<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:88934.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-201
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: NO DIRECTION, UNKNOWN PROGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
88-934 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joyce Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
------
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Andrew Richardson, Staff Director
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Cynthia Simmons, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Durbin............................................... 4
WITNESSES
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio.......... 7
Hon. Carl Levin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan....... 9
John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. General Accounting Office................................. 12
Robyn Thorson, Region III Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service........................................................ 13
Thomas V. Skinner, Region V Administrator, and National Program
Manager for the Great Lakes, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 15
Col. William E. Ryan, III, Deputy Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division, Army Corps of Engineers........................ 17
Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 19
Dennis L. Schornack, Chairman, U.S. Section, International Joint
Commission..................................................... 27
Hon. Susan Garrett, Illinois State Senator, District 29.......... 29
Christopher Jones, Director, Environmental Protection Agency,
State of Ohio, on behalf of the Great Lakes Governors.......... 31
Margaret Wooster, Executive Director, Great Lakes United......... 33
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
DeWine, Hon. Mike:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Garrett, Hon. Susan:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 228
Jones, Christopher:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 233
Kenney, Timothy R.E.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 181
Levin, Hon. Carl:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Ryan, Col. William E., III:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 176
Schornack, Dennis L.:
Testimony.................................................... 27
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 190
Skinner, Thomas V.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 164
Stephenson, John:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 50
Thorson, Robyn:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 161
Wooster, Margaret:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 237
Appendix
Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., President/Chief Executive Officer,
Great Lakes Commission, prepared statement with an attachment
entitled ``Restore the Greatness!''............................ 240
David Dempsey, Policy Advisor, Michigan Environmental Council,
prepared statement............................................. 258
Response to a factual question regarding the recent hearing from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Senator Voinovich, dated
Aug. 22, 2003.................................................. 262
Response to question for Mr. Skinner............................. 264
Responses to questions for Col. Ryan............................. 266
Responses to questions for Mr. Keeney............................ 268
Responses to questions for Mr. Schornack......................... 270
Response to question for Mr. Jones............................... 286
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: NO DIRECTION, UNKNOWN PROGRESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Durbin, and Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. The hearing will come to order. Good
morning and thank you for coming. We are here today to discuss
what I believe is one of the most pressing environmental issues
facing our Nation--restoration of the Great Lakes.
This hearing is entitled, ``Great Lakes Restoration
Management: No Direction, Unknown Progress.'' Specifically, the
hearing will focus on a recent report by the General Accounting
Office concerning the Federal and State environmental programs
operating in the Great Lakes basin and the funding devoted to
them. This GAO report evaluates the restoration strategies used
and how they are coordinated and assesses the overall
environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort.
Thirty-seven years ago, when I saw firsthand the effects of
pollution on Lake Erie and the surrounding region, I knew that
we needed to do something to protect our environment and the
Great Lakes. At the time, Lake Erie was suffering from
eutrophication and was known worldwide as a dying lake. It was
the poster child for a dying lake. The decline was heavily
covered by the media and became an international symbol. I
remember British Broadcasting coming to Ohio and doing a
documentary on it.
I made a commitment then, as a State legislator, to do
everything possible to stop the deterioration of Lake Erie and
wage what I refer to as the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie,'' to
reclaim and restore Ohio's Great Lake.
I have continued this fight throughout my career, as county
commissioner, State legislator, Lieutenant Governor, Mayor of
Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and now U.S. Senator. I consider
my efforts to preserve and protect Lake Erie and all of the
Great Lakes to be among the most significant of my career, and
for that matter, of my life.
Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since the mid-
1960's. Today, people can enjoy Lake Erie. It is a habitat to
countless species of wildlife, a vital resource for the area's
tourism, transportation, recreation industries, and the main
source of drinking water for many Ohioans. Lake Erie is
currently Ohio's greatest natural resource. Together, the Great
Lakes make up the largest body of fresh water in the world,
providing 40 million people in the United States and Canada
with drinking water.
Although we have made progress in our restoration efforts,
there is much more that needs to be done to improve and protect
the Great Lakes. I emphasize that this is an urgent need that
deserves and demands a well-coordinated effort, one that cannot
be met by simply adding individual programs to those that
already exist.
The GAO made it clear in its report--released earlier this
year, entitled ``An Overall Strategy and Indicators for
Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration
Goals''--that the number of programs is not the problem.
Rather, the report states that while there are many Federal,
State, and local programs, restoration of the Great Lakes is
being hindered because there is little coordination and no
unified strategy for those activities.
Furthermore, the GAO found that although more than $1
billion has been spent on restoration efforts on the Great
Lakes since 1992, it is not possible to assess comprehensive
restoration progress because overall indicators for the Great
Lakes do not exist.
I do not know which is worse, the fact that GAO came to
these conclusions or that I have not found anyone that is
surprised by them.
The GAO recommended that the Environmental Protection
Agency oversee these efforts to ensure that the programs are
coordinated, that there is a comprehensive Great Lakes
strategy, and that environmental indicators are developed to
measure restoration progress.
This week, I joined Senators DeWine and Levin in
cosponsoring the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration,
Protection, and Recovery Act, which is S. 1398. This bill
responds to the GAO report and to my long-held concerns about
Great Lakes restoration. In short, this bill moves us closer to
our goal of restoring the Great Lakes by providing funding and
promoting coordination. Expanding on the Lake Erie Water
Quality Index that I released in 1998 as Governor of Ohio, the
bill directs the EPA to create a series of indicators of water
quality and other factors for all of the Great Lakes.
Restoring the Great Lakes could be the greatest legacy any
of us will leave on this earth. We must work hard to ensure
that the progress we have made continues.
As many of you know, I was intimately involved in the
creation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. As
Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee,
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I was proud
to be a sponsor of the Water Resource Development Act of 2000,
which approved this ambitious plan. Earlier this year, I spoke
at the 11th Annual Everglades Coalition Conference in Florida.
I told them--let me quote from my statement--``What I would
love to do as Senator is to be able to put the same kind of
coalition together that you have been able to do for the
Everglades for the Great Lakes.'' This is my dream, to put
together a comprehensive restoration plan for the Great Lakes.
Right now, we have the mayors getting together. That is
wonderful. The governors are developing priorities and
objectives, a coalition of groups--the Great Lakes United--have
put together a restoration agenda. And we here in Congress have
put forth proposals earlier this week.
However, the fact of the matter is that if we are going to
get something done, we need to create a symbiotic relationship
with all of the public and private players in the United States
and Canada in order to develop a comprehensive restoration plan
for the Great Lakes. I am most interested in hearing from the
witnesses today on how we can get this done.
I also look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
about this GAO report, and to hearing their recommendations for
the current restoration programs in the Great Lakes, as well as
possible next steps to address this problem. I want to hear
your views on our new legislation, S. 1398. We have an
impressive lineup of witnesses this morning and I look forward
to a very informative discussion.
I am pleased today to welcome two of my friends and
colleagues, Senator Mike DeWine, the senior Senator from Ohio,
and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who will testify first this
morning. I commend them on their excellent leadership as co-
chairmen of the Great Lakes Task Force. I look forward to their
valuable input on this subject, especially since they requested
the GAO report we are discussing today, and I thank you both
for doing that because that puts us in a framework where we can
move.
On our second panel, we will hear from people who conducted
the study at GAO and from several Federal agencies that are
involved programmatically with the Great Lakes, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Tom Skinner is here, EPA's Region V Administrator, who I
had a chance to meet with yesterday, and I look forward to his
testimony on the role of the Great Lakes National Program
Office in managing the various environmental programs.
And the third and final panel includes the Chairman of the
United States Section of the International Joint Commission,
Dennis Schornack, whom I have known for many years. He worked
for Governor Engler in Michigan. I also welcome his
counterpart, the Chairman of the Canadian Section, Herb Gray.
Herb, I am very happy that you are here today. I know that Mr.
Gray is aware that the subject of restoration of the Great
Lakes has been a burning issue for the U.S. and Canadian Inter-
parliamentary Group that I have had the pleasure of
participating in over the past years, along with Senator
DeWine.
Also on the third panel is Illinois State Senator Susan
Garrett, and Chris Jones, Director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, who will testify on behalf of the Council of
Great Lakes Governors.
And finally, Margaret Wooster from Great Lakes United will
testify. Great Lakes United is a U.S. and Canadian coalition
dedicated to preserving and restoring the Great Lakes. Last
August, I held an Environment and Public Works Committee field
hearing in Cleveland, Ohio, that examined the increasingly
extensive oxygen depletion, or hypoxia, in the central basin of
Lake Erie. Great Lakes United testified at that hearing and was
extremely helpful in shedding some light on the problem and in
offering possible solutions.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Wooster
about a recent report that Great Lakes United released on how
to clean up the Great Lakes. I look forward to hearing more
about those recommendations for restoration in her testimony
today.
I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, my
good friend, Senator Durbin from Illinois. Senator, a lot of
the activity by the governors is centered in Illinois through
the leadership of Governor Daley and I would appreciate hearing
from you today.
I am going to remind any of the other Senators that show up
today that I am going to request that they submit their
statements in writing so that we can get it in the record and
get on with the witnesses.
Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your
leadership on this hearing and I would like to have my entire
statement be made part of the record. At this point, I would
like to summarize it very quickly.
I would like to salute my colleagues, Senators Carl Levin
and Mike DeWine. I think what we have demonstrated here is a
bipartisan effort to deal with a national treasure, our Great
Lakes.
My statement outlines the history of the development of the
City of Chicago and the expansion of the Nation's economy
through Lake Michigan. Several things I would like to note
publicly. Congress recognized the importance of Chicago's
harbor, appropriating $247,000 for its development by the end
of 1844. By the late 1800's, the people of Illinois saw the
great economic potential of Lake Michigan, but also saw
problems. Sewage flowing through the Chicago River into Lake
Michigan caused serious public health concerns.
In 1887, Chicagoans decided to embark on their first Great
Lakes restoration effort. They boldly dared to reverse the flow
of the Chicago River to stop the sewage in that body of water
from flowing into Lake Michigan, their drinking water source. I
have a place in Chicago overlooking Lake Michigan. I can still
look out every morning and see the water intakes that were
built in that era so that they could go further offshore to
draw the water, which might be a little cleaner and purer, for
the people to drink. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago successfully reversed the flow of the Chicago
River by 1900 and alleviated chronic pollution problems.
A hundred years later, Lake Michigan, as many of the Great
Lakes, remains a vital economic engine for my State and
surrounding States, but it has terrific environmental
challenges. It is the largest body of fresh water entirely
within the boundaries of the United States. This Great Lake
extends along 63 miles of shoreline in Illinois, provides
drinking water for six million people in Illinois. The lake
also continues to serve as a great avenue for commerce, and
despite all of this, Lake Michigan is in trouble.
Illinois has Lake Michigan fish consumption advisories due
to unhealthy levels of mercury, chlordane, and PCBs. The Lake
Michigan area at Waukegan is contaminated due to industrial
activity throughout the last century. There are several
Superfund sites in the area, some of which have been cleaned up
to a large extent, but a great deal of the work still remains
to be done. And, of course, there is a great concern about the
invasive fish species, such as the Asian carp.
We need to be bold in addressing this, and I salute my
colleagues for their leadership in this legislation responding
to the GAO report which they requested. Those who reversed the
flow of the Chicago River knew that bold steps were necessary
to reverse the trend of environmental degradation of our
precious Great Lakes. Thanks to similar efforts, our ecosystems
in our country have begun to be restored, including the
Chesapeake Bay and the Florida Everglades. It is interesting to
me that the challenge has been made that we who live near the
Great Lakes have to show the same concern as our colleagues
have shown when it comes to the Florida Everglades and
Chesapeake Bay. I accept that challenge, and I think this
legislation responds to it.
Yet, despite all of our good intentions and all of our
ambitions, the GAO makes it clear we don't have our act
together. State and Federal agencies and local agencies of
government just are not on the same page, talking about the
future of the Great Lakes. I think this legislation will help
change this. This legislation enhances the coordinating
functions of the EPA. Tom Skinner is here, my friend from
Region V in the State of Illinois. He understands that. State
Senator Susan Garrett is here, who represents a district right
on Lake Michigan, and she understands that, as well, and I am
glad that she is going to be adding testimony.
This is a great starting point. I look forward to hearing
further thoughts from our panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared opening statement of Senator Durbin follows:]
OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
I want to thank my colleague and fellow Great Lakes Senator, George
Voinovich, for calling this important hearing today and I also would
like to welcome two of my colleagues and constituents, Susan Garrett
and Tom Skinner.I74Lake Michigan's Role in Illinois History
The history of Chicago, the largest American city that borders the
Great Lakes, is directly linked to Lake Michigan.
The Miami Indians of the Illiniwek Tribe, settled in a village they
called ``Che-cau-gou'' on the southern extremity of Lake Michigan in
the 1640's.
By 1682, French explorer La Salle claimed the Mississippi River
Valley for France and called the portage he crossed from St. Joseph
River in Michigan to the Illinois River the ``Chicago Portage,'' after
the Miami Indians' name for the region.
Chicago Portage became an important point linking Lake Michigan to
several rivers in the region.
In 1795, the U.S. gained control of a tract of land at the mouth of
the Chicago River, which became the site for Fort Dearborn.
Chicago, in turn, rapidly became the leading port in the West.
Between 1833 and 1839 the annual average import trade for Chicago
was $1.5 million and the export trade was $350,000.
Clearly, Lake Michigan was one of the chief economic engines behind
the development of Chicago and the rest of Illinois.
Congress, recognizing the importance of Chicago's harbor,
appropriated $247,000 for its development by the end of 1844.
By the late 1800's, the people of Illinois experienced the effects
of environmental degradation of Lake Michigan: Sewage that flowed
through the Chicago river into Lake Michigan caused plagues of typhoid
fever, cholera and dysentery.
In 1887, Chicagoans decided to embark on their first Great Lakes
restoration effort: They boldly dared to reverse the flow of the
Chicago River, to stop the sewage in that body of water from flowing
into Lake Michigan, their drinking water source.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago successfully
reversed the flow of the Chicago River by 1900, thereby alleviating the
chronic pollution problems.
Lake Michigan Today
One hundred years later, Lake Michigan remains a vital economic
engine for Illinois and other surrounding states, but it also continues
to experience environmental challenges.
Lake Michigan is the largest body of fresh water entirely within
the boundaries of the United States.
The Great Lake extends along 63 miles of shoreline in Illinois.
It provides drinking water for six million people in Illinois.
The lake also continues to serve as an avenue for commerce.
Despite all of the positive aspects, Lake Michigan is troubled.
Illinois has Lake Michigan fish consumption advisories due to
unhealthy levels of mercury, chlordane and PCBs.
The Lake Michigan shore at Wauykegan, IL is contaminated, due to
industrial activity there throughout the last century.
There are several Superfund sites in this area, some of which have
been cleaned up to a large extent, but the work has yet to be
completed, primarily due to a lack of funding.
The latest threat to Lake Michigan are two types of Asian carp,
bighead and silver, which we are trying to stop from reaching Lake
Michigan. These carp can grow to more than 100 pounds and 40 inches
long and could cause untold damage to the Great Lakes due to their
voracious appetites.
What Next
We need to be bold, like those who reversed the flow of the Chicago
River, and reverse the trend of environmental degradation of our
precious Great Lakes.
Thanks to coordinated efforts and significant funding, other
ecosystems in our country have begun to be restored, including the
Chesapeake Bay and the Florida Everglades ($7 billion authorized so
far, could be up to $14 billion total).
Yet, despite all of the well-intentioned organizations and programs
in the Great Lakes, there is still a lack of coordination and funding.
That is why I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation with Senators
DeWine, Levin and Voinovich, to create a $6 billion investment in the
Great Lakes over 10 years.
This legislation would enhance the coordinating functions of EPA,
establish an Advisory Board with a variety of stakeholders, including
representatives of the Cities Initiative started by Mayor Daley of
Chicago, and create ways to measure progress.
I believe this is a good starting point, and I look forward to
hearing further thoughts from our panelists.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for your
statement.
If there are no objections, all other Senators' statements
will be submitted for the record and we will proceed to take
the testimony of Senator DeWine and Senator Levin.
I would like to also welcome Senator Coleman from Minnesota
here this morning. Norm, thanks very much for being here.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Senator DeWine.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want
to congratulate you and thank you, as well as Senator Durbin
and Senator Coleman, for your great commitment to the Great
Lakes. I know all three of you have a longstanding commitment,
not only from a personal point of view, but in a public policy
point of view, to the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator DeWine appears in the
Appendix on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I know of your great love and great
commitment to the Great Lakes. You fish in the Great Lakes
often. You tell me about your fishing prowess in the Great
Lakes---- [Laughter.]
And give me the fishing report quite often. I am jealous
when I hear about it. I also know that you live within walking
distance of Lake Erie and you understand about the Great Lakes.
As mayor and as governor, you had a great commitment to the
Great Lakes. You did a great deal. You continue to work very
hard for the Great Lakes. The fact that you are holding this
hearing today shows your continued commitment and I look
forward to working with you and the other Members of this
Subcommittee to enhance the Great Lakes.
I am delighted to be here with my colleague from Michigan.
I think it says a great deal. Senator Levin and I, as co-chairs
of the Great Lakes Task Force, a Republican from the State of
Ohio and a Democrat from the State of Michigan, are
cosponsoring S. 1398. It is something when two people, one from
Ohio, one from Michigan, can get together on anything. But we
are together. We have worked together on many things. But we
put this bill together, we worked very hard together, and we
are glad to have the members of this panel as cosponsors of
this bill.
It is about time, frankly. We all have talked about the
Great Lakes. We have talked about the need for an overriding
vision for the Great Lakes. We prepared for this bill and now
it is time to introduce it and now it is time to move forward.
What we are saying with this particular bill is that there
needs to be a national policy for the Great Lakes. We need to
have a national vision for the Great Lakes. And finally, we
need to have a national commitment to the Great Lakes.
We have all worked, all of us in this room have worked on a
kind of a piecemeal basis in the past to help the Great Lakes,
and each one of us in this room can point to different things
that we have done for the Great Lakes. But what we need now to
do is to wrap that all together and to look forward, not just a
year or 2 years or 5 years, but say, what do we want to
accomplish for the next 10 years and what is going to be the
commitment of this country, because this is truly, as Senator
Durbin has said and as you have said, Mr. Chairman, a national
treasure. It is a national treasure that we have to preserve,
we have to enhance so that we can hand down to our children and
our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and that is our
moral obligation. We have an obligation to do that, and that is
what we are saying with this bill.
We have, frankly, waited long enough to turn the talk into
action, because the sad fact is that for all the good work we
have done in the past, and there has been great work done by so
many people, and we have made progress, but the sad fact is, we
are not keeping up. We are not keeping up with the sewers. We
are not stopping the sewers from overflowing into the Great
Lakes. They do it every day. We aren't controlling and
preventing the spread and introduction of the invasive species
into the Great Lakes.
We are still seeing, Mr. Chairman, our wetlands vanish, and
they are vanishing in Ohio and the other States. And not only
do we need to stop them from vanishing, frankly, we need to
begin to restore them and to do a better job in that respect.
We need to move forward and not only be on the defense, but
start to be on the offense.
We also must ensure, Mr. Chairman, that the public has
adequate access to the Great Lakes. That is a particular
problem in our home State of Ohio, where a great deal of the
Great Lakes lakefront, Lake Erie lakefront, is in private
hands, and we need to make sure that when there is available
land, when it does come up, when there is a willing seller,
that there is money available to make more frontage available
for the public so that the public can, in fact, enjoy it.
We also need to be concerned about fish and wildlife
habitat and make sure that it is maintained and improved.
I have been asked, as I am sure Senator Levin has been and
my other colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, about the
$6 billion. Some people have said it is too much. Some people
said it is not enough. The truth is, there is nothing magical
about $6 billion. That is spread over 10 years. The truth is,
it is a minimum amount of money. We all know that.
And while there is nothing magical about the $6 billion,
there is certainly something magical about the Great Lakes, and
we all know that. There is something magical about looking out
at any one of our Great Lakes and seeing a man out there all by
himself in a boat fishing. There is something magical about
seeing a young couple or an old couple walking along the shore
at night. There is something magical about seeing a little
child out there being taught by his grandfather how to fish, or
his grandmother how to fish. There is something magical about
seeing a great cargo freighter plying the waters of the Great
Lakes, a freighter that, I might add, is by far the safest form
or way to move our cargo in this country and something that
needs to be enhanced and treasured, something we need to try to
make sure is always available.
These are things that you cannot measure by money, but it
is something that money can make sure is available and
continues. So this is a great treasure. It is a treasure that
is hard to compare, but I think as Senator Durbin and you, Mr.
Chairman, and Senator Coleman have all so eloquently said, and
my colleague, Senator Levin, has said in the past, something
that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to preserve.
And so this is what this bill does.
I thank you very much for holding this hearing, not just
about this bill, but for holding this hearing about the GAO
study. As you have said, the GAO study showed us what we are
doing wrong and I think it has pointed the way and it is sort
of like an alarm that has gone off in the night and said, look,
we have got problems and we have not done things the right way.
But it has also pointed and kind of shown us the light and
said, these are the things that we need to change. These are
things that we can do in the future and now is the time to do
it.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit my
full statement for the record. I appreciate very much the fact
that you have held this hearing today.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator DeWine, and you can
be assured that we will insert your statement in the record.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, Senator
Durbin, Senator Coleman, and other Members of this Subcommittee
for your strong support of the Great Lakes, for your
leadership, and for your calling this hearing today on the GAO
report and on the bill which I am proud to have cosponsored
with Senator DeWine and which you and other Members of this
Subcommittee and, indeed, the Senate have cosponsored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Levin appears in the Appendix
on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are temporary stewards of a unique national treasure. I
know the Great Lakes are the only bodies of fresh water on
earth which can be seen from the moon. The Great Lakes are
actually visible if you stood on the moon. I don't know if
there are too many other natural features about which that is
true.
If you spread the waters of the Great Lakes on the entire
48 contiguous States, it would be about ten feet deep. We have
the world's greatest treasure of fresh water and I think we all
feel keenly about protecting that. I know everyone in this room
and you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coleman, and Senator Durbin,
those of us who live on the Great Lakes, feel very keenly about
this responsibility.
If I could just hearken back for perhaps 25 or 30 years,
the first time I testified before the Senate was to urge the
Senate to adopt a national standard on the level of phosphates
in detergents because of the damage that those phosphates were
doing, particularly to Lake Erie. And you, Mr. Chairman, and I
and Senator DeWine, of course, have a particular local
interest.
But we saw the damage that Lake Erie was undergoing because
of the extra phosphate in detergents and we adopted a little
ordinance in my hometown of Detroit when I was President of the
City Council to reduce the level of phosphates which would be
allowable in detergents sold in our city. People kind of
scoffed at that and said, what can you do with a local
ordinance? The answer was, perhaps not a lot, but perhaps that
will lead to State action and then to Federal action. In fact,
that is what happened. It is kind of proof of the old saying,
``think globally, act locally.'' It is kind of a good example
of what can happen, and there have been a lot of examples.
You, Mr. Chairman, both as governor and as mayor, have been
involved deeply with Great Lakes restoration. And I know
Senator Coleman, Senator Durbin, and others, and I know Senator
DeWine personally have been involved in a lot of small steps
that we have taken, but they are still small steps. We have not
taken that major stride that we need to take in terms of
protecting and preserving the Great Lakes.
Some of those small steps have been trying to control the
sea lamprey. We have been able to reduce that population by 90
percent. We have taken a very aggressive step there which has
worked because we worked together. The lake sturgeon recovery
program is also apparently working.
We have destroyed a significant percentage now of high-
level PCB wastes, up from approximately 40 percent just 5 years
ago to over 80 percent in April 2002. We finally have one of
the Areas of Concern, where there are contaminated sediments,
which has been upgraded now to a recovery area, though not yet
off the list. We don't have any of our Areas of Concern where
we have contaminated sediments which have been removed from the
list, but we finally have upgraded one in Pennsylvania to a
recovery area.
So we know that there are actions which can be taken at the
Federal, State, local level with the help of all the groups who
are involved that will make a difference, but we need to take,
as Senator DeWine has said, the big step, the giant step, the
comprehensive step in terms of resources, in terms of vision,
in terms of two areas of coordination which are essential. One
is at the Federal level and the other one is between the
Federal Government and State, local level, and all of the
groups which are involved in this effort.
So the bill which we have introduced does do both of those
coordinating efforts. It takes those steps with an advisory
board which connects everybody together, as well as a Great
Lakes Coordinating Council, to ensure that Federal activities
are coordinated.
I won't go through all the other provisions of this bill
other than to say that Senator DeWine and his leadership have
been absolutely instrumental in getting this bill to where it
is now and that your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and that of
Senator Durbin, Senator Coleman, and others will hopefully be
able to push this across the finish line in the Senate.
But again, it has been eloquently stated by Senator DeWine
and you, Mr. Chairman, and others as to what our responsibility
is as temporary stewards of the Great Lakes. We, all of us who
are Great Lakes Senators, feel keenly that this is a national
issue. Indeed, this is an international issue.
One-tenth of our people in America rely on the Great
Lakes--job-wise, sports-wise, water-wise for drinking, and in a
lot of other ways. One-tenth of Americans are dependent
directly on the Great Lakes and this is something which we are,
very keenly sensitive to. Hopefully, we can now take this
additional, this major step in terms of protecting a treasure
which we know is unique to the world. Thank you very much.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Levin.
I would just like to thank both of you for your eloquence
this morning and for your leadership of the Great Lakes
Commission. Senator DeWine, you caught me up with the magic of
some of the things that you were describing. They are things
that I relate to very clearly. It is little known that I can
look out of my living room window and see Lake Erie. I always
tell friends that I am very fortunate that those nights that I
am home, that I can take 100 steps and see a beautiful portrait
by the master, and it is different each night.
I am so pleased that you have made this commitment, that
you have this commitment. It is a real issue, and I think if we
really put our minds to this, we can put this plan in place and
really see something happen.
I have to tell you, over the years, I kept saying, we have
got all these groups doing all these things. And, of course,
when you are--I was Chairman of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors. You are just doing the governors thing. And then I
was a mayor. We have a chance as Federal officials to try and
bring all of this together, and again, I applaud your
leadership and look forward to working with you.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
As our witnesses come forward, I would like to say that due
to time restraints this morning--I think we have got a vote at
12:05--we are going to strictly enforce the 5-minute time limit
on opening statements. I request that you monitor the timer in
front of you and if you can make your statement in less than 5
minutes, we would appreciate that. I want all of you to know
that your statements will be entered into the record in their
entirety.
Additionally, I am going to try to limit the period for
questions to 5 minutes and only one round per panel. I would
like you to know that we intend to submit questions to you in
writing and would hope that you could get back to us with the
answers to those questions as quickly as you possibly can.
We will now proceed to the second panel. Since it is the
custom of this Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses, I will
ask all of you to rise so that I can swear you in.
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before
this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Mr. Stephenson. I do.
Ms. Thorson. I do.
Mr. Skinner. I do.
Col. Ryan. I do.
Mr. Keeney. I do.
Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that all of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Our first witness is going to be John Stephenson, Director
of Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, U.S. General
Accounting Office. Mr. Stephenson, we are very glad to welcome
you here today. Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON,\1\ DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Coleman. I am here today to discuss our work on environment
restoration activities at the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, the Great Lakes is the largest system of fresh
water in the world. It provides drinking water to over 26
million U.S. citizens. It is an inland waterway for the
inexpensive transport of goods. It is the water for the
region's industry and a recreation resource for boating,
swimming, and sport fishing.
My testimony is based on our April 2003 report which we did
for Congress' Great Lakes Task Force in which we attempted to
identify total Federal and State funding for Great Lakes
restoration programs. We looked at overall planning and
coordination of restoration efforts and tried to assess
restoration progress since the original Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement was signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1972.
It is fair to say that progress has been made in several
areas, such as controlling the harmful sea lamprey, reducing
the water's phosphorous content, and improving some fish
populations. But the Lakes are still threatened and actually
getting worse on many environmental fronts.
It has been over three decades since the original agreement
was signed, yet raw sewage is still being dumped into the
Lakes. Fish are still contaminated with pollutants such as
mercury and PCB, making them unsafe to eat, and beach closings
have increased drastically in recent years to over 900 on Lake
Michigan alone in 2002.
As we reported last year, a 1987 amendment to the
agreement, among other things, targeted 41 specific Areas of
Concern for clean-up, 26 in U.S. waters, 12 in Canadian waters,
and five shared by both. However, none of the U.S. areas have
been restored to beneficial use and only two Canadian areas
have been restored.
So what is the problem? Is it lack of resources? Is it lack
of a strategic plan? Is it the lack of an organizational entity
with the authority to set priorities and evaluate alternatives?
Is it the lack of indicators in a monitoring system to assess
restoration progress? Actually, the answer to all of these
questions is yes.
We identified 181 Federal and 68 State programs spanning
ten agencies and all eight Great Lakes States operating in the
basin. While Great Lakes specific funding for some of the
Nationwide and Statewide programs is often not tracked and,
therefore, difficult to determine, we identified at least $3.6
billion, $2.2 Federal and $1.4 State, going towards Great Lakes
restoration over a 10-year period ending in fiscal year 2001.
In contrast, about $5.3 billion, or $1.7 billion more, was
devoted to South Florida ecosystem restoration during roughly
the same 10-year time period. So while there are numerous
programs and considerable resources being devoted to the basin,
one has to question what we are getting for the effort.
One problem is that there are a variety of strategies at
the binational, Federal, and State levels to address specific
environmental problems, but there is no overarching plan for
coordinating these disparate strategies and program activities
into a single coherent approach for restoring the basin.
Without such a plan, it is difficult to ensure that limited
funds are used effectively. Other large-scale ecosystem
restoration efforts such as South Florida and the Chesapeake
Bay have clearly demonstrated the benefits of such a plan.
Exacerbating the problem is the lack of an effective,
authoritative organizational entity for planning, monitoring,
and establishing funding priorities. The Clean Water Act of
1987, we think, granted EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office with the authority to coordinate Federal actions and
funding in the Great Lakes, but in our opinion, it has never
fully exercised this authority.
Finally, I would like to highlight the lack of a
comprehensive, widely accepted set of indicators and a
monitoring system for determining whether the overall state of
the basin is getting better or worse. Although the call for
such a monitoring system can be traced back to the original
agreement, after several past and ongoing attempts to develop
such a system, this requirement remains largely unmet.
We recommended in our report that EPA, one, in conjunction
with other Federal agencies in the Great Lakes States, develop
an overarching strategy that clearly defines roles and
responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing funding
projects; two, submit to the Congress a time-phased proposal
for funding this strategy; and three, develop indicators and
more particularly a monitoring system for measuring overall
restoration progress and for evaluating the merits of
alternative restoration projections. EPA agreed with our
conclusion but has not yet formally responded to these
recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will answer
any questions later.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.
Our next witness is Robyn Thorson. She is the Region III
Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF ROBYN THORSON,\1\ REGION III DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ms. Thorson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my written
statement be submitted for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Thorson appears in the Appendix
on page 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
Ms. Thorson. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today
at this hearing to bring more focus to efforts currently
underway and to accountability in the Great Lakes. I am the
Midwest Regional Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service,
which includes Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois and is headquartered in the
Twin Cities.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's mission is to work with
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people, and to do that, by working with others. We
work with the agencies that are at this table, with tribes in
the Great Lakes, with communities, with associations and non-
governmental organizations, and most significantly, with the
States.
I am going to list just a few examples of the kind of work
that the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing in the Great Lakes,
and I will point out that the GAO's report on page 26
identified the numbers of Great Lakes-specific programs that
each Federal agency has in the Great Lakes and the Fish and
Wildlife Service had the most on that list.
One example is the binational sea lamprey control program,
which represents an effective and comprehensive strategy
contributing to restoration goals for the Great Lakes. It is
administered under the leadership and coordination of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
implements the sea lamprey control program, along with the U.S.
Geological Survey and Canada's Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. This has been going on since 1955, an outstanding
international example of tackling the invasive species problem
effectively and it needs to continue.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is also signatory to the
joint strategic plan for management of Great Lakes fisheries,
originally adopted in 1981, along with State, provincial,
Federal, and tribal agencies from the United States and Canada.
The joint strategic plan agencies have developed consensus-
based objectives for the structure of each of the Great Lakes
fish communities and the means of measuring progress toward
their achievement. This is most evident on Lake Superior, where
lake trout populations have been largely restored, and
restoration of coaster brook trout and their habitats is well
underway.
Similarly, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Act, which Congress initially authorized in 1990, facilitates
partnerships to achieve basin-wide comprehensive programs to
assess the ecological status of the Great Lakes, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service is preparing a report to Congress covering
our activities under the Act from 1998 to 2002.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also assists private land
owners, townships, and county governments, with projects that
benefit fish and wildlife resources. These are through our
programs called Partners for Fish and Wildlife, the Coastal
Program, and the Fish Passage Program. We provide technical
assistance and seed money, just a bit of funding to get these
started, for locally-led projects. They may seem small on scale
compared to some of the larger programs like sea lamprey, but
they are so important for citizen-centered governance, so
important to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, and for
citizen stewardship of natural resources. We are pleased to
provide technical assistance and funding to these programs.
To address the issue of chemical contaminants as ecological
stressors in the Great Lakes, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
a unique role using principles of ecotoxicology and ecological
risk assessment to determine actual or likely effects of
contaminants on fish and wildlife.
And last, among the most critical threats to the Great
Lakes is that posed by invasive species. Our efforts, those of
our partners, and the National Invasive Species Council are
focused on control of existing problems, such as the lamprey
and the zebra mussel. And we must also address the threat that
the Asian carp pose to the Great Lakes as they appear to be
moving up the Mississippi River system.
Construction of the electric barrier in the Illinois
waterway is one example of a partnership effort to control
invasive species and protect the waters and habitats of the
Great Lakes, and I must pay a compliment to the Corps of
Engineers for their leadership in this and particularly the
City of Chicago for the Aquatic Invasive Species Summit that
was recently sponsored to bring together engineers as well as
environmental interests, and the transportation industry, to
collectively address this critical problem.
The Fish and Wildlife Service agrees that there will be
great benefit from a comprehensive strategy to achieve
restoration in the Great Lakes and that environmental
indicators and a monitoring system must be part of any plan to
achieve success. The Fish and Wildlife Service stands ready to
continue its leadership role in fish and wildlife restoration
and expand its work with partners to make the world's largest
freshwater ecosystem a balanced and healthy environment for
fish and wildlife and people. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Skinner, glad to have you here.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS V. SKINNER,\1\ REGION V ADMINISTRATOR, AND
NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE GREAT LAKES, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Skinner. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is a pleasure to
be here. Senator Coleman, as well, it is an honor to be in
front of you today, and as I look around the room, for today's
purposes, to be with Senators from the two greatest States in
Region V. [Laughter.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner appears in the Appendix
on page 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Tom Skinner, the Region V Administrator. I am also, in
that role, the National Program Manager for EPA's Great Lakes
Programs, and it is a pleasure to be here today with you to
discuss briefly the General Accounting Office report, EPA's
programs, and progress that has been made in protecting this
Nation's irreplaceable Great Lakes ecosystem.
I want to first take this opportunity to strongly reaffirm
EPA's commitment to the Great Lakes as well as to the role and
responsibilities set forth for the Great Lakes National Program
Office, which we refer to as GLNPO, under Section 118 of the
Clean Water Act. That Act requires GLNPO to serve as the lead
for coordinating the protection and restoration of the Great
Lakes system within the agency, as well as with other Federal
agencies, the eight Great Lakes States, tribal authorities, and
with the appropriate federal and provincial agencies in Canada.
EPA and GLNPO have made significant progress along with our
partners, and that is important, along with our partners. We
have built a sound, comprehensive ecosystem management
structure for the Great Lakes guided by adaptive management.
The Great Lakes system is not static and we must adapt to the
ever-changing challenges of protecting this magnificent
resource, which, as you all know, contains 20 percent of the
world's fresh surface water.
The April 2003 GAO report made a number of recommendations,
many of which we agree with, but a few of which we don't. EPA
will submit its formal response to the GAO report later this
month.
Today, I would like to take the opportunity to outline what
EPA, along with its partners, is doing with regard to
coordination. I will highlight the programs and coordinating
mechanisms we are using to effectively manage the Great Lakes
program to achieve environmental results and to ensure that
this magnificent resource is protected now and for future
generations.
GLNPO convened the U.S. Policy Committee, which is
compromised of senior-level representatives of Federal, State,
and tribal agencies with significant natural resource and
environmental protection authorities and responsibilities.
While the U.S. Policy Committee is not backed by a statutory
mandate, it has become an effective vehicle for coordinating
priorities of basin-wide significance for the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 is a product of the U.S.
Policy Committee and serves an important function by focusing
on multi-lake and basin-wide environmental goals that those
governmental partners will work toward. It supports efforts
underway, including the lake-wide management plans and remedial
action plans for Areas of Concern, by addressing issues that
are beyond the scope of these programs and helping integrate
them into an overall basin-wide context. We believe that the
Great Lakes strategy has helped to meet and exceed the
requirements for coordination specified in Section 118 of the
Clean Water Act.
The strategy was released in April 2002 by former
Administrator Whitman in Muskegon, Michigan. The plan is
groundbreaking and includes major objectives that are both
measurable and time-phased. Ten Federal agencies, eight Great
Lakes States, and tribal authorities assisted in its consensus-
based development. We are now implementing the strategy and
tracking progress.
Some of the key goals, by 2005, clean up and delist three
Areas of Concern with a total of 10 by 2010. By 2007, reduce
concentrations of PCBs in lake trout and walleye by 25 percent
from year 2000 levels. And by 2010, 90 percent of Great Lakes
beaches to be open 95 percent of the season. Finally, by 2010,
substantially reduce the further introduction of invasive
species, both aquatic and terrestrial, to the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem.
I would also like to touch briefly in the little time that
I have left on our efforts to increase the knowledge base and
to develop strong scientific underpinnings for the decisions we
make. The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Program, also known as
SOLEC, was created by EPA and Environment Canada. SOLEC
fulfills, in part, the requirement in the agreement for
assessing and reporting progress. SOLEC is held every 2 years.
It is science-based. It is a collaborative effort that includes
many stakeholders as well as governmental partners from both
sides of the basin.
SOLEC has four objectives, to assess the state of the Great
Lakes ecosystem based on accepted indicators; to strengthen
decisionmaking and management; to inform decisionmakers of
Great Lakes environmental issues; and to provide a forum for
communication and networking among all stakeholders.
Four SOLEC reports have been issued since 1995, with the
2003 report to be released next month. Over 800 indicators have
been reviewed and a suite of 80 indicators has been identified
to assess the health of the Great Lakes.
Now, turning to monitoring for a moment, we have a multi-
agency system of monitoring for the Great Lakes that involves a
variety of expertise. A cost-effective system should be
binational in scope since there are economies of scale.
Numerous agencies on both sides of the border are contributing
to our monitoring programs, ensuring that the best scientific
expertise is applied to the Great Lakes.
Now, of course, as the GAO notes, we can always improve our
efforts to coordinate and to strive for clearer accountability
and implementation and we are committed to doing just that. We
want to make sure that the Great Lakes are healthy for both
wildlife and people. We want future generations to enjoy their
beauty and magnificence, and we consider ourselves all to be
stewards towards this end. Because I also serve as the mayor of
a Great Lakes community, Lake Bluff, Illinois, I take this
responsibility particularly seriously.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Coleman, for inviting me to speak here today.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner. Thank you.
Colonel Ryan.
TESTIMONY OF COL. WILLIAM E. RYAN, III,\1\ DEPUTY COMMANDER,
GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Col. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my complete
statement be submitted for the record and I will try to
summarize and conserve time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Col. Ryan appears in the Appendix on
page 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
Col. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify before you
on the restoration of the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers supports efforts to improve the management of the
programs for the protection and enhancement and restoration of
the Great Lakes environment. I look forward to continuing to
work with our sister agencies and other partners on approaches
for moving the restoration of the Lakes forward.
I will begin my comments with a response to the recent
General Accounting Office report on the Great Lakes restoration
needs, provide an overview of the Corps' Great Lakes programs,
and offer some recommendations for future steps to enhance the
management of the Great Lakes programs.
The recent GAO report includes a description of the Corps
of Engineers programs that are available to support the
environment protection and restoration of the Great Lakes
basin. We have found that the inventory of Federal and State
programs for the Great Lakes contained in the GAO report is
comprehensive and are using them in one of our ongoing studies.
The Corps agrees with the GAO that an effort is needed to
help coordinate the various restoration programs in the Great
Lakes basin and a comprehensive monitoring system with selected
indicators is necessary to measure progress in restoring the
ecosystems of the Great Lakes system.
Primacy for water resources management in the United States
has been and must continue to be at the State and local level.
While it is appropriate for the Federal Government to be
involved in issues of international, national, or multi-State
significance, such as the management of the Great Lakes water
resources, it is the States and in particular governors who
should be establishing the priorities for management of these
shared water resources.
The diversity and environmental issues on the Great Lakes
basin has spawned a number of intergovernmental organizations
and committees to coordinate one or more specific issues,
whether it is invasive species, wetland restoration, water
management, nonpoint source pollution, or contaminated
sediment. A significant amount of planning and coordination has
already been accomplished through these existing organizations
and committees, including the U.S. Policy Committee, the Great
Lakes Commission, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
The environmental issues that are facing the Great Lakes
are numerous and complex. Great Lakes issues include
contaminated sediments, invasive species, groundpoint source
pollution, and water management within a framework of two
countries, eight States, and two provinces.
We believe that restoring the Great Lakes resources will
benefit from a watershed perspective, emphasizing collaboration
and integration. Success will require the participation of all
interested parties in the planning and the decisionmaking
process, and this participation will foster an open dialogue to
integrate sometimes competing or conflicting water resource
needs. Such integration and collaboration are indispensable to
meeting the water challenges.
The Corps has a variety of civil works programs that are
being utilized for the protection and enhancement and
restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The size and
importance of this water resource and the complexity of the
challenges before it necessitate a team approach to its
management. The Corps has worked as a team member, as well as a
team leader, in different aspects of the collective environment
programs for the Great Lakes basin.
The Corps has been a member of a team that monitors,
predicts, and regulates water withdrawals, flows, and
diversions through our support of the International Joint
Commission Board of Control and Reference Studies. The Corps
has been a member of the U.S. Policy Committee and participates
in the development of a strategic plan to facilitate the
implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Perhaps the most significant program the Corps has led to
date is the removal and confinement of contaminated sediments
from Federal navigation channels in the Great Lakes. Although
this program is conceived as to measure from environmental
protection rather than restoration, the Corps, in partnership
with State and local governments, has removed over 90 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes
through this program.
Through a more recent program, the Corps is currently
leading projects for environmental dredging at eight Great
Lakes Areas of Concern in partnership with State and local
agencies.
The Corps has four basin-wide studies ongoing that are
addressing our specific or general water resources needs of the
Great Lakes. The first of these is the U.S.-Canadian
collaborative study of existing navigation infrastructure in
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
The second is a basin-wide study, is an inventory of
biohydrologic information relevant to the Great Lakes water
management and will complete a gap analysis of water-related
data.
The third is a basin-wide study we have initiated in
partnership with the Great Lakes States. It is an evaluation of
the economic benefits of recreational boating in the Great
Lakes, and in particular those utilizing the Federal navigation
system.
And the fourth is the Great Lakes study the Corps is
helping to develop as a plan in collaboration with the Great
Lakes Commission. It was authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999. This study will produce a report to
Congress with an analysis of existing water resource needs
identified by the Great Lakes States and stakeholders and
recommendations for new or modified authorities to address
unmet needs.
The Corps is pleased to have had this opportunity to appear
before you and provide testimony on this important subject. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my remarks.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Col. Ryan. Mr. Keeney.
TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am
Tim Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere. On behalf of NOAA's Administrator, Vice Admiral
Conrad Lautenbacher, I would like to thank you for inviting me
to testify today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Keeney appears in the Appendix on
page 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add up front that we
believe that the ``O'' in NOAA, which is the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, includes the Great Lakes and we
are very much involved in that region.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my complete statement be submitted
for the record.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
Mr. Keeney. As other witnesses have pointed out, the Great
Lakes are one of the earth's greatest treasures and the
Nation's single most important aquatic resource. Today, I will
focus my remarks on two areas, NOAA's response to the recent
GAO report and NOAA's programs related to restoration efforts
in the Great Lakes.
NOAA shares the concerns raised in the recent GAO report on
the Great Lakes. Although many Federal, State, and local
programs are already working together on this task, better
coordination would help all partners to work together more
effectively to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. Improving the
consistency of performance metrics among the agencies involved
and better coordination of the Great Lakes monitoring programs
would provide information necessary for reliably evaluating
progress toward regional restoration goals.
NOAA has environmental stewardship assessment and
prediction responsibilities in the Great Lakes. We conduct
research and environmental monitoring and modeling, providing
scientific expertise and services to manage and protect the
Great Lakes ecosystem. NOAA's Great Lakes restoration programs
and partnerships, the topic of today's hearing, are a topic of
great priority. NOAA's restoration role includes advising on
cleanup of contaminated sites, working with States to fund
habitat restoration projects, and conducting research and
monitoring activities. I would like to highlight a few examples
of our work in the region.
NOAA works with EPA and other agencies at contaminated
sediment sites in the Great Lakes to protect the aquatic
environment, to clean up these sites, and to reduce overall
injury to natural resources and speed their recovery. NOAA is
currently working on cleaning up and restoring 18 hazardous
waste sites in the region. NOAA also partners with seven of the
Great Lakes States through the Coastal Zone Management Program
to protect, restore, and responsibly develop the Nation's
important cultural resources. In Ohio, for example, NOAA has
provided funding to coastal communities and organizations to
develop comprehensive land use plans, improve access to Lake
Erie's shoreline, and conduct research and education.
NOAA's Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Program, which as
funded through a $30 million appropriation in fiscal year 2001,
is an excellent example of our recent restoration efforts. More
than 70 local government units have partnered in this program
and are working on a variety of restoration projects, including
contaminated sediment cleanup, invasive species removal, dune
and marsh restorations, acquisition of critical habitat, and
stormwater management.
Activities coordinated by NOAA's Sea Grant College Program,
a partnership between the Federal Government and the Great
Lakes Universities, develop and implement methods to restore
habitat. Sea Grant extension agents empower coastal communities
in the region to undertake well-planned coastal development
that preserves and promotes restoration of critical coastal
habitats.
NOAA has established the National Center for Aquatic
Invasive Species Research to develop a coordinated research
plan to address invasive species issues. The Center will foster
partnerships among NOAA and other entities to address
prevention, early detection, rapid response, and management of
invasive species, a major restoration issue for the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Finally, NOAA has recently awarded two grants that will
further the restoration planning for the Great Lakes. Under
these grants, the Great Lakes Commission and the Northeast-
Midwest Institute, in partnership with the Great Lakes Sea
Grant Network, will provide technical and scientific support to
the region's leadership in the development of a comprehensive
ecosystem restoration plan. The Institute will review the
approaches that other regions have used to launch major
ecosystem restoration initiatives in order to provide guidance
for Great Lakes planning efforts.
The Commission will facilitate a series of State and
province focus groups, culminating in a Great Lakes restoration
forum that will identify restoration priorities and associated
strategic actions. This effort will help unify the many
existing strategic plans from partner agencies.
NOAA looks forward to working in partnership with EPA,
States, and others in this effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney, I have to tell you that I was not aware of what
NOAA was doing. I mean, I am very familiar with the Sea Grant
program and what Jeff Reutter is doing up at our lab in Ohio,
the Stone Lab. I have been very much involved in coastal
management and setting requirements for those people that live
on Lake Erie. They have got to talk about erosion, and then
lake access.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, I would love to come by and visit
with you and your staff.
Senator Voinovich. It is interesting that you have gone
through a number of things, and the Army Corps of Engineers is
involved. The EPA is involved, Fish and Wildlife. Is there an
orchestra leader that knows what all of you are doing and is
coordinating it?
[No response.]
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Stephenson, let us start with you.
Mr. Skinner indicated that there were some things they agreed
with and some that they disagreed with. I wasn't aware of the
Great Lakes Strategy 2002. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, I think from each of our witnesses,
you heard that each has a restoration strategy, and that is
exactly the point. There is no overarching strategy that
orchestrates all these efforts, sets clear priorities and time
frames for accomplishing things, and assigns specific
responsibilities to the various partner agencies.
So we can agree to disagree how much authority the Clean
Water Act gives the Great Lakes National Program Office. We
think that the authority clearly resides there for developing
this overarching plan. That is why we made our recommendation
to EPA. By the number of programs, the number of dollars, the
number of activities that you heard, all of which have noble
objectives and noble strategies, we just don't think these are
well put together and well coordinated at this point.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that EPA should be the
orchestra leader in keeping track of what everybody is doing?
Mr. Stephenson. You could establish a new body, which I
think the legislation refers to an advisory board and a
coordination council. It just has to be clearly set up in the
legislation who has that responsibility for decisionmaking,
setting priorities, and so forth. We think that EPA is in a
good position to develop such an overarching strategy and we
think that the current legislation gives them that authority.
Senator Voinovich. Along with several of my colleagues, we
sent you a letter requesting a follow-up study to examine what
indicators and monitorings are needed in the Great Lakes and
what additional research is necessary. As I stated earlier,
when I was governor, we created and released the Lake Erie
Water Quality Index in 1998. I think it is a very important
piece of the restoration effort, to have these indicators.
Simply put, we need to be able to measure if we are doing any
good and highlight what is going on. I have always said, and
when I was governor I used to say, if you can't measure it,
don't do it.
And I don't know if you have seen this or not, but it is
interesting. We came up with a Great Lakes Water Quality Index.
The issue was, what are the indicators? We had water quality,
pollution sources, habitat, biological, coastal recreation,
boating, fishing, beaches, tourism, and fishing. I suspect
there are some people here that might say there may be some
more indicators that you have on here.
What we tried to do is then rate them. I know that Chris
Jones is here and I am anxious to have a State of Ohio update
of where we are in this. Have we made any progress or haven't
we made any progress? What are the things that were bad in
1998, what projects have been undertaken, and so on, so that we
get this kind of restoration effort moving.
I would like to see this kind of thing done for the entire
Great Lakes, understanding that each of the Great Lakes are
different. It is amazing, the difference between, say, Lake
Superior and Lake Erie. Lake Erie is the greatest fishery of
the Great Lakes, although, I think from testimony here of Fish
and Wildlife, things are coming along in that regard in some of
the other lakes. We really need to get on with this and then
have the strategy so we can make it happen.
I would like comments from all of you. Do you think that
the EPA should be the leader of this kind, keeping track of
what everyone is doing and kind of being the focus place for
putting a plan together?
Ms. Thorson. Senator, we would value an orchestra leader,
as you characterize it, and working with the EPA has been a
successful partnership for the Fish and Wildlife Service. We
can continue to accommodate that, or in agreement with the GAO
if there is a different coordinator. But so much of the
strategizing to date has been more cataloging of effort than
coordination of effort, and increasing that coordination by
working together under existing authorities or under new
coordination, all would be beneficial.
So we support either direction, the current leadership of
EPA or new coordination, as long as there is coordination.
Senator Voinovich. Any other comments on that, in terms of
an orchestra leader?
Col. Ryan. Sir, I would also say we also need to look at
the binational aspect of the Great Lakes as we are trying to
put that together. Obviously, for the Federal Government, the
U.S. Federal Government, we need an orchestra leader, but we
also have to look at our neighbors to the North and how do we
coordinate that whole aspect together from a binational
standpoint.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force for the Department of Commerce
and I think that task force works pretty well. As has been
mentioned by some of my previous commenters, we also support a
multi-agency effort based in the Great Lakes which would
include Federal, State, and regional groups working on this
restoration effort. EPA would make a fine orchestra leader, but
obviously, we need to have all of the players intimately
involved.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I am going to bring this up
because Mr. Schornack may bring this up in his testimony and I
have you here, Mr. Stephenson. The International Joint
Commission Chairman writes in his testimony that the Great
Lakes National Program Office doesn't ``have the power, the
budget, or the reach to really direct programs over multiple
Federal agencies and multiple levels of government. So never
mind if I differ with the GAO report when it asserts that GLNPO
has failed by not effectively coordinating work of the other 12
agencies that are involved in restoration activities.'' Do you
want to comment on that statement? Mr. Schornack, I think you
are going to make it when you get up here to testify, and----
Mr. Stephenson. I think what we are saying is that EPA was
clearly given the authority, for the U.S. portion of the
agreement, for performing that coordination function. Do they
need more resources to do that? Probably so. I don't know why
GLNPO hasn't taken on more of this requirement than it has. Mr.
Skinner will have to answer that. I am simply stating that for
our legislation here in the United States, that we think that
EPA was already given that authority.
That is not to say that a newly-established legislative
body might also serve as a great orchestra leader. I think
either way can work, but they have got to be provided the
resources and responsibility for doing that very clearly.
There needs to be interagency agreements between the
Federal agencies, as well. There are no formal interagency
agreements right now to implement any of these strategies.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Skinner, do you have the money and
the budget to do the job?
Mr. Skinner. Mr. Chairman, the resource issue is one that
faces us and is daunting. Whether we have the resources depends
on how our role is defined. I think the answers to your
question from three of my four colleagues up here prove the
point that I was going to make, which is that with all due
respect to GAO, they may believe that the authority resides in
GLNPO right now to do what they think needs to be done.
Unfortunately, our sister agencies don't seem to agree with
that. I mean, I didn't hear any of the three say, yes, EPA
currently has the authority to do what is suggested. That is a
big problem that we face. We are glad to take on that mantle of
responsibility, but it may well be that if that is to be our
responsibility, some clarification is necessary to make sure
that we are all on the same page as to that role.
Senator Voinovich. So if you are selected, then you think
that it should be very clear that you have the interagency
responsibility and that everybody knows that you are the
coordinator. And just as important would be the budget and
resources that you would need to get the job done and how you
would interface, for example, with other agencies so that you
don't have duplication.
Would you agree that is really the genesis of any of this
that we are talking about today to get everybody together to
clearly define who the leader is and what their responsibility
is, what the responsibilities are to the other agencies that
are involved, and then also look at the international aspects
of this, which is very important.
And last, but not least, I think to get some input in from
the other players. For example, Great Lakes United has some
very good recommendations. And then I am sure there are some--I
know when I was Chairman of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors that we dealt with some of the industrial groups that
were there when we did the GLI, Great Lakes Initiative, that
started out as being a gigantic thing. We tried to get it down
to really dealing with the bio-accumulative stuff that was
within the Great Lakes.
Ms. Thorson, you state in your testimony the Fish and
Wildlife Service is developing and supporting environmental
indicators of this ecosystem through your engagement with the
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, the U.S. Policy
Committee, and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference,
SOLEC. Could you tell me a little bit more about these
indicators that you have developed? Have you ever seen this?
(Holding up Lake Erie Water Quality Index)
Ms. Thorson. No, I haven't, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
to see it.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. I would be interested in just
seeing how it fits in with what you are doing. Do you care to
comment?
Ms. Thorson. Yes. We like measurables. It helps us all
focus and it also helps assign responsibility. Under SOLEC, the
Fish and Wildlife Service happens to have responsibility for
several particular environmental indicators like lake trout,
lake sturgeon, and bald eagles, predictably, the ones within
our jurisdiction. Beyond that, we also have the capability for
measuring progress in wetlands restoration and other
particulars. So we are measuring under SOLEC some specific
assignments. We have greater capability of bringing to the
table some measurables in a coordinated Great Lakes effort.
Senator Voinovich. So the thing is there is some really
good stuff going on there. It is a question of how do you focus
in.
Col. Ryan, you are dealing with sediments, right?
Col. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. And Mr. Keeney, you are dealing with
some other things that I have down here.
Mr. Keeney. Restoration.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, but----
Mr. Keeney. Research.
Senator Voinovich. For example, sediments, Col. Ryan, you
said you have done some work in the sediments area. Do you have
a backlog of all the sediment projects? How far along are we?
Col. Ryan. Well, we are concerned principally with the
Federal navigation channel, so it doesn't encompass the total
of all the contaminated sediments. Obviously, there are some
outside those channels that we don't deal with, and I don't
have those figures but I could get those for you.
Senator Voinovich. I am familiar with some of the work by
the National Bureau of the River, for example, but I funded
that program with $7 million or $8 million when I was Governor
of Ohio and it is still not done. You did one of the creeks
that go into that and I was amazed at how the Corps went in and
actually diverted the water and did the cleanup. It was an
amazing project.
I would suspect that you have a tremendous backlog of
things that need to be done and haven't got the funding to take
care of it.
Col. Ryan. That is correct. It is priorities and the amount
of resources available.
Senator Voinovich. And then the issue then becomes, too,
about the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, that some of the
restoration project people are concerned about whether it is
ecologically the thing to do. It is all of these little nuances
that get involved in all of this.
Before I take the next panel, do any of you want to comment
on what anyone has said here or give me your final feelings on
anything?
Mr. Stephenson. I think we said it all in our report. The
next project that you have asked us to do is take on this
indicator development and monitoring system approach for the
Great Lakes. You can see there is a lot of good work going on
in different pockets, but the same thing is going to be at
issue here. How can we coordinate all this work and develop
meaningful indications--maybe Ohio has the answer with its
indices project, but behind that must be a monitoring system
for collecting the data. Even SOLEC says of its 80 indicators
that less than half of them have credible data with which to
measure against----
Senator Voinovich. I am going to have Chris Jones up here
and I am going to ask him the question of----
Mr. Stephenson. Good.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. What monitoring have they
been doing and who have they been working with in order to come
up with a new report.
Mr. Stephenson. Monitoring is kind of a hodgepodge right
now. There are not specific standards for sampling. Water
quality data varies all over the board. So there is a lot of
work that needs to be done in that area. We have good air
deposition monitoring, but not much good water quality data
monitoring.
Senator Voinovich. I remember the fiasco we had when we
were--Mr. Schornack probably will remember this--when we were
doing the advisories on fish and the differences of opinion.
One State wanted to write one and the other didn't. We wanted
to coordinate it and I don't think we ever did finish it up.
Everybody did their own thing. So some of these things that we
are talking about here as being kind of easy to do, when you
really get down to them, are not that easy.
Mr. Stephenson. It is very difficult.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, to build on the recommendations
provided in the GAO report, NOAA can identify five steps that
would strengthen and speed restoration of the Great Lakes, and
if I could, I would just like to go over each one of them very
briefly.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. Keeney. First, leadership is needed to develop a
regional restoration plan. Some of these things, of course,
have already been mentioned today.
Second, once the unified restoration plan is in place,
successful implementation will require increased and improved
coordination.
Third, we must build on current monitoring efforts that are
being implemented by NOAA, EPA, and the Great Lakes States in
order to gauge the health of the Great Lakes.
Fourth, NOAA agrees with the GAO recommendation to document
success of restoration projects. In order to do this, we
suggest creating and maintaining a project management database.
And fifth, the fundamental requirement for the Great Lakes
restoration is ecosystem-level research that will lead to
scientifically-based management in the restoration decisions.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Again, I held a hearing in
Cleveland on the dead zones and we talked about zebra mussels,
and you didn't mention the quagga mussels that are much larger
and what they are doing. The point was, in terms of research,
they are not sure yet what impact they are really having on the
Great Lakes. We have had zebra mussels--in fact, when I was
mayor, I held the first hearing on zebra mussels in the United
States. It was 1989 or 1988 that we held it. Think of that. All
this time has passed and we still haven't authoritatively
decided what impact it has had on the ecology of the lake.
Thank you very much for being here today. I really
appreciate it.
Mr. Skinner. Mr. Chairman, I just, in summation, want to
say thank you for your continuing leadership on this issue, not
only with regard to Lake Erie, but the Great Lakes in general,
and offer GLNPO and EPA's willingness to work with you as you
move forward and try and navigate your way, if you will,
through these waters. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Thorson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Our next panel of witnesses, and I will
introduce them as they come forward, our first panelist is
Dennis Schornack, who is the Chairman of the United States
Section of the International Joint Commission; the Hon. Susan
Garrett, who is an Illinois State Senator, District 29; Chris
Jones, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency in
the State of Ohio on behalf of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors; and Margaret Wooster, Executive Director of Great
Lakes United.
Again, I would like to remind the witnesses that I would
like you, to the best of your ability, to limit your remarks to
5 minutes. Prior to your giving your testimony, would you
stand. I would like to swear you in, also.
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Schornack. I do.
Ms. Garrett. I do.
Mr. Jones. I do.
Ms. Wooster. I do.
Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that they all
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Schornack.
TESTIMONY OF DENNIS L. SCHORNACK,\1\ CHAIRMAN, U.S. SECTION,
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Schornack. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, for the
opportunity to address the complex and vitally important issue
of managing the restoration of the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Schornack with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the honor today of being accompanied on my right by
Hon. Herb Gray, my co-chair of the International Joint
Commission and the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
The operating principles of the IJC, our independence, the
equality of commissioners and countries, our binational,
science-based approach, and our objectivity, make the IJC the
ideal watchdog over how well the countries keep their promises
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The IJC plays a
key role in assessing progress and assisting in the
implementation of this agreement.
In our Areas of Concern report, the IJC corroborated the
GAO findings that a lack of monitoring data, lack of
restoration targets, and even the lack of something so simple
as maps of each area of concern, make an assessment of progress
virtually impossible. Moreover, after 16 years, we found that
the countdown to clean--two areas cleaned up and 41 to go--is
proceeding just too slowly.
The IJC also agreed with previous reports of the GAO and
its Canadian counterpart regarding the lack of coordination and
the need to set clear lines of authority and accountability in
order to properly manage the programs and assess the progress
towards restoring beneficial water uses in Areas of Concern.
When three independent agencies from two separate countries
reach one conclusion, the result is a very powerful
triangulation of opinion that is both legitimate and valid.
Incredibly, the same three independent organizations also
reached the same conclusions regarding both United States and
Canadian management of alien invasive species in the Great
Lakes, the number one threat to biodiversity in the ecosystem.
Invasive species put both our ecology and our economy at
serious risk, and frankly, no one is in charge of solving the
problem.
While Congress envisioned the Great Lakes National Program
Office to be the key agency responsible for managing and
coordinating restoration programs, the reality is they don't
have the power, the budget, or the reach to really direct
programs over multiple Federal agencies and multiple levels of
government. They do a good job of coordinating work within EPA,
but to fault them for not coordinating activities in the
Commerce Department, Interior, or in Agriculture, is simply
unfair.
With all the concerns that have been identified today, what
should we do? I believe the answer lies in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. It is the fabric that binds together
our two great nations and the single ecosystem we share. The
agreement has a great purpose, creating a three-legged stool
that supports an ecosystem approach to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes. What we need now is to breathe new life into the
agreement to bring it into the 21st Century and to refocus
national and international attention and action on restoring
the greatness to the Great Lakes.
While the agreement calls for a government review every 6
years, it was last updated in 1987, some 16 years ago. Perhaps
the time has come to reexamine the agreement, bring it in line
with state-of-the-art science, and address contemporary
ecological challenges.
Questions such a review must answer include, is there a
proper balance across the goals of physical, chemical, and
biological integrity? Are agencies organized and managed to
achieve these goals? Are there new technologies and new ways of
thinking that could speed the pace of restoration? And who
should monitor compliance and how?
For example, the agreement commits the United States and
Canada to a coordinated monitoring and surveillance program to
assess compliance, measure progress towards specific
objectives, and identify emerging concerns. However, as the GAO
report notes, in 1987, this responsibility was shifted away
from the IJC into the EPA and Environment Canada. It has
subsequently languished for lack of commitment and resources.
As a result, the IJC, the independent watchdog, is dependent
upon the very government programs that we evaluate for the data
upon which to evaluate them.
So I commend you, Chairman Voinovich, and the cosponsors of
S. 1398 for recognizing this unfulfilled promise in the
agreement and for taking action to do something about it. I
caution you, however, to preserve the independence of the IJC
and to make sure that implementation of this Act will provide
us the data and the tools necessary to do our job and to do it
right.
I also believe that updating the agreement could form the
basis for a major binational Great Lakes initiative. Binational
and bipartisan momentum for such an initiative is clearly
growing and many organizations already have plans that reflect
the consensus that something significant must be done. We don't
need to create new and competing agencies, but rather give the
Great Lakes National Program Office the power, the authority,
and the budget they need to coordinate, and indeed, to direct
work across Federal agencies and between the United States and
Canada.
And permit me to be so bold as to suggest that this time,
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement could be submitted to
the Senate for ratification, to strengthen it and to give it
treaty status, making sure that promises made in writing become
promises kept in action.
Thank you, and that concludes my remarks, and I ask that
they be submitted for the record.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Ms. Garrett.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SUSAN GARRETT,\1\ ILLINOIS STATE SENATOR,
DISTRICT 29
Ms. Garrett. Good morning, Senators Voinovich and Durbin.
It is an honor to testify before the Subcommittee today. Thank
you for the invitation to share my views on the critical issue
of the Great Lakes restoration management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Garrett appears in the Appendix
on page 228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I would like to talk about the State and local
government perspective. In 2002, I was elected to the Illinois
State Senate to represent Legislative District 29. Before that,
I served in the Illinois State General Assembly for two terms,
representing Congressional District 59. Both of these districts
include communities directly on the shore of Lake Michigan, and
all of the communities I have represented are in a close
proximity to a local lakefront recreational area.
As a public official, I know how much pride my constituents
take in Lake Michigan. It is a place where families go to enjoy
recreational activities, like swimming and boating, the source
of our drinking water, and an icon and resource for a variety
of local and regional businesses.
Part of my role as State Senator is to collaborate with
other State and local officials in critical issues in my
district. Collaboration and coordination is the key to
successfully strengthening our communities.
The GAO report makes several critical points, including the
need for enhanced coordination and better data collection and
monitoring. However, while the report discusses at length the
role of Federal agencies, governors, and other organizations,
it does not go in depth regarding the role of other public
officials, including State legislators and municipal officials.
Today, I would like to share my perspective as a local official
representing a district with very tangible ties to Lake
Michigan in order to aid the findings of the GAO report.
From a local perspective, Great Lakes restoration is an
environment issue, but it is also an economic, educational,
public health, and equity issue. My constituents value
environmental protection efforts because they want to see their
children and grandchildren enjoy Lake Michigan just as they
have. The ecological system of the Great Lakes is home to 250
species of fish and several protected coastal areas and other
public lands. We need to protect this ecological system from
environmental threats, including invasive species, pollution,
and habitat destruction.
Today, I want to tell you about one of the clearest
challenges we face on the Illinois side of Office of Management
and Budget, high E. coli contamination. The presence of the
harmful E. coli bacteria requires regular and frequent beach
closings in order to protect public health. As I am sure the
Subcommittee will agree, this is not acceptable. My
constituents consider Lake Michigan our most valuable natural
resource. We can no longer allow for our beaches to be closed
so often during the summer months with any real understanding
as to what is causing these extremely high bacteria levels.
Some have claimed that sea gulls are the culprit of this
high E. coli contamination. Others say raccoons and deer. Human
sewage is another serious consideration. Locally, I have
established a Clean Water Trust Fund that will provide the
funding, much of which is coming from the grassroots, to do
necessary testing that will determine the cause or causes of
the E. coli contamination. The objective is to independently
raise approximately $25,000 to cover the costs of an E. coli
water sample study to determine whether sea gulls, deer,
raccoons, human sewage, or a combination of all these elements
are leaving harmful contaminants in Lake Michigan.
While we must work together throughout the Great Lakes
region, we must not ignore the fact that a lot of problems need
local involvement and localized solutions. This is why we are
working with several State and local entities, including the
Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Lake County Health Department, Lake Michigan
Federation, businesses such as Baxter's, Chicago Medical
School, and two independent scientists to pursue this study.
This broad-based group of stakeholders indicates the strong
level of local interest and expertise in these issues, but also
highlights how important it is to coordinate and not duplicate
efforts.
Since embarking on this research effort, we have received
E-mails and letters asking for more information from other
communities and States, such as Michigan. These kinds of
responses indicate a clear need for local, State, and Federal
Government to be more proactive in understanding the water
quality of Lake Michigan, as well as the other Great Lakes, and
to map out a plan to reverse the current trend of pollutants
continually threatening our Great Lakes. It also shows the need
for a more comprehensive approach to collecting and
understanding environmental data and indicators.
The recommendations that I would suggest for improving
Great Lakes restoration management, I would say that one of the
most important things is to have a central office to go to with
Great Lakes concerns and questions. We need a ``go to'' person,
a one-stop shopping place where we can assess the resources and
programs that can help us work together to restore the Great
Lakes.
For this reason, I am especially interested in the
opportunity for the Great Lakes National Program Office to
provide coordinated efforts on the issue of water quality,
which is part of the DeWine-Levin proposed legislation that I
understand the Chairman and Ranking Member support. It is
critical to have a strategic, collaborative approach to
improving the water quality of our Great Lakes.
In addition, I support the establishment of an advisory
board, another piece of the Senate and House legislation, which
will help bring all the stakeholders together to plan for the
future of our Great Lakes. It is especially critical to engage
the participation of mayors and other public officials on this
board and I am happy to be here today with the Village
President of Lake Bluff, Thomas Skinner. Local citizens' groups
and other forums for public participation are also essential.
I want to thank you for your time and I will also submit my
testimony for the record.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones.
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER JONES,\1\ DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE OF OHIO, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF
GREAT LAKES GOVERNORS
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Voinovich and Senator Durbin,
for allowing me to appear on behalf of Governor Bob Taft
representing the Council of Great Lakes Governors on the
important topic of restoring one of the world's most important
ecological treasures, the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears in the Appendix on
page 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The region's governors are pleased with the leadership
Congress has shown in recognizing the critical importance of
the Great Lakes and the pressing need to restore and safeguard
them for generations to come. We particularly commend Senators
DeWine and Levin for the introduction of their restoration bill
this week and the Members of this Subcommittee who are
cosponsors.
The Great Lakes Governors recognize the need for an
overarching plan that identifies specific restoration goals,
establishes priorities, specifies measures of success, and
serves as a coordinating focus for the many Federal, State, and
local programs directed at Great Lakes restoration. Toward that
end, the Council began working on the Great Lakes Priorities
Project in 2001. The goal of the project is to develop such a
plan in consultation with the Great Lakes mayors and other
stakeholders. With the plan serving as both a scientific
foundation and a policy funding consensus, the Great Lakes
community can work with Congress to identify and procure the
funding necessary to fully achieve its goals.
We are somewhat behind the original schedule we set for
ourselves, as five newly-elected governors in the Great Lakes
States have needed time to familiarize themselves with the
restoration programs in their States and the aims of the
Council to coordinate a basin-wide approach. Recent
conversations between Governor Taft and several other Great
Lakes Governors, however, confirm the joint purpose and resolve
of the Council. In fact, we are near to having a final set of
priorities for the Great Lakes restoration. Our priorities will
reflect broad goals, such as the protection of human health,
restoration of habitat, and control of invasive species.
The Council believes that the bills now pending in the
House and Senate offer an opportunity to focus much-needed
financial resources on these priority needs. At the same time,
the governors wish to be clear that it is likely that
restoration costs for the national treasure that is the Great
Lakes ecosystem could and probably will run well beyond $6
billion. A more precise figure cannot be arrived at absent the
development of a comprehensive plan.
What is important in the near term is continuing the focus
on restoration efforts, and the DeWine-Levin bill does just
that. Both States and the Federal Government have made
substantial investments in this important resource and we want
to expand and continue that good work.
The Council has already demonstrated its commitment to
collaboratively address Great Lakes issues on a regionwide
scale through Annex 2001, an amendment to the Great Lakes
Charter that addresses water diversions and in-basin
consumptive uses from the Great Lakes. The Council is well on
the way to meeting the Annex 3-year time line for development
of binding agreements, which will include a decisionmaking
standard to guide water withdrawals. This will also achieve the
first of the governors' priorities.
The recent GAO report notes that States devoted nearly $1
billion in the time period reviewed to Great Lakes-specific
projects, versus $745 million spent by Federal agencies and the
Corps of Engineers together. Illinois, for example, has spent
$6 million to restore coastal habitats. Michigan has committed
$25 million to sediment remediation, while Minnesota spends
$1.2 million each year to control invasive species. New York
has devoted approximately $22 million to open space
preservation projects in the Great Lakes basin, and in Ohio, we
have directed $25 million to conservation projects in the Lake
Erie basin.
The region's governors have individually and collectively
demonstrated the will and the leadership to invest in a wide
range of restoration projects and stand ready to pull together
a region-wide plan that can guide further progress.
A necessary component of the plan will be environmental
indicators by which progress can be measured, and I know that
you have spoken of the need for a set of indicators for all the
Great Lakes, Senator Voinovich, similar to the Lake Erie Index
that you developed while you were Ohio Governor.
The GAO report correctly notes that the development of
indicators has been the purpose of SOLEC over the past several
years and that a set of indicators has not been finalized. No
one should underestimate what a difficult task this is,
especially given the diversity and geographic expanse of the
Great Lakes basin. Nevertheless, it is imperative that this
effort move forward more expeditiously than has been the case
to date, and a good system of indicators will form the basis of
both accountability and measurement of success.
The governors find much to commend in the GAO report and
agree with its primary conclusion that the multitude of
programs directed at the Great Lakes need to be better
coordinated and focused. However, the Council disagrees with
its recommendation that the restoration efforts be directed by
GLNPO. Clearly, GLNPO has an important role to play,
particularly with regard to the binational aspects of Great
Lakes restoration. Other existing Great Lakes organizations and
stakeholders are also key players. For example, the Great Lakes
Commission can contribute valuable scientific and technical
expertise. But we believe that it is the role of the region's
governors to establish policy priorities in consultation with
local governments and other stakeholders and to plan specific
activities to achieve those priorities.
Thank you very much for the time, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Wooster.
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET WOOSTER,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT
LAKES UNITED
Ms. Wooster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee
Members, for inviting Great Lakes United to testify today on
government management in the context of Great Lakes ecosystem
restoration. We applaud the leadership of the Great Lakes Task
Force in both the House and Senate in bringing this issue to
the fore and we support these issues to promote Great Lakes
restoration and look forward to working with you to make them
happen. I also want to commend the GAO study, which we thought
was excellent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Wooster appears in the Appendix
on page 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes United is an international coalition of
individuals and over 170 organizations representing hundreds of
thousands of individuals from the eight Great Lakes States, two
Canadian provinces, and tribal territories within the Great
Lakes region. Our main constituents are environmental
organizations, like National Wildlife Federation, Lake Michigan
Federation, Sierra Club; conservation organizations like Trout
Unlimited; and labor groups, like Canadian Auto Workers and
United Auto Workers. We work with all of them at the local,
regional, and international level on projects and policies to
protect and restore the health of the ecosystem.
To that end, over the past 2 years, Great Lakes United
coordinated 30 Great Lakes groups in the creation of a
citizens' action agenda, a summary of which, The Great Lakes
Green Book, is over on the table and is presented with this
testimony. It can also be found on our website at www.glu.org.
Several of these groups that I mentioned, including
National Wildlife Federation, Lake Michigan Federation, Sierra
Club, and a few others, had input into the testimony that I am
reading today.
I am going to skip forward. The GAO report rightly points
out that we need an overarching strategy that clearly defines
agency roles and priority funding for Great Lakes restoration.
We would like to elaborate on four major needs raised in the
report. These are funding, agency coordination, public
involvement, and finally, one that isn't really raised in the
report but we feel is really important, the need to go beyond
existing policies and programs.
First, I will talk about funding. For at least the past
decade, there has been a lack of funding for even the most
basic protection and restoration efforts, like monitoring and
cleanup, as the GAO report notes. For example, the IJC
estimates it will cost $7.4 billion to clean up just the U.S.
Areas of Concern, those 31 hot spots in the United States or
shared with Canada.
Congress recently approved the Great Lakes Legacy Act,
authorizing $53 million per year for 5 years for sediment
cleanup, which we hoped would restart cleanup efforts in the
Great Lakes. But the funding proposed in the 2004 budget was
only about one-third of that, or 0.2 percent of the total
estimated cost.
My point here is not to be ungrateful. Fifteen million to
help restart sediment cleanup efforts is a good beginning. But
my point here is to really point out the discrepancy between
the amount and the need.
We need a dedicated revenue stream over a period of at
least 10 years sufficient to complete the job, the job of
sediment cleanup. Every year we wait makes the job harder and
costlier and prolongs a major source of ecosystem damage.
Next, coordination. At this point in time, there is no one
Federal agency and no consortium of State agencies with the
capacity to develop and oversee a Great Lakes restoration
initiative. We need an independent body which defines goals,
targets, and time lines and accordingly prioritizes the
projects that should be funded. This body should be led by the
region's representatives, Federal, State, local, and tribal,
with strong citizen involvement, strong public accountability
in terms of meeting its charge, and a mechanism for cross-
border coordination. It should define criteria for funding
projects to help leverage restoration goals.
I want to just comment on that to say that S. 1398, with
its Great Lakes Advisory Board led by the States and cities and
tribes in the region, and then with its Federal agency
coordinating committee led by GLNPO, is a beginning, we think,
of a very good model for how this coordination should happen.
Public involvement--there must be a strong public role in
Great Lakes protection and restoration. The public must be
represented on any advisory body, Federal or State, that
determines a restoration plan and priorities for fundable
projects. There should also be opportunity for wide public
comment on restoration plans at strategic points in their
development. In other words, inclusion of groups like Great
Lakes United and the others in this process is important to us,
but also we think we are going to need hearings along the way
so that the wider public in the Great Lakes has a chance to
contribute to the development of plans for Great Lakes
restoration.
Finally, policy change. This is something we haven't talked
about, but we feel that--and our groups felt in creating a
citizens' agenda for the Great Lakes that this was very
important. There are a number of policy and institutional
changes that are critical. I will offer two examples.
One, we need to extend the focus of our strategies beyond
reacting to ecosystem harm to proactive initiatives. For
example, toxic reduction strategies must include support for
policies and programs that create alternative choices in Great
Lakes communities, such as incentives for resource
conservation, green energy, and pollution prevention.
Two, we need to carefully appraise the mandates of existing
institutions with the greatest influence on Great Lakes waters,
such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who accounted for
almost half the U.S. Federal environmental spending in the
Great Lakes over the past 10 years, according to the GAO
report. The Corps' traditional mandate has been to protect and
enhance private property, not ecosystems. In fact, improvements
in the name of flood control, navigation, and shoreline
hardening are usually directly detrimental to ecosystem health.
Therefore, it is important that if agencies like the Corps have
a role in Great Lakes restoration, that it be tightly defined
and publicly accountable.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Ms. Wooster.
As I mentioned earlier, your entire statements will be
included in the record and some of us will have questions that
we want to direct to you and we would appreciate your answering
them in writing.
Senator Garrett, you mentioned the E. coli problem, and I
really wasn't aware that there was that much increase of it
along the Great Lakes. You are trying to do something in your
own community to determine it. First of all, are you aware of
the Great Lakes Protection Fund?
Ms. Garrett. To a certain extent, but I have reached out to
many organizations and government entities and the ones that we
have put on our panel are the ones who have been the most
responsive.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, because we, when I was governor,
the Great Lakes Council of Governors set up a $100 million
endowment for----
Ms. Garrett. Maybe I will be calling them.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. For the research--yes, and
they are right in Chicago. They give grants to various
organizations to deal with various problems that confront the
Great Lakes, and it seems to me that if this is a problem that
is universal, that they ought to be willing to put some money
into helping you get the research done.
The other thing is, are there Federal agencies that are
involved right now in trying to look at that same issue?
Ms. Garrett. The Lake Michigan Federation provided me with
some charts, which I will leave, but what the charts
demonstrate is that the E. coli levels along our beaches are
continually going up at a fairly frequent level and this is
very disturbing information.
And to the point of bringing in local, Federal, and State
agencies, it is within our own communities that we have made
the decision to do this testing and there has been resistance.
So I think it is important to note that, that it may not have
been able to happen through some of these other groups that you
have been talking about.
Senator Voinovich. Well, you have got the Great Lakes
National Program Office that is in Chicago.
Ms. Garrett. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Have you contacted them about that issue
and are they doing anything about it?
Ms. Garrett. We have not contacted them. We have stayed
with--currently, we are working with the Lake Michigan
Federation, the Illinois Department of Public Health, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Lake County Health
Department, and we have received funding. We clearly are almost
to where we need to be.
But the fact of the matter is, I wasn't sure who to reach
out to, and in some cases, it was a struggle when I did reach
out, and people were in agreement--the constituents, my
constituents, want to see this happen. But I guess my point,
and I want to make this clear, is that there is resistance to
this because no one community wants to admit that there may be
human sewage from their community going into the lake, and I
think that if they understood that there were dollars that will
help upgrade those sewer systems or whatever may be the
problem, that we need to find those dollars. But first, we have
to understand what is causing the high E. coli levels.
Senator Voinovich. But it gets back to if you had one
``orchestra leader'' that knew what all the organizations were
doing and where the problems were and where the funding sources
were, that might be very helpful to everybody, because your
problem is the same as, I assume, a lot of other places. I
understand that they are afraid to do it because that gets back
to what Ms. Wooster had to say, and that it is the funding.
One of the things that we have struggled with in the
Environment and Public Works Committee was increasing the
amount of money for the State Revolving Loan Fund for Clean
Water. It is not there. We are mandating all kinds of things
for local governments and they don't have the resources to deal
with them. So that is another aspect of this, looking at the
big picture.
Do you think that your local organizations would be--and
this is the same question I would like to ask Chris Jones--
comfortable with working with the Great Lakes National Program
Office. I mean, what do you think about them being kind of the
host or the orchestra leader in terms of putting this all
together?
Ms. Garrett. I personally like that idea, because I think
while the EPA does a wonderful job, I think this issue is
specific to the Great Lakes. We have different issues
associated with the Great Lakes, and an organization that fully
understands those problems will be willing to listen and
understand how to address those concerns is a group I would
personally like to work with.
Senator Voinovich. We talked about something called SOLEC,
the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, which has been
created by the BEC. I think, Dennis, you said something about
the fact that they are not moving. Who is responsible for
SOLEC? They are to be developing, what, some standards to
assess the indicators in terms of water quality. Who is in
charge and where is the money coming from to fund them?
Mr. Schornack. Well, I will give that a try, Senator. The
Binational Executive Committee, the BEC, as you have named it,
consists of leadership by the Environmental Protection Agency
of the United States and co-chaired with Environment Canada.
They are in the process of identifying indicators of ecosystem
health, and it has been--they do this through a matter of a
series of conferences----
Senator Voinovich. But do they do that in terms of the IJC?
Are you the ones that have orchestrated this agreement and do
they kind of respond to you, or----
Mr. Schornack. We have motivated and urged the development
and implementation of indicators and have been a party to that
process going on for 9 years. Currently, we have about 80
indicators, but we only have data to partially support 33 of
them, and there are things like the levels of PCBs in coho
salmon, the numbers of beaches closed, and the quality of the
drinking water.
Those are the top three indicators that we think SOLEC
ought to be focusing on, is making sure that the data is there,
because these are the three top things the public cares about.
Are the beaches open for swimming? Are the fish safe to eat and
is the water safe to drink? We would like to see them, as a
matter of advice, develop the data and the testing, the
monitoring programs to substantiate those three indicators
first before moving on to the other 77.
Senator Voinovich. OK. I have some more questions on that,
but first, Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Garrett, thank you for being here. I wanted to make sure you
were invited to be part of the panel because I know you have a
special perspective on this, since, I think, you have lived
most of your life near Lake Michigan and certainly have
represented Legislative and Senatorial districts on Lake
Michigan.
I think Senator Voinovich has given us a good idea about
going after some resources to deal with some Illinois
challenges, and perhaps if we drop his name we will be more
successful in that effort. [Laughter.]
We certainly will try to do that. But I think it really
tells a story that you are trying to gather together $25,000 to
do some testing and that you are struggling to find a source
for that small amount, relatively small amount by even State
standards, let alone Federal standards. It also reinforces the
conclusion of the GAO that we just aren't coordinating this
well enough. We are not sharing enough information so that
people know exactly where to go to try to get a good community
response to this. So I think this legislation moves us in the
right direction, so thank you for being with us today.
Ms. Wooster, you talked about money, and that is always a
great topic in this town, and the fact that we haven't come up
with much. We have done a lot of talking about this, but we
haven't come up with much money. If I recall your testimony
here, you said that the International Joint Commission
identified 31 toxic hot spots with an estimated cleanup cost of
$7.4 billion. If I understand you correctly, despite that
estimated cleanup cost, Congress's proposed 2004 budget
proposes, what, $16, $17, $18----
Ms. Wooster. I think it is $15 million.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Fifteen million out of a $7.4
billion need just for those hot spots, as they were identified.
This bill that we are talking about supporting and want to
see passed, if I understand it, authorizes about $6 billion,
which is certainly a move in the right direction, but in
comparison, the Everglades bill has $14 billion included. Now,
I don't want to suggest that our challenge is as great as
theirs. We need to justify every dollar that we request. But I
think your figures really tell the story. If we are not going
to invest the money once we have identified the problem, then
we are going to have a wonderful unread report when this is all
over instead of an action plan to do something, and I don't
want to see that occur. I guess that is, from your organization
viewpoint, your thought, as well.
Ms. Wooster. Yes. We have got the largest freshwater
ecosystem in the world here and we don't have investment nearly
commensurate with its importance. We think people are beginning
to understand the importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem as
the largest freshwater ecosystem on earth, but we still haven't
got the funding there to support its protection and
restoration. So yes, the $4 billion, or $6 billion, I should
say, is a very great improvement and it is probably not all
that will be needed to do the job, but it is a very great
start.
Senator Durbin. We are facing record deficits now, as was
reported yesterday, and I know the States are going through the
same. Senator Garrett has just finished a legislative session
and I assume that--I hope that this area wasn't cut, but did
our State of Illinois have to reduce any of its State funds
that would have been dedicated for some of our discussion
purposes here?
Ms. Garrett. I do not think so, and I also know that the
Lieutenant Governor has set up his own Clean Water Trust Fund.
I think we are going to be talking about drinking water and
other things that will be subsidized through that fund.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
One of the questions I have is that the Great Lakes
National Program Office, and Chris, maybe you could answer
this, is that--all of the Great Lakes are not in just Region V,
are they?
Mr. Jones. No, Mr. Chairman. There are six States in Region
V. There are eight States and two provinces that are on the
Great Lakes.
Senator Voinovich. So it is Region V and what is the other
regions?
Mr. Jones. Regions II and III are also in the Great Lakes.
Senator Voinovich. So you have Regions V, III, and II, but
the Great Lakes National Program Office has been charged with
dealing with all of the Great Lakes. Is there a jurisdictional
problem there? At least it is all in that basket.
Mr. Schornack, what kind of relationship do you have with
the Great Lakes National Program Office right now, the
International Joint Commission?
Mr. Schornack. Well, I would consider it a very productive
relationship and one that--we rely upon the Great Lakes
National Program Office for much of the data that we use to do
our assessing function, our sort of independent watchdog
function, on how well the two governments implement the terms
and conditions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and
that works very fine for programs that are under EPA's
jurisdiction. But it gets less effective, however, when we are
looking at things like habitat loss, where we have to cut
across different Federal agencies. That is where we have some
difficulty, I think, getting information.
Senator Voinovich. So you have got the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and you indicated that it hasn't been updated
since 1987, is that right?
Mr. Schornack. That is right.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that would be a useful
document? Does that include criteria for various levels of
things----
Mr. Schornack. Yes, sir, it does.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Like the indicators in
terms of these kinds of things, the water quality, pollution
sources, and so on and so forth?
Mr. Schornack. It does. There are, in fact, some 64
different specific objectives for the amount of some 46
different classes of chemical substance in the open water
column and those specific objectives have to be met and things
have to be monitored.
I think the one point I was trying to make in sort of
suggesting the notion of a treaty is that if--the Water Quality
Agreement calls for a surveillance and monitoring program, but
it is an agreement. It is a gentlemen's handshake that has
moral authority, not the legal authority of a treaty. And if
this were part of a treaty, it would actually be a matter of
law. It would be done.
Senator Voinovich. So the reason why you think that you
would want to have that Water Quality Agreement updated, that
it could act as the consensus of what it is that both the U.S.
and Canadian Government would want as far as indicators of what
you would be measuring?
Mr. Schornack. Exactly.
Senator Voinovich. That would be your consensus----
Mr. Schornack. Right. There isn't----
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. So the IJC fundamentally,
then, is the body that is charged with looking after the Great
Lakes between the United States and Canada, is that correct?
Mr. Schornack. That is correct, sir.
Senator Voinovich. And then Mr. Gray works with you and he
is with the Canadian Federal Government.
Mr. Schornack. That is right, and we operate as a unitary
and joint body. We reach our decisions by consensus and do
joint fact finding as our sort of vehicle for arriving at the
facts.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Jones, what is the Council of Great
Lakes Governors, which is made of all the governors in the
Great Lakes States, opinion of this legislation that we have?
How would you feel about working with, and what is your
relationship with, the Great Lakes National Program Office?
Mr. Jones. Senator, the Great Lakes Governors, in a sense,
think that there are different functions. We believe that it
should be the governors of the Great Lakes States that set the
prioritization for a plan. Earlier, with the earlier panel, you
talked about the indices that we have in Ohio. What we did was
build off the index that was released in 1998, and in 2000, we
released the Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan, which
takes the index measurements and specifically assigns--there
are 84 specific tasks that match up with various indices and
there is a State agency responsible for implementing that
specific task. We are now in the process, now that we have the
initial index and the restoration----
Senator Voinovich. Who are you talking about now? You are
talking about----
Mr. Jones. This is the State of Ohio.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. Jones. But I think it sets a framework that I think is
important, because now we are going back for the second round
to look at the index that was completed in 1998. So we have to
measure again. But critically important is the overarching
plan. The overarching plan has to be built on the data that you
collect and it has to be built upon the priorities that you
set.
We speak of the Great Lakes. There are fairly significant
differences between the Great Lakes and the Everglades. For
example, the Everglades is essentially one ecosystem in one
State. Here, you have a number of very different ecosystems in
a number of different States, three different EPA Regions, and
two Canadian provinces. So the complexities are that much more
there and it is that much more important to get the type of
local input that you are well able to do through the governors,
through the State Government, reaching out.
We have already been in discussion with the Great Lakes
mayors, and one of the things we did in Ohio was--once we had
the index, we went out and did 16 different focus groups across
the lake, from Ashtabula to Toledo, to get input on what are
the significant things you want us to measure to be able to
answer the question. As Mr. Schornack says, what people want to
know is, can I drink the water? Can I swim? So it is that
process of building the plan and prioritizing your work and
then measuring the work that you do to produce results at the
end.
I guess I see the GLNPO not so much as directing, but in
coordinating, perhaps, and being the central point of focus,
but I really think the States need to drive the prioritization
because the States are going to be much more sensitive to, for
example, the local concern about E. coli, which runs the
gamut--I mean, all of the Great Lakes have that issue in one
form or another, but there may be a local specific need to
address.
Senator Voinovich. The problem is, and that is one of the
things that I am talking about, how do you organize this thing.
That is going to take a lot of brainstorming, a lot of people
sitting down. I suggested to Ms. Wooster that maybe we ought to
have a day where we get all the groups together and just start
talking about how would you organize this thing, and the
governors want to do this.
But you know and I know that I happen to be really
interested in Lake Erie because it was my baby when I was in
the State legislature and I followed it. A lot of governors
really aren't that concerned about their Great Lake, whatever
it is. It is not the driving factor. Maybe in Illinois, but
there are some other places, maybe New York--and then you get
new governors in, and they are so busy right now just trying to
stay above water in terms of their finances that the last thing
they are thinking about probably is whatever Great Lake they
are responsible for.
So you need some kind of a continuing effort that is in
place to keep this going, and I would really be interested in
what the Council of Great Lakes Governors would say about--is
this the same thing with, like, the IJC? When I was there, we
would invite the premiers down to be involved with us when we
were doing these things. I am sure that the premiers have been
involved now in, what do we call it, the withdrawal, what is
the name of that?
Mr. Jones. The Annex 2000.
Senator Voinovich. The Annex 2000. I am sure you are
consulting with the premiers involved in that. But, Dennis, I
don't think we went to the IJC and maybe we should have done
that as kind of saying, you are the international group. How do
we interface with you in terms of this?
I am just saying that to figure out how all this is to get
done is going to be a real challenge. Would the governors not
be comfortable if the Great Lakes Office were the one that
would be the kind of orchestra leader and coordinator of this
thing?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, the way I understand the
legislation, I think it is a good first step because it sets up
an advisory board and a Federal coordinating agency, and I
think the manner in which you establish the advisory board and
the level of input that board has can meet the concerns of the
governors in terms of providing our prioritization, the
governors' prioritization of the work that needs to be done and
at the same time allow the Federal agency to coordinate it.
I think the framework with this bill, and I think why it is
so encouraging to see this legislation, is there to do what you
say, and it is, I mean, just in the State of Ohio, we have the
Lake Erie Commission to try to coordinate the activities of six
different State agencies for our part of one of the Great
Lakes.
So it is certainly not a simple task, but I think perhaps
what difference there is really seems to be a tremendous amount
of momentum to move forward with this. I think one of the
things you have heard this morning from a lot of different
people is not nay-saying and negative, but we are all here to
try to make this work and your leadership and Senators DeWine
and Levin and the Members of the Subcommittee, I think that is
what can help us put this giant group of people together.
Senator Voinovich. Well, it is going to be a major effort,
but we all agree that it is--we need a symbiotic relationship
and the more we can cooperate then the better off we will be to
figure out how to get this done.
Dennis Schornack was saying about the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement needing to be updated. It seems to me that if
you did that and got involved in it, that could be the
standard, in other words, instead of having you do your thing
and then the governors come along and say, well, we are going
to do something else, and then the EPA comes up--we would kind
of agree and say, they are working on it. They have got the
resources and they have got to do it.
The other thing that I think when talking about money is
that--I am very much involved in the Everglades--is that it is
a 50-50 proposition, as you know, in terms of funding. So if
you went ahead and you started investing money, you would have
to have priorities about where are we going to put the money
and then is there going to be some State participation in it or
is this just going to be all the Federal Government. That would
have to be sorted out.
Those are questions that are very important, and getting
back also to some of the stuff that is just basic Federal
responsibility. We talk about sewers and Safe Drinking Water
and Clean Water. There is a big area here where there is a lot
more effort that has to be made. There are certain systemic
things that are fundamental to restoration of the Great Lakes
and that has got a lot to do with just some other Federal
programs that need to be looked at and folded in, as well as, I
am sure, in terms of Canada and some of what they have got to
do.
Does anyone else have any other comments before we close
this hearing, adjourn it?
[No response.]
Senator Voinovich. I really thank you very much for coming
and I am excited about the prospects. You will be hearing more
from us and certainly you will be getting some questions from
me. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8934.243
Question for Mr. Chris Jones
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director
for the Council of Great Lakes Governors
Q. As I stated during the hearing, I think indicators for all
of the Great Lakes are a very important piece to protecting and
restoring them. However, until we get this done, we need to a
least continue the work we started in 1998 with the release of
the Lake Erie Water Quality Index. What monitoring are we
doing? When will the Index be updated? What do you expect will
be the results--for example, has Lake Erie improved since 1998?
As you know, I recently wrote the Council of Great Lakes
Governors urging them to take the lead in developing a
comprehensive restoration plan for the Great Lakes and to
complete their work on the Annex by the established deadline of
June 2004. When can we expect to receive the Council's
priorities for restoration? Does the Council expect to make the
deadline for the Annex?
A. The Council hopes to make draft priorities available for
public comment this September. The Water Management Prospect is
on schedule to meet the three-year timeline in the Annex.