

What we are really looking at are other things that would potentially come in through U.S. customs, ports, those types of places 

where you would know what exactly it is you are looking for. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Stein. 

Mr. STEIN. While the primary intent of the Gillibrand bill would 

be to prevent new invasions, there is the emergency listing provision in the bill that I think could be invoked in a very time sensitive situation of this nature. 

Emergency listing has a time bound to it and so could not be 

used indefinitely, but at least it could provide immediate relief that 

could be used to provide the regulatory authorities to better put in 

place the very aggressive actions of the State of Nevada and Federal agencies in that region. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me make a comment. You have all been 

supportive of the efforts by some of my colleagues, Senator 
82 

Whitehouse dealing with adaptation, Senator Udall dealing with 

water efficiencies, I think Senator Feinstein has a bill also dealing 

with some of the habitat restoration. 

Last week, I was at the water treatment facility in Baltimore 

constructed 100 years ago and was state-of-the-art 100 years ago. 

It is still functioning pretty much today as it did 100 years ago. It 

is carrying out its function, Baltimore has safe drinking water. It 

is good water. It is not efficient and costs a lot of money to run the 

operation. It loses a lot of water. 

I would just point out that the Senator Udall’s efforts with regard to water efficiency are something that we all should be concerned about. We waste millions of gallons of water in our system 

because of the inefficiencies and spend millions of dollars in utility 

costs increasing our carbon footprint as a result of the inefficiencies 

of our water system. That is just one example. 

On adaptation, we have very valuable resources in our State as 

Senator Whitehouse mentioned. Assateague Island, one of the great 

treasures, is at risk today because of the changing climate in this 

country. 

We have seen when we adapt and do things that are smart, as 

we have on our coasts, we save literally millions of dollars in damages that otherwise would be caused. To me, the No. 1 effort is to 

do what we can to mitigate the circumstances surrounding climate 

changes but adaptation should be an area in which we all agree we 

can use additional resources. 

I really wanted to underscore some of the points that you all 

have made on those issues. I know our committee will try, as we 

have in the past, to work together in a bipartisan way on issues 

such as adaptation and mitigation and those types of areas where 

we can find a common area to move forward to help our communities. 

Let me turn it over to Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Stein, you mentioned that the National Wildlife Federation 

supported Congressman Runyan’s bill to reauthorize the Voluntary 

Community Partnerships Act. Could you elaborate on the value you 

see from these volunteer programs and community partnerships? 

Mr. STEIN. Certainly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge 

system, which I believe covers on the order of 150 million acres, is 

an extraordinary national treasure, but the budget of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service is quite limited. In many places, they rely on 

active volunteer participation to carry out both visitor interpretative services as well as critical resource management activities. 

It is something that many other agencies rely on as well, but it 

is especially important on refuges. My understanding is that in 

order for the Service to continue to most fully use volunteers, it 

needs that reauthorization in order to continue. 

The National Wildlife Federation really focuses on connecting 

people with nature, especially getting kids connected to nature because that is our next generation of conservation leaders and really 

encourages the type of volunteerism that is embodied in that legislation. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you. 
83 

Mr. Wasley, we appreciate you making the long trip to come and 

testify. You mentioned that the legislation would help you to work 

collaboratively with the Federal Government to address invasive 

species, particularly on Federal lands. 

You talked about this a little but can you elaborate a bit more 

on how the expanded authority would be of help? 

Mr. WASLEY. Presently, we do have voluntary inspection stations 

and compliance, but we still have some folks that will willfully and 

knowingly cross State lines with quagga-infested watercraft either 

into the State or out of the State. 

Having a Federal law, potential violation of a Federal law, certainly is an additional tool and certainly provides a great incentive 

for compliance with that requirement. It elevates the seriousness 

of the infraction and will hopefully provide an additional 

functionality in screening and enforcing the current laws we have 

in the State as well as the Federal law. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

That is really all I have, Mr. Chairman. I do ask unanimous consent to include the testimony from Congressman Runyan in the 

record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
84 
85 

Senator BOOZMAN. Also, I ask unanimous consent to include several statements on the Big Cats bill from the Motion Picture Association, Zoological Association of America and others. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, all those statements will be 

included in our record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank our witnesses. As you pointed out, 

some came a considerable distance to be with us today and we appreciate that very much. 

With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Since we have a representative here from the Fish and Wildlife Service, I want 

to take this opportunity to talk about the problems we’re having in Oklahoma with 

the lesser prairie chicken and the American burying beetle, and what I think we 

should do about it. 

The American burying beetle (ABB) was listed by the Service in 1989. The Service 

states in its listing decision that the ABB was ‘‘once widely distributed throughout 

eastern North America.’’ 

At that time, there were only two known populations of the beetle—one in eastern 

Oklahoma and one on an island off the coast of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island population was estimated to be at about 520 beetles, and the one in Oklahoma was 

thought to have less than a dozen. 

The listing decision did include some commentary about why the beetle’s population declined, but ultimately concluded that ‘‘the cause of the species’ decline is 

unknown.’’ 

In 1991, the Service published a Recovery Plan for the ABB. The objective of the 

plan was to ‘‘[protect] and [maintain] . . . the extant population in Rhode Island and 

the . . . populations in Oklahoma.’’ In order to reconsider the listing status of the 

ABB, the Service needed to identify ‘‘three populations of [ABB that] have been reestablished (or additional populations discovered) within each of four broad geographical areas of its historical range.’’ 

The four ranges identified by the Service include the Midwest (which includes 

Oklahoma and most States between Texas, Louisiana, and Montana), the Great 

Lakes region, the Southeast region, and the Northeast region (which includes Rhode 

Island). 

In 2008, the Service performed its first 5-year review of the ABB. It determined 

that the criteria for reconsidering the listing of the ABB had been met in the Midwest region, ‘‘where additional occurrences of the ABB have been discovered,’’ and 

that, ‘‘as a consequence, the total number of ABB in this recovery area is believed 

to greatly exceed the numerical target’’ established under the Recovery Plan. 

This is undoubtedly true. The population now known to exist in Nebraska was 

recently estimated to contain over 3,000 beetles, making it one of the largest known 

populations. Interestingly, Nebraska was not known to have any ABB in 1989 when 

the species was listed. 

The known population in Oklahoma has also grown dramatically since the listing 

decision. When the Service listed the ABB, only four counties had a known ABB 

population; the Service now believes its range extends to 45 of the 77 counties in 

the State. It is now believed Oklahoma’s population is numbered in the thousands. 

Service documents from 2014 reveal that ABB is now found in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island, the vast majority of which are located in the Midwest region. 

The 2008 5-Year Review further states that ‘‘although one of four geographic recovery areas for ABB has met the criteria for reclassification, the species presumably remains extirpated in most of its historic range,’’ and concludes that the ABB 

should retain its endangered status. 

I completely disagree. The ABB should no longer be listed in the Midwest region, 

and there is strong precedence for delisting endangered or threatened species in 

some areas, but not others. 

In 2011, the Service decided to delist the gray wolf from the endangered species 

list in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Utah while leaving 

it listed in Wyoming. 

This partial delisting was due to the healthy population levels that were present 

in those States, and it was left listed in Wyoming because the Service believed additional conservation work needed to be completed. Less than 2 years later, the 
124 

delisting was extended to Wyoming, and in 2013 the gray wolf’s protections under 

the ESA were completely removed. 

There is also a strong case to be made that the ABB should be completely 

delisted. Beginning in 2007, the Service promulgated an official policy stating that 

when it evaluates the probability of a species being lost to extinction across its 

range, it does so within its known existing range, not its hypothetical historic range. 

Knowing this, if the ABB were reconsidered as a candidate today, it likely would 

not be eligible for listing because the known populations are not in danger of being 

lost. They are, in fact, expanding. The historic range, described by the Service as 

being ‘‘ubiquitous’’ at some point, is reliant on very old data, observations, and studies, many of which are not readily locatable. 

There is so little known about this newly expanded presence of ABB. We don’t 

know if we’re just better at finding them now, or if the populations are actually 

growing. Whatever the case, it is clear that these beetles have proven much more 

resilient than the Service originally thought. 

With this in mind, I plan to introduce a bill next week that will delist the ABB 

from the Midwest region. There is no reason, especially given the lack of knowledge 

we have about the ABB, for it to remain as a protected species, particularly given 

the fact that its negative impact on economic activity expands with every new population that is discovered, especially in Oklahoma. 

Now I’d like to move on to the lesser prairie chicken, which was listed as a threatened species at the end of March. The decline in this species has largely been the 

result of drought—so it has had very little to do with human activity. It is likely 

that once the drought ends in western Oklahoma and the rest of the bird’s known 

range, the population will flourish and strengthen to the point that a listing is no 

longer warranted. 

We’ve seen this recovery begin already. On July 1, when the Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) released its most recent annual lesser prairie chicken population survey, the bird’s range-wide population showed an increase 

of 20 percent to 22,415 birds. To what was the increase attributable? According to 

WAFWA, the areas that showed the biggest improvement were ‘‘where more rain 

produced better prairie habitat.’’ 

The range-wide conservation plan WAFWA organized is what the Service blessed 

as appropriate and thorough, and it is being used as the primary means to achieve 

take permits under the 4d rule. This program is being administered solely by the 

State wildlife agencies, and it now has over 160 companies participating. These 

firms have collectively enrolled about 9 million acres for conservation across the five 

States. As part of this enrollment they have committed $43 million for habitat conservation, which will be deployed over the next 3 years. 

Knowing this, it was extremely frustrating to me that the Service decided to list 

the LPC even while it knew that this conservation would happen whether or not 

a listing was made final. To me, it made sense to allow the State-driven conservation plan to take root prior to making a decision to impose Federal protection. Instead, the Service demonstrated that it is a solution in search of a problem, and 

it leaves me wondering why the Federal Government is so quick to insert itself in 

a situation where States are already appropriately addressing a problem. 

To remedy this, I will also introduce legislation that delists the lesser prairie 

chicken for a period of about 5 years to allow the State crafted range-wide plan to 

take root and work. If the Service determines after this time period that the recovery goals have not been met, then it can then reassess its findings and determine 

whether a listing is appropriate. This legislation is a companion to H.R. 4866, which 

Congressman Markwayne Mullin introduced just a few weeks ago. 

Again, Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward 

to working with my colleagues to enact these important bills. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ‘‘Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.’’ 

This legislation will make it easier for communities across the Nation to improve 

their public infrastructure by providing access to cost effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of growth on the environment and endangered species. 

This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under 

section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 
125 

BACKGROUND

Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered 

Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened 

and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, 

through issuance of a long-term ‘‘incidental take permit.’’ 

Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs 

are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act with on-going construction and development activity. 

CALIFORNIA EXAMPLE

In California, the Western Riverside County multiple species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an 

area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the 

benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of 

public land and 45,000 acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 

million. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated 

the development of much needed transportation infrastructure. To date, the Western 

Riverside MSHCP has resulted in expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion 

to the county’s economy. 

Riverside has been one of the Nation’s fastest growing counties, with a rate of 

growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental nor livability goals will be attained. 

In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of habitat acquisition 

in Western Riverside and other similarly situated communities. Revenue which had 

been generated by development fees to finance acquisition of habitat has also 

slowed. 

Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also signal increasing 

real estate prices that will make the acquisition of mitigation lands more challenging. That’s why it is important to provide communities like Western Riverside 

ready access to capital now to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing 

HCPs billions of dollars. 

HOW IT WORKS

Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their creditworthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority 

would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are 

threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, 

the bill would entail no Federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted—a very rare occurrence. 

These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates 

of interest, enabling participating communities to take advantage of temporarily low 

prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer: 

• protection of more habitat more quickly, 

• accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, 

and 

• reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition. 

A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also expressed support for this concept 

when it approved a similar, albeit more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) last month. But 

where the WRDA provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation would 

broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public infrastructure. 

CONCLUSION

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 

Æ