U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–275 PDF 2016

THE GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE: A 

REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES 

IN RESTORING THE GREAT LAKES 

(114–27) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Chris Korleski, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 5 

Jose Alfredo Go ́mez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 5 

Tony Kramer, Acting Regional Conservationist, Northeast Region, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service .......................................................................... 5 

PANEL 2 

Jon W. Allan, Chair, Great Lakes Commission .................................................... 27 

Hon. John Dickert, Mayor, City of Racine, Wisconsin .......................................... 27 

Ed Wolking, Jr., Executive Director, Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition .. 27 

Douglas R. Busdeker, Director, Ohio AgriBusiness Association .......................... 27 

Chad W. Lord, Policy Director, Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition ... 27 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Chris Korleski .......................................................................................................... 50 

Jose Alfredo Go ́mez ................................................................................................. 58 

Tony Kramer ............................................................................................................ 80 

Jon W. Allan ............................................................................................................. 84 

Hon. John Dickert ................................................................................................... 90 

Ed Wolking, Jr. ........................................................................................................ 99 

Douglas R. Busdeker ............................................................................................... 103 

Chad W. Lord ........................................................................................................... 106 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, request 

to submit the following: 

Letter of August 28, 2015, from David A. Ullrich, Executive Director, 

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, to Hon. Thad Cochran, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, et al. ........................... 117 

Letter of September 28, 2015, from Matthew D. Chase, Executive Director, National Association of Counties, et al., to Hon. Thad Cochran, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, et al. ........................... 119 

Letter of September 23, 2015, from G. Tracy Mehan III, Executive Director for Government Affairs, American Water Works Association, to 

Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, 

et al. ............................................................................................................... 121 

Letter of September 15, 2015, from John C. Hall, Executive Director, 

and Christopher Rissetto, General Counsel, Center for Regulatory Reasonableness, to Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, House Committee on 

Appropriations, et al. .................................................................................... 123 

Letter of September 30, 2015, from Adam Krantz, CEO, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, to Hon. Bob Gibbs, Chairman, and Hon. 

Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment ............................................................................. 158 

Jon W. Allan, Chair, Great Lakes Commission, submission of letter addressed 

to him and received September 28, 2015, from Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................. 44 

Page

VI 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of October 14, 2015, from Steve Moyer, Vice President of Government 

Affairs, Trout Unlimited, to Hon. Bob Gibbs, Chairman, and Hon. Grace 

F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment ......................................................................................................... 160 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 96275.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 96275.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 96275.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 96275.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 96275.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 96275.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 96275.007
(1) 

THE GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE: A REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS AND 

CHALLENGES IN RESTORING THE GREAT 

LAKES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2156, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. 

We welcome our panels. We have two panels today, but we will 

first have some opening remarks. 

The hearing today is about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. It’s a review of progress and challenges in restoring the Great 

Lakes. 

The Great Lakes, of course, are a vital source for both the United 

States and Canada to move goods; supply drinking water for industrial and agricultural purposes, a source of hydroelectric power, 

and swimming and other recreational activities. 

But the industrialization and development of the Great Lakes 

over the past 200 years has had an impact on water quality in the 

Great Lakes. 

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

and New York, particularly in those districts that border the lakes. 

However, the Great Lakes are also important to our entire Nation. 

The Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater system on 

the earth, with 6 quadrillion gallons of water. The Great Lakes account for approximately 20 percent of the world’s freshwater supply 

and approximately 90 percent of the U.S. freshwater supply. 

Thirty-five million people live in the Great Lakes region, representing roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population and one-quarter 

of the Canadian population. The lakes are the primary water supply for most of these people. 

The Great Lakes constitute the largest inland water transportation system in the world, and have played an important role in 

the economic development of both the United States and Canada. 

2 

According to some estimates, the Great Lakes help support more 

than $200 billion a year in economic activity in the region, and contribute nearly a quarter of the Nation’s exports and 27 percent of 

the U.S. gross domestic product. Over 200 million tons of cargo are 

shipped annually through the Great Lakes. 

The Great Lakes present a unique environmental challenge. Legacy issues, including the buildup of toxic substances in lake sediments in areas of concern, and the introduction of invasive plant 

and animal species, are impacting the Great Lakes. More than 180 

invasive aquatic species have become established in the Great 

Lakes, including at least 25 major nonnative species of fish and 

zebra mussels, which invade and clog water intake pipes, costing 

water and electric generating utilities $100 million to $400 million 

a year in prevention and remediation efforts. 

Efforts to improve the Great Lakes water quality and restore the 

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

The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, the Great Lakes States, local communities, industry, and other parties all are involved. With so 

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

To improve coordination, in 2004, the President signed an Executive order creating the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The 

Executive order called for the development of outcome-based goals 

like cleaner water, sustainable fisheries, and system biodiversity, 

and called on the task force to ensure Federal efforts are coordinated and target measurable results. 

The task force, under the lead of EPA, brings together 11 Federal 

agencies responsible for administering more than 140 different programs in the Great Lakes region, to provide strategic direction on 

Federal policy, priorities, and programs for restoring the Great 

Lakes. 

Congress has enacted more than 30 Federal laws specifically focused on Great Lakes restoration and there are currently more 

than 200 programs that provide funding and resources to Great 

Lakes States for restoration activities. 

In 2010, the task force released an action plan, as part of the 

new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. More than 2,000 projects have 

been funded to date through the first action plan. 

In September 2014, the Federal agencies released an updated action plan II, which summarizes the actions that the Federal agencies plan to implement during fiscal years 2015 through 2019, 

using Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding. 

This action plan aims to strategically target the five biggest 

threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and to accelerate progress toward long-term goals. The five focus areas in summary include: 

toxic substances, invasive species, nonpoint source pollution, habitat restoration, and accountability and education. 

3 

Since the beginning of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 

there has been a concern voiced by some that restoration activities 

have slowed or even been halted due to a lack of coordination 

among the Federal agencies that encompass the task force. Other 

critiques include a lack of communication between the Federal task 

force and their partners in State governments. 

In response to my requests, the Government Accountability Office conducted a review of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative implementation and prepared reports of its findings in 2013 and July of 

this year. 

Our colleague, Congressman David Joyce, introduced H.R. 223 to 

amend the Great Lakes program provisions under section 118 of 

the Clean Water Act to formally authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for 5 years, and to carry out projects and activities for Great Lakes protection and restoration. 

Under this legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency is to 

collaborate with other Federal partners, including the Great Lakes 

Interagency Task Force, to select the best combination of projects 

and activities for Great Lakes protection and restoration. 

This hearing today is intended to review the progress of the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and to hear from witnesses on 

the implementation of the GLRI program and the types of improvements that need to be made to the program. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and at this time 

I recognize my ranking member from California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, for today’s hearing on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and thus providing 

the subcommittee with a chance to review the progress made in the 

restoration of one of our Nation’s greatest resources, the Great 

Lakes. 

Welcome to our witnesses and I look forward to hearing your testimony and to engaging dialogue on this very successful program. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, known as GLRI, was organized in 2010 to coordinate the multitude of efforts already underway to protect and restore the Great Lakes, the world’s largest 

system of fresh surface water and the source of drinking water for 

over 40 million Americans. 

As we can imagine, the economic importance of the Great Lakes 

to the country cannot be overstated. The 4.3 million recreational 

boats registered in the Great Lakes alone create nearly $16 billion 

in economic activities each year. That supports 107,000 jobs annually. 

Specifically, the program was created to clean up toxins and address areas of concern, combat invasive species, of which I am very 

interested in how you combat the quagga mussel issue because 

that’s California’s biggest issue and some of the Western States; to 

protect watersheds from pollutant latent runoff; restore wetlands 

and track progress; education, especially on invasive species, I 

think; and collaboration with strategic partners, including State 

and local governments and other stakeholders. 

During the first 5 years of this program, $1.68 billion of Federal 

funding was allocated to over 2,100 projects that were implemented 

to improve water quality, control or eradicate harmful, invasive 

species, and restore valuable ecosystems. 

4 

In that time and because of Federal support, the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative has enjoyed the following accomplishments: 

Five areas of concern have been removed from the list of contaminated areas. 

Forty-two beneficial use impairments in 17 areas of concern were 

removed. 

Target level control populations have been reached for multiple 

invasive species, including the bighead carp, sea lamprey, and emerald ash borer. Interesting. 

Federal and State local partners increased the number of acres 

of farmland enrolled in agricultural conservation programs in priority watersheds by more than 80 percent. 

More than 100,000 acres of wetlands and 48,000 acres of coastal, 

upland and island habitat are now protected. 

While much more work remains to be done, these are demonstrable successes, and I commend today’s witnesses for their dedication to the success of this program. 

In September 2013, GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] released a report recommending EPA develop a more comprehensive and useful progress assessment tool for demonstrating 

the program’s accomplishment. Understand that we look at some 

of these things, and we want to understand it and not have to ask 

questions about what does it mean. 

GAO found that the GLRI monitoring system at the time may 

have been deficient, but also found as GAO and others have noted 

that quantifying overall restoration progress in the Great Lakes is 

a very difficult task and that it’s often impossible to link specific 

environmental changes to specific programs or projects, which some 

are long term. 

Again, earlier this year the GAO concluded an extensive study of 

the use of these funds. It examined the amount of the funds available for projects and processes used by GLRI to identify projects 

and the GLRI’s reporting tools. 

I am very pleased to say that EPA took action to address—thank 

you very much—the recommendations made by the draft GAO report prior to the release of the report and, in doing so, established 

a new system for entering data and created new data control methods. 

Having undertaken these efforts, EPA and its partners will be 

better able to track and demonstrate the success of the program. 

So in the 5 short years since this program’s inception, communities throughout the Great Lakes region have enjoyed measurable 

results that have made a difference in the lives of their citizens 

and their economy. 

One might ask what has made the difference, and to answer this 

question, I point to the GAO report published in September 2004, 

which found that the lack of clearly defined organizational leadership posed a major obstacle and that coordinating existing restoration efforts across the many participating organizations was a significant challenge. 

So we need to be able to address that so that we can understand 

it when we are able to go through and look at what improvements 

and what challenges have been addressed. 

5 

I would argue that today you have overcome these challenges. 

Simply put, this is one of the most influential, coordinated interagency efforts in the country and stands as an example of what we 

can achieve when multiple partners agree, work together toward a 

common goal, politics aside. 

Again, I welcome our witnesses and thank you for your testimony. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thanks. 

Before I recognize our witnesses, we have a little bit of housekeeping. I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept 

open for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept written testimony for the hearing record. Is there objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that written testimony submitted 

on behalf of the following parties be included in this hearing 

record: David Ullrich, executive director of the Great Lakes and St. 

Lawrence Cities Initiative; Clarence Anthony, the CEO and executive director of the National League of Cities; Matthew Chase, the 

executive director of the National Association of Counties; Tom 

Cochran, the CEO and executive director of the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors; Joanna Turner, the executive director of the National Association of Regional Councils; Tracy Mehan, the executive director 

for government affairs for the American Water Works Association; 

John Hall, the executive director of the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness; Christopher Rissetto, general counsel for the Center 

for Regulatory Reasonableness; and Adam Krantz, the CEO of the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies. 

Is there objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Today we have two panels. Our first panel is Mr. Chris Korleski. 

He is the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, and also a 

former director of the Ohio EPA when I was in the legislature. 

We also have Mr. Jose Go ́mez. He is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment of the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office in Washington, DC. 

And Mr. Tony Kramer, who is the Acting Regional Conservationist for the Northeast region of the National Resources Conservation Service in Washington, DC. 

Welcome, panelists, and Mr. Korleski, the floor is yours. 

And pull it up closer. In this room sometimes it is hard to hear. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS KORLESKI, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES 

NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JOSE ALFREDO GO ́ MEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND TONY KRAMER, ACTING REGIONAL CONSERVATIONIST, NORTHEAST REGION, NATURAL 

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

Mr. KORLESKI. Is the volume OK? Can everyone hear me? 

6 

Well, good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Chris 

Korleski, and I am pleased to serve as the Director of U.S. EPA’s 

Great Lakes National Program Office, or as we call it, GLNPO. 

I am very pleased to be here this morning to discuss the remarkable progress that has been made under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or as we know it, the GLRI. 

The GLRI was launched in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect 

and restore the largest system of freshwater in the world—to provide additional resources to make progress toward the most critical 

long-term goals for this important ecosystem. 

Since its inception, the GLRI has been a catalyst for unprecedented Federal agency coordination to the GLRI Interagency Task 

Force and the GLRI Regional Working Group, both of which are led 

by EPA. This unprecedented coordination has led to unprecedented 

results. 

During the first 5 years of the initiative, GLRI resources have 

supplemented agency-based budgets to fund over 2,600 projects in 

five focus areas. 

Focus Area 1, toxic substances in areas of concern. Federal agencies and their partners delisted three areas of concern, what we 

call AOCs, and completed all of the physical work that will lead to 

the delisting of three additional AOCs. That is a major change from 

the 25 years before the initiative when only one AOC was cleaned 

up and delisted. 

It is our hope that we can keep this momentum going and ultimately achieve the delisting of all the remaining AOCs. 

Focus Area 2, invasive species. Federal agencies and their partners engaged in an unprecedented level of activity to prevent new 

introductions of invasive species, including Asian carp, into the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. Asian carp are a significant threat to the 

ecological health of the Great Lakes and its multibillion-dollar 

sports fishery, and the GLRI provides support to the Asian Carp 

Regional Coordinating Committee to prevent bighead and silver 

carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

To date monitoring has not found any established, self-sustaining 

populations of silver or bighead carp in the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, the threat of Asian carp entering the Great Lakes continues, 

and the Federal partners are eager to continue the work necessary 

to keep them out of the Great Lakes. 

Focus Area 3, nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution. 

Federal agencies and their partners targeted activities to reduce 

phosphorus runoff from farmland which contributes to harmful 

algal blooms in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. 

Federal agencies used GLRI support to increase the number of 

acres of farmland enrolled in agricultural conservation programs in 

GLRI priority watersheds by more than 70 percent. 

Focus Area 4, habitat and wildlife protection and restoration. 

Federal agencies and their partners protected, restored and enhanced more than 100,000 acres of wetlands and 48,000 acres of 

coastal, upland and island habitat. Over 500 barriers were removed 

or bypassed in Great Lakes tributaries enabling access by fish and 

other aquatic organisms to over 3,400 additional miles of river. 

7 

These activities have accelerated the restoration of native fish 

and wildlife populations to self-sustaining levels. 

Focus Area 5, accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation, 

communication and partnerships. Maybe you can see why we 

changed the name in the next action plan. 

Federal agencies and their partners implemented ‘‘teach the 

teacher’’ activities and helped science teachers throughout the 

basin incorporate Great Lakes-specific material into their class curricula. But what’s next? 

Well, the first 5 years of the GLRI have achieved remarkable 

progress. The Federal agencies are already well underway implementing the GLRI Action Plan II, which summarizes the actions 

that Federal agencies will implement during fiscal years 2015 

through 2019. These actions will build on restoration and protection work carried out under the first action plan with a continuing 

focus on cleaning up AOCs, preventing and controlling invasive 

species, reducing nutrient runoff, and restoring habitat. 

We have modified Focus Area 5, and while we will continue to 

educate educators about the Great Lakes, Focus Area 5 now more 

directly incorporates an adaptive management approach into the 

GLRI’s implementation. 

It also requires that GLRI projects take into account the need for 

resiliency in the face of climate change. 

Action plan II is tighter and more focused than action plan I in 

large part because it incorporates suggestions for strengthening the 

GLRI that were contributed by the Great Lakes Advisory Board, 

U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, GAO, the Congressional Research Service, States, tribes, municipalities, and the general public. 

We are committed, devoted to improving the implementation of 

the initiative and have recently adopted new budgeting and planning processes that will provide for a closer working relationship 

between Federal agencies and their State and tribal partners to ensure that appropriate projects are being prioritized and implemented. 

Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, and 

members of the committee. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Go ́mez, the floor is yours. 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, and 

members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to be 

here today to discuss our work on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

The Great Lakes, as can be seen in the screens, is the largest 

system of freshwater in the world, and it provides economic and 

recreational benefits to millions of people. Decades of industrial 

and agricultural activities in the region have left a legacy of contamination. 

In addition, more than 180 nonnative species have become established in the Great Lakes, some of which have caused extensive ecological and economic damage. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as has been noted, was 

created to accelerate restoration by addressing issues such as water 

quality contamination and invasive species that continue to threatVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
8 

en the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The restoration is 

overseen by the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and is chaired 

by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

So my statement today summarizes the results of our two reports 

on the topic. I would like to make three key points about the GLRI, 

the initiative: first, the funding and monitoring and reporting; two, 

the process used to identify restoration work; and, three, information available about Great Lakes restoration project activities and 

results. 

The first point is that nearly all of the $1.68 billion in Federal 

funds in fiscal years 2010 to 2014 have been allocated, and as it 

can be seen in the next slide, EPA and the task force agencies have 

made funding available to a range of recipients. We found that the 

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force agencies conduct restoration 

work themselves or by awarding funds to recipients through financial agreements, such as grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. 

EPA and the other 10 agencies have since expended $1.15 billion 

for over 2,100 projects. 

With regard to monitoring and reporting, we found that some information on restoration projects in EPA’s database is inaccurate 

and may not be complete, which may prevent EPA from producing 

comprehensive or useful assessments of progress. 

We recommended that EPA capture more complete information 

on progress, which the agency did. In May of 2015, EPA replaced 

its old database with a new information system. 

Second, with regards to the process for selecting each agency’s 

Great Lakes restoration work, this process has evolved since fiscal 

year 2010 to emphasize interagency discussion. Originally, each 

agency made its own project and funding decisions in agreement 

with the task force. 

Now, multiple agency subgroups discuss and decide what work 

should be done. In fiscal year 2012, the task force created subgroups to discuss and identify work on three priority issues. The 

first issue was cleaning up severely degraded locations, called areas 

of concern, which we have heard about already. 

Number two is preventing and controlling invasive species. 

And three is reducing nutrient runoff from agricultural areas. 

According to EPA, the focus on priority issues allowed for two 

areas of concern, the White Lake and Deer Lake areas in Michigan, 

to be targeted for accelerated cleanup. Both were delisted in 2014. 

Third, the task force has made some project information available to Congress and the public in three accomplishment reports 

and on its Web site. 

In addition, individual agencies collect information on activities 

and results, although this information is not collected and reported 

by EPA. 

Of the 19 projects that we reviewed, 8 reported results directly 

linked to restoration, such as improved methods for capturing sea 

lamprey, an invasive species that can kill up to 40 pounds of fish 

in its lifetime. The remaining 11 reported results that can be indirectly linked to restoration. That is, the results may contribute to 

restoration over time. 

9 

In summary, the U.S. has committed enormous resources to restore the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem with some progress. 

Currently the restoration effort is in a period of transition, as EPA 

and the task force agencies are using a new action plan, new subgroups to identify work in funding, and a new system to collect information on projects. 

Great Lakes restoration is an ongoing, long-term effort. As such, 

it can benefit from continued congressional oversight. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my statement. I would be pleased to 

answer questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kramer, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. KRAMER. Thank you and good morning. Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the role of the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

At NRCS, we know that voluntary private lands conservation is 

making a difference so that producers can sustain highly productive agriculture while making progress protecting and improving a 

Nation’s natural resources. As Acting Regional Conservationist for 

the Northeast region, I have the privilege of serving multiple 

States, including Ohio and even Michigan. 

I was raised on a farm in northwest Ohio and graduated from 

the Ohio State University with a bachelor’s degree in agriculture. 

I have worked with NRCS in many capacities over 30 years, and 

I understand personally the conservation work my agency performs 

on private lands. 

This is a great time for conservation, and I welcome the opportunity to share this with you today. 

At NRCS, our conservationists work with State and local partners, as well as private organizations to deliver conservation, technical, and financial assistance to private landowners on a purely 

voluntary basis. In fiscal year 2014, NRCS provided technical assistance to over 135,000 customers nationwide to address natural 

resource objectives on almost 60 million acres of farm, ranch and 

forest land. 

NRCS technical and financial assistance is delivered to private 

landowners primarily through programs authorized by the Farm 

bill, which include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 

the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. 

This assistance helps producers plan and implement a variety of 

conservation practices, such as cover crops, no-till, removing 

invasive species and restoring wetlands. 

GLRI complements the significant investment made by NRCS 

within the Great Lakes region. Since 2010 and through 2014, GLRI 

has provided an additional $106 million in financial and technical 

assistance for conservation through the interagency agreement between NRCS and EPA. This was used to fund over 1,500 contracts 

with producers committing to implement conservation practices in 

10 

over 300,000 acres within the Great Lakes Basin and to provide direct technical assistance to producers and landowners. 

NRCS works very closely with partners across the country and 

in the Great Lakes to maximize the Federal investment and leverage that with non-Federal contributions. Within the context of 

GLRI, between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, NRCS has leveraged 

about $7 million of the GLRI funds in agreements with partners 

to increase the impact of the Federal investment in conservation. 

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

this opportunity to appear before you today. Conservation continues to be a solid investment in our Nation’s future. GLRI and 

other NRCS conservation programs and activities supported by 

Congress and the administration have demonstrated success to 

helping farmers, ranchers and private forest owners achieve their 

production and operational goals in balance with nature, with the 

natural resource objectives which provide benefits for the rural 

communities and the Nation as a whole. 

I will be very happy to respond to any of your questions at this 

time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you. 

And I will start out with questions. 

First of all, I want to thank Mr. Go ́mez for the report that we 

requested from your office. It was very helpful. 

I recognize that the EPA is implementing some of what you mentioned and you also mentioned in your report that they implemented a big initiative before the final report came out because of 

the draft report, and I want to talk about that just for a minute 

and then I will get to another issue. 

In your report you talk about sharing future success and the 

challenges, and needing the EPA to address the issue. It is about 

communication between the different agencies and States. Mr. 

Korleski created subgroups from my understanding, the way I read 

this, and so hopefully the intent is that the subgroups are working 

together, communicating, because what we have heard, and I think 

what Mr. Go ́mez and the study determined, is that one hand did 

not know what the other hand was doing. 

So do you want to elaborate a little bit about the functioning and 

the mechanism going forward with the subgroups? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Yes, I think what my colleague was referring to is that in the 

early years of GLRI there was more of what we would call an allocation approach where each agency would have its own projects 

that it would like to do, and then we would get together and talk 

about how much money should go to each agency to let them do 

their projects. 

I am simplifying, but that is the way it worked. 

I think come 2011, there was a consensus that, wait a minute; 

this is not the best way to do this. This idea of having agencies sort 

of saying, ‘‘We want to do these projects,’’ was not we think as good 

as saying, ‘‘Let us all work together and figure out, looking at that 

ecosystem as a whole, what is the work that should be prioritized 

without regard to what this agency would like to accomplish or 

11 

what that agency would like to accomplish. What should we as the 

GLRI accomplish?’’ and prioritizing that. 

So that is what resulted in, I think, much more of a collaborative 

approach. The subgroups were created to focus on what we agreed 

were priority areas like AOCs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Excuse me. The subgroups would consist of different 

agencies, the EPA, NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and all? 

Mr. KORLESKI. So if I understand your question, when I think of 

a subgroup, I think of a subgroup within the Regional Working 

Group. So the Regional Working Group made up of EPA, NOAA, 

the Corps of Engineers. There are representatives from those agencies on those subgroups for, again, AOCs, invasive species, whatever it might be. 

So that way all of the agencies were focused. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think that is a good way to go forward. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. That was one of the criticisms of the report. 

But to take that further, I think the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan for 2015 to 2019 does not include targets to 

measure any progress. If the EPA and the task force do not have 

targets, how are they going to measure? 

You do not have in this new action plan specific targets, goals. 

Am I understanding that right? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, no, there are targets in the action 

plan. If I can briefly, in the new action plan, specifically, there are 

five focus areas. There are 12 objectives. There are 22 commitments. There are 34 measures of progress, and 10 of those measures of progress have annual targets where we are actually trying 

to hit numbers, for example, the number of AOCs where all of the 

work has been completed or the number of BUIs [beneficial use impairments] removed. 

So there are most definitely targets and objectives within action 

plan II. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I wanted to ask a question on the algae issue in 

western Lake Erie. Can you describe to the subcommittee how the 

EPA shows deference to the expertise of other Federal agencies for 

funding these activities? 

For instance, the EPA recognizes NOAA as the agency with the 

expertise related to harmful algal blooms. Why is it important that 

that one agency not be given sole discretion over the GLRI activities? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, I think a number of the agencies 

have expertise in areas pertinent to harmful algal blooms. NOAA, 

for example, I think has great expertise in areas, such as satellite 

monitoring and monitoring the bloom. 

In fact, after the Toledo drinking water crisis in 2014, we very 

quickly freed up about $12 million in GLRI funds to devote. For example, some of that money went to NOAA so they could improve 

their ability to monitor algae and microsystem levels in the Toledo 

area. We provided money to USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] to do 

more stream monitoring, to measure the amount of phosphorus getting into Lake Erie, which USGS is extremely good at. 

12 

NRCS was provided with additional funds because our colleagues 

at NRCS are very good at getting—— 

Mr. GIBBS. My last question I wanted to just go to Mr. Kramer. 

What would it take to reduce the amount of nutrients entering 

the Great Lakes to prevent the algae blooms that have occurred in 

the last few years? 

Mr. KRAMER. That is a good question. Eliminating it, I do not 

know if that is going to be possible. I think we have an opportunity 

here to reduce the impact, maybe the duration. 

Just since 2010 to 2013, the GLRI funding that was provided to 

NRCS has reduced, we estimate, the nitrogen entering into the 

Great Lakes by over 3.5 million pounds and over 600 pounds of 

phosphorus. 

Now, the algal blooms still develop. There are many other 

sources. It is not just agriculture. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. KRAMER. There’s residential. There’s commercial. There’s 

what we call legacy phosphorus, which there is phosphorus sitting 

in Lake Erie, you know, in the sediment, on the ground or under 

the surface, and turbidity, water, air temperature, water depth, 

sunlight, all have an impact on whether that comes up. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are we noticing more dissolved phosphorus compared 

to maybe phosphorus attached to the sediment? Is dissolved phosphorus more of an issue than it was in previous years? 

Mr. KRAMER. I can’t answer that. I do not know that we have 

made that distinction, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. KRAMER. But we have reduced and we are looking at other 

methods and processes. We do know that a lot of the dissolved 

phosphorus gets out in the tile. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon? 

Mr. KRAMER. Gets out in the tile, through the farms, and as of 

right now Ohio has just with assistance from GLRI funding entered 

into agreement with the Ohio Farm Bureau to do demonstration 

farms, you know. So there are a lot of different things going on. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, I know. The Ohio Farm Bureau put up $1 million towards that. 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. This is my last question before I yield to my ranking 

member. 

On these programs, can you kind of elaborate, voluntary versus 

regulatory, mandatory? You know, what is the best fit? What is the 

best way to address this issue? 

Mr. KRAMER. Well, for me it is voluntary, at least when it comes 

to private landowners, private agricultural farms. I think the voluntary approach works. 

One good example of why it works, and this is not just in the 

Western Lake Erie Basin or the Great Lakes but across the country, every single one of the programs that NRCS offers is well oversubscribed. We have backlogs forever. 

People want to participate. They want to put conservation on 

their ground, and they want some assistance to do that, and we 

have shown that it does work. 

13 

Mr. GIBBS. And I will concur with that, being a farmer, and I 

would also just in closing say that, you know, farmers drink the 

water first. 

Mr. KRAMER. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBS. I mean, it is on the land because all of their wells are 

where they are getting it, and it is just critical. And they want to 

do the best for the environment. We have seen that with best management practices, no-till, and a bunch of things that are happening. 

And my concern has been, especially with the WOTUS rule, 

when you come down with a heavy hammer at some point you just 

overburden them with redtape and bureaucracy. They will throw 

their hands up in the air and they are not going to do what they 

would have done voluntarily. I am really concerned with the 

WOTUS rule that we can actually go backwards in water quality 

with the strides we have made. 

So I yield to my ranking member. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And on that note, Mr. Kramer, one of the things that a pilot 

project in California is looking at is on-site new technology that 

might clean the runoff, recycle the runoff right from the farms. 

Is there anything being looked at or touted or at least considered 

as part of the assistance to the farmers? 

Mr. KRAMER. The one thing that we are doing that is not actually 

cleaning, but what we called edge of field monitoring, which we 

now do within NRCS. That allows, on the farms, they can monitor 

the nutrient loads that are coming off that farm. 

We have looked at things such as bioreactors and things of that 

nature in the ground, subsurface, to clean it, but what you are referring to I am not aware of, but it is a possibility. We could look 

at those different methods and processes, and within NRCS what 

we typically do is take a look at something like that. If it provides 

merit, we can try it on a pilot basis. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I will check, but it was supposed to be 

a pilot in Bakersfield by the Costner, the group that did the Bridge 

petroleum spill. 

Mr. KRAMER. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So that might bring some change. 

In the algae bloom, is not probably the temperature also responsible for the creation of a lot more of the algae? 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, yes. The water temperature, air temperature. 

I think we avoided it a lot this year because we did not have as 

much duration of hot, humid days, and we had some winds that 

kind of, you know, stirred the lake a little bit. At least that is from 

the reports from NOAA that we receive on a pretty regular basis. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I notice, and I am sorry but my time is 

running, and I want to be sure that I take in all the questions that 

I have in mind, but in the runoff, going back to the runoff, the fact 

that there are more effective ways of partners working together to 

combat the runoff, what else is being done to be able to help farmers and the ability to restrict the amount of runoff into the streams 

and rivers? 

Mr. KRAMER. Well, I think, you know, one of the big things that 

we do is not just controlling the runoff. It is what is being applied. 

14 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KRAMER. You know, only apply what you absolutely need 

through our nutrient management standard specification, which is 

a widely used practice throughout the basin and throughout the 

Great Lakes. 

So what is being delivered on the field should be controlled first, 

and a lot of producers are doing that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Of course, there are great results, but some 

are saying that GLRI is going after the low-hanging fruit, and 

what remains is going to be a bigger challenge. Can you explain? 

Mr. KRAMER. I believe maybe it is kind of what I referred to before. We have developed a Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

that we have done, and our scientists have estimated that for 

Western Lake Erie Basin alone, if we treated every single agricultural farm, we would still only reduce the nutrients by 40 percent. 

So I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe what that 

statement is referring to is even in doing everything that we could 

do, there are still so many other factors involved that we are not 

going to be able to get there. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have an idea of how many farms are 

voluntary for partners? Is it a percentage? 

You mentioned it was voluntary. 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, yes. I do not have that with me, but we could 

provide that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would be nice to know. 

Mr. KRAMER. The number of producers in the Great Lakes that 

are actually working with us, yes. We could provide that information. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Korleski, your testimony notes that action 

plan II incorporates fresh approaches. Can you describe the 

science-based adaptive framework you plan to use and when do you 

feel that it is going to be implemented? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes, Ranking Member. I think adaptive management is a fancy way of saying learn as we go, learn from your mistakes, learn from what works, learn from what does not work. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But who looks at those? 

Mr. KORLESKI. What is that? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Who looks? Who determines what works and 

what is not working? 

Mr. KORLESKI. The agencies implementing the projects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI. So under the action plan, the way this should 

work is when projects are implemented, the agencies implementing 

them should look at project results and look at project impacts and 

look at, again, what worked. 

If you did a project, if we tried something as a pilot project and 

it did not work, we have to remember that, and we have to say, 

‘‘Yeah, that did not work. Do not do that again.’’ 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But what is turnaround time? Do not forget 

Government works very slowly. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Well, we do adaptive management really over the 

course of two different cycles. So we do an action plan every 5 

15 

years. So one of the things that we do is when we’re drafting a new 

action plan, as we did in the second action plan, we looked about 

what worked, what did not work, what kind of targets did we have 

in the first action plan that were not realistic, and we did not have 

the technology or we did not have good measurements, and come 

up with a better action plan. 

But I think more importantly, adaptive management is also 

looked at on an annual level when we are actually doing project selection because the agencies essentially get together and look at the 

potential universe of projects that could be done and say, ‘‘OK. 

Given what we know, where should we prioritize?’’ 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you share that information with other 

areas that might have similar problems? 

Mr. KORLESKI. For example, other geographic areas? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Like the Chesapeake, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Because that would save some time in 

some people having to reinvent the wheel. 

The other question I have, recently, actually yesterday, there was 

a news release in regard to Line 5, the pipeline, and the question, 

of course, comes up about, according to the University of Michigan, 

it is the worst possible location for an oil spill. 

This crude coming out or transfer being out of Canada? You are 

aware of that, I am sure. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And some of the challenges that they may face 

in winter if there is a spill, and apparently there was a winter spill 

test that was very challenging. 

Is there a way to be able to understand? Because I understand 

Senator Stabenow and Congressman Peters have a bill to ban 

crude oil shipments through that region. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Well, Ranking Member, if I can tell you about 

EPA’s rule, maybe that will help clarify. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI. So in region 5 where we are, our response office, 

our Superfund program, is deeply involved in planning contingency 

work, trying to anticipate what can go work, and working with 

PHMSA [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration], 

States, tribal nations, to again make sure—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I know, but that was in summer. The program 

was looking at transportation in summer, but what about winter? 

Because there is a challenge there. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Ranking Member, I confess I am not that familiar 

with the challenge that occurred in the winter exercise. So that is 

something we can follow up on. But I do know that EPA and the 

Coast Guard would be the first line of response in the event of 

any—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, apparently there is another test being 

held early next year. I would like to be able to know the results 

of that because of the protection for that area. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes, Ranking Member. We will be sure to note 

that. 

16 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

And then of course, in the past 5 years the program has improved the quality in the region and addressed a lot of the environmental problems. How is GLRI prepared to produce the same result in the next 5 years? 

Mr. KORLESKI. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How is the GLRI prepared to produce the 

same results in the next 5 years as it has in the past 5 years, considering the scope of the problems? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Ranking Member, I think we actually hope to do 

better in the next 5 years. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Based on your experience? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Based on the adaptive management approach and 

learning from what we learned the first 5 years. Also the fact is, 

as I mentioned earlier, the agencies I think are coordinating much 

better on identifying priorities. So it is not just an agency-by-agency ‘‘let us do what we want.’’ I think that is going to achieve better 

and greater results. 

So I think we have learned a lot, and we are working together 

more closely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

And now I will refer back to my chairman. I have one more question for Mr. Go ́mez. I will hold. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for being here. I 

appreciate the work that you are all working on and doing this. 

I happen to live in the Lower Fox River Watershed in northeast 

Wisconsin. I live on the shoreline, and so I have been able to see 

in real-time some of the improvements that are actually happening. 

And, Mr. Korleski, can GLRI funds be awarded to support partnerships between water systems and the agriculture industry? 

And by that I mean you have got both point source and nonpoint 

source issues, and so can there be some combination of partnership 

there and the funds be used in an equal partnership with them together? 

Mr. KORLESKI. So, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Representative, I think 

the short answer is yes. It would depend on how the project was 

organized and who was doing what, but one of the great things 

about the GLRI is that there is flexibility in terms of how we 

award and provide money. 

So I would think that, yes, depending on what was being proposed and who was involved, that is something that we could do 

and we could certainly look at it. 

Mr. RIBBLE. So it is a bit of kind of an exploration of ideas, and 

you are looking at the best ideas, and if someone comes up with 

some type of program that makes sense to you all, that would be 

something you would take a look at? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, Representative, absolutely. The 

one thing that we do not pretend to have is all the answers, and 

we do not pretend that we have got everything down to a science. 

We do not, and we are open to new ideas. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Are the hypoxic zones in Green Bay similar to the 

ones in Lake Erie? 

17 

Mr. KORLESKI. So my understanding, I am more familiar with 

the Lake Erie area partly because, frankly, I am from Ohio. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. But I think the problem is the same. I think the 

magnitude of the blooms in the Western Basin of Lake Erie have 

been greater. That is not to minimize what is happening up in either the Saginaw Bay or the Fox River area, but the problem we 

believe is caused by the same issue, which is too much phosphorus 

getting into the water, and we think the solutions are essentially 

the same: try to figure out how to reduce phosphorus, both dissolved and in other forms, from getting into the water. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. Basically keeping the nutrient on the soil and 

not in the water. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Where they are needed. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Ultimately where they are needed to go. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Where they are needed, yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And, Mr. Kramer, first of all, I want to commend the 

work that your agency has been doing in Wisconsin and Lower Fox. 

Mr. KRAMER. Thank you. 

Mr. RIBBLE. One of the things I hear repeatedly from county executives in the entire Lake Winnebago, Lower Fox Watershed 

which drains into Green Bay is that they actually could use more 

conservation agents, whether they are agents that are on the 

ground at the county level or with your agency. 

Can GLRI funds be used by county executives to increase agency 

partnership with working with agriculture? 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, they can, and as a matter of fact, NRCS has 

utilized some of the GLRI funding in just such that way. 

In my oral and, I believe, written testimony, it alluded to the 

agreements to extend the Federal contributions. We can enter into 

agreements with soil and water districts, State departments of agriculture, and others to put more boots on the ground, more folks 

out there in the field, and we have done that in various areas 

throughout the Great Lakes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Because in this watershed, the one I am speaking 

of here in northeast Wisconsin, the 71 CAFOs [concentrated animal 

feeding operations], large farming operations, one of the highest 

density in the country, and around 1,500 to 1,600 smaller dairies, 

and there are a lot of animals in this area. 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And reaching out to that many individual dairy 

farmers is a tough task with the number of bodies there, but what 

I have experienced both with your agency and working with Wisconsin’s dairy industry is that they are anxious to start solving this 

problem. They want to be part of the solution. 

But for some of the smaller dairies, it does become an issue of 

resources. Are funds available for some type of joint sharing of 

equipment, for example, direct injection of manure into the soil as 

opposed to just mass spreading it using water as a carrying agent? 

But that equipment is $80,000, $90,000, $100,000. Could it be 

shared by a county over a large area of land so that multiple farmers would have access to that type of equipment through the grant 

system? 

18 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, typically the NRCS program, specifically EQIP 

[Environmental Quality Incentives Program], would not actually 

purchase a piece of equipment, but what it would do is provide an 

incentive to those farmers where if they want to go out and purchase that together to share it, they could use those funds to do 

that. 

What we are looking for is the activity. What are they actually 

doing on the farm? We are paying an incentive for that activity. 

Now, if that means they have to get a piece of equipment or modify 

it, that is fine, but we definitely stray from using the tax dollars 

to actually purchase a piece of equipment which may not be there 

in 2 to 3 years or it might be. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Sure. 

Mr. KRAMER. But there are ways to get to where you are going. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, because when you look at the technologies 

available with low-till equipment, with direct injection of manure, 

the things that will actually keep the nutrient in the field, those 

bear a fair amount of costs. 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes, they do. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And then my final question, and then, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Mr. Go ́mez, in your report did you guys look 

at the efficiency of the funding? 

In other words, how much money is going to just the administration of the fund itself versus how much is actually getting to specific projects? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Sure. So I mentioned earlier we did look at 19 

projects in detail, and in those projects we did look at the amount 

of money that was going to indirect cost, and we found that that 

varied from zero to 37 percent. 

In the cases where it was zero, it was because the entities had 

not established an indirect cost rate. Those that were higher, those 

tend to be universities that charge a higher indirect rate. So that 

is the way we looked at it in terms of the projects, and we looked 

at, as I said, 19 projects. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Was there obviously anything that we can do to reduce the indirect cost so that more of it actually gets to the ground 

is going to be a better use of this taxpayer funding. 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been listening to this very impressive collaboration which 

apparently has bipartisan support even here. I note that this Great 

Lakes restoration effort is not authorized, but it has been funded. 

It appears that the Federal Government is the major actor pressing 

forward, using its full expertise with working groups and Federal 

agencies, and one is left to wonder if other areas, and somebody 

mentioned the Chesapeake, for example, if this kind of collaboration and effort driven by the Federal Government, the EPA and 

other agencies is occurring in other watersheds or are we hearing 

a unique effort that has not been exported. 

Perhaps Mr. Korleski or Mr. Kramer would be able to speak to 

that. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I do know that 

we, for example, have had conversations with the Chesapeake Bay 

19 

program, which has similar problems. They are different, but they 

have nutrient problems that show up in different ways. 

And not that long ago we spent a couple hours on the phone with 

them sharing our practices about what we were trying to do to reduce nutrient loadings into water bodies, and that was very helpful. 

There is a Chesapeake Bay program within EPA as a separate 

line item in the budget, I believe. So we have worked with them. 

We are aware of other geographic programs which are receiving 

funding from EPA. 

Ms. NORTON. Are the results that you obtained repeated anywhere else or are we talking about a unique effort? 

I understand there’s huge importance, massive importance of this 

major water supply, the Great Lakes. I’m trying to find out whether it’s unique or not, particularly since it is driven by the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. KORLESKI. I know that Federal dollars are being directed to 

other programs. 

Ms. NORTON. That I know. I am looking at the impressive results 

that have been attained here. 

Mr. Go ́mez, do you have any notion of whether we are talking 

about a unique effort, completely federally driven, it seems to me, 

by one of the great watersheds. We couldn’t do without it. 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Sure, sure. 

Ms. NORTON. Would it go anywhere else? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. What I can mention is GAO has actually looked at 

ecosystem restoration efforts around the country. One was mentioned earlier, Chesapeake Bay. We have looked there, and they 

have a slightly different organizational structure. The Chesapeake 

Bay States are partners with the Federal agencies and other entities are also key partners. 

The Great Lakes are organized slightly differently. We looked 

also at the Florida Everglades restoration efforts in years past 

where, again, it is managed by the State, the Feds, and tribes. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that not different here? The Federal Government 

is the driver here, is it not? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes, correct. 

Ms. NORTON. And one of the problems in the Chesapeake Bay is 

the same huge number of States, but where they are the leadership 

with water the crosses State lines, it does not appear to me that 

we get results anywhere in the ballpark of what we are seeing here 

with this federally driven project. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Representative, if I may, one of the things that 

I would emphasize is that while the GLRI funding is Federal funding and the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and the Regional 

Working Group are made up of the Federal departments, a large 

reason for the success in the Great Lakes Basin is because we do 

partner very closely with States. 

Ms. NORTON. How did you get the States who obviously have different interests, just as they do on the Chesapeake Bay, to collaborate except for the force of the Federal Government, its money and 

its expertise behind this project? 

20 

Mr. KORLESKI. Representative, I think it is because they recognized the GLRI brought an opportunity for significant changes to 

make an improvement. 

Ms. NORTON. The what? 

Mr. KORLESKI. An opportunity for significant—— 

Ms. NORTON. And what brought it? What do you say brought this 

opportunity? 

Mr. KORLESKI. The GLRI and the States recognizing that 

through our grants in providing them with funds and working with 

them, that jointly we could get a tremendous amount of work done. 

Ms. NORTON. I think it was Federal leadership, Mr. Korleski. I 

think it is very difficult when you say to the Chesapeake Bay, the 

nine States. I mean, there is something like that. You get together. 

This is one of the great wonders of the world, and together figure 

out what to do about it. 

You have your own budgets, your own priorities, and everyone 

speaks about how extraordinary this is, but what you do not have 

is the kind of leadership that the Federal agencies have given to 

this extraordinary project with extraordinary results, and you have 

not been able to name a single other project which has had similar 

results. 

And I would with knowing nothing hazard a guess that it is because it has not had the same Federal leadership that this project 

has had. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Napolitano for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses for 

being here. 

I first of all want to commend you all for the work that you are 

doing and the importance of it. With no pun intended, I do have 

a couple of areas of concern myself that are unrelated to pollution 

at the Great Lakes. One of them is what appears to be a rather 

abrupt shift in programming and in funding, and I will start with 

you, Mr. Korleski. 

You talked about the significance of the unprecedented coordination, and I applaud you for that; the unprecedented results, and I 

applaud you for that; and you used that word ‘‘unprecedented coordination’’ a number of times, and I applaud you for that. 

My two concerns with regard to the shift in programming and 

funding relate—forgive me for being parochial—but to the Duluth 

area. We are proud to have eliminated our first area of concern on 

the St. Louis River there, but based on the first 5 years of funding 

where we had received $4.5 million, there has been a dramatic reduction of almost three-fourths, down to $1.2 million, and based on 

the first 5 years of work, it had been expected that we would have 

eliminated all of our areas of concern by 2019, which of course will 

not happen at this point in time, and that is an area of concern 

for me, and I would like you to address that. 

And then secondly, we have heard from Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency and from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and they, like you, were celebrating the unprecedented coVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
21 

ordination and collaboration in what I believe they referred to as 

‘‘flexible dollars.’’ 

And now I see that funding for staffing will be restricted to 

project specific, and there is a concern that I have and others have 

that that will reduce the ability for that kind of collaboration and 

cooperation between State and county and local on a broader basis. 

So if you could address both of those concerns, it would be much 

appreciated. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, Representative, yes, there is no 

question that in this latest funding cycle the money that we were 

able to provide to States for what I would describe as capacity 

funding was less, and the main reason for that is because the first 

determination of how much States, including Minnesota, would get 

as capacity funds was put together back in 2010 when GLRI was 

funded at a level of $475 million. 

That was a 5-year allocation, if you will, and it was based on the 

belief that there would be $475 million. During that 5-year period 

we did not reduce that annual allocation even though the amount 

dropped from $475 million to roughly $300 million a year over the 

last 4 years. We did not change the allocation during that 5 years. 

When that grant expired after 5 years and it was time to renegotiate a new grant with the States, we were looking at what was essentially a 37-percent reduction in the GLRI if we were looking at 

a $300 million level. If we were looking at a $250 million level that 

was proposed, that was a 48-percent reduction compared to what 

we had back in 2010. 

That was the main reason why we had to reduce the amount of 

capacity funding for the States. 

Your second comment, which I am very glad you raised the issue 

of this project-specific funding, one of the things that we are trying 

to emphasize—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Staffing for project specific, yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Exactly. One of the things that we are trying to 

do is make a clear distinction between funding for capacity and 

funding for projects. I will give you an example. 

Capacity funding for us would be money given to a State, for example, to allow staff to attend meetings, to allow them to travel, 

to allow them to do overall budgeting over their plan as a whole. 

Project specific work would be, for example, staff working on a 

specific AOC-related project. And one of the things that we tried 

to convey to the States is we want them to start putting their staffing needs in their project applications rather than just relying on 

capacity grants to take all of that into account. 

So in other words, we think there should be an appropriate 

amount of capacity funding to do overall planning, but if staff is 

going to be working on a specific AOC project, our advice to the 

States is build that number into your project application; build that 

cost into the project application; and then that will be treated as 

part of the project. 

We would intend to fund it, assuming we had the money, but it 

gets us away from this ‘‘is there enough capacity money to do both 

capacity- and project-specific work?’’ The reason we want to do that 

is because we think if we can more clearly identify when money 

22 

has gone to specific projects, it just gives us a better ability to account for that money. 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, and I appreciate that, but you know, having 

staffing for a greater coordination and collaboration, you know, as 

you were celebrating and I celebrate, it gives the regional groups 

a greater capacity to adjust as well, depending on, you know, what 

the county/State priorities are and what they might want to fund, 

and so I appreciate your trying to take a look at a bigger picture. 

But if the city or the State or the county wants to do something 

differently, but significant, you know, with that coordination, that 

collaboration, that is how you know about that, and that is how 

you can adjust to it and make the things happen. 

Well, I am about out of time here, but thank you very much for 

all the great work that you do. This is really important, and I lament the fact, Mr. Chairman, that we celebrate and, you know, we 

might be able to come up with $300 million, you know, when it is 

darn near $200 million short of what we are used to. 

So, you know, I think we should look at trying to find some ways 

to authorize a greater expenditure here for this important project. 

Lastly, Mr. Kramer, and just a quick answer, you talked about 

if we did away with all of the agricultural pollution we would reduce it like 40 percent, and you alerted to the other sources. 

Do you have any statistics on exactly how much comes from municipal and industry and other? 

And if you do, could you share those with us? 

Mr. KRAMER. No, Congressman, I do not. We can check with 

some of our scientists and see if they have pulled some of that information, but I am not aware of that. We were just looking at the 

agricultural and what reductions in phosphorus and nutrients and 

nitrogen we would see from all of the treatment of all of the agricultural land. 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, if you come across any of that, take a look, 

would you please, and let us know? 

Mr. KRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. NOLAN. And maybe we could have our staff look at that, too, 

and that would be helpful to us in understanding the scope of this 

problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Before we excuse the panel, I know I have one question. I think my ranking member has a question. 

But I guess, Mr. Korleski, we are going to go to you with your 

background as a former Ohio EPA director and your role now. 

There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of open-lake 

disposal for dredging and the legacy issues. 

Can you just give us your thoughts of what the impact might be 

on, you know, the legacy issues of phosphorus for the open-lake disposal? 

Mic, mic, mic, mic. 

Mr. KORLESKI. The green button was on. You fooled me. 

Mr. Chairman, that is a great question. So we know that openlake disposal is a huge issue, for example, in the Cuyahoga area. 

There the issue is not so much phosphorus or nutrients—— 

Mr. GIBBS. It is PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]. 

23 

Mr. KORLESKI. PCBs, exactly. So that is one kind of issue you 

have. 

Out in Toledo where there is a much larger amount of sediment 

that needs to be dredged there, there is some speculation that by 

open-lake disposal that material could exacerbate the phosphorus 

problem. I have never heard anyone point to any scientific certainty or as close as you can get on science. 

What we are thinking about, one of the big issues that we are 

thinking about with regard to open-lake disposal is in general I 

think most people would prefer if it did not go into the lake. 

The problem is, and the problem that we want to work on with 

our partners is, finding beneficial uses for that material, whether 

it is filling in old basements, whether it is for stockpiling for soil 

for gardens, whatever that is. We think that beneficial use is critical. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just to comment a little bit on the Cuyahoga-Cleveland issue, I think they have made significant progress on finding 

beneficial uses, the filling in the basements of the Land Bank Program there. The bedload interceptor, I do not know if you are familiar with that, started this spring going up the Cuyahoga River 

upstream and collecting a lot of sediment before it gets more in the 

contaminated legacy areas. So I am hopeful that could come in. 

The good thing about that issue there, the amount of cubic yards 

is a lot less than what we have in the Toledo-Maumee area. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. And that is highly laden with phenyl phosphorus, and 

I know that you said there is no scientific evidence. I did not know 

if there was any thought of trying to do more studies. 

I know there have been comments made by certain elected officials in Ohio that, you know, they put it out in the lake and Lake 

Erie is so shallow out there, that is one of the major problems, 

issues, challenges. It kind of gets washed back into it. 

And we think that could be a hypothesis as a fact that maybe 

it is adding to the legacy issues. Go ahead. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Mr. Chairman, going back to my days at Ohio 

EPA, I wrote a very heartfelt letter to the Corps of Engineers expressing concerns with in-lake disposal in the Toledo area because 

of the volume of the amount. 

During that time I talked to a lot of technical people, scientists, 

about is there any—I will not even call it conclusive—hard evidence that this is going to exacerbate either the phosphorus problem, the nutrient problem through any mechanism. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. And I could not get a clear answer. So I think I 

am relying on what many other people are relying on, which is it 

is such a large amount of sediment there must be a better use for 

it. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. But finding that use—— 

Mr. GIBBS. It should be an asset instead of a liability. 

Mr. KORLESKI. That is the way we would look at it. 

Mr. GIBBS. This is the last quick question. The Western Lake 

Erie Basin, you know, is so shallow, 30 feet or whatever it is, comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
24 

pared to maybe up in Mr. Ribble’s area of Lake Superior I have 

heard 700 feet. I do not know. It is very deep. 

So open-lake disposal in depths like that, common sense would 

tell you that maybe it is not an issue because of the depth. Would 

you concur with that? 

Mr. KORLESKI. I think that, Mr. Chairman, if you are talking 

about the Western Basin where I think somewhere around 20, 25 

feet is the average depth—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI [continuing]. If you are dumping in roughly 1 million cubic yards—I do not recall what the exact volume is—I can 

see the argument that, well, OK, you are certainly just keeping this 

shallow. 

But, again, I would be reluctant to assert with any certainty that 

I know that that is either exacerbating the nutrient problem or any 

other problem. 

The one thing I would say and what I pointed out several years 

ago though is the question I would have is: how much are you redredging that you have already dredged? 

And I raised that issue back in 2010 when I believe this came 

up and was not able to get a clear answer then either. 

Mr. GIBBS. It would be nice if somebody put markers on there 

so that you actually tracked that. 

Mr. KORLESKI. Yes. Yes, it would. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Go ́mez, the GAO’s report of July 2015 indicated EPA should 

improve its monitoring reporting data. So before your report came 

out they changed it to the EAGL system. How is that improving 

and will that satisfy? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So that is a good question, and, right, as we were 

doing our work we had recommendations for EPA to either decide 

to do away with the old system or improve the old system. 

The new system that they have, which is referred to as EAGL, 

when we were doing our work, EPA was still finalizing it. So we 

have not looked at it to see how it is working. We do think that 

it is—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. When will you know though? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Well, so we are going to be tracking the development 

of it. So I believe that EPA is supposed to allow data entry at the 

beginning of fiscal year 2016. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So not until next year? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So once that happens, we were also interested to 

make sure. I know one thing that EPA has done already is restricted who inputs information into that system so that now you 

get more consistent information. In the old system, everybody I believe who was a grantee or was an entity receiving funds could 

input information. 

EPA has also improved the guidance that they have provided 

to—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is it project specific? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes. It would be project specific, and they are restricting who can do it. It is just Federal agencies, and they have 

better guidance. 

25 

So we would like to see how that goes and can report back on 

it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How long will it take you after you review 

that data next year? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Well, we would have to wait until at least there is 

some data entry. So once the Federal agencies enter the information I would give it a year for us to see how well it is working. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How often will you track that data? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Well, at this point because we did not make a recommendation, because EPA was taking action, we would probably 

have to look at the effort again. So we would get a request from 

you that says go back in and see how this system is working. We 

would be more than happy to do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Or if it is working. 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. The one thing that I just wanted to add which has 

not been brought up, and I think it is important to mention, the 

issue of nutrient runoff, and that is in the work that we did as we 

talked to stakeholders, they told us about an issue that really is 

not addressed by the GLRI, and that is the issue of inadequate 

stormwater and wastewater infrastructure that leads to runoff. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Water treatment plants. 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So that is a big area. We refer to it sometimes as 

urban runoff. I think it has maybe been referred to, but that is an 

area that stakeholders said is key. It contributes to nutrient runoff, 

and it’s not addressed really by the GLRI. 

Obviously, you know, EPA has the State Revolving Funds and 

each State then provides money. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What would provide the ability to be able to 

not control but actually modify how it is being treated and who is 

treating it? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So in a lot of cases what happens with this infrastructure, it is just one pipeline. So in heavy rains, the overflow 

just goes into streams, lakes, rivers instead of the treatment plant. 

So it is an issue in a lot of places, and you will probably hear from 

the second panel, it is an issue that a lot of cities and towns across 

the country face. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So are you looking at the improvement or upgrading of the water treatment plants to be able to accommodate 

that? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. That is one option, yes. So others are—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But is that being considered? 

Mr. KORLESKI. So under the GLRI one of the things that we are 

focusing on is controlling stormwater runoff through something 

called green infrastructure. We do not spend and we are prohibited 

from spending GLRI money on hard infrastructure like wastewater 

treatment plants. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI. We cannot do that, but we are very well aware 

that stormwater runoff can cause health hazards. You cannot swim 

in a beach because of E. coli, whatever the problem may be. So we 

have devoted a considerable amount of funds and we are continuing to focus on this concept of green infrastructure, which can 

be as simple as where you have got runoff running down into a 

beach area you construct a little—we would call it a swale, a little 

26 

ditch. You put plants in it that absorb the runoff. They filter the 

runoff so that before it actually gets into the lake, it has essentially 

been filtered and you have captured a lot of the E. coli. 

That kind of project we can do, and we have had two rounds now 

of what we have called green infrastructure funding, and we plan 

to continue. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But wouldn’t it make sense to be able to assist 

the treatment plants to be able to upgrade or expand, to be able 

to handle in times when you have exceeding amounts of rain? 

Mr. KORLESKI. And again, part of the green infrastructure intent 

is to capture some of the water before it gets into the concrete 

stormwater system. By reducing that amount of stormwater getting 

into the system, it can reduce the likelihood of overflows. 

But again, the way GLRI is structured, we can’t offer money to 

fix or update treatment plants themselves. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, it might be something you might 

want to consider in the future. 

Now, you mentioned an issue—I think it was Mr. Kramer—on 

quagga mussel infestation. Somebody did. Was it you, Mr. 

Korleski? 

Quagga mussel, that is very costly to reduce or clean the intake 

valves in all the systems that are affected. What have you found 

is, how would I say, working to be able to reduce the impact it has 

on those intakes? 

Mr. KORLESKI. So, Ranking Member, probably the latest news is 

within the past year there has been—I am not recalling the term— 

I will call it a ‘‘quaggacide’’ or a ‘‘zebracide.’’ There has been essentially a pesticide that has been found to be effective against 

Dreissena mussels, which are the quagga and zebra mussels. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The zebra, yes. 

Mr. KORLESKI. And the information thus far shows that it can 

have an impact on them without impacting other, for example, native mussels. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you send to this subcommittee information on that? Because I am sure some of our entities would be glad 

to know what it is that is successful in that area. 

Mr. KORLESKI. We would be happy to do so. The one thing I 

would point out is that thus far it has only been tried on a pilot 

level. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. KORLESKI. It has only been tried on a pilot level. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Now, California has many problems with 

water, as you well know, we are facing drought. But are there any 

recommendations you have for California? 

Mr. KORLESKI. Ranking Member Napolitano, the only thing I can 

say is I think with each passing month and year, whether we live 

in California or we live in the Great Lakes Basin, we all realize 

that water is precious. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Mr. KORLESKI. And it is being recognized as being more precious, 

and we have to protect it. Whether it is on one extreme a drought 

where we have to do a better job of conserving water or on the 

other extreme, you are seeing more intensive storms dumping a 

27 

large amount of water in a short period of time; we have to plan 

for that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But what I find more interesting is the partnerships that were forged to be able to make this happen. 

So thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to thank the panel for coming in today and 

sharing your thoughts and expertise, and I think it is in the report 

and in our hearing today that collaboration, working with all of the 

different agencies, and the private entities, and, Mr. Go ́mez, you 

raised a good point about the hard infrastructure, the mine sewer 

overflows and all of that issue, and we did put in the WRRDA 

[Water Resources Reform and Development Act] bill the last time 

a WIFIA pilot program to try to help supplement the State Revolving Funds to address the hard issues. 

But also on the green side of things, as a farmer I can tell you 

I have seen amazing things happen with buffer strips and grass 

waterways. The filtration process in nature is really amazing, and 

so there are some things that can be incorporated that I think 

make a lot of sense. 

I think we know the work that NRCS and all the people who do 

that on a voluntary basis, working with all of the farmers in the 

agricultural sector out there, is very important, and moving forward I think we can make some good progress. 

So again, thank you for coming in today, and you are excused, 

and we will bring up the second panel. 

Welcome to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

Today on our panel 2 we have Mr. Jon Allan. He is the acting chair 

of the Great Lakes Commission; the Honorable John Dickert, the 

mayor of the city of Racine, Wisconsin; Mr. Ed Wolking, Jr., the executive director of Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition; Mr. 

Doug Busdeker, director of the Ohio AgriBusiness Association; and 

Mr. Chad Lord, who is the policy director of Healing Our Waters— 

Great Lakes Coalition. 

Welcome, and, Mr. Allan, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF JON W. ALLAN, CHAIR, GREAT LAKES COMMISSION; HON. JOHN DICKERT, MAYOR, CITY OF RACINE, WISCONSIN; ED WOLKING, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT 

LAKES METRO CHAMBERS COALITION; DOUGLAS R. 

BUSDEKER, DIRECTOR, OHIO AGRIBUSINESS ASSOCIATION; 

AND CHAD W. LORD, POLICY DIRECTOR, HEALING OUR WATERS—GREAT LAKES COALITION 

Mr. ALLAN. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for holding this hearing today. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative remains a top priority for 

the Great Lakes Commission and its member States, and we appreciate your oversight and your interest in it. 

I serve as director of Michigan’s Office of the Great Lakes, but 

I am here today as chairman of the Great Lakes Commission. I 

moved from acting to chair just the other day. 

The commission was formed by eight States in 1955 to provide 

a common voice on behalf of the eight States on important Great 

Lakes issues. 

28 

The Great Lakes are a great national treasure and a vital economic interest. They provide us with multiple benefits, but most 

profoundly they constitute the social and cultural background for 

nearly 40 million U.S. and Canadian citizens who live within that 

basin. The lakes are a significant and growing component of our regional and national economies. 

Restoring and properly caring for the Great Lakes is a longstanding and a bipartisan priority for our region’s leaders, including my boss, Governor Rick Snyder. The focus has continued 

through Democratic and Republican administrations and enjoys 

broad-based support among States, tribes, cities, businesses, industries, and with conservation groups. 

The commission and its member States have been deeply engaged with the GLRI since its inception. The States actually helped 

formulate some of the original GLRI focus areas and State staff are 

supporting many of the projects and actions underway either directly on projects or assisting local partners across each of our 

States. The States’ contributions are vital to the program’s success. 

The GLRI is a strong and well-managed program that is targeting resources at our most serious problems and areas. It is supported by sound science, and is guided by an action plan with important performance metrics. 

The GLRI has stimulated impressive progress over the past 5 

years. Noteworthy highlights include actions to thwart bighead and 

silver carp from invading the Great Lakes, targeted nutrient reductions in watersheds contributing to dangerous algae blooms, and of 

course, the cleanups of the AOCs we have been talking about. 

Really one of the most striking impacts, I think, has been in this 

area of AOCs, where the GLRI together with State resources and 

local resources and capacities is enabling communities to clear 

their legacy contamination and to revitalize degraded waterfronts, 

transforming them into once again valuable assets. 

Last year we were very proud in Michigan that we were able to 

delist two of those AOCs, and it is really not the Federal Government that I want to think about and the States, but it is 30 years 

of people in communities that worked hard towards that end. So 

I want to recognize how important the communities have been. It 

is important, and they feel the benefit of that progress. 

I will say though that it would not have been possible under any 

circumstance without GLRI to promote that activity. Communities 

have been waiting for decades for this kind of progress. 

While the GLRI predominantly focuses on ecosystem improvements, it is also generating important cultural, social, and economic benefits for the region and the Nation and for our communities and should be recognized and celebrated. Businesses, jobs, 

wildlife, and people—people—are returning to waterfronts across 

the region that were once written off, ignored, forgotten about. 

Performance metrics really cannot fully capture this evolution as 

much as we work towards that end, but it is profoundly important 

for local economies and for our quality of life and really, human 

well-being. 

There is room for improvement, however. You have seen some of 

that in our written testimony. The commission’s specific recommendations have been provided there. However, I will just highVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
29 

light a few of the following things that we have already touched on, 

I believe. 

First, we really urge improved coordination, consultation, engagement with the States. We really see ourselves as more than 

just stakeholders. We have sovereign authorities. We have regulatory responsibilities. We have direct connections to communities, 

and really work hand in hand with them and our Federal partners 

as well. We see this as collateral partnerships. 

Second, we need to sustain State capacity to support an effective 

Federal-State partnership. We need to ensure that Federal programs are integrated with State priorities and workplans, and we 

must maintain State capacity towards that end. 

Third, we must maintain long-term monitoring to assess 

progress, success, and as we have heard, to adapt over time. 

Finally, we need to better target our nutrient reduction actions 

to prioritized watersheds that contribute to the formation of harmful algae. 

While some of that coordination is directly beyond GLRI, it is in 

other programs and other Federal programs that can be aligned 

with both the Federal and the State interests, and the States can 

play a very unique role in helping that coordination amongst multiple programs. 

In conclusion, the commission reiterates two priorities for Congress: sustained funding for Great Lakes restoration. We really 

need to continue the progress that we have seen, continue the efforts that really have been happening for decades with great success recently; and ultimately to pass formal legislation authorizing 

the GLRI. 

The GLRI has generated real progress, progress that would not 

have occurred without it and refinements such as the ones in our 

testimony can build upon that success. The commission and its 

member States urge Congress to support the program, and we 

pledge, as States and through the Great Lakes Commission, our 

continued partnership towards the restoration of the Great Lakes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mayor, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. DICKERT. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and committee members, good morning. Ranking Member Napolitano, good morning, 

and all of you watching in TV land, good morning. 

I am Mayor John Dickert, mayor of Racine, Wisconsin. We are 

a city between Milwaukee and Chicago on Lake Michigan, about 

80,000 folks. 

I sit as the vice chair of the Metro Economies Committee with 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors and also serve on their Mayors 

Water Council. I was the past chair of the binational Great Lakes 

and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, and I serve on Governor Walker’s Coastal Management Commission, and was president of the 

Urban Alliance in Wisconsin. 

What does this all mean? It means I am a little familiar with 

water. I am here to testify for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and 

the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, and I ask that 

the testimony be inserted in the record. 

We did have the best tasting water in 2011. Our Blue Wave 

Beach has been consistent for 12 years, and USA Today and NRDC 

30 

[Natural Resources Defense Council] rated us as one of the top 

beaches in the world. So to say the least, we are committed to 

water. 

We have put our focus on it, and the importance of the Great 

Lakes obviously cannot be overstated. As we saw with Toledo, 20 

years ago they were actually rated as the best tasting water in 

America. 

We just recently had a meeting with them and Mayor Rahm 

Emanuel, which we held in Chicago because of the problems that 

they had in shutting down water to 500,000 people. When you don’t 

pay attention to the problems, obviously we can have dramatic effects. 

We are obviously seeing that 20 percent of the freshwater in the 

world is from the Great Lakes, and the Conference of Mayors did 

a study where only 35 percent of the mayors that responded knew 

where their water was coming from in 2020. That is a sad fact, but 

the mayors, we spend a lot of money on our infrastructure and our 

water. In 2012, we spent $111 billion on our infrastructure to provide those two. Congress, thankfully, spent $2 billion. So we thank 

you for that. 

We recognize the importance of infrastructure when 94 percent 

of the withdrawals that we are taking are for food, food production, 

drinking water and energy. That is why GLRI is so incredibly important. You know when you look at nearly 2,700 projects have 

been done since this started, this is incredible, and I have got to 

tell you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for doing 

this. Thank you for holding this meeting and talking about this. It 

is important to us. 

The Conference obviously supports this. We ask and pray that 

you break down the silos within the agencies so we can all work 

together. We have been doing that. We have been officially and effectively using your taxpayer dollars because we know how vital 

every one of those dollars is. 

Closer to home in Racine, we have used GLRI money in a blending of three projects, one to take a beachfront that was so polluted 

you could not even walk on it it smelled so bad, and turning that 

beach around making it available to handicapped and seniors. We 

then blended it with a road project where we took the road and 

took the runoff into an environmentally friendly, sensitive cleaning, 

and then cleaned out our harbor and worked with pervious pavement to provide an opening for the largest inland fishing tournament in the world. 

We do this blending because we know the dollars are important. 

We do it because we get peak efficiencies and cost savings by 

blending all of this together, and I will tell you GLRI has been consistently used to leverage multiple partners in funding because we 

have redeveloped areas that would have never been redeveloped 

without these funds. 

We rebuild our cities, and we do them efficiently and effectively. 

We are the ground game that you are talking about. When you are 

asking who is doing all of the work, well, we are the ones, and we 

are here because we know the dollars are precious. 

Mayors have been responsible to protect the public health and 

safety of our citizens. That is our job. That is what we do. So we 

31 

are prepared to break down the silos, work with you, create that 

efficiency and effectiveness, but also that flexibility. 

There is a Native American saying that I wanted to end with and 

maybe touch on two other points if we have a second, which is that 

we do not inherit the land from our ancestors. We borrow it from 

our children. So we ask you to work with us so that we can create 

a future for our children that is an amazing one. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I 

would just like to say I know you have talked about brownfields 

in the past, and you have had testimony on it, and I will tell you 

that in cities like ours that are industrial, we would not be able 

to rebuild our cities and create new growth and a new economy 

without it. 

So I have leveraged the brownfields funding in my city for a potential of up to $200 million in growth over the last 5 years. 

The last thing is that I know that you are looking at authorization of this, as mentioned earlier. I hope you do do that. 

The last piece is that I know that the appropriations language 

and the EPA section 428 of Senate bill 1645 is regarding discharges, and I will simply leave it at this because my time is over. 

We can control discharges about as well as we can control weather, 

and because of that we simply cannot prepare for all of it. 

So we are doing our best, and we look forward to that conversation, but I hope you will consider that language carefully. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wolking, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. WOLKING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

I represent the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, which is 

a group of Midwestern chambers dedicated to the competitiveness 

of the Great Lakes trading region, emphasizing Federal actions 

that will accelerate our region’s economic comeback. We have an 

appreciation of the fundamental role of manufacturing in our region and a tight focus on targeted key issues especially important 

to this region. 

Together with the Great Lakes Manufacturing Council, we have 

pioneered the notion that the binational Great Lakes region is the 

third largest economy in the world when you take the combined 

State and provincial GDPs [gross domestic products] together. 

More about our agenda and our issues is in this brochure. I am 

happy to make that available to the subcommittee with your leave. 

At the center of our region is the Great Lakes. It is a fundamental transportation artery, as Chairman Gibbs has noted, but it 

is also from a different perspective, a defining and precious geographic asset. It is the most important body of freshwater in the 

world. It is critical to the economic well-being of our region, the social fabric of our region, and the employment of many thousands 

of people, and it is key to the region’s and Nation’s future. 

A critical consideration is whether you can have growth and economic development and quality environment at the same time, and 

it used to be that people thought it was a false choice between 

growth and the environment and you had to choose one or another. 

32 

But with technology and processes we have today, we can have 

both clean, desirable waterways and economic growth, and that is 

often cited by political, business and community leaders. 

Our coalition’s Great Lakes-related priorities include what has 

been mentioned here before a time or two: the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund, which is very important to the lakes; prevention 

of Asian carp; and eradication from the Mississippi and Ohio watersheds which sit on the doorstep of our region, and obviously the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative where we spend much of our 

time. 

The effects of this program, the GLRI, are enormous. More than 

2,500 projects that GLRI has been involved in overall; over 5,300 

miles of U.S. coastland; and 99 percent of the funds have been obligated. 

We have gone over the numbers and the five pillars from other 

speakers. I will not belabor those, but those pillars are very, very 

important to the region’s future. 

Some have tried to pin a specific ROI [return on investment] on 

this wide-ranging initiative. Our view is that that takes major 

time. There is a lot of interrelated, intricate, hard to quantify moving parts. It is complicated work, but we are learning. About 10 

years ago a Brookings group calculated an ROI that was about 31⁄2

to 1. More recently a Grand Valley State University Muskegon 

Lake project calculated an ROI of about 6 to 1. 

These are systems approaches, however, and they are hard to 

model, but we would say the real key to all of this is that everybody in our region knows that this is the right thing to do and that 

if we stay the course, good things, many good things, are going to 

come of this initiative. 

It is bringing activity back, and it is vital to placemaking, which 

plays such a fundamental role in economic growth and decisions 

today. 

We support the minimum $300 million annual investment, which 

we think is a sensible level in these challenging times. We heartily 

support the notion of H.R. 223, the Great Lakes Restoration Improvement Act, for continuity purposes and to really solidify this 

program for the next 5 or so years. 

We are very supportive of the EPA’s action plan II and obviously 

that adds up to being supportive of the fundamental work that this 

initiative is accomplishing. 

Many things are working in this approach. You can see the results. That is an important part of it. The multiagency interdisciplinary approach is key. We can build on this project, this initiative and gain momentum from our results, from learning how to 

work on this together, and also from engaging more stakeholders. 

A question came up, how to do better. Really there are a few 

things I would recommend on high-level terms and leave the details to the experts. 

Number one, a formal authorization of H.R. 223 is very important. 

Also, improved consultation, collaboration and coordination both 

vertically, up and down between Federal and State agencies, and 

local communities as well as across the range of Federal agencies. 

33 

Obviously the measuring and the monitoring systems are key, 

and the improvements that are coming in action plan II. The data, 

the stories, making everything accessible to all, and also the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II, also very, very important to the future. 

And one final comment, thinking about Canada, it is very, very 

important to think of our relationship to our neighbor to the north. 

They are also the other key stakeholder. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Busdeker, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to be here today. 

I am Doug Busdeker of Pemberville, Ohio, in northwest Ohio. I 

am employed by the Andersons in Maumee, Ohio. I serve as a 

board member of the Ohio AgriBusiness Association, which represents the Ohio crop nutrient industry, along with grain, feed, 

seed and crop protection. 

The Andersons, Incorporated, my employer, was founded in 1947 

by Harold Anderson and built the first grain elevator in Maumee, 

Ohio. Currently I serve as a senior manager for Northern Farm 

Centers consisting of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. 

I am pleased to be here today to relate the many positive agricultural activities occurring in the Western Lake Erie Basin. During 

my career I have engaged with farmers, engaged as an agricultural 

retailer in the region. 

Following the large algal bloom that occurred in 2011 in the 

Western Lake Erie Basin, many in the agricultural community recognized that agricultural retailers and farmers would need to play 

a bigger role finding solutions to address water quality challenges. 

Healthy water, clean, fishable and drinkable water is important to 

everyone, including all in agriculture. We recognize that agriculture must be part of the solution. 

Following the algal bloom of 2011, the Nature Conservancy 

partnered with several key agricultural retailers in the Western 

Lake Erie Basin to develop the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program. This voluntary program was focused on agricultural retailers since agronomists, certified crop advisers, sales personnel, and applicators were recognized as having a strong influence on nutrient use. 

Currently 17 agricultural retailers have been certified representing 1.2 million acres of cropland and 3,200 farmers in Ohio 

and Michigan. Another 10 are awaiting confirmation. Since our 

program launch on March 18, 2014, a total of 71 agricultural retailers are in the process or have indicated interest in becoming certified. 

The 4R Nutrient Certification Program was founded on the Fertilizer Institute’s 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles of the right 

source, right rate, right time, and right place, and includes social, 

economic and environmental BMPs [best management practices]. 

SCS Global, a respected independent audit development firm, 

was hired to create the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification 

standard. This standard involves 41 different specific criteria that 

34 

are audited to become certified. Many newer BMPs are already occurring in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Cover crops of all types 

are growing in popularity. Equipment manufacturers are offering 

several new tillage options to inject crop nutrients below the surface. Application of gypsum is quickly being adopted, the sequestered phosphorus reducing dissolved reactive phosphorus runoff. 

Use of nutrient management plans to precisely determine the required nutritional balance for each crop is common. Commercial 

fertilizer nutrients are one of the single largest expense for traditional growers, and overuse leads to undesirable financial implications. 

Improving soil health resonates with all farmers. There is still 

much work to be accomplished, but conservation activities advance 

each year. On April 2, 2015, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed 

Senate bill 1 into law. Senate bill 1 prohibits manure and fertilizer 

application when fields are frozen, snow-covered or saturated. 

In addition, Ohio Senate bill 150, which requires anyone applying fertilizer on 50 acres or more to become certified, was signed 

by the Governor in May 2014. 

The Ohio AgriBusiness Association fully supported passage of 

both Senate bill 1 and Senate bill 150. 

Research has shown that algal blooms in the Western Basin of 

Lake Erie are predominantly the result of excess dissolved reactive 

phosphorus in our rivers and streams. While the exact source and 

why the increasing amounts of DRP [dissolved reactive phosphorus] is not clearly understood, research has shown that transport from agricultural land plays a significant role. 

In the 1970s and 1980s, when Lake Erie was in serious trouble, 

through research farmers widely adapted new tillage techniques, 

such as no-till conservation tillage. These practices remain in place 

today and contribute greatly to a reduction in particulate phosphorus runoff and erosion. 

Additional research is needed to identify new BMPs that support 

a reduction of dissolved reactive phosphorus during periods of extreme rainfall. To that end the fertilizer industry has committed $7 

million to establish a 4R research fund. The goal of the fund is to 

establish sustainability indicators and environmental impacts for 

implementation of 4R Nutrient Stewardship across America. The 

fund provides a much needed resource for the focus on measuring 

and documenting the economic, social and environmental impacts 

of 4R Nutrient Stewardship. 

For the sake of time, I thank you again for this opportunity to 

provide you with an update on the many positive activities and 

projects occurring in the Western Basin of Lake Erie as we seek 

solutions to improve water quality. 

We all share the goal of having clean water for many generations 

to come. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lord, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. LORD. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share our coalition’s views with you today. 

As you have heard, the Great Lakes are a global resource with 

millions depending on their clean water. Yet the lakes still suffer 

35 

from a legacy of toxic pollution, invasive species, harmful algal 

blooms, and the loss of habitat. 

Ten years ago President Bush asked our region to prepare a comprehensive restoration plan to address these and other problems. 

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy was created. 

Four years later, President Obama proposed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative that launched our region on a restoration path 

barely imaginable a decade ago. 

Because of the GLRI, we have been able to undertake one of the 

world’s largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects. Groups 

across the region are focusing on public-private partnerships to 

clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species, partnerships that may never have come together had it not been for the GLRI. 

The GLRI’s size and scope means it plays a central, albeit not 

the only, role in successfully restoring and protecting the Great 

Lakes. The GLRI has accelerated progress and catalyzed critical 

restoration action that likely would never have happened otherwise. 

For example, in Duluth, toxic mud from the bottom of Stryker 

Bay was removed, making the bay safe to swim in once more. 

The city of Marysville, Michigan, replaced a failing seawall with 

a natural sloping shore and wetland providing valuable fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

The Brickstead Dairy near Green Bay planted cover crops reducing runoff to improve water quality. 

How we are accomplishing this is equally as impressive. The 

GLRI is a model for large, landscape-scale restoration. It ensures 

the focus remains on the region’s highest priorities. It sought to fix 

the problem GAO identified all the way back in 2003 that there 

was inadequate coordination among Federal agencies. 

Now, the EPA quickly converts the funding it receives for restoration activities by passing it through to other Federal agencies 

so they can direct it through their existing authorized programs at 

the region’s highest needs. The GAO seemed to recognize these 

benefits in its most recent report. It found that Federal agencies 

had allocated almost all the GLRI funds that they had received and 

that it promotes efficiency and effectiveness by bringing agencies 

together to agree on common goals to prioritize restoration work. 

In short, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is working. However, no program is perfect. The GLRI should be continuously reviewed and updated to reflect the changes to the lakes, program 

deficiencies that have arisen or yet to be addressed, or new threats 

that have emerged. 

So what changes should be made? First, Congress should remove 

all doubt that the region is on the right path and restoration efforts 

are on track. Pass H.R. 223, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

Act. Passing this bill creates greater certainty for the program and 

allows everyone to focus on getting the job done. 

Second, we support even greater targeting of GLRI funds in priority watersheds. However, we expect the GLRI to invest in all five 

focus areas and to fund activities in these areas as a prescription 

for recovery. 

36 

We also want to see more consistency on when requests for proposals are released each year. 

Third, we remain worried that we are not as effective on larger 

lakewide scales at monitoring, scientific assessment and program 

project evaluation. Generally speaking, our coalition’s members 

support the integration of monitoring requirements for projects 

they are undertaking. 

Successful monitoring has assisted HOW [Healing Our Waters] 

groups in documenting short- and long-term project successes. 

However, it is not clear how comprehensive and systematic monitoring is and how these local efforts add up to a well-monitored, 

scientifically assessed system. 

Since the beginning we have been saying that monitoring requires more GLRI resources than it receives now, and that those 

funds be available beyond just a couple of years so we can track 

long-term progress. It would also help if this monitoring stems 

from a Great Lakes research plan which has yet to be assembled. 

Fourth, buy-in from the Great Lakes community is also critical 

to the overall success of the GLRI. Agencies at every level of Government must talk to the public to help understand what progress 

has been made, where efforts should focus next, and whether the 

restoration priorities of the Great Lakes restoration community 

and, therefore, the GLRI, should change based on those assessments. 

Annual engagement of the non-Federal stakeholder community 

leads to better coordination and better alignment of resources and 

work at all levels. 

To sum up, the Great Lakes restoration investments are paying 

off for the environment and economy. The Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative is Government at its best; agencies working with business, civic and community groups collaboratively on a common 

goal. The results are impressive and underscore why this national 

effort needs to be authorized so that we can see the job through 

to the end. Cutting funding will only make the job harder and more 

expensive. 

Thank you for inviting me to share our views with you. I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I will start off with a question here. 

Mr. Allan, in your testimony you describe the need for increased 

coordination, consultation and engagement between the Federal 

GLRI agencies and the Great Lakes States. Can you give us examples of how the current efforts by the Federal agencies in the area 

are just not enough? 

And then are States treated as coequal partners? Can you just 

elaborate? 

Mr. ALLAN. Yes, thank you. 

It has been subject to our written testimony as well. I think the 

States are feeling the necessity to be sort of engaged in some of the 

decisionmaking process, not just as the recipients of the funds, but 

really a little more upstream in that process to make sure that we 

can coordinate as much as we can with other existing State programs, State resources, and really at the community level, too, to 

help be part of that facilitation. 

37 

So I think that is an important aspect. As I said, I think the program has worked well. A lot of money gets targeted to the right 

things, but I think the States would like to see some further integration sort of upstream in that decisionmaking. 

We did receive a letter to our letter to Administrator McCarthy. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are the States involved in the subgroups that we 

talked about in the first panel? 

Mr. ALLAN. They have not up to this point, but we have some 

commitments from EPA that the States will be included further in 

that deliberative process. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, I think that would be a critical component. I 

mean, it is a partnership. 

Mr. ALLAN. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. States ought to be involved in getting down in the 

weeds. 

Mayor Dickert, can you explain kind of on that same question, 

as a mayor, the relationship of the municipalities with the Federal 

Government on this question about the consultation and involvement? 

Mr. DICKERT. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, we have had a great coordination with EPA region 

5. We do not as mayors, at least I do not and most of the mayors 

that I know, we do not go out and just ask for money willy-nilly 

and just say we want to take all the money without project coordination and dramatic results. 

So the first thing is we work with the EPA and on the problem 

areas that we see for the end game, and that end game is usually 

not only cleaning up the environment, but providing that economic 

benefit as it moves forward, whether it’s helping as business development or overall quality of life issues for your cities. 

The coordination that can go on top of that is the additional coordination with the State, and when you have got all three of those 

players playing in the same sandbox, you have got some really good 

things going on. So they can coordinate their money for efficiency 

and effectiveness with the cities and the counties and the Federal 

Government. It is the perfect answer. 

The issue that we deal with, candidly, is the silos within the Federal Government that there is no flexibility and that limits sometimes even the money that you can go after because it does not fit 

perfectly into a box. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, you would think with a grant process that would 

help break down some of that, but that is what we need to work 

on, I think, in the authorization. 

Mr. DICKERT. Grants and prioritization, correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Mr. Busdeker, on the 4R Program you talk 

about, nutrients, stewardship, dealing with the right source, right 

rate, right time and right place, obviously that is just plain common sense to me as a farmer. Your statement about excess nutrient 

supply costs money, and you cannot hardly do it especially with today’s commodity prices. It is not a smart thing to do. 

Has the GLRI provided any funds to help with your efforts for 

the 4R Program? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

38 

Not directly for the 4R Certification Program. That has been 

funded by industry as well as the folks who become certified that 

go through the audit. They have to pay for the auditing process 

and so forth. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are you seeing with GPS, global positioning system, 

and I know my larger green farmer friends, it is in all their equipment out there, especially in northwestern Ohio, seeing more farmers moving to more specific placement of nutrients using GPS? Is 

that starting to happen or not? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, that is becoming very common. We call it 

variable rate technology in terms of application of nutrients, and 

I would say that is becoming commonplace. It is not 100 percent, 

but it is rapidly progressing forward as the way to apply nutrients. 

Mr. GIBBS. And I think for anybody listening to this or viewing 

this, you know, the reason I raise that question is I think it is important because people do not realize that in any given field you 

can have tremendous yield differentials and fertility levels because 

the soil does change, you know, across a 5,800-acre field or whatever. 

It helps the farmer’s bottom line by getting that nutrient placed 

where it is needed and not putting excess on where it is not needed, and that is where GPS would come in. I think you would concur 

with that, right? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Yes, that is correct. And we have actually for 

years, many, many years previously, used one rate across a field, 

but today we are breaking this up into individual management 

zones based on yields, and that has been occurring not on all fields, 

but we are progressing that way. That is kind of becoming the way 

of the industry. 

Mr. GIBBS. Has the Natural Resources Conservation Service, are 

they doing enough? Is there more they can do or what are your 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, they are doing a lot in the area, especially 

with the cover crops and the various things that are going on. They 

are a great help, yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano, I yield to you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. 

And to that question, Mr. Busdeker, this is all voluntary if I remember correctly, the farmers utilizing fertilizer that was being 

now informed in the way it is being utilized by you. Do you have 

data on that? 

Do you have any data that shows the trend, the lines of the application of these nutrients to the land, both commercial and manure? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, the voluntary part that you have made 

mention was the certification program for the agricultural retailer. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is only about 70 percent certification, right? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, not 70 percent. We have got I think it was 

17, I believe I said, that were certified agricultural retailers. Now, 

that is not farmers. That represents about 1.2 million acres in the 

Western Basin of Lake Erie and about 3,200 farmers. 

But as far as the participation and all in this nutrient management and so forth, that is a pretty high percentage of farmers beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
39 

cause really our sales and certified crop advisors provide that information to the grower. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have any of that data? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Specifically I am not sure I understand the question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The data that shows the trend of the reliance 

on the application of the nutrients, commercial and manure. Are 

you showing how much it is being utilized? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, we know based on crop production. That is 

how we determine how much to apply. It starts with a soil test. 

Then we go through the crop production. We determine yield goals, 

and then we determine how much nutrient needs to be applied, 

which includes livestock waste, if there is livestock waste, as well 

as commercial nutrients. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, could you provide any of that information to this subcommittee so we know what is happening and 

maybe be able to understand a little more? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Certainly. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

And several of you have talked about the importance of the authorization of the GLRI that is in H.R. 223. Mr. Lord does raise 

the importance of the reauthorization of the EPA’s Great Lakes 

National Program Office and also of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

Both are laws. 

Do you agree that these programs also are important for Congress to reauthorize? 

Mr. DICKERT. If I may, yes, and the reason why is simply when 

we are working at the local level, it is all about consistency, and 

if you know, for instance, if you have a developer coming into a city 

like ours where you have just done a brownfield redevelopment and 

that person, that investor knows that they are coming in, but they 

are going to need some additional EPA work to make that happen, 

to create that better riverfront or lakefront, then if there is a consistency in the program, you know that if you do not get it in the 

first year, you can still apply the next year and still try to work 

through those to make those blend together. 

If there is no consistency, then you do not know if that money 

is there. Then you are always battling back and forth to see if the 

project is actually going to happen. 

So for us at the local level, it is purely the consistency knowing 

that the opportunity is there. It allows us to do longer planning, 

create more efficiency and make our projects more effective. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. ALLAN. I would agree. Having a suite of tools available, 

GLRI, Great Lakes Legacy Act, and then having a Federal agency 

in this case, EPA, through the Great Lakes National Program Office, through GLNPO, being able to really sort of be that voice and 

really have that set of relationships develop—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So it does have importance. 

Mr. ALLAN. We think it has great importance moving forward. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. ALLAN. It adds to that clarity and adds to the collaboration. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? No? 

40 

Well, thank you for that, and, Mayor Dickert, I hate to bring up 

the issue of the MS4 [municipal separate storm sewer system], but 

that is going to have to be another issue that is going to affect all 

communities, and I am sure you know Mary Ann Lutz. 

Mr. DICKERT. Oh, all too well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Who is now on my staff doing the MS4 work 

with EPA. 

Mr. DICKERT. Yes, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So I would want to be sure that we communicate that we need to get more of that information so that EPA 

does work with the community to ensure that that is done and that 

it is not heavyhanded as an unfunded mandate to our communities. 

Mr. DICKERT. Right. And candidly, the unfunded mandates that 

come down and sometimes the consent decrees that come down, we 

are already at the local level working on. We may not have met 

necessarily the goal, but I rarely know a mayor who simply sits 

back and says, ‘‘Ah, whatever happens happens.’’ 

We are trying to work ahead of everything so that we do not 

have to worry about it. So any time that we can get the effort 

working together, it is great. It is dealing with the consent decrees 

and the mandates. I always tell everybody it is always better to 

work together. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, yes, but keep Members of Congress informed because they do not know anything about the stormwater 

issue or many of them are not aware that it is going to be an unfunded mandate on their communities. 

Mr. DICKERT. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And they are going to be raising holy youknow-what when it comes down as a mandate. 

Mr. DICKERT. Yes, absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. To Mr. Lord, some have criticized the GLRI 

for the pace which expends the funds. Is it not true that these programs take years to complete and that a more appropriate measure 

would be the total number of funds obligated to the long-term 

projects? 

Mr. LORD. I would agree with that. We see that this is a region 

that has winter. The lakes freeze. There is snow cover. The ability 

for projects to actually be implemented can take years just by the 

vagaries of the weather patterns. I mean we just do not know. 

So using obligations I think is a much better benchmark than 

trying to use expenditures or funds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Make more sense? 

Mr. LORD. I think it does and I think the GAO report that came 

out in 2015 also highlights three or four reasons why expenditures 

may take longer and why you may not be seeing expenditures as 

quickly as you do the obligation of those funds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

A question, Mr. Allan, real quickly. The issue that the EPA’s old 

reporting system is now replaced by EAGL, have you seen that system? Have you looked at it? 

Mr. ALLAN. I have not yet. I think it was still in final testing, 

and I have not had a chance to take a look at it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you being included in being able to understand how it will be applicable? 

41 

Mr. ALLAN. We will definitely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mayor Dickert, it is good to have you here. I live up near Green 

Bay and had a chance to visit your city on many occasions in my 

35 years that I have been traveling around the country and stayed 

as a commercial contractor. 

My question for you, and I have got a couple questions for you 

if you do not mind, I have heard from the Green Bay Clean Water 

Agency as well as read in your testimony your concerns about the 

Interior appropriations bill in the Senate. 

It sounds a little inconsistent. I wonder if you could help me 

navigate the inconsistency when you talk about opposing the language when they are asking for no discharge. Can you expand your 

comments on that a little bit? Because it seems like it is not consistent with the rest of your testimony. 

Mr. DICKERT. Sure, and thank you, Mr. Ribble. It is great to see 

you again, Congressman Ribble. 

When you come down with Senator Kirk’s proposal I believe you 

are talking about, when you come down with a proposal that says 

that you have to eliminate all overflows, there is no system, and 

you can ask the city of Houston because I was talking with our 

mayor the week that they had their storm flooding; there is no system in America that is designed for the complexities of the weather 

that we are having right now. 

If we get 7 inches of rain in Milwaukee, 28 hours later it will 

be in Racine, and we will be flooding, and there is nothing that we 

can do about it because it is a 500-year event. 

So what we are talking about is we are all working, and we 

talked about this earlier. I think Congresswoman Norton brought 

it up. We are all working at creating methods and systems that 

capture stormwater, hold it, clean it, allow it to filter through the 

ground, all working to try to prevent those big 500-year events, but 

it is impossible to do that. 

There is no way Houston could have prepared for what happened 

with their storm that they had. They were 3 feet under water. So 

to simply say that we all have to get to that level, by the time we 

get to that level and that 500-year flood happens, we are probably 

going to have to have an overflow at that time. 

So what we ask is that we are already working as a city. We do 

not have combined sewers. So we are already working as a city to 

prevent all of that. We are putting in 2-million-gallon storage 

tanks. We are doing all of the work environmentally. To simply say 

that we have to do that, that will cost the city of Racine $700 million for 80,000 people. Sixty-five billion dollars, I think, is the 

pricetag for the country for the Great Lakes region. 

It simply is unaffordable. So what I would ask is that we work 

together in advance with these communities to find those best practices and work through those. 

Milwaukee is a perfect example. MMSD [Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District] is working to do different stormwater systems with their combined sewer to make sure that that stormwater 

never even makes it into the system. So we are trying to do that. 

42 

When you look at Green Bay, 1.4 percent of the Lake Michigan 

water, 30 percent of the nutrient load into that areas. You know, 

there are problems that we are all trying to work through. We ask 

that you focus on the big problems and work with those folks, like 

Mayor Jim Schmitt in Green Bay, and try to help them out. 

We are trying to do our own at the local level to prevent this 

from coming in the first place, but I will tell you when a 500-year 

flood hits, you pray. You pray hard because there is not a heck of 

a lot else you can do besides that. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I thank you for expanding your comments that you 

had in writing here. 

I want to also go a little bit further in your testimony. You mentioned the use of porous pavements and things like that in one of 

the projects. Has your city gone to the point of modifying your 

building codes to a 21st-century standard requiring porous pavements, parking lots, sidewalks, vegetative roofing? 

Mr. DICKERT. Right. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Things like that that would actually bring our construction practices into the 21st century as far as managing the 

water runoffs during high rain events. 

Mr. DICKERT. Absolutely. We do, and we work through a series 

of best practices within the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the 

Great Lakes groups to do that. We have actually gone above and 

beyond that. 

That project that I talked about earlier where we have the boat 

ramp, the harbor and the road, all of those were done with environmental sensibility to not only do porous pavement, but to then take 

stormwater management and manage it through the process of 

plants and things like that to preprocess the water. 

We have the system that you talked about earlier where the 

stormwater comes off and it goes through five tiers of environmental purifying before it even gets to the lake. We do all of that. 

The thing that we are doing on top of that because as mayors 

we have to stay efficient and then we have to continue to be efficient. We actually go to a road system where once we do 

stormwater and water and you put the cement on top of the road, 

utilities have the right to cut that road up the next day. We actually work now with our roads where we bring everybody in ahead 

of time, all the utilities, including water and stormwater, so that 

when we do a road, all those five layers are done so that when that 

cement cap goes on top, that road is not going to be touched for 

20 years. 

Those types of processes in long-term planning, to the issues, Mr. 

Chairman, that you brought up earlier about whether those funds 

and Congresswoman Napolitano talked about whether that consistency of those funds are there; that allows us to plan all of that out 

so that we can create all of that efficiency so we can hold back all 

of those items. 

So we do that every day. The best practices we get from our colleagues. Mayor Daley said that, you know, the one thing you do as 

a mayor is steal, and I said as a Catholic that is tough for me, but 

we do. We steal each other’s ideas and we blend them into what 

we are doing. 

43 

Mr. RIBBLE. And I think it is really important because I often 

read language like is in your testimony where you say, ‘‘I cannot 

emphasize enough that we all must be fully engaged and fully committed to water issues if we are going to succeed. You cannot do 

this halfway.’’ 

I hear that a lot, but then when you do the deep dive on building 

codes, you see that they are not really fully committed. I would also 

suggest that to Mr. Wolking for the chambers to also be taking a 

look at how corporate America can be a partner in this issue as 

well. 

It has to be all of us participating as agriculture, in dealing with 

the nonpoint source, endpoint source. If we all would actually move 

into the 21st century, we could preserve this very important chain 

of water. 

So thank you very much for being here, and with that I yield 

back. 

Mr. DICKERT. Thank you. 

And if I may, Mr. Chairman, not just in the ordinances, but in 

the bidding. Your bidding has to include that as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis, do you have any questions? Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for the side conversation there. 

And thank you, Mr. Rokita. 

First off, witnesses, we really appreciate you being here. My first 

question is for Mr. Allan. 

You wrote in your testimony that Federal agencies are not coordinating, consulting and engaging with the States as well as they 

could or should. What are some ways that the Federal agencies 

need to treat the States more as coequal partners in implementing 

the GLRI program? 

Mr. ALLAN. Good question. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLAN. So we did pose that to the EPA in our letter to Gina 

McCarthy, and she has written us back just as of a day or so ago, 

and we can enter that letter into the record as a response. 

And we do agree with it. She is going to invite us or open up additional quarterly discussions with the States, with the Regional 

Working Group. We think this will help really start to facilitate 

more sort of that front-end planning than just, you know, here are 

the priorities, here are the projects, here is where we have to go. 

So as I mentioned before, we are really looking to move that upstream a little bit more in the decision process. 

[The information follows:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 8 here 96275.008
45 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. Thank you. 

And, Mayor—Racine, Wisconsin, right? 

Mr. DICKERT. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Who is your Member of Congress in Racine? 

Mr. DICKERT. Congressman Ryan. 

Mr. DAVIS. Who? 

Mr. DICKERT. Congressman Paul Ryan. You might know him. 

Mr. DAVIS. Not ringing a bell. No, no. 

Mr. DICKERT. He is a good looking, tall guy. You should get to 

know him. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. No, Paul is great, and please do tell him that we were 

giving him some flak here in the T&I Committee. 

Mr. DICKERT. I hope to see him in a little bit. I will remind him. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Let him know we do have other committees here 

besides his vaunted Ways and Means. OK? 

Mayor, I have been a supporter of public-private partnerships. 

Mr. Lord mentioned more public-private partnerships in his testimony. I think they are a good means of leveraging and coordinating resources. 

As a matter of fact, my colleague, Cheri Bustos, and I, along with 

our Senators from Illinois, ensured that there was a provision in 

the WRRDA package to encourage more public-private partnerships. 

Do you see a role for P3s [public-private partnerships] in the 

Great Lakes restoration projects? 

And if so, how can that role lead to further success? And what 

idea may you have to get the Federal agencies past their hesitance 

of doing them? 

Mr. DICKERT. Well, first of all, I think P3s are imperative. We 

use them on a regular basis because the fact is many of these companies, large and small, have the expertise that you need. 

If there is one thing you learn early as a mayor, there is no book 

on how to do the job. So you have to go out and find the organizations, the companies that actually can provide the work, especially 

when you are in emergency modes to finish and help you with 

these. 

I think P3s are not only imperative, but I think it is part of everything that we do. How can we encourage that and move it forward? I still think that the blending of the local governments, the 

State priorities and the Federal priorities should be matched up a 

little bit more. I think that we can get better leverage. 

The other thing I would suggest is that—and I think the EPA 

has allowed for this already. Regionalization of project planning, so 

in other words, if you have two or three municipalities in the same 

area and especially in the Maumee Valley in Ohio, looking at solving that bigger, very complex situation, allowing projects to be 

worked together by one company, if there is one company that is 

very good at what they are doing, allow them to work on three 

projects at the same time to help blend the efficiencies and savings 

of that effort. 

So those are a couple of things that I would suggest. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying the Federal agencies should let 

local municipalities walk and chew gum at the same time. 

46 

Mr. DICKERT. We would love that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, thank you. We would, too. 

Mr. Busdeker, hey, thank you for being here, too. I have a question for you. Is the NRCS doing enough to support the agricultural 

community to implement conservation and best management practices to reduce nonpoint source pollution? 

Yes or no? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Yes and no. They could do more. We could always 

do more. There is a lot of work to be done. We are not—— 

Mr. DAVIS. That was my next question. What more should they 

be doing? 

Mr. BUSDEKER. Well, certainly cover crops are a big piece of what 

we are doing out here today; control structures on tile, and even 

maybe a little bit off to the side here, research is another big piece. 

We need to do more research on this edge of field work so we know 

where this dissolved reactive phosphorus is really coming and what 

BMPs can help mitigate it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Excellent. We actually just had a research hearing in 

my other committee. I had another hearing which is why I was late 

for this one in the House Committee on Agriculture, and in our 

hearing yesterday and the subcommittee I chair focused on agricultural research and working with our land-grant universities. 

If you see a way to partner with our land-grants and with other 

institutions within the agricultural community to get more research dollars towards conservation, please do let me know. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the second I have left. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the witness 

testimony today and also from the first panel as well. 

I give my apologies. Today in three committees and starting yesterday actually where we are getting ready to employ a concept 

called reconciliation, and the Workforce Committee just did its part 

of the reconciliation process for this year that originated in the 

Budget Committee that I am also a part of. So it was a busy day 

for a lot of us. No excuse, but just want you to know where I was 

before this. 

And even though I was distracted by the gentleman from my left 

and though I associate with him regularly, I was able to hear a little bit of your testimony, and so I would like to focus my questions 

I think mostly, and no offense to anyone else, but I want to focus 

my questions directly to Mr. Lord if that is OK. 

Reading your statement last night, you talk about the number of 

jobs that can be created on the Great Lakes due to these restoration projects. I am from Munster, Indiana, Lake County. So we are 

right up there, grew up there, and I would like to think I appreciate the cultural value, the economic value, the environmental 

value of those lakes. 

But this committee and this subcommittee is new to me. I want 

to understand more when you say this will create jobs. Do you 

mean to imply that these restoration efforts are going to go on in 

perpetuity or is there some day when this ends, therefore technically making the jobs temporary? 

Yes, that is a trick question. 

47 

Mr. LORD. I would suggest that that day is a while away. So the 

jobs would be fairly permanent. We have a lot of work that needs 

to be done in the Great Lakes region to address the decades of 

problems that have been building. 

While we have been able to make progress in cleaning up our 

areas of concern, for example, we still have 27 that remain unattended and need to have more focus. While we have been able to 

make some progress in creating new habitat and wetlands, we have 

had a significant amount of—— 

Mr. ROKITA. So in your mind, when is enough enough? When 

would you be satisfied definitionally that the restoration has, in 

fact, occurred? When these 20 projects are done? 

Mr. LORD. Well, I do not know if it is as simple as that. That 

is a very good question, but it is a very difficult question at least 

for me to answer. 

Mr. ROKITA. You have got 2 minutes. 

Mr. LORD. Well, I will do my best. I think I don’t know when we 

will be done. I think some of the indicators that we would like to 

see that would help suggest when we may be close to being finished with our restoration activities would be for a system of lakes 

and connecting channels that are resilient, that can accommodate 

the stresses that we have put on them through the legacy of toxic 

pollution or habitat loss or the introduction of new invasive species 

or the impacts that we are seeing from climate change. 

So we would have a better sense as to knowing that we will be 

closer to being finished with this project when the reaction of the 

system is such that it is able to adapt more effectively to the 

changes that we are asking the system to make. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

Would anyone else like to jump in my line of questioning in 

terms of response? Mr. Allan? 

Mr. ALLAN. I would, and I will direct it in one hand specifically 

to the Area of Concern Program. That is one of the big pieces of 

GLRI. 

Communities have set out very real markers for what they see 

on all the different beneficial use impairments. When they meet 

the next threshold to be able to remove that and if you remove all 

of the beneficial uses, then you can delist the area of concern. So 

that one has very real and definitive markers of success: habitat 

replacement, loss of habitat, fish, consumption of fish, all of those 

pieces. 

And we see ‘‘done’’ in the case of GLRI and under Area of Concern Programs specifically when each of those markers are met and 

the community essentially agrees with the progress made. 

So as principals and actions and projects take place in those communities, as we continue to delist the use impairments, whatever 

that is, once those are agreed to and acknowledged by the community, we can then move on to other things. 

Mr. ROKITA. Anyone else? 

Mr. ALLAN. If we collect enough of those, then the community 

can celebrate its success. 

Mr. ROKITA. Anyone else for 10 seconds? 

Mr. WOLKING. If I may, yes. I think you need to understand, too, 

that getting there gets us to a point where we can say we have acVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:09 Apr 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\9-30-1~1\96275.TXT JEAN
48 

complished these objectives, but we also have to be able to sustain, 

and these are changing ecological and environmental systems. So 

can we also sustain and can we also then find there are other 

needs as well? 

We do not know. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. My time has expired. Appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBS. I have one question. I want to kind of finish up with 

Mr. Wolking. 

In your written testimony, I do not think you highlighted this in 

your verbal testimony, but you talk about the 5,300 miles of shoreline and the complex work and we learn as we go. Then you talk 

about the second major phase of the plan, 2015 to 2019, and the 

introduction of science-based adaptive management, improvements 

in prioritization, and better reporting on measures of progress and 

their impact. 

I see you have Brookings Institution and Grand Valley State trying to get cost-benefit analysis and trying to quantify where we are 

headed. 

It is hard to do, but do you want to elaborate a little bit on trying 

to monitor the impacts, the economic impacts for the benefit? 

Mr. WOLKING. I think that is the most difficult part of this whole 

process when we are talking about measuring in metrics. I think 

it is easier to measure the environmental impact and results, but 

then when you start talking about, well, what economic activity 

proceeds from that, it is a lot more complicated than saying we are 

putting a machine on the floor that can put out a certain number 

of parts at a certain estimated cost, and we are borrowing X funds 

at X percent. 

You know, this is different, and it would seem to me that there 

is a great opportunity here if we stay the course to observe as we 

have finished projects and we have attained results to watch what 

happens in those communities, which partly will be as a result of 

what has been accomplished with the initiative. 

Again, you are talking about people and systems and environment, and they all come together. There are many things that go 

into the soup, but clearly I think as we get more time under our 

belts observing what we have been able to accomplish and observe 

what happens in the communities as we go forward I think we will 

be able to see measurable results. That can at least partly be attributed and tied back to the initiative. 

It is the level of activity, I think. That is a great word to keep 

in mind. As these things happen and are completed, you are going 

to see activity as a result in those areas, whereas before you were 

seeing no activity. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is a good point to end this hearing, I think. 

I want to thank you all for coming in. 

Do you have one more point? Go ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just one very quickly, and that is to Mr. Lord. 

Mr. Rokita touched on the job creation issue, and while it has 

been 5 years and you have already created the jobs, it will hopefully be another 5 years. How long do you think this can continue 

to create the jobs and will those jobs change as new technology and 

as improvements are done? 

What do you see will happen, the challenges that may be ahead? 

49 

Mr. LORD. Well, it depends on the type of jobs that we are talking about, but some of the things that we have seen, some of the 

results that we have seen as a result of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through some of the habitat improvements, for example, very much sustain the kinds of outdoor jobs that we would 

like to see in the region, jobs for folks that sell the guns and the 

ammo and the fishing hooks and the rest of it to the people who 

are going into Michigan or Ohio or any of the other Great Lake 

States in order to enjoy the outdoors. 

As I also noted, the restoration project that we have undertaken 

while we are 5 years in, we have got a long way to go. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How long do you think that might have to go? 

Mr. LORD. I cannot answer that question, ma’am. It is a very—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Three decades, four decades? 

Mr. LORD. These are large lakes with a lot of problems, and we 

have, I think, made a very significant and valiant effort and a lot 

of progress to date in cleaning them up, but as noted, we have got 

27 AOCs, areas of concern, that remain, and they are very complicated projects in terms of getting those finished. 

So I think the bottom line is there is a lot more work, but the 

benefits, as Mr. Wolking was highlighting, are that when we clean 

up these areas of concern, for example, these communities that 

have had this anchor around their necks in terms of this—it’s gone, 

and so you can see the development coming, the highrises or whatever they may want to do in these newly cleaned up places. 

We have begun to see some of that happen, and so that is the 

kind of excitement that the GLRI can bring and I think will continue to bring as we make more progress in the future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, again, I want to thank you for coming in. 

I think this was quite an interesting discussion, and hopefully we 

can move forward with the formal authorization and reliable, sustainable funding. 

We had a hearing just recently on brownfields, Mayor. That is 

a key issue. We have made a lot of progress, sir, I think, in integrated permitting and planning, I think you highlighted that. We 

have had hearings on that, and are trying to work with the U.S. 

EPA to allow municipalities like yourselves to do integrated permitting so that you can address what your needs are, which might 

be different than the needs in Cleveland, for example. 

And so thank you all for coming in to highlight the importance 

of the Great Lakes to economic stability and job creation in the region. 

Thank you very much, and this concludes our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 9 here 96275.009
51 


Insert offset folio 10 here 96275.010
52 


Insert offset folio 11 here 96275.011
53 


Insert offset folio 12 here 96275.012
54 


Insert offset folio 13 here 96275.013
55 


Insert offset folio 14 here 96275.014
56 


Insert offset folio 15 here 96275.015
57 


Insert offset folio 16 here 96275.016
58 


Insert offset folio 17 here 96275.017
59 


Insert offset folio 18 here 96275.018
60 


Insert offset folio 19 here 96275.019
61 


Insert offset folio 20 here 96275.020
62 


Insert offset folio 21 here 96275.021
63 


Insert offset folio 22 here 96275.022
64 


Insert offset folio 23 here 96275.023
65 


Insert offset folio 24 here 96275.024
66 


Insert offset folio 25 here 96275.025
67 


Insert offset folio 26 here 96275.026
68 


Insert offset folio 27 here 96275.027
69 


Insert offset folio 28 here 96275.028
70 


Insert offset folio 29 here 96275.029
71 


Insert offset folio 30 here 96275.030
72 


Insert offset folio 31 here 96275.031
73 


Insert offset folio 32 here 96275.032
74 


Insert offset folio 33 here 96275.033
75 


Insert offset folio 34 here 96275.034
76 


Insert offset folio 35 here 96275.035
77 


Insert offset folio 36 here 96275.036
78 


Insert offset folio 37 here 96275.037
79 


Insert offset folio 38 here 96275.038
80 


Insert offset folio 39 here 96275.039
81 


Insert offset folio 40 here 96275.040
82 


Insert offset folio 41 here 96275.041
83 


Insert offset folio 42 here 96275.042
84 


Insert offset folio 43 here 96275.043
85 


Insert offset folio 44 here 96275.044
86 


Insert offset folio 45 here 96275.045
87 


Insert offset folio 46 here 96275.046
88 


Insert offset folio 47 here 96275.047
89 


Insert offset folio 48 here 96275.048
90 


Insert offset folio 49 here 96275.049
91 


Insert offset folio 50 here 96275.050
92 


Insert offset folio 51 here 96275.051
93 


Insert offset folio 52 here 96275.052
94 


Insert offset folio 53 here 96275.053
95 


Insert offset folio 54 here 96275.054
96 


Insert offset folio 55 here 96275.055
97 


Insert offset folio 56 here 96275.056
98 


Insert offset folio 57 here 96275.057
99 


Insert offset folio 58 here 96275.058
100 


Insert offset folio 59 here 96275.059
101 


Insert offset folio 60 here 96275.060
102 


Insert offset folio 61 here 96275.061
103 


Insert offset folio 62 here 96275.062
104 


Insert offset folio 63 here 96275.063
105 


Insert offset folio 64 here 96275.064
106 


Insert offset folio 65 here 96275.065
107 


Insert offset folio 66 here 96275.066
108 


Insert offset folio 67 here 96275.067
109 


Insert offset folio 68 here 96275.068
110 


Insert offset folio 69 here 96275.069
111 


Insert offset folio 70 here 96275.070
112 


Insert offset folio 71 here 96275.071
113 


Insert offset folio 72 here 96275.072
114 


Insert offset folio 73 here 96275.073
115 


Insert offset folio 74 here 96275.074
116 


Insert offset folio 75 here 96275.075
117 


Insert offset folio 76 here 96275.076
118 


Insert offset folio 77 here 96275.077
119 


Insert offset folio 78 here 96275.078
120 


Insert offset folio 79 here 96275.079
121 


Insert offset folio 80 here 96275.080
122 


Insert offset folio 81 here 96275.081
123 


Insert offset folio 82 here 96275.082
124 


Insert offset folio 83 here 96275.083
125 


Insert offset folio 84 here 96275.084
126 


Insert offset folio 85 here 96275.085
127 


Insert offset folio 86 here 96275.086
128 


Insert offset folio 87 here 96275.087
129 


Insert offset folio 88 here 96275.088
130 


Insert offset folio 89 here 96275.089
131 


Insert offset folio 90 here 96275.090
132 


Insert offset folio 91 here 96275.091
133 


Insert offset folio 92 here 96275.092
134 


Insert offset folio 93 here 96275.093
135 


Insert offset folio 94 here 96275.094
136 


Insert offset folio 95 here 96275.095
137 


Insert offset folio 96 here 96275.096
138 


Insert offset folio 97 here 96275.097
139 


Insert offset folio 98 here 96275.098
140 


Insert offset folio 99 here 96275.099
141 


Insert offset folio 100 here 96275.100
142 


Insert offset folio 101 here 96275.101
143 


Insert offset folio 102 here 96275.102
144 


Insert offset folio 103 here 96275.103
145 


Insert offset folio 104 here 96275.104
146 


Insert offset folio 105 here 96275.105
147 


Insert offset folio 106 here 96275.106
148 


Insert offset folio 107 here 96275.107
149 


Insert offset folio 108 here 96275.108
150 


Insert offset folio 109 here 96275.109
151 


Insert offset folio 110 here 96275.110
152 


Insert offset folio 111 here 96275.111
153 


Insert offset folio 112 here 96275.112
154 


Insert offset folio 113 here 96275.113
155 


Insert offset folio 114 here 96275.114
156 


Insert offset folio 115 here 96275.115
157 


Insert offset folio 116 here 96275.116
158 


Insert offset folio 117 here 96275.117
159 


Insert offset folio 118 here 96275.118
160 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 119 here 96275.119