<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:92382.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-360
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
OVERSIGHT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE EFFORTS TO RESTORE AND PRESERVE THE
GREAT LAKES
__________
AUGUST 25, 2003--CLEVELAND, OHIO
__________
Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-382 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
AUGUST 25, 2003--CLEVELAND, OHIO
OPENING STATEMENT
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1, 42
WITNESSES
Marsh, Elaine, Lake Erie Director, Great Lakes United, Peninsula,
OH............................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 87
Senator Voinovich........................................ 87
Reutter, Jeff, Director, Ohio Sea Grant College Program, F.T.
Stone Laboratory, Center for Lake Erie Area Research, Great
Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium, Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH....................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Ryan, Colonel William E., III, Deputy Commander, Great Lakes Ohio
River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 49
Senator Jeffords......................................... 52
Senator Voinovich........................................ 51
Skinner, Thomas V., Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL....................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Speck, Samuel W., chairman of the board, Great Lakes Commission,
Eisenhower Corporate Park, Ann Arbor, MI....................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 79
Senator Voinovich........................................ 77
Stein, Roy A., vice-chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Columbus, OH....................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 69
Senator Voinovich........................................ 71
(iii)
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Cleveland, Ohio.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.
at the Great Lakes Science Center, 601 Erieside Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. George V. Voinovich [acting chairman of
the committee] presiding.
Present: Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to thank all the witnesses here
this morning and I apologize for being a little bit late.
Perhaps it was an opportunity for some of the witnesses to meet
each other.
First and foremost, again, thank you for taking time out of
your busy schedules to participate at today's field hearing of
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to examine
the current and future efforts to restore and protect the Great
Lakes.
Second, I thank Chairman Inhofe for calling this hearing at
my request. And I look forward to continuing to work with my
colleagues in the Committee and the House and Senate in
advancing legislation to address what I believe is one of the
most pressing environmental issues facing our Nation,
restoration of the Great Lakes. I want to also thank the staff
of Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for being with us today
and, as many of you know, this record will be kept and will be
shared with the other Senators.
While restoration is important to the plants and animals
that call it home and to the 40 million people in the U.S. and
Canada that depend on it for drinking water, it is also
important to the economy and people's jobs.
I know that quite well, as being former Governor of the
State of Ohio. The Great Lakes region maintains the largest
bilateral trade relationship in the world with the primary
economic activities in recreation, tourism, shipping,
agriculture and manufacturing. I'm glad we have representatives
here today from the Canadian government and welcome you here
today and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule
to listen to these hearings and I'm looking forward to talking
to you after this hearing today.
In terms of tourism, the eight Great Lakes States have
about 3.7 million registered recreational boats, or about a
third of the nation's total. Retail expenditures for
recreational boating in the Great Lakes region is .6 billion
annually, slightly less than one-third of the national
expenditures in this category. The Great Lakes commercial and
sport fishery alone is valued at more than $4 billion annually.
It's been estimated that tourism in the Lake Erie area accounts
for an estimated 1.5 billion in retail sales and more than
50,000 jobs.
While I was Governor, I was very proud of this, Ohio moved
from seventh to sixth place in travel and tourism and a lot of
it had to do with the fact, with Lake Erie of the Great Lakes.
As a mater of fact, we worked with the Council and Great Lakes
Governors to promote the whole Lake Erie, Great Lakes area as a
destination. Trying to get the Europeans particularly to say if
you really want to see America, come to the Midwest and the
Great Lakes.
Businesses also rely on the Great Lakes because, among
other things, they provide an inexpensive and environmentally
friendly means of transportation. And you'll see a lot more of
that when you're on the Great Lakes. In 2000, this system
provided an estimated $1.2 billion in transportation cost
savings to steel mills, utilities, grain terminals and other
key industries located near the 6 U.S. ports in the system.
These industries provide more than 37,000 direct jobs and are
able to compete in the world economy because they can keep
transportation costs low About one third of the land in the
Great Lakes basin is used for agriculture, supporting about 7
percent of U.S. agricultural production. And, again, from my
own point of view in Ohio, agribusiness is our No. 1 business
in the State of Ohio. So for some that may come as a surprise.
But it contributes about $90 billion to our State's Federal
gross domestic product. One-fifth of U.S. manufacturing
activity is based on the Great Lakes, and the region, combined
with Canada, accounts for about 60 percent of steel production
in North America.
Over the last century, these activities have been both a
detriment to this resource and a blessing for the people in the
region. Regardless of the past, restoration of the Great Lakes
benefits both.
Today's hearing may seem like deja vu to some of you. One
year ago I held another field hearing in Cleveland at the Coast
Guard station, which is just a stone's throw away, and the
purpose of that hearing was to look into the recurrence of dead
zones or low oxygen areas in Lake Erie.
I'm pleased that Jeff Reutter of the Ohio Sea Grant
Program, who I have been out to see at Stone Lab on Gibraltar
Island, was able to testify at that hearing and is here today
to provide an update on this situation and the water quality of
Lake Erie.
Where is Jeff at? OK. Hi, Jeff. I saw Steve Goldman from
the Lake Erie Center and he's all excited. He thinks he's
figured out the dead zone. I'm sure you're interested. I am,
too.
Jeff is one of the premier scientists working on Ohio's
Great Lake and I welcome him today.
Also, on the second panel is Ms. Elaine Marsh from the
Great Lakes United, who testified at last year's field hearing
as well. Great Lakes United is a U.S. and Canadian coalition
dedicated to preserving and restoring the Great Lakes. Last
month, the organization testified at a hearing that I held as
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management in the Governmental Affairs Committee on the
management of Great Lakes Programs.
I met with Ms. Marsh and several of her colleagues before
the hearing on a report they released earlier this year on how
to clean up the Great Lakes. I look forward to hearing from her
this morning on the coalition's recommendations on how to move
forward in restoring the Great Lakes.
I also welcome on our second panel Mr. Sam Speck, who is
Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Chair
of the Great Lakes Commission. Sam will be providing the
Committee with an update on his work to implement a binding
agreement between Canada and the U.S. on a standard for making
decisions on proposals to export water out of the Great Lakes.
Sam and I have been friends for a long time, and we've worked
together in organizations. We worked together on applications
to hire Environmental Protection Agency and also a landmark
piece of legislation stamp.
Dr. Roy Stein, who is Vice Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and is also Director of the Aquatic Ecology
Laboratory at the Ohio State University, will also testify on
the second panel about invasive species and the state of the
fisheries in the Great Lakes.
Last, I welcome the two witnesses we have for our first
panel. Tom Skinner and Colonel William Ryan, who testified at
the hearing that I chaired last month. Mr. Skinner is the U.S.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program office manager and Colonel
Ryan is the Deputy Commander of the Great Lakes Ohio River
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They will both be
providing information on our current restoration efforts and
their thoughts on where we need to go from here to restore the
Great Lakes.
While today is in many ways a follow-up to the hearings I
held last year here in Cleveland and last month in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, I think of it as just one more
step toward my lifetime goal of restoring the Great Lakes.
Thirty-seven years ago, when I saw firsthand the effects of
pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we
had to do something to protect our environment. At the time,
Lake Erie was suffering from eutrophication and was known
worldwide as a dying lake. As a matter of fact, it was a poster
child at that time. Its decline was heavily covered by the
media and became an international symbol of pollution and
degradation.
At that time as a State legislator--and by the way, my
district, the northern boundary of my house district was Lake
Erie. As a matter of fact today, if I look out of my living
room window, I don't live on the lake, but I can see the lake
out of my living room window, in those days we were worried
about our house falling in. There's two that will fall in
before mine. But that's no longer a problem, as you know. But
I'm sure some day it will be again, because the lake comes up
and it goes down.
I continue this fight, what I call the second battle of
Lake Erie, as a State Legislator, County Commissioner,
Lieutenant Governor, Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio and
now United States Senator. So it's been a long time. I consider
the efforts, my efforts, to preserve and protect the lake to be
among the most significant of my career goals.
One of the first actions I did as a State Legislator was to
introduce a resolution calling for a $360 million bond issue
for municipal sewage treatment plant construction along Lake
Erie. In a nutshell, I think all of us know that the major
causes of pollution at that time were industrial and municipal
sewage. And also because our detergents at the time had
phosphates in them. And because of the Federal 5/25 program,
because we created the Ohio Water Development Authority, which
issued--allowed us to issue revenue bonds for the industries to
clean up their pollution, we really made some magnificent
progress during that period of time.
Unfortunately, many of those facilities are pretty old
today, and we need to rededicate ourselves to dealing with
those facilities.
When I became County Commissioner, the Department of
Energy--this is an old one that's been around. They were going
to put nuclear waste in the salt mines of Lake Erie, and I
didn't think that was a very good idea. So we put a stop to
that one very quickly. And then as Governor of the city of
Cleveland, I held the first international conference of zebra
mussels here in Cleveland. And at that time, they were clogging
up our water and lifts. And like Cleveland Illuminating, was
having problems. And then, of course, that problem now has been
around for a while. We're still dealing with it, aren't we,
Jeff? And it's even gotten worse with the quagga mussels.
And then when I was Governor, we had a Great Lakes
Protection Fund. And Ohio hadn't kicked in their $14 million,
and so we did that. And I think people should be very, very
excited about the fact that we do have the $100 d million
endowment that the Great Lakes Governors put together, that the
income from which is distributed every year based on
population, and then there are many opportunities through
special research grants that some of you I'm sure sitting here
have taken advantage of.
And I guess the last thing that I'm very proud of, and Sam
Speck is working on it, it's the 1998 water quality index where
we really looked at the things that we, the various aspects of
the Great Lakes to see if, particularly Lake Erie, to see where
we were. We needed, I thought, a baseline to see where we were
and then we could come back and measure if we made any progress
or not.
So we've been avowed for a long time. And then as a
freshman Senator in 1999, I was fortunate to be selected as the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. And I think the staff people know that. That
was the first time that that ever happened. And it, of course,
got yanked the next session by Jim Inhofe because he wanted it.
And then became chairman. So I may, if I get back there, maybe
some day be chairman of that committee again.
But one of the initiatives that we offer is the Great Lakes
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, which authorized the
Corps of Engineers to plan, design and implement projects that
support the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and
beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. And WRDA at that time
authorized $100 million specifically for projects to restore
the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem.
And last year we cosponsored the Great Lakes Legacy Act,
which was signed into law in 2002 to authorize $50 million per
year for 5 years for the cleanup of the contaminated sediments
of Areas of Concern. Unfortunately, we only got $15 million. We
certainly need a whole lot more money to deal with that
problem. Again, it's like everything else. We've gotten started
with something that's long overdue.
Through the years, I've also worked long and hard in
addressing our nation's critical wastewater infrastructure
needs. And unfortunately, billions of dollars more are needed
to upgrade aging systems and bring communities into compliance
with the Clean Water Act. And that's why I introduced
legislation in the 106th, 107th, 108th to reauthorize the
highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund program at a level of $3 billion per year
for 5 years. So I think that, again, you've got to get back to
basics. If we don't upgrade our sewage treatment--this was very
interesting. I was in Akron--not Akron. Lorainne. They have an
old plant over there, 50 years old, 49 years old. It takes
about 15 million gallons. The guy that runs it told me that
when it rains, they get about 40 million gallons going through.
So they only take care of 15. The rest of it just goes in the
lake.
Then when he we had this blackout just recently, because we
didn't have backup pumps, we put a lot of raw sewage into the
lake. So I think that we need to get out of that. We need to do
the same thing with drinking water. Infrastructure is a very
important issue that has been neglected for too long.
In addition, we've been avowed with the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge Complex in Ohio and the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge in Michigan along the coast of
Lake Erie. We've expanded that. We need to have more wetlands.
Responding to the hearing last August on dead zones, we
introduced a bill that reauthorized the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act expanded to the Great Lakes,
not just the coastal marine waters. I then worked with the
members of the Commerce Committee to include my provision to
create a Great Lakes research program in a bill they passed.
They passed that, and finally we're going to be able to take
advantage of it. So many of these Federal programs for people
here in Ohio just deal with the coastal and they don't even
include us.
For example, a couple years ago I found out that we had an
estuary program in the Federal Government and no money for
estuaries in Great Lakes. They didn't even know there were
estuaries in Great Lakes. We got that amended. So now we can
take advantage of some of those dollars.
We also cosponsored the great Lakes Water Quality
Indicators and Monitoring Act to expand the index that we
created as Governors to measure water quality in Lake Erie to
cover all the Great Lakes. And, Sam, you know we're trying to
get you some more money, have you upgrade yours.
Furthermore, continuing to fight against aquatic invasive
species that are wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes. I refer to
them as aquatic terrorists, are entering this great natural
resource in the ballast water of boats from all over the world.
And that's got to be stopped. And so we cosponsored that act to
help prevent the Great Lakes from these species.
In June, we participated in a hearing on this bill. And
we've got to get this passed. We've got some legislation there,
but we have no teeth--the Army Corps will tell you we don't
have the money to be enforcing it to get it done. We have to
get serious about this problem because God only knows what the
next thing is that's going to come in here and we'll be dealing
these--new things are coming in and we have our hands full just
dealing with what we've got. So there's a lot more to be done.
I emphasize that this is an urgent need that deserves the
demands of a well coordinated effort, one that cannot be met by
simply adding individual programs to those that exist. And many
of you are familiar with the GAO report, Overall Strategy and
Indicators for Measuring Progress are Needed to Better Achieve
Restoration Goals. That the title of it. And that the number of
programs is not the problem. The problem is we're not
coordinating them.
In responding to that report, my long held concerns about
restoration, we've recently sponsored the Great Lakes
Environmental Restoration Protection and Recovery Act. In
short, this bill moves us closer to our goal of restoring the
Great Lakes by providing funding and promoting coordination.
As some of you may know, I was intimately involved in the
restoration of the--comprehensive plan for the restoration of
the Everglades. Rich Worthington, also from the Corps of
Engineers, I'm so glad to see you here. And now it's your goal,
as coming to you on loan from the Army Corps, it's really
helped us out. And I was the proud sponsor of WRDA 2000, which
approved this ambitious plan.
Earlier this year I spoke at the Eleventh Annual Everglades
Coalition Conference in Florida and told them, quote, what I
would love to do as Senator is to be able to put the same kind
of coalition together that you've been able to do for the
Everglades for the Great Lakes. This is my dream.
Right now we have many groups, Governors, mayors,
environmental groups, Congress, and others, that are all
working separately on proposals and priorities to restore the
Great Lakes. However, the fact of the matter is if we're going
to get something done, we need to create a symbiotic
relationship with all of the public and private players of the
United States and Canada to develop a comprehensive restoration
plan for the Great Lakes.
I'm very active on the Canadian Parliamentary Group and
we've talked about this and I think we can get something going
and be able to get support of that for our efforts.
This plan, in my opinion, is absolutely essential if we
expect to continue to restore and improve one the world's
greatest treasures, the Great Lakes. And, frankly, from a
selfish point of view at this stage in my life, this would be
the capstone to my legacy to Lake Erie. And more importantly,
to my children, and to my grandchildren and yours.
I would again thank our witnesses for being here today and
I am excited about the prospects that we have if we can just
all understand we have a symbiotic relationship with each other
and start working in the same direction. It's amazing, as I've
seen over the years, what you can do when you have that kind of
attitude present.
So I'd like to first call on Tom Skinner. Tom, again, thank
you for being here.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS V. SKINNER, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Skinner. Thank you, Senator. It's a pleasure to be with
you again. I'm pleased to be here today to talk about our
efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes which, as you
well know, is the largest freshwater system on earth. I'd like
to start just by taking the opportunity to highlight mechanisms
that the EPA has developed to carry out Great Lakes priority
setting and planning. Over the past few years, we've built a
sound structure for achieving a collective vision of
comprehensive ecosystem management for the Great Lakes.
We have a good understanding of the major environmental
problems facing the Great Lakes today. And in recognition of
these problems, the fiscal year 2004 budget that the
administration president put out increased EPA's Great Lakes
funding by $15 million, nearly doubling the fiscal year 2003
levels. These additional funds will support the contaminated
sediment projects newly authorized by the Great Lakes Legacy
Act that you mentioned earlier.
Efforts to develop the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 combined
with the information for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
reports have provided much valuable information and experience
to all of us. EPA continues to gather more information on the
condition of the Great Lakes as part the Agency's scientific
research program.
For example, we're working to develop integrated methods of
detecting and predicting the spread of new invasive species
introduced into the Great Lakes. We're also developing more
rapid methods for measuring beach water quality to give results
in one to 2 hours, rather than the current 24 to 48 hours,
improving our protocols for monitoring, our goal being to
better understand the relationship between water quality and
its health impacts on beachgoers.
What we do know now is that, first, invasive species in the
Great Lakes, now in excess of 160, are causing serious economic
and ecosystem health impacts. It is virtually certain more
invasives will enter the system in future years.
Next, toxic contamination has triggered more than 1,500
current fish advisories in the Great Lakes Basin. Cleaning up
contaminated sediments and addressing the inputs of toxic
chemicals into the lakes are key to solving this problem.
Record numbers of beach closings have occurred in the Great
Lakes in recent years due to nonpoint source runoff and sewage
problems.
A dead zone of water lacking oxygen has appeared in Lake
Erie, impacting aquatic life and indicating that the health of
the lake may be compromised.
Your hearing last year, in fact, helped us substantially to
raise awareness of this issue and refocus our efforts on this
issue.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002, working along with the
Lakewide Management Plans for each of the Great Lakes and
Remedial Action Plans, identifies these problems and the three
form a complementary framework for current and future efforts
to address them. A suite of goals and measures in this strategy
is guiding governmental partners toward solving these problems.
Some of most important goals are: By 2005, cleanup and deal
with three areas of concern, with a cumulative total of ten by
2010. By 2007, reduce concentrations of PCBs in lake trout and
walleye by 25 percent. By 2007, establish 300,000 acres of
buffer strips in agricultural lands using non-regulatory
Federal and State programs. By 2010, 90 percent of Great Lakes
beaches to be open 95 percent of the season. By 2010, restore
or enhance 100,000 acres of wetlands in the Basin. By 2010,
substantially reduce the further introduction of invasive
species, both aquatic and terrestrial, to the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. And accelerate the pace of sediment remediation,
leading to the cleanup of all designated sites by 2025.
We have other challenges in restoring the Great Lakes. They
include the sheer geographic size of the system and the range
of problems present in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes also
require binational cooperation to achieve results.
Coordination with numerous partners and jurisdictions is
another issue. We have 8 Great Lakes States, over 10 Federal
agencies, and over 30 Indian tribes responsible for carrying
out environmental and natural resource management programs to
protect and restore the Great Lakes. Many other key
organizations such as the Council of Great Lakes Governors, The
Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and
the International Joint Commission, or IJC, also have extremely
important roles.
Public involvement. The very nature and value of the Great
Lakes as a natural resource means many non-governmental
partners and individuals from all sectors of society are
interested in the Lakes' health.
The potential for duplication of efforts. There are
currently a number of plans and planning efforts for the Great
Lakes that address different geographic scales. It is important
to coordinate these efforts, as you mentioned. And it is
important that they do not cause unnecessary confusion, wasted
resources, or lead to reinventing the wheel.
Finally, where do we go from here? Our goal right now, our
intent right now is to implement the Great Lakes Strategy in
conjunction with the LMPs and the RAPs. It's going to be
important to move forward and continue to work with the Council
of Great Lakes Governors to ensure that the Governors'
priorities are emphasized and that duplication of efforts is,
in fact, avoided. I have a great deal of respect for the
Council.
Senator you have no reason to remember this, but when I was
a young staffer for their Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois, we
actually worked with you and your folks in forming the Great
Lakes Protection Fund. So I have a long history with that group
and a great appreciation for the work that they do.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002, the Management Plans and the
RAPs can serve as the starting point for all of this work,
including the Governors Council. And finally, we're following
closely, as you might imagine, the Great Lakes Environmental
Restoration and Recovery Act you are sponsoring in the Senate
and the similar bill that has been introduced in the House. It
raises some interesting possibilities I think for all of us,
and I'm sure will be the subject of much discussion in the
coming months.
In closing I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
speak today. I'm certainly more than happy to take questions.
But even more, I would like to thank you for your tireless, and
as you noted, your lifelong efforts on behalf of not only Lake
Erie but all of the Great Lakes. You're a true champion of
Great Lakes' causes, and we very much appreciate that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Tom. Very nicely said.
Colonel Ryan?
STATEMENT OF COLONEL WILLIAM E. RYAN, III, DEPUTY COMMANDER,
GREAT LAKES OHIO RIVER DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Colonel Ryan. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. I'm pleased to
testify before you on the restoration of the Great Lakes.
As chairman of the transportation and infrastructure
subcommittee, you balance flexibility, adaptic management, good
science, evaluations appropriate for a professional oversight
and all those things are critical.
We recently had experience in the Everglades restoration
and it will be important in restoring, protecting the
environmental resources of the Great Lakes while continuing to
maintain Great Lakes' critical role in the economic vitality of
the region.
The Great Lakes system is one of our nation's most vital
natural resources. The world's largest freshwater system
provides millions of U.S. and Canadian residents water for
consumption, transportation, power, recreation, and a number of
other uses. I look forward to continuing to work with our
sister agencies, such as EPA, and other partners and
stakeholders, including Great Lakes United, on approaches for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.
My comments focus on Federal and non-Federal roles in
addressing water issues on the Great Lakes and the importance
of an integrated and collaborative process involving all
affected parties to assure the protection of this vital
resource. I will continue with an overview of the various
Corps' civil works programs and other activities that are
focused on addressing the Great Lakes water resources issues.
Primacy for water resources management in the U.S. has been
and must continue to be at the State and local level. While is
it appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved in
issues of international, national or multi-State significance,
such as the management of the Great Lakes water resources, it
is the States, and in particular the Governors, who should be
establishing the priorities for management of these shared
water resources.
The scope and technical complexity of water issues and the
extent of desired participation by stakeholders means that the
Federal Government can facilitate State and local leadership by
being responsive to their requests for effective coordination
among Federal and non-Federal restoration programs and by
bringing Federal analysis and program support to State and
local efforts.
The diversity of restoration challenges of the Great Lakes
Basin has spawned a number of intergovernmental organizations
and committees to coordinate one or more specific issues,
whether it is invasive species, wetlands restoration, water
management, non-point source pollution. A significant amount of
planning and coordination has already been accomplished through
the existing organizations and committees, including the U.S.
Policy Committee, Great Lakes Commission, Council of Great
Lakes Governors, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The restoration challenges facing the Great Lakes are
numerous and complex. The Great Lakes restoration challenges
include contaminated sediments, invasive species, non-point
source pollution, habitat alteration and loss, fish and
wildlife conservation, and water management within a framework
of two countries, eight States and two provinces.
We believe that continuing restoration of the Great Lakes
would benefit from a watershed perspective, emphasizing
collaborative and integration of all the stakeholders and their
perspectives, such as Great Lakes United. Success requires the
participation of all interested parties in the planning and
decisionmaking process. This participation would foster an open
dialog to integrate sometimes competing or conflicting water
resource needs. Such integration and collaboration are
indispensable to meeting water challenges.
As you know, the Corps has a variety of Civil Works
programs that are being utilized for the protection,
enhancement and restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
size and importance of this water resource and the complexity
of the challenges before it necessitate a team approach to its
management. The Corps has worked as a team member, as well as
team leader, in different aspects of the collective
environmental programs for the Great Lakes Basin.
The Corps has been a member of the team that monitors,
predicts and regulates water withdrawals, flows and diversions
through our support to the International Joint Commission
Boards of Control and reference studies. The Corps has been a
member of the U.S. Policy Committee, and participated in the
development of their Strategic Plan to facilitate the
implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The Corps has provided technical assistance to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in the development of the
Lakewide Management Plans. The Corps has also provided
technical assistance to States and local groups for the
development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans at 16
of the Great Lakes Areas of Concerns.
The Corps has been a leader of team efforts to protect and
restore the Great Lakes ecosystem from invasive species,
including the dispersal barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal and sea lamprey barriers at various Great Lakes
tributaries. The Corps is also leading the Great Lakes Fishery
& Ecosystem Restoration Program and other programs to restore
and enhance aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes Basin in
partnership with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great
Lakes States and Tribes.
Perhaps the most significant program the Corps has lead to
date is the removal and confinement of contaminated sediments
from Federal navigation channels in the Great Lakes. Although
this program was conceived as a measure for environmental
protection rather than restoration, the Corps, in partnership
with State and local governments, has removed over 90 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes
through this program. Over 70 million of that was from Great
Lakes Areas of Concern.
Using its expertise in management of contaminated
sediments, the Corps has been working with other Federal
agencies and Great Lakes States on sediment cleanup projects.
The Corps continues to work in partnership with the EPA to
evaluate and demonstrate new and improved technologies for
managing contaminated sediments.
Through a more recent program, the Corps is currently
leading projects for environmental dredging at eight Great
Lakes AOCs in partnership with State and local agencies.
The Corps conducted one of the first ecosystem restoration
plans for Lake Erie in cooperation with the EPA approximately
30 years ago and is conducting watershed management planning
for what some call the sixth Great Lake, Lake St. Clair, in
partnership with Federal, State and local agencies.
The Corps has four basinwide studies ongoing that are
addressing specific or general water resource needs of the
Great Lakes. The first of these is a U.S.-Canadian
collaborative study of the existing navigation infrastructure
in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. We are working with
the U.S. Department of Transportation, Transport Canada, and
the U.S. and Canadian Management organizations for the St.
Lawrence Seaway to establish the baseline conditions of the
existing infrastructure, commercial navigation uses, and the
environmental conditions of the Lakes and St. Lawrence River
that may be impacted by the navigation system. We are also
developing a bi-national framework for collaboration and
partnership among the States and Provinces, Federal agencies,
local entities, and stakeholders.
The second basinwide study is an inventory of biohydrologic
information relevant to the Great Lakes water management and
will include a gap analysis of water-related data. This study
is closely integrated with the Annex 2001 activities of the
Great Lakes.
The third basinwide study we have initiated in partnership
with the Great Lakes States is an evaluation of the economic
benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes, in
particular those utilizing the Federal navigation system.
And our fourth Great Lakes study the Corps is helping to
develop a strategic plan in collaboration with the Great Lakes
Commission. As authorized in Section 455(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, this study will produce a
report to Congress with an analysis of existing water resource
needs identified by Great Lakes States and stakeholders and
recommendations for new or modified authorities to address
unmet needs.
In conclusion, the Corps is pleased to have had the
opportunity to appear before you and provide testimony on this
important subject. We value highly the water resources of the
Great Lakes, the partnerships we have formed with our sister
Federal agencies, the Canadians, the Great Lakes State, Tribes,
local governments and stakeholder groups in managing and
protecting this unique resource.
We look forward to continuing these partnerships. This
concludes my remarks. Sir, I'll be happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. One thing I would
like to do is I would like to introduce my staff person, Brian
Mormino. Brian has done an outstanding job for me since he came
to work for me in the U.S. Senate. And it's kind of a special
day for his family, because his mom and brother are here today.
We would want to welcome you. Brian's been telling you about
all this hard work he's been doing. Now you're here to witness
it.
Mr. Skinner, we talked about at the end of last month's
hearing about restoring the Great Lakes. And it seems to me
that you as the manager of the Great Lakes National Program
Office may have thought more about restoration than perhaps
anyone else. So as you well know, there seems not to be an
agreement on how this, you know, should be done. One of the
things that I think that we need to do is to define
restoration.
And do you want to take a shot at defining restoration?
Mr. Skinner. Did I mention earlier what an excellent job
Brian does on your staff.
Senator you're correct and well aware of the big issue. I
think in terms of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002, we look at
restoration largely through the context of cleanup within Areas
of Concern. In part, because those are readily identifiable. In
part because those areas alone are overwhelming in terms of the
demands and effort and dollars. But it's also easy to do
because they're readily identifiable.
I think there are other issues characterized as restoration
that are not as easily classified. An example is what we're
seeing in Lake Erie right now with the so-called dead zone, the
anoxia problem. There's been a dramatic reduction in phosphates
over the course of the past 30 years. I think we all believe
that we're at reasonable levels in the last 10 years. Yet
nonetheless, there's seems to be a rise in phosphates and
phosphorus within Lake Erie. This dead zone appears out of
nowhere to some extent, and we're all struggling to determine
what it is that's causing it and exactly how to deal with it.
So restoration can be either very narrowly defined or very
broadly defined.
The consequent problem is coming up with the funding that's
really necessary in order to do the amount of work that's
there. The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which was introduced and
approved by Congress last year and that the President funded to
the tune of I think about $15 million in this year's budget,
will be extremely helpful in getting us started on that
process. But it is just a start. The $15 million is going to be
a significant increase and will allow us to begin to clean up
the areas of concern immediately.
However, that's a down payment in terms of the overall cost
of just cleaning up the AOCs. We believe that $15 million is
adequate right now because it's going to take us some time to
get these projects going. And if there had been an influx of a
$100 million this year, it really wouldn't have increased the
pace that we would be able to set here. But those demands are
out there. In terms of defining restoration, again, I think it
depends on what your goals are.
The other thing we're struggling with, and we talked about
this at your hearing last month, is the number of entities,
organizations and individuals that are involved in this
process. I sometimes think that it might be a lot easier for us
all to rent a big bus and just travel from meeting to meeting
and hearing to hearing together because it's largely the same
people that appear at these various sessions of representatives
working on Great Lakes issues. I'm concerned that we could
never--we'd each have our own little bit different conception
of what that bus should like. And, therefore, we'd never get to
the point of where we actually rented the bus. And we'd all end
up walking.
There's an analogy there that I'm trying to draw to the
overall Great Lakes issues. I think we're all trying to do the
right thing, we're all trying to protect the Great Lakes. Many
of us serve in different capacities in those different groups,
but the risk is that each of those groups comes up with a
slightly different view of what ought to be done, what
restoration is. And as result, we don't have a single unified
comprehensive vision of Great Lakes restoration, and it makes
it very difficult then to complete the case to Congress,
complete the case to the White House that that vision ought to
be acted upon and that funding for that vision ought to be
either provided or increased. And that's an ongoing struggle.
I mentioned the Council of Great Lakes Governors and our
desire to work closely with that group. I know Mayor Daley in
Chicago, Mayor Campbell here in Cleveland, and others on the
Great Lakes have formed their own organization. And Mayor Daley
very much wants a voice in the discussion, a voice in the
debate about what's going on in the Great Lakes. That's a
positive thing because it's the cities that are doing a lot of
the work along with the States. It makes it somewhat more
complex though because it's another player----
Senator Voinovich. But it's a really good thing because the
fact is is that a lot of the Mayors have not paid attention to
this and have not been as interested in this as they should be.
So that to me, it's a good initiative on their part.
Mr. Skinner. Absolutely. And they're very committed to it.
I can tell you that Mayor Daley is a hundred percent personally
behind it. In fact, they hired Dave Ullrich, who was the Deputy
Regional Administrator for Region 5, to head up the Mayors'
office on Great Lakes issues. So we know we have a colleague
and an ally there. We know that the Mayor is going to continue
to work hard. Yes. The challenge is coming up with a single
restoration plan.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the real question is that, you
know, who should be the orchestra leader. But the challenge
maybe for our committee is that let's get those players and
develop a definition of what restoration is, which, you know,
which--some compromise. And then who are the groups that can
start to develop the overall planning. And then the issue then
becomes who is the orchestra leader that convenes the group.
And I know we've talked about that at the hearing with several
people over there. And just as happened on this blackout thing
that we had, it's very good that Canada and the U.S. are going
to have a joint get-together. In terms of from my perspective.
If you're looking at the international aspect of this, what
group should that be? What is your opinion on that?
Mr. Skinner. Well, we actually have a group now, the Bi-
National Executive Committee. It's made up of various
representatives at both Federal Governments on the U.S. and
Canadian side. Environment Canada coordinates it for our
neighbors in the north and the EPA, my shop, coordinates it for
the U.S. side. So in terms of the environmental issues, we have
a pretty effective mechanism for dealing with that right now.
We work very closely together. We meet formally twice a year
but communicate regularly.
Senator Voinovich. How does that deal with the IJC?
Mr. Skinner. The IJC is--yes. Sometimes I still struggle to
understand the relationship of all these organizations. The
IJC, International Joint Commission, is actually a separate
independent body that is charged with, among other things,
overseeing the two governments' efforts in the Great Lakes
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. They are, you
know, in some way the watch dog group. So they sit separately
from the Bi-National Executive Committee and other groups that
get together.
But the reality of it is we coordinate with the IJC on a
regular basis as well. We work closely with Dennis Sharnack,
the current U.S. Chair, and Herb Grag, the former Minister from
Canada, who both had come on recently. Both had a great deal of
enthusiasm for the Great Lakes issues because they're both from
the Great Lakes areas. And I think that relationship continues
to evolve.
Senator Voinovich. Well, what I'd like to have from you in
writing is a, would be your dream of--you know, you've been
charged with the coordination. And just how would you relate to
the international, so that we have an international flavor
here, or just some of these other organizations. I think we
need to really add that now. Who are the groups, and does this
group that you're meeting, this bi-national group, include all
of the groups in the U.S. that are involved in some way with
the Great Lakes and its Canadian counterparts doing the same
thing?
Mr. Skinner. It includes all of the--on the U.S. side, it
includes all of the governmental entities involved in the Great
Lakes, but not the NGO's. And so it's really a government
effort to coordinate the various activities that are going on.
It's our way of beginning to get at your question of whether
you have an orchestra leader or not. Is there a way to
coordinate activities. We've had----
Senator Voinovich. In addition to coordinate activities,
how do you take and develop a plan and identify the roles of
the various organizations and how do they fit in and, you know,
identify if there's going to be any kind of duplication that
may be taking place. But I think we really need to get going on
this thing. We need to put some stuff down on a piece of paper.
And I'd be interested in, Colonel Ryan, your familiarity
with the Everglades. It was my understanding the, that South
Water Management Group is kind of the governmental umbrella
organization working with the Army Corps of Engineers. And then
you have the Everglades Coalition Group. And I'm interested in
what was--in developing the comprehensive plan, what was the
relationship there. Non-governmental groups, were they
observers, were they at the table? Tell us what happened.
Colonel Ryan. Well, it kind of developed over time.
Initially, you had the governmental agencies, the EPA, Tom. You
had other types of Governors that were commissioned out there
that were working on it. But it's very important that we bring
in all those stakeholders as you're working to develop the
plan. And that includes a variety of obviously Federal non-
governmental agencies, interest groups that need to be brought
to the table at the beginning as you help to put together that
overall comprehensive strategy, as you try to develop programs
that address specific needs and then try to prioritize so to
better serve the end quickly.
Senator Voinovich. But who actually put the plan together?
Was it--it was the Army Corps of Engineers, correct?
Colonel Ryan. We worked extensively with the plan to
develop it and used our planning expertise. But once again, you
had all of these different agencies involved as we put back in.
It was not a plan that the Federal Government----
Senator Voinovich. You--so in other words, you wrote the
plan in conjunction with the South Water Management District
and got input from the Everglades Coalition at the same time
and dealt with some of the special agribusinesses and so forth?
Colonel Ryan. That's correct.
Senator Voinovich. And the difference with the Great Lakes
is you defined many of the things the Army--the Army Corps has
got some pretty big studies that you're working on right now.
So I have a hard time keeping track of them. So that's, you're
very much involved in doing some studies right now of various
things. The issue becomes and as part of what you are doing in
the studies, how does that fit in with the overall--what would
be the overall plan? This is a navigation study and you've got
some of the other things----
Colonel Ryan. That's correct.
Senator Voinovich. When they're completed, those could be
used as the basis of fitting into how they interface in terms
of the restoration effort, correct?
Colonel Ryan. That's correct.
Senator Voinovich. And those studies right now that you're
doing, are you touching base with EPA and with consequently
Governors around the NGO's?
Colonel Ryan. If I can give you an example. As you know,
one of our authorities has to do with navigation. And we're now
at the beginning of a study of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway and looking at the navigational infrastructure. As part
of that, you have to obviously look at the environmental
impacts, the environmental impacts as based on the studies. And
we're trying to form an actual bi-national organization to
manage that, part of that project delivery team that will put
its study together. You have environmental components that
we're working on addressing right now with our sister that
should be organized and who should be participants in that to
open the final solution.
Senator Voinovich. So the point is that this is a big area,
and part of this may be defining pieces of it and then letting
groups work on pieces of it in their respective area. St.
Lawrence Seaway, certain States, Canada, fish and wildlife,
environmental groups and so forth. That would be a piece of the
restoration and making sure that the navigation problem--the
use of navigation and making sure you're not destroying the
ecology in the area. You've got to keep bumping and once in a
while----
Colonel Ryan. You have to have that comprehensive strategy,
overall strategy.
Senator Voinovich. So I think that just to getting
everybody, identifying some key staff people to sit in a room
and start to write this down, bridged on how it all fits in and
what the--how everybody is, what everybody's doing and try to
bridge this thing together would be, I think, the best thing
for it. And the planning part, a lot of the stuff you're doing
would be a piece of the overall strategy and how does that fit
in with, you know, the strategy that you have. Is it--the Army
Corps--the GAO in their report says that there was no strategy.
There was a list of things, but there was no strategy about how
to get this done.
Mr. Skinner. Senator, with all due respect, the GAO, as you
heard last month, we have some differences where we come out on
those issues is the question. We believe that the Great Lakes
Strategy 2002 does provide the framework. It could be
characterized as a modest framework given the overall scope of
problems with the Great Lakes, but the framework is there.
I also wanted just to add that although the U.S. Policy
Committee is made up of the State and Federal Governmental
partners, we do have NGO's that are present as observers and
present as participants in those meetings as well. So this is
not an exclusive group in that sense. We are getting--we do
work with those other folks, and we do get a good sense of
where they're coming from on it.
But if--again, the Everglades is a great example of a
program that we've been successful in funding and creating a
vision for. This is not an excuse. It's simply a reason. In
there it's a little bit simpler because you have a similar
State and similar Federal Government. It's a much more limited
resource, as big as it is, than we have in the Great Lakes.
It's somewhat more complex in that way.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. But now, the U.S. side, if you have
the Army Corps and the EPA, and then maybe you have
representation from the Council of Great Lakes Governors, the
NGO's, and maybe start with this, you collaborate with the
Corps and get all this stuff down on a piece of paper, and
then, you know, get out some information to the folks and have
another meeting and have them come in and start to work on
this. That might be--what I'm looking for is a way to get to
this and as quickly as possible and making sure that we
identify all the players. Because if you do it and you don't
have everybody at the table or at least feel they're part of
it, once you get done, you know, they'll grenade it. They end
up trying to get--trying to get, redo our health bill. Every
system in the United States is trying. You need to identify it,
we need to get in a room to look at it and so forth.
Mr. Skinner. If I may add one more thing, I'll be glad to
submit the sort of mission that you're looking for. I can tell
you what we've done in a month or month-and-a-half since we
were last together. I've given a great deal of thought to this.
My intent is to sit down with--I hope to sit down with Governor
Taft, the Chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, in a
very short order here, within the next month or so, and working
with the Governor to put something together to come up with
exactly that, a plan to reach agreement that will work
together, and then come up with a plan to get everybody in the
room together and really begin that process of identifying with
the appropriate parties, and then getting to work on the vision
that all of us share.
Senator Voinovich. And from an international point of view,
we have to identify, you know, on a Canadian side, who the
groups are on the Canadian side that would be doing the same
thing as the Army Corps and with, you know, the EPA.
Mr. Skinner. Yes. I think John Mills from Environment
Canada really has, as far as I know, really the lead on the
Canadian side and would be able to coordinate on that side of
the border. I talk to John regularly, our staffs meet regularly
and deal with these issues on a daily basis. So that part of it
is actually the easiest in my opinion because that framework is
there.
Senator Voinovich. And again, how do you fold in what--the
studies that the Army Corps is doing?
Mr. Skinner. I think we have to, we have to, before getting
involved with the Corps, is the Corps moves along on its
progress. And I fully expect that we'll participate in their
studies, and they'll participate in ours.
Senator Voinovich. And the other thing, too, is we've got
to make sure we technicalize in terms of some of the stuff that
we're doing now. Even some of the things the Corps is doing.
You're not fully funded on some of this stuff. And the concept
would be to look at where are you with what you're doing and,
you know, could they be doing a little bit more in some of
these areas. You could fill in some of the gaps that maybe we
need to have filled in.
Mr. Skinner. That's absolutely right. I don't know whether
these numbers came out of the GAO report or whether we came up
with these on our own. But the numbers you have in front of
you, there are 148 Federal and 200 State programs working on
restoration efforts in the Great Lakes today. That right there
is indicative of: No. 1, there's a commitment to doing this
work, but, No. 2, 200 different programs out there. There is a
need to coordinate that work.
Senator Voinovich. The other thing is this has been--if
people understood the role that they were playing in the big
picture, I think they'd be more enthusiastic about it. And I
think so often many of these groups feel like they're out in
the boonies by themselves and what they're doing, they just
kind of lose--I mean, they're doing their thing, but they're
looking around and how does this fit in with the big picture.
We're doing our thing. But what about the people someplace--are
they doing theirs. And then it's--I think you get that
enthusiasm that you're part of a plan that's really going to
result in some significant change and improvement.
The money part of it is, of course, you know--we get back
to it. In other words, we can talk about restoring the lakes,
but if you don't--and I think this is really important that we
mention the importance, the fundamentals. The fundamentals are
we need to do a better job with providing money for sewage
treatment in dealing with combined storm overflow. Fundamental
stuff. Right?
And then even on the Army Corps of Engineers, Colonel,
what's the backlog like?
We started at 400. It's probably up to be about--what is
your operation management--what is it called? OMM.
Colonel Ryan. Operation Maintenance.
Senator Voinovich. Operation Maintenance, yes. How far are
you now? What is the new number?
Mr. Worthington. I think about 600 million.
Colonel Ryan. 600 million.
Senator Voinovich. It's got to be more than that.
Senator Voinovich. But we've got--how much of that is
attributable to the Great Lakes and then on--and many of the
projects that have been authorized, the funding's way low. And
talking about coming up--Rich, remember when we were talking
about a new system where we'd get rid of the projects that
weren't going anywhere and narrow it down?
Mr. Worthington. Right.
Senator Voinovich. We just really kind of need to get going
on this issue. And, Tom, the administration, I think, should be
looking at this, you know, in terms of a priority. I said, you
know, the economy is not that good right now, but there are
some Public Works programs--you know, you're spending money,
but in return for the money, you're getting something back on
it. You're getting--just like we did back in the early 1980's,
early 1970's, with the 75/25 program on that.
I don't have any other questions. I think the main thing
I'm trying to get at today is where are we with some of these
programs and how do we get going. What I would like to do would
be to make it in a month's time, maybe the two of you guys--
I'll tell you one other idea I have is if maybe we could do a,
kind of a strategic plan on what we want to get done, we might
try to bring this to the attention of the President and to the
Prime Minister and maybe that would be a wonderful way--you
know, the relationships with Canada and U.S., we parliamentary,
parliamentarians get along real well. And Bill Graham, your
Foreign Minister is a good friend of mine.
But there have been some things, a little bit of conflict
or differences of opinion. This might be a wonderful way to get
the Prime Minister and President to say that we're committed to
this, and this would be something great for our countries to do
on this wonderful resource that belongs to us.
They might just run that up the flagpole with some of the
folks in Washington. I know--I haven't done it yet, but I'll do
the same thing and maybe we can make something happen.
Mr. Skinner. And, Senator, just to close, I had some
meetings in the last month-and-a-half with the White House, and
I think they're amenable to considering a plan but I think they
feel very strongly that there has to be significant State and
local participation, consistent with the overall strategy. So
that's what's leading me to the Council of Great Lakes
Governors.
Senator Voinovich. Well, let's see if we can work on that.
I've got some other questions here, but I think they're more
technical in nature and maybe I can just submit them into the
record and maybe ask you to respond to them. But the flavor
here is I want to--I don't know, let's get going.
Mr. Skinner. We get the message. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Thank you very much. One of the
things I want to do is anybody here from the Great Lakes
Science Center? I hope you have a chance, those of you not from
Ohio, I hope you have a chance to see this place. This is one
of our legacy projects when I was Governor for the bicentennial
for the city of Cleveland. The State participated substantially
in the construction of this facility, which has been a great
success. But if it hadn't been for the Gund Foundation who put
up a challenge, perhaps we wouldn't have this here today.
So I want to acknowledge the taxpayers of Ohio and the Gund
Foundation for this great facility. It's really one of those
things that--it's working because my dream would be to know
more about the Great Lakes and get them involved in science.
And they've got a wonderful program going on with the school
system here in the area, and it's achieving what I hoped would
be achieved with this, is an educational opportunity for the
kids, and get them excited about joining the Great Lakes United
or going to work for the Department of Natural Resources and
making a difference.
We'll begin the testimony with you, Dr. Stein. Thank you
for being here today.
STATEMENT OF ROY A STEIN, VICE-CHAIR, GREAT LAKES FISHERY
COMMISSION, AQUATIC ECOLOGY LABORATORY, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Stein. Happy to be here. Chairman, thank you for
inviting me specifically to share our views on the Great Lakes
Fishery. I am Roy Stein. I'm the Vice Chair of the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission and I'm a professor at Ohio State
University.
As you know, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission was
established by Canada and the United States in 1956 to control
sea lampreys, to coordinate fishery management, which was when
fish stocks was a common concern. Here today what I would like
to talk about are three important fishery issues. First, sea
lamprey control. Second, the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act. And the third, the Corps of Engineers' Great Lakes Fishery
and Ecosystem Restoration Program. All of these items and
somewhat more are extensively discussed in my written
statement. The Great Lakes Fishery is incredibly important to
our Nation, as you talked about in your opening remarks.
Senator Voinovich. Are you going to talk about the corner
of our State, too?
Mr. Stein. We're going to wait for later for that. You can
answer the questions maybe.
Mr. Speck. We'll help on that.
Mr. Stein. We're looking at $4 billion annually to attract
new anglers this year to support a strong commercial fishery
industry. However, as with most shared resources, the system
and the fishery is stressed. And one major stressor is sea
lampreys----
Senator Voinovich. Could you slow down a little bit. I know
you want to get it out, but I think if you just go a little bit
slower, I can hear you better.
Mr. Stein. Usually I'm 48 minutes. I'm a university
professor. And I have to get all 48 minutes in five. It will be
tough. Yes, I will slow down.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Mr. Stein. You're welcome. Sea lampreys invaded the Great
Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean in the early twentieth century.
And I think it's really difficult in many ways to really
exaggerate the impact that these critters--no, it's not a live
one. That these critters have on the fishery and on the
ecosystem. They attach to the fish with a suction cup mouth
that they have right out front, at this end. They rasp a
relatively gruesome hole in the fish and then suck out their
body fluids. You can think of them as the vampire of the sea.
The average sea lamprey will destroy up to 40 pounds of
fish flesh in an annual cycle. Before sea lampreys, the lakes
supported a thriving fishery. After lampreys, the ecosystem was
thrown into chaos and harvest fell to a small fraction of what
it had been. Of course, the Commission was formed in response
to this path.
And I believe that we've risen to the challenge of
controlling it. Through the use of several techniques, like
lampricides, barriers, and what I consider an extremely
innovative sterilization technique, the Commission and its
partners have reduced sea lamprey populations to 10 percent of
their exorbitant abundance.
The fishery depends on lamprey control because without it,
we would have no fishery to speak of. Fishery management, such
as stocking, would be futile in the face of large populations
of this parasite. And also the rub is, sea lamprey control has
to be ongoing. OK. The minute that we back off the least bit,
they come running right back. So we have to be vigilant in our
control of that particular species.
Senator Voinovich. Can I ask you something? When did you
come back and get it under control? You started out in 1956.
And when did you get it to the point where you had it under
control?
Mr. Stein. I'd say late 1970's, early 1980's. Late 1970's.
Senator Voinovich. Late 1970's.
Mr. Stein. And they were really controlled very well.
Senator Voinovich. So now it's an ongoing issue?
Mr. Stein. It's ongoing in their--as we say, it's 10
percent. They're down low in all others. Little bit higher in
Huron than what we would like right now, but very low in Lake
Erie, for example, low in Michigan, low in Ontario.
Senator Voinovich. It's amazing you were able to find out
how to control them.
Mr. Stein. Yes. It's because of the life history. It's
because those animals come back to streams to spawn, the adults
do, and because the larvae are in those streams from on the
order of four to 7 years. And because they're there, we've got
a captive audience, and we can actually take the piscicide and
drip it into those streams and kill these animals while they're
there. If they had a life cycle in which their young were out
in the open lake, we would not be able to control them like we
do. So in some sense, it's a characteristic of the lifestyle.
And they are indeed the only invasive species that we know how
to control.
At last count, 162 non-native species, such as zebra
mussels, tiny plankton and round gobies, have become
established since the late 1800's, many of which have been
somewhat of a detrimental effect on the environment.
The main vectors for invasive species include ship ballast
water, canals, and the trade of live organisms. The Great Lakes
cannot afford even one more unintentional introduction, as any
one invader can play ecological havoc in the environment. And
I'll repeat that. We cannot afford even one more invader. Even
as we plan for them, as Mr. Speck talked about, we can't afford
to have another one.
We've been encouraged by the introduction of the National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act in both the House and Senate. And
among many things and as you know, the Act will address the
ocean-going ship ballast water vector by mandating badly needed
ballast standards. It will also authorize the invasive species
barrier system on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which we
heard about already. And this by the way will stop the
migration of Asian carp from coming from the Mississippi River
into the basin space. And the Act provides for the development
and funding of rapid responses in case we need to take swift
action to stop an invader.
I commend the authors of this legislation, and Senator
Voinovich, you're an original cosponsor and we appreciate that
very much, for addressing today's most significant invasive
species problems. We can't wait another day for this
legislation and urge its immediate passage.
Finally, let me turn to fishery restoration, the subject of
some conversation earlier in this hearing. Particularly an
exciting new program on which the Corps of Engineers and the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission have been working together to
get off the ground. The Great Lakes Fishery remains stressed
and we would benefit tremendously from a comprehensive
restoration effort.
One major restoration initiative is the Great Lakes Fishery
and Ecosystem Restoration Program. A program authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I know that you,
Senator Voinovich, are principal author of this provision and
commend you for your vigilance. The program authorizes the
Corps of Engineer to partner Federal, State and local agencies
in the commission to restore the fishery and the ecosystem.
Examples of projects include removing unnecessary barriers,
improving fish passage in streams, controlling invasive species
and restoring wetland habitat. I'm pleased to report to you
that the first step in implementing this program is nearly
complete. And we are just about ready to solicit and fund on-
the-ground restoration projects.
Folks in the Great Lakes region are quite enthused about
this program and what it means for the future of the fishery
and its sources. The Commission urges Congress to appropriate
funds so that the Corps and the management agencies can partner
on restoration efforts.
In summary, the sea lamprey control remains successful and
is critical to the fishery. The continuous influx of invasive
species is extremely troubling and must stop. I urge Congress
to pass immediately and fund the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act.
And finally, I commend you, Senator Voinovich, for
authorizing the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
Program and reiterate just how excited we are about helping to
implement this particular initiative. Thank you, Senator, for
holding this hearing on the shores of the Great Lakes and for
your interest in protecting the fishery.
Senator Voinovich. Thanks very much.
Mr. Speck?
STATEMENT OF SAM SPECK, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, GREAT LAKES
COMMISSION, EISENHOWER CORPORATE PARK, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
Mr. Speck. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. First I would like
to say ditto to the testimony of Dr. Stein in that the Great
Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors for
the hope and concern about supporting the passage of and
reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act. Mr.
Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to testify before
the Senate Committee on environment and Public Works. This
morning, I would like to share with you what the Great Lakes
Governors and Premiers are doing collectively to develop a
management regimen to protect the waters of the Great Lakes and
keep management of those waters in the Great Lakes Basin.
As you are aware, Ohio's Governor Bob Taft is the current
Chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. I am here this
morning in my role as Chair of the Councils's Water Management
Working Group and as Director of the ohio Department of Natural
Resources. I also served as the Chair of the Great Lakes
Commission. But this morning I'm going to be focusing on the
work of the Water Management Working Group in developing the
management for the Great Lakes.
I believe you already heard from our EPA, who is the Chair
of the Great Lakes Priorities Working Group for the Council of
Great Lakes Governors, in mid July when he testified, and also
the President of the Great Lakes Commission also provided
testimony in Washington in a community hearing, and we can
provide that for this committee as well.
The Council's Water Management Working Group is at a
critical stage in the efforts of the eight Great Lakes States
and the two Canadian provinces to strengthen our collective
needs for protecting the waters of the Great Lakes Basins. The
Working Group is developing a new resource-based decisionmaking
standard for diversions and consumptive uses of water in the
Basin, and in regard to diversions in accordance with the
provisions of the Great Lakes Charter Annex.
The region's Governors are pleased with the leadership that
Congress has shown in recognizing the critical importance of
the Great Lakes and the pressing need to restore and safeguard
them for generations to come. We particularly commend you,
Senators DeWine and Levin for the introduction of Senate Bill
1398. The Council of Great Lakes Governors believes that the
bills now pending in the House and Senate offer a really
wonderful financial resources to implement a restoration plan
for the Great Lakes.
Nearly two decades ago our States jointly formed the
Council of Great Lakes Governors, in part to fulfill our lead
responsibilities as stewards of the Great Lakes Water Basin
resources, and in recognition of the tremendous ecological,
economic and social benefits they provide. The Great Lakes
Governors and Premiers have continued to provide leadership on
Great Lakes issues, including creation of the Great Lakes
Charter in 1985 to provide a framework for managing the Basin
waters.
The use of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as a
tool to protect the Basin water resources. Formation of the
Council's Great Lakes Priorities Task Force chaired by Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency Director, Chris Jones.
In addition to these actions, at their annual meeting here
in Cleveland in October 1999 of the Governors and Premiers
committed to developing a new agreement which would bind, and I
emphasize bind, the Great Lakes States and Provinces more
closely to collectively plan, manage and make decisions
regarding the waters of the Great Lakes Basin. They laid out
the principles and they--to be carried forth and created a
working group to work to develop an annex for the Great Lakes
Charter at that time.
That group labored and developed a product, and on June
18th, 2001, the Governors and Premiers adopted the annex for
the Great Lakes Charter. In the annex, they committed
themselves to move forward on a new resource-based
decisionmaking standard and basinwide binding agreements, such
as an interstate compact and a State-Provincial agreement. The
Governors and Premiers extended the Council's Water Management
Working Group to develop the agreements called for in the
annex, and that's now the focus of my testimony.
A decisionmaking framework is being developed by the
Governors and Premiers which includes a two-tier review
structure. Under the framework being discussed, new or
increased diversions for consumptive uses exceeding the
original review threshold level of at this point it looks like
about 3 million gallons per day would be reviewed by all ten
jurisdictions. Proposals that do not exceed the regional review
threshold levels would be reviewed using a common resource-
based standard by the individual State or Province in which the
diversion or consumptive use is proposed.
Draft decisionmaking criteria being discussed are
consistent with the annex principles of minimizing Basin water
loss, no significant adverse impact, and improvement to the
waters of the Great Lakes Basin. The Governors and Premiers
agree to create the necessary agreements within 3 years of the
effective date of the annex. In other words, to create those
agreements by June of 2004. It's to be a compact, and it would
obviously have to go into the State legislatures and ultimately
to Congress.
The Water Management Working Group----
Senator Voinovich. Excuse me, Mr. Speck. You're saying that
when you get done, that it would then have to be passed by the
respective legislature and the Provinces in Canada; is that it?
Mr. Speck. Assuming that it has the form of an interstate
compact that the others would take out for hearings in the
States and the Prime Ministers of the respective Provinces
would presume to do the same, then that would have to
ultimately go through the legislatures and through Congress.
And that's, you know, that's to get a truly binding agreement
that is binding the States.
There are other alternatives, such as uniform legislation.
But that doesn't have the binding character to it, and it's
more of a moral commitment because each State would change that
at a later date. And there are other options, too. But this is
where the focus had been pretty much up to date.
We do expect to release documents for public review later
this year or early next year. Regardless of the timetable, a
flexible agreement must be drafted that will allow for the
incorporation of new scientific information into the
decisionmaking process. For example, we do not currently know
where the Basin groundwater divides are relative to the surface
water divides in a number of areas of the Great Lakes Basin.
And so on a temporary basis, I believe we're probably going
to simply assume that they're coterminous until science gives
us better answers to that.
The annex will be attempting to do something that has never
been done before. And we're trying to protect 20 percent of the
world's fresh surface water, not on the basis of economic
protection, on the basis of protection of the resource. In
reality, there are so many competing and conflicting interests,
that the only way it will be accomplished is through
partnerships. It will not be enough to simply have State-
Provincial partnerships, but Federal Governments, local
communities, NGO's, and the private sector will all have to be
included. The water management regimen we developed will show
how an effective partnership would protect one of the world's
great natural resources and may be used by others as a
successful model for elsewhere.
I'm glad to answer any questions, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Reutter?
STATEMENT OF JEFF REUTTER, DIRECTOR, OHIO SEA GRANT COLLEGE
PROGRAM, F.T. STONE LABORATORY, CENTER FOR LAKE ERIE AREA
RESEARCH, GREAT LAKES AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH CONSORTIUM,
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Reutter. Thank you very much, Senator, for the
invitation to participate. I've really enjoyed all that I've
heard in this meeting so far from all four previous speakers
and also all of your comments to begin this. I'm a strong
supporter of your stance on those issues.
I want to begin with a poster that we prepared, and I want
to thank Marc Gaden from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
He's going to hold this for us over here at the side. Senator,
this poster is for you and for your staff. We've tried to
depict the problem in Lake Erie, and this should help you in
explaining this situation to non-scientists and the general
public. I also want to thank Brian Mormino, who has been great
to work with and very helpful.
When we look at Lake Erie, you can see that it's the
southernmost of the Great Lakes and the shallowest. If it's the
southernmost and shallowest, it has to be the warmest. It also
receives the most nutrients. We get more sediment coming into
Lake Erie than the other four Great Lakes combined.
The other Great Lakes are all in excess of 750 feet deep.
The deepest point in Lake Erie is east of Long Point there in
the Eastern Basin--210 feet deep. So this is a very different
system: southernmost, shallowest, warmest, and most nutrient-
enriched. In fact, we get more sediment and more nutrients
coming from the Maumee River in Toledo than all the tributaries
put into Lake Superior, and Lake Superior is 20 times larger in
volume than Lake Erie.
So this is an important resource. Because it is the
southernmost, shallowest, warmest, nutrient-enriched, you
should be thinking that biologically Lake Erie should be
producing more fish than the other Great Lakes. And, in fact,
we do. In a typical year, we will produce more fish for human
consumption from Lake Erie than from the other four Great Lakes
combined.
However, it is possible to have too much of a good thing,
and that's really what has happened with the Central Basin of
Lake Erie. We've put in too much phosphorus. Phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient. It's an essential nutrient for algae growth.
But if you put in too much, you can get too much algae. And the
problem area becomes the Central Basin.
We divide the lake into three basins--the Western Basin has
an average depth of only 24 feet. The Central Basin has an
average depth of about 60 feet. The thermocline forms at about
50 feet, which means that the cold bottom layer beneath the
thermocline is very thin in the Central Basin of Lake Erie.
That's the area that becomes anoxic. On the chart, it is this
dark layer here right underneath the thermocline this very thin
line.
If the lake were deeper, as it is in the Eastern Basin, we
wouldn't have this problem. If we put in less phosphorus, we
wouldn't have this problem. We're not going to make the lake
deeper, but we can put in less phosphorus.
The rest of this chart goes on to describe the problem.
It's not entirely new. If I go back to the period in 1930, in
fact, my pointer here, we've seen areas of anoxia in the
Sandusky Sub-Basin as early as 1930. These charts show that
this anoxic area or hypoxic area--hypoxic meaning dissolved
oxygen levels below two parts per million--is not always level
or flat. The thermocline is not always 50 feet from the
surface. It tends to flow back and forth. If we have a strong
north wind, it blows the warm surface layer to the Cleveland
area and the cold bottom layer squirts out toward Canada. And
the reverse is also true when we have as strong south wind. So
we can have what is called ``upwelling'' as the thermocline
rises to the surface, and this allows that cold bottom layer to
flow over top of our water intakes here in Cleveland. This
creates taste and odor problems when it happens, along with
some bacteria problems.
Marc, thank you very much.
The Great Lakes National Program office recently
completed----
Senator Voinovich. Do you have any smaller ones than that?
Mr. Reutter. We can break that down for you to a power-
point presentation. But at the same time, we felt that was
something you could stand in front of and explain.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I bet Mrs. Voinovich wants
that on the wall of our basement.
Mr. Reutter. Well, I like her taste. EPA's Great Lakes
National Program office recently completed a science cruise in
Lake Erie with the Lake Guardian from the 14th to the 19th of
August. So what I'm going to tell you right now are the
preliminary results the most current information we have on
Lake Erie.
The results from that cruise indicate that hypoxia was
evident at half the stations and only 20 percent of the
stations showed dissolved oxygen levels above four parts per
million, the minimum level for most fish species. In June of
this year, Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory placed a
monitoring instrument one foot above the bottom at a station
approximately seven miles north of Huron, Ohio in an area
called the Sandusky Sub Basin. This instrument, a YSI 6600,
makes hourly readings of dissolved oxygen and five other
parameters. This site was chosen because it's among the most
productive sites in the entire lake and it was the first area
to exhibit anoxia as early as 1930.
This year hypoxia was first observed at this site on the
4th of August and a low value of .2 parts per million was
observed on the 8th of August. Oxygen is not likely to return
to any of these stations until the lake turns over during a
storm this fall.
It's also important to note that Microcystis sp., a harmful
form of blue-green algae that produces the toxin microcystin,
has been increasing in density in the western Basin for the
past 2 weeks and is nearing bloom levels.
I believe the oxygen problem is real and that it's growing.
There are clearly a number of exacerbating conditions that are
causing this. It now appears clear that Lake Erie has been
gradually warming for the past 100 years. Phosphorus
concentrations have been increasing since 1995.
Together these conditions reduce the amount of oxygen
available in the hypolimnion of the Central Basin and
accelerate the use of the oxygen that is available. It also
appears likely that the zebra mussel and a close relative, the
quagga mussel that is now replacing zebra mussels, are
exacerbating the problem by releasing phosphorus and allowing
it to cycle more frequently through the system.
It's also important to note that a large reason that we're
having this harmful algal bloom of Microcystis is because of
the feeding habits of the blue-green algae. They tend to remove
everything that competes with microcystis and spit out the
Microcystis when they suck it in, so pretty soon you're left
with only Microcystis.
What can we due to solve this problem? Well, probably the
best thing is to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the
lake. This will be very difficult, but it's possible. And
before we he can get into that--and, Senator, you know very
well how expensive that can be--we need better loading
estimates of what's coming into the lake right now.
We can eliminate the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel.
That would be difficult and probably not possible. We can
eliminate global warming? That's difficult, and right now most
people don't even realize it is a very serious problem. We can
increase the water level of Lake Erie? Currently Mother Nature
holds all the cards. Furthermore, our models show that with the
global warming, if anything is going to occur, we're going to
see a reduction in water levels. We badly need an influx of
Federal funding on the scale of that used for the Florida
Everglades to address the recovery of the Great Lakes
ecosystem, including dissolved oxygen problems, contaminated
sediment and harmful algal blooms.
We should all support the efforts of Senator Voinovich to
sponsor the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act and an
amendment to include the Great Lakes in the Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Act. Senator Voinovich has led efforts in the past
to improve sewage treatment capabilities. We must get behind
him again to eliminate combined sewers and problems like those
that arose here in Cleveland at the sewage treatment plants
during the August 14th blackout.
We badly need a coordinated plan that includes and
coordinates the activities of all agencies. Some of us will be
leaders and some of us must accept roles at team players.
Currently, there are too many cooks in the kitchen when it
comes to managing the Great Lakes ecosystem. We need better
coordination. We should all support the recent funding from
NOAA Sea Grant to the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-
Midwest Institute to develop the Great Lakes Restoration Plan.
And finally, on a somewhat different issue, I've also
recently been appointed to the Steering Committee for the
Global Ocean Observing System and strongly encourage everyone
to support the development of an Integrated Ocean Observing
System that includes the Great Lakes. We need a string of
monitoring buoys around all of the Great Lakes so that we're
not caught off guard. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. The last thing you said, you
called it----
Mr. Reutter. GOOS, Global Ocean Observing System.
Senator Voinovich. The one before that?
Mr. Reutter. The Steering Committee before that one and
before that was talking about--oh, NOAA Sea Grant is funding
the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-Midwest Institute
to develop a Great Lakes Restoration Plan.
The Northeast-Midwest Institute is trying to--their portion
of the proposal is to look at what was done at Chesapeake Bay,
the Everglades, several other sites around the country, and see
how we can duplicate those efforts in the Great Lakes. And the
Great Lakes Commission is trying to be the group that brings
everyone to the table. Right now, I'm supporting any group that
is trying to do that. Because that's really what is needed.
Senator Voinovich. The fact is that no matter what--how
much have they given to the Northeast-Midwest.
Mr. Reutter. The Great Lakes Commission.
Senator Voinovich. The Great Lakes Commission, to get
started with what we're talking about right here.
Mr. Reutter. Right.
Senator Voinovich. So it's really important that they're
brought into the room. We're just talking to----
Mr. Reutter. Right.
Senator Voinovich. To Tom and to the Army Corps. And so
that should be--we should move----
Mr. Reutter. The EPA's, the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, the Sea Grant Program. There are just a
number of groups that are really doing lots of research in this
system.
Senator Voinovich. Does the Sea Grant Program go throughout
all the Great Lakes?
Mr. Reutter. Yes. There's a separate Sea Grant Program in
all the Great Lakes States.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
We're very happy to have you with us again. You're getting
to be a regular here.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE MARSH, LAKE ERIE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES
UNITED, PENINSULA, OHIO
Ms. Marsh. Well, I'm very happy be here, Senator. I would
like to preface my remarks by saying how very important this
work is. How very important it is to support the Great Lakes by
policy measures, by dollars and by interest of the public and
by all of our government agencies. Because that's what it will
take to get this important job done.
I'm Elaine Marsh, project director of Ohio Greenways. And
for the past 6 years I have served as a volunteer for the Lake
Erie director on the board of trustees for Great Lakes United.
And as you mentioned, Great Lakes United is a bi-national
organization. It has about 170 members--member organizations
and they represent hundreds of thousands of citizens from the
eight Great Lakes States, two Canadian Provinces and Tribal
territories within the Great Lakes region. We work at the
local, regional and international level on projects, programs
and policies to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River ecosystem.
And to that end, we have recently developed a citizens
action agenda for restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
ecosystem. And that's specifically what I want to talk about
and mainly the process that we went through to arrive at that
agenda. Two years ago, there was a discussion during the annual
spring get-together organized separately by the Northeast-
Midwest Institute and the Great Lakes Commission. And members
of the Great Lakes staff and their volunteer directors we're
talking with people, and it was evident that there was a
growing frustration and a belief that things had become
piecemeal and separated. And this was good news to us. We had
felt that for some time as well. And so we got together
thinking that there might be an opportunity for a real
restoration plan and a real move and the possibility of some
funding. We said well, if this is going to happen, we want to
be ready. We have worked on these issues for a long time.
That spring at our annual meeting we broke into working
groups based on seven general areas. And those seven areas are
toxic cleanup, clean production, green energy, sustaining and
restoring water quantity and flows, protecting and restoring
species, protecting and restoring habitat and water and air
quality standards.
Once we set up these working groups, we involved Great
Lakes United members and non-members alike. We did not want to
have an elitist document that represented a Great Lakes insider
view of what some of the problems and solutions might be. So we
encouraged people who worked on these issues to get involved in
this process and they did.
Over a period of 2 years, we had over 50 organizations
review and work on this document. As a consequence, it is a
very collective and comprehensive look at what the
environmental and civic organizations working on Great Lakes
issues have as a view of what the priorities are.
The other thing that we did is look at both policy and
program and project issues. Each working group drafted and had
authors, and there were over 30 authors of the seven working
groups. And the authors drafted the first draft, sent it out to
all the people they thought might be interested. There were
suggestions from interested parties. We rewrote from the
suggestions and put the whole plan together. Then we sent the
whole plan out again. There were rewrites from that as well.
The result is a 70-page document that you have a copy of.
It covers all of the seven topic areas. It's very specific;
there are timetables, as I believe Mr. Skinner mentioned. EPA
has a goal of cleaning up ten areas of concern by 2010. And our
goal is to clean up all areas of concern by 2015. We'll be
delighted to see ten areas cleaned up, as there are only two
right now that are listed.
So we tried to be very specific, we tried to break things
down. We released the plan this year at our annual meeting.
This book, which is the Great Lakes Green Book, is the
executive summary. We further broke that down. We have a one-
page summary of 12 key recommendations that we feel are very
important. So I can speak to those issues, if you would like. I
thought I would talk more about the process that we went
through and----
Senator Voinovich. That's really--because that might give
us--you've heard the previous testimony from him. So I might be
interested if you want to continue on that vein.
Ms. Marsh. OK. Great. I also wanted to talk about another
initiative I was involved in, because I do believe that it is
possible to create a consensus view from the general public or
the interested public on these issues. It is difficult and time
consuming, but it is possible to do if partnerships are set up.
I want to talk just for a minute about another process I
was involved in. As project director of Ohio Greenways, I
worked with the Ohio Conservation and Environmental Forum to
inform the legislative process and support the Clean Ohio Fund,
which was a $400 million initiative, initiated by Governor
Taft, coordinated by the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, of
the more than 30 organizations put their resources and
expertise together and over a 12-month period drafted the
blueprints for the Clean Ohio Fund, which is this book here. It
took us a total of about 12 months of work.
The document was released to the public and distributed to
the legislature. It was the central focus of our educational
efforts with the public. It served as a point and counterpoint
to the treatises produced by members of the administration and
other interested parties. And it had a very positive effect
both on the process and the outcome of the legislation.
So I would like to conclude by examining the remarkable
capacity of the Great Lakes public as demonstrated by the
citizens action agenda. And in addition to that, everyone in
this room who has worked on these issues knows that when we do
have processes that involve the Great Lakes, the public comes
out. Particularly in the early and middle 1990's, we had
literally thousands of citizens that came to the bi-annual
meetings of the IJC. And I think the main reason that the
public participation has recently fallen off at these meetings
is that the government progress has slowed down as well.
So what is needed is the invigoration that a restoration
plan and funding will provide. And I believe with the
invigoration from the point of view of government, we will see
reinvigorated the interest of the public.
This particular agenda, the Green Book, is comprehensive in
scope and specific in recommendation. It demonstrates that the
public and non-profit organizations can focus on the issues.
But the main power of the document is its broad support that is
derived from the inclusive process that we used in its
production. Likewise, we think extensive public involvement in
any comprehensive restoration effort will greatly strengthen
that effort.
The production of the Green Book clearly demonstrated that
the Great Lakes public has the capacity to play a constructive
role in any comprehensive restoration plan. We encourage you to
engage the public early and often and we offer our assistance
in that effort. And while we're not really prepared to say
right now what we think the priorities ought to be in that
plan, we could use the Green Book as a basis and come to
consensus in prioritizing Great Lakes Restoration Projects as
they might relate to the legislated funding.
So we are really excited and ready to assist in this
process of bringing people together to prioritize those issues
which we see and those policies and programs which we believe
ought to move forward. Thank you very much.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. The thing that is interesting
to me, Ms. Marsh, is that you say 50 organizations came
together and developed your recommendations and your plan. If
the Great Lakes United were invited to be part of this effort
we're talking about, do you believe that these 50 organizations
would feel comfortable?
Ms. Marsh. I believe they would. And I think we have tried
to be very sensitive to----
Senator Voinovich. How long did it take--how much dialog
did you have? You said a lot of it before you came out with the
Green Book and recommendations. How long did that process take?
Ms. Marsh. It was a total of 2 years from the time----
Senator Voinovich. Two years.
Ms. Marsh.--from the time we started talking about it. But
now that we have identified those things on which there is a
consensus, the process will be efficient. I should note that
not every environmental organization agrees with every
statement in this book, but it's pretty close to consensus.
I think we have done that work up front. Nobody has called
and said, ``We're going to pull out of this movement because of
recommendation H on page 15.''
Senator Voinovich. Sure.
Ms. Marsh. So I think there is agreement that we're moving
in the right direction and that people would support our
efforts. Senator Voinovich. I know I went through the list with
you, asked the--you're going to be asked a question about the
issue of how do we define restoration. And I think you have
defined restoration.
Do you have a written definition of what restoration is
somewhere in your Green Book?
Ms. Marsh. We have many vision statements in here. I would
have to look, Senator, and see if I could find that.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. What I'm getting at is what is the
definition of restoration. And then the other issue is who
should be at the table. And after the hearing last time in
Washington, to talk about that. But I would be very, very
interested in getting the perspective of Great Lakes United
about who you think should be at the table as we start to
develop this overall strategic plan.
Ms. Marsh. Well, we would be happy to look at that and with
our partners to make that recommendation.
Senator Voinovich. Great. Because it would be wonderful if
we could get kind of a consensus that you would be the
spokesman for all the groups. Because one of the problems I
found in these instances is it's very difficult to get through
it and then one or two groups say it doesn't reflect us. And
that would be a real important issue, is to gather them
together and get some kind of consensus and say hey, this is
good. OK, you guys do it, and we'll keep you informed about
what's going on.
Ms. Marsh. And I don't know that it's possible to avoid
having conflict or having people who may be opposed to it. But
if the process is sensitive and it's inclusive and everyone has
a voice and there is an attempt to work toward holding firm on
those policies which we believe we have to hold firm on and
compromise when compromise can be applied, then I think we will
be able to continue along the course we're going.
Senator Voinovich. And I again compliment you and your
organization on the good work that you've done. I think it's a
good--it's really good.
Ms. Marsh. Well, Great Lakes United has a magnificent staff
and tremendous number of volunteers who put unpaid hours into
it. Senator Voinovich. Are you a membership dues organization?
Ms. Marsh. Yes, we are.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Stein, you mentioned the Great Lakes
Fishery. When do you expect to actually be ready to fund some
of those projects?
Mr. Stein. Well, the support plan that has been written is
nearly done. It's out for review right now.
Senator Voinovich. Did you send a copy of that to us?
Mr. Stein. I think we did.
Senator Voinovich. Brian, did you see it?
Mr. Mormino. I will check.
Mr. Stein. Given that's not in place, then the opportunity
for funds to come to bear and begin Restoration Projects--I
mean, we could conceivably, if something would happen in this
year's budget. We're a little behind the eight ball in terms of
2004 budget. But 2005 for sure. I don't know if there's any
funding to do it in 2004. But if there is, we'll certainly take
advantage of it. Because we're just in a spot where we can make
that happen.
Senator Voinovich. Maybe you just ought to try to move it
along and see where we're at. See if there may be some way.
Some of the questions I ask my people in Washington is what
amendments can we submit for the various appropriations bills.
It never hurts to ask. Surprising to me how often we get things
done.
That's one of the things I've learned in the Senate. In the
first couple years I didn't do very much of that. So I said
everybody else is doing it, and so I started doing and it
really helps.
Mr. Stein. All they can say is no.
Senator Voinovich. Just going to the Congress committee and
getting an amendment to include the Great Lakes and it's done.
That's the way it is. So often we think about a bill. But
amendments are really a way to get things. This may be the kind
of provincial, but the--we still have the problem on the
walleye and the perch problem in terms of who gets what.
Mr. Stein. Allocation issues.
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Mr. Stein. Allocations for this issue have not been
decided. There's a meeting of the Lake Erie Committee which
takes all the five States and the provinces into account. They
will be meeting again at the end of this month to talk about
allocation issues.
This has been a tough one in terms of where we are relative
to the walleye fisheries. We had in the mid-1980's probably 15
million fish. Out there now, probably 20 million walleye. The
question is, is that what can the lake support and can we come
to the consensus with the people around the table to make the
appropriate allocations between the U.S. and Canada. And I
think the process is in place. It's just a question of--and the
people that come to that table--I must say I participated in
the last few meetings, and I will participate in the one at the
end of this year. Mostly as an observer. Because we in the
Commission will serve as arbiter or at least oversee the
process of arbitration if it comes to that. We are not there
yet.
And the people that are around that table have the
resource, the good of the resource in mind, and the question is
that can we come to agreement. So it's a bit sticky right now.
But I think--I've watched that process and have been a
participant in that process for the last 15 years. I have
extremely high hopes.
Senator Voinovich. Good. I know there is more commercial
fisheries as opposed to sport----
Mr. Stein. There is a bit of that, too. Commercial
fisheries and sport fisheries.
Senator Voinovich. It's simply reared its ugly head again.
And this has been around now for two or 3 years. We've talked
about this with our Canadian counterparts and everybody says
it's a problem and we should do something about it. But nothing
is happening. I've been out there and it's unbelievable. It's
almost like an armada. They just move, they come in there and
just suck up all the bait fish and just move along. And I think
most of us believe that it's hurting our fishery. And is
anything going to be done about that?
Mr. Stein. Well, I don't know. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
has jurisdiction. And so those are the folks that are going to
be making decisions about those things. Michigan has proposed
that we in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission take charge and
control of the species' habitat.
That legislation was introduced last year in the previous
Congress. It has not been reintroduced. I'm not sure that
that's what we should be doing. But there are those kinds of
proposals that are out there.
Senator Voinovich. OK. It's got to get done. So maybe,
Brian, we ought to talk to our colleagues and see if we can get
something worked out then and get it done. You've done a good
job on the issue of the lamprey.
Mr. Stein. And the question is whether cormorants are
really harming the fish population. There's been some work done
in New York that suggests that they have an impact on smaller
bass populations with some very carefully done interject models
and some very good work. The work done around the west Basin,
which does not have similar consequences, and the questions is
what impact are they really having. I think they're having a
very negative impact, but the question is will they have the
same kind of negative impacts on the fish population.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I can tell there's been a negative
impact on the--because you're determining with the bird
population. Because they're destroying the habitat for the
herons and for other birds and that's important. I means, it's
like it's out of balance. So this may be a two footer, to the
deal with the problem not only would help the fishery but--we
got to get on this right away. I don't think we can--I think
that our people stand to know more about it than I do. But I
think the folks that we have out at the Wildlife Refuge are
really concerned about this.
Mr. Speck. The EPA and Fish and Wildlife appreciates the
problems, and we'll be coming forth with options that give the
State new authority to take action in reducing population. And
you're absolutely right, Senator, it's critical.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. I, the last one we should move on,
the other one is the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. The
thing is they're just not being enforced by the Army Corps of
Engineers. There's no muscle in this thing right now. Anybody
want to comment on that?
Mr. Speck. Go ahead. No. I speak from a different
perspective, Senator. And certainly you've got two problems.
One is the possibility of additional invasive species coming
in, and the other is dealing with the invasive species that we
already have here. But it hasn't necessarily impacted all areas
of the Great Lake to the degree that they will. And the first
is to get our arms around control over ballast water. And we
still don't have that. And that's a part of what the Coast
Guard now is trying to do and it's in part by its own order
that we authorize these.
You've got to deal with ballast water management
effectively if you're going to be able to deal with invasive
species.
Senator Voinovich. The problem we have is that the Coast
Guard claims they don't have the wherewithal to do it. I think
that's where we are falling down right now. And it hasn't
arisen to a big enough priority. And you almost have to, you
know--it's economic interest. They don't want to be bothered
with this. It's expensive.
But I think what we need to do, and that's the only reason
I'm having this hearing, is that this is a real economic
problem for the United States. You know, I mean, it's an
ecological problem. It's also having a dramatic impact on the
economy of the Great Lakes region.
If we destroy our fishery, I mean, it will have
unbelievable rippling effects across the board. I look
sometimes and you've watched the development that's going on.
And if it wasn't for the fact that the Great Lakes have come
back and it's the fishery that it is and so forth, all that
stuff would be gone. Just that fast. So everybody agrees that
we need to move on this thing to get it to a higher priority.
Right?
Mr. Speck. Absolutely.
Mr. Stein. And just to reinforce what Sam was saying. I
mean, the standard now in that legislation is eliminate the
risk of introduction, and there's money in there and--there
would be money in there to make all that sort of stuff happen.
Senator Voinovich. I hear 162 and we can't afford----
Mr. Stein. One more.
Senator Voinovich. One more. Now, we can put that money
into the budget for that screen to keep the carp out.
Mr. Stein. That's right. That's in there, too. If those
carp get in there----
Senator Voinovich. Say that slowly. It's immediately. I
want them to understand.
Mr. Stein. Yes. Asian carp have reached proportions of
density in the Mississippi River of 80 to 90 percent of the
biomass of fishes that are in some of the pools in the
Mississippi River. 80 to 90 percent of the biomass in the short
time that they've been in the Mississippi River. They are
planktivores. They are eating the small critters in the water
columns that essentially allow our sport fish to reproduce.
That plankton provides the food for the yellow perch. It
provides the food a lot of the walleye. And if these Asian carp
come in there at 80 percent of the biomass competing for this
plankton, what is going to happen to those species. So keeping
those species----
Senator Voinovich. I still don't understand why the
people--doesn't that destroy the fishing--maybe they don't have
any kind of a fishery on the Mississippi. They don't seem to be
bothered. There's no mention of it, right? I mean, have you
seen anything about it? What is it again? How much is the
biomass?
Mr. Stein. 80 to 90 percent of the biomass in some of the
pools in the Mississippi River.
Mr. Reutter. At those times, the pools don't support the
world class walleye population you get in Lake Erie.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Speck, I'm pleased that the annex is
moving forward. I have to tell you there's a little bit of
anxiety in the Senate. We have some eager beavers. And I'm not
as eager as some of the beavers, but we're getting more eager.
And they're wondering when is this going to get done.
And one of the things I'm concerned about is you were
saying that the States would have to go ahead and pass this.
It's our concept that maybe I'm not understanding as well as I
should. I thought it was that when you folks got done with
that, that we would introduce legislation and get it passed.
Mr. Speck. Senator, there are probably several ways that
deal with it. If you want something that is binding on the
States----
Senator Voinovich. But I'm just saying, doesn't that
require a treaty with Canada?
Mr. Speck. A treaty would be another way to go. Our
discussions with the State Department, our discussions with the
great--the Great Lakes Task Force have not indicated a very big
interest in following the treaty route. There are challenges in
that we can make an agreement binding on the States through an
interstate compact. There is no comparable legal structure in
Canada in terms of an interprovincial contract. And it would
require the Provinces to pass legislation. It would be a
commitment, but theoretically it leads--it could be changed
later on.
We believe that we can probably, before a State compact
would be passed, are take steps under WRDA and take steps in
terms of the States and Provinces agreeing to act collectively
and above the threshold. But ultimately a compact is what would
give you a binding contract over time in terms of an agreement
or the standard and the process to make certain that it was
carried out.
Senator Voinovich. Well, that's something that I think--Mr.
Speck. Let me say that we've had a number of groups including
Great Lakes United as advisors. We have some 26 advisory
groups. And, Senator, let me also comment--and I don't want to
get into detail, because I don't have that detail with respect
to the Great Lakes Priorities Task Force that Chris Jones is
heading. But I think you can expect that within weeks rather
than months you will be hearing from the Great Lakes Governors
in terms of a set of priorities and that they will be following
that up with a set of recommendations for intermediate action
between when that is performed and when a complete plan is
completed.
Senator Voinovich. I think that specifically some of my
colleagues, whose names I'm not going to mention, are very much
wanting to get involved with this. They're very frustrated and
they say the State isn't moving fast enough, if we're going to
do anything, it has to be done on the Federal level.
And so I think that what needs to be done is you need to
move as rapidly as possible, familiarizing them about the
schedule which it is. Contemplate some role that the Federal
Government would play. I think if we did by legislation
authorize the States in terms of this issue of withdrawal----
Mr. Speck. Under WRDA the Governors are required to act in
terms of the removal of water outside of the Basin, i.e., a
diversion. WRDA does not cover in-basin withdrawals. And we
believe over the long haul, you've got to both address out-of-
basin diversion and in-basin withdrawals.
Senator Voinovich. We ought to try to get some dialog going
on that pretty rapidly. And then in compact, how do you--if you
all agree on it--and the Premiers will be involved as well,
correct?
Mr. Speck. Yes, they're very much involved.
Senator Voinovich. And then the issue is what--how do you
get this done. I just, it's a subject that I think we need to
get some lawyers to look at, to figure out where we're going.
OK.
Mr. Speck. We have them. And let me make one other
clarification or explanation that may be helpful. The Sea
Grant, as you were mentioning, and the Great Lakes Commission
is indeed going to be here--holding some hearings, I think
probably in each State with respect to a restoration plan. What
we anticipate they will be doing will be, is using the
Governors' priorities as one of the things that we'll be
talking about and holding hearings on beginning this summer
with the first hearings being in Michigan.
And so there is a linkage between the work of that Task
Force, with the Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes
Commission, which also have been playing a critical role
through a grant they received from the Great Lakes Protection
Fund, which you put together. The grant sponsored a quarter of
a million dollars toward development of a port system for what
the Governors are proposing to do----
Senator Voinovich. Are you familiar with that, with what
he's talking about?
Ms. Marsh. I'm familiar with some of it. I certainly know
about the work on the annex, but I'm not really familiar with--
--
Senator Voinovich. With the plan.
Ms. Marsh. No. I've heard about the plan. I didn't know
hearings were forthcoming.
Senator Voinovich. Well, you know it might be very
worthwhile for this committee to--I mean, it looks to me like
we're moving in a lot of directions and maybe you ought to get
the people who are moving in all directions to get in the room
before two are off over here and another group is over here and
saying we're all trying to accomplish the same thing. Is it
possible that we can coordinate our efforts and not just have a
lot of redundancy out there.
Mr. Speck. Senator, the bill which you cosponsored provides
a pretty good template for doing a lot of that. And it
specifically asks the Governors to come forward with
priorities. It links that in and it creates an advisory group
with each Governor to represent it, it's chaired by one of the
Governors. So that legislation, if it were to pass, and I'm not
here to endorse every, you know, every aspect of it, but if it
were to pass, it sets a way to bring these groups together. I
think it provides for five of the groups.
Senator Voinovich. Is the Army Corps of Engineers involved
in that?
Mr. Speck. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Is Skinner involved in that?
Mr. Speck. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. They are?
Mr. Speck. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Let's just see if we can----
Mr. Speck. I don't want to speak for them, but they're
involved in it.
Senator Voinovich. I think we need to talk about that to
see exactly where everyone is at so we don't end up having
different--and the other issue, again, is back to, as Dennis
Schroeder was talking, let's see, last month, the Chairman of
the United States section of the Commission suggests that we
revise and update the Great Lakes water quality to form the
basis for a major bi-national Great Lakes initiative.
What is your opinion of using this as a vehicle for an
economy restoration plan?
Mr. Speck. I'm for one not ready to comment on this. Get
back to me on that.
Senator Voinovich. Dennis felt pretty strong about this.
And the IJC is a joint Canadian-U.S. thing. So if we're doing--
if we have the Great Council of Great Lakes Governors put this
thing together--are the Premiers of Canada involved in this,
too, or not?
Mr. Speck. They would, yes, under the IJC.
Senator Voinovich. I know that. But in terms of the--what
we just talked about 2 minutes ago. How do you get the
international----
Mr. Speck. We're going to be having a meeting with them,
Senator, I think it's September 6th. So we'll be meeting with
them shortly.
Senator Voinovich. I think it's really important that we
identify who is there and maybe just kind of see if we can
either through a conference call or something see if we can
bring people--so the left hand knows what the right hand is
doing.
Mr. Speck. We met with them not long ago in Chicago
regarding----
Ms. Marsh. Two years ago at the bi-annual meeting for the
IJC there was some discussion about opening up negotiations.
And it was Great Lakes United's position that the International
Joint Commission should fulfill the agenda it already had on
the table rather than negotiating more things to do. I don't
know what our opinion would be related to that at this time.
Things have changed. But that was our opinion at that time.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Reutter, as you know, we were able
to through the committee get amended and include the Great
Lakes. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Reutter. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. The issue now is how do we get some
money. And we'd like to talk to you about that.
Mr. Reutter. It's very important because the same kinds of
harmful bloom issues that they have in the Gulf occur, and
they're tied to aquatic nuisance species. The passage of that
bill are tied to public health issues. They're tied to the
health of the fishery. Tied to the health of waterfowl. We know
that this particular toxin is toxic to waterfowl.
Senator Voinovich. Is that why we're seeing more dead
birds?
Mr. Reutter. That's some of it. But wes also have a
Botulism problem that is occurring in the eastern end of the
lake and the eastern end of the Central Basin, and that problem
appears to be being exacerbated by zebra mussels and round
gobies. But we have a lot more research to do in that area.
And then getting back to phosphorus reduction. Blue-green
algae require high phosphorus levels. If we had lower
phosphorus levels, and we didn't have the nuisance species, we
wouldn't have this harmful algae bloom.
Senator Voinovich. I know at the last meeting we had we
talked a little bit about research from Case Western Reserve.
If I remember correctly, they were saying something about we
don't know whether we can do anything about the phosphorus
that's being contributed by the zebra and quagga, but he was
saying something about the fact that we need to punch up or
improve what we're doing with our own--what we can control. And
that gets back to this whole sewage thing.
Mr. Reutter. Well, there are efforts underway to reduce
agricultural runoff--efforts, such as buffer strips, that hold
the phosphorus on agricultural land and prevent it from
entering the lake.
Senator Voinovich. If you do all of those things, how much
of an impact do you think that would have?
Mr. Reutter. Well, it would have a very significant impact.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think if we were able to improve
that substantially, take that runoff, we would improve----
Mr. Reutter. Combined sewers. Yes. An important thing to
keep in mind, is that if you wanted to put your finger on the
pulse of the Great Lakes, the best place to do that is the
Central Basin of Lake Erie. If you wanted to say what is really
happening in the Great Lakes right now, are we headed in the
right direction or wrong direction, because of the shape of
that Basin, the depth, that's the best place to look. It's the
first place that is going to show problems.
Senator Voinovich. Now, in terms of the water levels, we've
had periods where it's been horrible and now they're lower. And
if you follow the trend, it goes down and then before you know
it, it comes back again. So the issue is--that's an issue of,
you know, can you control that and not control that.
Mr. Reutter. In Lake Erie, we really have very little
control over the water level. There are over 20 diversions in
and out of the Great Lakes with canals as well as a variety of
different things. If you put all of the impacts of all of those
water diversions together, they tend to raise the level of Lake
Erie by about four inches. So there's very little impact as a
result of those.
The biggest thing that we're seeing, we had warmer
temperatures, which means we're going to see more evaporation.
As we move further into global warming, all the models say that
we're likely to have higher levels of precipitation, but
they're going to come less frequently. So we'll have severe
storms, greater precipitation, greater evaporation between
those periods, and the water levels in the lakes will actually
go down. So we're very concerned about that.
Mr. Speck. There's only two places you know where the water
levels--one is coming out Lake Superior and the other is coming
out of Lake Erie--I mean, Lake Ontario. And those are very
mild.
Senator Voinovich. Because I know we had the lake froze
over this year and everybody thought that we'd have a lot more
water. And then what, the other ones didn't freeze? Is that it?
Mr. Reutter. Well, they did. But the upper lakes are down
about 40 percent in precipitation--just about at all time lows.
90 percent of the water that comes into Lake Erie comes in out
of the Detroit River. It was very good when Lake Erie froze
over. Because when it's frozen, we get much less evaporation.
So in that respect, things could have been far worse this
summer than they are right now.
Senator Voinovich. And we flow into Lake Ontario?
Mr. Reutter. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. One of the really wonderful things that
happened this year is I finally got to visualize what is going
on because we had our Canadian interparliament meeting at
Niagara on the Lake. And we went over to see the power plants
and to--I mean, I never understood how they control the water
flow coming out of Lake Erie and that we benefit from it in the
U.S. And we almost mimic these hydroelectric facilities in that
they--during the day, the flow is larger so that they can give
the tourists the benefit of the flow coming over, and then in
the evening, they divert it into ponds on both sides of the
U.S. and Canadian side. And then when they reduce the--or limit
the diversion, then they use these ponds to continue to provide
the power for the hydroelectric. It's just really interesting
how that was all put together.
I suggested, Ms. Marsh, that probably would never happen
again because the environmental condition--and then god only
knows where we'll be hit with some of that power.
Anyhow, I would be very interested in--maybe the last
question I'd ask all of you is you--we've all heard this
discussion about how do we get this, all these players together
to get the comprehensive plan put in place. Maybe you can give
me your final thoughts on that. How do we get that done?
Mr. Reutter. I think we have some of the right plans in
place right now. We need to support those actions. I think--
quite frankly, I think that the pressure from the Federal level
requesting that we speak with one voice has been very
effective. We've heard a number of different groups say that
they are--they have actions underway to plan for more
collaboration and cooperation. I think we need to support all
of those actions, because that is what is required.
We have, you know, we're very fortunate that the EPA's
Great Lakes National Program does a great job. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission does a great job. We have strong agencies,
and trying to coordinate those agencies and enhance cooperation
between them is a challenge. And I think it appears that the
groups are ready to grab that challenge.
Senator Voinovich. I guess the thing that troubles me is
that you have the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and I
chaired that group for a couple of years. And you get turnovers
to the Governors' offices and they're so busy trying to get
themselves organized and their staff set up and everything
else, that the priority I think this should be given is not
given. And that's where I have some concern about the
government involved in this issue. Because you can have people
working there and then the new administration comes in, you get
a turnover of staff, and then you lose your momentum. And it
seems to me that there ought to be an ongoing way to continue
to get the Governors input.
But I'd hate like the devil to have them in the driving
leadership role because I--I mean, I know. I came in in Ohio
and I restored the Great Lakes--the Lake Erie Commission, gave
it high priority because this was something I was really
interested in. But a lot of my colleagues could 't care less
about it. The Governor of New York, that's way up there, you
know. And if you don't have the right staff person, it just--
Sam, you know what I'm talking about.
So that's what concerns me, is that we got to make sure
that you've got some continuity here and that the thing keeps
moving down the road and that it doesn't, you know, stop
because of change in the administration and so on.
Mr. Reutter. Keep saying that. Keep the pressure on. We
need that.
Mr. Speck. You need a couple of things. And one is you may
call it pressure or you may call it encouragement. Whatever.
But, you know, behind that is an indication that Feds might do
something that the States might not like so well if the States
don't have their act together. We all understand how that
operates, Governor.
And the second, Senator, is the dollars. And I think with
the legislations you cosponsored, there's an indication that
Congress is serious. And I'm not only saying come up with a
plan, but if you do, we'll be there to be good partners with
you. I think both those elements have to be there. There has to
be a belief that there will be resources as well as a belief
that there will be consequences if the States don't show some
leadership here.
And the legislation you put together gives the Governors an
opportunity to move forward, and I see them as really doing
this now. And as I indicated, you're probably going to see it
in terms of weeks. And I have the authority to say that, weeks
instead of months. They're recommended priorities for
discussion.
So that, I think that we're on the cusp of really
accomplishing something. But it's going to be tough. You know,
we've been working on this annex, and the Governors set
themselves up every year. We're trying to get Provinces and
States and national governments to set up a standard for
removal of water. Most of the States have not had any
regulation over removal of the water to speak of or regulation
of how water is used in their respective States.
So we're asking them to move a tremendous distance from
where they have been. And, you know, this is that's never been
tried anywhere else in the world. And if we can come up with an
agreement, the Governors all endorse it in a 3-year period, it
would truly be a remarkable exercise.
Mr. Reutter. The scientific community has not helped with
it as much as I'm sure you would have liked.
Mr. Speck. Well, now even the IJC--I will be sorry for
saying this--had a report that was prepared for them that says,
you know, there's no way to take the water very soon and
export, and we don't have all the science we need, so we
shouldn't hurry this agreement along. I don't know if the IJC
is going to figure out what to do with that report they
commissioned. But, at least----
Senator Voinovich. Well, I can tell you this. And I'm not
kidding you. There are people in Congress that have a little
different perspective on things than I do, because I'm a former
Governor and former mayor. It's like when we were always
wanting to try to find something to do. We've got to every day
get up early in the morning and try to figure out something we
can do. Grab a hold of this and start running with it and say
got to get it done. Instead of dragging their feet. We need to
move on this thing and get it done. It's going to happen.
That's one thing.
Mr. Speck. The other thing, Senator, I would state, too, is
that, you know, I have to acknowledge with five new Governors
coming in, it's been a real effort to bring them and their
staff up to speed. And we're making progress on that, but it's
tough.
Senator Voinovich. Maybe what we ought to do is a get a
letter from our committee to the Governors talking about how
Congress is interested in this and how we would like them, the
new Governors--this is something that we need to--let's do
that. Let's send a letter out and maybe that will give it a
little higher profile for maybe some that are trying to grapple
with it.
Go ahead.
Mr. Stein. I could think of one issue, too. I think the
restoration act is really a nice example, I think, of how to do
it. Because it's authorized under the Joint Strategic Plan. And
that Joint Strategic Plan has--all the management agencies are
signatory to that. So we've brought under one umbrella all of
those organizations. And I think we're making progress with
these people.
So I think in some sense, even though it's a small area
that we're looking at, the fact is that we have management
agencies operating under that. The system has already been in
place----
Senator Voinovich. Yes. I think one of the other things
that we really need to do is, just the last thing I ever want
to get involved in is to have some cockamamie massive plan and
then have it----
Mr. Stein. Derailed.
Senator Voinovich. You go to go see Charlie Brown to see if
you can go forward with what you're doing. We've got to make
sure that all this stuff that's out there is ongoing, they're
moving with it, and we're not, you know, standing in the way of
that.
Again, I want to thank you for being here, and I'm hoping
before the end of the year we can get a couple other things
done and get folks together. And maybe by this time next year,
maybe we can be somewhat on the way to moving on this. I know
it's not going to happen overnight, and I really want to make
sure that we touch base with everybody.
Because I'll never forget, Sam and--we were talking about
the coastal, you know, that we were going to put in about
requiring people to when they sold their property to notify the
purchaser when they live along the coastal----
Mr. Speck. Coastal erosion.
Senator Voinovich. The coastal erosion thing. Well, what we
did is--they move very fast, and I'll never forget, they came
in the office and said we got this. And I said you really
talked to everybody. Oh, yes, we talked to everybody. The fact
is they hadn't talked to everybody. And we wrote them, told
them to go back and, you know, do it over again.
And even with--this is the Transportation Research
Allocation Track Program, which is now in Ohio we have where we
prioritize the highways. And the real issue was developing
standards that were objective so that somebody couldn't say
that, you know, something got on the list because it was fixed.
And I'll never forget this as long as I've been--I'm sure
Governor Taft has them, these regional Cabinet meetings. So I'm
over in Lima, Ohio and there's a bunch of county engineers. And
I said, and we're moving forward with track proposal, and I've
been assured by Jerry Ray that you all had input, da, da, da,
da. So will you stand up if any of you feel that you haven't
been involved. Everyone stood up. So, you know, they took that
one back and worked on that some more. The point is you've got
to make sure that you touch base with everybody. Because if you
don't do your homework and touch bases, then you're going to
fall right on your face. Because there's somewhere along you're
going to hit a land mine that's going to blow the whole thing
up.
I think the real issue right now is let's really try to get
the best brains on who the players are that should be at the
table. And I'd like you to check back with some of your groups
to see if they feel comfortable. Let's say you guys are
representing them----
Ms. Marsh. Well, we certainly will talk to the departments.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much and please return. I
would also like to thank the Great Lakes Science Center.
[Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee was
adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
The hearing will come to order. Good morning and thank you for
coming. First and foremost, thank you all for taking the time out of
your busy schedules to participate in today's field hearing of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to examine the current
and future efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes.
Second, I thank Chairman Jim Inhofe for calling this hearing at my
request. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the
Committee and the House and Senate in advancing legislation to address
what I believe is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing
our nation restoration of the Great Lakes. Thank you also to the staff
of Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords that made the trip up here from
Washington. I appreciate your assistance in putting this hearing
together.
While restoration is important to the plants and animals that call
it home and to the 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada that depend
on it for drinking water, it is also important to the economy and
people's jobs. The Great Lakes region maintains the largest bilateral
trade relationship in the world with the primary economic activities in
recreation and tourism, shipping, agriculture, and manufacturing.
In terms of tourism, the eight Great Lakes States have about 3.7
million registered recreational boats, or about a third of the nation's
total. Retail expenditures for recreational boating in the Great Lakes
region is over $2.6 billion annually, slightly less than one-third of
national expenditures in this category. The Great Lakes commercial and
sport fishery alone is valued at more than $4 billion annually. It has
been estimated that tourism in the Lake Erie area accounts for an
estimated $1.5 billion in retail sales and more than 50,000 jobs. While
I was Governor, Ohio moved from sixth to seventh in travel and tourism
and Lake Erie was a major reason for this improvement.
Businesses also rely on the Great Lakes because, among other
things, they provide an inexpensive and environmentally friendly means
of transportation. In 2000, this system provided an estimated $1.2
billion in transportation cost savings to steel mills, utilities, grain
terminals, and other key industries located near the 16 major U.S.
ports in the system. These industries provide more than 37,000 direct
jobs and are able to compete in the world economy because they can keep
transportation costs low.
About one-third of the land in the Great Lakes basin is used for
agriculture, supporting about 7 percent of U.S. agricultural
production. One-fifth of U.S. manufacturing activity is based on the
Great Lakes, and the region, combined with Canada, accounts for about
60 percent of steel production in North America.
Over the last century, these activities have been both a detriment
to this resource and a blessing for the people in the region.
Regardless of the past, restoration of the Great Lakes benefits both.
Today's hearing may seem like deja vu to some of you. One year ago,
I held another field hearing in Cleveland at the Coast Guard station,
which is about a stone's throw away from here also on the beautiful
shores of Lake Erie. The purpose of that hearing was to look into the
re-occurrence of dead zones or low oxygen areas in Lake Erie.
I am pleased that Dr. Jeff Reutter of the Ohio Sea Grant Program,
who I have been out to see at Stone Lab on Gibralter Island, was able
to testify at that hearing and is here today to provide an update on
this situation and the water quality of Lake Erie. He is one of the
premier scientists working on Ohio's Great Lake, and I welcome him to
today's hearing.
Also on the second panel is Ms. Elaine Marsh from Great Lakes
United, who testified at last year's field hearing as well. Great Lakes
United is a U.S. and Canadian coalition dedicated to preserving and
restoring the Great Lakes. Last month, the organization testified at a
hearing that I held as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management in the Governmental Affairs Committee on the
management of Great Lakes programs.
I met with Ms. Marsh and several of her colleagues before the
hearing on a report they released earlier this year on how to clean up
the Great Lakes. I look forward to hearing from her this morning on the
coalition's recommendations on how to move forward in restoring the
Great Lakes.
I also welcome on our second panel Mr. Sam Speck, who is Director
of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Chair of the Great
Lakes Commission. Mr. Speck will be providing the Committee with an
update on his work to implement a binding agreement between Canada and
the U.S. on a standard for making decisions on proposals to export
water out of the Great Lakes. Sam and I have been long time friends
since we were in the legislature together. We worked together to create
the Ohio EPA and Ohio's model reclamation law.
Dr. Roy Stein, who is Vice-Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and is also Director of the Aquatic Ecology Laboratory at
the Ohio State University, will also testify on the second panel about
invasive species and the State of the fisheries in the Great Lakes.
Lastly, I welcome the two witnesses we have for our first panel,
Mr. Tom Skinner and Colonel William Ryan, who both testified at the
hearing that I chaired last month on Great Lakes programs. Mr. Skinner
is the U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office Manager and
Colonel Ryan is the Deputy Commander of the Great Lakes Ohio River
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They will both be
providing information on our current restoration efforts and their
thoughts on where we need to go from here to restore the Great Lakes.
While today is in many ways a follow-up to the hearings I held last
year here in Cleveland and last month in the Governmental Affairs
Committee, I think of it as just one more step toward my lifetime goal
of restoring the Great Lakes.
Thirty-seven years ago, when I saw firsthand the effects of
pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew we had to do
more to protect our environment. At the time, Lake Erie was suffering
from eutrophication and was known worldwide as a dying lake. Lake
Erie's decline was heavily covered by the media and became an
international symbol of pollution and environmental degradation. I
remember the British Broadcasting Company the BBC even sent a film crew
to make a documentary about it.
I made a commitment then, as a State legislator, to do everything
possible to stop the deterioration of the Lake and to wage what I refer
to as the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore Ohio's
Great Lake.
I have continued this fight throughout my career as State
Legislator, County Commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, Mayor of
Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now United States Senator. I consider
my efforts to preserve and protect Lake Erie and all of the Great Lakes
to be among the most significant of my career and of my life.
One of my first actions as a State legislator was to introduce a
resolution calling for a $360 million bond issue for municipal sewage
treatment plant construction along Lake Erie. I also cosponsored the
creation of the Ohio Water Development Commission to help industries
eliminate pollution from our rivers and lakes, formed a legislature
committee on Lake Erie that was responsible for stopping four States
from going forward with exploratory drilling in Lake Erie, and chaired
a subcommittee that wrote amendments to Ohio's air and water laws.
In addition, I was the vice-chairman of a seven-State Legislature
Committee on the Environment that culminated in legislation to create
State agencies of environmental protection in each of those States.
Since I sponsored the legislation to create the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, I am known as the ``House Father'' of the Ohio EPA.
Moreover, because of concern that the environment was not getting
the attention it deserved, I worked to convince the Speaker of the Ohio
House to create an Environment Committee, of which I was the first
vice-chairman.
When I became a County Commissioner for Cuyahoga County in 1977, I
helped stop the Energy Department from considering using the salt mines
under Lake Erie as a storage area for nuclear waste.
As Mayor of Cleveland, I was alarmed about the introduction of
zebra mussels into the Great Lakes and conducted the first national
meeting to discuss the problem.
As Governor, I had another opportunity to continue the fight for
Lake Erie's future. I made sure Ohio paid its fair share of the Great
Lakes Protection Fund, a $100 million endowment to fund research on the
Great Lakes. In addition, we breathed new life into the Ohio Lake Erie
Commission Office, locating it in Toledo, and creating the Lake Erie
Protection Fund, which is funded by proceeds from the sale of the Lake
Erie license plates.
Due to my concern that baseline information had not been
established to document where we started or to track the progress we
had made, in 1998, we released the Lake Erie Water Quality Index to
quantify the results of our efforts to clean up Lake Erie. Ten
indicators were developed to provide a baseline on which to measure our
progress and identify challenges for the future.
As a U.S. Senator, I am pleased to serve on the Environment and
Public Works Committee and to work on many issues that impact our
nation's ecosystem. It is comforting to me that 37 years since I
started my career in public service, I am still involved, as a member
of the U.S. Senate, in the battle to save and restore Lake Erie.
As a freshman Senator in 1999, I was fortunate to be selected as
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
As the Chairman, I was the sponsor of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000. Through my involvement in WRDA 2000 and WRDA 1999, I
supported environmental restoration programs for the Great Lakes under
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
One of the initiatives I authored is the Great Lakes Fishery and
Ecosystem Restoration Program, which authorized the Corps of Engineers
to plan, design, and implement projects that support the restoration of
the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. WRDA
authorizes $100 million specifically for projects to restore the Great
Lakes fishery and ecosystem.
Last year, I cosponsored the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which was
signed into law in 2002, to authorize $50 million per year for 5 years
for the cleanup of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern, such as
the Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga, and Ashtabula Rivers in Ohio. While I was
pleased that the President provided $15 million in his fiscal year 2004
budget for this program, I recently wrote the Appropriations Committee
requesting that the program be fully funded so that we can make real
progress toward cleaning up these persistent problem areas in the Great
Lakes.
Through the years, I have also worked long and hard on addressing
our nation's critical wastewater infrastructure needs. We have made
great strides and spent billions of dollars to improve our nation's
wastewater collection and treatment systems. In fact, since 1965, the
amount of phosphorus entering Lake Erie has been reduced by about 50
percent, with most of the reductions achieved through better treatment
of municipal sewage sources and eliminating phosphates in detergents.
Unfortunately, billions of dollars more are needed to upgrade aging
systems and bring communities into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
That is why I introduced legislation in the 106TH, 107TH, and 108TH
Congresses to reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized,
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program at a level of $3 billion
per year for 5 years.
Just last week, on Thursday, I was honored by the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies with the National Environmental Public
Service Award for 2003. Let me quote from the nomination and
introduction that I received for the award:
``Over the last 3 years, Senator Voinovich has been an active
member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has
used this role to bring attention to the nation's wastewater
infrastructure needs Senator Voinovich believes that preserving the
quality of our streams, rivers, and lakes from wastewater pollutants
comes down to a question of our commitment to funding. Senator
Voinovich should be honored for his ongoing support of and commitment
to wastewater infrastructure funding Clean water is ever in the
forefront of his efforts for Ohioans and Americans.''
During this Congress, I have been working hard with my colleagues
on several initiatives. Continuing my efforts as a State legislator, I
sponsored an amendment that was included in the fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Appropriations Act to extend the current moratorium on oil and
gas drilling in the Great Lakes for 2 years until the end of fiscal
year 2005.
Additionally, I am pleased that the President signed a bill earlier
this year that I introduced to expand the Ottawa National Wildlife
Refuge Complex in Ohio and the Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge in Michigan along the coast of Lake Erie.
Responding to the hearing last August on dead zones, I introduced a
bill to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act and expand it to include the Great Lakes, not just coastal
marine waters. I then worked with the members of the Commerce Committee
to include my provisions to create a Great Lakes research program in a
bill they recently passed.
I have also cosponsored the Great Lakes Water Quality Indicators
and Monitoring Act (S. 116) to expand the Index that I created as
Governor to measure water quality in Lake Erie to cover all of the
Great Lakes.
Furthermore, I am continuing to fight against the aquatic invasive
species that are wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes. These aquatic
terrorists are entering this great natural resource in the ballast
water of boats from all over the world, and they must be stopped. That
is why I have cosponsored the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S.
525) to help protect the Great Lakes from these species. In June of
this year, I participated in a hearing on this bill, and I will
continue to work with my colleagues to take action on this costly
problem.
Still, there is much more that needs to be done to improve and
protect the Great Lakes. I emphasize that this is an urgent need that
deserves and demands a well-coordinated effort, one that cannot be met
by simply adding individual programs to those that already exist.
The GAO made it clear in its report released earlier this year
entitled: ``An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress
Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals'' that the number of
programs is not the problem. Rather, the report states that while there
are many Federal, State, and local programs, restoration of the Great
Lakes is being hindered because there is little coordination and no
unified strategy for these activities.
Responding to the GAO report and to my long held concerns about
Great Lakes restoration, I recently cosponsored the Great Lakes
Environmental Restoration, Protection, and Recovery Act (S. 1398). In
short, this bill moves us closer toward our goal of restoring the Great
Lakes by providing funding and promoting coordination.
As some of you may know, I was intimately involved in the creation
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. As Chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I was proud to sponsor
WRDA 2000, which approved this ambitious Plan. Earlier this year, I
spoke at the 11TH Annual Everglades Coalition Conference in Florida,
and I told them: ``What I would love to do as Senator is to be able to
put the same kind of coalition together that you've been able to do for
the Everglades for the Great Lakes.'' This is my dream.
Right now, we have many groups Governors, mayors, environmental
groups, Congress, and others that are all working separately on
proposals and priorities to restore the Great Lakes. However, the fact
of the matter is that if we are going to get something done, we need to
create a symbiotic relationship with all of the public and private
players in the U.S. and Canada in order to develop a comprehensive
restoration plan for the Great Lakes.
This Plan is absolutely essential if we expect to continue to
restore and improve one of the world's great treasures. From a selfish
point of view, this plan would be the capstone of my legacy to Lake
Erie and more importantly to my children and grandchildren and yours.
Again, my sincere appreciation to all of you for participating in
this morning's hearing. I look forward to hearing about some of our
current efforts and to having an informative discussion with you on the
very important issue of restoring the Great Lakes.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Thomas V. Skinner, Region V Administrator, National
Program Manager for the Great Lakes, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Good Morning, Senator. I am Tom Skinner, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region V Administrator and the National
Program Manager for the Great Lakes. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss our efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes, the largest
freshwater system on earth.
INTRODUCTION
I want to first take this opportunity to highlight mechanisms that
EPA has developed to carry out Great Lakes priority setting and
planning. Over the past few years, we have built a sound structure for
achieving a collective vision of comprehensive ecosystem management for
the Great Lakes.
We have a good understanding of the major environmental problems
facing the Great Lakes today. In recognition of these problems, the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget increased EPA's Great Lakes funding
by $15 million, nearly doubling fiscal year 2003 levels. These
additional funds will support the contaminated sediment projects newly
authorized by the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
Efforts to develop the Great Lakes Strategy 2002, combined with
information from the State of the Lakes Ecosystem reports have provided
much valuable information and experience. EPA continues to gather more
information on the condition of the Great Lakes, as part of the
Agency's scientific research program. For example, we are working to
develop integrated methods of detecting and predicting the spread of
new invasive species introduced into the Great Lakes. We are also
developing more rapid methods for measuring beach water quality (to get
results in 1-2 hours, rather than the current 24 to 48 hours) and
improving our protocols for monitoring, our goal being to better
understand the relationship between water quality and its health
impacts on beach goers.
What we do know is that:
<bullet> Invasive species in the Great Lakes, now in excess of
160, are causing serious economic and ecosystem health impacts. It is
virtually certain more invasives will enter the system in future years.
<bullet> Toxic contamination has triggered more than 1,500 current
fish advisories in the Great Lakes Basin. Cleaning up contaminated
sediments and addressing inputs of toxic chemicals to the Lakes are key
to solving this problem.
<bullet> Record numbers of beach closings have occurred in the
Great Lakes in recent years due to nonpoint source runoff and sewage
problems.
<bullet> A ``dead zone'' of water lacking oxygen has appeared in
Lake Erie, impacting aquatic life, and indicating the health of the
lake may be compromised.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002, working along with Lakewide
Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans, identifies these problems
and form a complementary framework for current and future efforts to
address them. A suite of goals and measures in the Strategy are guiding
governmental partners toward solving these problems. Some of the most
important goals are:
<bullet> By 2005, clean-up and de-list 3 Areas of Concern, with a
cumulative total of 10 by 2010.
<bullet> By 2007, reduce concentrations of PCBs in lake trout and
walleye by 25 percent.
<bullet> By 2007, establish 300,000 acres of buffer strips in
agricultural lands using non-regulatory Federal and State programs.
<bullet> By 2010, 90 percent of Great Lakes beaches will be open
95 percent of the season.
<bullet> By 2010, restore or enhance 100,000 acres of wetlands in
the Basin.
<bullet> By 2010, substantially reduce the further introduction of
invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial, to the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem.
<bullet> Accelerate the pace of sediment remediation, leading to
the clean-up of all designated sites by 2025.
CHALLENGES IN RESTORING THE GREAT LAKES
Some of the challenges in restoring the Great Lakes are:
The sheer geographic size of the system, and the range of problems
present in
<bullet> the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes also require binational
cooperation to achieve results.
<bullet> Coordination with numerous partners and jurisdictions--
Eight Great Lakes States, over ten Federal agencies and over 30 Indian
Tribes are responsible for carrying out environmental and natural
resource management programs to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
Many other key organizations such as the Council of Great Lakes
Governors, the Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, and the International Joint Commission (IJC) also have
extremely important roles.
<bullet> Public involvement--the very nature and value of the
Great Lakes as a natural resource means many non-governmental partners
and individuals from all sectors of society are interested in the
Lakes' health.
<bullet> Potential for duplication of efforts. There are currently
a number of plans and planning efforts for the Great Lakes that address
different geographic scales. It is important to coordinate to ensure
efforts do not cause unnecessary confusion, wasted resources, or lead
to ``reinventing the wheel.''
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
It will be important as we move forward to continue to work with
the Council of Great Lakes Governors to ensure that the Governors'
priorities are emphasized and that duplication of effort is avoided.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002, Lakewide Management Plans, and Remedial
Action Plans, can serve as the starting point for this work.
In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
today. I look forward to playing a key role working with our partners
to continue progress on Great Lakes restoration efforts.
__________
Statement of Colonel William E. Ryan III, Deputy Commander, Great Lakes
and Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Introduction
Senator Voinovich, I am pleased to testify before you on the
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes system is one of our nation's most vital natural
resources. The world's largest freshwater system provides millions of
U.S. and Canadian residents water for consumption, transportation,
power, recreation, and a number of other uses. I look forward to
continuing to work with our sister agencies, such as EPA, and other
partners and stakeholders on approaches for restoring and protecting
the Great Lakes.
My comments focus on Federal and non-Federal roles in addressing
water issues on the Great Lakes and the importance of an integrated and
collaborative process involving all affected parties to assure the
protection of this vital resource. I will conclude with an overview of
the various Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works programs and other
activities that are focused on addressing Great Lakes water resources
issues.
Federal and Non-Federal Roles
Primacy for water resources management in the U. S. has been and
must continue to be at the State and local level. While it is
appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved in issues of
international, national or multi-State significance, such as the
management of the Great Lakes water resources, it is the States, and in
particular the Governors, who should be establishing the priorities for
management of these shared water resources. The scope and technical
complexity of water issues and the extent of desired participation by
stakeholders mean that the Federal Government can facilitate State and
local leadership by being responsive to their requests for effective
coordination among Federal and non-Federal restoration programs and by
bringing Federal analysis and program support to State and local
efforts.
The diversity of restoration challenges of the Great Lakes Basin
has spawned a number of intergovernmental organizations and committees
to coordinate one or more specific issue, whether it is invasive
species, wetlands restoration, water management, non-point source
pollution, or contaminated sediments. A significant amount of planning
and coordination has already been accomplished through these existing
organizations and committees, including the U.S. Policy Committee,
Great Lakes Commission, Council of Great Lakes Governors, and Great
Lakes Fishery Commission.
Integrated and Collaborative Watershed Approach
The restoration challenges facing the Great Lakes are numerous and
complex. The Great Lakes restoration challenges include contaminated
sediments, invasive species, non-point source pollution, habitat
alteration and loss, fish and wildlife conservation, and water
management within a framework of two countries, eight States and two
Provinces.
We believe that continuing restoration of the Great Lakes benefits
from a watershed perspective, emphasizing collaboration and
integration. Success requires the participation of all interested
parties in the planning and decisionmaking process. This participation
would foster an open dialog to integrate sometimes competing or
conflicting water resource needs. Such integration and collaboration
are indispensable to meeting water challenges.
Overview of Corps Great Lakes Programs
The Corps has a variety of Civil Works programs that are being
utilized for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. The size and importance of this water resource and the
complexity of the challenges before it necessitate a team approach to
its management. The Corps has worked as a team member, as well as team
leader, in different aspects of the collective environmental programs
for the Great Lakes Basin.
The Corps has been a member of the team that monitors, predicts and
regulates water withdrawals, flows and diversions through our support
to the International Joint Commission (IJC) Boards of Control and
reference studies. The Corps has been a member of the U.S. Policy
Committee, and participated in the development of their Strategic Plan
to facilitate the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The Corps has provided technical assistance to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development of Lakewide
Management Plans. The Corps has also provided technical assistance to
States and local groups for the development and implementation of
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) at 16 of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern
(AOCs).
The Corps has been a leader of team efforts to protect and restore
the Great Lakes ecosystem from invasive species, including the
dispersal barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and sea
lamprey barriers at various Great Lakes tributaries. The Corps is also
leading the Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration program and
other programs to restore and enhance aquatic habitat in the Great
Lakes Basin in partnership with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
Great Lakes States and Tribes.
Perhaps the most significant program the Corps has led to date is
the removal and confinement of contaminated sediments from Federal
navigation channels in the Great Lakes. Although this program was
conceived as a measure for environmental protection rather than
restoration, the Corps, in partnership with State and local governments
has removed over 90 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from
the Great Lakes through this program. Over 70 million of that was from
Great Lakes AOCs. Using its expertise in management of contaminated
sediments, the Corps has been working with other Federal agencies and
Great Lakes States on sediment cleanup projects. The Corps continues to
work in partnership with the EPA to evaluate and demonstrate new and
improved technologies for managing contaminated sediments.
Through a more recent program, the Corps is currently leading
projects for environmental dredging at eight Great Lakes AOCs in
partnership with State and local agencies.
The Corps conducted one the first ecosystem restoration plans for
Lake Erie in cooperation with the EPA approximately 30 years ago and is
conducting watershed management planning for what some call the sixth
Great Lake, Lake St. Clair, in partnership with Federal, State and
local agencies.
The Corps has four basinwide studies ongoing that are addressing
specific or general water resource needs of the Great Lakes. The first
of these is a U.S.-Canadian collaborative study of the existing
navigation infrastructure in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
We are working with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Transport
Canada, and the U.S. and Canadian Management organizations for the St.
Lawrence Seaway to establish the baseline conditions of the existing
infrastructure, commercial navigation use, and the environmental
conditions of the Lakes and St. Lawrence River that may be impacted by
the navigation system. We are also developing a bi-national framework
for collaboration and partnership among the States and Provinces,
Federal agencies, local entities, and stakeholders.
The second basinwide study is an inventory of biohydrologic
information relevant to Great Lakes water management and will include a
gap analysis of water-related data. This study is closely integrated
with the Annex 2001 activities of the Great Lakes Governors.
The third basinwide study we have initiated in partnership with the
Great Lakes States is an evaluation of the economic benefits of
recreational boating in the Great Lakes, in particular those utilizing
the Federal navigation system.
The fourth Great Lakes study the Corps is helping to develop a
strategic plan in collaboration with the Great Lakes Commission. As
authorized in Section 455(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, this study will produce a report to Congress with an analysis of
existing water resource needs identified by Great Lakes States and
stakeholders and recommendations for new or modified authorities to
address unmet needs.
Conclusion
The Corps is pleased to have had the opportunity to appear before
you and provide testimony on this important subject. We value highly
the water resources of the Great Lakes, the partnerships we have formed
with our sister Federal agencies, the Canadians, the Great Lakes
States, Tribes, local governments and stakeholder groups in managing
and protecting this unique resource.
The Corps looks forward to continuing these partnerships. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Responses of Colonel William Ryan to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. According to the GAO report, $3.7 billion was spent on
the Great Lakes Restoration from 1992 through 2001 but because there
are so many different programs and groups, actual progress is hard to
measure. Can you please describe what successes have been accomplished
and provide any data you may have to show that progress has been made?
Response. The most significant accomplishment by the Corps of
Engineers toward the restoration of the Great Lakes has been the
removal of over 90 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from
Great Lakes harbors and channels through dredging of Federal navigation
projects and management of these contaminated sediments at confined
disposal facilities (CDFs). More than three-quarters of these
contaminated sediments were removed from areas of concern designated by
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. A summary report on this
program has been developed jointly by the Corps and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and will be delivered to Congress following
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Other accomplishments of significance have been the technical
support provided by the Corps to States and local groups with the
development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and
watershed management plans for Great Lakes areas of concern and
tributaries. There are over 40 individual projects for habitat
restoration in the Great Lakes Basin under planning or design by the
Corps in partnership with State and local partners. At the same time,
the Corps is working in collaboration with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to develop an implementation plan for the Great Lakes
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, authorized by Section 506 of
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000.
The Corps has also provided technical support to the EPA at
Superfund cleanups within the Great Lakes Basin, demonstrations of
innovative technologies for contaminated sediment remediation under the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program,
and support to the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs).
Appendices III and IV of the GAO Report contains a summary of the
expenditures on Corps programs that have contributed to the restoration
of the Great Lakes.
Question 2. You speak a great deal about the Everglades and
Chesapeake Bay in your testimony.
Given the level of local involvement as detailed by Ms. Elaine
Marsh in her testimony, can you envision a means to develop a
comprehensive plan without a Federal agency taking the lead? With so
many citizen groups involved as well as State and local organizations,
could one of these organizations coordinate the broader effort with
Federal guidance but not necessarily Federal leadership, which has thus
far failed to result in a comprehensive approach?
Response. What the Corps has learned from the Everglades and
similar studies, such as Coastal Louisiana, is that development of a
comprehensive restoration plan needs to address water challenges from a
watershed view, emphasizing collaboration and integration among all
stakeholders to ensure both environmental and economic prosperity.
Since the primacy for water resources management resides at the State
and local level, we found that the role of the Federal Government was
to facilitate State and local leadership; to coordinate State, local
and stakeholder involvement; and, to work with State and local
interests to develop a framework for partnership and collaboration. Our
success with the Everglades project resulted from developing a
collaborative framework for actively communicating with and promoting
participation of all interested parties in the planning and
decisionmaking process. This participation fostered an open dialog on
sometimes competing or conflicting water resource needs that had to be
integrated into a comprehensive plan. We believe that this concept of
integration is the key to meeting the water challenges that we
collectively face. Based on what our State and local partners told us,
we adopted nine watershed principles to guide our water resources
management.
These watershed principles are:
1. Seeking sustainable water resources management;
2. Integrating water and related land management;
3. Considering future water demands;
4. Coordinating planning and management;
5. Promoting cooperation among government agencies at all levels;
6. Encouraging public participation;
7. Evaluating monetary and non-monetary tradeoffs;
8. Establishing interdisciplinary teams; and,
9. Applying adaptive management as changing conditions or
objectives warrant.
Within this broad context, watershed partners must collaborate to
simultaneously address multiple objectives--environmental quality,
social effects, and national and regional economic development.
A comprehensive plan for Great Lakes restoration will require a
Federal-State partnership that is inclusive of the diverse interests of
multiple stakeholder groups and capable of balancing restoration goals
with the needs for water resource use and economic development.
Regionally within the Great Lakes Basin, this approach has been applied
by the Corps of Engineers in the development of a watershed management
plan for Lake St. Clair. For this study, the Corps worked in
partnership with the Great Lakes Commission and with participation by
Federal, State, Provincial, Tribal and local interests. The Corps has
also employed this kind of partnership locally for environmental
restoration at the Ashtabula River, Ohio and Onondaga Lake, New York.
In these projects, the development of a restoration plan was directed
by partnerships of Federal, State and local agencies through a
committee structure. Elements of the planning process were then
executed by the Corps, other partners, or private contractors. Although
Federal funding for these restoration plans flowed through the Energy &
Water Appropriations, the restoration plans were a product of the
partnership.
Development of a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan by a
Federal-State partnership would be most effective if private and
nongovernmental stakeholder participation were coordinated by a single
partner. The Great Lakes Commission, an interstate compact of the eight
Great Lakes States with associate membership of the Provinces of
Ontario and Quebec has demonstrated its ability to fill this role.
Question 3. Mr. Skinner testified that the region is not ready for
a significant financial investment because research is still being
conducted to show where things need to be changed and where to
prioritize the funds. When will the four studies the Corps is working
on the completed? Are there preliminary results you can share with the
Committee?
Response. The Corps is currently developing the following studies
that should each provide information relevant to the balancing of
restoration goals with needs for economic development and use of water
resources:
<bullet> Implementation plan for Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem
Restoration;
<bullet> Inventory of biohydrologic information and report on gaps
and inconsistencies;
<bullet> Strategic plan on Corps programs in Great Lakes Basin;
<bullet> Economic study on recreational boating in Great Lakes,
and;
<bullet> Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway navigational review.
The effort for the Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration
Program (authorized by Section 506 of WRDA 2000) is preparing a plan
for implementing the existing Joint Strategic Plan for Management of
Great Lakes Fishery developed by Great Lakes States, Provinces and
tribes. The plan will outline a process for the identification and
prioritization of projects to restore aquatic habitat and restore
beneficial uses. The draft plan is scheduled to be submitted to my
office for review in November 2003.
The Biohydrologic Information effort (authorized by Section 455(b)
of WRDA 1999) has inventoried available physical, chemical and
biological data relevant to the management of water in the Great Lakes
Basin. This study, conducted in collaboration with the Great Lakes
Commission has included an analysis of data gaps and inconsistencies,
and will make recommendations to Congress on new or modified data
systems needed by States to manage Great Lakes water withdrawals,
diversions and consumptive uses in accordance with the Annex to the
Great Lakes Charter signed by the Governors and Premiers in 2001. The
draft report is scheduled to be submitted to my office for review in
November 2003 and will be submitted to Congress following subsequent
review at the Washington level.
The Corps is developing a strategic plan for the development and
management of Great Lakes water resources, as directed by Section
455(a) of WRDA 1999. This plan, being developed in collaboration with
the Great Lakes Commission, has summarized existing Corps projects and
programs in the Basin, evaluated regional water resource needs,
identified unmet needs, and will include recommendations to Congress
for new or modified Corps authorities to address critical, unmet water
resources needs. The draft report is scheduled to be submitted to my
office for review in November 2003 and will be submitted to Congress
following subsequent review at the Washington level.
A study of the economic benefits of recreational boating in the
Great Lakes Basin (authorized by Section 455(c) of WRDA 1999) is under
development by the Corps in partnership with the Great Lakes
Commission. This study is focusing on the benefits of recreational
boating in and around Federal navigation projects. This study was
requested by Great Lakes States because of concerns about the impacts
of deferred maintenance of Federal navigation projects on shallowdraft
navigation users. The draft report is scheduled to be submitted to my
office for review in June 2004 and will be submitted to Congress
following subsequent review at the Washington level.
The Corps completed a report of a Reconnaissance Study on Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway navigation improvements in December 2002.
Based on review of this report, the Corps has initiated efforts to
supplement the Reconnaissance Study in collaboration with Transport
Canada, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. and Canadian
St. Lawrence Seaway organizations. This study will provide baseline
information about economic and environmental conditions in the Basin
that might impact or be impacted by the binational navigation system.
This baseline environmental information should be of particular value
for comprehensive planning of Great Lakes restoration. The draft of
this supplement to the Reconnaissance Study is expected to be completed
in September 2005.
______
Responses of Colonel William Ryan to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Based on the Corps' experience with other restoration
projects, please estimate how long it would take to develop a
comprehensive plan for the Great Lakes.
Response. Depending on the level of funding provided, a
comprehensive plan for Great Lakes restoration might require 3-5 years
to be completed. The establishment of a coordinating Federal-State
steering committee would be essential to completing this study in a
timely manner.
Question 2. I stated in my statement and at last month's hearing
that we need to get everyone together if we are going to make progress
on putting together a comprehensive restoration plan for the Great
Lakes. Please assume that one of the Federal agencies, not necessarily
the Corps, is asked to lead the development of a comprehensive plan.
How do you think a project of this scope should be addressed and how
can we get everyone together?
Response. A comprehensive plan for Great Lakes restoration will
require the establishment of a cooperative Federal-State partnership
that is inclusive of the diverse interests of multiple stakeholder
groups and capable of balancing restoration goals with the needs for
water resource use and economic development. There are several
challenges and opportunities facing this task.
One of the challenges is the number of existing plans or strategies
that have been developed to address one or more aspects of Great Lakes
restoration. While it is important to recognize and utilize the content
of these efforts, these plans were not developed with a common set of
goals and objectives,. contain limited information on the costs and
benefits of specific actions, and do not form an adequate basis for
integrating and prioritizing multi-issue restoration activities. A
significant effort will be required to inventory these plans and
strategies, extract valuable information from them in alignment with a
consensus-based set of restoration goals and objectives. Then, a
decisionmaking framework should be developed to identify specific
actions with estimates of costs and benefits, priorities and measures
for monitoring progress.
One of the opportunities is the existing network of organizations
for interagency coordination and stakeholder participation. The Great
Lakes are blessed with a diverse and well-seasoned network of
organizations representing the interests of Federal, State, Provincial,
Tribal, municipal, industry, commerce, civic and environmental agencies
and groups. The development of a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration
plan could be expedited and enhanced by establishing a cooperative
framework among existing interagency organizations to facilitate
Federal-State oversight and broad stakeholder input.
Question 3. Please identify the construction backlog for the Great
Lakes region.
Response. A table that outlines the backlog of Corps of Engineers
construction projects in the Great Lakes region is attached. The
balance to complete these projects is based on working estimates for
specific projects or authorized funding limits for programs, and
presumes a fiscal year 2004 funding level equal to the Administration's
budget request. This table does not include future funding that may be
required to construct small projects under the Continuing Authorities
Programs (CAP). There are currently over 200 CAP projects in stages of
planning, design or construction in the Great Lakes region.
Question 4. How do you recommend we develop a comprehensive
restoration plan while continuing the programs that are currently
successful and not delaying progress?
Response. There are a variety of restoration activities in the
Great Lakes Basin that have been ongoing or in preparation for an
extended period. Sediment cleanup projects, pollution prevention, soil
conservation, habitat restoration, invasive species prevention and
mitigation activities are being conducted or planned through a variety
of Federal and State programs, including Superfund, Natural Resource
Damage Recovery, other enforcement programs, Great Lakes Legacy Act,
and several Corps programs for ecosystem restoration. The development
of a comprehensive plan for Great Lakes restoration should not delay or
impede these activities.
To avoid adverse impacts on existing restoration activities, the
Federal-State partnership overseeing the development of a comprehensive
Great Lakes restoration plan should recognize and celebrate the
accomplishments of these ongoing efforts and provide interim results
from the planning process to highlight the importance of these
projects.
Question 5. Including the bill that I cosponsored (S. 1398, the
Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act), I have seen different
mechanisms proposed to coordinate Great Lakes programs, such as a task
force. What do you think would work best?
Response. The restoration of the Great Lakes requires a
comprehensive plan that can serve as the basis for balancing
restoration goals with the needs for water resource use and economic
development. If a Federal-State partnership were formed or adapted from
an existing interagency organization to develop this comprehensive
plan, it would be most appropriate for that same partnership to
continue to coordinate the implementation of that plan.
______
Responses of Colonel William Ryan to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Please provide an updated copy of the construction
backlog, divided by project, by State. Identify the portion of the
backlog attributable to the Great Lakes Region.
Response. The attached table and information provided in response
to question 3 from Senator Voinovich provide a response to this
question.
Question 2. Please provide a flow chart or other appropriate
graphic description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the
Federal agencies and the Canadian agencies involved in Great Lakes
restoration. Identify what are the guiding strategic plans or other
similar documents for the efforts of each agency. Describe the
coordination process between the agencies.
Response. The diversity of environmental issues facing the Great
Lakes cross multiple agency boundaries in a manner that does not lend
itself to graphical representation. However, provided here is a
simplified explanation of the binational agreements and institutions
established to manage Great Lakes resources, and the general role of
Federal agencies in this process.
The physical, chemical and biological resources of the Great Lakes
are managed through three binational agreements between the United
States (U.S.) and Canada: the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, and the Convention on Great
Lakes Fisheries of 1955. While these agreements do not explicitly
address all issues related to the restoration of the Great Lakes, they
serve as a platform for addressing most.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Two binational organizations were established to administer the
implementation of these agreements: the International Joint Commission
(IJC) and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The IJC
administers facets of the Boundary Waters Treaty and Water Quality
Agreement while the Fishery Commission administers the Fishery
Convention. In general, the implementation of the agreements is ??the
responsibility of the U.S. and Canadian Governments, while the role of
the binational organizations is to provide coordination, resolution of
disputes, and review progress.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
A number of advisory boards, councils and committees have been
established by the IJC and GLFC to support their administrative
responsibilities. The members on these advisory boards include
technical experts from government, academia, and interest groups.
The Governments manage the resources of the Great Lakes in
accordance with the terms of the agreements through the actions of
Federal, State and Provincial agencies. These actions are coordinated
through a number of committees and working groups established by the
Governments.
A chart depicting the binational organizations, governments,
advisory boards and coordinating committees is provided below. The
relationships between the binational organizations and the governmental
agencies are not always as simple as this graphic might suggest.
Participation in coordinating committees by Federal and State agencies
is dependant on the committee's purpose. For example, the Corps is the
U.S. lead on the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Hydrology and
Hydraulics Data and EPA is the U.S. lead on the Binational Executive
Committee.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Question 3. Please provide your recommendations on how to measure
progress in restoring the Great Lakes and how to define restoration.
Response. The goals for restoration of the Great Lakes as well as
the measures of progress must be defined in the context of
sustainability. As the Corps has learned from other large watershed
studies, the restoration of natural resources must be balanced with
sustainable economic development and use of the water resources. A
comprehensive restoration plan should focus on reinstatement of
beneficial uses of the natural resources of the ecosystem while
balancing existing and future needs for water resource use and economic
development. Sustainable balance is the key to defining restoration for
the Great Lakes, and this balance is best developed through a process
that emphasizes collaboration and integration.
Question 4. Please provide an inventory of all of the strategic
plans for the restoration of the Great Lakes that you are aware of that
are completed, underway, or planned. Identify which, from your
perspective, provide the most comprehensive approach to restoration.
Response. The GAO Report identified several strategic plans for
Great Lakes restoration. The Corps has participated in the development
of the Great Lakes Strategic Plan through the U.S. Policy Committee and
has supported the development of Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans directed by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The
Corps has worked with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop a
plan for implementing the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great
Lakes Fishery and has also worked with the Great Lakes Commission on
its Program for Restoration of the Great Lakes.
Each of these plans has served to identify the issues facing the
Great Lakes resources, raise public awareness of these issues and
contribute information about the types of actions and level of
resources required to address these issues. However, none of these
plans has attempted to integrate the resolution of diverse resource
issues in a sustainable context. None have identified restoration goals
with consideration of existing and future water resource uses and
economic development needs for the region. Without consideration of
regional needs for water resource use and development, plans for
restoration cannot be verified as feasible or justifiable.
For these reasons, we do not believe any of the existing plans
provide a basis for comprehensive restoration of the Great Lakes in a
sustainable fashion.
Question 5. What coordination takes place between the Great Lakes
sea lamprey control program and sea lamprey control programs throughout
the nation?
Response. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) has the lead
for the sea lamprey program in the Great Lakes. Since 1955 the GLFC has
implemented a sea lamprey control program in the Great Lakes using
lampricides, barriers, traps and a lamprey sterilization technique. The
Corps and the GLFC as partners constructed sea lamprey traps at the Soo
Lock Complex in Saulte Ste. Marie, Michigan. The traps have helped in
the management of the sea lamprey populations in the St. Mary's River
and Lake Huron. In addition, the Corps has an active sea lamprey
barrier program as authorized by the 1999 amendments to Section 1135,
WRDA 1986. The Corps with our partner, the GLFC, is currently planning
and designing sea lamprey barrier projects in Great Lakes States. The
Corps has and will continue to work closely with the GLFC to help
manage sea lamprey and restore the fishery of the Great Lakes.
The Corps is aware of the extensive cooperation between the GLFC
and the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative (LCC)
in the suppression of sea lamprey in Lake Champlain. We recommend
contacting Dr. Roy A. Stein, Vice-Chairman, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission for a complete understanding of the coordination between the
GLFC and LCC.
Summary of Backlog of Construction Projects in Great Lake Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Federal Allocated Balance to
State Project Name Cost\2\ to Date Complete
($000) ($000) ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL........................................ Aurora (environmental 8,000 0 8,000
infrastructure)\1\.
IL........................................ Casino Beach................. 4,115 2,525 1,590
IL........................................ Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal 3,238 3,122 116
Dispersal Barrier.
IL........................................ Cook County (environmental 35,000 406 34,594
infrastructure).
IL........................................ Chicago Harbor (major 18,410 0 18,410
rehabilitation).
IL........................................ Chicago Shoreline............ 174,000 138,490 35,510
IL........................................ Des Plaines River............ 38,900 1,285 37,615
IL........................................ Des Plaines River Wetland 2,200 1,036 1,164
Demonstration.
IL........................................ McCook & Thornton Reservoirs. 600,000 75,114 524,886
IL........................................ North Branch Chicago River... 23,829 23,829 0
IL........................................ Waukegan Harbor.............. 12,242 0 12,242
IN........................................ Calumet Region (environmental 10,000 5,462 4,538
infrastructure).
IN........................................ Indiana Harbor Confined 64,000 20,527 43,473
Disposal Facility.
IN........................................ Indiana Shoreline Erosion.... 184,000 10,257 173,743
IN........................................ Little Calumet River......... 144,000 91,892 52,108
IN........................................ Little Calumet River Basin, 18,975 2,837 16,138
Cady Marsh Ditch.
MI........................................ Genesee (environmental 6,700 373 6,327
infrastructure).
MI........................................ Great Lakes Fishery & 100,000 0 100,000
Ecosystem Restoration.
MI........................................ Negaunee (environmental 10,000 595 9,405
infrastructure).
MI........................................ Oakland County (environmental 20,000 454 19,546
infrastructure).
MI........................................ Sault Ste Marie (Replacement 166,750 6,956 159,794
Lock).
MN........................................ Northeast Minnesota 40,000 5,171 34,829
(environmental
infrastructure)\1\.
NY........................................ New York State Canal System.. 22,370 7,563 14,807
NY........................................ Onondaga Lake................ 180,750 14,214 166,536
OH........................................ Ashtabula River Environmental 33,265 1,245 32,020
Dredging.
OH........................................ Ottawa River................. 2,347 455 1,892
OH........................................ Ohio (environmental 60,000 2,415 57,585
infrastructure) '.
PA........................................ Presque Isle Peninsula....... 56,310 19,630 36,680
WI........................................ Northern Wisconsin 40,000 141 39,859
(environmental
infrastructure)\1\.
Total........................ 2,079,401 435,994 1,643,407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\part of this project/program is outside the Great Lakes Basin
\2\total Federal cost based on project estimate or funding ceiling in program authority
__________
Statement of Dr. Roy A. Stein, Vice-Chair, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and Professor, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and
Organismal Biology, Ohio State University
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Roy Stein. I
am the Vice-Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I am also a
professor in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal
Biology at The Ohio State University. On behalf of my Great Lakes
Fishery Commission colleagues, I am pleased to be here today to discuss
the Great Lakes fishery and to outline some challenges ahead for
restoration of this invaluable resource. I commend Senator Voinovich
for holding this hearing on the shores of the Great Lakes. The lakes
require care and attention and we appreciate all you have done to help
protect them for today and for future generations.
THE VALUABLE GREAT LAKES FISHERY
The Great Lakes fishery is a treasure shared by Canada and the
United States. The lakes contain 20 percent of the world's supply of
fresh water. The fishery draws millions of anglers to the shores of the
lakes each year, supports tribal fishing, and creates tens of thousands
jobs in the commercial fishing industry. The fishery generates up to $4
billion in economic revenue to the people of the region each year.
Moreover, healthy fish communities are an integral part of a healthy
Great Lakes environment. Without the fish communities and a healthy
fishery, the Great Lakes lose their luster.
Nevertheless, today, like many shared natural resources, the Great
Lakes fishery is stressed. Fish stocks require careful management to
prevent depletion, native fish stocks require rehabilitation to levels
of self-sustainability, the influx of invasive species that disrupt the
ecosystem must stop, and sea lamprey control-the backbone of a healthy
environment-must improve. Fishery managers at all levels of government
must work together closely to coordinate their activities. The lakes
are indeed shared resources and cooperation among managers is the key
to ensuring a sustained fishery.
The Great Lakes is a complex system that spans a large geographical
area. As such, it is very difficult to answer a seemingly simple
question like ``What is the state of the fishery?'' The answer to such
a question depends on where you are in the basin and in what species
you are interested. The following are brief snapshots of the state of
the fishery, on a lake-by-lake basis, based on reports from Federal,
provincial, State, and tribal management agencies.
Lake Superior
Lake Superior supports a significant recreational fishery
throughout the basin, and being more sparsely populated than the other
Great Lakes, has the fewest recreational anglers. Lake trout comprise
the lion's share of the recreational harvest in Lake Superior, though
other species, including chinook and coho salmon, rainbow trout, and
brown trout are also popular. The lake also supports important tribal
and commercial fisheries, mainly of herring, whitefish, and lake trout.
Commercial fishing peaked in the 1940's and today, is about one-fifth
of what it once was.
Walleye was once an important species in Lake Superior, providing a
harvest of thousands of pounds each year. Today, walleye harvest is
negligible due to degraded habitat, poor water quality in the walleye's
habitat, hydroelectric dams, and disruptions in recruitment. The
management agencies on Lake Superior have established a goal to
maintain, enhance, and rehabilitate self-sustaining populations of
walleye and their habitat throughout their historical range.
The Lake Superior fish community has been permanently altered by
invasive species and remains at risk from future introductions.
Disruptions in the lower food web are implicated in the poor condition
of lake whitefish. Lake Superior, despite its relatively pristine
state, remains quite vulnerable to human-induced alterations in habitat
and water quality.
Despite these and other problems, Lake Superior has seen some
spectacular successes in fishery management. The fish community is
reverting to a more natural state, resembling historical conditions and
requiring less management intervention. Lake whitefish, a staple of the
Lake Superior fishery, remain at high abundances, though concern exists
about the overall condition of whitefish. Moreover, the decades-long
effort to rehabilitate lake trout in Lake Superior has paid off. Thanks
to careful stocking, limited harvest, and sea lamprey control, lake
trout are now self sustaining in most of the lake to the degree that
stocking is no longer necessary
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan supports commercial, recreational, and tribal
fishing. Whitefish is the primary commercial species, though at one
time, the lake supported smelt, yellow perch, bloater, and alewife
fisheries as well. Salmon, trout, yellow perch, and walleye are the
most popular sport species and lake trout and whitefish comprise the
tribal fisheries.
Total harvest from Lake Michigan peaked in 1985 at 56.6 million
pounds. Today, harvest averages 21.6 million pounds, illustrating a
downward trend since the late 1980's. One major reason for this
downward trend has been a significant imbalance between predators
(e.g., salmon, lake trout) and prey (e.g., alewives, sculpins). Since
the mid1990's, management agencies have been working successfully with
their stakeholders to strike a balance between salmon stocking and the
lake's ability to sustain these predators.
Despite these trends, sport anglers today are relatively pleased
with the state of the Lake Michigan fishery. The balance between
predators and prey have resulted in more salmon and generally bigger
fish. The lake supports a thriving charter boat industry.
The lake does have some significant problems, however. Like the
other Great Lakes, disruptions in the lower food web threaten to
undermine the success of the fishery. For instance, the sharp declines
in Diporeia-a native organism that serves as food for larger fish-are
linked to invasive species and might be the cause of declines in
whitefish abundances and condition. Yellow perch remain at troublingly
low levels, thus prohibiting a resumption of commercial yellow perch
fishing in Lake Michigan. And lake trout rehabilitation is experiencing
extremely slow progress. Sea lamprey abundances (discussed below)
remain higher than desired in Lake Michigan, which limits the success
of the fishery are impairing rehabilitation.
Overall, the Lake Michigan fishery remains strong and popular.
Management agencies work hard to balance salmon predators with their
prey. Large-scale changes in the ecosystem, however, threaten to
further disrupt an already fragile fish community.
Lake Huron
The Lake Huron fishery is dominated by chinook salmon, lake trout,
brown trout, whitefish, and burbot. Alewives and smelt are the main
prey fish. Predators and prey in Lake Huron seem balanced, though
agencies are monitoring the fish community closely to ensure that the
prey abundances are able to support the stocked trout and salmon.
Agencies are working to bolster the mix of species in the lake by
establishing diverse salmon and trout communities, improving walleye
and yellow perch abundances, managing whitefish at sustainable levels,
and rehabilitating sturgeon.
Habitat loss in Lake Huron remains a major concern. Agencies are
working to protect and enhance fish habitat and to rehabilitate
degraded areas with a goal of no net loss of habitat. Agencies also are
concerned about the poor condition of whitefish and the high abundances
of sea lampreys (discussed below) in Lake Huron, as sea lampreys are
having a significant impact on the Lake Huron fish communities. The
Great Lakes Fishery Commission has reduced the number of sea lampreys
in Lake Huron, and agencies remain confident that the commission's
recent treatments on the St. Marys River will further reduce sea
lamprey populations. Disruptions in the lower food web, likely caused
by invasive species, continues to threaten the fishery. Encouragingly,
natural reproduction of lake trout is increasing.
Lake Erie
The Lake Erie fishery is best known for its walleye and yellow
perch. Indeed, these popular fish species attract millions of anglers
to the lake each year and support a lucrative commercial fishery.
Strong year classes of yellow perch in the years 1996, 1998, and 1999
have helped sustain the yellow perch fishery in the lake. Yellow perch
fishing--both sport and commercial--in 2002 was very good in all
jurisdictions and the management agencies on the lake expect the good
fishing to continue through 2003. However, a long, cold spring in 2002
resulted in poor yellow perch spawning success. Agencies anticipate
reductions in yellow perch catch limits in 2004 in response to these
poor spawning results.
The management agencies on Lake Erie reported that walleye spawning
had been poor in 2000 and 2002 and recommended reducing the walleye
catch limit in 2004. All agencies will be closely monitoring the
success of walleye spawning in 2003 (early indications are that this
will be a successful year for reproduction), though agencies anticipate
significant reductions in the 2004 and 2005 allowable harvest.
A major issue affecting the Lake Erie fishery is a recent outbreak
of botulism. Tens of thousands of primarily near shore, bottom-feeding
fishes (including smallmouth bass, sheepshead, rock bass, stonecats,
round gobies, sturgeon, and channel catfish) apparently succumbed to
botulism. Gobies and dreissenid mussels appear to have played a role in
recent mortalities attributed to botulism. Current thinking is that
dreissenid mussels concentrate the toxin. Round gobies feed on the
mussels, which are then eaten by fish and migratory birds. Though this
is a plausible hypothesis, research is needed to identify the etiology
for Type E botulism. There have been no human fatalities in recent
years, but the possibility exists. (Indeed, type E botulism from
improperly prepared Great Lakes fish caused several fatalities in the
1960's.) The botulism outbreak in Lake Erie is indicative of serious
problems in the lake; problems relating to anoxia and the impact of
invasive species such as zebra mussels.
The five jurisdictions along the lake have worked together in a
highly successful and cooperative manner. The jurisdictions have
expressed a great deal of concern about the recent major changes
occurring within the ecosystem of Lake Erie, particularly changes
driven by disruptions to the lower food web, probably caused by
invasive species like zebra mussels. These changes have a profound
influence on both the composition and productivity of the fish
communities within the lake.
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario supports a sport fishery comprised mainly of chinook
salmon, coho salmon, lake trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout. Other
popular species-fished primarily in shallow water-include yellow perch,
walleye, smallmouth bass, and northern pike. Lake Ontario also supports
some commercial fishing, though primarily in Ontario waters. Commercial
species include lake whitefish and yellow perch, though harvest today
is a fraction of its historical high in the early 20th century. Fishing
in Lake Ontario is dominated by recreational anglers.
The recruitment of American eel, is a major concern in Lake
Ontario. America eels have been reduced to 1 percent of historic
recruitment levels. The rehabilitation of this important top predator
will require an immediate and coordinated international effort, as
American ells are highly migratory (they swim thousands of miles from
the Great Lakes during their lives) and are extremely vulnerable during
many of their life stages.
Charter fishing on Lake Ontario is extremely popular and the number
of charter trips (nearly 8000 per year) remains steady. Although
harvest of coho and chinook salmon and brown trout is currently lower
than it was in the 1980's, harvest has remained steady for most of the
1990's to today, indicating a relatively stable fishery. Lake trout
harvest is a fraction of its peak in the mid-1980's and efforts to
rehabilitate the species have yet to be realized. Other popular
species, such as smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and walleye, fluctuate
in abundance from year to year, but harvest has remained relatively
strong and stable. Sea lamprey abundances in Lake Ontario remain
extremely low, indicating a successful control program.
COORDINATED FISHERY MANAGEMENT ON THE GREAT LAKES
Like any resource that is shared and stressed, careful management
helps ensure equitable use for today and sustainability for the future.
The Great Lakes present a management challenge as the lakes are shared
by two nations, eight States, the Province of Ontario, and tribal
authorities. An international border runs through the center of four of
the five Great Lakes. The challenge all agencies face is managing a
biologically connected fishery through a politically fragmented regime.
State, provincial, and tribal authority
Primary fishery management on the Great Lakes rests with the
States, the province of Ontario, and two U.S. intertribal agencies.
Each of these sub-national entities has an independent right to manage
its portion of the fishery in the manner it chooses. This sub-national
management authority has been long established, through common law and
court cases. For instance, although the British North America Act gives
the Canadian Federal Government control over inland fisheries, the
provinces retain ownership of lake and river beds and, it has been
ruled, the riparian rights to the fish. Through the Federal Fisheries
Act, the Canadian government maintains the right to make and enforce
fisheries regulations and policies pertaining to the conservation of
fish stocks within Canadian waters. Much of the authority to implement
these policies and to enforce these regulations has been granted to
Ontario. In the United States, early Supreme Court decisions have
upheld the States' ownership of lake and riverbeds and, thus, the fish
in those waters.
In the U.S., tribes have management authority on their reservations
and in waters ceded through treaties. In Canada, there are still many
unresolved and emerging issues with First Nations' fishery management
and, thus, the rights of First Nations to manage their own fishing
activities is less developed than in the United States.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Because the lakes are shared by the United States and Canada,
binational governance is required. As such, in 1955, the two nations
created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by treaty. The commission
has management authority for sea lampreys but limited authority over
the Great Lakes fisheries, largely because, for decades, the States and
the province were reluctant to cede management authority to a bi-
national body. The commission is made up of 4 Canadians appointed by
the Privy Council and 4 American (plus one alternate) appointed by the
President of the United States.
It was largely the destructive power of the sea lamprey (described
below) in the mid 20th Century that prompted the governments to seek a
binational fishery management treaty. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission is charged with several responsibilities including:
coordinating fisheries research on the Great Lakes; carrying out sea
lamprey control; making recommendations to governments about fish
stocks of common concern; and, at the request of the sub-national
governments, facilitating the implementation of A Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Joint Strategic Plan),
discussed below.
Federal Authority
The Federal Governments of Canada and the United States also have a
management authority on the Great Lakes. Several Federal agencies in
both nations work with the sub-national agencies to support the
management of the fishery.
The commission conducts sea lamprey control by contract with
Federal agencies. Under State approval, the Federal agencies carry out
rehabilitation initiatives, most notably, lake trout stocking. The
Federal agencies contribute to the generation of information through
scientific research. They also negotiate bi-national agreements,
support the common good through budget and other initiatives, and have
the trust responsibility toward tribes.
Cooperative management
Through the Joint Strategic Plan, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission has the responsibility to facilitate cooperative management
on the Great Lakes. Indeed, the commission is keenly interested in
helping all management agencies on the Great Lakes develop shared
fishery objectives and manage the lakes as an ecosystem.
Together, the bi-national, national, and sub-national management
agencies approach the Great Lakes from the same general perspective and
with the same goals in mind. These perspectives and goals include:
<bullet> Working to sustain the Great Lakes fish stocks;
<bullet> Protecting diversity;
<bullet> Understanding and maintaining the balance between
predators and prey;
<bullet> Adhering to science-based management; and
<bullet> Balancing the interests of stakeholders, including sport
anglers, commercial fishers, tribal fishers, the environmental
community, and many others.
Despite a generally common approach to Great Lakes fishery
management, the various agencies had managed the Great Lakes fishery
with little or no formal cooperation for decades. With the States, the
province, the tribes, and the Federal Governments often doing their own
thing, it is not difficult to envision a situation where consultation
was minimal, common objectives non-existent, and agencies working at
cross purposes, even, at times, on the same lake.
By the late 1970's, the agencies realized that some mechanism was
needed to facilitate cooperation among the jurisdictions. In 1978, the
eight States and the province of Ontario joined with the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission to develop the Joint Strategic Plan. The plan was
adopted in 1981 and has been updated regularly, most recently in 1997.
In recent decades, particularly under the Joint Strategic Plan's
direction, fishery agencies have been successful in resolving-or
partially resolving-many fisheries management problems. Even so, many
issues remain unresolved and new issues continually emerge. To assist
fishery and environmental agencies in dealing with these problems,
agencies, through the Joint Strategic Plan, have identified broad
procedures that foster cooperation. The procedures suggested in the
Joint Strategic Plan are:
<bullet> Consensus
<bullet> Accountability
<bullet> Information Sharing
<bullet> and Ecosystem Management.
Consensus: Agencies agree to reach consensus on management
practices before they implement major initiatives. To help achieve
consensus, agencies have developed common fish community objectives
accompanied by operational plans, plans against which management
decisions can be weighed. These objectives outline the goals for the
fishery and how to achieve those goals. Agencies also agree that any
change in fishery management practice that affects other jurisdictions
must be agreed to by the other jurisdictions. In the rare instance
where consensus cannot be achieved, the Joint Strategic Plan contains
provisions for conflict resolution through the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission or third parties.
Accountability: Fishery managers are accountable for implementing
the decisions made under the Joint Strategic Plan. They implement the
decisions through their own agencies. To promote accountability, the
Joint Strategic Plan calls for the production of a decision record-
primarily through the publication of meeting minutes. The Joint
Strategic Plan also highlights the need for agencies to submit periodic
reports about initiatives on each lake and the need for regular reports
on progress toward reaching agency objectives.
Information Sharing: Information useful to management is something
all agencies need. Information sharing has been difficult at times
because the jurisdictions have a history of generating a variety of
data in a variety of formats. To maximize information sharing, the
Joint Strategic Plan calls for the development and implementation of
standards for recording and maintaining fishery management and
assessment data. Access to information is critical to the management
agencies and to the public. The Joint Strategic Plan calls for agencies
and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to take the steps necessary to
publish information and make it available through convenient means,
such as the internet. Finally, under the Joint Strategic Plan, agencies
pledge to share their data with other agencies.
Ecosystem Management: A guiding principle on the Great Lakes is
that managers must look at the Great Lakes as a whole. This means that
fishery mangers need to look beyond fishery management activities and
respond to all issues that affect the Great Lakes. In particular, the
Joint Strategic Plan calls for a heightened interest in environmental
issues-such as Lakewide Management Plans or the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement-in developing, achieving, and assessing the progress
on fish community objectives. The Joint Strategic Plan also recognizes
the incredible problem the entire ecosystem faces with exotic species
and calls upon the agencies to promote procedures to protect the
resource.
With these four procedures for cooperative fishery management in
mind, how, exactly, does the Joint Strategic Plan function? Long before
the Joint Strategic Plan, each lake had its own ``Lake Committee,'' a
loose set of Great Lakes Fishery Commission committees designed
informally to help the commission and agencies focus on particular
issues on each lake. When the agencies produced the Joint Strategic
Plan in 1981, they decided to expand the use of the lake committees and
use them as more formal means to carry out the Joint Strategic Plan.
Under the Joint Strategic Plan, high-ranking managers from agencies
on each lake meet as a committee to address the issues of importance to
that lake. For example, managers from jurisdictions on Lake Huron-which
include Ontario, Michigan, and the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority-
meet as the Lake Huron Committee. A Council of Lake Committees-
comprising all members of the lake committees-looks at Great Lakes
fishery issues from a basin wide perspective.
The Joint Strategic Plan is designed to be a bottom-up process,
where management decisions are driven by science generated by field
researchers. To foster that design, each lake committee has a technical
subcommittee to conduct and digest research and to report those
findings to lake committee members. This structure allows the field
researchers and assessment biologists to come to a common understanding
of the science, free from policy issues considered by the lake
committees. Lake committee members then use that bottom-up-produced
science as the basis for their management decisions.
The Joint Strategic Plan also provides for a coordinated approach
to law enforcement. While each national and subnational jurisdiction
maintains its own law enforcement capabilities and responsibilities,
there is considerable need on the Great Lakes for law enforcement
agencies to work together. Indeed, because the Great Lakes is an
ecosystem, it would make little sense for agencies to stop their
pursuit of lawbreakers at a political line. To facilitate coordinated
law enforcement, a Law Enforcement Committee develops and works to
implement common law enforcement initiatives. This committee reports to
the Council of Lake Committees.
<bullet> Lake Erie Committee
<bullet> G.L. Fish Health Comm.
<bullet> Technical Committee
<bullet> Lake Huron Committee
<bullet> Technical Committee
<bullet> Lake Ontario Committee
<bullet> Technical Committee
Finally, to facilitate interagency cooperation, the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission also supports the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee
and the Fish Habitat Conservation Committee. The Fish Health Committee
studies issues relating to fish disease spread, prevention, and
mitigation. The Fish Habitat Conservation Committee-whose members are
appointed by the commission-comprises government and non-government
habitat experts to study and recommend measures for ensuring fish
habitat protection.
Lake committee meetings are held annually, in public. They serve as
a forum to develop common objectives for the lake, to share scientific
information, and to allow agencies a place to make decisions on such
things as stocking, harvest, law enforcement, and environmental
management. It is important to note that all decisions made through the
lake committee process must still be implemented by the individual
agencies. That is, managers agree to take lake committee actions back
to their own jurisdictions for implementation. Thus, the consensus-
based lake committee process is non-binding and only as successful as
the willingness of the individual agencies to adhere to the collective
decisions. Even so, this process is highly effective as it serves to
maximize cooperative management and minimize conflict. Figure 1
illustrates the lake committee structure.
Council of Lake Committees Law Enforcement
<bullet> Lake Michigan Committee
<bullet> Technical Committee
<bullet> Lake Superior Committee
<bullet> Technical Committee
<bullet> Habitat Conservation Comm.
(Members appointed by GLFC)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Great Lakes are widely viewed as the best example of
cooperative fishery management anywhere on earth. Lake committees are
clearly the strength of the Joint Strategic Plan. As expected with any
shared resource, issues about fairness of the allocation of the
fishery, management responsibilities, and transparency arise on the
Great Lakes. The Joint Strategic Plan and the lake committee process
are capable of handling these challenges. In the absence of this
process, agencies would retreat to parochialism, with management chaos
ensuing.
INVASIVE SPECIES: THE PRIMARY THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY
One particularly important issue facing the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and the lake committees is invasive species. Invasive
species-undesirable plants and animals not native to a system-have been
increasing steadily in numbers, particularly as commerce in the Great
Lakes region has become more global and dynamic. Invasive species cause
enormous ecological and economic damage to the region. Invasive species
such as sea lampreys, zebra mussels, Eurasian ruffe, Bythotrephes, and
round gobies have changed the very nature of the Great Lakes forever.
According to published reports, 162 non-native species have become
established in the Great Lakes region since the late 1800's. Twelve of
these species have entered the Great Lakes since 1990, around the time
ballast water exchange-designed to protect the lakes against invasion-
went into effect. Once a species invades and takes hold, the species
becomes a permanent fixture of the ecosystem.
Since the 1950's, when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened the lakes to
direct foreign shipping, ballast water has become a dominant means by
which new species enter the system. Today, the vast majority of
invasive species in the Great Lakes originate from Eurasia and arrive
in ship ballast. Invasive species have the potential to enter the lakes
through other channels as well, including the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal and through the commerce of live food, bait, and aquarium fish.
Concurrent reports from the United States General Accounting Office
and the Auditor General of Canada, released in October, 2002, brought
major attention to the invasive species problem. The reports provide
little reason for optimism. Among the findings of both reports:
<bullet> The Federal Governments of Canada and the United States
have not responded effectively to the invasive species threat;
<bullet> Invasive species are a leading cause of biodiversity loss
and economic loss, costing billions of dollars each year;
<bullet> Measures put into place to prevent aquatic introductions
(such as ballast water monitoring and
ballast water exchange) have not prevented new introductions;
<bullet> Canada and the U.S. have neither a binational approach to
invasive species nor do they have a
single agency in charge of managing the problem; and
<bullet> Effective ballast water management techniques may require
at least 10 years to develop and implement.
The Great Lakes remain extremely vulnerable to new invaders,
underscoring the critical need to (1) prevent the introduction of new
organisms, (2) address the ballast water vector, (3) stop
transmigration of species through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
and (4) address the trade of live organisms from outside and within the
region. As one view of the importance of this problem, most scientists
and stakeholders working in the Great Lakes today will list invasive
species as the most pressing issue the region faces.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is deeply encouraged by the
introduction of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA-S.
525, H.R. 1080 and H.R 1081). I join with my fellow commissioners in
commending Senator Levin and Congressmen Ehlers and Gilchrest for
introducing these important bills and thanking Senator Voinovich for
being an original co-sponsor of the Senate legislation.
These bills, if passed as written, will be a major step forward in
efforts to address the invasive species problem. In particular, the
commission believes NAISA includes important safeguards for the Great
Lakes, establishes clear deadlines for action, and addresses vital
needs such as strong ballast standards for ocean-going vessels,
investigation of invasion pathways, rapid response, the construction of
a dispersal barrier system near Chicago, and research, just to name a
few.
The commission strongly urges Congress to pass this legislation.
The sooner the bills are passed, the sooner we will be addressing these
pressing problems. We cannot afford to wait a day longer: The next
oceanic vessel entering the Great Lakes could have the next ``zebra
mussel'' on board. Asian carp are swimming their way steadily toward
the Great Lakes. Millions of potentially harmful fish are sold live in
the Great Lakes basin. This legislation will address these and other
problems, but we must act now.
The commission also notes that the International Joint Commission
(IJC), in its previous two biennial reports, has requested a reference
from governments to address the invasive species problem. The
commission believes the IJC is an appropriate body to investigate this
issue on a binational level and, therefore, urges the governments of
Canada and the United States to grant this reference to the IJC.
SEA LAMPREYS AND THEIR DEVASTATION
Let us focus, now, on one particular invasive species: the sea
lamprey. Among the more than 162 exotic species that have become
established in the Great Lakes basin, the most detrimental to the
basin's fisheries has been the sea lamprey, a parasitic fish native to
the Atlantic Ocean. Sea lampreys entered the Great Lakes in the early
part of the
20th century through federally constructed shipping canals and by
1937 had infested waters of all of the Great Lakes. Unlike the other
invasive species we contend with, sea lampreys can be controlled.
During its lifetime, each sea lamprey, by attaching to fish and
feeding on their body fluids, can kill and consume 40 or more pounds of
fish. By the mid-1940's, sea lamprey predation, combined with
overfishing and other problems, destroyed many extremely valuable
fisheries in the Great Lakes. Losing predators such as lake trout and
burbot and subsequent sea lamprey predation on other species, has led
to catastrophic declines in the economic value of Great Lakes
fisheries.
The declines in the Great Lakes fishery can hardly be exaggerated.
Before sea lamprey control began in the 1950's, nearly 85 percent of
the fish in the Great Lakes exhibited sea lamprey wounds and the
harvest, which had been about 20 million pounds of fish annually before
the sea lamprey invasion, collapsed.
The sea lamprey literally destroyed a way of life for the people of
the Great Lakes region and threw the environment into chaos. Even with
sea lamprey control measures in place, the lampreys continue to pose a
significant threat to the fish. In some areas, sea lampreys still kill
more fish than are harvested by humans. We also know that if sea
lamprey control were to be relaxed-even briefly the species would
spring back quickly and in deadly fashion.
Sea Lamprey Control
By the early 1950's, the governments of Canada and the United
States, in addition to the province of Ontario and the States, agreed
that the sea lamprey problem must be addressed at the highest level if
the Great Lakes fishery were to survive. To that end, the Federal
Governments negotiated and ratified the 1955 Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries, which created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The
commission was charged with developing and implementing a sea lamprey
control program and with coordinating fisheries research, duties the
commission maintains to this day.
The commission actively manages the program and works in
partnership with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deliver sea
lamprey control. The commission continues to insure that fishery
management on the Great Lakes is carried out on an ecosystem basis and
in the spirit of binational cooperation. The Convention remains a
highly successful blueprint for cooperative fishery management. Canada
and the United States each consider the working relationship on the
Great Lakes to be a model of successful binational resource management.
Sea lampreys are controlled on the Great Lakes using a number of
innovative, effective techniques. The primary management tool is a
lampricide, called TFM. TFM is applied in Great Lakes streams where sea
lampreys live as larvae. The lampricide is selective to lampreys,
meaning it kills lampreys with little to no impact on non-target
species. TFM has been applied to Great Lakes streams since 1958 and is
fully registered with the Environmental Protection Agency. Streams with
sea lampreys present require TFM treatments every 3-6 years, depending
on the stream's productivity. Between 60 and 70 streams are treated
annually with TFM.
The commission also relies on other alternative, non-chemical
techniques to control sea lampreys. Sea lamprey barriers are used to
prevent sea lampreys from reaching their spawning grounds. Once a
barrier is constructed in a stream, the stream generally does not
require lampricide treatments above the barrier. Sea lamprey traps are
used to remove lampreys from the system before they spawn. The lampreys
caught in traps are used in the innovative sterile-male-release-
technique, a technique where spawning male sea lampreys (which are past
their feeding stage and, therefore, are not actively destroying fish)
are sterilized and released back into the system. The sterilized males
compete with fertile males to spawn, thus wasting the female's spawning
potential.
Together, these sea lamprey control techniques comprise the tools
in the commission's arsenal to combat this destructive pest.
The Success of Sea Lamprey Control
The commission's sea lamprey control program has been a tremendous
success-probably successful beyond the expectations of those who
negotiated the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, and stands as one
outstanding example of environmental damage mitigation.
In the Great Lakes, sea lamprey abundances are near or below target
levels in Lakes Ontario and Erie. Sea lamprey abundances are slightly
above targets in Lakes Superior and Michigan and significantly above
target in Lake Huron. The high abundances of sea lampreys in Lakes
Michigan and Huron are because of high sea lamprey production in the
St. Marys River. The commission began an aggressive, on-going sea
lamprey suppression program for the St. Marys River in 1999 and expects
the sea lamprey abundances in Lakes Michigan and Huron to approach
acceptable levels. Sea lamprey abundances in Lake Superior are a bit
higher than we find acceptable and, therefore, the commission will be
stepping up its treatment work in that lake.
Overall, the sea lamprey control program has been a phenomenal
success. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its partners have
reduced sea lamprey populations by about 90 percent from their
historical abundance. Because sea lamprey eradication is impossible,
the control effort is ongoing.
The successful sea lamprey control program is the cornerstone of a
healthy and vibrant fishery. Sea lamprey control allows provincial,
State, Federal, and tribal fishery management agencies to stock fish
and implement other restoration activities with confidence, knowing
that their fish will likely survive to reproduce or be caught by
humans.
Sea lamprey control allows agencies to make substantial progress in
their efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of our rare,
valuable, native species.
Sea lamprey control promotes a healthier Great Lakes fishery,
creates a more stable environment, and provides significant economic
and recreational benefits to the people of the region.
Sea lamprey control has increased the popularity of sportfishing in
the Great Lakes since the early 1960's, protects tribal fishing, and
supports thousands of commercial fishing jobs.
Sea lamprey control is indeed the foundation of a fishery that has
rebounded from the most dire conditions of the 1940's. Today, the
fishery again is a highly valued resource to the people of North
America. The millions of people who fish the Great Lakes
recreationally, tribally, and commercially demand the delivery of an
effective sea lamprey control program. Investments in sea lamprey
control are investments not only in today's fishery, but also are
investments in the fishery that future generations will enjoy.
Alternative Sea Lamprey Control And The Lampricide Reduction Goal
Despite the importance of the lampricide TFM in the sea lamprey
control effort, the commission set a goal to reduce lampricide use by
50 percent by the year 2010. Lampricides are costly and the commission
is sensitive to concerns about the use of pesticides, even safe and
proven pesticides like TFM. Furthermore, successful pest management
programs rely on several techniques working together to achieve target
levels of suppression.
To reach its lampricide reduction goal, the commission has invested
in alternative, non-chemical means to control lampreys including the
aforementioned barriers, traps, and the sterile-male-release technique.
Already, the commission has reduced lampricide use by more than 35
percent from the peak use of the 1980's.
Achieving the lampricide reduction goal is possible, but only
through continued investment in alternative controls. The commission
has been committed to making that investment by devoting greater
percentages of the lamprey control budget to alternative techniques. In
2003, the commission will apply approximately 25 percent of its sea
lamprey budget to alternative controls. This is an increase from only
about 15 percent devoted to alternative controls just a few years ago.
Reductions in lampricides through the research into and the
development of alternative techniques is providing real program savings
today. Lampricide reductions since the late 1980's are now saving the
commission more than $1 million per year in lampricide and treatment
costs, while still allowing for the same level of sea lamprey control.
Furthermore, sea lamprey control on the St. Marys River depends on
alternative controls. Continued reductions in the amount of lampricides
used will take place and the commission will remain vigilant that these
reductions do not compromise the effectiveness of sea lamprey
suppression.
The commission also has a vision to develop and implement at least
one new sea lamprey control technique by the end of the decade. The
commission is highly encouraged by the success of alternative control
techniques (e.g., the sterile-malerelease-technique) and believes it is
imperative to research and develop new techniques.
New research into sea lamprey pheromones-another major initiative-
will help the commission reach its goal. Pheromones are natural
attractants sea lampreys use to indicate to spawning lampreys which
streams are suitable for spawning or to attract mates once in the
spawning stream. By understanding how sea lampreys use pheromones,
scientists seek to direct lampreys into traps or disrupt sea lamprey
spawning behavior in some fashion. The commission believes pheromones
have much promise to transform sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes
basin and, therefore, views enhancing its development and application
as a high priority. The commission will undertake major field trials
for pheromones as soon as spring 2004.
Sea lamprey control is only as successful as the governments'
willingness to fund the effort. Currently, the program receives
enormous support in both Canada and the United States, though the
control effort is still underfunded. The commission received $12.2
million in fiscal 2003, nearly $1 million less than the fiscal 2002
level and a full $4 million less than was requested by the commission
to deliver a full program. The commission requires adequate funding if
it is to maintain the successful sea lamprey control effort and devote
full attention to lampricide reduction.
ASIAN CARP: AN IMPENDING INVASION
Sea lampreys have been the bane of the Great Lakes for more than 80
years. Asian carp, which are at our doorstep, threaten to be the next
``sea lamprey.'' Two species of Asian carp are making their way toward
the Great Lakes-the silver and bighead carp. A third species of
concern-the black carp-escaped into the Mississippi River in 1994, but
to date, only one has been detected in the wild. Biologists are
monitoring the resource carefully for occurrences of the black carp.
The silver and bighead carps were imported, in the early 1970's
from Asia by fish farmers in southern States, to control plankton
blooms in channel catfish production ponds. Both species escaped into
the Mississippi River in the 1980's. Biologists believe that major
floods in the early and mid-1990's allowed the carp to significantly
expand their range. Currently, bighead and silver carp are found near
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which connects the Mississippi
River to the Great Lakes. The carp are now within 50 miles of Lake
Michigan. The silver and bighead carp have a remarkable ability to
spread and proliferate. In some areas of the Mississippi, Asian carp
now already comprise 95 percent of the biomass.
In addition to the Chicago canal system as a vector, fish are
routinely imported live into the region for sale as food and are a
popular fish at live-fish markets in the Great Lakes basin. For
instance, more than 900,000 pounds of live Asian carp are trucked each
year into Ontario from the United States, to be sold at fish markets on
the shores of the Great Lakes. Fish markets exist, for instance, in
Toronto, Chicago, and New York.
Moreover, millions of juvenile fish are sold as baitfish or as
aquarium fish in the Great Lakes basin. Like the carp sold in fish
markets, aquarium and baitfish are trucked into the basin (and in some
cases reared in the basin) and sold live. Once these live fish are
sold, they are out of the control of the sellers. For example, there is
a serious risk that once an angler is finished fishing for the day, the
angler might release invasive fish (such as Asian carp) that are mixed
in with the rest of his or her unused bait.
If the Asian carp are allowed into the lakes, they will likely
become a permanent, noxious feature of the Great Lakes environment.
They have several characteristics that make them ``invasive.'' They are
fecund and they grow rapidly. They are well suited to the climate of
the Great Lakes; their native range in Asia is similar to the
conditions in the
Great Lakes region. There is little doubt that the carp will
survive in the Great Lakes and compete directly with the lakes' native
fish for zooplankton (small animals in the water column that form the
base of the food web).
Tremendous efforts are underway to prevent an Asian carp invasion.
To date, these efforts have centered on blocking the migration of carp
from the Mississippi River system into Lake Michigan. An experimental
electric barrier constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
control invasive species migration began operation on April 9, 2002.
This electrical barrier serves as the only line of defense against the
Asian carp. A second barrier is currently being built through a
partnership with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the International
Joint Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of
Illinois.
In addition to work on the Chicago canal system, there is also
significant work to prevent entry via the trade of live organisms. The
Council of Lake Committees (composed of provincial, State, and tribal
management authorities), and the Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee
(provincial, State, Federal, and tribal law enforcement officials, have
been working with governments to encourage sub-national laws banning
the possession of live Asian carp (and other potentially injurious
exotic species). Already, several States have banned the possession.
The U.S. Federal Government, along with State and local
governments, have spent millions of dollars to help prevent the Asian
carp invasion. These investments in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, while costly, are necessary to the protection of the entire
Great Lakes basin and are a fraction of the economic harm these carp
could cause to both nations if they are allowed into the system. The
commission has several specific recommendations to address the Asian
carp problem:
1. Support an annual appropriation (from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' budget) for operations and maintenance of the existing
invasive species barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
2. Support the construction of a second dispersal barrier by
supporting section 107 of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, by
inserting language into the Water Resources Development Act, or by
supporting language in the Energy and Water appropriations bill that
authorizes the second barrier at full Federal cost. (This authorization
should appear in the legislative vehicle most likely to move quickly
through Congress.)
3. Support research into a permanent and innovative biological
separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds.
4. Support the provision in the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act that calls upon the Corps of Engineers to investigate the
effectiveness of dispersal barriers in preventing the spread of
invasive species via canals.
5. Support the provision in the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act that establishes a screening process for the importation of new
organisms.
6. Support applying the Lacey Act to list as injurious the three
species of Asian carp-the black, silver, and bighead carps-in order to
ban the importation and transportation of these species.
7. Support the development of a ``clean list'' (as opposed to a
``black list'') of species acceptable for live trade. This puts the
onus on the importer to prove that the species will do no harm, as
opposed to the onus being on society to prove that it will.
8. Urge the States and the Province of Ontario to ban immediately
the possession of live Asian carp and other species (e.g., the
snakehead) that have the potential to invade the Great Lakes system.
9. Support the application of the Canadian Wild Animal and Plant
Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade
Act (WAPPRIITA) and the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, to
prohibit the importation of live Asian carp into Ontario. Seek the
application of these laws to other species.
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Great Lakes are our region's treasures and they deserve
restoration. The Great Lakes fishery, which remains stressed, stands to
benefit tremendously from a comprehensive restoration effort. Although
significant progress has been made in cleaning up and protecting the
Great Lakes, a recent report by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that binational, Federal, and State strategies to restore the
lakes are underfunded and not coordinated as well as they should be.
The report points out that restoration efforts in other regions of the
country-particularly efforts to protect the Everglades and the
Chesapeake Bay-are more sophisticated than restoration efforts in the
Great Lakes region and are guided by more effective strategies. The
Great Lakes Fishery Commission concurs with the GAO's conclusions and
has strongly supported the development of a Great Lakes restoration
strategy.
One major fishery restoration initiative is the Great Lakes Fishery
and Ecosystem Restoration Program (GLFER), a program authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The commission notes that
Senator Voinovich was the principal author of this provision and we
commend the Senator for his vision to restore the Great Lakes fishery.
The program authorizes the Corps of Engineers (COE) to partner with
Federal, State, and local agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to plan, implement, and evaluate projects supporting the
restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great
Lakes. The COE has an authorization to spend up to $100,000,000 for
this program. Examples of projects might include removal of unnecessary
barriers in Great Lakes tributaries, creation of fish passage devices,
riparian habitat stabilization, and restoration and creation of
wetlands.
Particularly noteworthy about this program is that the COE is
directed to work with signatories of A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to identify and implement restoration projects. In
formulating this program, the COE is also directed to use existing
documents (such as the Fish Community Objectives, Lake Management
Plans, and Remedial Action Plans) as the foundation for identifying
priorities.
Since the passage of this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission has worked closely with the COE to get the program up and
running. The commission has been very proud to be the local sponsor for
the development of the support plan, the first step in implementing
this program. The development of the support plan, as called-for in the
legislation, has been done in close consultation with Federal, State,
and tribal agencies. The management agencies signatory to the Joint
Strategic Plan are quite enthused about this program.
As of this date, the support plan is in the final stages of its
internal review. Once this support plan is completed, restoration
projects may commence. It is envisioned that the signatories to the
Joint Strategic Plan will identify priority projects, similar to how
they identify projects under the successful Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act.
This program is an enormous opportunity for the Great Lakes. The
program will rely on the Joint Strategic Plan process for its success,
a major recognition of the importance of cooperative management. The
commission urges Congress to appropriate at least $10 million per year
under this authorization so that the COE and the management agencies
can partner on restoration efforts.
CONCLUSION
The Great Lakes fishery defines our region and is a key indicator
of the overall health of the system. Indeed, the first question people
often ask about the Great Lakes is ``how are the fish?'' Management
agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission work very hard to
sustain the fishery for today and for the future, to improve the
habitat upon which the fish depend, to stop the influx of invasive
species, to control sea lampreys, and advance our scientific
understanding of the resource.
Sportfishing on the Great Lakes remains extremely popular;
commercial fishing remains economically viable. The lakes need constant
attention from Congress if they are to sustain this $4 billion fishery,
keep sea lampreys in check, and stop the biological invasion that is
taking place. New initiatives like the Great Lakes Fishery and
Ecosystem Restoration Program and the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act aim to improve and protect the resource. Timehonored institutions
like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Joint Strategic Plan
for Management of Great
Lakes Fisheries strive to maintain the cooperation that is so
critical to the ecosystem approach to management. And a commitment to
the resource-to the fishery and the environment-by the millions of
people who live in the Great Lakes basin will help ensure that the
lakes' resources are passed on to future generations.
We thank the committee for focusing its attention on the Great
Lakes and we look forward to working with Congress on ways in which we
can-together-restore these invaluable treasures.
SOURCES
1979. Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Lake Committees,
In G. L. F. Commission, (ed.). Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann
Arbor, MI.
DesJardine, R.L., T. Gorenflo, R.N. Payne, and J.D. Schrouder. 1995.
Fish-Community objectives for Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor.
Dochoda, Margaret R., and Michael L. Jones. 2002. Managing Great Lakes
fisheries under multiple and diverse authorities. In Sustaining
North American salmon: Perspectives across regions and disciplines,
edited by K. D. Lynch, M. L. Jones and W. Taylor. Bethesda:
American Fisheries Society Press.
Eshenroder, R.L., M.E. Holey, T. Gorenflo, and R.D. Clark. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Michigan Special publication 95-3.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor.
GLFC. 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
GLFC. 2002. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes
Fisheries: Cooperation at its best (Brochure). Ann Arbor: Great
Lakes Fishery Commission.
Horns, W.H., C.R. Bronte, T.R. Busiahn, M. Ebener, R.L. Eshenroder, T.
Gorenflo, N. Kmiecik, W. Mattes, J.W. Peck, M. Petzold, and D.R.
Schreiner. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Superior. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor.
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J. Carlton, and C. Secor. 1993. Exotic species
in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic
introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:1-54.
Piper, Don. 1967. The international law of the Great Lakes. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Rasmussen, J.L. 2002. The Cal-Sal and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal:
A perspective on the spread and control of selected aquatic
nuisance fish species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island,
IL.
Reid, D., H.J. MacIsaac, J.E. Gannon, and J. Hartig. 2002. Research and
management priorities for aquatic invasive species in the Great
Lakes [Online]. Available by International Association for Great
Lakes Research
http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/ais--iaglr02.pdf.
Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders:
Is an `invasional meltdown' occurring in the Great Lakes? Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:2513-2525.
Ryan, P.A., R. Knight, R. MacGregor, G. Towns, R. Hoopes, and W.
Culligan. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Erie. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor.
Stewart, T.J., R.E. Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers,
and M.E. Daniels. 1999. Fish-Community objectives for Lake Ontario
Special Publication 99-1. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann
Arbor.
______
Responses of Roy Stein to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. What coordination takes place between the Great Lakes
sea lamprey control program and sea lamprey control programs throughout
the nation?
Response. The Great Lakes and Lake Champlain share a common
nemesis: the sea lamprey. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the
Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative have a long
history of effective coordination that has contributed to successful
suppression of this devastating parasite in the both the Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain.
Sea lamprey are native to the marine environment of the Atlantic
coast. In its ocean home, this primitive parasitic fish is in balance
with the marine ecosystem including the large fish it feeds on and the
many creatures that feed on them. Sea lampreys are a pest species only
where they have invaded freshwater lakes. Sea lampreys attach to fish
and feed on their body fluids. Like many pest species in a new
environment, they were freed of their natural predators and were at
once out of balance with the smaller native fish that were there in
both the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain for them to feed on.
First observations of sea lampreys in freshwater lakes suggest that
they were able to invade the Great Lakes once the Erie Canal and the
Welland Canal of the St. Lawrence Seaway were constructed. Lake
Champlain connects to the Atlantic Ocean through the Hudson River (via
the Champlain Canal) and to the St. Lawrence River (via the Chambly
Canal). It is through these channels that sea lampreys likely entered
the Lake Champlain system. Lake Champlain, the Finger Lakes of New
York, and the five Great Lakes have all suffered the effects of this
invasive species.
Like the Great Lakes, sea lampreys in the Lake Champlain have
caused major stresses on the fisheries and reduced fishing
opportunities. Lampreys have slowed or stopped efforts to restore fish
populations. Indeed, similar to the Great Lakes of the 1940's, before
sea lamprey control, some 87-100 percent of the fish in some parts of
Lake Champlain exhibited sea lamprey wounds.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\J.E. Marsden et. al, Lake Champlain grapples with it own sea
lamprey problem, FORUM (newsletter of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission), Fall, 2000, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the severe problems sea lampreys cause in both the Great
Lakes and Lake Champlain, sea lampreys can be managed. In fact, sea
lamprey control in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain has a successful
history. Since 1955, when the Federal Governments negotiated and
ratified the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission has implemented a sea lamprey control program, which
uses a number of innovative, effective techniques (including the
lampricide TFM), sea lamprey barriers, traps, and a sterilization
technique. Sea lamprey control allows provincial, State, Federal, and
tribal fishery management agencies to stock fish and implement other
fisheries restoration activities with confidence, knowing that their
fish will likely survive to reproduce or be caught by humans. Sea
lamprey control allows agencies to make substantial progress in their
efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of our rare,
valuable, native species. Because of sea lamprey control, the
popularity of sportfishing in the Great Lakes has increased since the
early 1960's. It protects tribal fishing, and supports thousands of
commercial fishing jobs. The millions of people who fish the Great
Lakes recreationally, tribally, and commercially demand the delivery of
an effective sea lamprey control program. Investments in sea lamprey
control are investments not only in today's fishery, but also are
investments in the fishery that future generations will enjoy.
The Lake Champlain sea lamprey control program is earlier in its
development, though just as important to the future of the lake's
fishery. In 1990, the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management
Cooperative (a partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation) began an experimental 8-year
program to control sea lampreys on Lake Champlain.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission contributed actively to the
success of this initial control effort through direct participation,
training, provision of supplies and equipment, and sharing information.
During 1990, the commission sent treatment crews from the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Marquette Biological Station to lead the first year
of stream treatments on Lake Champlain. During this first year, the
commission's treatment crews trained the State and Federal staff on the
details of safe and effective application of lampricides. The Fish and
Wildlife Service continued to send its treatment program leaders to
work with the cooperative as advisors on stream treatments throughout
the experimental program. The commission also provided the equipment
necessary to carry out the first round of stream treatments. All of the
lampricides required for these treatments were acquired from the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission.
Today, after data analysis established the success of the first
round of sea lamprey controls, the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Management Cooperative is continuing the sea lamprey control effort.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is again working with the Lake
Champlain managers in many aspects of their management effort with
technical expertise, scientific understanding, and critical supplies.
For instance:
<bullet> Sea lamprey control specialists from the Great Lakes
region and the Lake Champlain region routinely exchange scientific
information and expertise in managing sea lamprey populations.
<bullet> Biologists from Vermont, New York, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service working on Lake Champlain attend many of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission's workshops and symposia, share information,
and share state-of-the-art technologies.
<bullet> The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has funded and shared
in funding research on Lake Champlain. These cooperative studies have
scientists from the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain working together to
advance the understanding of the sea lamprey and its vulnerabilities.
This research has benefited both regions.
<bullet> The sea lamprey control staffs of the Fish and Wildlife
Service working for the commission have developed extensive standard
operating procedures (SOPs) that prescribe the precise science of
effective stream treatments. These SOPs are used by the State and
Federal staffs delivering the program for the cooperative.
<bullet> The commission has made a significant investment in
development of new alternative control technologies. The cooperative
has applied traps developed on the Great Lakes to control efforts on
some Vermont streams. Barriers that use new technologies being applied
on the Great Lakes are proposed to block spawning migration on some
Lake Champlain streams.
<bullet> The commission has provided expert staff to advise and
participate in permitting and environmental assessments of the program
on Lake Champlain.
<bullet> The commission has worked in partnership with the EPA to
invest millions of dollars in studies to ensure the environmental
safety of all the lampricides used to control sea lampreys in the Great
Lakes and in Lake Champlain. The commission maintains the registrations
for lampricides with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
<bullet> The Great Lakes Fishery Commission works very closely
with the cooperative to ensure the adequate supply of lampricide for
Lake Champlain. The commission has been successful in establishing a
cost-effective and stable supply of these unique lampricides. They have
shared this success with cooperative by providing the lampricides
needed for Lake Champlain from their inventories at cost.
<bullet> Funds for Lake Champlain are provided annually in the
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations legislation,
similar to how funding is provided for the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Lake Champlain
cooperative have come to appreciate that they can learn from each
other's experiences. Both regions have suffered tremendously from the
sea lamprey, but, fortunately, both regions have a history of
cooperation that has allowed for an effective control effort. Sea
lampreys can be controlled. Control benefits to the fishery, the
environment, and the people who depend on the resource are tremendous.
______
Responses of Roy A. Stein to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. What does the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem
Restoration Program mean to the long-term health of the Great Lakes?
Response. The Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program
(GLFER), a major new initiative authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), is designed to vastly improve the Great
Lakes environment. While this initiative is in its infancy (the support
plan has just been produced and partners are preparing to initiate
restoration projects) the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is quite
enthusiastic about what it means for the long-term health of the Great
Lakes. I commend Senator Voinovich for being the principal author of
this provision.
GLFER authorizes the Corps of Engineers (COE) to partner with
Federal, State, and local agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission to plan, implement, and evaluate projects supporting the
restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great
Lakes. The COE has an authorization to spend up to $100 million for
this program. The $100 million authorized in WRDA represents the
Federal component of the program. Projects under GLFER will require
non-Federal, cost-sharing partners.
WRDA does not delineate exact projects to be funded under this
legislation. Rather, WRDA says that funds under this authorization will
be used for projects that restore the fishery, protect the ecosystem,
and promote beneficial uses. The long-term implications of a program
that authorizes such activities are enormous. GLFER, for example, could
fund a wide variety of projects that fit the law's definitions,
including (but not limited to):
<bullet> Removal of unnecessary barriers in Great Lakes
tributaries. This opens up stream habitat for a variety of fish
species, helping to increase spawning and to create fishing
opportunities.
<bullet> Creation of fish passage facilities. This facilitates
upstream migration of fish in Great Lakes tributaries, helping to
increase spawning and fishing opportunities.
<bullet> Creation of soft structures (shoreline enhancement). This
increases fish and wildlife habitat along and adjacent to the
shoreline, prevents erosion, improves aesthetics, and in some cases
protects important landward resources.
<bullet> Riparian habitat stabilization. Creation of soft
structures to protect existing resources, restore natural habitat, and
provide shade to reduce stream temperatures. Reduction of stream
temperatures protects trout and salmon, which are sensitive to warm
water.
<bullet> Replacement of historical reefs and construction of
artificial reefs to support fish communities. This creates spawning
habitat and creates fishing opportunities.
<bullet> Restoration of estuaries and rapids (particularly in
connecting channels such as the St. Clair River and the Detroit River).
This creates spawning and rearing habitat for fish.
<bullet> Restoration and creation of riffle areas in Great Lakes
tributaries. This improves spawning and rearing habitat.
<bullet> Restoration and creation of wetlands. This provides fish
and wildlife habitat, it improves the natural fluctuations in water
levels (which are beneficial to fish and wildlife), and it provides a
buffer against flooding.
<bullet> Construction of carp barriers in conjunction with
restoration of wetlands. Carp, because of their foraging habits,
destroy vegetation in wetlands. These barriers will prevent carp from
entering the wetland, will thereby protect wetlands, and will help
increase fish and wildlife habitat.
These types of projects, if funded, would be enormously beneficial
to the Great Lakes, the people of the Great Lakes region, and the fish
and wildlife that inhabit the ecosystem. These types of projects would
significantly improve habitat and would offer additional beneficial
uses for the region's stakeholders.
The commission finds it particularly important that this program
relies on the signatories of A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of
Great Lakes Fisheries (i.e., State and tribal management agencies) for
its success. As the legislation calls upon the Joint Strategic Plan
signatories to help identify and implement restoration projects, this
legislation intimately involves the agencies who have primary
management authority over Great Lakes fisheries. This structure has
significant implications on the long-term health of the Great Lakes.
Fishery managers from agencies who have day-to-day management authority
on the Great Lakes will be integral in applying the resources of this
program to the areas that need them most. The way this legislation is
written, in my opinion, practically ensures that GLFER resources will
be directed to the most important fishery and ecosystem problems, with
the goal of long-term sustainability of the resource.
I take this opportunity to note that this program, for it to be
successful, will require not only the commitment of the COE to
implement it effectively, but also the commitment of the partnership
agencies (State and tribal agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission) to cost-share projects, and a commitment from Congress to
appropriate funds. I have every reason to believe that GLFER will be a
success, as all three of these key partners are firmly committed to the
effort. I note, for instance, a recent amendment to the Senate Energy
and Water legislation (authored by Senators Voinovich and DeWine) to
provide funds in fiscal 2004 to begin projects under this legislation.
The GLFC urges that these and future funds be appropriated.
Question 2. What improvements do you recommend for the bill (S.
525, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act) that I cosponsored to
fight against invasive species?
Response. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission strongly supports S.
525, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA), and commends
its author (Senator Carl Levin) and co-sponsors for initiating this
important legislation. I believe the essential goal of this legislation
must be zero introductions of new invasive organisms. Certainly, the
rate of introductions must be reduced rapidly and continually through
time until that goal is reached. There is no doubt that NAISA will help
us achieve that goal.
For the most part, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is pleased
with the legislation in its current form and our first concern is that
this legislation be passed as soon as possible. Additionally, the
commission is very pleased that the legislation contains provisions
ensuring the collection and dissemination of ballast activity records,
the implementation of best management practices for domestic vessels, a
screening process for new organisms introduced into trade, improvements
to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, rapid response, and research. I
believe these portions of NAISA are critical and should be retained in
their current form.
As Congress debates this bill, I offer a few recommendations for
improvement.
<bullet> Findings: In the ``findings'' section of the bill, I
believe a statement affirming the ``precautionary'' approach is
warranted. The precautionary approach, as defined by the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, states that ``where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to protect environmental degradation.'' The
commission believes that, because invasions are irreversible and
typically detrimental to the Great Lakes environment, society should
take immediate action to stop the influx of invaders.
<bullet> Coordination with Neighboring Countries: The commission
supports the intent of NAISA to enhance the involvement of the
International Joint Commission (IJC) in preventing aquatic invasions.
The commission believes, however, that the language in NAISA about
coordination with neighboring countries is too prescriptive. I urge the
bill be changed to allow more flexibility for the State Department to
negotiate with Canada about how the IJC can assist governments in
preventing aquatic invasions. I have great confidence in the IJC's
ability to approach this issue from a binational perspective and am
pleased NAISA recognizes this as well.
<bullet> Interim/Final Ballast Water Standards: I am gratified
that the bill has adopted a strong interim standard (95 percent kill or
removal) that changes to a strong final standard with the goal of
eliminating the risk of introduction of live organisms. I support this
goal enthusiastically; this is one of the most important provisions in
the bill.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission will gauge the overall success
and effectiveness of this legislation on whether the legislation
retains strong ballast water standards that eliminate the possibility
of further introductions. Anything less will mean the legislation has
failed to deliver what is needed to protect the Great Lakes.
As the legislation is written, the ballast water goals appear to be
adequate to protect the Great Lakes. However, I am quite concerned
about the timeframe for reaching this goal. I believe the environmental
sustainability of the Great Lakes would be jeopardized if the final
standards do not come into effect until 2011, as written in the
legislation. Promulgation and implementation of the final standards
should not be delayed. The bill, fortunately, establishes a research
program to support the development of these standards, which is
critical to the success of this bill. I urge the addition of a deadline
to this research section delineating when this research program must be
established and initiated, recognizing all the actions and
accommodations that government and industry must undertake prior to
2011.
<bullet> Incentives: NAISA includes incentives to help ship owners
and operators seek new ballast management systems. While the commission
supports incentives, I believe this section could be much stronger.
Other incentives could include tax incentives, direct subsidies for
developing and demonstrating technologies, removal from liability if a
good-faith effort was made, and other rewards for successful treatment
systems. This bill provides guidance which, I believe, might not be
enough to entice the industry's full participation and cooperation.
<bullet> Sea Lamprey Program: I take great pride in the fact that
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission implements a successful sea lamprey
control program, a program that has reduced the invasive sea lamprey
population by 90 percent in the Great Lakes. Because the sea lamprey
control program is effective and authorized under existing law, the
commission requests that NAISA make it clear that the Great Lakes
Fisheries Act (including its sea lamprey control program) and the
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries are not affected by NAISA.
Question 3. How do you recommend we develop a comprehensive
restoration plan while continuing the programs that are currently
successful and not delaying progress?
Response. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission feels that government
agencies are, for the most part, adequately authorized to implement
initiatives to restore the Great Lakes. I believe that while there are
certainly areas that require new authorizations--invasive species is a
key example--we need to redouble our efforts to implement the
authorities that are currently in place. To that end, the commission
believes that Congress should consider adequate appropriations for
authorized programs to be the starting point for any restoration
initiative.
Many existing programs have the potential to advance Great Lakes
restoration; they often just lack adequate funding. The Great Lakes
Fishery Commission's sea lamprey control program is a case-in-point.
Sea lamprey control has reduced populations of this invasive pest by
nearly 90 percent. Nevertheless, the commission currently receives
about $4 million less per year than it estimates it needs to do the
job, and this has hampered the commission's ability to maintain this
success. Sea lamprey populations will rebound if controls are relaxed,
and the current funding situation creates the strong possibility that
there will be slippage in sea lamprey control.
In addition to adequate funding for existing programs, the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission believes a comprehensive restoration plan for
the Great Lakes is critical to the long-term sustainability of the
resource. Although significant progress has been made in cleaning up
and protecting the Great Lakes, a recent report by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that binational, Federal, and State
strategies to restore the lakes are underfunded and not coordinated as
well as they should be. The report pointed out that restoration efforts
in other regions of the country--particularly efforts to protect the
Everglades and Chesapeake Bay--are more sophisticated than restoration
efforts in the Great Lakes region and are guided by more effective
strategies. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission concurs with the GAO's
conclusions and has strongly supported the development of a Great Lakes
restoration strategy.
I again commend Senator Voinovich and his Great Lakes colleagues
form their strong interest in developing a Great Lakes restoration
plan. It is my understanding that current efforts to develop this plan
involve many stakeholders, elected officials, and government agencies.
These efforts include the identification of priorities by a number of
entities including Great Lakes United (which reflects grass-roots
goals), the Northeast-Midwest Institute (which houses the Great Lakes
Task Force), the Council of Great Lakes Governors (which reflects the
goals and wishes of the States), and the Great Lakes Commission (which
focuses on funding for authorized priorities). In addition to these
efforts, members in both houses of Congress have introduced legislation
to develop a restoration plan for the Great Lakes. Many, if not all, of
these concurrent efforts are being coordinated with each other. The
commission believes the current efforts to develop a restoration plan
are helping governments and stakeholders to get a handle on a very
complex process.
Together, these initiatives are leading the Great Lakes community
toward a comprehensive restoration initiative. It is my expectation
that these various initiatives will complement each other and help us,
together, provide Congress with a clear direction of what we have in
place that needs funding, what we need to fill critical gaps, and how
we can support the implementation of restoration projects. The success
of any Great Lakes restoration initiative will indeed depend on the
support of organizations in the region and the support from Congress. I
reiterate that adequate funding for existing authorizations is
critical.
Question 4. Including the bill that I cosponsored (S. 1398, the
Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act), I have seen different
mechanisms proposed to coordinate Great Lakes programs, such as a task
force. What do you think would work best?
Response. Legislation introduced in the Senate (S. 1398, the Great
Lakes Environmental Restoration Act) is designed to draw attention to
the Great Lakes and to call for a coordinated Great Lakes restoration
effort. It is critically important that agencies at all levels work
toward this common goal. It is clear to the commission that programs to
protect the Great Lakes, while certainly effective on many fronts, can
be greatly improved by enhanced coordination among the agencies and a
heightened commitment to funding. We can indeed learn many lessons from
how restoration efforts in the Everglades and the Chesapeake have been
implemented.
One major strength of S. 1398 is that it creates a Great Lakes
Federal Coordinating Council, comprising the heads of all Federal
departments with a role in the Great Lakes, to better coordinate
Federal agency efforts and to formulate a more-coordinated request in
the President's annual Federal budget. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission believes that this coordinating council will help the
Federal Government focus on the Great Lakes and better direct its
resources. If the council operates as the legislation envisions,
Federal activities and annual budgets will be much clearer about how
funds are being requested for the Great Lakes and what is being done to
restore the Great Lakes. Indeed, much of the anxiety about the lack of
progress in Great Lakes restoration arises because we simply do not
have a clear idea about what the Federal agencies are doing to protect
the Great Lakes and how much funding the Federal Governments are
devoting to restoration. This legislation will do a lot to correct that
problem.
Another major attribute of S. 1398 is the section authorizing
grants for such things as wetlands restoration, water quality
improvement, invasive species management, and fisheries habitat
improvements. Additional resources to these priority areas are, of
course, badly needed and welcomed. This bill has the potential to
provide $600 million for these priority areas.
The establishment of the Great Lakes Advisory Board is one way in
which we can prioritize Great Lakes initiatives and to present
recommendations to Congress for funding. A concern with the Great Lakes
Advisory Board, as written in the legislation, is that it does not
include all relevant department heads and, therefore, the board might
not be in a position to formulate comprehensive recommendations. In
other words, by limiting the voting members to the departments listed
in the legislation, the process could exclude important programs and
initiatives simply because some initiatives lacked a voting advocate on
the advisory board. The legislation attempts to correct this by
allowing an inclusive group of observers. While this helps assuage the
commission's concerns, the fact that some agencies are strong members
on the panel vis-a-vis other agencies means that there is the potential
for ``priorities'' to simply be a reflection of who voted on the suite
of priorities.
I believe the Great Lakes Federal Coordinating Council and Congress
can best play the coordinating role for identifying Great Lakes
priorities and implementing the programs. The coordinating council can
best present the restoration initiative in a Federal budget and
Congress can, through the appropriations process, see that it is
implemented. This is not to say that the coordinating council and
Congress should operate in a vacuum. The Governors, the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Great Lakes United, the Great Lakes Commission, and
many others are prime resources to help identify and support
restoration priorities. Federal agencies and Congress should work with
these and other stakeholders to have all important goals and needs
identified in an annual, comprehensive Great Lakes package for
Congress' consideration.
__________
Statement of Samuel W. Speck, Chair, Council of Great Lakes Governors
Water Management Working Group, Director, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. This morning I would like to
share with you what the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers are doing to
protect the waters of the Great Lakes and keep management of those
waters in the Great Lakes Basin.
As you are aware, Ohio's Governor Bob Taft is the current Chair of
the Council of Great Lakes Governors. I am appearing in my role as
Chair of the Council's Water Management Working Group and as Director
of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. I also serve the Great
Lakes Commission as its current Chair. I will summarize my remarks and
would request that my full written testimony be submitted for the
record.
The Council's Water Management Working Group is at a critical stage
in the efforts of the eight Great Lakes States and two Provinces to
strengthen our collective means for protecting the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin. The Working Group is developing a new resource-based
decisionmaking standard for diversions and consumptive uses of Basin
water in accordance with the Great Lakes Charter Annex.
The region's Governors are pleased with the leadership Congress has
shown in recognizing the critical importance of the Great Lakes and the
pressing need to restore and safeguard them for generations to come. We
particularly commend Senators DeWine, Levin, and you, Senator
Voinovich, for the introduction of Senate Bill 1398. The Council of
Great Lakes Governors believes that the bills now pending in the House
and Senate offer an opportunity to focus much-needed financial
resources on priority needs. What is important in the near term is
continuing the focus on restoration efforts, and Senate Bill 1398 does
just that.
Nearly two decades ago, our States jointly formed the Council of
Great Lakes Governors, in part to fulfill our lead responsibilities as
stewards of the Great Lakes Basin's water resources and in recognition
of the tremendous ecological, economic and social benefits they
provide. The Great Lakes Governors and Premiers have continued to
provide leadership on Great Lakes issues including the following:
Creation of the Great Lakes Charter in 1985 to provide a framework
for managing the Basin waters;
<bullet> Use of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986
as a tool to protect the Basin water resources;
<bullet> Commitment made in 1999 to develop a new agreement which
would bind the States and Provinces more closely to collectively plan,
manage and make Great Lakes water usage decisions;
<bullet> Adoption of the Annex in 2001, an amendment to the Great
Lakes Charter to further the principles of the Charter;
<bullet> Formation of the Council's Great Lakes Priorities Task
Force chaired by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Chris
Jones; and,
<bullet> Continuation of the Council's Water Management Working
Group to develop the agreements called for in the Annex, which is the
focus of my testimony today.
Overview of the Great Lakes Charter Annex
In 1985, the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers created the Great
Lakes Charter to provide a framework for managing the waters of the
Great Lakes Basin. This is a good-faith agreement involving prior
notice and consultation on large diversions and uses within the Basin
exceeding five million gallons per day (MGD). Further, it outlines a
commitment to develop programs to manage diversions and consumptive
uses.
The next year (1986), Congress enacted WRDA, recognizing the
Governors' central role in protecting Great Lakes Basin water
resources. WRDA does the following:
<bullet> Prohibits diversions unless approved by all eight Great
Lakes States Governors;
<bullet> Allows a veto without standards;
<bullet> Regulates first drop (no threshold);
<bullet> As U.S. Federal law, does not include the Provinces
regarding decisions; and,
<bullet> Addresses diversions, not in-Basin consumptive uses.
In addition, there is a question whether groundwater is included in
WRDA.
In 1998, a proposal by the Nova Group, Inc. to export bulk water
from the Ontario waters of Lake Superior to the Far East caused the
State, Provincial, and Federal Governments to react with calls to re-
examine the strength and adequacy of the legal foundations for water
management authorities.
Starting in 1999, water levels in the Great Lakes which had been
atypically high for much of the preceding 30 years fell considerably as
cyclical patterns took effect. While the recent, lower water levels are
in fact close to the historic average, the public's perception of
dramatic loss has given added impetus to concern about the future of
our Great Lakes water resources.
At their annual meeting in Cleveland in October 1999, the Great
Lakes Governors and Premiers committed to:
<bullet> Developing a new agreement and standard which would bind
the Great Lakes States and Provinces more closely to collectively plan,
manage and make decisions.
<bullet> Securing funds to develop a better base of water use data
necessary to make sound decisions.
The Governors and Premiers further stated that the agreement should
reflect the following principles:
<bullet> Protect the resource;
<bullet> Be durable;
<bullet> Be simple;
<bullet> Be efficient; and,
<bullet> In particular, they wanted to retain authority within the
Basin to manage the waters based upon resource protection principles.
The Governors' and Premiers' leadership role was recognized in the
2000 International Joint Commission report which recommended
maintaining and strengthening the authority of the Governors/Premiers
regarding management of Great Lakes waters. The WRDA 2000 amendment
also promoted partnership with the Canadian Provinces and encouraged
the Great Lakes Governors to develop and implement a mechanism that
provides a common standard for decisionmaking.
On June 18, 2001, the Governors and Premiers adopted the Annex to
the Great Lakes Charter. In the Annex, they committed themselves to
move forward on a number of fronts.
In contrast to WRDA, this initiative under the Annex has the
following provisions:
<bullet> Requires the use of a common resource-based standard;
<bullet> Includes the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec in
all regional decisionmaking;
<bullet> Includes the application of a new standard for in-Basin
consumptive uses, not just diversions;
<bullet> Includes groundwater; and,
<bullet> Commits to improve the sources and applications of
scientific information regarding the management of the Waters of the
Great Lakes Basin.
The Annex includes a set of directives to further the principles of
the Charter:
<bullet> First, create a new resource-based decisionmaking
standard to review new proposals to withdraw water from the Great Lakes
Basin.
<bullet> Second, draft Basin-wide binding agreements such as an
interstate compact and a State-Provincial agreement.
<bullet> Third, is a call for the design of a decision support
system to include an assessment of available information, update data
on existing water uses, identify additional needs and develop a plan to
implement an ongoing support system.
<bullet> Fourth, a commitment was made to ensure ongoing public
input in the preparation and implementation of the agreements.
<bullet> Fifth, further commitments were made to improve
scientific information, including the role of groundwater.
The Water Management Working Group has been working together with
an Advisory Committee and Resource Group over the past 2 years to
implement the Annex through Basin-wide agreements including a new
decisionmaking standard. The Advisory Committee represents diverse
stakeholder interests from about 26 large regional/national
organizations representing agricultural, environmental, industrial,
municipal, shipping, recreational, manufacturing, and utility groups.
In addition, stakeholder interests from governmental and quasi-
governmental organizations are also involved through a Resource Group
and as invited Observers.
Draft Decision-Making Framework
A decisionmaking framework is being developed which includes a two-
tier review structure. Under the framework being discussed, new or
increased diversions or consumptive uses exceeding a regional review
threshold level of three MGD would be reviewed by all ten
jurisdictions. Proposals that do not exceed the regional review
threshold level would be reviewed using a common resource-based
standard by the individual State or Province in which the diversion or
consumptive use is proposed.
The draft framework continues to be discussed and revised.
Draft decisionmaking criteria being discussed that will be used for
review of diversions and consumptive uses are consistent with the
following Annex principles:
<bullet> Preventing or minimizing Basin water loss through return
flow and implementation of environmentally sound and economically
feasible water conservation measures.
<bullet> No significant adverse individual or cumulative impact to
the quantity or quality of the waters and water dependent natural
resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
<bullet> An improvement to the waters and water dependent natural
resources of the Basin. An improvement means an additional beneficial,
restorative effect to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity
of the waters and water dependent natural resources.
<bullet> Compliance with all applicable State, provincial,
Federal, and international laws and treaties.
The resource improvement requirement is unique with no similar
standard in existence which we can use as a model. Mitigation of
impacts associated with a withdrawal are not being considered as an
improvement. An improvement could be based on hydrologic conditions,
water quality or habitat. Most likely, hydrologic improvements will be
preferred.
The issue of how to address out-of-Basin diversions is a critical
issue for the States and Provinces, yet there are many diverse views on
this. For example, Ohio has several communities that straddle the Great
Lakes Basin drainage divide. Flexibility is needed to allow these
communities to serve their citizens in areas immediately adjacent to
the Basin divide where adequate quantities of potable quality water are
not available. Yet, Ontario and Quebec have enacted legislation that
largely prohibits diversions. The challenge is to craft agreements that
will be acceptable to all the jurisdictions and meet the intent of the
Annex.
Timeline
The Governors and Premiers agreed to create the necessary
agreements within 3 years of the effective date of the Annex, in other
words, by June of 2004. The Water Management Working Group is on
schedule and its goal is to release draft documents for public review
later this year. Consensus takes patience and we must allow ourselves
adequate time to craft agreements acceptable to all ten jurisdictions.
Regardless of the timeline, a flexible agreement must be drafted
that will allow for the incorporation of new scientific information
into the decisionmaking process. For example, we do not currently know
where the Basin groundwater divides are relative to the surface water
divides.
Conclusion
The Annex will be attempting to do something that has never been
done before. We are trying to protect 20 percent of the world's fresh
surface water, not on a basis of economic protection, but on protection
of the resource.
In reality, there are so many competing and conflicting interests
that the only way it will be accomplished is through partnerships. It
will not be enough to simply have State Provincial partnerships but
Federal Governments, local communities, NGO's and the private sector
will also need to be included. The water management regime we develop
will show how an effective partnership can protect one of the world's
greatest natural resources and may be used by others as a model in the
future.
______
Responses of Samuel W. Speck to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. As I mentioned during the hearing I held a Government
Affairs Committee hearing last month on Great Glades programs, the
Chairman of the United States Section of the International Joint
Commission, Dennis Schornack, suggested that we revise and update the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to form the basis for a major,
binational Great Lakes initiative. What is your opinion of using this
as a vehicle for a comprehensive restoration plans?
Response. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), first
signed in 1972, is an important binational mechanism for multi-
jurisdictional management, but is not an appropriate vehicle to use as
the basis for a comprehensive restoration plan. It is an agreement
between the U.S. and Canadian Federal Governments and, as such, does
not provide the Great Lakes Governors and premiers with an explicit
leadership role. Similarly, it lacks explicit recognition of--and a
role for--other public and nongovernmental entities whose partnership
is needed to ensure the success of any restoration initiative.
In its present form, the GLWQA does not have the breadth of focus
needed to accommodate the kinds of ecosystem restoration priorities
that are emerging from regional entities such as the Great Lakes
Commission and Council of Great Lakes Governors. For example, the
Agreement does not adequately address such critically important matters
as invasive species prevention and control; sustainable water use;
habitat biodiversity; land use/water quality linkages; recreational and
commercial value of the resource; and other matters that reflect the
environmental and socio-economic dimensions of ecosystem restoration.
Last revised in 1987, the GLWQA is outdated and in need of a thorough
review and potentially significant revision, a conclusion reached by
the International Joint Commission's Science Advisory Board several
years ago and increasingly embraced by the larger Great Lakes
community.
The GLWQA has serves us well for 31 years and, with a thorough
review, revision and update, can continue to do so. However, it is best
viewed as a vehicle for implementing components of a comprehensive
restoration plan; it would not be well-suited to serve as the plan
itself.
Question 2. How do you recommend we develop a comprehensive
restoration plan while continuing thepmgrnms that are currently mcccs
ful and not delaying progress?
Response. This region cannot, and should not wait for a large
scale, comprehensive plan to be finalized before enhanced restoration
activities take place. Adequate guidance to initiate restoration
activities presently exists, and should be used while the large scale
planning effort proceeds.
Three documents--all complementary--will be of great utility to the
Congress in the immediate term while planning takes place. The Great
Lakes Program to Ensure Environmnental and Economic Prosperity is a
detailed listing of the Great Lakes Commission's U.S. Federal
legislative and appropriations priorities. It is appropriately viewed
as a foundation for restoration planning efforts, and explicitly
identifies strategic actions organized around seven priority themes for
restoration; cleaning up toxic hotspots; shutting the door on invasive
species; controlling nonpoint source pollution; restoring and
conserving wetlands and critical coastal habitat; ensuring the
sustainable use of our water resources; strengthening our decision
support capability; and enhancing the commercial and recreational value
of our waterways. A second source of information is the recently
released statement by the Council of Great Lakes Governors (letter of
October 1, 2003 to Members of Congress) that presents a set of nine
priorities and associated principles. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors also committed to submitting a short-term agenda to help
guide spending decisions while a more comprehensive protection and
restoration funding program is being developed. Finally, the Great
Lakes Strategy, produced by the U.S. Policy Committee (a Federal/State
body coordinated by the U.S. EPA), offers relevant guidance as well,
with an emphasis on restoration initiatives that can be pursued under
existing authorities and funding levels.
The restoration priorities embodied in these documents can provide
the basis for congressional legislative and appropriations initiatives
in the immediate future. They also provide the foundation for a
comprehensive planning effort that willl guide efforts over the long
term. In brief, we are well positioned to act now!
Question 3. Including the bill that I cosponsored (S. 1398, the
Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act), I have seen di ferent
mechanisms proposed to coordinate Great Lakes programs, such as a task
force. What do,you think would work best?
Response. The Great Lakes Governors must have the leadership role
in plan development and implementation for Great Lakes protection and
restoration. The Senate bill does provide for a key role by the
Governors in establishing environmental restoration goals. However, the
advisory board arrangements, as proposed in the bill, may be overly
proscriptive and exclusionary. The Governors should have a role in
identifying those stakeholder groups that should be included in the
planning and implementation effort.
The creation of additional, unneeded bureaucracy in developing and
administering a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan should be
avoided. Selection of a coordinating mechanism to guide plan
development and implementation should be preceded by a thorough review
of the many existing mechanisms to determine their capabilities to
perform such functions. Such a review may find that the establishment
of a new body is duplicative and unnecessary. For example, the
potential of the existing U.S. Policy Committee should be explored.
With significant modifications, the U.S. Policy Committee might be able
to function as a coordinating body for restoration plan development and
implementation.
In the interest of efficiency and effectiveness, the region's
multi-jurisdictional agencies, such as the Great Lakes Commission,
should have a central role in plan development and coordination.
Ecosystem-based restoration planning and implementation is central to
the role of the Commission, which has undertaken these activities at
various scales for almost 50 years. Comprised of State and provincial
members (including Governor/ Premier appointees) with observers
representing almost two dozen U.S. and Canadian Federal agencies,
regional agencies, tribal authorities and academic bodies, the Great
Lakes Commission has a communications, planning, policy and advocacy
mandate. The Commission is the only regional agency founded in both
Federal and State law (i.e., Great Lakes Basin Compact), and has a
``sustainability'' mandate; it focuses on the intersection of
environmental and economic goals. Its ecosystem restoration planning
capabilities arc substantial. Given this, it would be a most
appropriate mechanism to serve as a member on, and provide technical
and secretariat support to, any body coordinating restoration plan
development and implementation.
The ``Great Lakes Federal Coordinating Council'' concept, as
embodied in the Senate bill, does have merit and responds to
inefficiencies identified in a recent U.S. General Accounting Office
report. The notion of a single, coordinated Federal appropriations
request has considerable appeal.
______
Responses of Samuel W. Speck to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Please describe how the Great Lakes Governors and
Premiers coordinate with the IJC.
Response. The Great Lakes Governors and Premiers coordinate with
the International Joint Commission on several levels. Major initiatives
of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, such as the Annex 2001 process
concerning water quantity management, provide for substantive IJC input
in an advisory capacity. In turn, multiple bodies of the IJC, including
its Water Quality Board, Boards of Control and study teams, typically
provide for State and provincial membership and consultation.
Consultations between senior staff of the IJC and interstate
organizations (i.e., Council of Great Lakes Governors, Great Lakes
Commission) are pursued on an ongoing basis to ensure coordination and
cooperation on initiatives of shared interest.
Question 2. Please provide your recommendations on how to measure
progress in restoring the Great tikes and how to define restoration.
Response. An explicit, consensus-based definition of restoration is
critically important before any planning effort and implementation
strategy is developed. Some view restoration as a return to pre-
settlement conditions, while others may take a very different view.
Unfortunately, neither the Senate nor House bills offer a deflzxition-a
problem that needs to be remedied. The Great Lakes Commission
recommends that the efinition reflect the environmental, social and
economic dimensions of the ecosystem, and the need to reinstate
beneficial uses in a manner that addresses these multiple dimensions.
More specifically, the following definition is recommended for
inclusion in legislation--``the reinstatement of beneficial uses of-the
water and related natural resources of the Great Lakes ecosystem
through projects and activities that improve environmental quality and
ensure environmentally sound and sustainable resource use.'' The 14
beneficial use impairments articulated in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement to guide Areas of Concern cleanup may provide a basis for
operationalizing this definition.
Such a definition will allow for the benchmarking of restoration
efforts with quantifiable goals, science-based indicators, and a
monitoring program that provides continuous feedback. Such functions
must be integrated into the plan development and implementation
process, and be prominently pursued and reported to ensure strong
accountability.
A sound basis for a methodology to measure progress is found in the
SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference) initiative to develop
and apply science-based indicators-This is a longstanding collaborative
effort involving agencies and organizations within and outside
government. Once fully developed and employed, such indicators will
provide a continuous means of monitoring progress and making
adjustments, as needed. The U.S. EPA and Environment Canada are
coordinating this collaborative effort. Major challenges include
resources (i.e., funding and staff) to maintain the program and ensure
long term, uninterrupted data collection and analysis. Federal
legislation should support and advance the SOLEC indicators effort.
Question 3. Please provide an inventory of all of the strategic
plans for the restoration of the Great Lakes that you are aware of that
are completed, underway or planned Identify which, from your
perspective, provide the most comprehensive approach to restoration.
Response. The Great Lakes Commission is in the process of
assembling and reviewing existing restoration plans that range from
local, topic-specific initiatives to ecosystemwidc, broad-based
efforts. The following descriptive listing is illustrative of the rich
information base from which to assemble an overarching plan or
strategy:
<bullet> The Great Lakes Commission has developed, on behalf of
its member States and provinces, a Five Year Strategic Plan (2000) that
presents a vision statement, goals, objectives and strategic actions.
Its annual U.S. Federal legislative and appropriations priorities
statement (The Great Lakes Program to Ensure Environmental and Economic
Prosperity), includes several dozen recommendations organized around
seven themes. And, previously, the Commission coordinated the
development of the Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Basin in 1995.
<bullet> State and province level initiatives exist as well. Among
others, New York has developed a 25 year Great Lakes Management Plan;
Ohio has developed a restoration plan for Lake Erie; and Michigan's
Office of the Great Lakes has issued strategic planning documents,
including a Lake Huron Initiative. Literally every Great Lakes State
and province has some type of Great Lakes strategy, whether it be
statewide, agency-specific or topic-specific. Among others, States/
provinces have plans that address one or more of the following: aquatic
nuisance species prevention and control; coastal management; nonpoint
source pollution; water use/conservation; spill prevention and
response; land use and air quality management. Further, the Congress is
presently providing substantial restoration grants to individual Great
Lakes States.
<bullet> The U.S. Policy Committee, with staff support from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Great Lakes National Program
Office) has developed a Great Lakes Strategy. The, U.S. Policy
Committee is a consortium of U.S. Federal, State and regional agencies
with responsibilities related to implementation of the Canada-U.S.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
<bullet> Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for each of the Great
Lakes, and Remedial Action Plans (RAPS) which provide restoration plans
to restore Areas of Concern specific to Great Lakes tributaries, have
been developed.
<bullet> The National Sea Grant Program maintains a Sea Grant
Network Plan that highlights the agency's role in economic leadership;
coastal ecosystem health and public safety; and education and human
resources. Complementing this are strategic plans specific to each
Great Lakes Sea Grant Program.
<bullet> The Great Lakes Fishery Commission maintains a Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries which was
developed and endorsed by Federal, State and tribal governments. It
provides the agency and its many partners with a framework for
individual and collective fisheries management activities.
<bullet> The International Joint Commission has developed a
strategic plan to guide its efforts--and those of its boards--under the
terms of the Boundary Watery Treaty of 1909 and the Canada U.S. Great
Lakes Water Qualiy Agreement of 1972 (as amended by Protocol in 1987).
<bullet> The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division) recently initiated a strategic planning process under
provisions of the John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The objective is to define
Corps authorities, inventory current activities, and document unmet
needs and partnership opportunities. The Corps has also initiated--per
congressional directive--a Great Lakes System Review Study that will
examine issues, unmet needs and opportunities associated with the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence maritime transportation system. Also, the Corps is
partnering with the Great Lakes Commission--and multiple U.S. and
Canadian agencies from the local to Federal level--on development of a
comprehensive management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair watershed.
<bullet> The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA)
crafted a strategic plan in 2000 that presents a mission statement and
a series of associated goals, related activities, products and
strategic actions. As with the other selected plans identified above,
interagency' collaboration and partnership are prominently featured.
<bullet> Canadian Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development. A Legacy Worth Protecting, released in 2001.
<bullet> Great Lakes United, Canadian Environmental Law
Association, National Wildlife Federation, Lake Michigan Federation and
Strategies St. Laurent. Water Use and Ecosystem Restoration: An Agenda
for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin, December 2000.
<bullet> The Nature Conservancy. Toward a New Conservation Vision
for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration, revised September 2000.
<bullet> Northeast-Midwest Institute. Northeast-Midwest Institute
Survey of Ecosystem Restoration Efforts, February 2002.
<bullet> U.S. EPA and Environment Canada. State of the Great Lakes
2001.
<bullet> U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Great Lakes
Ecosystem Report, December 2000.
<bullet> U.S. Geological Survey. Strategic Vision for the U.S.
Geological Survey in the Great LakesSt. Lawrence Region, 2001-2010,
released in 2002.
Complementing these activities are issue-specific strategies at the
regional level that have restoration plan relevance. Among many others
are the elements of Annex 2001 of the Great Lakes Charter signed by the
Great Lakes Governors and premiers; the strategic plans of the Great
Lakes Commission-coordinated Great Lakes Panell on Aquatic Species; and
the binational Waterways Management Forum (coordinated by the U.S.
Coast Guard).
It is essential to note that the building blocks for a large scale
restoration plan are already in place, as indicated by just the partial
list identified above. Numerous agencies at all levels of government,
as well as nongovernmental interests, maintain (or are in the process
of developing) strategic plans that can contribute to a large scale
planning effort. Duplicating past work should be avoided at all costs;
validation and enhancement of such work, where relevant, is critical.
Also needed is an effort to ``assemble, package and sell'' the
excellent work already completed.
As noted above, three existing (and complementary) documents
provide an excellent basis for a comprehensive plan: the Great Takes
Program to Ennurr Environmental and Economic Pro. perity (Great Lakes
Commission); the Council of Great Lakes Governors' restoration
priorities (as articulated in an October 1, 2003 letter to Congress);
and the Great Lakes Strategy developed by the U.S. Policy Committee
(coordinated by U.S. EPA.)
Question 4. What coordination takes place between the Great Lakes
sea lam prxy control pro ram and sea lae'njir y control pmgr-amr
throughout the nation?
Response. The Great Lakes sea lamprey control program is managed by
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission under the authority of the
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, negotiated and ratified in 1955.
The Fishery Commission has had a history of successful coordination
with the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. Among
others, this has included information exchange; technology transfer;
cooperative research; joint development of Standard Operating
Procedures; and collaboration in developing and testing alternative
control technologies.
Acting in its advocacy role on behalf of its eight member States,
the Great Lakes Commission has been an ardent supporter of the Fishery
Commission's sea lamprey control program and, more generally, of
federally funded efforts in the prevention and control of aquatic
nuisance species. Among-others, support has been vocalized for
enhancing the sea lamprey control program; passage of the National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act; funding for comprehensive State
management plans and the Great Lakes Pastel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species; and installation of best available technology on commercial
vessels to reduce/eliminate infestations and spread via ballast water.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has prepared a detailed response
to this question, and will be providing it under separate cover.
__________
Statement of Jeffrey M. Reutter, Ph.D., Director, Ohio Sea Grant
College Program, F.T. Stone Laboratory, Center for Lake Erie Area
Research (CLEAR), and Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research
Consortium, Ohio State University
``THE DEAD ZONE IN LAKE ERIE: A BRIEF HISTORY, THE CURRENT STATUS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE''
Introduction
My name is Jeffrey M. Reutter. I have been doing research on Lake
Erie, studying this wonderful resource, and teaching about it since
1971. I am the Director of the Ohio Sea Grant College Program (part of
NOAA), the F.T. Stone Laboratory (the oldest freshwater biological
field station in the country), the Center for Lake Erie Area Research
(CLEAR), and the Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium
(GLAERC). I have held these positions since 1987. I am here today to
speak to you about the area of hypoxia or anoxia in the middle of Lake
Erie, the so-called ``Dead Zone,'' to discuss its history, the current
status of the lake, and to make a few recommendations for future
action. To do this I need to tell you a little about all of the Great
Lakes, how Lake Erie differs from the other Great Lakes, and a little
basic limnology so you can understand the problem. I will build on my
testimony before this committee in July 2002 and discuss current
efforts and needs. We have also developed a poster describing this
problem with I will leave with Senator Voinovich.
Take-Home Message
While this is a very complex issue, the take-home message from my
testimony is simple. Due in part to changes brought about by invading
species, zebra and quagga mussels, reduced water levels, and global
warming, I am concerned that we are seeing indications that Lake Erie
is heading back to the conditions of the ``dead lake'' years in the
1960's and early 70's. We must determine if that assessment is
accurate, and if accurate, we must identify actions and management
strategies to minimize the damage. Finally, we must recognize that the
Central Basin of Lake Erie, because of its very unique morphometry, is
the best indicator in all of the Great Lakes of larger stresses and
problems.
Solving these problems will require coordination and collaboration
on the research front, the management front, and the outreach front.
Consequently, I am a strong supporter of recent funding from NOAA Sea
Grant to the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-Midwest Institute
to develop a Great Lakes Restoration Plan. I also strongly support
Senator Voinovich's efforts to sponsor the Great Lakes Environmental
Restoration Act and an amendment to include the Great Lakes in the
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Act. I have also recently been
appointed to the Steering Committee for the Global Ocean Observing
System (GOOS) and strongly encourage everyone to support the
development of an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) that
includes the Great Lakes. We need a string of monitoring buoys around
all of the Great Lakes.
Background and History
The Great Lakes hold 20 percent of all the freshwater in the world
and 95 percent of the freshwater in the United States. The US shoreline
of the lakes is longer than the Atlantic Coast, Gulf Coast and Pacific
Coast, if we leave out Alaska. Approximately 30 percent of the US
population lives around these lakes.
Lake Erie is the southernmost and shallowest of the Great Lakes. As
a result, it is also the warmest. It also provides drinking water to 11
million people each day. The other Great Lakes are all in excess of 750
feet deep, and Lake Superior is 1,333 feet deep. The deepest point of
Lake Erie is about 210 feet in the eastern basin, off Long Point. As a
result, Lake Erie is the smallest of the lakes by volume, and Lake
Superior is 20 times larger than Lake Erie. The watersheds around the
other four Great Lakes are all dominated by forest ecosystems. The
watershed around Lake Erie is the home to 14 million people and is
dominated by an agricultural and urban ecosystem. As a result Lake Erie
receives more sediment and more nutrients than the other Great Lakes.
Now, if Lake Erie is the southernmost, shallowest, warmest, and most
nutrient enriched of the lakes, we should expect it to be the most
productive of the Great Lakes. It is. In fact, we often produce more
fish for human consumption from Lake Erie than from the other four
lakes combined.
Lake Erie has gone from being the poster child for pollution
problems in this country to being one of the best examples in the world
of ecosystem recovery. A little over 30 years ago, 1969, the Cuyahoga
River burned and Lake Erie was labeled a dead lake. Nothing could have
been further from the truth. In reality the Lake was too alive. We had
put too many nutrients into the Lake from sewage and agricultural
runoff. These nutrients had allowed too much algae to grow, and that
algae, when it died and sank to the bottom, had used up the dissolved
oxygen in the water as the algae was decomposed by bacteria. This
sequence is a natural aging process in lakes called eutrophication, but
man had accelerated the process by 300 years by putting in too much
phosphorus. It is very similar to what we are seeing today in the Gulf
of Mexico, but the problem in salt water is nitrogen.
Scientists divide Lake Erie into three basins based on significant
differences in shape and depth. The Western Basin is the area west of
Sandusky and has an average depth on only 24 feet. The Eastern Basin is
the area east of Erie, Pennsylvania and contains the deepest point in
the Lake. The Western and Eastern Basins have irregular bottoms with a
lot of variation in depth. The Central Basin is the large area between
Sandusky and Erie. The average depth of this basin is about 60 feet and
the bottom is quite flat. Unfortunately, it is this shape that causes
this basin to be the home of the Dead Zones.
Many of you have probably experienced swimming in a pond and
noticed that the deep water was much colder than the surface water.
This layering with warm water on top because it is less dense and
lighter, and cold water on the bottom because it is heavier, is very
common in the Great Lakes. The warm surface layer is called the
epilimnion. The cold bottom layer is called the hypolimnion. The line
of rapid temperature change between the layers is called the
thermocline. In Lake Erie, these layers form in the late spring and
break up in the fall when the surface layer cools to the temperature of
the bottom layer normally in September or October.
In Lake Erie, the thermocline usually forms around 50 feet. Based
on the depths of the three basins, this means the Western Basin is too
shallow to have a thermocline except on rare occasions, the Eastern
Basin will have a thermocline and there will be a lot of water below it
in the cold hypolimnion, and the Central Basin will have a thermocline
but there will be a very thin layer of cold water under it in the
hypolimnion.
At the time the thermocline forms, there is plenty of dissolved
oxygen in the hypolimnion. However, due to its depth, there is often no
way to add oxygen to the water in the hypolimnion until the thermocline
disappears in the fall. Therefore, throughout the summer the oxygen
that was present when the thermocline formed is used by organisms
living in this area, including bacteria, which are decomposing algae as
it dies and sinks to the bottom. If large amounts of algae are dieing
and sinking, then large amounts of oxygen will be required for the
decomposition process. It should then seem logical that if we could
reduce the amount of algae, we could reduce the amount of oxygen that
would be required to decompose the algae. It should also seem logical
that if the hypolimniom was thicker (if the lake was deeper) it would
have a larger reservoir of dissolved oxygen.
Because the Western Basin seldom has a thermocline, this is not a
problem there. And, because the Eastern Basin is so deep, there is a
large reservoir of oxygen in the hypolimnion enough to last through the
summer until the thermocline disappears in the fall. The Central Basin,
however, does not have a large reservoir of water or oxygen in the
hypolimnion because the basin is not deep enough. As a result, loss of
all the oxygen, or hypoxia (levels below 2.0 ppm) or anoxia (no
oxygen), can be a serious problem in the bottom waters of the Central
Basin. Areas of anoxia were first observed as early as 1930, and by the
1960's and 1970's, as much as 90 percent or the hypolimnion in the
Central Basin was becoming anoxic each year. This is why Lake Erie was
labeled a ``dead lake.'' When an area becomes anoxic, nothing but
anaerobic bacteria can live there. Also, this water creates severe
taste and odor problems if it is drawn in by water treatment plants
servicing the population surrounding the Lake.
To reduce the amount of algae in the Lake, we needed to reduce the
amount of the limiting nutrient. By ``limiting nutrient,'' I mean the
essential nutrient that is in the shortest supply. Without this
nutrient algae cannot grow and reproduce. In freshwater this nutrient
is phosphorus. In 1969, we were loading about 29,000 metric tons of
phosphorus into Lake Erie each year. Our models told us that in order
to keep dissolved oxygen in the Central Basin, we needed to reduce the
annual loading of phosphorus to 11,000 metric tons. This was
accomplished and the recovery of the Lake has been truly remarkable.
The walleye harvest from the Ohio waters jumped from 112,000 in 1976 to
5 million in 1988 and the value of this fishery exceeds the value of
the lobster fishery in the Gulf of Maine. Small businesses associated
with charter fishing increased from 34 in 1975 to about 900 today, and
Lake Erie became the ``Walleye Capital of the World.''
Then on 15 October 1988, we documented the first zebra mussel in
Lake Erie. Recognizing the significance of this discovery, Ohio Sea
Grant initiated a research project on 15 November to document the
expansion of the mussels. One year later, the densities in the Western
Basin had reached 30,000 per square meter. Their impact was so great
that in 1993 I addressed the International Joint Commission and asked
them to create a special task force to try to understand the huge
changes that were occurring in Lake Erie. I was asked to be US Co-Chair
of the Lake Erie Task Force for the International Joint Commission from
1994-1997 as we developed models to better understand the impact of the
zebra mussel on the ecosystem of the Lake.
In 1998 I formed the Phosphorus Group, a group of about 50
scientists from the US and Canada to discuss phosphorus levels to
determine if they might have gotten too low and were harming the
fishery at that point the walleye fishery had been reduced by about 60
percent and the smelt population had been decimated. This group
concluded that based on changes in the system caused by zebra mussels,
adding more phosphorus would create more zebra mussels and more
inedible, blue-green algae.
At the end of 1998, Drs. Jan Ciborowski (University of Windsor),
Murray Charlton (National Water Research Institute of Canada), Russ
Kreis (US EPA) and I formed the Lake Erie at the Millennium Program to
continue to lead discussions and focus attention on the huge changes
that were occurring in Lake Erie. We have documented a number of new
invaders to the Lake, including the round goby, and have observed the
gradual transition from zebra mussels to quagga mussels, a relative of
the zebra mussel, but a species we know much less about.
In the mid-1990's, US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) observed an increase in phosphorus levels in Lake Erie and the
increasing trend has continued. They also observed areas of anoxia in
the Central Basin that showed indications of growth. In 1996 we
observed a bloom of blue-green algae in the Western Basin an indication
that phosphorus levels were high. In 2001 we saw more indications that
dissolved oxygen levels were critically low, and we observed that
mayfly larvae had been eradicated from several regions a clear
indication that oxygen had been eliminated. We also observed reduced
water transparency over the artificial reefs we had worked with the
city of Cleveland to produce from old Brown's Stadium another
indication of an anoxic hypolimnion.
The above information was shared with the GLNPO and they asked me
to bring together a group of Lake Erie experts for a meeting in their
Chicago offices on 13 December 2001 to discuss the problems we were
observing in Lake Erie and strategize about solutions. As a result of
this meeting, GLNPO issued a call for research proposals in January
2002 and fund a 1-year project lead by Dr. Gerry Matisoff, Case Western
Reserve University, and the four scientists mentioned above from the
Millennium Program, to attempt to better understand the dissolved
oxygen problem in Lake Erie. This project included many scientists on
both sides of the border and results have been presented in May 2003 at
the Millennium Conference and at IAGLR.
Current State of the Lake
GLNPO recently completed another science cruise aboard the Lake
Guardian from 14-19 August. Preliminary results from this cruise
indicate that hypoxia was evident at half of the stations and only 20
percent of the stations showed dissolved oxygen levels about 4 ppm, the
minimum level for most fish species. In June of this year, Ohio Sea
Grant and Stone Laboratory placed a monitoring instrument one foot
above the bottom at a station approximately seven miles north of Huron,
Ohio in an area we call the Sandusky Sub-basin. This instrument, a YSI
6600, makes hourly readings of dissolved oxygen and five other
parameters. This site was chosen because it is among the most
productive sites in the entire lake and it was the first area to
exhibit anoxia as early as 1930. This year hypoxia was first observed
at this site on 4 August, and a low value of 0.2 ppm was observed on 8
August. Oxygen is not likely to return to these stations until the lake
turns over during a storm this fall when the upper warm layer cools to
a temperature almost equal to the cold bottom layer. It is also
important to note the Microcystis sp., a harmful form of algae that
produces the toxin microcystin, has been increasing in density in the
Western Basin for the past 2 weeks and is nearing bloom levels.
I believe the oxygen problem is real and that it is growing. There
are clearly a number of exacerbating conditions that are causing this.
It now appears clear that Lake Erie has been gradually warming for the
past 100 years, that phosphorus concentrations having been increasing
since 1995, and that the water level has fallen sharply since 1997.
Together, these conditions reduce the amount of oxygen available in the
hypolimnion of the Central Basin and accelerate the use of the oxygen
that is available. It also appears likely that zebra mussels and quagga
mussels are exacerbating the problem by releasing phosphorus and
allowing it to cycle more frequently through the system.
Recommendations
Needs:
<bullet> Reduce the amount of phosphorus entering Lake Erie
difficult, but possible.
<bullet> Eliminate zebra and quagga mussels difficult and probably
not possible.
<bullet> Eliminate global warming difficult and most people don't
even realize it is a very serious problem.
<bullet> Increase the water level of Lake Erie currently Mother
Nature holds all of the cards and models of how global warming will
affect this indicate that levels are likely to go down.
The dead zone problem in the Central Basin of Lake Erie should be a
wake-up call for all of us. The ecosystem in the Great Lakes cannot be
taken for granted. We badly need a huge influx of Federal funding on
the scale of that used for the Florida Everglades to address the
recovery of the Great Lakes Ecosystem from the dissolved oxygen
problems to contaminated sediment and harmful algal blooms. We should
all support Senator Voinovich's efforts to sponsor the Great Lakes
Environmental Restoration Act and an amendment to include the Great
Lakes in the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Act. The Senator has lead
efforts in the past to improve sewage treatment capabilities. We must
get behind him again to eliminate combined sewers and problems like
those that occurred here in Cleveland at the sewage treatment plants
during the 14 August blackout.
We badly need a coordinated plan that includes and coordinates that
activities of all agencies. Some of us will be leaders and some of us
must accept roles as team players. Currently, there are too many cooks
in the kitchen when it comes to managing the Great Lakes Ecosystem. We
need better coordination. We should all support the recent funding from
NOAA Sea Grant to the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-Midwest
Institute to develop a Great Lakes Restoration Plan.
Finally, I have also recently been appointed to the Steering
Committee for the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and strongly
encourage everyone to support the development of an Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS) that includes the Great Lakes. We need a string
of monitoring buoys around all of the Great Lakes so we are never
caught off guard.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of Elaine Marsh, Ohio Greenways
I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to speak with you this
morning about my experiences working on two collaborative efforts. I am
Elaine Marsh, Project Director of Ohio Greenways. For the past 6 years,
I have served as Lake Erie Director on the Board of Trustees for Great
Lakes United. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Voinovich
for holding these hearings, for his consistent efforts on behalf of the
Great Lakes and for his support a Great Lakes Restoration Plan.
Great Lakes United is an international coalition of individuals and
over 170 organizations representing hundreds of thousands of citizens
from the eight Great Lakes States, two Canadian provinces and tribal
territories within the Great Lakes region. Our main constituents are
environmental organizations like National Wildlife Federation, Sierra
Club, the Ohio Environmental, the Kent Environmental Council and
EcoCity Cleveland; conservation organizations like Trout Unlimited; and
labor groups and civic organizations like United Auto Workers and the
Great Lakes Chapter of the League of Women Voters. We work at the
local, regional and international level on projects, programs and
policies to protect and restore the Great Lakes--St Lawrence River
ecosystem.
To that end, we developed A Citizens' Action Agenda for Restoring
the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Ecosystem. Two years ago, we at
Great Lakes United became convinced that expanded Federal action to
protect the Great Lakes might be a real possibility. During the 2001
annual spring get-togethers organized separately by the Northeast-
Midwest Institute and the Great Lakes Commission, we had occasion to
talk to Members of Congress and their staff. Those conversations
suggested that there was growing frustration with the existing approach
of dealing with Great Lakes issues on a project-by-project basis within
a convoluted and uncoordinated framework.
We concluded from those meetings that the region needed a
comprehensive approach that could be broadly supported by the States
and their publics. We at Great Lakes United thought that both State and
Federal Great Lakes officials might be considering comprehensive Great
Lakes action. We thought it was imperative that the Great Lakes public
be in on the ground floor of any new protection effort. We also thought
it would be ideal for the public to approach restoration both
collectively and comprehensively, and to address any new Federal effort
with as unified a voice as possible.
For the next 18 months, we worked on what evolved into the Great
Lakes Green Book that you have before you. Our first objective was to
involve every major organization in the Great Lakes basin, on both
sides of the U.S.-Canada border. We included all interest parties,
members and non-members alike. We wanted to construct an agenda that
addressed all of the major issue areas impacting the Great Lakes
ecosystem. We wanted to include both project-oriented and policy-type
solutions. Finally, we wanted to make sure that the resulting document
was not just the work of Great Lakes ``insiders,'' but a representative
statement by all those with an interest in regional environmental
issues.
We started by dividing the problems besetting the Great Lakes
ecosystem into seven general restoration issue areas:
1. Toxic Clean Up
2. Clean Production
3. Green Energy
4. Sustaining and Restoring Water Quantities and Flows
5. Protecting and Restoring Species
6. Protecting and Restoring Habitat
7. Water and Air Quality Standards
Next, we established self-selected working groups to draft plans
for each of these areas. Each of the seven draft plans was circulated
to all organizations and individuals interested in the relevant issue
area. After rewrites based on resulting comments, the whole plan,
including all seven issue areas and an introduction, was sent out by
surface as well as electronic mail to general announcement lists and
all members of the public we thought might be interested. Each section
was rewritten again based on the resulting comment, and the whole plan
was sent out one last time to the Great Lakes community for final
comment. Great Lakes United released the Citizens' Action Agenda for
Restoring the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Ecosystem this past June
at our annual meeting. I have brought a couple copies of the agenda in
its entirety.
The Green Book you have before you is the executive summary of the
agenda. The Green Book begins with a statement of our purpose and a
statement of the critical condition of the Great Lakes. Next, each of
the seven sections begins with a brief discussion of the problem and a
list of recommended actions, including timetables. For example, in the
Toxic Cleanup section, the first category of actions, very relevant to
today's proceedings, is ``Provide adequate funding for cleanup of Areas
of Concern.'' Several action items relating to AOC's follow. Other
categories in this section are Building and Engage Healthy Communities
with actions related to public education on health issues, Coordinating
Toxic Cleanup Efforts, Treating Contaminants, and Contaminated Land and
Groundwater Sites. Likewise, the six remaining issue areas are divided
categories and related actions. If you would like, I could walk you
through particular sections.
Senator, I know that you are interested in hearing about how
collaborative efforts might support the pending legislation on Great
Lakes restoration. I would like to give another example of my
experiences here in Ohio. As Project Director of Ohio Greenways, I
worked with the Ohio Conservation and
Environmental Forum to inform the legislative process and support
the Clean Ohio Fund. The $400 million bound fund was initiated in 2000
by Governor Taft to finance brownfield revitalization, natural resource
projects, and farmland preservation projects. Coordinated by the Ohio
League of Conservation Voters, more than thirty organizations put their
resources and expertise together and, over a twelve-month period,
drafted the ``Blueprint for the Clean Ohio Fund.'' Several copies are
circulating. This document clearly stated our priorities for funding
projects, identified desired administrative procedures, and defined
criteria both for the selection and exclusion of projects. The document
was released to the media and distributed to the legislature. It was
the central focus of our educational efforts with the public. It served
as point and counter-point to the treatises produced by members of the
administration and other interested parities.
I believe that I can unequivocally state that Blueprint had a
profound and positive effect on the outcome of the Clean Ohio Fund. It
is a possible approach for a Great Lakes Restoration Plan.
I would like to conclude by examining the remarkable capacity of
the Great Lakes public as demonstrated by the Citizens' Action Agenda.
It is comprehensive in scope and specific in recommendations. The power
of the document and its broad support is derived from the inclusive
process used in its production. Likewise, we think extensive public
involvement in any comprehensive restoration effort will greatly
strengthen that effort. The production of the Green Book clearly
demonstrates that the Great Lake public has the capacity to play a
constructive role in any comprehensive restoration effort. We encourage
you to engage the public, early and often, and we offer our assistance
in that effort. And, while we are not prepared to discuss priorities at
this time, using the Green Book as a basis, we could help the basin
public come to consensus in prioritizing Great Lake restoration
projects as they might relate to legislated funding.
We laud you for your efforts on behalf of our Great Lakes, and we
thank you for the opportunity to talk about our Citizen's Agenda.
______
Responses of Elaine Marsh to an Additional Question from Senator Inhofe
Question. I was very impressed when reading about the local effort
that resulted in The Green Book for Great Lakes restoration efforts.
Such local public enthusiasm and nearly 200 programs identified by the
General Accounting Office in its report A Coordinated Strategic Plan
and Monitoring System Are Needed to Achieve Restoration Goals is not
indicative of a need for more Federal involvement but rather help with
coordination. The Great Lakes are fortunate in that they appear to have
an active citizenry, active community groups and concerned State and
local governments already engaged and eager to help.
With so many citizen groups involved as well as State and local
organizations, could one of these organizations coordinate the broader
effort with Federal guidance but not necessarily Federal leadership,
which has thus far failed to result in a comprehensive approach?
Response. Great Lakes United and other regional non-governmental
organizations are prepared to partner in restoration with leaders in
our Great Lakes city, State, and Federal Governments, and other basin
government entities such as Ontario, Quebec, First Nations and tribes.
However, as a non-governmental organization, our capacity to act as
coordinator of all these actors is limited.
While some progress in Great Lakes restoration and protection has
been made in the last three decades, the Federal role in Great Lakes
environmental affairs has so far not resulted in as rapid or as
comprehensive an approach to protection and restoration as either the
States or the regional public would have liked. We believe this state
of affairs has two causes. First, no Federal agency was ever tasked to
coordinate basin environmental programs. Second, basin States have had
a predominant say in how Federal environmental programs in the region
have been carried out, but until recently chosen not to exercise that
say in a unified manner.
The current initiative comes in the context of a declared interest
by the region in a unified, comprehensive, coordinated approach to
restoration, most recently expressed last week by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors in their release of ``priorities'' for basin
environmental restoration.
The restoration bills introduced in the Congress reflect the new
reality of regional interest in unified, coordinated, comprehensive
restoration and a substantial Federal role in that restoration. The
House and Senate bills have substantial differences, but both propose a
central role for State leadership in decisionmaking, in the context of
Federal resources and coordination.
We think the bills' various ideas for a Great Lakes advisory board
led by the States and a Great Lakes Federal coordinating council led by
the Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program
Office are the beginning of a plan for a comprehensive approach that
could effectively protect and restore the largest freshwater ecosystem
on earth.
______
Responses of Elaine Marsh to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. What groups does Great Lakes United recommend be at the
table as we start to develop an overall Great Lakes restoration
strategic plan?
Response. We think the regional environmental groups should be at
the table, including the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes
office, the Sierra Club's Great Lakes Program, the Lake Michigan
Federation, the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund, and Great
Lakes United. Perhaps there should also be a role for one or two basin
environmental ``practitioners''--organizations actually carrying out
restoration activities already. Two or three seats could be rotated
among all these groups to keep the table small enough to be workable
and also so as not to overtax the capacity of any one group. Basin
environmental groups in turn would continue to share information with
each other, with our associated or member groups, and with our State,
provincial, and local partners in restoration.
We also think there should be an observer role for a
nongovernmental organization from Canada, just as governmental
direction of any plan or effort should include incorporate consultation
with basin Tribes and the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Quebec.
Question 2. How do you recommend we develop a comprehensive
restoration plan while continuing programs that are currently
successful and not delaying progress?
Response. We answer this question on the basis of a universal point
agreed to by all regional stakeholders: funding and resources are
needed now to address the broad range of ecological threats already
known to exist. A vast body of evidence shows that invasive species,
sewage overflows, pollution, habitat destruction, and wasteful water
uses, among other problems, continue to put the Great Lakes and its
basin ecosystem at risk. Our first concern is that short-term action
and longer-term prioritization and planning take place at the same
time.
We believe that both short-term actions and long-term planning
require regional leadership and extensive public involvement. As a
result, we do not think that either element of Great Lakes restoration
should be directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, although the
agency doubtless must play a significant role in carrying out
restoration activities.
In the short term, the bodies proposed in the bills, the State
advisory board and Federal coordinating committee, or their equivalent,
with significant public representation, should agree annually upon a
set of priority projects to be funded in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and
2006. In later fiscal years, the priorities outlined in a long-term
planning document would guide funding.
For the longer term, we believe that a comprehensive restoration
plan should be created, but we do not recommend that it be developed
from scratch. Rather, we recommend that Federal, State, local, and
other interests draw from the myriad existing plans that already exist
to come up with long-term restoration priorities. Among such existing
plans are the Bush Administration's Great Lakes Strategy 2002, the
Lakewide-Area Management Plans, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, Great Lakes United's Green Book, and many others. Years, and
in some cases decades, of work by agencies and stakeholders have gone
into these plans to identify threats and identify ways to address them.
The express and implied priorities outlined in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement should be paid special attention, as they are a
solemn commitment of the United States to Canada.
To carry out this longer-term planning, we recommend the creation
of an independent task force that would distill priorities from
existing plans and identify emerging issues within 2 years of passage
of restoration legislation. The independent task force could be
directed by bipartisan figures appointed by the Governors of the eight
Great Lakes States in consultation with the region's mayors. The task
force should engage significant interested sectors of basin society,
including tribes; it should submit a draft proposed plan after 1 year
for wide public comment; and it should deliver a final product to
Congress after one more year.
Great Lakes regional environmental groups are prepared to convene a
first meeting early next year, with your help as appropriate, to bring
the region's major stakeholders together to determine criteria for
selecting the first set of commonly agreed-upon projects.
Question 3. Including the bill that I cosponsored (S. 1398), I have
seen different mechanisms proposed to coordinate Great Lakes programs,
such as a task force. What do you think would work best?
Response. With respect to ongoing coordination of Great Lakes
programs, the model proposed in the Senate bill appears the most
effective. However, we think final restoration legislation should have
stronger basic restoration principles and mechanisms for accountability
and public participation than are currently found in either the House
or Senate bills.
We are meeting with the regional environmental groups mentioned
above to develop specific recommendations as to how this might be done.
Regional environmental groups will provide a coordinated response to
House and Senate staff by the end of October.
<all>