[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE GREAT LAKES
=======================================================================
(110-14)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 7, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-785 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas
California GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of York
Columbia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BOB FILNER, California Louisiana
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Page
Becker, Hon. Gary, Mayor, City of Racine, Wisconsin.............. 13
Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, National Wildlife Federation's Great
Lakes Office and Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Great Lakes
Coalition...................................................... 27
Debeaussaert, Ken, Director, Michigan Office of the Great Lakes.. 13
Ettawageshik, Hon. Frank, Tribal Chairman, Little Traverse Bay
Bands of Odawa Indians;........................................ 13
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................. 2
Kahabka, John M., Manager of Environmental Operations, New York
Power Authority................................................ 27
Lodge, David M., Professor, Department Of Biological Sciences,
University Of Notre Dame....................................... 27
Ojard, Adolph N., President, American Great Lakes Ports
Association, Executive Director, Duluth Seaway Port Authority.. 27
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 38
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 40
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 43
Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin.................................. 48
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 51
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin.............................. 56
Salazar Hon. John T., of Colorado................................ 57
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Becker, Hon. Gary................................................ 59
Buchsbaum, Andy.................................................. 63
DeBeaussaert, Ken................................................ 166
Ettawageshik, Frank.............................................. 193
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin.......................................... 202
Kahabka, John M.,................................................ 211
Lodge, David M.,................................................. 217
Ojard, Adolph N.,................................................ 242
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Buchsbaum, Andy, Director, National Wildlife Federation's Great
Lakes Office and Co-Chair, Healking Our Waters Great Lakes
Coalition:
Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and
Restoration.................................................. 74
Ecosystem Shock: The Devastating Impacts of Invasive Species on
the Great Lakes Food Web..................................... 113
Lodge, David M., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Notre Dame, Impact of Aquatic Invasive Species in
the Great Lakes................................................ 226
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Collister Johnson,
Jr., Administrator, statement.................................. 248
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Jennifer McKay, Policy
Specialist, written statement.................................. 253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.008
HEARING ON THE IMPACT OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE GREAT LAKES
----------
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
Bernice Johnson [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. [Presiding] The Subcommittee will come to
order. I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today, and
thank you for being here.
The Chair of this Subcommittee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, is
on the Floor managing a bill right now. So as soon as she is
finished, I think there were three amendments that they were
debating to the bill. As soon as she completes her work on the
Floor, I would expect that we will have votes in the next 15
minutes or so. We will come back and she will be in the chair
at that time.
So at this time, I would ask unanimous consent that the
full statements of both the Chairperson of this Subcommittee,
Eddie Bernice Johnson, and my statement be included in the
record, and any other opening statements that members would
like to submit for the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I want to welcome our witnesses here today. The first panel
is seated, and we will proceed to recognize you in order. We
will be under the five minute rule. As we proceed under the
five minute rule, we would ask our witnesses to summarize their
testimony within five minutes and then we will recognize the
other witnesses and there will be time for questions as well.
We are very pleased to have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses on our panel here this afternoon. First, we have the
Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, the Assistant Administrator for
Water for the United States EPA. Next we have the Honorable
Frank Ettawageshik, the Tribal Chairman of the Little Traverse
Bay Band of Odawa Indians. Next we have the Honorable Gary
Becker, the Mayor of the City of Racine, Wisconsin. He is also
testifying on behalf of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative. Finally, we have the Honorable Ken DeBeaussaert,
Director of the Office of the Great Lakes for the State of
Michigan, and also testifying on behalf of the Great Lakes
Commission.
So before we go to our witnesses, I would recognize at this
time Dr. Ehlers, sitting in for the Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here. I have spent a lot of time on invasive
species issues, including sponsoring several bills on that. I
appreciate your taking this issue up.
Also, I am filling in for the Ranking Member. For those who
are not familiar with political nomenclature in the Congress,
Ranking Member does not mean the most rank member----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers.--but rather the highest ranking Republican. So
I am filling in for Mr. Baker, who has to be on the Floor for a
short period of time. He has a statement that he has presented
and rather than read it, Mr. Chairman, I will just move that
his statement be entered into the record.
Mr. Costello. Without objection.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. I reaffirm my pleasure at
being here. As the sponsor of several bills, the sooner we can
act on this, the better.
I might also express my pleasure at the panel selected. I
know all of them personally, I have worked with all of them on
this issue, and I am sure we are going to hear words of great
wisdom from all of them.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
I understand that, Mr. Grumbles, you have to leave at 3:00
o'clock, is that correct? What we will do then is we will ask
you to present your testimony first. After you conclude, I will
ask Subcommittee members if they have questions for you. So
before we go to the other witnesses, we will let you give your
testimony, and then we will have an opportunity to ask
questions at that time.
So if you will proceed, and again, thank you for being
here.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman
Ehlers, in particular, I want to thank you for your leadership
over the years on the Great Lakes. And Congressman Salazar,
thank you as well for your leadership on this important
Subcommittee and for convening this hearing on one of the most
pressing and important environmental, ecological and economic
threats to the Great Lakes, and to the Country, and that is
invasive species. The Great Lakes is a vast but fragile
ecosystem, and the focus of this hearing is appropriate, it
focuses on one of the greatest threats, invasive species.
On behalf of Administrator Steve Johnson of EPA and also
the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, I am delighted to
present testimony describing important actions that are
underway and additional actions that are needed to respond to
this great challenge.
The first thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the
President's Executive Order in May of 2004 did several things,
one of which was to establish an interagency task force.
Another was to support the important work of a regional
collaboration. This regional collaboration was an impressive
fusion of ecology and democracy to bring together groups,
government, non-governmental groups from all levels to work on
the challenges to the Great Lakes. One of the highest and most
important priorities has been to make further progress in
reducing the spread and preventing the introduction of invasive
species. Seven of the 48 near-term actions that the
Administration agreed to in the context of the follow-up to the
executive order and the regional collaboration specifically
focus on invasive species.
As you know, and all of the folks in this room know, who
are here to celebrate and also recommit to the importance of
the Great Lakes know, that invasive species are one of the
greatest challenges. There are approximately 180 aquatic
invasive species that have been introduced over the years into
the Great Lakes, an average of one every eight months, a new
invasive species is introduced. We all know that this is an
environmental and an ecological threat, and a very significant
one at that. Some of the estimates are that the costs for the
treatment and control of zebra mussel impacts on industrial and
municipal facilities are estimated at $100 million to $200
million annually, just in the Great Lakes. And of course, there
is the ecological damage beyond the economic damage, the
ecological damage and disruption of the food chain, as well as
the potential spread of different type of viruses and diseases
that can affect birds and fish and people.
Another one of the menacing species knocking at the door of
the Great Lakes is the Asian carp. The Asian carp can grow
rapidly to over 100 pounds. They can breed so fast that
Australians have named them river rabbits. They could have a
devastating impact on the Great Lakes by out-competing native
fish for plankton. That is why we feel it is so important to
continue to make progress on a sustainable approach of physical
barriers, such as the Asian carp, or the electrical barriers
preventing the introduction of carp to Lake Michigan, as well
as many other steps.
Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on some of the important
actions to date. The testimony goes into great detail. EPA is
strongly supported by agencies such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, various councils and task forces and resource
groups. The basic point is, we all recognize, working with our
State and local and non-governmental partners, we need to do
more, we need to do much more in terms of the invasive species
threat. Some of the specific things that I would like to
comment on are the agreement that EPA has with the Coast Guard.
We are a cooperating agency in an extremely important effort
that the Coats Guard has underway, and that is to propose
ballast water treatment standards. We think it is extremely
important for Congress to act on this issue of invasive species
in the Great Lakes and beyond. We think that there are many
important tools to use, such as NAISA and reauthorizing and
strengthening that statute. We think it is important to move
beyond just exchange to treatment. That is why we support
strengthening of the overall standards and framework for
regulating ballast water.
And Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to answer questions
at the appropriate time. Thanks very much for the opportunity
to testify.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles.
Let me recognize at this time Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Grumbles, you commented several times
about the ecological and economic threat we face. I think it is
more than a threat, it is an ecological and environmental
disaster. The costs that we are incurring with this is just
outrageous, just in Michigan alone, when you look at the
figures for dealing with the zebra mussel and some of the other
species coming in.
And I am just getting awfully frustrated with the slow pace
at which we are addressing this. It is typical Government
action. I know I am part of the Government. But there is always
this dispute about who is supposed to do what. Take for
example, the electronic barrier to keep the Asian carp out of
the Great Lakes. I have been beating people up on that for
years. But they says, well, the Corps of Engineers has to do
it. The Corps says, well, we don't have the money to do it.
Then it comes to the problem of maintenance, who is going to
maintain it afterwards. The Corps doesn't have maintenance
money. The local communities aren't sure they have enough
money. And it is just going on and on. If that Asian carp ever
gets through there into the Great Lakes, we are talking at
least a $6 billion a year cost, all because we don't have the
money to put a few million dollars into electronic barriers.
A specific question on the ballast water standards, I
appreciate that the Coast Guard is finally getting into action
on that. They were given responsibility by the Congress in the
early 1990's to address this and never have. So now they are
setting ballast water standards. I appreciate that they are
setting ballast water standards. But again the point is, where
is the research that says what the standard should be? Where is
the research that is trying to define the basic standards or
the basic processes that should be used in determining the
standards? Is it going to be ballast water exchange? If that
doesn't do it, what about the sediments? How do you deal with
that? I haven't seen any answers on that yet. At the same time,
I have introduced a bill on that for a number of years, just to
do the research. And I fault the Congress as much as I do
anyone in the Administration on this. It still is not in law,
there is still not good research being done by university level
researchers telling us exactly what the pathways are, how
things get in here, what we have to do to achieve, to really
stop them in every way possible.
So I don't want to vent on you, Ben, because you have been
a hero in a lot of this. But it is extremely frustrating that
these problems have been there for years now. I have been in
the Congress 13 years, and they were here before I started. And
we are still spinning our wheels on something as simple as
ballast water standards, preventing the little critters from
getting in, or the big critters. I am especially disturbed at
the length of time it is taking to get that electronic barrier
in. If Asian carp ever gets in, there is going to be
recriminations on every newspaper in the Great Lakes States,
condemning the Government in round terms for not having
installed that and stopped them.
Enough sermons. But I would appreciate any comments and
advice you have to offer.
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, thank you. I think the key is
prevention and technology and also awareness of the economic as
well as the ecological damage that is occurring. I fully agree
with you, it is not just a threat, it is a current problem. But
it can get worse if we don't all work together to be more
proactive.
In terms of the economics, EPA is working with other
agencies on developing and using bioeconomic tools to really
get a better number. We think it is important to do that, to
help increase awareness, and that will help lead to more
action.
In terms of technology, I think it is important to continue
to push more and more for more information to pursue more
science to develop those technologies. EPA's environmental
technology verification program is an important component of
that. We have entered into a memorandum of agreement with the
Coast Guard. We expect that there will be protocols
specifically for environmental technology verification testing
being validated. What we are looking at is a final draft of the
protocols being validated by Coast Guard and Navy, at Navy's
testing facilities, which has been recently enhanced to support
ballast water technology testing and verification.
So I fully appreciate the spirit and also the substance of
your comments about moving ahead more quickly and accelerating
the pace on ballast water, not just addressing exchange issues,
but also getting at treatment and identifying real and
practical and effective technologies to treat the spread of
invasives and to stop it.
Mr. Ehlers. Are you doing the research that guides the
Coast Guard?
Mr. Grumbles. EPA is doing some of the research. I think it
is truly, as the Interagency Invasive Species Task Force and
Council would tell you, it is a multi-agency effort. I can tell
you that our research office within EPA, which you are very
familiar with, is aware of the need for continued work on the
technologies and research and the tools for combating invasive
species.
Mr. Ehlers. I know they are aware of the need, but are they
doing the research, are they identifying pathways?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes. My understanding is that there is
research being done. We also, in coordination with other
organizations and consortia, are carrying out research. There
is also an awareness of the need for more research and
technology deployment.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me just also add in the tiny bit of time I
have left, this is an international problem. I was very
disappointed with the last international conference where we
tried to strengthen the standard in the international
agreements. The other countries showed very little sympathy for
our efforts and very little understanding of the problem we
face here, probably because they have so many different
invasive species in all their harbors, they have given up hope.
But I think if we can't get international agreement on
this, we just have to go ahead and do our own thing. We cannot
afford to let more invasive species in. It is an incredible
expense for our Country.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
At this time I will recognize Mr. Salazar for five minutes
for questions of Mr. Grumbles.
Mr. Salazar. I do appreciate this.
Mr. Grumbles, I think you have listed six invasive species,
which are fish, plants, mollusks, invertebrates, insects, algae
and microorganisms. Which one would you say is the biggest
threat, not only to the Great Lakes, but to other waterways in
this Country?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, from a policy perspective, from
a scientific perspective, I would be very constrained to
identify any one single one as the biggest threat. The
inattention to the overall need is the biggest threat, because
in many ways, invasives are a silent threat, because you don't
know, like drought, you don't really know it until you are upon
it.
But I think one of the important efforts at the Federal
interagency level is linking the terrestrial invasive species
group with the aquatic invasive species group, recognizing that
there is a strong linkage there. Also just from the aquatic
perspective, we are very much aware, our Great Lakes National
Program Office at EPA is very much aware of the many different
types of threats that the mussels, it is not just the Asian
carp or those celebrated invasives. There are others that can
pose a greater ecological threat.
And this is a great subject, not just for the Great Lakes,
but for the whole Country, whether it is in bays and watersheds
in the east or west coast or in the middle section. But
particularly in coastal regions, it is one of the greatest
challenges, as well as viruses. It doesn't have to be fish or
shellfish. There are also viruses that are invasive species.
Mr. Salazar. And the reason I asked you this is because
yesterday, I had the Army Corps in my office and we were
talking about two big invaders that have been introduced in
Colorado, within the Colorado River and the Arkansas River. One
of them is the salt cedar, or the tamarisk, which not only is
big and uses a lot of water along our waterways, but also
contaminates the soil, because it actually leaves an area of
very salty soil where nothing grows after you remove them.
Now, the Army Corps is in charge of removing some of those
species along portions of the Colorado River. You mentioned a
little bit ago about the plan the President put forward to
coordinate all the agencies together. How effective do you
think that is and who is going to be taking the lead in
addressing these issues?
Mr. Grumbles. Of course, I was referring to the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force. On that, pursuant to President Bush's
executive order, EPA chairs that task force with respect to the
Great Lakes ecosystem. There are other executive orders that
have been issued relating to other challenges, the invasive
task force that is not limited to the Great Lakes, Executive
Order 13112, the National Invasive Species Council, which I
believe Department of Interior is the primary agency on.
But for us, specifically in the Great Lakes, invasive
species, there is a need for a strong Federal role. We feel
that in addition to EPA, Interior and Agriculture and Coast
Guard and Army Corps and Commerce are extremely important
agencies, using existing tools they have, which often rely on,
it can be chemical, physical barriers, but also taking steps
working with our colleagues to ensure a healthy habitat.
Because oftentimes when habitats are unhealthy, they are most
vulnerable to invasive species.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles, thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to try to get a better assessment, Mr. Secretary, of
our procedural circumstance. As I understand the district court
case, Northwest v. EPA is now on appeal, pending a
determination of whether the incidental discharge question can
be reinstated or not. Concurrent with that, I understand there
are existing MOUs between EPA and Coast Guard relative to
establishing a workout plan for deployment of new technologies
and other perhaps innovative control mechanisms.
Assuming the best circumstance and outcome, from today
looking forward, what kind of time frame is it going to take to
get some substantive deployment in place? Will it require
perhaps a final legal determination of the pending court
matter? Will the MOU be the operative lever from which the
Coast Guard takes the next step? Help us understand, if we are
just taking a snapshot today, what are we going to look like
two years from now?
I read with disturbing interest that the estimate is a new
invasive species every eight months. How many more are we going
to have before we get an answer?
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congressman. Those are really some
of the key issues that need to be discussed, in Congress as
well as in the agency hearing rooms.
You mentioned the court case. I know folks are very
familiar with this. This was the decision in September, 2006,
where a district court in California issued an order vacating a
longstanding regulatory exclusion from permitting under the
Clean Water Act for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel, including ballast water exchanges.
Mr. Baker. That doesn't include, for example, a bilge pump
on a 16 foot ski boat?
Mr. Grumbles. I believe so. I think our estimates and those
of others, if left undisturbed, that decision could lead to a
Clean Water Act permit for 13 million recreational vessels,
81,000 commercial fishing vessels, 53,000 freight and tank
barges.
The important point is that because we respectfully
disagree with that decision, we are appealing that decision. An
even more important point, though, Congressman, is that we
recognize that important actions need to occur to continue to
combat the spread of invasive species. You mentioned the Coast
Guard. From our perspective, a key way to proceed with other
agencies is to provide support to the Coast Guard to use their
existing authorities for their ballast water discharge standard
regulation that they are going to be working on, but also to
provide technical support to you and your colleagues in
Congress to move forward with a stronger and reauthorized
national invasive species act legislation that addresses this
issue of----
Mr. Baker. You may not be comfortable in addressing this,
since it is a question of another agency's authority, but do
you believe, from your perspective, the Coast Guard has the
regulatory platform from which to make judgments and regulate
this problem?
Mr. Grumbles. From my perspective, I believe that the
framework of the NANPCA 1990 legislation and the 1996
amendments from NAISA, that provides the regulatory framework
and the primary lead agency, the Coast Guard. An important
addition to that, though, is to clarify from a Congressional
standpoint the role of the Clean Water Act in the EPA
permitting process. We continue to believe that the Coast Guard
has the overall tools, but that it would be beneficial for
Congress to strengthen the NAISA and to provided for a uniform
standard for treatment.
Mr. Baker. Since my time is about to expire, let me
interrupt one more time. It would be your view, then, that the
Coast Guard has the ability and authority to move forward,
absent any appellate decision on the EPA litigation, they could
in your view take whatever steps they believe to be adequate to
begin addressing this problem, notwithstanding the legal status
of the EPA at this time?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, I think they do have the authorities to
continue to move forward under their existing tools. We think
it is important for Congress to strengthen their tools, to
provide a uniform standard for treatment. An important point is
that right now in EPA, there is an order by the judge for us to
vacate our exemption before October 1st, 2008, September 30th,
2008.
Mr. Baker. Which is a whole new set of problems. That
complicates our circumstance, but it doesn't address the
invasive species issue.
Mr. Grumbles. Right.
Mr. Baker. I thank you.
Ms. Johnson. [Presiding] Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Mr.
Grumbles, for coming here today and educating us. Thank you
also to other members of the EPA for bestowing on me a national
award for studying the environment and making it more friendly
for children and patients I took care of for many years.
Through your testimony you did mention that there is a
collaborative research program that has been supported by NOAA,
the Coast Guard and the EPA. I am wondering if you could share
with us some of the results of the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab and also the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Group. Do you have those results available to share with us,
particularly as it relates to the ballast and the introduction
of invasive species into the Great Lakes?
Mr. Grumbles. I thank you for your excellent question. I
don't have the specifics or the details. I would be happy to
provide those to you and your colleagues on the Committee. It
is important, though, to re-emphasize the need for working
together through both the Smithsonian Institution, all the work
that NOAA is doing and other research agencies on this threat.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much. I would appreciate the
data, since my background is in science and I like data. It is
less political when you have numbers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kagen. I don't mind working with anybody if it means we
can help to reduce not just the number but the introduction of
additional invasive species.
But since I am also new here and I am beginning to sort of
feel my way around, are you willing to take full and complete
blame for any other additional invasive species that come into
the Great Lakes? And if it isn't you or your organization, who
do we look to to address the issue?
Because I think the real question is not to prevent the
Asian carp from coming in, they are going to get in, and then
what do we do when they get here? Who do we look to to blame?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grumbles. I think agencies at the Federal level, State
and local level should be held accountable for decisions and
being proactive. I think--it is hard to----
Mr. Kagen. It is hard to put a rope around the neck of an
agency. It is a lot easier to get someone who is front of us at
a microphone.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grumbles. I certainly will accept part of the blame, or
for the success. I think we appropriately focus on oftentimes
the glass that is half empty. We also need to keep in sight
that there is progress, there are some important collaborations
and actions that are occurring, there is a commitment to do
more, on the issue that Congressman Ehlers raised, on the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, working to iron out those
issues surrounding the Asian carp barrier.
There are good things, there are actions that are
occurring, not just in the Federal agencies. But Congressman,
we need to be focused on prevention and being held accountable,
and that includes me, to take steps to help, practical,
aggressive steps to reduce the likelihood of continued
increases of the spread of invasive species.
Mr. Kagen. The other thing I am impressed with here in
Congress is the good will of everyone, because everyone in the
room and everywhere beyond has great intentions. It is rather
the speed at which these intentions are executed and the
programs funded and the research done. I will just remind you
of our stewardship that we all share, the stewardship of the
Great Lakes, which represents 90 percent of the fresh water in
the United States, and 20 percent for the entire planet. So
this is a tremendously important role that Congress plays and
the EPA as well.
Would you agree with me that the primary reason we have
seen such a rapid rise in the number of invasive species
throughout the Great Lakes has to do with global trade and the
introduction of these species through the shipping process?
Mr. Grumbles. I think that is the reality. That is
definitely one of the major factors, the maritime trade.
Mr. Kagen. The zebra mussel that I step in in the Fox River
in Appleton, Wisconsin, doesn't come in by air. It was
delivered by some boat and the ballast water. So you would
agree with me that that is the route of travel and that ought
to be then the top priority of your organization and of
Congress, is that right?
Mr. Grumbles. I think, and as I have talked with the head
of the Maritime Administration, and as we have worked,
collaborated with the Coast Guard, Maritime Transportation,
global transportation, ought to be one of the priority, not the
sole, but one of the priority areas of focus.
Mr. Kagen. I look forward to working with you throughout my
career in Congress.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to commend
you for holding this hearing today.
I have been involved in politics for about 30 years, and a
principal advocacy of mine throughout all of that has been
protecting our magnificent Great Lakes, which as my colleague
pointed out, is fully 20 percent, one-fifth of the fresh water
supply on the entire planet. In fact, Mr. DeBeaussaert and I
have worked together on the blue ribbon commission for Great
Lakes projects many more years than we probably want to talk
about.
But this issue of invasive species, let me be very blunt.
When I came here, I thought, what is the big deal? Why can't we
do something in Congress or the agencies about invasive
species? It is well documented the kind of havoc that they are
wreaking economically on the Great Lakes Basin, as well as the
damage that they are doing to such a delicate ecosystem. As a
Nation, we have not had the political will to do so. That is
the brutal reality.
In regard to the shipping that comes in and brings all
these critters along with them, we are only talking about a
couple of hundred, maybe several hundred at the most, boats.
Because the ones that are inside the basin, never go out, so
who cares? Right? They are not bringing any critters in. But
the other ones that are coming internationally do, as they are
coming into the St. Lawrence Seaway. If the Country of France
came over and dumped their nuclear waste in Wyoming, would the
EPA think that maybe we should do something about that?
But yet here you have these international vessels coming
into the Great Lakes, dumping these critters all over the
place, and you can't do anything? Honestly. Why not?
Mr. Grumbles. We think we can, and we think that we use our
statutory tools and responsibilities and look to the agencies
and the statutes that are best, most appropriately suited to be
proactive and to deal aggressively with that. I recognize your
leadership on this issue. I feel honored to sit on the table
with folks who have been so much, particularly Ken, who helped
chair the regional collaboration on invasives, the strategy
team on that.
Congresswoman, as you know, it involves different
authorities and agencies. EPA is committed to working with
Coast Guard, working with Congress to help strengthen that
underlying statutory framework and approach. We think the Clean
Water Act is one of the most successful environmental statutes
in the Nation's history. One of the questions is, how do you
use the tools under that statute in the most appropriate way.
From our perspective, over the last 30 years, we interpreted
the statute with Congressional acquiescence, essentially, that
it wasn't viewed that EPA, as opposed to Coast Guard under
other authorities, would be requiring Clean Water Act permits
under the Federal Clean Water Act for vessels.
Mrs. Miller. OK, I am going to run out of time here, so if
I could interrupt you. That is not the correct answer, although
I appreciate your answer.
Could you give me, at a later time here, a briefing on why
you think the EPA does not have the proper tools, from a
regulatory process, regulating policy to do something about
that? And my other question, for the minute and a half I have
left here, because we can't get the EPA to do anything or
because the Congress is not acting fast enough, Ken
DeBeaussaert and others, our Governor, our State legislature,
has actually tasked our own piece of legislation in Michigan,
so that if you are an ocean freighter and you come in, we make
sure that you have done your spit and swish, and that you have
done your ballast water discharge, to our own negative economic
impact. Because we are a State that is trying to stand up and
do the right thing, they are just going to go to Ohio or
somewhere else. We are very concerned that we are going to be
economically disadvantaged because we are trying to do the
right thing.
I have introduced a piece of legislation to make that
uniform amongst the Basin, and I hope that happens. But did you
have any comments on what Michigan did in that case?
Mr. Grumbles. First of all, I want to just say that
absolutely, positively, EPA wants to be part of the solution.
We are taking steps and we are working with other Federal
agencies and coordinating with Coast Guard. We also developed a
rapid response protocol. We are one agency, and it requires a
team to deal with this. We do truly recognize this as a threat,
and we want to use the appropriate tools and work with Congress
to strengthen the NAISA statute.
With respect to the efforts of Michigan, I think is
important that States have the ability to take additional steps
and develop approaches that are within the overall constitution
and framework. We think the beauty and attractiveness of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration that the President has been
encouraging over the years is that it brings together the
Federal agencies, but also the States and tribes and local
governments. Individual States may have approaches, whether it
is a NOBOB challenge, which we agree is an extremely important
and serious challenge that needs to be confronted with action.
Btu we are committed to working with all of the States and
with the other agencies to make progress with respect to
ballast water and also on the NOBOB challenge.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank our panel of
witnesses. I understand that Mr. Grumbles does have another
commitment and has to leave earlier. Ms. Johnson and I have
both been on the House Floor on a major piece of legislation
from our Committee to provide funding to build sewage treatment
facilities.
I have read your statement with interest, Mr. Grumbles, and
I have one question. Is there a technology that EPA has
identified that can be effective in eliminating from ballast
water non-indigenous species of the kind that we are concerned
about here, these invasive species? There may be other ways in
which they enter, as attached to the exterior hulls in the
salties that enter the Great Lakes. But I am considering just
the Great Lakes at the moment. But there is ballast water
discharge on the west coast and the east coast, and the Gulf
coast. In fact, all of those coastal port authorities are
concerned about it coming from the East China Sea, from the
eastern, or we would call it the western Pacific Rim.
We have had studies for year about invasive species. We
know what they do. What we need to do is get them out of the
water column and eradicate them before they get into the water
column. Is there something in EPA, a technology, a treatment,
that EPA said, this will do it?
Mr. Grumbles. First of all, Congressman, Mr. Chairman, I
would say I want to get back to you for the record with much
more specifics. In terms of the answer, I think we believe
there is not a silver bullet technology. There are promising
technologies. There are technologies that are more effective
and implementable than others.
I would also say that EPA is one agency with others, such
as NOAA and USDA, that are very much involved with the Coast
Guard on developing the standards and providing support to the
Coast Guard as they develop a ballast water treatment standard,
which will rely on performance based approach.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that I look forward to providing
you with more detail, and before doing that, coordinating with
the other agencies on what are the most promising technologies
to get the invasives out of the water column.
Mr. Oberstar. I appreciate that very much. I think Mrs.
Miller, with whom I have had extensive discussion on the
subject matter, would appreciate it, and Mr. Ehlers from
Michigan, our resident scientist on the Committee. We are at an
end of patience with studies. There is a good deal more that
needs to be evaluated, studied, researched and so on, but there
are things that we need to do now to prevent the next lamprey
eel, spiny echinoderm, zebra mussel, round eyed goby, European
milfoil, all those that have entered in ballast water into the
Great Lakes and destroyed the water column and the native
species.
We may never be able to get the zebra mussel out. We don't
want to import the diving duck from the Black Sea that is its
natural enemy, because then who knows how quickly that creature
will proliferate, with no natural enemies for it? We need both
control mechanisms for those that are already in the water
column in the Great Lakes, in the saltwater parts and a means
of preventing it from getting in, species from getting into our
water column, treating the ballast water for starters.
So I would welcome your follow-up and any indication other
agencies are actively working with EPA in this process.
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any other questions for Mr. Grumbles?
Hearing none, thank you very much.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson. We will see you next time.
I would like to welcome now Chairman--Ettawageshik?
Mr. Ettawageshik. Ettawageshik.
Ms. Johnson. I just speak Texas English, that's why I don't
do it well.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Johnson. From the Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians.
Thank you for being here.
I also welcome the Honorable Gary Becker, Mayor of the City
of Racine, Wisconsin. We look forward to your testimony as
well. And Mr. DeBeaussaert.
Mr. Oberstar. DeBeaussaert. [Phrase and greeting in
French.]
Ms. Johnson. Our Chairman is multilingual, and I appreciate
it, because I am not.
We will now recognize you, Mr. Chairman.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANK ETTAWAGESHIK, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN,
LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS; THE HONORABLE GARY
BECKER, MAYOR, CITY OF RACINE, WISCONSIN; KEN DEBEAUSSAERT,
DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT LAKES
Mr. Ettawageshik. Madam Chair and members of the Committee,
my name is Frank Ettawageshik, Tribal Chairman for the
Waganakising Odawak, otherwise known as the Little Traverse Bay
Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan.
As Chairman, I also serve as the tribal representative to
the Chippewa Odawa Resource Authority, otherwise known as CORA.
That is a coalition of five Michigan tribes that oversees the
management and regulation of treaty-based fishing rights in the
upper Great Lakes. CORA also oversees implementation of a
consent decree entered in the year 2000, a negotiated
settlement of a longstanding Federal court case among the five
tribes, State of Michigan and the Federal Government. The
consent decree governs the allocation and management of the
fishery resources and the 1836 treaty-ceded waters of the upper
Great Lakes.
With the approval of the CORA board, I speak on their
behalf today with respect to the issue of aquatic invasive
species, an issue we consider of great importance for our
fishing rights as well as the continued successful
implementation of the consent decree.
Our ancestors, who signed the 1836 Treaty of Washington
with the United States Government, had the wisdom to ensure
that future generations could continue utilizing the fish
resources of the Great Lakes for sustenance and income, and
many tribal families continue to depend on fishing today. While
we were preparing our written testimony, we consulted with the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and also the
Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, with the staff of these
organizations. Together with CORA, we represent many of the
tribes throughout the Great Lakes, from one end to the other of
the Great Lakes Basin.
As tribal nations, we often speak, and we are being taught
to consider the impact of our decision on through to the coming
seventh generation. While this teaching causes us to take the
long view in our planning, there are times within this long
view that we find ourselves needing immediate action in order
to protect the needs of those coming generations, in order to
meet our sacred duty and working to protect all of creation and
the beings with whom we share it. Today is one of those times
we call for immediate action.
Commercial fishing is one of the oldest industries in the
Great Lakes, if not the Nation. Historically, the Great Lakes
supported a vast, vibrant, profitable commercial fishing
industry. Sadly, today, commercial fishing on the Great Lakes,
particularly tribal fishing, is on the verge of collapse. Under
the various environmental and market forces, the direct and
indirect impacts of aquatic invasive species stand out as the
leading cause for the precipitous decline in treaty-based
commercial and subsistence fishing activity.
Our primary concern is the continued, steady and
destructive invasion of aquatic invasive species into the Great
Lakes, with their primary vector for entry being ballast water
discharge from transoceanic shipping. To state it bluntly, the
transoceanic shipping industry, through ballast water exchange
practices and construction of canals, has severely impaired and
threatens to destroy the treaty-based commercial and
subsistence fishing industry.
The tribes understand that foreign shipping into the Great
Lakes provides economic benefits to the United States. However,
we submit to you that any economic benefits derived from Great
Lakes foreign shipping, that those benefits pale in comparison
to the economic costs resulting from damages caused by aquatic
invasive species. We have heard many people talk about that
today, both in the questions and various statements.
One of the things that we are concerned about is with these
various species that have been there, but the recent discovery
of a serious new fish virus in Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron,
which is believed responsible for large fish dieoffs in the
spring of 2005, has greatly raised the level of concern.
Although it has not yet been determined how viral hemorrhagic
septicemia, VHS, found its way into the Great Lakes, ballast
water discharge is implicated. This is just another example of
the costs associated with this.
Unfortunately, history has proven that once an aquatic
invasive species is introduced to the Great Lakes, it can't be
stopped. Therefore, prevention is the only viable approach to
combating aquatic invasive species. The means by which aquatic
invasive species enter the Great Lakes must be stopped, and the
ballast water vector should be the first priority. We have
heard other people speak to that today.
It is really saddening to realize that most of the costs
and environmental damages wrought by AIS could have been
prevented. And all costs for those that are being introduced
today, all of those costs could have been prevented. So while
the solutions may be expensive, we believe that they pale in
comparison to the true economic costs. So not only is this a
Great Lakes issue, but these species that come in and end up
working their way throughout other ecosystems throughout the
area, we have heard recently some reports of the zebra mussels
moving their way into other waterways. We think that this is a
very serious concern.
On any given day, any given ballast water discharge from a
transoceanic vessel can carry an organism that could inflict as
much or even more economic and environmental damage as the sea
lamprey or zebra mussels or the pathogen VHS. We believe that
immediate action is necessary. We support the actions that are
being done, we support the actions of those on the Committee
that have been taken, and others. And I would be glad to answer
any questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize the Mayor of Racine, Wisconsin.
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon,
members of the Subcommittee.
I also serve as vice chair of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Cities Initiative, a coalition of mayors of some 39 member
cities and an additional 50 participating cities. Great Lakes
mayors are extremely fortunate to be managing cities and towns
located along a resource as incredible as the Great Lakes
Basin. At the same time, however, Great Lakes mayors must deal
with the problems of the Great Lakes on a daily basis, whether
it is making sure that the water intakes are clear from zebra
mussels, dealing with beach closings, unreliable water quality
standards, operating wastewater treatment plans, or managing
stormwater, the people that work for me, like mayors across the
Basin, must make sure things are done right. These are very
real issues for me and my fellow mayors and the people who live
in our cities.
Invasive species are a key issue for Great Lakes mayors,
causing extensive biological damage and resulting in billions
of dollars of costs across the Country and in the Basin. Over
180 different species have come into the Great Lakes already
and they continue to arrive at the rate, as has been mentioned,
about one every six or seven months. Some of the most notable,
of course, have been the sea lamprey and zebra mussel.
Ballast water in ships is the most common pathway for entry
into the system. Additionally, they are very close to entering
the Great Lakes, there are several varieties of the Asian carp
already in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, less than 50
miles from the Great Lakes.
Cities have dealt with the zebra mussel problem for many
years, with the clogging of drinking water intake structures
being the primary concern. In my own City of Racine, we have
spent nearly $1.4 million in 1995 for a new chemical feed
system, chemical lines and diffusers to address the situation.
In addition, it has increased our annual operating costs at the
water utility between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, and we are
one medium-sized city along the Lakes.
The tragedy of the situation is that much of the invasive
species problem could have been prevented. If action is not
taken quickly, though, things will get worse, as we all know.
Man of the issues we deal with on the Great Lakes are the
results of mistakes we made in the past. And now we are paying
the price. Rarely do we have the opportunity to prevent future
damage by taking action now. This is one situation where we
have that opportunity, and it would be a mistake not to take
full advantage of it.
Comprehensive invasive species legislation on a national
level is essential if we want to deal with the problem
effectively. This legislation does not need to cost taxpayers a
large amount of money. In fact, the lack of strong laws is
costing taxpayers much more already. The Federal Government
needs a strong program to restrict ballast water discharges and
control other pathways for invasive species. Costs incurred in
controlling the flow of invasive species should be absorbed by
the responsible businesses and consumers of the products they
produce and transport.
An additional problem with not having comprehensive Federal
laws is that States, as Michigan was mentioned, and local
governments are finding it necessary to move ahead on their
own. Having a program in one of the Great Lakes States and
potentially different programs in others will cause problems
for States and for the shipping industry.
One other action by Congress needed in the very near term
is authorization and appropriation to complete construction and
fund the operation of the electronic barrier on the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. Mayors and many others in the Great
Lakes region such as Governors, business groups, environmental
organizations and members of Congress wish this could have been
done several years ago. Each day it is not completed
perpetuates the unnecessary risk to the multi-billion sport and
commercial fishing industry on the Great Lakes.
Although the focus of today's hearing is on invasive
species, it is important to recognize that there are many other
serious threats to the Lakes. Discharges of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage from combined sanitary sewer
overflows are a major problem across the Basin. The
infrastructure investments needed are in the billions of
dollars, and only with significantly increased investments by
Federal, State and local governments will the problems be
solved.
Other key issues highlighted in the collaboration strategy,
which the Great Lakes perceives as a blueprint for moving
forward, were the toxics, habitat and wetlands protection and
contaminated sediments. These are the priority issues from the
perspective of Great Lakes mayors.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity
to provide testimony. Hopefully, we will not have our legacy as
today's leaders to have future generations look back and ask,
why did they not act when they knew it needed to be done? Thank
you.
Ms. Oberstar. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Mayor
Becker. We really appreciate your contribution today.
Mr. DeBeaussaert.
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Ken DeBeaussaert, I am the Director of
the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes. I am honored to speak
today on behalf of the Great Lakes States and the State of
Michigan's Executive leadership, our Governor, Jennifer
Granholm, and Lieutenant Governor, John Cherry, who is
currently the chair of the Great Lakes Commission.
First to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this
Committee, for the leadership that you have already
demonstrated this session in advancing some important
legislation and that I know you have acted on yet this
afternoon. I want also to thank you for holding this important
discussion about the impacts of aquatic invasive species on the
Great Lakes.
Before I begin my remarks, I would also like the personal
privilege of acknowledging the great efforts that our members
from the Michigan delegation, Mrs. Miller and Congressman
Ehlers, historically, on so many of these issues.
In the Great Lakes region we take seriously our stewardship
responsibility, and for good reason. The Great Lakes constitute
the largest surface freshwater system in the world. More than
35 million Americans receive the benefits of drinking water,
food, a place to live, work and recreate and transportation
from these Great Lakes. And our national economy depends on the
Great Lakes. Great Lakes States account for 30 percent of the
total U.S. gross domestic product, and the Great Lakes are a
key national transportation network. Fishing, boating, hunting
and wildlife watching generate some $53 billion annually in
revenue in the Great Lakes Region, with boating alone
supporting over 250,000 jobs.
We are especially appreciative of this Committee calling
attention to the problem of invasive species in the Great
Lakes, because curbing their introductions is really a priority
once again in 2007. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the list
of invasive species and the problems associated with them
continues to grow. As of 2006 more than 188 species were
established in the Great Lakes.
And they are not just impacting the health of our fishery.
They are also impcating our economy. The cost of invasive
species is estimated as high as $5.7 billion annually, and the
cost of just one invader, the zebra mussel, estimated to cost
city's power generators and others millions of dollars
annually.
The impact of invasive species on the ecological health of
the Great Lakes is equally alarming. We know that Lake Erie has
developed a 3,900 square mile dead zone in the summer months
and we know that in Lakes Michigan and Huron we have seen a
dramatic decline in the health of fish stock that is believed
to be linked to the change in the food web that you will hear
later, in a later panel this afternoon.
Perhaps most alarming, though, is what we don't know. Our
understanding of the extent of the damage continues to evolve
as more species are introduced, as viruses are identified, like
the VHS. And of course, we shudder to think of the potential
devastation that the Asian carp could bring to our Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, we believe Federal action to halt
introduction of invasive species via ballast water has been too
slow. Frustration over that inaction led five Great Lakes
States to join a lawsuit to try to force action by the EPA. And
in 2005, as has been mentioned, with broad bipartisan and
business support in Michigan, we adopted legislation requiring
ocean-going vessels that visit Michigan ports to obtain a
permit beginning in 2007. We currently have 12 vessels that are
in the process or have obtained a permit under that law.
Individual State permitting, though, is far from being a
perfect solution to this complex problem. But in Michigan, we
are resolute in our determination that we cannot just sit by
and watch the Great Lakes teeter on what some scientist
describe as the tipping point of ecological meltdown. In fact,
in addition to Michigan's law, ballast water legislation was
introduced in several Great Lakes States. If Congress does fail
to act, I think it is likely that those measures will continue
to advance.
But the Great Lakes States continue to believe that the
best solution is a Federal ballast water program, one that is
uniform and consistent and protective of the Great Lakes. So
Chairman Oberstar, we applaud and appreciate your recent
statements, expressing your commitment to tackle this challenge
in 2007. I recommend that while solutions to these problems are
not simple, that you consider that a good deal of the work from
our perspective may already have been outlined in the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. One action alone,
passage of a national aquatic invasive species act, similar to
the one introduced by Congressman Ehlers and a similar bill in
the Senate last session would be a monumental step forward. I
would note that there was broad consensus in that process about
the ballast water provisions of that legislation, and worth
noting that consensus support included representatives of the
region's maritime industry.
And finally, whether through a comprehensive NAISA bill or
WRDA bill or through freestanding legislation, we would hope
that this Congress would be able to act quickly to authorize
and fund the Corps of Engineers' work to complete construction,
operate and maintain the electrical barriers designed to
prevent the Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes via the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes States pledge to you that we
will continue to work together to develop solutions for
stopping the spread of invasive species and we must work
together to protect and restore this ecological treasure that
we call the Great Lakes. That will be our legacy for future
generations. We thank you again for your interest in this issue
today.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thanks to all three members. Chairman Ettawageshik, megwich.
Mr. Baker, do you have any questions?
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor, the Secretary earlier testified that he felt
that in the current scheme of operations, notwithstanding
pending litigation in California on ballast water discharge,
absent any other action by the EPA, he viewed that the Coast
Guard had the appropriate regulatory foundation from which they
could properly act. Do you share that view, or do you see other
obstacles to some sort of regulatory regime being put into
effect that would minimize these problems?
Mr. Becker. I am far from the expert on it, but I agree
with Mr. Grumbles that the authority in law is there. I think
one of the other things he did touch on is, does the Coast
Guard have the capacity, do they have the resource, the number
of ships, the number of men to go ahead and enforce. I don't
think on the Great Lakes the answer to that is yes. They are
stretched from a number of different missions. But also as Mr.
Grumbles said, probably some clarifying language, passage of
law by Congress to reinforce and strengthen their authority
would be helpful.
Mr. Baker. Let me further clarify, the Coast Guard is
involved in a process, as I understand it, designated as a NEPA
process, to come to some conclusion about the most effective
way to proceed. That has now been ongoing over a period of some
number of years. If they have the authority to act, they are
the party which seems to be agreed upon as the responsible
entity to make some substantive progress, what do we need to do
to draw this regulatory public comment period to some sort of
conclusion and get a public policy produced? I can certainly
understand the Chairman's frustration and members who enjoy the
Lakes. I am on the other end of the tube down here. We have
similar problems with other issues. But even in Katrina terms,
this has been going on a long time.
Mr. Becker. A lot of these issues have. I guess possibly
through Congress, through Congressional legislation, set a date
certain where this must be done. I don't know what other answer
to get some of these agencies to move. I am not here to
criticize the Coast Guard or EPA. But I have certainly found
running a city that if there are not date certains that you
give the bureaucracy to get things done, they have a tendency
to not get done.
Mr. Baker. Well, in your public policy position, then you
believe there has been adequate vetting, public comment and
review of the matter to adequately reach a conclusion?
Mr. Becker. Personally, yes, and I would argue that on most
issues. There has probably been enough discussion and I think
on invasives or anything else, I think we have the science, we
know what needs to be done. It is a matter of getting it done,
whether through legislation or getting the bureaucracy to
implement.
Mr. Baker. Well, sometimes controversy breeds caution. I
was advised by a senior statesman back home one time about
pursuing a highway project too vigorously. He told me that
surveys are a lot better for you than the construction. He
said, if they think you are going to act, that is a good thing.
Once you start acting, you are in real trouble. So maybe that
is where we are.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baker. I yield back.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your testimony. I am sorry I was late, I was double booked at a
Veterans Administration hearing, and I am trying to cover
everything.
I am curious, representing a district that spans the Hudson
River, whether any of the panelists would be able to comment, I
believe we have our fair share of invasive mussels and other
aquatic species. In what ways are the strategies in use or that
are being contemplated for the Great Lakes applicable to an
estuary like the Hudson? What special challenges do you know of
that a water body like the Hudson River present in addressing
invasive species?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Well, we have found that a number of the
invasive species that have spread throughout the United States
have found their place first in the Great Lakes. The zebra
mussel is one, for example, that was first identified in Lake
St. Clair in the mid-1980's and now has spread not only
throughout the Great Lakes, but we have seen their advancement
to Lake Mead recently.
So I think that the notion of preventing the introduction
of invasives into our Great Lakes will have an implication for
other bodies of water, and part of the recommendations of NAISA
goes beyond just the simple matter of preventing the
introductions, but also preventing the spread of current
invasive species that are in our waters today. There is a whole
series of recommendations that would be helpful there.
As it relates to the electrical carp barrier, as an
example, that was first designed, as I understand it, to
prevent some of the exotic species in the Great Lakes from
getting into the Mississippi, the round goby in particular.
Unfortunately, that did not occur before that round goby passed
through. Now we are seeing it as a line of defense to protect
the Great Lakes from the Asian carp.
So I think there are ways that these measures that are
enacted do provide benefit beyond the Great Lakes States.
Mr. Hall. Are there any, and this is to any of you
distinguished gentlemen, are there any invasive species hot
spots in the Great Lakes? Do the species cluster in some areas
more than others, or do harbors seem to be more susceptible
than the rest of the lake?
Mr. Ettawageshik. I believe that because we are in a--it is
large, but it is a contained system. It really is, we may find
areas where we first find an invasive species. But the problem
is that it eventually gets everywhere. So while we actually are
working on a rapid response to the finding of aquatic invasive
species and we have a plan through the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration and the implementation to devise methods for
rapid response when we find something that has recently been
discovered, the problem is that by the time we find it, the
next problem is already in the lake and we don't know what it
is yet, it is already there. It is going to cost us millions of
dollars to deal with. But we don't know what it is yet, because
we haven't found it yet.
That is the problem we have right now. The VHS is one that
has been coming in, the viral hemorrhagic septicemia. This is
something that is going to have a major effect. The people that
I am here representing are fishermen. We are commercial
fisherman as well as subsistence fishing. This is going to have
a major impact, and we don't know for sure what that impact is
yet, because we just know that it has spread.
Are there hot spots? The first time you identify a spot, I
suppose that is a hot spot. We try to deal with it. But usually
by the time we have found it, it is other places as well.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to ask one more
question. I guess this is sort of a ship management,
hydromechanical question. Is water ballast necessary while
navigating the Great Lakes, or is it necessary while out on the
ocean, and something that could reasonably be expelled before
entering the St. Lawrence? Maybe this question was answered
before I got here, so excuse me if it is redundant. But I am
just trying to understand, is there resistance from the
shipping industry to clearing their tanks before they enter the
system, or if so, why?
Mr. Becker. No, they do expel the ballast before they enter
into the system, generally. The problem is the amount of sludge
in the bottom of the ship, you can't expel it all. So when they
even, they come into the Basin and they reload the ballast
water, then when they drop their freight, their load somewhere,
and then they dump the ballast water, it's----
Mr. Hall. Rinsing it out.
Mr. Becker. Good analogy, yes. So even though they have
expelled the ballast water before they entered the basin, they
pick up more in the sludge in the bottom of the ship. There are
a lot of organisms down there, too.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeBeaussaert, I am not familiar with the status of the
Michigan law at the moment. I would be interested if you could
explain that. But also, I would like to raise a State's rights
issue, not just with Michigan, but you would know what
Michigan's attitude would be, and perhaps you can also
enlighten me on what the other States would be. If we passed a
Federal law on invasive species, whether it is ballast water or
anything else, would the States, do you think the States would
be happy with their own laws being preempted by the Federal
Government? Or would they gladly accept our efforts?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. I thank you for the opportunity to expand
just a bit on the State law first. The law was passed in 2005
and it required by 2007 that the ocean-going ships obtain a
permit. A process was developed over a period of time to
develop a general permit opportunity to try to streamline that
process. The Department of Environmental Quality identified
four specific treatment technologies that they approved under
our State law and also allowed the opportunity for individual
ships to seek an individual permit if they wanted to use an
alternative technology.
There is also, in Michigan's situation, the vast majority
of ships would not be discharging ballast water in our ports,
and they would be under permit and would be reporting, but
would not be required to have that technology in place, so long
as they weren't discharging. And as I said, as of a couple days
ago when I left Michigan, I think we had 12 individual ships
that either had obtained the general permit or were in the
process of doing so. And we certainly hope and encourage others
to follow that suit.
As to the second part of your question, about the reaction
of States to preemption, I can tell you that last year, there
was a bill that was introduced in the U.S. Senate, I think it
was 363, and the Great Lakes Governors united in opposition to
that letter. One of the reasons for their concern was the
preemption of the ability of the States to act. There were
concerns about many other provisions of that law as well.
Similarly, I think the attorneys general for many of the
Great Lakes States signed a letter to the Congress, to the
Senate in particular, outlining their concerns. One of the
concerns was that preemption. So I think there is a reluctance
to, at the outset, to say that the States would be willing to
accept that preemption. It is something that has been
identified both by the Governors and the attorneys general as a
major concern. I guess part of the major question would be what
the whole overall package was, what the program was. Clearly,
the bill that was introduced last year did not meet that test.
Mr. Ehlers. Was it because they didn't feel the law was
strong enough? And if we did write a strong law that was
stronger than all the State laws, do you think the States would
still be concerned?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. I think there will always be concern
about the ability of the States to not be able to act under
their authorities. But clearly in that case, there were
specific concerns about the provisions of that bill that the
States did not feel were adequate. I am not in a position to
speak for all of the Governors in terms of how they might react
to other legislation that might be introduced. But I know it
would be a concern at the outset.
Mr. Ehlers. How many States have passed ballast water laws
now?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. In the Great Lakes States, Michigan is
the only one that has passed the legislation. It was introduced
in several States in the last session and did not meet the
final signature into law. I know it has already been introduced
in at least one State and I expect again, depending on the
outcome of the activities here, that other States will consider
moving forward as well.
Mr. Ehlers. What have you learned from the shipping
companies so far? Do they seem perfectly willing to get the
permits and work with the State, or are they simply going to
bypass Michigan and go elsewhere?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Well, as I said, we already have 12
individual ships that are either under permit or in the process
of doing so. We have had concerns raised about this process
from others. In fact, some that had expressed concern about the
practical ability within the current year to implement the
technology. And there were discussions and provisions that were
made to allow for, in the current year, some ability for those
activities to continue under a consent order that would require
rather than the full technology, the reporting requirements,
some sampling that would occur as we move forward.
So there have been and there are ongoing discussions, I
would say, with the industry on this issue.
Mr. Ehlers. What confidence do you have that the problem is
really the ballast water, I should say solely the ballast
water, as opposed to creatures attaching themselves to the
hulls of the ship during the ocean voyage, then coming in?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Well, as you know, there are a number of
vectors for introduction, and ballast water is identified as
the primary for many of these issues. But clearly, the
comprehensive approach of NAISA that attempted to address a
number of the vectors really is what is needed. But as well, we
wouldn't want to stand in the way of individual ballast water
legislation, if in fact it was protective of the Lakes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all of
you, for taking time to be here today, but more importantly,
thank you for your advocacy and your hard work for trying to
guarantee clean and healthy water for successive generations.
In listening to your testimony, Mr. Becker, about dates and
time tables, I can tell you from being here for a few weeks, it
is hard to agree to a time table for anything. But we are still
working hard to get the job done.
With regard to the problem of ballast water and ships, it
reminds me of the history in medicine, forgive me, as I am a
doctor, I think that way, I look at invasive species much like
it is an infectious disease. If my good friend, my colleague
John Hall from New York had dirty hands, I would want him to
wash his hands before he goes from one sick patient to the
next. So in some respects, cleaning up the ballast water is a
lot like washing your hands. In the very beginning of washing
one's hands, as a physician, going from room to room or patient
to patient, we didn't have really good techniques. So we
developed better techniques. So it may not be the shipping
industry's fault entirely for not knowing how to ``wash their
hands,'' but I would think that if that is the concern, whether
the species are inside the tank or outside on the shell, so to
speak, of the ship, we ought to as Government officials help
them to develop a better technique so we can prevent further
infections from these invasive species.
It is really a shame, I think, that you should have to sue
your Government for them to do their job. I hope that era has
ended with the last election.
Chairman Frank, I would ask you, would you agree with me
that it might be really time to put our minds together to look
not just at the invasive species issue, but isn't the invasive
species in our Great Lakes, the occurrence of them, a symptom
of a greater problem that we have failed to really secure and
protect not just our surface water but our ground water? And
wouldn't you think it might be time that we could all come
together and move our standards up sufficiently to protect not
just the surface water but our ground water?
Mr. Ettawageshik. The tribes have worked with each other
and also with the Canadian first nations, the tribes in the
Great Lakes Basin. We have a total of around 160 of the 185
tribes and first nations in the Great Lakes Basin that have
signed an accord, the Tribal and First Nations Great Lakes
Water Accord, that works on the very issues that you are
talking about, that pledges to work together for the protection
of both the quantity and quality of the water and work hard to
assert our rights as both in jurisdiction and also our
responsibilities to the protection of those waters.
We look at the water as a whole, not just the lake but the
rivers, the streams, the ground water, all of this together as
a package within the basin. And efforts that will work to
protect that, we believe, are essential. So we have been
working for many years to do this as part of our traditional
teachings and it is something that we try to work on within
ourselves. But also realizing that our best tools as tribal
governments to get things done are to encourage those other
governments around us to act on these issues as well.
So yes, I do think it is time to consider this as a
package.
Mr. Kagen. Well, success requires no excuses. So as I see
some people with excuses, we have failed, everyone has failed
somewhere along the way, as we have over 150 invasive species
now.
I look forward to working with your tribe and other
organizations to help guarantee our clean water. And I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much
regret not being here earlier. This is a subject of
considerable interest to me. I recognize that Mr. Grumbles of
the EPA has left, so one question that I have may put the three
of you at some disadvantage. Yet you may know about what has
happened to other waterways. Those of us in this region of
course also have one of the great wonders of the world, one of
the great waterways, the Chesapeake Bay. We have focused, it
seems to me, quite justifiably, on the Great Lakes.
How national a problem do you think we have here? When you
consider how far in, well, it is according to how you look at
it, the Great Lakes are, and that there are waterways that are
closer to the oceans, one wonders how national, how much worse
this problem may be or how much it is a matter of certain
waterways?
Mr. Ettawageshik. I guess I will start. We look at the
water throughout, all the water is connected. So all of our
waterways, while I am here specifically talking about Great
Lakes, when we try to figure out what is a sacred spot or how
do we deal with that, for our way of thinking, the whole earth,
all of creation is sacred and all of creation is
interconnected. We are within one very large ecosystem with the
planet. And how things affect the Great Lakes also affect
everyone else.
As we heard earlier, when we were talking about where an
invasive species may first show up and how it may spread, this
issue is not contained just within one particular region of the
Country. This has implications that are nationwide.
Ms. Norton. I am regarding your testimony as a case in
point, that is what is so troubling about this. I take it that
that is your testimony, that while you know the Great Lakes
best you believe this is a national phenomenon, equally found
in other parts of the Country?
Mr. Ettawageshik. Yes.
Mr. DeBeaussaert. If I could just add to that, we are
obviously concerned about this unique freshwater ecosystem that
we are blessed with living in and near. But the fact is that
other States have, beyond Michigan, outside the Great Lakes,
have enacted legislation dealing with ballast water issues,
notably California, some of the other west coast States have
also taken action to try to address this issue.
So we are here from the Great Lakes States, but we do
believe that it is also an issue of national significance.
Ms. Norton. I think it is today, Mr. Chairman, that we have
on the Floor the Clean Water Act. If I could, within your
expertise, bring up another issue that perhaps also you have
seen in the Great Lakes. My family has lived in this region
since the 1850's. Recently, in recent years, we have found in
the Chesapeake Bay a phenomenon clearly, we believe, of the
pollution of the water, of essentially freakish species. You
talked about invasive species, species that have no predator.
I wonder if in the Great Lakes you have seen, for example,
fish with teeth or male/female changes in fish, something that
also appears to be a new phenomenon, or at least our ancestors
did not report such widely spread fish--I don't know quite what
to call them, but species in our waterways. Have you seen such
changes in your waterways and what would you have to tell us
about them, if so?
Mr. Ettawageshik. One of the things that, the women from
the tribes are the people that are keepers of the water. They
spend considerable time teaching us and talking to us about
these things. And they talk about mother earth weeping and
crying. They talk about these things and the symptoms that we
get from that. Those symptoms that they talk to us about are
those very things that you are referring to, where things are
not the way they were meant to be, and we have fish that have
tumors, we have fish that are basically being both male and
female at the same time. We have all different sorts of issues
like that that occur. And these do occur primarily in hot spots
of pollution and other issues. But these are the symptoms of
nature responding to all of the abuse that we have given to
her.
So these are things that we are taught that we need to try
to fix, and we need to try to find ways to deal with them. That
is our sacred duty and it is the duty of our governments to try
to make that, help bring about those changes that will fix
those problems.
Ms. Norton. Do you foresee a situation--there are some
rivers and streams that are known for certain kinds of fish,
for example, unlike the Chesapeake Bay, where you may have this
huge variety. Do you foresee any possibility in the near future
where you could have a catastrophic elimination of fish in such
rivers and stream where, as we know, there are no natural
predators, and the predator embeds itself? And we are talking
about, This is a trout stream or some particular fish that is
particularly known for this particularly waterway?
Mr. Ettawageshik. We do have those cases. We have cases
where there are places where we used to catch certain species
and we no longer can. We have one example within, not just a
stream, but within the Great Lakes, the lake trout virtually
collapsed because of the introduction of the lamprey eel. The
predation of this lamprey has, without controls that have since
been brought into place, we would have no lake trout fishery at
all.
As it is, we have done, there has been a significant amount
of money, in fact, some of the things that we are asking for
through the various pieces of legislation that we have been
talking about today is money to help fund that lamprey control
project, and to adequately fund it. Because as with everything,
it has been cut back for a variety of different reasons. We are
not able to control just that one species, that one invasive
species that has had serious impact on our fishery.
But we have other varieties where there are different
species that are in danger. That is of great concern to us.
Ms. Norton. Does anyone ever introduce natural predators to
get the predators out? What would you do if the predators have
embedded themselves, especially if it is a stream or river
known for one or two kinds of fish? And you didn't catch them
in time, what could we do? I guess this is my version of the
ice caps melting, I don't think you can do anything about
those.
But can you do anything about a situation where a predator
has, as will surely be the case at some place, because some of
these will be smaller streams, some of these will be streams or
rivers where people don't have the funds or haven't recognized
what has happened? Is there anything you can do about it?
Mr. DeBeaussaert. Part of the comprehensive legislation,
NAISA did include a rapid response component to try to find
ways of addressing issues. Obviously the key is prevention,
preventing these new species from being introduced. But if in
fact we did see an introduction, some ways of addressing
quickly and trying to stop the spread of those species. The one
thing, to get to the earlier question and comment about the
impact of a single species taking over, that is the concern
that we have about the Asian carp. We need to have that
electrical barrier in place, because if those carp did enter
the Great Lakes, that is our fear, that they would overwhelm
the native fishery.
We are also concerned about this new virus that has been
mentioned, the VHS. We have seen significant mortality of fish
populations where that virus has been found.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentlelady for those very
thoughtful questions, as always. What we are discussing today
is just one part of a long chain of assaults upon the waters of
the Great Lakes. When DDT was found to be destructive in the
food chain, weakening the shells of eagle eggs, so that the
young eagles did not form properly, and in the aftermath of
Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, we went after DDT in the
United States, and eventually phased it out.
But eagles were still dying and declining in the Great
Lakes. In 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, I held hearings as chair
of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee on water
quality agreement between the United States and Canada. What we
learned then was that it was DDT still adversely affecting the
eggs, where was it coming from? We banned it in America.
But we allowed it to be exported to Central America, where
it was used to control insects in the banana plantations. And
the aerosols were caught up in the upper atmosphere from the
movement from the Gulf up through the Mississippi flyway and
deposited within 10 days of spraying on the Great Lakes. So we
had to extend the reach of the Federal Government to companies
that were exporting DDT into Central America. And then we had a
witness, Dr. Henry Lickers, who was a Ph.D microbiologist, a
member of the Akwesasne Tribe at the eastern end of the Great
Lakes, also known as the Mohawks. And he testified before the
Committee that for 2,000 years, his people had lived there and
lived on fish. And they were extraordinarily healthy.
But all of a sudden, they were experiencing tremors in
their joints, they were experiencing three times the national
average of miscarriages, spontaneous loss of fetus and rare
types of cancers. It was traced to the mercury in the fish and
PCBs and toxaphene that was being taken up by the fish that the
people were eating. So the Akwesasne people had to change their
eating habits.
And what did they do, I asked? Well, Dr. Lickers said, they
switched to meat. And what were the health consequences of
that? Now we have above average arteriosclerosis, heart attack,
stroke and high cholesterol and diabetes, as we switched to
other foods for the energy we once got from the fish.
So here we have this extraordinary chain of life in the
Great Lakes. They are a total ecosystem. We have to be
concerned about intra-Basin transfers, waters of Lake Superior
that may be carrying species that is deposited in Huron or
Erie, Ontario or Michigan. So you have made a great
contribution to our fund of knowledge on the subject, and we
continue this effort to protect this precious one-fifth of all
the fresh water on the face of the earth.
Thank you for your contribution.
I will call the next panel, but Ms. Johnson and I both have
to go to the House Floor to complete consideration of the Clean
Water legislation that has been pending and suspended while
leadership and others went to the White House on some other
subject matter of far less importance.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Oberstar. We have panel two, Dr. David Lodge, from
Notre Dame University, my son's school; Adolph Ojard, of the
Duluth Seaway Port Authority; Andy Buchsbaum, from the National
Wildlife Federation; John Kahabka of the New York Power
Authority. I will ask Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin to assume the
Chair.
Thank you very much, all the members of the panel. We are
grateful for your contribution today. I read your statements
late last night. I wish I could stay for the testimony, but I
have to be over on the House Floor to complete consideration of
the bill. I know that you will hear penetrating questions from
Mr. Baker and from Dr. Ehlers.
Dr. Lodge, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. LODGE, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME; ADOLPH N. OJARD,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN GREAT LAKES PORTS ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, DULUTH SEAWAY PORT AUTHORITY; ANDY BUCHSBAUM,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION'S GREAT LAKES OFFICE AND
CO-CHAIR, HEALING OUR WATERS GREAT LAKES COALITION; JOHN M.
KAHABKA, MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONS, NEW YORK POWER
AUTHORITY
Mr. Lodge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and other
members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to
participate in this hearing today. As you may know, I come to
this issue from the perspective of having worked as a
biological researcher for on the order of 24 years or so on
this issue of invasive species, specializing in aquatic
invasives in particular.
If I could have my Power Point up, I would appreciate it.
Together with a number of colleagues, both at Notre Dame and
other universities, I have collaborations going on addressing a
number of issues of invasive species, including those involving
ships and many other related issues.
I am a past chairman of the National Invasive Species
Advisory Committee and also recently chaired a committee for
the Ecological Society of America that published a set of
recommendations for U.S. policy on invasives. That paper
includes some consideration of ballast water.
I am a biologist, and the discussions we have had so far
have been extremely helpful. But to my mind, it is helpful to
get below sometimes the abstractions and think about real
organisms. At least that is what biologists like to do.
So I want to tell you a story, if you will, involving three
species. And I want to start with one, a reasonably small fish,
the round goby, but a fish that has some large impacts. What I
am illustrating here is the goby can be caught in the
thousands, on the southern shore of Lake Michigan and
unfortunately many other places in the Great Lakes, as
illustrated by this map from the USGS, where you see in red
that this goby, having been introduced by ballast water, has
spread throughout the Great Lakes, and very importantly, not
only within the Great Lakes, but as you will see, is traveling
down the Illinois River, having had access to it through the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and is well on its way to
colonizing not only the Illinois River but the Mississippi
River and probably far beyond.
So one message I want to leave you with is that what
happens in the Great Lakes does not stay there. The opposite
may be true of various activities in Las Vegas, but it is not
true of the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the organisms that
arrive in the Great Lakes will come to your Congressional
districts before too long, whether they are in Oregon or
California or Arizona or New York or wherever. The Great Lakes
are a beachhead for invasions for freshwater ecosystems in
North America. So wherever one is in North America, one has to
care about what is going on in the Great Lakes.
Now, I have had the experience in southern Lake Michigan of
fishing and catching nothing but small, useless round gobies
where many people used to catch the very highly valued yellow
perch and other species. So round gobies have damaged both
commercial and recreational fisheries, and especially in
concert with the impacts of other species, two others which I
illustrate here, two species of mussels, the zebra mussel and
the quagga mussel. We are seeing increasingly large impacts
throughout the ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
Let me just quickly go through a few of these, some of
which have already been mentioned. Many people are familiar
with these very high, direct financial damages done to
industrial facilities for zebra mussels. Those damages, a bare
minimum estimate, as we have already heard, of $150 million a
year that doesn't even begin to include the other sorts of
ecosystem impacts that I am going to go on to describe, which
include the loss of recreational and commercial fisheries,
especially for whitefish in Lakes Huron and Michigan, where we
see a very strong association between the increase in abundance
of mussels and the decline in the native food for these very
important whitefish. So that fishery has declined about 70
percent since the 1990's.
Round gobies themselves consume many mussels, from which
they derive a number of dangerous compounds, including
botulinum toxin, because the mussels create a great environment
for the bacteria that produces this toxin. That toxin in turn
is transferred to very valuable fishes, including those
consumed by humans, like smallmouth bass. So not only do we see
the transfer of some dangerous compounds up the food web
potentially to humans, we also see increasingly, especially in
Lakes Erie and Ontario, the loss of many fishes in recent
years.
We see direct impacts on human recreation from these
windrows of mussel shells. We see taste and odor problems in
drinking water caused by the increasingly abundant blooms of
harmful algae strongly associated with these mussels.
And I could go on and on with many species, as I summarized
in the written testimony, could go on and on, because we know
of over 180 species in the Great Lakes, which means that they
are just like the other places that we know about, an
increasing number of species. And in the Great Lakes we know
that in recent years, about 70 percent of those species have
come from ballast water, about 40 percent of the ship-borne
alien animals cause the sorts of damages that I have talked
about already.
And this again, to close with the same theme that I began
with, this is not an issue limited to the Great Lakes. The
zebra mussels, illustrated here, are a great example of this.
The black dots are where they already are. They have spread
down the Mississippi, and this invasion, like many other
invasions, is not over. We have heard again that quagga mussels
were recently discovered in the Colorado River and Lake Mead.
We in fact predicted in a paper to appear in print shortly that
this would happen. Unfortunately, that prediction has come
true.
So we have to care about the ships that originally
introduce organisms into the Great Lakes as the beachhead, and
we have to care a great deal about what is going to happen from
the Great Lakes as recreational boaters and other pathways
disperse those species from the Great Lakes.
Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. [Presiding] Thank you, Doctor.
Next we have Mr. Adolph Ojard, Executive Director of the
Duluth Seaway Port Authority. Welcome, and thank you for being
here.
Mr. Ojard. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, again, I am
Adolph Ojard, Executive Director of the Duluth Seaway Port
Authority, Duluth, Minnesota. I am also here today as the
President of the American Great Lakes Ports Association, an
organization that represents the 12 public port authorities on
the U.S. side of the Great Lakes.
While I am here specifically on behalf of the Great Lakes
port community, I can assure you that the views I express today
are shared by the majority of the private maritime interests in
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system.
Although today's hearing focuses on the Great Lakes aquatic
invasive species, I think we need to understand that this is
both a national and an international issue. While various
witnesses testifying today will offer different perspectives,
we all agree on one thing: Congress must act quickly to enact
national programs requiring the treatment of ships' ballast
water.
The Great Lakes Seaway transportation corridor continues to
develop as an essential component of our national
transportation policy. This is the longest and most extensive
deep draft waterway in the world, 2,342 miles from Duluth,
Minnesota to the Atlantic Ocean.
Water-borne transportation is widely regarded as the
safest, cleanest and least costly mode of commercial
transportation. Ships emit one-tenth of the greenhouses gases
of trucks and half that of trains. One maritime accident is
recorded for every 14 rail accidents and 75 truck accidents.
Unfortunately, the emergency of aquatic invasive species
has become our industries' Achilles heel. We stand ready to
solve this problem and let me assure you that we will solve the
problem.
The focus of this hearing is impact of aquatic invasive
species on the Great Lakes, and for the Great Lakes shipping
industry that impact is the fear of isolation and the fear of a
growing patchwork of differing and conflicting State laws, each
attempting to regulate ships engaged in interstate and
international commerce. Since most Great Lakes vessels load and
discharge in numerous jurisdictions, the potential for chaos is
considerable.
Since the year 2000, the States of New York, Michigan,
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin have all considered
ballast water regulations. Many of these efforts have been
misguided and reflect the lack of maritime experience at the
State level. To date, only the State of Michigan has actually
enacted a ballast water statute. That law requires all ships
conducting port operations in Michigan ports to obtain a permit
from the State. Further, it requires that a ship owner either
certify that it will not discharge ballast in Michigan waters
or that it will do so only after treating the ballast with one
of four treatment systems. These systems are arbitrarily
selected by the Michigan Department of Environmental
Management. None of them have been scientifically tested and
shown to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive
species. Minnesota and Wisconsin also have bills pending.
So what is the impact on Great Lakes commerce? Well, if you
can imagine four ports of call, four permit applications, four
permit fees, application of an uncertified shipboard treatment
system, countless opportunities for delay and disruption, and
the question then really remains, will the ships and the
vessels continue to call?
It is also important to note that the States do not want to
get involved in the regulation of ballast water. Based on our
experience, all branches of State Government recognize the
negative consequences of their action. They understand the harm
they inflict on their own citizens and their own economies by
adding costs and isolating valuable Great Lakes maritime
commerce.
Yet the continuing lack at the Federal level has driven
States to attempt independent remedies. With minimal
understandings of the intricacies of maritime industry, the
legislation that is being developed is ineffective at best,
impractical at most. Further complicating the issue is that
State regulatory bodies have little or no knowledge of
shipboard issues.
Therefore, when Federal standards are finally enacted, the
U.S. Coast Guard must be the regulatory agency. Vessel
operations are highly complex. The Coast Guard is the only
agency with the knowledge, experience and skill to effectively
regulate vessel operations.
The negative impacts of aquatic invasive species are not in
dispute. The need for both the environment and the industry is
for Congress to create a regulatory framework within which the
private sector can begin making necessary investments to solve
this problem. I believe we can protect the aquatic environment
and maintain a healthy shipping industry. There is a win-win
scenario, and it is not far out in terms of our ability to
succeed.
So what is needed? We need to find enforceable Federal
standards for ballast water treatment. A Federal preemption
over State and local jurisdiction. Uniform national standards
and regulations. Incentives to encourage vessel operators to
begin early installation of ballast water treatment systems,
and the authorization of the Coast Guard to exclusively
regulate shipboard ballast operations.
Again, I thank the Subcommittee for hosting this hearing,
for being sensitive to the need and for moving quickly on this
legislation. I would welcome any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you for your considered testimony and your
opinions. Being a neighbor from Wisconsin, thanks for hiking in
here today. Your accent was well appreciated.
Mr. Ojard. I appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kagen. Next we have Mr. Andy Buchsbaum, Director of the
Great Lakes Office of the National Wildlife Federation and also
testifying on behalf of the Healing Our Waters Great Lakes
Coalition. Welcome.
Mr. Buchsbaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
congratulate you on getting my name right the first time
around. I don't know if you know any other Buchsbaums anywhere
else, but it is a tough name.
The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a coalition of 90
organizations, State, regional, local and national, dedicated
to protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. It was founded by
generous support from the Wege Foundation, the Joyce
Foundation, and we are very involved not only with the invasive
species debate, invasive species issues, but also with Great
Lakes restoration generally. I will get to that in a second.
You have already heard from many people today about the
importance of the Great Lakes, the importance not only to the
ecology of the region but to the economy of the region. You
have already heard about the general problem of invasive
species, so I am going to focus on a few things. One hundred
eighty-three species so far in the Great Lakes that we know of,
invasives, you have heard that, one every 28 weeks. About eight
months, it is accelerating, one every 28 weeks comes in.
Let me follow up on something that Dr. Lodge was talking
about, and that is one of the huge impacts, which involves a
freshwater shrimp called diporeia. If I could have one of the
slides called up, I have a few slides.
[Slide sown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. Diporeia are tiny freshwater shrimp that
form about 80 percent of the food at the bottom of the Great
Lakes. Their population gets to about 10,000 organisms per
square meter. This picture of Lake Michigan, all those dark
blue spots are at the 10,000 per square meter level. As it
lightens up, please give me the next slide.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. You can see, as it gets lighter and lighter,
there are fewer and fewer of these things.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. And then finally, what you see here is a
crash of this fundamental part of the Great Lakes food web.
These tiny freshwater shrimp have virtually disappeared over
large stretches of Lake Michigan. Advance it one more time.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. Ninety-four percent decline in 10 years.
This is the basis of the Great Lakes food web.
Next, slide, please.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. Dr. Tom Nalepa is the person who did this
modeling and who did the sampling to establish that. He is a
NOAA scientist from the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab.
He began sampling for diporeia for other reasons back in the
1980's, found this phenomenon and then quickly began sampling
other places.
For Lake Huron, he began sampling in the year 2000. Look at
what has happened in just three years, a 57 percent decline.
When Congressman Ehlers said that this is an ecological
disaster happening, this is one huge example of what he meant.
Next slide, please.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. Zebra mussels have been blamed for a lot of
the decline of the diporeia. But the zebra mussels themselves
are now declining, because quagga mussels have come in. Look at
the increase in quagga mussels in the last 10 years. This is
again from Dr. Nalepa's slides.
One more slide, I think that wraps it up.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. This is also the quagga mussels for Lake
Huron.
Next, and we are done.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Buchsbaum. This is massive. This is something that we
featured, the slides you have in my testimony, it is much more
lengthy. We featured some of this, Dr. Nalepa's work, in this
report that you also have called Ecosystem Shock, which is
something NWF did in 2004. I invite you to read through that
and you will see some of the statistics and some of the
descriptions in more detail.
Scientists have done another report, though, on the Great
Lakes and released it just over a year ago. It was called
Prescription for Great Lakes Protection and Restoration. Some
of the region's leading scientists, joined by some of the
Nation's leading scientists, over 200 right now, issued this
report. They concluded that the Great Lakes are suffering right
now ecosystem breakdowns.
What I just showed you, the diporeia crash, is one of the
leading breakdowns, but it is not the only one. You have heard
some others today. They say the reasons for the breakdowns is
because there is a combination of stresses that have injured
the Great Lakes. They have injured, and you will appreciate
this, Mr. Chairman, they have injured what they call its immune
system, its ability to respond to stress, its buffering
capacity.
Invasive species are among probably the lead of those
stressors. Because how can a system reach equilibrium if once
every 28 weeks another huge stressor comes in that it can't
handle?
Because of this, the scientists actually recommended doing
things not just to restore the Lakes but to stop the new
stressors from coming in. They say we can't restore the Lakes
properly unless these new stressors are stopped.
So the scientists and the Healing Our Waters Coalition and
the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, everyone who studies
this problem says the top priority has to be a comprehensive
approach to stopping invasive species like the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act that was introduced last week in the
Senate, has been pending last year. It is comprehensive,
because ballast water, although a huge cause, is not the only
cause. There are others.
The other top priority is to stop the signature species,
the signature threat, the Asian carp, from coming up the canal.
Ten to twenty million dollars now will save tens to hundreds of
billions of dollars later. We saw what happened with inaction
with Katrina. We know that we can do better. There is a very
easy solution out there. This one is not rocket science,
Congressman Ehlers. This one is a lot easier than that, it is
an electric barrier, electric current underneath the canal. We
need to do that.
Then finally, if you will indulge me for 20 more seconds,
we have to restore what we have lost. That is the purpose
behind the Great Lakes Collaboration and Implementation Act,
which Congressman Ehlers and others introduced yesterday and
which they introduced last year. That will restore that immune
system that we need. Because given the fact that these things
are here to stay, we need to bolster the health of the Great
Lakes so they can take care of themselves. We can't do it for
them, but we can help them do it for themselves.
With that, I have a number of other comments that I can't
get to which address some of what Congressman Baker said and
others in terms of the EPA and Coast Guard role. But I will
save that for questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kagen. I appreciate your comments, and if we don't have
time for questions because of the vote, I would certainly
appreciate your written commentary from questions you would
have expected us to ask.
And finally we have John Kahabka, the Manager of
Environmental Operations from the New York Power Authority. You
have the floor.
Mr. Kahabka. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
My name is John Kahabka, I serve as the Manager of
Environmental Operations for the New York Power Authority. The
Power Authority is the Nation's largest State-owned electric
utility, with 18 generating facilities and more than 1,400
circuit miles of transmission lines. We own and operate our
facilities without the use of tax dollars or State credit. We
finance our operations with earned revenues from sale of
electricity and through bonds and notes for capital projects.
In addition, for a number of years, I have also represented
the American Public Power Association on the Aquatic Invasive
Species Task Force of the interagency committee established by
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
of 1990. Among the electrical generation facilities owned by
the Power Authority are two major hydroelectric facilities
within the Great Lakes Basin, several small hydro facilities, a
relatively large pump storage facility in the northern
Catskills, a number of fossil-fired plants in New York City.
At the time when the zebra mussel first made its
appearance, the Authority owned and operated two additional
nuclear power plants, one located on Lake Ontario and the other
one actually on the Hudson River. We have always considered
that the impacts on our operations by aquatic invasives,
especially Dreissena Polymorphia, the zebra mussel, to be
critical to our continued economic operation.
Recognizing the need for immediate measures to address this
problem, in 1990 we instituted a monitoring and mitigation
program at all our facilities. In May of 1990, we installed a
chlorination system at the 2,400 megawatt Niagara Hydro project
in western New York. The initial system cost us over $100,000
and we are currently in the beginning phases of refurbishing
that system. We expect those costs to be anywhere between
$200,000 to $250,000 with annual control efforts ranging
between $30,000 to $50,000.
At our St. Lawrence project, we have essentially a similar
system. At our 1,000 megawatt pump storage project, Blenheim-
Gilboa in the Catskills, we installed a state of the art, at
the time, experimental copper ion generator in an effort to
reduce our chemical discharges. At our Hinckley, Crescent and
Vischer Ferry small hydro projects within the Mohawk drainage
basin, we installed a filtration system and use mechanical
cleaning.
The FitzPatrick plant, which is now owned by Entergy
Nuclear, back in 1991 when we owned it, we installed a
chlorination system at that facility that cost about $175,000
at that time. Conversations with Entergy Nuclear recently have
indicated they are spending between $100,000 to $150,000 a year
in maintaining that system.
At the Indian Point facility I referenced earlier, their
annual operating costs are roughly about $350,000, just to
control biofouling.
The use of Great Lakes water for power production is
significant. The 2005 report by the Northeast-Midwest Institute
calculated that there are some 535 power plants within the U.S.
portion of the Great Lakes Basin with a combined generating
capacity of over 50,000 megawatts. That comprises roughly 13
nuclear plants and 175 coal-fired power plants. By interfering
with maximum effective operations of the power plants, they can
jeopardize, zebra mussels, that is, or biofoulers, can
jeopardize reliable supply of electricity.
The worst case impact from Dreissena in our facilities
would be the loss of generation. Replacing our hydropower,
which we sell typically at 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt hour,
would force us to go out and by it on the market, anywhere from
5 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour. In 1995, Chuck O'Neill of Sea
Grant reported on the economic impacts of zebra mussels. I want
to just bring out that from Chuck's work, it was shown that the
expenditure on zebra mussel control only at the nuclear power
stations was around $786,000, and at fossil stations, about
$146,000. All these expenditures included plant retrofits,
chemical control and prevention projects.
The Power Authority to date has overcome a lot of these
initial effects, but it has not been without impacts to our
operations and our costs. The zebra mussel infestation has
proved to be one of our more daunting environmental challenges
and will continue to challenge us in the future.
The Power Authority supports the efforts of the State and
Federal Government to regulate and control ballast water, as
this is clearly the vector of choice for the movement of
aquatic invaders. Continuing funding of the monitoring and
control programs and research is essential. Without these, it
is certain that additional invasives, as you have heard, of
course, many times today, will affect the Great Lakes and their
tributaries.
On behalf of the Power Authority, I want to express my
appreciation for your taking the attention to hear my
testimony. If there are any questions, I would be happy to
answer them. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much for enlightening us, with no
joke being intended.
Mr. Gilchrest, do you have any questions?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
I represent the Chesapeake Bay, and many of the problems
that you are describing we have in the Bay area. It seems that
the shrimp that you are talking about their decline is similar,
but I think it is worse in the Great Lakes, to our oysters. We
have lost in the last 100 years about 99 percent of the
oysters, which was a form of the ecosystem, not at the bottom
of the food chain, but they had an immense filtering capacity.
Can you specifically identify the water quality issue that
is decimating these shrimp? Or is something else eating them?
Mr. Lodge. I will take a stab at it. I think the short
answer is, the exact links are unknown. What is known is that
wherever these mussels have become abundant, the diporeia, this
little shrimp-like organism, has declined. I don't think anyone
really understands exactly what is going on. I myself in the
past have been something of a skeptic about this. But the
pattern is absolutely compelling to me these days, as you saw
from the maps.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the new mussels have also come in, likely
in ballast water?
Mr. Lodge. Yes. Both mussels it seems clear came in ballast
water. The difference between the mussels, I am almost inclined
to say, are things that only a biologist can get excited about.
Mr. Gilchrest. But they are two different species, the
zebra mussels and the diporeia is another mussel?
Mr. Lodge. No, the----
Mr. Gilchrest. The diporeia is a shrimp?
Mr. Lodge. The diporeia is a little shrimp. The two mussels
are called zebra mussels and quagga mussels. They are two
different species, and in fact, they do have some important
ecological differences, with quagga mussel living quite happily
more deeply in the Lakes.
Mr. Gilchrest. But the zebra mussels seem not to have an
effect on the shrimp?
Mr. Lodge. No, I believe it is the case that both. And in
fact, I think it may be the case that in the past in many
surveys, these two mussel species have not been sufficiently
distinguished from one another, because they are easy to mix
up.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, when you look at them, they look the
same.
Mr. Lodge. If I had them here today, I would not be able to
tell them apart.
Mr. Gilchrest. So as far as our assistance with you is
concerned, this aquatic invasive species bill needs to get
moving on the House side. There is a recognition, and I like
the concept that the immune system has been degraded. I will
start using that in my district. The immune system.
But it is an invasive species problem, it is general human
activity and all that involves degrading nature's design,
again, fundamentally. Part of this process, though, is an
effort to restore habitat and water quality. So we will, Mr.
Chairman, we will do all we can to move the type of
legislation, hopefully in this Congress, on the invasive
species, those kinds of pieces of legislation, do all we can
before this thing is a foregone conclusion.
One last very quick comment. On top of all this lair of
problems is global warming, which will have other effects that
we are not quite sure of at this time. Yes, sir?
Mr. Buchsbaum. Congressman, a couple of things. First on
global warming, there have been three studies that have come
out in the last few months about the impacts of global warming
on the Great Lakes that show that it is going to really
exacerbate all the problems we are talking about. Apparently
there is a study that just came out last week that shows that
Lake Superior's water temperature has raised 4 degrees, which
has enormous implications for the entire ecosystem and for the
fishing and for everything else. Ice fishing has become an
endangered sport in the northern climates now.
In addition to that, there is another study, it is not
complete, but the information was leaked, apparently, it is
coming out in April, that says that the lake levels of Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron may decline up to five feet because of
global warming, which would completely decimate everything,
completely change everything. And then there is another study
that came out a few months ago that predicts that Lake Erie may
shrink by 15 percent.
So if we can't get our house in order before these things
happen, we will have no chance of responding. That is why, as
important as invasive species legislation is, that is the
prevention piece. We also have to do the restoration piece.
Congressman Rom Emanuel today, in commenting on his bill at
a press conference, said that he recognized that it is not just
the Great Lakes that are facing these major restoration
problems. He specifically was talking about the Chesapeake Bay.
So I think that in the future, we need to begin pooling our
resources and knowledge, and also our political strategies to
get these major restoration bills through. Because a lot of
change has already happened, and we need to address that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much for referring to the immune
system, since I am immunologist. I used my fundraising
capabilities as an immunologist to get here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kagen. We are going to have to break and end the
meeting, but I want to have all of you on record with regard to
a question that comes up with regard to intra-lake shipping, as
to whether or not this poses a threat for spreading an invasive
species from one lake to the other. Would you all agree that
the answer would be yes, that this is an issue, and that a
ship, whether it is traveling intra-lake or from overseas
should have the same rules applied to them?
Mr. Lodge. I would agree all the evidence would suggest
that ships, lakers, so-called laker ships moving within the
Great Lakes, are likely to be an important pathway by which
species get spread around in a lake.
Mr. Ojard. Yes, the lakers will spread, but we are not
going to introduce through the lakers. If we have good ballast
water legislation, adequate systems onboard the ocean ships, we
are going to significantly retard the influx of invasives into
the system and there would be very little to spread around.
Ocean ships are moving throughout the Great Lakes, so they
in essence are spreading as well as the lakers themselves.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you. Andy?
Mr. Buchsbaum. Yes, the lakers definitely spread what is
there. I think that it is unlikely that the standards you would
use for lakers would be the same as the standards you would use
for ocean-going vessels. I think the problems and solutions
would be different. You could probably find some different
solutions for lakers than you can for the ocean-going vessels.
Certainly, if we act quickly on the ocean-going vessels,
then I agree definitely with Mr. Ojard, that you stop the
influx. These things are going to spread through the Great
Lakes regardless of whether the lakers are spreading them or
not. So it is a question of how you reach equilibrium. Thank
you.
Mr. Kagen. The Subcommittee would be interested in your
written recommendations pertaining to the lakers and the ocean
vehicles.
John?
Mr. Kahabka. I would agree with the panelists as well, that
the movement will happen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much. This will end today's
hearing. We appreciate very much your coming here and your hard
work. It is well appreciated. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4785.225