U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–934 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–201

GREAT LAKES RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: NO

DIRECTION, UNKNOWN PROGRESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 16, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

MARIANNE CLIFFORD UPTON, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

CYNTHIA SIMMONS, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2003

Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................. 7

Hon. Carl Levin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan .............................. 9

John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office .......................................................................................... 12

Robyn Thorson, Region III Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................. 13

Thomas V. Skinner, Region V Administrator, and National Program Manager 

for the Great Lakes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......................... 15

Col. William E. Ryan, III, Deputy Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio River 

Division, Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................... 17

Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce .................................................................................... 19

Dennis L. Schornack, Chairman, U.S. Section, International Joint Commission ........................................................................................................................ 27

Hon. Susan Garrett, Illinois State Senator, District 29 ....................................... 29

Christopher Jones, Director, Environmental Protection Agency, State of Ohio, 

on behalf of the Great Lakes Governors ............................................................ 31

Margaret Wooster, Executive Director, Great Lakes United ............................... 33

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

DeWine, Hon. Mike: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Garrett, Hon. Susan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 228

Jones, Christopher: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 233

Kenney, Timothy R.E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 181

Levin, Hon. Carl: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Ryan, Col. William E., III: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 176

Schornack, Dennis L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 190

Skinner, Thomas V.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 164

Stephenson, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 50

Page

IV

Thorson, Robyn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161

Wooster, Margaret: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 237

APPENDIX

Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., President/Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes 

Commission, prepared statement with an attachment entitled ‘‘Restore the 

Greatness!’’ ........................................................................................................... 240

David Dempsey, Policy Advisor, Michigan Environmental Council, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 258

Response to a factual question regarding the recent hearing from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to Senator Voinovich, dated Aug. 22, 2003 ............ 262

Response to question for Mr. Skinner .................................................................... 264

Responses to questions for Col. Ryan .................................................................... 266

Responses to questions for Mr. Keeney ................................................................. 268

Responses to questions for Mr. Schornack ............................................................ 270

Response to question for Mr. Jones ........................................................................ 286

(1)

GREAT LAKES RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: 

NO DIRECTION, UNKNOWN PROGRESS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2003

U.S. SENATE, OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. 

Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich, Durbin, and Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. The hearing will come to order. Good morning and thank you for coming. We are here today to discuss what 

I believe is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing 

our Nation—restoration of the Great Lakes. 

This hearing is entitled, ‘‘Great Lakes Restoration Management: 

No Direction, Unknown Progress.’’ Specifically, the hearing will 

focus on a recent report by the General Accounting Office concerning the Federal and State environmental programs operating 

in the Great Lakes basin and the funding devoted to them. This 

GAO report evaluates the restoration strategies used and how they 

are coordinated and assesses the overall environmental progress 

made in the basin restoration effort. 

Thirty-seven years ago, when I saw firsthand the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew that we 

needed to do something to protect our environment and the Great 

Lakes. At the time, Lake Erie was suffering from eutrophication 

and was known worldwide as a dying lake. It was the poster child 

for a dying lake. The decline was heavily covered by the media and 

became an international symbol. I remember British Broadcasting 

coming to Ohio and doing a documentary on it. 

I made a commitment then, as a State legislator, to do everything possible to stop the deterioration of Lake Erie and wage what 

I refer to as the ‘‘Second Battle of Lake Erie,’’ to reclaim and restore Ohio’s Great Lake. 

I have continued this fight throughout my career, as county commissioner, State legislator, Lieutenant Governor, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now U.S. Senator. I consider my efforts 

to preserve and protect Lake Erie and all of the Great Lakes to be 

among the most significant of my career, and for that matter, of 

my life. 

2

Lake Erie’s ecology has come a long way since the mid-1960’s. 

Today, people can enjoy Lake Erie. It is a habitat to countless species of wildlife, a vital resource for the area’s tourism, transportation, recreation industries, and the main source of drinking water 

for many Ohioans. Lake Erie is currently Ohio’s greatest natural 

resource. Together, the Great Lakes make up the largest body of 

fresh water in the world, providing 40 million people in the United 

States and Canada with drinking water. 

Although we have made progress in our restoration efforts, there 

is much more that needs to be done to improve and protect the 

Great Lakes. I emphasize that this is an urgent need that deserves 

and demands a well-coordinated effort, one that cannot be met by 

simply adding individual programs to those that already exist. 

The GAO made it clear in its report—released earlier this year, 

entitled ‘‘An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring 

Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals’’—that 

the number of programs is not the problem. Rather, the report 

states that while there are many Federal, State, and local programs, restoration of the Great Lakes is being hindered because 

there is little coordination and no unified strategy for those activities. 

Furthermore, the GAO found that although more than $1 billion 

has been spent on restoration efforts on the Great Lakes since 

1992, it is not possible to assess comprehensive restoration 

progress because overall indicators for the Great Lakes do not 

exist. 

I do not know which is worse, the fact that GAO came to these 

conclusions or that I have not found anyone that is surprised by 

them. 

The GAO recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency oversee these efforts to ensure that the programs are coordinated, that there is a comprehensive Great Lakes strategy, and 

that environmental indicators are developed to measure restoration 

progress. 

This week, I joined Senators DeWine and Levin in cosponsoring 

the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration, Protection, and Recovery Act, which is S. 1398. This bill responds to the GAO report and 

to my long-held concerns about Great Lakes restoration. In short, 

this bill moves us closer to our goal of restoring the Great Lakes 

by providing funding and promoting coordination. Expanding on 

the Lake Erie Water Quality Index that I released in 1998 as Governor of Ohio, the bill directs the EPA to create a series of indicators of water quality and other factors for all of the Great Lakes. 

Restoring the Great Lakes could be the greatest legacy any of us 

will leave on this earth. We must work hard to ensure that the 

progress we have made continues. 

As many of you know, I was intimately involved in the creation 

of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. As Chairman 

of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, of the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, I was proud to be 

a sponsor of the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, which 

approved this ambitious plan. Earlier this year, I spoke at the 11th 

Annual Everglades Coalition Conference in Florida. I told them—

let me quote from my statement—‘‘What I would love to do as SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
3

ator is to be able to put the same kind of coalition together that 

you have been able to do for the Everglades for the Great Lakes.’’ 

This is my dream, to put together a comprehensive restoration plan 

for the Great Lakes. 

Right now, we have the mayors getting together. That is wonderful. The governors are developing priorities and objectives, a coalition of groups—the Great Lakes United—have put together a restoration agenda. And we here in Congress have put forth proposals 

earlier this week. 

However, the fact of the matter is that if we are going to get 

something done, we need to create a symbiotic relationship with all 

of the public and private players in the United States and Canada 

in order to develop a comprehensive restoration plan for the Great 

Lakes. I am most interested in hearing from the witnesses today 

on how we can get this done. 

I also look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about 

this GAO report, and to hearing their recommendations for the current restoration programs in the Great Lakes, as well as possible 

next steps to address this problem. I want to hear your views on 

our new legislation, S. 1398. We have an impressive lineup of witnesses this morning and I look forward to a very informative discussion. 

I am pleased today to welcome two of my friends and colleagues, 

Senator Mike DeWine, the senior Senator from Ohio, and Senator 

Carl Levin of Michigan, who will testify first this morning. I commend them on their excellent leadership as co-chairmen of the 

Great Lakes Task Force. I look forward to their valuable input on 

this subject, especially since they requested the GAO report we are 

discussing today, and I thank you both for doing that because that 

puts us in a framework where we can move. 

On our second panel, we will hear from people who conducted the 

study at GAO and from several Federal agencies that are involved 

programmatically with the Great Lakes, including the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Tom Skinner is here, EPA’s Region V Administrator, who I had 

a chance to meet with yesterday, and I look forward to his testimony on the role of the Great Lakes National Program Office in 

managing the various environmental programs. 

And the third and final panel includes the Chairman of the 

United States Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack, whom I have known for many years. He worked for 

Governor Engler in Michigan. I also welcome his counterpart, the 

Chairman of the Canadian Section, Herb Gray. Herb, I am very 

happy that you are here today. I know that Mr. Gray is aware that 

the subject of restoration of the Great Lakes has been a burning 

issue for the U.S. and Canadian Inter-parliamentary Group that I 

have had the pleasure of participating in over the past years, along 

with Senator DeWine. 

Also on the third panel is Illinois State Senator Susan Garrett, 

and Chris Jones, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, who will testify on behalf of the Council of Great Lakes 

Governors. 

4

And finally, Margaret Wooster from Great Lakes United will testify. Great Lakes United is a U.S. and Canadian coalition dedicated 

to preserving and restoring the Great Lakes. Last August, I held 

an Environment and Public Works Committee field hearing in 

Cleveland, Ohio, that examined the increasingly extensive oxygen 

depletion, or hypoxia, in the central basin of Lake Erie. Great 

Lakes United testified at that hearing and was extremely helpful 

in shedding some light on the problem and in offering possible solutions. 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Wooster about 

a recent report that Great Lakes United released on how to clean 

up the Great Lakes. I look forward to hearing more about those 

recommendations for restoration in her testimony today. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, my 

good friend, Senator Durbin from Illinois. Senator, a lot of the activity by the governors is centered in Illinois through the leadership of Governor Daley and I would appreciate hearing from you 

today. 

I am going to remind any of the other Senators that show up 

today that I am going to request that they submit their statements 

in writing so that we can get it in the record and get on with the 

witnesses. 

Senator Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your leadership on this hearing and I would like to have my entire statement 

be made part of the record. At this point, I would like to summarize it very quickly. 

I would like to salute my colleagues, Senators Carl Levin and 

Mike DeWine. I think what we have demonstrated here is a bipartisan effort to deal with a national treasure, our Great Lakes. 

My statement outlines the history of the development of the City 

of Chicago and the expansion of the Nation’s economy through 

Lake Michigan. Several things I would like to note publicly. Congress recognized the importance of Chicago’s harbor, appropriating 

$247,000 for its development by the end of 1844. By the late 1800’s, 

the people of Illinois saw the great economic potential of Lake 

Michigan, but also saw problems. Sewage flowing through the Chicago River into Lake Michigan caused serious public health concerns. 

In 1887, Chicagoans decided to embark on their first Great Lakes 

restoration effort. They boldly dared to reverse the flow of the Chicago River to stop the sewage in that body of water from flowing 

into Lake Michigan, their drinking water source. I have a place in 

Chicago overlooking Lake Michigan. I can still look out every morning and see the water intakes that were built in that era so that 

they could go further offshore to draw the water, which might be 

a little cleaner and purer, for the people to drink. The Metropolitan 

Sanitary District of Greater Chicago successfully reversed the flow 

of the Chicago River by 1900 and alleviated chronic pollution problems. 

A hundred years later, Lake Michigan, as many of the Great 

Lakes, remains a vital economic engine for my State and surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
5

rounding States, but it has terrific environmental challenges. It is 

the largest body of fresh water entirely within the boundaries of 

the United States. This Great Lake extends along 63 miles of 

shoreline in Illinois, provides drinking water for six million people 

in Illinois. The lake also continues to serve as a great avenue for 

commerce, and despite all of this, Lake Michigan is in trouble. 

Illinois has Lake Michigan fish consumption advisories due to 

unhealthy levels of mercury, chlordane, and PCBs. The Lake Michigan area at Waukegan is contaminated due to industrial activity 

throughout the last century. There are several Superfund sites in 

the area, some of which have been cleaned up to a large extent, but 

a great deal of the work still remains to be done. And, of course, 

there is a great concern about the invasive fish species, such as the 

Asian carp. 

We need to be bold in addressing this, and I salute my colleagues 

for their leadership in this legislation responding to the GAO report which they requested. Those who reversed the flow of the Chicago River knew that bold steps were necessary to reverse the 

trend of environmental degradation of our precious Great Lakes. 

Thanks to similar efforts, our ecosystems in our country have 

begun to be restored, including the Chesapeake Bay and the Florida Everglades. It is interesting to me that the challenge has been 

made that we who live near the Great Lakes have to show the 

same concern as our colleagues have shown when it comes to the 

Florida Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. I accept that challenge, 

and I think this legislation responds to it. 

Yet, despite all of our good intentions and all of our ambitions, 

the GAO makes it clear we don’t have our act together. State and 

Federal agencies and local agencies of government just are not on 

the same page, talking about the future of the Great Lakes. I think 

this legislation will help change this. This legislation enhances the 

coordinating functions of the EPA. Tom Skinner is here, my friend 

from Region V in the State of Illinois. He understands that. State 

Senator Susan Garrett is here, who represents a district right on 

Lake Michigan, and she understands that, as well, and I am glad 

that she is going to be adding testimony. 

This is a great starting point. I look forward to hearing further 

thoughts from our panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared opening statement of Senator Durbin follows:]

OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN 

I want to thank my colleague and fellow Great Lakes Senator, George Voinovich, 

for calling this important hearing today and I also would like to welcome two of my 

colleagues and constituents, Susan Garrett and Tom Skinner.I74Lake Michigan’s 

Role in Illinois History 

The history of Chicago, the largest American city that borders the Great Lakes, 

is directly linked to Lake Michigan. 

The Miami Indians of the Illiniwek Tribe, settled in a village they called ‘‘Checau-gou’’ on the southern extremity of Lake Michigan in the 1640’s. 

By 1682, French explorer La Salle claimed the Mississippi River Valley for France 

and called the portage he crossed from St. Joseph River in Michigan to the Illinois 

River the ‘‘Chicago Portage,’’ after the Miami Indians’ name for the region. 

Chicago Portage became an important point linking Lake Michigan to several rivers in the region. 

In 1795, the U.S. gained control of a tract of land at the mouth of the Chicago 

River, which became the site for Fort Dearborn. 

Chicago, in turn, rapidly became the leading port in the West. 

6

Between 1833 and 1839 the annual average import trade for Chicago was $1.5 million and the export trade was $350,000. 

Clearly, Lake Michigan was one of the chief economic engines behind the development of Chicago and the rest of Illinois. Congress, recognizing the importance of Chicago’s harbor, appropriated $247,000 

for its development by the end of 1844. 

By the late 1800’s, the people of Illinois experienced the effects of environmental 

degradation of Lake Michigan: Sewage that flowed through the Chicago river into 

Lake Michigan caused plagues of typhoid fever, cholera and dysentery. 

In 1887, Chicagoans decided to embark on their first Great Lakes restoration effort: They boldly dared to reverse the flow of the Chicago River, to stop the sewage 

in that body of water from flowing into Lake Michigan, their drinking water source. 

The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago successfully reversed the 

flow of the Chicago River by 1900, thereby alleviating the chronic pollution problems. 

LAKE MICHIGAN TODAY

One hundred years later, Lake Michigan remains a vital economic engine for Illinois and other surrounding states, but it also continues to experience environmental 

challenges. 

Lake Michigan is the largest body of fresh water entirely within the boundaries 

of the United States. 

The Great Lake extends along 63 miles of shoreline in Illinois. 

It provides drinking water for six million people in Illinois. 

The lake also continues to serve as an avenue for commerce. 

Despite all of the positive aspects, Lake Michigan is troubled. 

Illinois has Lake Michigan fish consumption advisories due to unhealthy levels of 

mercury, chlordane and PCBs. 

The Lake Michigan shore at Wauykegan, IL is contaminated, due to industrial activity there throughout the last century. 

There are several Superfund sites in this area, some of which have been cleaned 

up to a large extent, but the work has yet to be completed, primarily due to a lack 

of funding. 

The latest threat to Lake Michigan are two types of Asian carp, bighead and silver, which we are trying to stop from reaching Lake Michigan. These carp can grow 

to more than 100 pounds and 40 inches long and could cause untold damage to the 

Great Lakes due to their voracious appetites. 

WHAT NEXT

We need to be bold, like those who reversed the flow of the Chicago River, and 

reverse the trend of environmental degradation of our precious Great Lakes. 

Thanks to coordinated efforts and significant funding, other ecosystems in our 

country have begun to be restored, including the Chesapeake Bay and the Florida 

Everglades ($7 billion authorized so far, could be up to $14 billion total). 

Yet, despite all of the well-intentioned organizations and programs in the Great 

Lakes, there is still a lack of coordination and funding. 

That is why I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation with Senators DeWine, 

Levin and Voinovich, to create a $6 billion investment in the Great Lakes over 10 

years. 

This legislation would enhance the coordinating functions of EPA, establish an 

Advisory Board with a variety of stakeholders, including representatives of the Cities Initiative started by Mayor Daley of Chicago, and create ways to measure 

progress. 

I believe this is a good starting point, and I look forward to hearing further 

thoughts from our panelists.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for your statement. 

If there are no objections, all other Senators’ statements will be 

submitted for the record and we will proceed to take the testimony 

of Senator DeWine and Senator Levin. 

I would like to also welcome Senator Coleman from Minnesota 

here this morning. Norm, thanks very much for being here. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator DeWine. 

7

1The prepared statement of Senator DeWine appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE,1 A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want 

to congratulate you and thank you, as well as Senator Durbin and 

Senator Coleman, for your great commitment to the Great Lakes. 

I know all three of you have a longstanding commitment, not only 

from a personal point of view, but in a public policy point of view, 

to the Great Lakes. 

Mr. Chairman, I know of your great love and great commitment 

to the Great Lakes. You fish in the Great Lakes often. You tell me 

about your fishing prowess in the Great Lakes—— [Laughter.] 

And give me the fishing report quite often. I am jealous when I 

hear about it. I also know that you live within walking distance of 

Lake Erie and you understand about the Great Lakes. As mayor 

and as governor, you had a great commitment to the Great Lakes. 

You did a great deal. You continue to work very hard for the Great 

Lakes. The fact that you are holding this hearing today shows your 

continued commitment and I look forward to working with you and 

the other Members of this Subcommittee to enhance the Great 

Lakes. 

I am delighted to be here with my colleague from Michigan. I 

think it says a great deal. Senator Levin and I, as co-chairs of the 

Great Lakes Task Force, a Republican from the State of Ohio and 

a Democrat from the State of Michigan, are cosponsoring S. 1398. 

It is something when two people, one from Ohio, one from Michigan, can get together on anything. But we are together. We have 

worked together on many things. But we put this bill together, we 

worked very hard together, and we are glad to have the members 

of this panel as cosponsors of this bill. 

It is about time, frankly. We all have talked about the Great 

Lakes. We have talked about the need for an overriding vision for 

the Great Lakes. We prepared for this bill and now it is time to 

introduce it and now it is time to move forward. 

What we are saying with this particular bill is that there needs 

to be a national policy for the Great Lakes. We need to have a national vision for the Great Lakes. And finally, we need to have a 

national commitment to the Great Lakes. 

We have all worked, all of us in this room have worked on a kind 

of a piecemeal basis in the past to help the Great Lakes, and each 

one of us in this room can point to different things that we have 

done for the Great Lakes. But what we need now to do is to wrap 

that all together and to look forward, not just a year or 2 years or 

5 years, but say, what do we want to accomplish for the next 10 

years and what is going to be the commitment of this country, because this is truly, as Senator Durbin has said and as you have 

said, Mr. Chairman, a national treasure. It is a national treasure 

that we have to preserve, we have to enhance so that we can hand 

down to our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and that is our moral obligation. We have an obligation 

to do that, and that is what we are saying with this bill. 

We have, frankly, waited long enough to turn the talk into action, because the sad fact is that for all the good work we have 

8

done in the past, and there has been great work done by so many 

people, and we have made progress, but the sad fact is, we are not 

keeping up. We are not keeping up with the sewers. We are not 

stopping the sewers from overflowing into the Great Lakes. They 

do it every day. We aren’t controlling and preventing the spread 

and introduction of the invasive species into the Great Lakes. 

We are still seeing, Mr. Chairman, our wetlands vanish, and 

they are vanishing in Ohio and the other States. And not only do 

we need to stop them from vanishing, frankly, we need to begin to 

restore them and to do a better job in that respect. We need to 

move forward and not only be on the defense, but start to be on 

the offense. 

We also must ensure, Mr. Chairman, that the public has adequate access to the Great Lakes. That is a particular problem in 

our home State of Ohio, where a great deal of the Great Lakes 

lakefront, Lake Erie lakefront, is in private hands, and we need to 

make sure that when there is available land, when it does come up, 

when there is a willing seller, that there is money available to 

make more frontage available for the public so that the public can, 

in fact, enjoy it. 

We also need to be concerned about fish and wildlife habitat and 

make sure that it is maintained and improved. 

I have been asked, as I am sure Senator Levin has been and my other colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, about the $6 billion. Some people have said it is too much. Some people said it is 

not enough. The truth is, there is nothing magical about $6 billion. 

That is spread over 10 years. The truth is, it is a minimum amount 

of money. We all know that. And while there is nothing magical about the $6 billion, there is 

certainly something magical about the Great Lakes, and we all 

know that. There is something magical about looking out at any 

one of our Great Lakes and seeing a man out there all by himself 

in a boat fishing. There is something magical about seeing a young 

couple or an old couple walking along the shore at night. There is 

something magical about seeing a little child out there being 

taught by his grandfather how to fish, or his grandmother how to 

fish. There is something magical about seeing a great cargo freighter plying the waters of the Great Lakes, a freighter that, I might 

add, is by far the safest form or way to move our cargo in this 

country and something that needs to be enhanced and treasured, 

something we need to try to make sure is always available. 

These are things that you cannot measure by money, but it is 

something that money can make sure is available and continues. 

So this is a great treasure. It is a treasure that is hard to compare, 

but I think as Senator Durbin and you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Coleman have all so eloquently said, and my colleague, Senator 

Levin, has said in the past, something that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to preserve. And so this is what this bill 

does. 

I thank you very much for holding this hearing, not just about 

this bill, but for holding this hearing about the GAO study. As you 

have said, the GAO study showed us what we are doing wrong and 

I think it has pointed the way and it is sort of like an alarm that 

has gone off in the night and said, look, we have got problems and 

9

1The prepared statement of Senator Levin appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

we have not done things the right way. But it has also pointed and 

kind of shown us the light and said, these are the things that we 

need to change. These are things that we can do in the future and 

now is the time to do it. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit my 

full statement for the record. I appreciate very much the fact that 

you have held this hearing today. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator DeWine, and you can be 

assured that we will insert your statement in the record. 

Senator Levin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN,1 A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, and other Members of this Subcommittee for 

your strong support of the Great Lakes, for your leadership, and 

for your calling this hearing today on the GAO report and on the 

bill which I am proud to have cosponsored with Senator DeWine 

and which you and other Members of this Subcommittee and, indeed, the Senate have cosponsored. 

We are temporary stewards of a unique national treasure. I know 

the Great Lakes are the only bodies of fresh water on earth which 

can be seen from the moon. The Great Lakes are actually visible 

if you stood on the moon. I don’t know if there are too many other 

natural features about which that is true. 

If you spread the waters of the Great Lakes on the entire 48 contiguous States, it would be about ten feet deep. We have the 

world’s greatest treasure of fresh water and I think we all feel 

keenly about protecting that. I know everyone in this room and 

you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coleman, and Senator Durbin, those 

of us who live on the Great Lakes, feel very keenly about this responsibility. 

If I could just hearken back for perhaps 25 or 30 years, the first 

time I testified before the Senate was to urge the Senate to adopt 

a national standard on the level of phosphates in detergents because of the damage that those phosphates were doing, particularly 

to Lake Erie. And you, Mr. Chairman, and I and Senator DeWine, 

of course, have a particular local interest. 

But we saw the damage that Lake Erie was undergoing because 

of the extra phosphate in detergents and we adopted a little ordinance in my hometown of Detroit when I was President of the City 

Council to reduce the level of phosphates which would be allowable 

in detergents sold in our city. People kind of scoffed at that and 

said, what can you do with a local ordinance? The answer was, perhaps not a lot, but perhaps that will lead to State action and then 

to Federal action. In fact, that is what happened. It is kind of proof 

of the old saying, ‘‘think globally, act locally.’’ It is kind of a good 

example of what can happen, and there have been a lot of examples. 

You, Mr. Chairman, both as governor and as mayor, have been 

involved deeply with Great Lakes restoration. And I know Senator 

Coleman, Senator Durbin, and others, and I know Senator DeWine 

10

personally have been involved in a lot of small steps that we have 

taken, but they are still small steps. We have not taken that major 

stride that we need to take in terms of protecting and preserving 

the Great Lakes. 

Some of those small steps have been trying to control the sea 

lamprey. We have been able to reduce that population by 90 percent. We have taken a very aggressive step there which has worked 

because we worked together. The lake sturgeon recovery program 

is also apparently working. 

We have destroyed a significant percentage now of high-level 

PCB wastes, up from approximately 40 percent just 5 years ago to 

over 80 percent in April 2002. We finally have one of the Areas of 

Concern, where there are contaminated sediments, which has been 

upgraded now to a recovery area, though not yet off the list. We 

don’t have any of our Areas of Concern where we have contaminated sediments which have been removed from the list, but we finally have upgraded one in Pennsylvania to a recovery area. 

So we know that there are actions which can be taken at the 

Federal, State, local level with the help of all the groups who are 

involved that will make a difference, but we need to take, as Senator DeWine has said, the big step, the giant step, the comprehensive step in terms of resources, in terms of vision, in terms of two 

areas of coordination which are essential. One is at the Federal 

level and the other one is between the Federal Government and 

State, local level, and all of the groups which are involved in this 

effort. 

So the bill which we have introduced does do both of those coordinating efforts. It takes those steps with an advisory board 

which connects everybody together, as well as a Great Lakes Coordinating Council, to ensure that Federal activities are coordinated. 

I won’t go through all the other provisions of this bill other than 

to say that Senator DeWine and his leadership have been absolutely instrumental in getting this bill to where it is now and that 

your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and that of Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, and others will hopefully be able to push this across 

the finish line in the Senate. 

But again, it has been eloquently stated by Senator DeWine and 

you, Mr. Chairman, and others as to what our responsibility is as 

temporary stewards of the Great Lakes. We, all of us who are 

Great Lakes Senators, feel keenly that this is a national issue. Indeed, this is an international issue. 

One-tenth of our people in America rely on the Great Lakes—jobwise, sports-wise, water-wise for drinking, and in a lot of other 

ways. One-tenth of Americans are dependent directly on the Great 

Lakes and this is something which we are, very keenly sensitive 

to. Hopefully, we can now take this additional, this major step in 

terms of protecting a treasure which we know is unique to the 

world. Thank you very much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

I would just like to thank both of you for your eloquence this 

morning and for your leadership of the Great Lakes Commission. 

Senator DeWine, you caught me up with the magic of some of the 

things that you were describing. They are things that I relate to 

11

very clearly. It is little known that I can look out of my living room 

window and see Lake Erie. I always tell friends that I am very fortunate that those nights that I am home, that I can take 100 steps 

and see a beautiful portrait by the master, and it is different each 

night. 

I am so pleased that you have made this commitment, that you 

have this commitment. It is a real issue, and I think if we really 

put our minds to this, we can put this plan in place and really see 

something happen. 

I have to tell you, over the years, I kept saying, we have got all 

these groups doing all these things. And, of course, when you are—

I was Chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. You are 

just doing the governors thing. And then I was a mayor. We have 

a chance as Federal officials to try and bring all of this together, 

and again, I applaud your leadership and look forward to working 

with you. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

As our witnesses come forward, I would like to say that due to 

time restraints this morning—I think we have got a vote at 12:05—

we are going to strictly enforce the 5-minute time limit on opening 

statements. I request that you monitor the timer in front of you 

and if you can make your statement in less than 5 minutes, we 

would appreciate that. I want all of you to know that your statements will be entered into the record in their entirety. 

Additionally, I am going to try to limit the period for questions 

to 5 minutes and only one round per panel. I would like you to 

know that we intend to submit questions to you in writing and 

would hope that you could get back to us with the answers to those 

questions as quickly as you possibly can. 

We will now proceed to the second panel. Since it is the custom 

of this Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses, I will ask all of you 

to rise so that I can swear you in. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before this 

Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I do. 

Ms. THORSON. I do. 

Mr. SKINNER. I do. 

Col. RYAN. I do. 

Mr. KEENEY. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Let the record show that all of the witnesses 

answered in the affirmative. 

Our first witness is going to be John Stephenson, Director of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Mr. Stephenson, we are very glad to welcome you 

here today. Please proceed. 

12

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON,1 DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Coleman. I am here today to discuss our work on environment restoration activities at the Great Lakes. 

As you know, the Great Lakes is the largest system of fresh 

water in the world. It provides drinking water to over 26 million 

U.S. citizens. It is an inland waterway for the inexpensive transport of goods. It is the water for the region’s industry and a recreation resource for boating, swimming, and sport fishing. 

My testimony is based on our April 2003 report which we did for 

Congress’ Great Lakes Task Force in which we attempted to identify total Federal and State funding for Great Lakes restoration 

programs. We looked at overall planning and coordination of restoration efforts and tried to assess restoration progress since the 

original Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed by the 

U.S. and Canada in 1972. 

It is fair to say that progress has been made in several areas, 

such as controlling the harmful sea lamprey, reducing the water’s 

phosphorous content, and improving some fish populations. But the 

Lakes are still threatened and actually getting worse on many environmental fronts. 

It has been over three decades since the original agreement was 

signed, yet raw sewage is still being dumped into the Lakes. Fish 

are still contaminated with pollutants such as mercury and PCB, 

making them unsafe to eat, and beach closings have increased 

drastically in recent years to over 900 on Lake Michigan alone in 

2002. 

As we reported last year, a 1987 amendment to the agreement, 

among other things, targeted 41 specific Areas of Concern for 

clean-up, 26 in U.S. waters, 12 in Canadian waters, and five 

shared by both. However, none of the U.S. areas have been restored to beneficial use and only two Canadian areas have been restored. 

So what is the problem? Is it lack of resources? Is it lack of a 

strategic plan? Is it the lack of an organizational entity with the 

authority to set priorities and evaluate alternatives? Is it the lack 

of indicators in a monitoring system to assess restoration progress? 

Actually, the answer to all of these questions is yes. 

We identified 181 Federal and 68 State programs spanning ten 

agencies and all eight Great Lakes States operating in the basin. 

While Great Lakes specific funding for some of the Nationwide and 

Statewide programs is often not tracked and, therefore, difficult to 

determine, we identified at least $3.6 billion, $2.2 Federal and $1.4 

State, going towards Great Lakes restoration over a 10-year period 

ending in fiscal year 2001. 

In contrast, about $5.3 billion, or $1.7 billion more, was devoted 

to South Florida ecosystem restoration during roughly the same 10-

year time period. So while there are numerous programs and conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
13

1The prepared statement of Ms. Thorson appears in the Appendix on page 161. 

siderable resources being devoted to the basin, one has to question 

what we are getting for the effort. 

One problem is that there are a variety of strategies at the binational, Federal, and State levels to address specific environmental 

problems, but there is no overarching plan for coordinating these 

disparate strategies and program activities into a single coherent 

approach for restoring the basin. Without such a plan, it is difficult 

to ensure that limited funds are used effectively. Other large-scale 

ecosystem restoration efforts such as South Florida and the Chesapeake Bay have clearly demonstrated the benefits of such a plan. 

Exacerbating the problem is the lack of an effective, authoritative organizational entity for planning, monitoring, and establishing funding priorities. The Clean Water Act of 1987, we think, 

granted EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office with the authority to coordinate Federal actions and funding in the Great 

Lakes, but in our opinion, it has never fully exercised this authority. 

Finally, I would like to highlight the lack of a comprehensive, 

widely accepted set of indicators and a monitoring system for determining whether the overall state of the basin is getting better or 

worse. Although the call for such a monitoring system can be 

traced back to the original agreement, after several past and ongoing attempts to develop such a system, this requirement remains 

largely unmet. 

We recommended in our report that EPA, one, in conjunction 

with other Federal agencies in the Great Lakes States, develop an 

overarching strategy that clearly defines roles and responsibilities 

for coordinating and prioritizing funding projects; two, submit to 

the Congress a time-phased proposal for funding this strategy; and 

three, develop indicators and more particularly a monitoring system for measuring overall restoration progress and for evaluating 

the merits of alternative restoration projections. EPA agreed with 

our conclusion but has not yet formally responded to these recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will answer 

any questions later. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. 

Our next witness is Robyn Thorson. She is the Region III Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBYN THORSON,1 REGION III DIRECTOR, U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ms. THORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my written 

statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. 

Ms. THORSON. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today at 

this hearing to bring more focus to efforts currently underway and 

to accountability in the Great Lakes. I am the Midwest Regional 

Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service, which includes Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois 

and is headquartered in the Twin Cities. 

14

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission is to work with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people, and to do 

that, by working with others. We work with the agencies that are 

at this table, with tribes in the Great Lakes, with communities, 

with associations and non-governmental organizations, and most 

significantly, with the States. 

I am going to list just a few examples of the kind of work that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing in the Great Lakes, and I 

will point out that the GAO’s report on page 26 identified the numbers of Great Lakes-specific programs that each Federal agency has 

in the Great Lakes and the Fish and Wildlife Service had the most 

on that list. 

One example is the binational sea lamprey control program, 

which represents an effective and comprehensive strategy contributing to restoration goals for the Great Lakes. It is administered 

under the leadership and coordination of the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements the 

sea lamprey control program, along with the U.S. Geological Survey and Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This has 

been going on since 1955, an outstanding international example of 

tackling the invasive species problem effectively and it needs to 

continue. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is also signatory to the joint strategic plan for management of Great Lakes fisheries, originally 

adopted in 1981, along with State, provincial, Federal, and tribal 

agencies from the United States and Canada. The joint strategic 

plan agencies have developed consensus-based objectives for the 

structure of each of the Great Lakes fish communities and the 

means of measuring progress toward their achievement. This is 

most evident on Lake Superior, where lake trout populations have 

been largely restored, and restoration of coaster brook trout and 

their habitats is well underway. 

Similarly, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, 

which Congress initially authorized in 1990, facilitates partnerships to achieve basin-wide comprehensive programs to assess the 

ecological status of the Great Lakes, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is preparing a report to Congress covering our activities 

under the Act from 1998 to 2002. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service also assists private land owners, 

townships, and county governments, with projects that benefit fish 

and wildlife resources. These are through our programs called Partners for Fish and Wildlife, the Coastal Program, and the Fish Passage Program. We provide technical assistance and seed money, 

just a bit of funding to get these started, for locally-led projects. 

They may seem small on scale compared to some of the larger programs like sea lamprey, but they are so important for citizen-centered governance, so important to Secretary of the Interior Gale 

Norton, and for citizen stewardship of natural resources. We are 

pleased to provide technical assistance and funding to these programs. 

To address the issue of chemical contaminants as ecological 

stressors in the Great Lakes, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a 

unique role using principles of ecotoxicology and ecological risk asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
15

1The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner appears in the Appendix on page 164. 

sessment to determine actual or likely effects of contaminants on 

fish and wildlife. 

And last, among the most critical threats to the Great Lakes is 

that posed by invasive species. Our efforts, those of our partners, 

and the National Invasive Species Council are focused on control 

of existing problems, such as the lamprey and the zebra mussel. 

And we must also address the threat that the Asian carp pose to 

the Great Lakes as they appear to be moving up the Mississippi 

River system. 

Construction of the electric barrier in the Illinois waterway is 

one example of a partnership effort to control invasive species and 

protect the waters and habitats of the Great Lakes, and I must pay 

a compliment to the Corps of Engineers for their leadership in this 

and particularly the City of Chicago for the Aquatic Invasive Species Summit that was recently sponsored to bring together engineers as well as environmental interests, and the transportation industry, to collectively address this critical problem. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service agrees that there will be great 

benefit from a comprehensive strategy to achieve restoration in the 

Great Lakes and that environmental indicators and a monitoring 

system must be part of any plan to achieve success. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service stands ready to continue its leadership role in fish 

and wildlife restoration and expand its work with partners to make 

the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem a balanced and healthy 

environment for fish and wildlife and people. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Skinner, glad to have you here. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS V. SKINNER,1 REGION V ADMINISTRATOR, AND NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE 

GREAT LAKES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is a pleasure to be 

here. Senator Coleman, as well, it is an honor to be in front of you 

today, and as I look around the room, for today’s purposes, to be 

with Senators from the two greatest States in Region V. [Laughter.] 

I am Tom Skinner, the Region V Administrator. I am also, in 

that role, the National Program Manager for EPA’s Great Lakes 

Programs, and it is a pleasure to be here today with you to discuss 

briefly the General Accounting Office report, EPA’s programs, and 

progress that has been made in protecting this Nation’s irreplaceable Great Lakes ecosystem. 

I want to first take this opportunity to strongly reaffirm EPA’s 

commitment to the Great Lakes as well as to the role and responsibilities set forth for the Great Lakes National Program Office, 

which we refer to as GLNPO, under Section 118 of the Clean 

Water Act. That Act requires GLNPO to serve as the lead for coordinating the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes system within the agency, as well as with other Federal agencies, the 

eight Great Lakes States, tribal authorities, and with the appropriate federal and provincial agencies in Canada. 

16

EPA and GLNPO have made significant progress along with our 

partners, and that is important, along with our partners. We have 

built a sound, comprehensive ecosystem management structure for 

the Great Lakes guided by adaptive management. The Great Lakes 

system is not static and we must adapt to the ever-changing challenges of protecting this magnificent resource, which, as you all 

know, contains 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water. 

The April 2003 GAO report made a number of recommendations, 

many of which we agree with, but a few of which we don’t. EPA 

will submit its formal response to the GAO report later this month. 

Today, I would like to take the opportunity to outline what EPA, 

along with its partners, is doing with regard to coordination. I will 

highlight the programs and coordinating mechanisms we are using 

to effectively manage the Great Lakes program to achieve environmental results and to ensure that this magnificent resource is protected now and for future generations. 

GLNPO convened the U.S. Policy Committee, which is compromised of senior-level representatives of Federal, State, and tribal agencies with significant natural resource and environmental 

protection authorities and responsibilities. While the U.S. Policy 

Committee is not backed by a statutory mandate, it has become an 

effective vehicle for coordinating priorities of basin-wide significance for the Great Lakes. 

The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 is a product of the U.S. Policy 

Committee and serves an important function by focusing on multilake and basin-wide environmental goals that those governmental 

partners will work toward. It supports efforts underway, including 

the lake-wide management plans and remedial action plans for 

Areas of Concern, by addressing issues that are beyond the scope 

of these programs and helping integrate them into an overall 

basin-wide context. We believe that the Great Lakes strategy has 

helped to meet and exceed the requirements for coordination specified in Section 118 of the Clean Water Act. 

The strategy was released in April 2002 by former Administrator 

Whitman in Muskegon, Michigan. The plan is groundbreaking and 

includes major objectives that are both measurable and timephased. Ten Federal agencies, eight Great Lakes States, and tribal 

authorities assisted in its consensus-based development. We are 

now implementing the strategy and tracking progress. 

Some of the key goals, by 2005, clean up and delist three Areas 

of Concern with a total of 10 by 2010. By 2007, reduce concentrations of PCBs in lake trout and walleye by 25 percent from year 

2000 levels. And by 2010, 90 percent of Great Lakes beaches to be 

open 95 percent of the season. Finally, by 2010, substantially reduce the further introduction of invasive species, both aquatic and 

terrestrial, to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. 

I would also like to touch briefly in the little time that I have 

left on our efforts to increase the knowledge base and to develop 

strong scientific underpinnings for the decisions we make. The 

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Program, also known as SOLEC, was 

created by EPA and Environment Canada. SOLEC fulfills, in part, 

the requirement in the agreement for assessing and reporting 

progress. SOLEC is held every 2 years. It is science-based. It is a 

17

1The prepared statement of Col. Ryan appears in the Appendix on page 176. 

collaborative effort that includes many stakeholders as well as governmental partners from both sides of the basin. 

SOLEC has four objectives, to assess the state of the Great 

Lakes ecosystem based on accepted indicators; to strengthen decisionmaking and management; to inform decisionmakers of Great 

Lakes environmental issues; and to provide a forum for communication and networking among all stakeholders. 

Four SOLEC reports have been issued since 1995, with the 2003 

report to be released next month. Over 800 indicators have been 

reviewed and a suite of 80 indicators has been identified to assess 

the health of the Great Lakes. 

Now, turning to monitoring for a moment, we have a multi-agency system of monitoring for the Great Lakes that involves a variety 

of expertise. A cost-effective system should be binational in scope 

since there are economies of scale. Numerous agencies on both 

sides of the border are contributing to our monitoring programs, 

ensuring that the best scientific expertise is applied to the Great 

Lakes. 

Now, of course, as the GAO notes, we can always improve our 

efforts to coordinate and to strive for clearer accountability and implementation and we are committed to doing just that. We want to 

make sure that the Great Lakes are healthy for both wildlife and 

people. We want future generations to enjoy their beauty and magnificence, and we consider ourselves all to be stewards towards this 

end. Because I also serve as the mayor of a Great Lakes community, Lake Bluff, Illinois, I take this responsibility particularly seriously. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Coleman, 

for inviting me to speak here today. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner. 

Mr. SKINNER. Thank you. 

Colonel Ryan. 

TESTIMONY OF COL. WILLIAM E. RYAN, III,1 DEPUTY COMMANDER, GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION, ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Col. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my complete 

statement be submitted for the record and I will try to summarize 

and conserve time. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. 

Col. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify before you on 

the restoration of the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supports efforts to improve the management of the programs 

for the protection and enhancement and restoration of the Great 

Lakes environment. I look forward to continuing to work with our 

sister agencies and other partners on approaches for moving the 

restoration of the Lakes forward. 

I will begin my comments with a response to the recent General 

Accounting Office report on the Great Lakes restoration needs, provide an overview of the Corps’ Great Lakes programs, and offer 

some recommendations for future steps to enhance the management of the Great Lakes programs. 

18

The recent GAO report includes a description of the Corps of Engineers programs that are available to support the environment 

protection and restoration of the Great Lakes basin. We have found 

that the inventory of Federal and State programs for the Great 

Lakes contained in the GAO report is comprehensive and are using 

them in one of our ongoing studies. 

The Corps agrees with the GAO that an effort is needed to help 

coordinate the various restoration programs in the Great Lakes 

basin and a comprehensive monitoring system with selected indicators is necessary to measure progress in restoring the ecosystems 

of the Great Lakes system. 

Primacy for water resources management in the United States 

has been and must continue to be at the State and local level. 

While it is appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved 

in issues of international, national, or multi-State significance, 

such as the management of the Great Lakes water resources, it is 

the States and in particular governors who should be establishing 

the priorities for management of these shared water resources. 

The diversity and environmental issues on the Great Lakes basin 

has spawned a number of intergovernmental organizations and 

committees to coordinate one or more specific issues, whether it is 

invasive species, wetland restoration, water management, nonpoint 

source pollution, or contaminated sediment. A significant amount 

of planning and coordination has already been accomplished 

through these existing organizations and committees, including the 

U.S. Policy Committee, the Great Lakes Commission, the Council 

of Great Lakes Governors, and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 

The environmental issues that are facing the Great Lakes are 

numerous and complex. Great Lakes issues include contaminated 

sediments, invasive species, groundpoint source pollution, and 

water management within a framework of two countries, eight 

States, and two provinces. 

We believe that restoring the Great Lakes resources will benefit 

from a watershed perspective, emphasizing collaboration and integration. Success will require the participation of all interested parties in the planning and the decisionmaking process, and this participation will foster an open dialogue to integrate sometimes competing or conflicting water resource needs. Such integration and 

collaboration are indispensable to meeting the water challenges. 

The Corps has a variety of civil works programs that are being 

utilized for the protection and enhancement and restoration of the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. The size and importance of this water resource and the complexity of the challenges before it necessitate a 

team approach to its management. The Corps has worked as a 

team member, as well as a team leader, in different aspects of the 

collective environment programs for the Great Lakes basin. 

The Corps has been a member of a team that monitors, predicts, 

and regulates water withdrawals, flows, and diversions through our 

support of the International Joint Commission Board of Control 

and Reference Studies. The Corps has been a member of the U.S. 

Policy Committee and participates in the development of a strategic plan to facilitate the implementation of the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement. 

19

1The prepared statement of Mr. Keeney appears in the Appendix on page 181. 

Perhaps the most significant program the Corps has led to date 

is the removal and confinement of contaminated sediments from 

Federal navigation channels in the Great Lakes. Although this program is conceived as to measure from environmental protection 

rather than restoration, the Corps, in partnership with State and 

local governments, has removed over 90 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes through this program. 

Through a more recent program, the Corps is currently leading 

projects for environmental dredging at eight Great Lakes Areas of 

Concern in partnership with State and local agencies. 

The Corps has four basin-wide studies ongoing that are addressing our specific or general water resources needs of the Great 

Lakes. The first of these is the U.S.-Canadian collaborative study 

of existing navigation infrastructure in the Great Lakes and St. 

Lawrence Seaway. 

The second is a basin-wide study, is an inventory of biohydrologic 

information relevant to the Great Lakes water management and 

will complete a gap analysis of water-related data. 

The third is a basin-wide study we have initiated in partnership 

with the Great Lakes States. It is an evaluation of the economic 

benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes, and in particular those utilizing the Federal navigation system. 

And the fourth is the Great Lakes study the Corps is helping to 

develop as a plan in collaboration with the Great Lakes Commission. It was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999. This study will produce a report to Congress with an analysis of existing water resource needs identified by the Great Lakes 

States and stakeholders and recommendations for new or modified 

authorities to address unmet needs. 

The Corps is pleased to have had this opportunity to appear before you and provide testimony on this important subject. Mr. 

Chairman, this concludes my remarks. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Col. Ryan. Mr. Keeney. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Tim Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere. On behalf of NOAA’s Administrator, Vice Admiral 

Conrad Lautenbacher, I would like to thank you for inviting me to 

testify today. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add up front that we believe 

that the ‘‘O’’ in NOAA, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, includes the Great Lakes and we are very 

much involved in that region. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my complete statement be submitted 

for the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. 

Mr. KEENEY. As other witnesses have pointed out, the Great 

Lakes are one of the earth’s greatest treasures and the Nation’s 

20

single most important aquatic resource. Today, I will focus my remarks on two areas, NOAA’s response to the recent GAO report 

and NOAA’s programs related to restoration efforts in the Great 

Lakes. 

NOAA shares the concerns raised in the recent GAO report on 

the Great Lakes. Although many Federal, State, and local programs are already working together on this task, better coordination would help all partners to work together more effectively to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. Improving the consistency of performance metrics among the agencies involved and better coordination of the Great Lakes monitoring programs would provide information necessary for reliably evaluating progress toward regional 

restoration goals. 

NOAA has environmental stewardship assessment and prediction 

responsibilities in the Great Lakes. We conduct research and environmental monitoring and modeling, providing scientific expertise 

and services to manage and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

NOAA’s Great Lakes restoration programs and partnerships, the 

topic of today’s hearing, are a topic of great priority. NOAA’s restoration role includes advising on cleanup of contaminated sites, 

working with States to fund habitat restoration projects, and conducting research and monitoring activities. I would like to highlight 

a few examples of our work in the region. 

NOAA works with EPA and other agencies at contaminated sediment sites in the Great Lakes to protect the aquatic environment, 

to clean up these sites, and to reduce overall injury to natural resources and speed their recovery. NOAA is currently working on 

cleaning up and restoring 18 hazardous waste sites in the region. 

NOAA also partners with seven of the Great Lakes States through 

the Coastal Zone Management Program to protect, restore, and responsibly develop the Nation’s important cultural resources. In 

Ohio, for example, NOAA has provided funding to coastal communities and organizations to develop comprehensive land use plans, 

improve access to Lake Erie’s shoreline, and conduct research and 

education. 

NOAA’s Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Program, which as 

funded through a $30 million appropriation in fiscal year 2001, is 

an excellent example of our recent restoration efforts. More than 70 

local government units have partnered in this program and are 

working on a variety of restoration projects, including contaminated sediment cleanup, invasive species removal, dune and marsh 

restorations, acquisition of critical habitat, and stormwater management. 

Activities coordinated by NOAA’s Sea Grant College Program, a 

partnership between the Federal Government and the Great Lakes 

Universities, develop and implement methods to restore habitat. 

Sea Grant extension agents empower coastal communities in the 

region to undertake well-planned coastal development that preserves and promotes restoration of critical coastal habitats. 

NOAA has established the National Center for Aquatic Invasive 

Species Research to develop a coordinated research plan to address 

invasive species issues. The Center will foster partnerships among 

NOAA and other entities to address prevention, early detection, 

21

rapid response, and management of invasive species, a major restoration issue for the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

Finally, NOAA has recently awarded two grants that will further 

the restoration planning for the Great Lakes. Under these grants, 

the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-Midwest Institute, 

in partnership with the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, will provide technical and scientific support to the region’s leadership in 

the development of a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan. 

The Institute will review the approaches that other regions have 

used to launch major ecosystem restoration initiatives in order to 

provide guidance for Great Lakes planning efforts. 

The Commission will facilitate a series of State and province 

focus groups, culminating in a Great Lakes restoration forum that 

will identify restoration priorities and associated strategic actions. 

This effort will help unify the many existing strategic plans from 

partner agencies. 

NOAA looks forward to working in partnership with EPA, States, 

and others in this effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Keeney. 

Mr. Keeney, I have to tell you that I was not aware of what 

NOAA was doing. I mean, I am very familiar with the Sea Grant 

program and what Jeff Reutter is doing up at our lab in Ohio, the 

Stone Lab. I have been very much involved in coastal management 

and setting requirements for those people that live on Lake Erie. 

They have got to talk about erosion, and then lake access. 

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would love to come by and visit 

with you and your staff. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It is interesting that you have gone through 

a number of things, and the Army Corps of Engineers is involved. 

The EPA is involved, Fish and Wildlife. Is there an orchestra leader that knows what all of you are doing and is coordinating it? 

[No response.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Stephenson, let us start with you. Mr. 

Skinner indicated that there were some things they agreed with 

and some that they disagreed with. I wasn’t aware of the Great 

Lakes Strategy 2002. Would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, I think from each of our witnesses, you 

heard that each has a restoration strategy, and that is exactly the 

point. There is no overarching strategy that orchestrates all these 

efforts, sets clear priorities and time frames for accomplishing 

things, and assigns specific responsibilities to the various partner 

agencies. 

So we can agree to disagree how much authority the Clean 

Water Act gives the Great Lakes National Program Office. We 

think that the authority clearly resides there for developing this 

overarching plan. That is why we made our recommendation to 

EPA. By the number of programs, the number of dollars, the number of activities that you heard, all of which have noble objectives 

and noble strategies, we just don’t think these are well put together and well coordinated at this point. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think that EPA should be the orchestra leader in keeping track of what everybody is doing? 

22

Mr. STEPHENSON. You could establish a new body, which I think 

the legislation refers to an advisory board and a coordination council. It just has to be clearly set up in the legislation who has that 

responsibility for decisionmaking, setting priorities, and so forth. 

We think that EPA is in a good position to develop such an overarching strategy and we think that the current legislation gives 

them that authority. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Along with several of my colleagues, we sent 

you a letter requesting a follow-up study to examine what indicators and monitorings are needed in the Great Lakes and what additional research is necessary. As I stated earlier, when I was governor, we created and released the Lake Erie Water Quality Index 

in 1998. I think it is a very important piece of the restoration effort, to have these indicators. Simply put, we need to be able to 

measure if we are doing any good and highlight what is going on. 

I have always said, and when I was governor I used to say, if you 

can’t measure it, don’t do it. 

And I don’t know if you have seen this or not, but it is interesting. We came up with a Great Lakes Water Quality Index. The 

issue was, what are the indicators? We had water quality, pollution 

sources, habitat, biological, coastal recreation, boating, fishing, 

beaches, tourism, and fishing. I suspect there are some people here 

that might say there may be some more indicators that you have 

on here. 

What we tried to do is then rate them. I know that Chris Jones 

is here and I am anxious to have a State of Ohio update of where 

we are in this. Have we made any progress or haven’t we made any 

progress? What are the things that were bad in 1998, what projects 

have been undertaken, and so on, so that we get this kind of restoration effort moving. 

I would like to see this kind of thing done for the entire Great 

Lakes, understanding that each of the Great Lakes are different. 

It is amazing, the difference between, say, Lake Superior and Lake 

Erie. Lake Erie is the greatest fishery of the Great Lakes, although, I think from testimony here of Fish and Wildlife, things 

are coming along in that regard in some of the other lakes. We 

really need to get on with this and then have the strategy so we 

can make it happen. 

I would like comments from all of you. Do you think that the 

EPA should be the leader of this kind, keeping track of what everyone is doing and kind of being the focus place for putting a plan 

together? 

Ms. THORSON. Senator, we would value an orchestra leader, as 

you characterize it, and working with the EPA has been a successful partnership for the Fish and Wildlife Service. We can continue 

to accommodate that, or in agreement with the GAO if there is a 

different coordinator. But so much of the strategizing to date has 

been more cataloging of effort than coordination of effort, and increasing that coordination by working together under existing authorities or under new coordination, all would be beneficial. 

So we support either direction, the current leadership of EPA or 

new coordination, as long as there is coordination. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Any other comments on that, in terms of an 

orchestra leader? 

23

Col. RYAN. Sir, I would also say we also need to look at the binational aspect of the Great Lakes as we are trying to put that together. Obviously, for the Federal Government, the U.S. Federal 

Government, we need an orchestra leader, but we also have to look 

at our neighbors to the North and how do we coordinate that whole 

aspect together from a binational standpoint. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Keeney. 

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force for the Department of Commerce 

and I think that task force works pretty well. As has been mentioned by some of my previous commenters, we also support a 

multi-agency effort based in the Great Lakes which would include 

Federal, State, and regional groups working on this restoration effort. EPA would make a fine orchestra leader, but obviously, we 

need to have all of the players intimately involved. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I am going to bring this up because 

Mr. Schornack may bring this up in his testimony and I have you 

here, Mr. Stephenson. The International Joint Commission Chairman writes in his testimony that the Great Lakes National Program Office doesn’t ‘‘have the power, the budget, or the reach to 

really direct programs over multiple Federal agencies and multiple 

levels of government. So never mind if I differ with the GAO report 

when it asserts that GLNPO has failed by not effectively coordinating work of the other 12 agencies that are involved in restoration activities.’’ Do you want to comment on that statement? Mr. 

Schornack, I think you are going to make it when you get up here 

to testify, and——

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think what we are saying is that EPA was 

clearly given the authority, for the U.S. portion of the agreement, 

for performing that coordination function. Do they need more resources to do that? Probably so. I don’t know why GLNPO hasn’t 

taken on more of this requirement than it has. Mr. Skinner will 

have to answer that. I am simply stating that for our legislation 

here in the United States, that we think that EPA was already 

given that authority. 

That is not to say that a newly-established legislative body might 

also serve as a great orchestra leader. I think either way can work, 

but they have got to be provided the resources and responsibility 

for doing that very clearly. 

There needs to be interagency agreements between the Federal 

agencies, as well. There are no formal interagency agreements 

right now to implement any of these strategies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Skinner, do you have the money and the 

budget to do the job? 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman, the resource issue is one that faces 

us and is daunting. Whether we have the resources depends on 

how our role is defined. I think the answers to your question from 

three of my four colleagues up here prove the point that I was 

going to make, which is that with all due respect to GAO, they may 

believe that the authority resides in GLNPO right now to do what 

they think needs to be done. Unfortunately, our sister agencies 

don’t seem to agree with that. I mean, I didn’t hear any of the 

three say, yes, EPA currently has the authority to do what is suggested. That is a big problem that we face. We are glad to take on 

24

that mantle of responsibility, but it may well be that if that is to 

be our responsibility, some clarification is necessary to make sure 

that we are all on the same page as to that role. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So if you are selected, then you think that 

it should be very clear that you have the interagency responsibility 

and that everybody knows that you are the coordinator. And just 

as important would be the budget and resources that you would 

need to get the job done and how you would interface, for example, 

with other agencies so that you don’t have duplication. 

Would you agree that is really the genesis of any of this that we 

are talking about today to get everybody together to clearly define 

who the leader is and what their responsibility is, what the responsibilities are to the other agencies that are involved, and then also 

look at the international aspects of this, which is very important. 

And last, but not least, I think to get some input in from the 

other players. For example, Great Lakes United has some very 

good recommendations. And then I am sure there are some—I 

know when I was Chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors that we dealt with some of the industrial groups that were 

there when we did the GLI, Great Lakes Initiative, that started out 

as being a gigantic thing. We tried to get it down to really dealing 

with the bio-accumulative stuff that was within the Great Lakes. 

Ms. Thorson, you state in your testimony the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is developing and supporting environmental indicators of 

this ecosystem through your engagement with the EPA Great 

Lakes National Program Office, the U.S. Policy Committee, and the 

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, SOLEC. Could you tell 

me a little bit more about these indicators that you have developed? Have you ever seen this? (Holding up Lake Erie Water Quality Index) 

Ms. THORSON. No, I haven’t, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

see it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. I would be interested in just seeing how 

it fits in with what you are doing. Do you care to comment? 

Ms. THORSON. Yes. We like measurables. It helps us all focus and 

it also helps assign responsibility. Under SOLEC, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service happens to have responsibility for several particular environmental indicators like lake trout, lake sturgeon, and 

bald eagles, predictably, the ones within our jurisdiction. Beyond 

that, we also have the capability for measuring progress in wetlands restoration and other particulars. So we are measuring under 

SOLEC some specific assignments. We have greater capability of 

bringing to the table some measurables in a coordinated Great 

Lakes effort. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So the thing is there is some really good 

stuff going on there. It is a question of how do you focus in. 

Col. Ryan, you are dealing with sediments, right? 

Col. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And Mr. Keeney, you are dealing with some 

other things that I have down here. 

Mr. KEENEY. Restoration. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, but——

Mr. KEENEY. Research. 

25

Senator VOINOVICH. For example, sediments, Col. Ryan, you said 

you have done some work in the sediments area. Do you have a 

backlog of all the sediment projects? How far along are we? 

Col. RYAN. Well, we are concerned principally with the Federal 

navigation channel, so it doesn’t encompass the total of all the contaminated sediments. Obviously, there are some outside those 

channels that we don’t deal with, and I don’t have those figures but 

I could get those for you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am familiar with some of the work by the 

National Bureau of the River, for example, but I funded that program with $7 million or $8 million when I was Governor of Ohio 

and it is still not done. You did one of the creeks that go into that 

and I was amazed at how the Corps went in and actually diverted 

the water and did the cleanup. It was an amazing project. 

I would suspect that you have a tremendous backlog of things 

that need to be done and haven’t got the funding to take care of 

it. 

Col. RYAN. That is correct. It is priorities and the amount of resources available. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And then the issue then becomes, too, about 

the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, that some of the restoration project people are concerned about whether it is ecologically the thing to do. It is all of these little nuances that get 

involved in all of this. 

Before I take the next panel, do any of you want to comment on 

what anyone has said here or give me your final feelings on anything? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think we said it all in our report. The next 

project that you have asked us to do is take on this indicator development and monitoring system approach for the Great Lakes. You 

can see there is a lot of good work going on in different pockets, 

but the same thing is going to be at issue here. How can we coordinate all this work and develop meaningful indications—maybe 

Ohio has the answer with its indices project, but behind that must 

be a monitoring system for collecting the data. Even SOLEC says 

of its 80 indicators that less than half of them have credible data 

with which to measure against——

Senator VOINOVICH. I am going to have Chris Jones up here and 

I am going to ask him the question of——

Mr. STEPHENSON. Good. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. What monitoring have they 

been doing and who have they been working with in order to come 

up with a new report. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Monitoring is kind of a hodgepodge right now. 

There are not specific standards for sampling. Water quality data 

varies all over the board. So there is a lot of work that needs to 

be done in that area. We have good air deposition monitoring, but 

not much good water quality data monitoring. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I remember the fiasco we had when we 

were—Mr. Schornack probably will remember this—when we were 

doing the advisories on fish and the differences of opinion. One 

State wanted to write one and the other didn’t. We wanted to coordinate it and I don’t think we ever did finish it up. Everybody 

did their own thing. So some of these things that we are talking 

26

about here as being kind of easy to do, when you really get down 

to them, are not that easy. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is very difficult. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Mr. Keeney. 

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, to build on the recommendations 

provided in the GAO report, NOAA can identify five steps that 

would strengthen and speed restoration of the Great Lakes, and if 

I could, I would just like to go over each one of them very briefly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. 

Mr. KEENEY. First, leadership is needed to develop a regional 

restoration plan. Some of these things, of course, have already been 

mentioned today. 

Second, once the unified restoration plan is in place, successful 

implementation will require increased and improved coordination. 

Third, we must build on current monitoring efforts that are being 

implemented by NOAA, EPA, and the Great Lakes States in order 

to gauge the health of the Great Lakes. 

Fourth, NOAA agrees with the GAO recommendation to document success of restoration projects. In order to do this, we suggest 

creating and maintaining a project management database. 

And fifth, the fundamental requirement for the Great Lakes restoration is ecosystem-level research that will lead to scientificallybased management in the restoration decisions. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Again, I held a hearing in Cleveland on the dead zones and we talked about zebra mussels, and 

you didn’t mention the quagga mussels that are much larger and 

what they are doing. The point was, in terms of research, they are 

not sure yet what impact they are really having on the Great 

Lakes. We have had zebra mussels—in fact, when I was mayor, I 

held the first hearing on zebra mussels in the United States. It was 

1989 or 1988 that we held it. Think of that. All this time has 

passed and we still haven’t authoritatively decided what impact it 

has had on the ecology of the lake. 

Thank you very much for being here today. I really appreciate 

it. 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman, I just, in summation, want to say 

thank you for your continuing leadership on this issue, not only 

with regard to Lake Erie, but the Great Lakes in general, and offer 

GLNPO and EPA’s willingness to work with you as you move forward and try and navigate your way, if you will, through these waters. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. THORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Our next panel of witnesses, and I will introduce them as they come forward, our first panelist is Dennis 

Schornack, who is the Chairman of the United States Section of the 

International Joint Commission; the Hon. Susan Garrett, who is an 

Illinois State Senator, District 29; Chris Jones, the Director of the 

Environmental Protection Agency in the State of Ohio on behalf of 

the Council of Great Lakes Governors; and Margaret Wooster, Executive Director of Great Lakes United. 

Again, I would like to remind the witnesses that I would like 

you, to the best of your ability, to limit your remarks to 5 minutes. 

27

1The prepared statement of Mr. Schornack with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 190. 

Prior to your giving your testimony, would you stand. I would like 

to swear you in, also. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. I do. 

Ms. GARRETT. I do. 

Mr. JONES. I do. 

Ms. WOOSTER. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Let the record show that they all answered 

in the affirmative. 

Mr. Schornack. 

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS L. SCHORNACK,1 CHAIRMAN, U.S. 

SECTION, INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION 

Mr. SCHORNACK. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, for the opportunity to address the complex and vitally important issue of managing the restoration of the Great Lakes. 

I have the honor today of being accompanied on my right by Hon. 

Herb Gray, my co-chair of the International Joint Commission and 

the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. 

The operating principles of the IJC, our independence, the equality of commissioners and countries, our binational, science-based 

approach, and our objectivity, make the IJC the ideal watchdog 

over how well the countries keep their promises under the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The IJC plays a key role in assessing progress and assisting in the implementation of this agreement. 

In our Areas of Concern report, the IJC corroborated the GAO 

findings that a lack of monitoring data, lack of restoration targets, 

and even the lack of something so simple as maps of each area of 

concern, make an assessment of progress virtually impossible. 

Moreover, after 16 years, we found that the countdown to clean—

two areas cleaned up and 41 to go—is proceeding just too slowly. 

The IJC also agreed with previous reports of the GAO and its 

Canadian counterpart regarding the lack of coordination and the 

need to set clear lines of authority and accountability in order to 

properly manage the programs and assess the progress towards restoring beneficial water uses in Areas of Concern. 

When three independent agencies from two separate countries 

reach one conclusion, the result is a very powerful triangulation of 

opinion that is both legitimate and valid. Incredibly, the same 

three independent organizations also reached the same conclusions 

regarding both United States and Canadian management of alien 

invasive species in the Great Lakes, the number one threat to biodiversity in the ecosystem. Invasive species put both our ecology 

and our economy at serious risk, and frankly, no one is in charge 

of solving the problem. 

While Congress envisioned the Great Lakes National Program 

Office to be the key agency responsible for managing and coordinating restoration programs, the reality is they don’t have the 

power, the budget, or the reach to really direct programs over mulVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
28

tiple Federal agencies and multiple levels of government. They do 

a good job of coordinating work within EPA, but to fault them for 

not coordinating activities in the Commerce Department, Interior, 

or in Agriculture, is simply unfair. 

With all the concerns that have been identified today, what 

should we do? I believe the answer lies in the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement. It is the fabric that binds together our two 

great nations and the single ecosystem we share. The agreement 

has a great purpose, creating a three-legged stool that supports an 

ecosystem approach to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the Great Lakes. What we need now is 

to breathe new life into the agreement to bring it into the 21st 

Century and to refocus national and international attention and action on restoring the greatness to the Great Lakes. 

While the agreement calls for a government review every 6 

years, it was last updated in 1987, some 16 years ago. Perhaps the 

time has come to reexamine the agreement, bring it in line with 

state-of-the-art science, and address contemporary ecological challenges. 

Questions such a review must answer include, is there a proper 

balance across the goals of physical, chemical, and biological integrity? Are agencies organized and managed to achieve these goals? 

Are there new technologies and new ways of thinking that could 

speed the pace of restoration? And who should monitor compliance 

and how? 

For example, the agreement commits the United States and Canada to a coordinated monitoring and surveillance program to assess 

compliance, measure progress towards specific objectives, and identify emerging concerns. However, as the GAO report notes, in 1987, 

this responsibility was shifted away from the IJC into the EPA and 

Environment Canada. It has subsequently languished for lack of 

commitment and resources. As a result, the IJC, the independent 

watchdog, is dependent upon the very government programs that 

we evaluate for the data upon which to evaluate them. 

So I commend you, Chairman Voinovich, and the cosponsors of 

S. 1398 for recognizing this unfulfilled promise in the agreement 

and for taking action to do something about it. I caution you, however, to preserve the independence of the IJC and to make sure 

that implementation of this Act will provide us the data and the 

tools necessary to do our job and to do it right. 

I also believe that updating the agreement could form the basis 

for a major binational Great Lakes initiative. Binational and bipartisan momentum for such an initiative is clearly growing and many 

organizations already have plans that reflect the consensus that 

something significant must be done. We don’t need to create new 

and competing agencies, but rather give the Great Lakes National 

Program Office the power, the authority, and the budget they need 

to coordinate, and indeed, to direct work across Federal agencies 

and between the United States and Canada. 

And permit me to be so bold as to suggest that this time, the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement could be submitted to the 

Senate for ratification, to strengthen it and to give it treaty status, 

making sure that promises made in writing become promises kept 

in action. 

29

1The prepared statement of Ms. Garrett appears in the Appendix on page 228. 

Thank you, and that concludes my remarks, and I ask that they 

be submitted for the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Ms. Garrett. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. SUSAN GARRETT,1 ILLINOIS STATE 

SENATOR, DISTRICT 29

Ms. GARRETT. Good morning, Senators Voinovich and Durbin. It 

is an honor to testify before the Subcommittee today. Thank you 

for the invitation to share my views on the critical issue of the 

Great Lakes restoration management. 

First, I would like to talk about the State and local government 

perspective. In 2002, I was elected to the Illinois State Senate to 

represent Legislative District 29. Before that, I served in the Illinois State General Assembly for two terms, representing Congressional District 59. Both of these districts include communities directly on the shore of Lake Michigan, and all of the communities 

I have represented are in a close proximity to a local lakefront recreational area. 

As a public official, I know how much pride my constituents take 

in Lake Michigan. It is a place where families go to enjoy recreational activities, like swimming and boating, the source of our 

drinking water, and an icon and resource for a variety of local and 

regional businesses. 

Part of my role as State Senator is to collaborate with other 

State and local officials in critical issues in my district. Collaboration and coordination is the key to successfully strengthening our 

communities. 

The GAO report makes several critical points, including the need 

for enhanced coordination and better data collection and monitoring. However, while the report discusses at length the role of 

Federal agencies, governors, and other organizations, it does not go 

in depth regarding the role of other public officials, including State 

legislators and municipal officials. Today, I would like to share my 

perspective as a local official representing a district with very tangible ties to Lake Michigan in order to aid the findings of the GAO 

report. 

From a local perspective, Great Lakes restoration is an environment issue, but it is also an economic, educational, public health, 

and equity issue. My constituents value environmental protection 

efforts because they want to see their children and grandchildren 

enjoy Lake Michigan just as they have. The ecological system of the 

Great Lakes is home to 250 species of fish and several protected 

coastal areas and other public lands. We need to protect this ecological system from environmental threats, including invasive species, pollution, and habitat destruction. 

Today, I want to tell you about one of the clearest challenges we 

face on the Illinois side of Office of Management and Budget, high 

E. coli contamination. The presence of the harmful E. coli bacteria 

requires regular and frequent beach closings in order to protect 

public health. As I am sure the Subcommittee will agree, this is not 

acceptable. My constituents consider Lake Michigan our most valuable natural resource. We can no longer allow for our beaches to 

30

be closed so often during the summer months with any real understanding as to what is causing these extremely high bacteria levels. 

Some have claimed that sea gulls are the culprit of this high E. 

coli contamination. Others say raccoons and deer. Human sewage 

is another serious consideration. Locally, I have established a 

Clean Water Trust Fund that will provide the funding, much of 

which is coming from the grassroots, to do necessary testing that 

will determine the cause or causes of the E. coli contamination. The 

objective is to independently raise approximately $25,000 to cover 

the costs of an E. coli water sample study to determine whether sea 

gulls, deer, raccoons, human sewage, or a combination of all these 

elements are leaving harmful contaminants in Lake Michigan. 

While we must work together throughout the Great Lakes region, we must not ignore the fact that a lot of problems need local 

involvement and localized solutions. This is why we are working 

with several State and local entities, including the Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 

Lake County Health Department, Lake Michigan Federation, businesses such as Baxter’s, Chicago Medical School, and two independent scientists to pursue this study. This broad-based group of 

stakeholders indicates the strong level of local interest and expertise in these issues, but also highlights how important it is to coordinate and not duplicate efforts. 

Since embarking on this research effort, we have received Emails and letters asking for more information from other communities and States, such as Michigan. These kinds of responses indicate a clear need for local, State, and Federal Government to be 

more proactive in understanding the water quality of Lake Michigan, as well as the other Great Lakes, and to map out a plan to 

reverse the current trend of pollutants continually threatening our 

Great Lakes. It also shows the need for a more comprehensive approach to collecting and understanding environmental data and indicators. 

The recommendations that I would suggest for improving Great 

Lakes restoration management, I would say that one of the most 

important things is to have a central office to go to with Great 

Lakes concerns and questions. We need a ‘‘go to’’ person, a one-stop 

shopping place where we can assess the resources and programs 

that can help us work together to restore the Great Lakes. 

For this reason, I am especially interested in the opportunity for 

the Great Lakes National Program Office to provide coordinated efforts on the issue of water quality, which is part of the DeWineLevin proposed legislation that I understand the Chairman and 

Ranking Member support. It is critical to have a strategic, collaborative approach to improving the water quality of our Great Lakes. 

In addition, I support the establishment of an advisory board, another piece of the Senate and House legislation, which will help 

bring all the stakeholders together to plan for the future of our 

Great Lakes. It is especially critical to engage the participation of 

mayors and other public officials on this board and I am happy to 

be here today with the Village President of Lake Bluff, Thomas 

Skinner. Local citizens’ groups and other forums for public participation are also essential. 

31

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the Appendix on page 233. 

I want to thank you for your time and I will also submit my testimony for the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER JONES,1 DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE OF OHIO, ON BEHALF 

OF THE COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES GOVERNORS 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Voinovich and Senator Durbin, 

for allowing me to appear on behalf of Governor Bob Taft representing the Council of Great Lakes Governors on the important 

topic of restoring one of the world’s most important ecological treasures, the Great Lakes. 

The region’s governors are pleased with the leadership Congress 

has shown in recognizing the critical importance of the Great 

Lakes and the pressing need to restore and safeguard them for 

generations to come. We particularly commend Senators DeWine 

and Levin for the introduction of their restoration bill this week 

and the Members of this Subcommittee who are cosponsors. 

The Great Lakes Governors recognize the need for an overarching plan that identifies specific restoration goals, establishes 

priorities, specifies measures of success, and serves as a coordinating focus for the many Federal, State, and local programs directed at Great Lakes restoration. Toward that end, the Council 

began working on the Great Lakes Priorities Project in 2001. The 

goal of the project is to develop such a plan in consultation with 

the Great Lakes mayors and other stakeholders. With the plan 

serving as both a scientific foundation and a policy funding consensus, the Great Lakes community can work with Congress to 

identify and procure the funding necessary to fully achieve its 

goals. 

We are somewhat behind the original schedule we set for ourselves, as five newly-elected governors in the Great Lakes States 

have needed time to familiarize themselves with the restoration 

programs in their States and the aims of the Council to coordinate 

a basin-wide approach. Recent conversations between Governor 

Taft and several other Great Lakes Governors, however, confirm 

the joint purpose and resolve of the Council. In fact, we are near 

to having a final set of priorities for the Great Lakes restoration. 

Our priorities will reflect broad goals, such as the protection of 

human health, restoration of habitat, and control of invasive species. 

The Council believes that the bills now pending in the House and 

Senate offer an opportunity to focus much-needed financial resources on these priority needs. At the same time, the governors 

wish to be clear that it is likely that restoration costs for the national treasure that is the Great Lakes ecosystem could and probably will run well beyond $6 billion. A more precise figure cannot 

be arrived at absent the development of a comprehensive plan. 

What is important in the near term is continuing the focus on 

restoration efforts, and the DeWine-Levin bill does just that. Both 

States and the Federal Government have made substantial investVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
32

ments in this important resource and we want to expand and continue that good work. 

The Council has already demonstrated its commitment to collaboratively address Great Lakes issues on a regionwide scale 

through Annex 2001, an amendment to the Great Lakes Charter 

that addresses water diversions and in-basin consumptive uses 

from the Great Lakes. The Council is well on the way to meeting 

the Annex 3-year time line for development of binding agreements, 

which will include a decisionmaking standard to guide water withdrawals. This will also achieve the first of the governors’ priorities. 

The recent GAO report notes that States devoted nearly $1 billion in the time period reviewed to Great Lakes-specific projects, 

versus $745 million spent by Federal agencies and the Corps of Engineers together. Illinois, for example, has spent $6 million to restore coastal habitats. Michigan has committed $25 million to sediment remediation, while Minnesota spends $1.2 million each year 

to control invasive species. New York has devoted approximately 

$22 million to open space preservation projects in the Great Lakes 

basin, and in Ohio, we have directed $25 million to conservation 

projects in the Lake Erie basin. 

The region’s governors have individually and collectively demonstrated the will and the leadership to invest in a wide range of 

restoration projects and stand ready to pull together a region-wide 

plan that can guide further progress. 

A necessary component of the plan will be environmental indicators by which progress can be measured, and I know that you have 

spoken of the need for a set of indicators for all the Great Lakes, 

Senator Voinovich, similar to the Lake Erie Index that you developed while you were Ohio Governor. 

The GAO report correctly notes that the development of indicators has been the purpose of SOLEC over the past several years 

and that a set of indicators has not been finalized. No one should 

underestimate what a difficult task this is, especially given the diversity and geographic expanse of the Great Lakes basin. Nevertheless, it is imperative that this effort move forward more expeditiously than has been the case to date, and a good system of indicators will form the basis of both accountability and measurement of 

success. 

The governors find much to commend in the GAO report and 

agree with its primary conclusion that the multitude of programs 

directed at the Great Lakes need to be better coordinated and focused. However, the Council disagrees with its recommendation 

that the restoration efforts be directed by GLNPO. Clearly, GLNPO 

has an important role to play, particularly with regard to the binational aspects of Great Lakes restoration. Other existing Great 

Lakes organizations and stakeholders are also key players. For example, the Great Lakes Commission can contribute valuable scientific and technical expertise. But we believe that it is the role of 

the region’s governors to establish policy priorities in consultation 

with local governments and other stakeholders and to plan specific 

activities to achieve those priorities. 

Thank you very much for the time, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Wooster. 

33

1The prepared statement of Ms. Wooster appears in the Appendix on page 237. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET WOOSTER,1 EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES UNITED 

Ms. WOOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee 

Members, for inviting Great Lakes United to testify today on government management in the context of Great Lakes ecosystem restoration. We applaud the leadership of the Great Lakes Task Force 

in both the House and Senate in bringing this issue to the fore and 

we support these issues to promote Great Lakes restoration and 

look forward to working with you to make them happen. I also 

want to commend the GAO study, which we thought was excellent. 

Great Lakes United is an international coalition of individuals 

and over 170 organizations representing hundreds of thousands of 

individuals from the eight Great Lakes States, two Canadian provinces, and tribal territories within the Great Lakes region. Our 

main constituents are environmental organizations, like National 

Wildlife Federation, Lake Michigan Federation, Sierra Club; conservation organizations like Trout Unlimited; and labor groups, 

like Canadian Auto Workers and United Auto Workers. We work 

with all of them at the local, regional, and international level on 

projects and policies to protect and restore the health of the ecosystem. 

To that end, over the past 2 years, Great Lakes United coordinated 30 Great Lakes groups in the creation of a citizens’ action 

agenda, a summary of which, The Great Lakes Green Book, is over 

on the table and is presented with this testimony. It can also be 

found on our website at www.glu.org. 

Several of these groups that I mentioned, including National 

Wildlife Federation, Lake Michigan Federation, Sierra Club, and a 

few others, had input into the testimony that I am reading today. 

I am going to skip forward. The GAO report rightly points out 

that we need an overarching strategy that clearly defines agency 

roles and priority funding for Great Lakes restoration. We would 

like to elaborate on four major needs raised in the report. These 

are funding, agency coordination, public involvement, and finally, 

one that isn’t really raised in the report but we feel is really important, the need to go beyond existing policies and programs. 

First, I will talk about funding. For at least the past decade, 

there has been a lack of funding for even the most basic protection 

and restoration efforts, like monitoring and cleanup, as the GAO 

report notes. For example, the IJC estimates it will cost $7.4 billion 

to clean up just the U.S. Areas of Concern, those 31 hot spots in 

the United States or shared with Canada. 

Congress recently approved the Great Lakes Legacy Act, authorizing $53 million per year for 5 years for sediment cleanup, which 

we hoped would restart cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes. But the 

funding proposed in the 2004 budget was only about one-third of 

that, or 0.2 percent of the total estimated cost. 

My point here is not to be ungrateful. Fifteen million to help restart sediment cleanup efforts is a good beginning. But my point 

here is to really point out the discrepancy between the amount and 

the need. 

34

We need a dedicated revenue stream over a period of at least 10 

years sufficient to complete the job, the job of sediment cleanup. 

Every year we wait makes the job harder and costlier and prolongs 

a major source of ecosystem damage. 

Next, coordination. At this point in time, there is no one Federal 

agency and no consortium of State agencies with the capacity to develop and oversee a Great Lakes restoration initiative. We need an 

independent body which defines goals, targets, and time lines and 

accordingly prioritizes the projects that should be funded. This 

body should be led by the region’s representatives, Federal, State, 

local, and tribal, with strong citizen involvement, strong public accountability in terms of meeting its charge, and a mechanism for 

cross-border coordination. It should define criteria for funding 

projects to help leverage restoration goals. 

I want to just comment on that to say that S. 1398, with its 

Great Lakes Advisory Board led by the States and cities and tribes 

in the region, and then with its Federal agency coordinating committee led by GLNPO, is a beginning, we think, of a very good 

model for how this coordination should happen. 

Public involvement—there must be a strong public role in Great 

Lakes protection and restoration. The public must be represented 

on any advisory body, Federal or State, that determines a restoration plan and priorities for fundable projects. There should also be 

opportunity for wide public comment on restoration plans at strategic points in their development. In other words, inclusion of 

groups like Great Lakes United and the others in this process is 

important to us, but also we think we are going to need hearings 

along the way so that the wider public in the Great Lakes has a 

chance to contribute to the development of plans for Great Lakes 

restoration. 

Finally, policy change. This is something we haven’t talked 

about, but we feel that—and our groups felt in creating a citizens’ 

agenda for the Great Lakes that this was very important. There 

are a number of policy and institutional changes that are critical. 

I will offer two examples. 

One, we need to extend the focus of our strategies beyond reacting to ecosystem harm to proactive initiatives. For example, toxic 

reduction strategies must include support for policies and programs 

that create alternative choices in Great Lakes communities, such 

as incentives for resource conservation, green energy, and pollution 

prevention. 

Two, we need to carefully appraise the mandates of existing institutions with the greatest influence on Great Lakes waters, such 

as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who accounted for almost 

half the U.S. Federal environmental spending in the Great Lakes 

over the past 10 years, according to the GAO report. The Corps’ 

traditional mandate has been to protect and enhance private property, not ecosystems. In fact, improvements in the name of flood 

control, navigation, and shoreline hardening are usually directly 

detrimental to ecosystem health. Therefore, it is important that if 

agencies like the Corps have a role in Great Lakes restoration, that 

it be tightly defined and publicly accountable. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Wooster. 

35

As I mentioned earlier, your entire statements will be included 

in the record and some of us will have questions that we want to 

direct to you and we would appreciate your answering them in 

writing. 

Senator Garrett, you mentioned the E. coli problem, and I really 

wasn’t aware that there was that much increase of it along the 

Great Lakes. You are trying to do something in your own community to determine it. First of all, are you aware of the Great Lakes 

Protection Fund? 

Ms. GARRETT. To a certain extent, but I have reached out to 

many organizations and government entities and the ones that we 

have put on our panel are the ones who have been the most responsive. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, because we, when I was governor, the 

Great Lakes Council of Governors set up a $100 million endowment 

for——

Ms. GARRETT. Maybe I will be calling them. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. For the research—yes, and they 

are right in Chicago. They give grants to various organizations to 

deal with various problems that confront the Great Lakes, and it 

seems to me that if this is a problem that is universal, that they 

ought to be willing to put some money into helping you get the research done. 

The other thing is, are there Federal agencies that are involved 

right now in trying to look at that same issue? 

Ms. GARRETT. The Lake Michigan Federation provided me with 

some charts, which I will leave, but what the charts demonstrate 

is that the E. coli levels along our beaches are continually going up 

at a fairly frequent level and this is very disturbing information. 

And to the point of bringing in local, Federal, and State agencies, 

it is within our own communities that we have made the decision 

to do this testing and there has been resistance. So I think it is 

important to note that, that it may not have been able to happen 

through some of these other groups that you have been talking 

about. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, you have got the Great Lakes National 

Program Office that is in Chicago. 

Ms. GARRETT. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you contacted them about that issue 

and are they doing anything about it? 

Ms. GARRETT. We have not contacted them. We have stayed 

with—currently, we are working with the Lake Michigan Federation, the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Lake County Health Department, and we 

have received funding. We clearly are almost to where we need to 

be. 

But the fact of the matter is, I wasn’t sure who to reach out to, 

and in some cases, it was a struggle when I did reach out, and people were in agreement—the constituents, my constituents, want to 

see this happen. But I guess my point, and I want to make this 

clear, is that there is resistance to this because no one community 

wants to admit that there may be human sewage from their community going into the lake, and I think that if they understood that 

there were dollars that will help upgrade those sewer systems or 

36

whatever may be the problem, that we need to find those dollars. 

But first, we have to understand what is causing the high E. coli 

levels. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But it gets back to if you had one ‘‘orchestra 

leader’’ that knew what all the organizations were doing and where 

the problems were and where the funding sources were, that might 

be very helpful to everybody, because your problem is the same as, 

I assume, a lot of other places. I understand that they are afraid 

to do it because that gets back to what Ms. Wooster had to say, 

and that it is the funding. 

One of the things that we have struggled with in the Environment and Public Works Committee was increasing the amount of 

money for the State Revolving Loan Fund for Clean Water. It is 

not there. We are mandating all kinds of things for local governments and they don’t have the resources to deal with them. So that 

is another aspect of this, looking at the big picture. 

Do you think that your local organizations would be—and this is 

the same question I would like to ask Chris Jones—comfortable 

with working with the Great Lakes National Program Office. I 

mean, what do you think about them being kind of the host or the 

orchestra leader in terms of putting this all together? 

Ms. GARRETT. I personally like that idea, because I think while 

the EPA does a wonderful job, I think this issue is specific to the 

Great Lakes. We have different issues associated with the Great 

Lakes, and an organization that fully understands those problems 

will be willing to listen and understand how to address those concerns is a group I would personally like to work with. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We talked about something called SOLEC, 

the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, which has been created by the BEC. I think, Dennis, you said something about the 

fact that they are not moving. Who is responsible for SOLEC? They 

are to be developing, what, some standards to assess the indicators 

in terms of water quality. Who is in charge and where is the money 

coming from to fund them? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. Well, I will give that a try, Senator. The Binational Executive Committee, the BEC, as you have named it, consists of leadership by the Environmental Protection Agency of the 

United States and co-chaired with Environment Canada. They are 

in the process of identifying indicators of ecosystem health, and it 

has been—they do this through a matter of a series of conferences——

Senator VOINOVICH. But do they do that in terms of the IJC? Are 

you the ones that have orchestrated this agreement and do they 

kind of respond to you, or——

Mr. SCHORNACK. We have motivated and urged the development 

and implementation of indicators and have been a party to that 

process going on for 9 years. Currently, we have about 80 indicators, but we only have data to partially support 33 of them, and 

there are things like the levels of PCBs in coho salmon, the numbers of beaches closed, and the quality of the drinking water. 

Those are the top three indicators that we think SOLEC ought 

to be focusing on, is making sure that the data is there, because 

these are the three top things the public cares about. Are the 

beaches open for swimming? Are the fish safe to eat and is the 

37

water safe to drink? We would like to see them, as a matter of advice, develop the data and the testing, the monitoring programs to 

substantiate those three indicators first before moving on to the 

other 77. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. I have some more questions on that, but 

first, Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Garrett, thank you for being here. I wanted to make sure you were invited to be part of the panel because I know you have a special perspective on this, since, I think, you have lived most of your life 

near Lake Michigan and certainly have represented Legislative and 

Senatorial districts on Lake Michigan. 

I think Senator Voinovich has given us a good idea about going 

after some resources to deal with some Illinois challenges, and perhaps if we drop his name we will be more successful in that effort. 

[Laughter.] 

We certainly will try to do that. But I think it really tells a story that you are trying to gather together $25,000 to do some testing 

and that you are struggling to find a source for that small amount, 

relatively small amount by even State standards, let alone Federal 

standards. It also reinforces the conclusion of the GAO that we just 

aren’t coordinating this well enough. We are not sharing enough information so that people know exactly where to go to try to get a 

good community response to this. So I think this legislation moves 

us in the right direction, so thank you for being with us today. 

Ms. Wooster, you talked about money, and that is always a great 

topic in this town, and the fact that we haven’t come up with 

much. We have done a lot of talking about this, but we haven’t 

come up with much money. If I recall your testimony here, you said 

that the International Joint Commission identified 31 toxic hot 

spots with an estimated cleanup cost of $7.4 billion. If I understand 

you correctly, despite that estimated cleanup cost, Congress’s proposed 2004 budget proposes, what, $16, $17, $18——

Ms. WOOSTER. I think it is $15 million. 

Senator DURBIN [continuing]. Fifteen million out of a $7.4 billion 

need just for those hot spots, as they were identified. 

This bill that we are talking about supporting and want to see passed, if I understand it, authorizes about $6 billion, which is certainly a move in the right direction, but in comparison, the Everglades bill has $14 billion included. Now, I don’t want to suggest 

that our challenge is as great as theirs. We need to justify every 

dollar that we request. But I think your figures really tell the 

story. If we are not going to invest the money once we have identified the problem, then we are going to have a wonderful unread report when this is all over instead of an action plan to do something, 

and I don’t want to see that occur. I guess that is, from your organization viewpoint, your thought, as well. 

Ms. WOOSTER. Yes. We have got the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world here and we don’t have investment nearly commensurate with its importance. We think people are beginning to 

understand the importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem as the 

largest freshwater ecosystem on earth, but we still haven’t got the 

funding there to support its protection and restoration. So yes, the 

$4 billion, or $6 billion, I should say, is a very great improvement 

38

and it is probably not all that will be needed to do the job, but it 

is a very great start. 

Senator DURBIN. We are facing record deficits now, as was reported yesterday, and I know the States are going through the 

same. Senator Garrett has just finished a legislative session and I 

assume that—I hope that this area wasn’t cut, but did our State 

of Illinois have to reduce any of its State funds that would have 

been dedicated for some of our discussion purposes here? 

Ms. GARRETT. I do not think so, and I also know that the Lieutenant Governor has set up his own Clean Water Trust Fund. I 

think we are going to be talking about drinking water and other 

things that will be subsidized through that fund. 

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

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

One of the questions I have is that the Great Lakes National 

Program Office, and Chris, maybe you could answer this, is that—

all of the Great Lakes are not in just Region V, are they? 

Mr. JONES. No, Mr. Chairman. There are six States in Region V. 

There are eight States and two provinces that are on the Great 

Lakes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So it is Region V and what is the other regions? 

Mr. JONES. Regions II and III are also in the Great Lakes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you have Regions V, III, and II, but the 

Great Lakes National Program Office has been charged with dealing with all of the Great Lakes. Is there a jurisdictional problem 

there? At least it is all in that basket. 

Mr. Schornack, what kind of relationship do you have with the 

Great Lakes National Program Office right now, the International 

Joint Commission? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. Well, I would consider it a very productive relationship and one that—we rely upon the Great Lakes National Program Office for much of the data that we use to do our assessing 

function, our sort of independent watchdog function, on how well 

the two governments implement the terms and conditions of the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and that works very fine for 

programs that are under EPA’s jurisdiction. But it gets less effective, however, when we are looking at things like habitat loss, 

where we have to cut across different Federal agencies. That is 

where we have some difficulty, I think, getting information. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you have got the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement and you indicated that it hasn’t been updated 

since 1987, is that right? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. That is right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think that would be a useful document? Does that include criteria for various levels of things——

Mr. SCHORNACK. Yes, sir, it does. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. Like the indicators in terms of 

these kinds of things, the water quality, pollution sources, and so 

on and so forth? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. It does. There are, in fact, some 64 different 

specific objectives for the amount of some 46 different classes of 

39

chemical substance in the open water column and those specific objectives have to be met and things have to be monitored. 

I think the one point I was trying to make in sort of suggesting 

the notion of a treaty is that if—the Water Quality Agreement calls 

for a surveillance and monitoring program, but it is an agreement. 

It is a gentlemen’s handshake that has moral authority, not the 

legal authority of a treaty. And if this were part of a treaty, it 

would actually be a matter of law. It would be done. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So the reason why you think that you would 

want to have that Water Quality Agreement updated, that it could 

act as the consensus of what it is that both the U.S. and Canadian 

Government would want as far as indicators of what you would be 

measuring? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. Exactly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That would be your consensus——

Mr. SCHORNACK. Right. There isn’t——

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. So the IJC fundamentally, then, 

is the body that is charged with looking after the Great Lakes between the United States and Canada, is that correct? 

Mr. SCHORNACK. That is correct, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And then Mr. Gray works with you and he 

is with the Canadian Federal Government. 

Mr. SCHORNACK. That is right, and we operate as a unitary and 

joint body. We reach our decisions by consensus and do joint fact 

finding as our sort of vehicle for arriving at the facts. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Jones, what is the Council of Great 

Lakes Governors, which is made of all the governors in the Great 

Lakes States, opinion of this legislation that we have? How would 

you feel about working with, and what is your relationship with, 

the Great Lakes National Program Office? 

Mr. JONES. Senator, the Great Lakes Governors, in a sense, 

think that there are different functions. We believe that it should 

be the governors of the Great Lakes States that set the 

prioritization for a plan. Earlier, with the earlier panel, you talked 

about the indices that we have in Ohio. What we did was build off 

the index that was released in 1998, and in 2000, we released the 

Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan, which takes the index 

measurements and specifically assigns—there are 84 specific tasks 

that match up with various indices and there is a State agency responsible for implementing that specific task. We are now in the 

process, now that we have the initial index and the restoration——

Senator VOINOVICH. Who are you talking about now? You are 

talking about——

Mr. JONES. This is the State of Ohio. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. 

Mr. JONES. But I think it sets a framework that I think is important, because now we are going back for the second round to look 

at the index that was completed in 1998. So we have to measure 

again. But critically important is the overarching plan. The overarching plan has to be built on the data that you collect and it has 

to be built upon the priorities that you set. 

We speak of the Great Lakes. There are fairly significant differences between the Great Lakes and the Everglades. For example, the Everglades is essentially one ecosystem in one State. Here, 

40

you have a number of very different ecosystems in a number of different States, three different EPA Regions, and two Canadian provinces. So the complexities are that much more there and it is that 

much more important to get the type of local input that you are 

well able to do through the governors, through the State Government, reaching out. 

We have already been in discussion with the Great Lakes mayors, and one of the things we did in Ohio was—once we had the 

index, we went out and did 16 different focus groups across the 

lake, from Ashtabula to Toledo, to get input on what are the significant things you want us to measure to be able to answer the 

question. As Mr. Schornack says, what people want to know is, can 

I drink the water? Can I swim? So it is that process of building the 

plan and prioritizing your work and then measuring the work that 

you do to produce results at the end. 

I guess I see the GLNPO not so much as directing, but in coordinating, perhaps, and being the central point of focus, but I really 

think the States need to drive the prioritization because the States 

are going to be much more sensitive to, for example, the local concern about E. coli, which runs the gamut—I mean, all of the Great 

Lakes have that issue in one form or another, but there may be a 

local specific need to address. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The problem is, and that is one of the things 

that I am talking about, how do you organize this thing. That is 

going to take a lot of brainstorming, a lot of people sitting down. 

I suggested to Ms. Wooster that maybe we ought to have a day 

where we get all the groups together and just start talking about 

how would you organize this thing, and the governors want to do 

this. 

But you know and I know that I happen to be really interested 

in Lake Erie because it was my baby when I was in the State legislature and I followed it. A lot of governors really aren’t that concerned about their Great Lake, whatever it is. It is not the driving 

factor. Maybe in Illinois, but there are some other places, maybe 

New York—and then you get new governors in, and they are so 

busy right now just trying to stay above water in terms of their finances that the last thing they are thinking about probably is 

whatever Great Lake they are responsible for. 

So you need some kind of a continuing effort that is in place to 

keep this going, and I would really be interested in what the Council of Great Lakes Governors would say about—is this the same 

thing with, like, the IJC? When I was there, we would invite the 

premiers down to be involved with us when we were doing these 

things. I am sure that the premiers have been involved now in, 

what do we call it, the withdrawal, what is the name of that? 

Mr. JONES. The Annex 2000. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The Annex 2000. I am sure you are consulting with the premiers involved in that. But, Dennis, I don’t 

think we went to the IJC and maybe we should have done that as 

kind of saying, you are the international group. How do we interface with you in terms of this? 

I am just saying that to figure out how all this is to get done is 

going to be a real challenge. Would the governors not be comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Dec 01, 2003 Jkt 088934 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88934.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
41

fortable if the Great Lakes Office were the one that would be the 

kind of orchestra leader and coordinator of this thing? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the way I understand the legislation, 

I think it is a good first step because it sets up an advisory board 

and a Federal coordinating agency, and I think the manner in 

which you establish the advisory board and the level of input that 

board has can meet the concerns of the governors in terms of providing our prioritization, the governors’ prioritization of the work 

that needs to be done and at the same time allow the Federal agency to coordinate it. 

I think the framework with this bill, and I think why it is so encouraging to see this legislation, is there to do what you say, and 

it is, I mean, just in the State of Ohio, we have the Lake Erie Commission to try to coordinate the activities of six different State 

agencies for our part of one of the Great Lakes. 

So it is certainly not a simple task, but I think perhaps what difference there is really seems to be a tremendous amount of momentum to move forward with this. I think one of the things you have 

heard this morning from a lot of different people is not nay-saying 

and negative, but we are all here to try to make this work and your 

leadership and Senators DeWine and Levin and the Members of 

the Subcommittee, I think that is what can help us put this giant 

group of people together. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is going to be a major effort, but we 

all agree that it is—we need a symbiotic relationship and the more 

we can cooperate then the better off we will be to figure out how 

to get this done. 

Dennis Schornack was saying about the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement needing to be updated. It seems to me that if 

you did that and got involved in it, that could be the standard, in 

other words, instead of having you do your thing and then the governors come along and say, well, we are going to do something else, 

and then the EPA comes up—we would kind of agree and say, they 

are working on it. They have got the resources and they have got 

to do it. 

The other thing that I think when talking about money is that—

I am very much involved in the Everglades—is that it is a 50–50 

proposition, as you know, in terms of funding. So if you went ahead 

and you started investing money, you would have to have priorities 

about where are we going to put the money and then is there going 

to be some State participation in it or is this just going to be all 

the Federal Government. That would have to be sorted out. 

Those are questions that are very important, and getting back 

also to some of the stuff that is just basic Federal responsibility. 

We talk about sewers and Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water. 

There is a big area here where there is a lot more effort that has 

to be made. There are certain systemic things that are fundamental to restoration of the Great Lakes and that has got a lot to 

do with just some other Federal programs that need to be looked 

at and folded in, as well as, I am sure, in terms of Canada and 

some of what they have got to do. 

Does anyone else have any other comments before we close this 

hearing, adjourn it? 

[No response.] 

42

Senator VOINOVICH. I really thank you very much for coming and 

I am excited about the prospects. You will be hearing more from 

us and certainly you will be getting some questions from me. 

Thank you very much. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 


88934.001
44


88934.002
45


88934.003
46


88934.004
47


88934.005
48


88934.006
49


88934.007
50


88934.008
51


88934.009
52


88934.010
53


88934.011
54


88934.012
55


88934.013
56


88934.014
57


88934.015
58


88934.016
59


88934.017
60


88934.018
61


88934.019
62


88934.020
63


88934.021
64


88934.022
65


88934.023
66


88934.024
67


88934.025
68


88934.026
69


88934.027
70


88934.028
71


88934.029
72


88934.030
73


88934.031
74


88934.032
75


88934.033
76


88934.034
77


88934.035
78


88934.036
79


88934.037
80


88934.038
81


88934.039
82


88934.040
83


88934.041
84


88934.042
85


88934.043
86


88934.044
87


88934.045
88


88934.046
89


88934.047
90


88934.048
91


88934.049
92


88934.050
93


88934.051
94


88934.052
95


88934.053
96


88934.054
97


88934.055
98


88934.056
99


88934.057
100


88934.058
101


88934.059
102


88934.060
103


88934.061
104


88934.062
105


88934.063
106


88934.064
107


88934.065
108


88934.066
109


88934.067
110


88934.068
111


88934.069
112


88934.070
113


88934.071
114


88934.072
115


88934.073
116


88934.074
117


88934.075
118


88934.076
119


88934.077
120


88934.078
121


88934.079
122


88934.080
123


88934.081
124


88934.082
125


88934.083
126


88934.084
127


88934.085
128


88934.086
129


88934.087
130


88934.088
131


88934.089
132


88934.090
133


88934.091
134


88934.092
135


88934.093
136


88934.094
137


88934.095
138


88934.096
139


88934.097
140


88934.098
141


88934.099
142


88934.100
143


88934.101
144


88934.102
145


88934.103
146


88934.104
147


88934.105
148


88934.106
149


88934.107
150


88934.108
151


88934.109
152


88934.110
153


88934.111
154


88934.112
155


88934.113
156


88934.114
157


88934.115
158


88934.116
159


88934.117
160


88934.118
161


88934.119
162


88934.120
163


88934.121
164


88934.122
165


88934.123
166


88934.124
167


88934.125
168


88934.126
169


88934.127
170


88934.128
171


88934.129
172


88934.130
173


88934.131
174


88934.132
175


88934.133
176


88934.134
177


88934.135
178


88934.136
179


88934.137
180


88934.138
181


88934.139
182


88934.140
183


88934.141
184


88934.142
185


88934.143
186


88934.144
187


88934.145
188


88934.146
189


88934.147
190


88934.148
191


88934.149
192


88934.150
193


88934.151
194


88934.152
195


88934.153
196


88934.154
197


88934.155
198


88934.156
199


88934.157
200


88934.158
201


88934.159
202


88934.160
203


88934.161
204


88934.162
205


88934.163
206


88934.164
207


88934.165
208


88934.166
209


88934.167
210


88934.168
211


88934.169
212


88934.170
213


88934.171
214


88934.172
215


88934.173
216


88934.174
217


88934.175
218


88934.176
219


88934.177
220


88934.178
221


88934.179
222


88934.180
223


88934.181
224


88934.182
225


88934.183
226


88934.184
227


88934.185
228


88934.186
229


88934.187
230


88934.188
231


88934.189
232


88934.190
233


88934.191
234


88934.192
235


88934.193
236


88934.194
237


88934.195
238


88934.196
239


88934.197
240


88934.198
241


88934.199
242


88934.200
243


88934.201
244


88934.202
245


88934.203
246


88934.204
247


88934.205
248


88934.206
249


88934.207
250


88934.208
251


88934.209
252


88934.210
253


88934.211
254


88934.212
255


88934.213
256


88934.214
257


88934.215
258


88934.216
259


88934.217
260


88934.218
261


88934.219
262


88934.220
263


88934.221
264


88934.222
265


88934.223
266


88934.224
267


88934.225
268


88934.226
269


88934.227
270


88934.228
271


88934.229
272


88934.230
273


88934.231
274


88934.232
275


88934.233
276


88934.234
277


88934.235
278


88934.236
279


88934.237
280


88934.238
281


88934.239
282


88934.240
283


88934.241
284


88934.242
285


88934.243
286

Question for Mr. Chris Jones 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director 

for the Council of Great Lakes Governors

Q. As I stated during the hearing, I think indicators for all of the 

Great Lakes are a very important piece to protecting and restoring 

them. However, until we get this done, we need to a least continue 

the work we started in 1998 with the release of the Lake Erie Water 

Quality Index. What monitoring are we doing? When will the Index 

be updated? What do you expect will be the results—for example, 

has Lake Erie improved since 1998?

As you know, I recently wrote the Council of Great Lakes Governors urging them to take the lead in developing a comprehensive 

restoration plan for the Great Lakes and to complete their work on 

the Annex by the established deadline of June 2004. When can we 

expect to receive the Council’s priorities for restoration? Does the 

Council expect to make the deadline for the Annex?

A. The Council hopes to make draft priorities available for public comment 

this September. The Water Management Prospect is on schedule to meet 

the three-year timeline in the Annex. 

Æ