- LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 571, GREAT LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE PREVENTION ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION AND HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S. 1232, GREAT LAKES ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT; S. 1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT TO EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN GENUS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT

    [Senate Hearing 113-772]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-772

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 571, GREAT
        LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE
       PREVENTION ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION AND HABITAT
       CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S. 1232, GREAT LAKES
    ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE
    FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND
     COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES,
    AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION
     ACT; S. 1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT TO EXEMPT
    CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS
     CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S.
     2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT
      OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
     PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN GENUS,
     AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
                        SERVICE RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 16, 2014

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                               U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
      98-182 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2016
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
          Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
         Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

                    Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
                      Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

                       Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex        DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 16, 2014
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
      prepared statement.............................................     2
    Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................     4
    Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York     5
    Kirk, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois.........     6
    Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.........     8
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................    10
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
      prepared statement.............................................   123
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of
      California, prepared statement.................................   124

                                   WITNESSES

    Shapiro, Mike, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
      of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
        Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter.......    27
    Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and
      Wildlife Service...............................................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senatory Cardin..........................................    39
            Senator Vitter...........................................    41
    Stein, Bruce A., Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Adaptation,
      National Wildlife Federation...................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Lord, Chad, Policy Director, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes
      Coalition, and Senior Director, Water Policy, National Parks
      Conservation Association.......................................    61
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Wasley, Tony, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife............    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter from the Alliance for the Great Lakes to Senators Cardin
      and Boozman....................................................   126
    Letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Senators
      Cardin and Kirk................................................   129
    Testimony of the Alaska Federation of Natives....................   131
    Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency to Senator Tom
      Udall..........................................................   134
    Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senator
      Tom Udall......................................................   135
    Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senators
      Tom Udall and Chambliss........................................   137
    Letter from Plumbing Manufacturers International to Senator Tom
      Udall..........................................................   139
    Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists to Senator Tom
      Udall..........................................................   141
    Letter from the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive
      Species to Senator Heller......................................   143
    Letter from the Western Governors' Association to Representative
      Heck...........................................................   144
    Testimony of the National Wildlife Refuge Association............   145
     LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 571,
     GREAT LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND
     WILDLIFE PREVENTION ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION
      AND HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S.
      1232, GREAT LAKES ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF
    2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO
     REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
      FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND FOR OTHER
     PURPOSES; S. 1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT;
       S. 1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT TO
    EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
     SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND
     FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
      CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO
    AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION
       OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN GENUS, AND FOR OTHER
    PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                        RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin (chairman
    of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Boozman, Gillibrand, and
    Whitehouse.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Good afternoon, and welcome to the
    Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Environment and
    Public Works Committee.
        I thank Senator Boozman for his help in putting together
    today's hearing and thank the Chair and Ranking Member for
    their cooperation.
        We have 11 bills that we are going to hear today that are
    under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. We will have an
    opportunity for the sponsors to explain their bills and make
    their statements. We then have representatives of the
    Administration who are here and also outside interest groups
    who are interested in some of these bills.
        We welcome all of your comments. We would ask, without
    objection, that your written statements will all be made a part
    of the record.
        Let me first state this is the way we should proceed on
    legislation pending before the Congress. We should have an
    opportunity for a full hearing and hope the committee can take
    advantage of the information that is made available. I know in
    a couple cases we have received written comments, and all that
    will be extremely helpful.
        I want to use my time to explain one of the 11 bills before
    the committee, S. 2560, the Service Resource Protection Act
    that I have sponsored at the suggestion of the agency.
        Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
    explicit statutory authority to seek compensation from
    responsible parties that injure or destroy national wildlife
    refuge system or other Service resources. This is in contrast
    to the authority that the National Park Service has and
    exercises under the Park System Resource Protection Act and a
    similar authority to NOAA that it uses under the National
    Marine Sanctuaries Act.
        In other words, if someone causes harm, we can hold them
    responsible up to the amount of damage they have caused and
    that can be used to compensate and fix the damage that has been
    caused without additional burdens to the taxpayers of this
    country or the budgets of the different agencies.
        The Service Resource Protection Act gives similar authority
    to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to damages
    caused to our national wildlife refuge system. I know the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be testifying so we will
    have an opportunity to get their views in that regard.
        Let me also point out that we have received, I believe,
    statements from two of the sponsors who will not be testifying
    personally, Senator Levin in regard to the Great Lakes
    Ecological and Economic Protection Act and Senator Murkowski in
    regard to a bill that amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski was not
    received at time of print. The prepared statement of Senator
    Levin follows:]

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

        Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Boozman, for
    holding this hearing on the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic
    Protection Act of 2013 (S. 1232), which would help restore and
    protect the Great Lakes, the largest source of surface
    freshwater on the planet. Senator Kirk and I, as co-chairs of
    the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, introduced this bill to
    target the most significant problems facing the Great Lakes and
    ensure that we implement these projects cost effectively. I
    want to thank the other eight Senators who cosponsored the
    bill, in particular Senator Gillibrand, who is a member of this
    subcommittee. I am also pleased that Congressman Joyce is the
    sponsor of a companion measure in the House of Representatives,
    which has 23 bipartisan cosponsors.
        The Great Lakes are one of the world's great treasures,
    providing drinking water to more than 40 million people;
    supporting 1.5 million U.S. jobs and $62 billion in wages;
    transporting critical supplies for manufacturing, electricity
    generation and food for the world; and supporting the region's
    $4.6 trillion economy.
        The Great Lakes brought industrial and natural resource
    development to the region which resulted in tremendous economic
    development and population growth. This development, however,
    also resulted in toxic substances polluting the waters and
    sediments, untreated wastewater threatening public health, and
    polluted runoff choking habitats and killing aquatic life.
        The Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (S.
    1232), also known as GLEEPA, would tackle problems from past
    pollution and protect the lakes from current and future
    threats. GLEEPA would formally authorize the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative (GLRI), an inter-agency program that
    President Obama launched in 2009 to implement a regional
    collaboration strategy developed in 2005 by about 1,500
    stakeholder participants. This collaborative process was formed
    through an Executive Order by President Bush. The history of
    the restoration strategy clearly shows the work of restoring
    and protecting the Great Lakes is founded on a plan that
    reflects a broad range of viewpoints and has strong bipartisan
    support. It is critical that this collaborative strategy guide
    restoration of the Great Lakes because the region encompasses
    not only eight States, but also two countries. This process
    will also help ensure that progress can be made over the long
    term, as clean up of decades of pollution will take time.
        GLEEPA would focus Federal resources on the areas of
    highest priority identified in the collaborative plan, which
    would be further refined as new science and information become
    available. While the GLRI is broadly authorized in the Clean
    Water Act, passing this legislation would help ensure the
    program has clear congressional direction and goals, is results
    driven and transparent, and implements the most cost effective
    solutions. The bill would also formally establish the Great
    Lakes Advisory Board to provide advice and recommendations
    concerning restoration and protection. The board would reflect
    many different viewpoints, including from local, State and
    tribal governments; environmental, agricultural, and business
    organizations; hunters and anglers; and academia. Finally, the
    bill would formally establish a 10-member interagency task
    force to coordinate restoration efforts, ensure projects are
    not duplicated and that they use existing successful programs.
    GLEEPA also would accelerate progress toward the goals of the
    Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a formal agreement between
    the U.S. and Canadian governments establishing shared goals for
    protecting and improving water quality of the Great Lakes.
        The GLRI has achieved real progress: clean up of more than
    1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment; control of
    the destructive sea lamprey and restoration of sturgeon, trout
    and other important fish species; construction of barriers to
    prevent an invasion by destructive Asian carp and planning for
    additional measures to keep these fish out of the Lakes; and
    prevention of precious Great Lakes water diversions through the
    Great Lakes Compact. GLEEPA would help ensure that progress
    continues to be made using a solid framework for achieving
    measurable and outcome-based results.
        The Great Lakes are precious and irreplaceable. As
    temporary stewards of this invaluable resource, we must do all
    we can to restore and protect the Great Lakes for the millions
    of people who depend on them today and the millions more who
    will in the future. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I
    hope you will soon advance this bill to the full Senate.

        Senator Cardin. With that, let me recognize Senator
    Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this very, very important hearing as we discuss these
    various bills. I agree with you totally that this is the right
    way to do it, to have the witnesses so that we can discuss and
    see how we can improve the ideas being brought forward.
        I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in
    the record.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection.
        Senator Boozman. I am so excited about this first panel
    that in the interest of time, I will do that. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boozman was not received
    at time of print.]
        Senator Cardin. We are very pleased to have three of our
    colleagues here today, all who have brought forward legislation
    we are hearing today. We will start with Senator Blumenthal,
    the principal sponsor of S. 1381, the Big Cats and Public
    Safety Protection Act.
        Senator Blumenthal.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee here today, I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to address the
    subcommittee and speak about the Big Cats and Public Safety
    Protection Act and thank the co-sponsors who have introduced
    this bill with me.
        It is really a common sense solution to the serious dangers
    associated with private ownership of wild animals such as
    lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and more.
        Incredibly, even in the 21st century, even in the United
    States of America, this problem is real and serious. There are
    at least 10,000 big cats currently in private ownership around
    the country. In fact, there are more captive tigers in the
    United States than there are in the wild. Think about it: more
    captive tigers in the United States than in the wild.
        Some people buy them as wild animals, as cubs, thinking it
    would be fun to own an exotic pet like a tiger or a lion or a
    leopard but as soon as they begin to mature, private owners
    quickly find themselves in over their heads, literally and
    figuratively, and frequently subject these animals to utterly
    inhumane living conditions.
        Other people purchase big cats to use in traveling roadside
    zoos which charge fees to allow unwitting members of the public
    to take pictures with the animals, they are literally side by
    side with the animals, dangerously so. The exhibitors of these
    roadside zoos often use abusive training techniques in an
    attempt to prevent the animals from attacking any of the
    customers.
        No matter what the setting, private ownership of big cats
    poses gravely serious safety threats for anyone who happens to
    live in the surrounding community.
        Over the last two decades, captive big cats have killed 24
    people in the United States, 24 people killed by these big cats
    including 5 children. In addition, these cats have mauled and
    injured over 200 people.
        In short, private ownership and breeding of big cats has
    been a very, very serious problem for law enforcement officers
    and first responders. Brave men and women who go to the scene
    of a big cat incident have to put their lives on the line. They
    are not always trained to deal with them and they often lack
    the equipment necessary to properly deal with them.
        In fact, I have talked to members of the firefighting
    community as well as the law enforcement community who
    frequently go to homes that may be on fire or dealing with the
    threat of fire and find these animals there without even
    knowing what they are going to encounter.
        Conservation experts overwhelmingly agree that breeding and
    possessing an animal outside of its natural environment is not
    an example of conservation. These wild animals are just what
    are called, wild. They are wild and people should respect the
    expertise that is required to deal with them and they should
    not be allowed to own them.
        My legislation would prohibit private possession and
    breeding of big cats, but it is all too common sense which
    requires this bill and also requires reasonable exceptions for
    properly accredited zoos, State colleges and universities and
    traveling circuses that do not allow public handling of these
    wild animals.
        The bill would also allow those who currently own big cats
    to keep them as long as they register the animals with the
    United States Department of Agriculture. In other words, there
    is a kind of grandfather clause.
        I urge the members of this subcommittee to support this
    legislation so that we can put an end to inhumane, dangerous
    and wasteful private ownership of big cats.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much,
        I am going to recognize Senator Gillibrand. I apologize for
    overlooking you for your opening statement.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Gillibrand. I was grateful to hear Senator
    Blumenthal's very interesting legislation that I will support.
        Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for
    holding this hearing and for including several pieces of
    legislation that are vital not just to New York but all across
    our country.
        I am particularly pleased that our subcommittee was able to
    include S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act,
    on the list of legislation to be discussed today. I have worked
    closely on this legislation with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter
    in response to the real and severe threats that my State of New
    York faces with regard to invasive species as well as Senator
    Nelson who knows all too well the harm that invasives can cause
    through Florida's recent experiences battling the Burmese
    python in the Everglades.
        Whether it is the Asian clam in Lake George, zebra mussels
    in the Finger Lakes or the imminent danger of Asian carp in the
    Great Lakes, New York's water bodies are affected by aquatic
    invasive species that threaten our regional economies, disrupt
    the balance of our ecosystems and cost our local communities
    scarce resources to control their spread.
        Across the United States, invasive species cost more than
    $120 billion each year and result in more than $13 billion in
    damage to agriculture annually. Those numbers will only
    continue to grow if additional species that could cause harm
    are allowed to be imported into the United States.
        Currently, 236 species of animals are listed as injurious
    under the Lacey Act, including zebra mussels. However, despite
    the fact that since 2010, the Asian clam has caused harm to
    Lake George, that species is not listed. It makes no sense, and
    we have to improve the Federal Government's ability to quickly
    respond to these threats.
        Once a species is listed as injurious, it cannot be
    imported into the United States. However, the current process
    can take 4 years to complete, giving an invasive species more
    time to establish itself and damage our ecosystems.
        To fix this problem, I have introduced the Invasive Fish
    and Wildlife Prevention Act to strengthen the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's ability to proactively address the threat of
    invasive species by requiring an analysis to determine whether
    any non-native animal species have the potential to become
    invasive and harmful to the U.S. before they can be imported or
    enter interstate commerce.
        Specifically, the bill would establish an injurious species
    listing process based on the clear risk assessment and risk
    determination process. It would also allow the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to take emergency actions to ban non-native
    wildlife like the Asian clam and others that pose an imminent
    threat to our waterways and other ecosystems.
        I believe this is a common sense approach to prevent the
    further spread of invasive species and look forward to
    continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate to advance
    the legislation.
        I would also like to briefly speak on another piece of
    legislation I have co-sponsored, the Great Lakes Ecological and
    Economic Protection Action of 2014. As the only Senator on the
    EPW who represents a Great Lakes State, I know firsthand how
    important the Great Lakes restoration initiative has been to my
    State and the entire region.
        The Great Lakes face a number of challenges from Asian carp
    to blue-green algae. Ensuring that we have a long term Federal
    commitment to restoring and protecting the environmental
    quality of the Great Lakes is critical to regional economies
    that rely on the lakes for fishing, tourism and other economic
    activity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of
    our other witnesses today.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Kirk. I believe you are here in regard to S. 571.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KIRK,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Kirk. S. 571, that would propose a total ban on
    sewage dumping in the Great Lakes is already backed by
    Stabenow, Levin, Durbin and Kirk.
        This chart shows the dirty dozen dumpers in the Great Lakes
    area. Let me point to some of the details. The worse dumper in
    the Great Lakes area is the city of Detroit which far eclipses
    most of the other cities.
        Just to get further support from my colleagues for Buffalo,
    this legislation also has a fining mechanism that would refund
    to the publicly owned sewage treatment systems so that they can
    clean up their act, a virtual cycle of stopping.
        The reason why Senators from various States should care
    about this is the Great Lakes are the source of 95 percent of
    the fresh water in the United States, and 30 million Americans
    will pull their drinking water from the Great Lakes, including
    a few Canucks in Canada. That is why I think we should treat
    this ecosystem with the reverence that it should enjoy and make
    sure we ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes.
        I would say it is really good bipartisan legislation which
    we have put together with several members of the current Senate
    onboard. I introduced this in the House when I was a House
    member. We had the current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, when
    he was a Congressman, onboard.
        With that, I would conclude my remarks and urge your
    support to rapidly pass this legislation out of the
    subcommittee to make sure we protect this central ecosystem of
    the United States.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Kirk follows:]

                         Statement of Hon. Mark Kirk,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois

        Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify this
    afternoon on critical legislation that would improve water
    quality and protect the Great Lakes. As the largest source of
    surface fresh water in the world, the Great Lakes provide food,
    recreation, and drinking water for more than 30 million
    Americans. Yet year after year, our most precious natural
    resource continues to be harmed by billions of gallons of
    sewage that are discharged into the lakes, degrading water
    quality, threatening public health and safety, and causing
    beach closures across the Great Lakes.
        Home to more than 200 globally unique species of plants and
    animals, the Great Lakes are an invaluable ecological treasure
    that account for 84 percent of the surface fresh water in North
    America. With more than 10,000 miles of coastline, the Great
    Lakes offer unmatched recreational and tourism opportunities,
    attracting businesses and families looking to relocate and
    drawing millions of tourists to their shores every year. The
    Great Lakes support an estimated 1.5 million American jobs,
    generate $62 billion in annual wages and transport
    approximately 145 million tons of commodities across the
    system's channels.
        Yet despite their great size and numerous benefits, the
    lakes are under siege. More than 24 billion gallons of
    untreated waste and stormwater are diverted into the Great
    Lakes each year, contaminating the water supply with harmful
    toxins and pathogens, like E. coli. While cities across the
    Great Lakes have taken strides to reduce the amount of sewage
    discharged into the lakes and their tributaries, not enough is
    being done to put an end to this harmful practice. For example,
    in 2011, Detroit, Michigan, dumped 6.9 billion gallons of
    untreated and partially treated sewage into the lakes, and Fort
    Wayne, Indiana, dumped another 7.5 billion gallons of combined
    sewage into the tributaries of Lake Erie. Closer to my home in
    Illinois, 2.3 billion gallons were discharged into Lake
    Michigan from the Chicagoland area.
        Sewage pollution is devastating to the region's tourism
    sector. It contributes to hundreds of beach closures and
    advisories across the Great Lakes annually and negatively
    impacts the cash strapped budgets of our local communities.
    According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, the
    number of beach advisories and closings on the Lake Michigan
    shoreline in Illinois alone has remained between 300-600 a year
    over the last 5 years. In addition to the negative impacts on
    the environment and public health, a University of Chicago
    study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli
    levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue
    every year. This is unacceptable.
        The path forward is clear. To protect the source of
    drinking water for millions of Americans and the economic
    vitality of the region, we must work together to put an end to
    the billions of gallons of municipal sewage that are discharged
    into our lakes. For these reasons, I urge this committee to
    consider S. 571, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act,
    bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Senator Richard
    Durbin (D-IL). This legislation would set a date certain to end
    sewage dumping in the Great Lakes and would increase the fines
    for dumping to $100,000 per violation, per day, which are
    currently capped at $37,500. S. 571 gives municipalities 20
    years to make the necessary upgrades to their sewer systems and
    creates a level playing field for all communities throughout
    the Great Lakes region. The fines collected would be funneled
    into a new Great Lakes clean up fund within the Clean Water
    State Revolving Fund to generate financial resources for the
    Great Lakes States to improve wastewater treatment options,
    habitat protection and wastewater treatment systems.
        This bill also enhances transparency and public awareness
    requirements surrounding overflow events, requiring rapid
    public notification about when an overflow event occurs, the
    total volume that was released, and where it took place. This
    gives individuals, businesses, and local municipal planners the
    tools they need to protect public health and ensure that beach
    closures and advisories reflect the most accurate and up-to-
    date information.
        I am committed to helping improve water quality, wastewater
    infrastructure, and ensuring our existing Federal policies
    effectively prevent the negative impacts of sewage pollution on
    the Great Lakes ecosystem. I appreciate the committee's
    attention to this issue, and I hope my colleagues will support
    me in ensuring this important resource becomes free from the
    threat of sewage pollution and is preserved for future
    generations.

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Senator Kirk.
        Senator Heller on S. 2530.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Heller. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
    Boozman and the rest of the committee. Thank you very much for
    having this hearing today and allowing me to testify on this
    particular bill, the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act. I
    was looking for a sexier name for this but I couldn't come up
    with one so we will stick with the Protecting Lakes Against
    Quaggas Act.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Nevada's quagga
    mussel efforts and my bill which can be an important part of a
    nationwide solution.
        Quagga mussels are freshwater mollusks with razor sharp
    shells. Each mussel is usually no bigger than a man's
    thumbnail, but they wreak havoc on water bodies and infiltrate
    by multiplying at an alarming rate clogging water pipelines,
    powerplant cooling systems, marine equipment, damaging boats,
    water infrastructure and native wildlife.
        They were first introduced to the Great Lakes in the mid-
    1980s and have since spread through a boat to Lake Mead in
    southern Nevada, a heavily recreated reservoir on the Nevada-
    Arizona border that also provides over 90 percent of the
    southern Nevada water supply.
        Until January 2007, when they first turned up at Lake Mead,
    quaggas had never been found west of the Mississippi River.
    Since, they have been detected at Lahontan Reservoir, Rye Patch
    Reservoir, Lake Tahoe and many other western lakes and
    reservoirs.
        The only way for these mussels to spread from lake to lake
    is by hitchhiking on recreational boats. Preventing their
    spread sounds easy. All it takes are boat inspections to make
    sure they are not attached to boat holds or hidden in the bilge
    water.
        That work is difficult and expensive. Quagga and zebra
    mussels have cost more in prevention and control than any other
    aquatic species to invade the United States, costing an
    estimated $5 billion in prevention and control efforts since
    1987. The Bureau of Reclamation alone spends $1 million
    annually on quagga mussel control just at Hoover Dam.
        A lot of great work is currently being done on the ground
    to prevent the spread of quagga but the problem is not going
    away. Just last week, a Lake Tahoe watercraft inspector
    inspected a boat with quagga mussels and had an unidentified
    snail species hidden in the anchor locker.
        The boat, coming from Lake Mead, was inspected at the
    Spooner Summit Inspection Station on Highway 50 in Nevada,
    fully decontaminated and ultimately cleared to launch on Lake
    Tahoe.
        Since the start of the summer boating season May 2014,
    inspectors have intercepted 24 boats containing invasive
    species bound for the waters of Lake Tahoe. Eight of these
    boats contained invasive mussels, and another four boats were
    carrying several different types of snail species.
        Over the 4th of July holiday, more than 725 boats were
    screened for invasive species at four inspection stations
    surrounding the lake, a 17 percent increase from 2013.
        The Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act is a
    straightforward, common sense proposal that will assist ongoing
    efforts to stop the spread of these destructive invasive
    species. It adds the quagga mussel to the National List of
    Invasive Species covered under the Lacey Act. Currently the
    zebra mussel is listed, but the quagga is not.
        A listing will allow for increased inspection of boats
    crossing State lines and entering Federal lands to further
    prevent quagga hitchhiking.
        My bill garners support from a diverse range of
    stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Western
    Governors Association, the Colorado River Energy Distributors
    Association, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, National Parks
    Conservation Association and the National Wildlife Federation.
        Additionally, friend and fellow Nevadan, Dr. Joe Heck
    introduced similar legislation last year in the House that has
    garnered 22 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors across the
    political spectrum, many from the affected States.
        Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Nevada
    Department of Wildlife Director, Tony Wasley, for being here
    today. Tony is a qualified leader with a distinguished 17-year
    NDW career.
        He was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval last April.
    Since, he has done a tremendous job leading our State's efforts
    to eliminate aquatic invasive species as well as managing
    Nevada's statewide game and conservation projects for species
    such as sage grouse, mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep.
        Nevada is fortunate to have Tony's leadership at NDW, and I
    am greatly appreciative of his coming to DC to testify in
    support of this bill. He and I know firsthand that providing
    our local authorities more tools to prevent aquatic travel will
    help stop the spread of these pests and potentially save
    billions of dollars in future maintenance costs.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
    subcommittee today on this important Nevada priority.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. I thank all of our colleagues
    for being here today.
        Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I didn't bring
    any charts.
        Senator Cardin. You did just fine.
        You all are excused to carry on your business.
        Let me recognize Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. With all those wild cats, it would have
    been quite a good chart.
        Senator Kirk. I thought about it.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse will discuss S. 1202.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted.
        The acronym is the SAFE Act, which stands for Safeguarding
    America's Future and the Environment. This was a piece of
    legislation developed in an east-west-coastal-mountain
    coalition with Senator Max Baucus when he was here.
        As we prepared it, we asked the Government Accountability
    Office for a report on the adaptation efforts by the Federal
    Government within our natural resource agencies. The report was
    pretty stark and explained the vulnerability of some of these
    vital natural resources from rising temperatures from worsening
    drought, wildfire, rising sea levels, shrinking snow coverage
    and flow.
        GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and
    natural resources, the Federal Government has real fiscal risk
    from climate change through these properties and manages nearly
    30 percent of land in the United States, in addition to the
    marine resources that run 200 miles from our shore.
        The GAO report found that the status quo management and
    planning will not be good enough: ``Natural resource management
    has historically been based on the idea of maintaining current
    environmental conditions or restoring species and habitats to
    some desired former condition.''
        As the climate continues to change, this approach will
    become increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to
    maintain. The SAFE Act requires implementation of the National
    Fish, Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy and asks that the
    Federal national resource agencies, NOAA, the National Park
    Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, to complete
    coordinated climate change adaptation plans.
        This is something the Administration is already moving
    forward on, so the SAFE Act would codify these efforts and also
    support smart actions taking place at the local level.
        We had an Oversight Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Chairman, on
    natural resource adaptation in February. One of the witnesses
    was Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman's Association President
    Chris Brown, who testified about the toll that climate change
    is already taking on his industry: ``I fish on a much different
    ocean today than when I first started fishing with my
    grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s. Regularly caught now in
    Rhode Island are the species of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum
    and tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one of these in
    his entire life as a fisherman.''
        The wild-caught fisheries of the northeast may ultimately
    prove to be the coal miner's canary for this Nation as we
    grapple with the issue of climate change. A reconsideration of
    strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we
    have endured and what we have gained.
        Our oceans remain ground zero for damage from carbon
    pollution. They are warming. That is easily measurable with
    things like thermometers, and you don't have to be a
    theoretician to understand that. They are rising, also easily
    measurable at tide gauges with something that is not much more
    complicated than a yardstick, not much room for dissent about
    that, I would think.
        They are becoming more acidic, something that children
    measure in their aquariums. It is not that complicated. Without
    a doubt, the changes we are seeing put the jobs and livelihoods
    of our fishing community at risk.
        Those same changes we also see affecting forest health,
    wildlife habitat and species migration which in turn affects
    the outdoor recreation and hunting industries which account for
    nearly $650 billion in consumer spending each year.
        To protect these vital natural resources and help them
    adapt in the face of climate change, I would hope we can move
    this bill forward. It would be a step toward protecting our
    economy and our outdoors way of life.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]

                     Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
                  U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island

        Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding this legislative
    hearing to discuss a number of bills on which the committee may
    have the opportunity to vote in the weeks and months ahead.
        One of the bills on the agenda today is S. 1202, the
    Safeguarding America's Future and the Environment Act--the SAFE
    Act, for short. This bill provides local communities with
    better tools to help our natural resources adapt to climate
    change. These resources help keep our air and water clean,
    sustain our economy, and provide a deep-seated sense of place.
        I introduced this bill with then-Senator and now-Ambassador
    Max Baucus from Montana, with whom I was proud to work on this
    issue. He and I also requested a GAO report on adaptation
    efforts at our natural resource management agencies. The report
    explains just how vulnerable America's natural resources are to
    the changes we're seeing in the Earth's climate, including
    rising temperatures, worsening drought and wildfire, rising sea
    levels, and shrinking snow cover.
        GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and
    natural resources, the Federal Government is at great fiscal
    risk from climate change. The Federal Government manages nearly
    30 percent of land in the United States as well as marine
    resources, like fisheries, in our exclusive economic zone that
    extends 200 miles from our shore.
        The GAO report found that status quo management and
    planning will not be good enough: it says, ``natural resource
    management has historically been based on the idea of
    maintaining current environmental conditions or restoring
    species and habitats to some desired former condition. As the
    climate continues to change, this approach . . . will become
    increasingly more difficult if not impossible to maintain.''
        So, the SAFE Act requires implementation of the National
    Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Adaptation strategy and asks Federal
    natural resource agencies--such as the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management--to
    complete coordinated climate change adaptation plans.
        The Administration is already moving forward on this front.
    The President's Climate Action Plan includes sensible steps to
    prepare us for the effects of climate change. An Executive
    Order issued in November further focused the Administration's
    adaptation strategy. The SAFE Act would codify these efforts
    and support smart actions at the local level.
        At an Oversight Subcommittee hearing I chaired on natural
    resource adaptation in February, witnesses discussed the need
    for strategic adaptation planning in the face of climate
    change. Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen's Association
    President Chris Brown testified about the toll climate change
    is already taking on his industry. He put it like this: ``I
    fish on a much different ocean today than when I first started
    fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s . . .
    Regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species of
    croaker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. My grandfather never
    saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.''
        He continued: ``The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast
    may ultimately prove to be the `coal miner's canary' for this
    Nation as we grapple with the issue of climate change. A
    reconsideration of strategy is called for given the enormous
    chasm between what we have endured and what we have gained.''
        Our oceans are ground zero for damage from carbon
    pollution. They are warming, they are rising, and they are
    becoming more acidic. These are measurements, not theories or
    projections. Without a doubt, these drastic changes put the
    jobs and livelihoods of fishermen at risk.
        Likewise, the changes we are seeing in forest health,
    wildlife habitat, and species migration patterns affect the
    outdoor recreation and hunting industries, which account for
    nearly $650 billion in consumer spending each year.
        America's natural resources--our rivers and bays, our
    forests and marshes, our fish and animals--are our birthright
    and our legacy. To protect them and help them adapt in the face
    of climate change is to protect our economy and way of life. I
    appreciate the committee's consideration of this important
    legislation.
        Thank you.

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. We
    appreciate your leadership on this issue. You have been a
    strong leader in the areas of adaptation. We appreciate this
    legislation.
        Senator Whitehouse. If I may ask unanimous consent to have
    a letter from the groups that support this legislation added to
    the record.
        I would point out that Senator Kirk's display of Lake Erie
    omitted one salient fact which was the Battle of Lake Erie was
    won by a Rhode Islander, Oliver Hazzard Perry, in the War of
    1812.
        Senator Kirk. I am sure it was an oversight.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, the statements will be
    made a part of the record but not the correction of the record.
    We need Senator Kirk here in order to approve that.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. We will now go to our panel. Mike Shapiro
    is the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office
    of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Shapiro
    has been at the EPA since 1980 working and surviving through
    Democrat and Republican administrations. He has served as
    Deputy Assistant Administrator since 2002.
        Steve Guertin is the Policy Director of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. Steve is a long-time public servant with the
    Service, playing key leadership roles in the Service's efforts
    to help fish, wildlife and plants adapt to the effects of
    landscape scale challenges, including climate change, energy
    development, water scarcity, fire and invasive species.
        Welcome to both of you. As is the custom of our committee,
    your full statements, without objection, will be made a part of
    the record. You may proceed as you wish, starting with Mr.
    Shapiro.

         STATEMENT OF MIKE SHAPIRO, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman
    Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA's work to
    protect our Nation's waters and several pieces of proposed
    legislation that would impact our agency's programs.
        The Administration has not taken a position on these pieces
    of legislation, but I am pleased to briefly describe EPA's
    current work relevant to the issues that four of these bills
    would address. I have provided additional detail in my written
    testimony.
        Addressing the Great Lakes first, it is tempting to think
    that protecting and restoring the Great Lakes is a regional
    issue. It is anything but that. With some 95 percent of the
    Nation's and 20 percent of the Earth's fresh water, protecting
    and restoring the Great Lakes is a national and even an
    international imperative.
        The EPA manages the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force of
    11 Federal departments per Presidential Executive Order.
    Chaired by EPA Administrator McCarthy, the task force
    coordinates the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI.
        In its most recent report to the President and Congress,
    the GLRI is meeting or exceeding most of its annual measures of
    progress for Great Lakes restoration. EPA strongly supports the
    goals of S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic
    Protection Act which would specifically authorize GLRI.
        We also agree with the purpose of S. 571, the Great Lakes
    Water Protection Act, but would be interested to work with
    committee staff on technical issues as they move forward with
    this bill.
        Second, dealing with water and energy efficiency, too often
    we take for granted a system that provides clean and safe water
    from the drinking water that automatically appears when we turn
    on our taps or take a shower to the water found in our local
    watersheds where we live, work and play.
        Water is not a limitless resource. As we all know, many
    communities across the Nation are facing difficult challenges
    in meeting their water resource needs. The EPA is working to
    raise awareness and foster the understanding that water is a
    valuable resource that should be used wisely.
        For example, in 2006, we launched the Water Sense Program,
    an innovative partnership that helps American consumers,
    businesses and governments make smart water choices by looking
    for the water sense label. Through 2013, we estimate the
    program has saved more than 757 billion gallons of water, an
    amount equal to the water needed to supply all the homes in the
    United States for 26 days.
        S. 2225 would create a Smart Water Resource Management
    Pilot Program managed by the Department of Energy. This program
    would award grants for innovative solutions to increase water
    and energy efficiency.
        The EPA generally supports further efforts to promote
    energy and water efficiency and we have collaborated with the
    Department of Energy in examining this issue. We would defer to
    DOE on the specifics of the legislation.
        Third is climate adaptation and water. Water resources are
    important to both society and ecosystems. We depend on a
    reliable, clean supply of drinking water to sustain our health.
    We also need water for agriculture, navigation, recreation and
    manufacturing.
        A changing climate may result in water shortages in some
    areas and increased runoff, flooding or sea level rises, as
    Senator Whitehouse described, and other areas.
        The EPA recently released a policy statement on climate
    change adaptation and each of the major EPA programs and
    regional offices have developed more detailed climate change
    adaptation implementation plans. In 2012, the EPA's National
    Water Program developed a climate change strategy to guide our
    ongoing work in coordination with our State, tribal and local
    partners.
        S. 1202 would create an Interagency Natural Resources
    Climate Change Adaptation Panel which would include the EPA
    Administrator to help coordinate development and implementation
    of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation
    Strategy.
        If this bill were enacted, the EPA would continue its work
    with other Federal agencies on the strategy's implementation.
    We would look forward to doing so.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the EPA's
    work in these areas and the potential impacts of the
    legislation you are considering today. I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]

    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
        Mr. Guertin.

     STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, U.S.
                       FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Guertin. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and
    members of the subcommittee, I am Steve Guertin, Deputy
    Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on bills that address a range of
    service responsibilities to conserve and protect America's fish
    and wildlife for the benefit of our citizens.
        The hearing today comes at a time when the Nation's living
    resources are impacted by forces acting upon larger landscapes
    and ecosystems such as habit fragmentation or loss due to land
    use changes, invasive species, fish and wildlife disease,
    contamination, wildfires, floods and drought, all exacerbated
    by climate change.
        Mr. Chairman, the Service greatly appreciates your
    leadership on the United States Fish and Wildlife Resource
    Protection Act. We strongly support this legislation which
    mirrors the Administration's proposed draft bill.
        When national wildlife refuge lands and national fish
    hatcheries are damaged or injured, the taxpayer bears the cost
    of restoration. We currently do not have statutory authority to
    seek compensation from responsible parties who injure or
    destroy Service resources and we are unable to then apply
    compensation to directly address those damages.
        Therefore, the cost of restoration either comes from
    appropriated dollars or is added to the operations and
    maintenance project list to be addressed when funds are
    available down the road.
        The Resource and Protection Act provides a much needed
    remedy to this situation. It would authorize the Service to
    seek compensation from responsible parties that injure or
    destroy national wildlife refuge system or other Service
    resources. This legislation is one of the Service's top
    legislative priorities and we look forward to working with you,
    Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee to enact this bill.
        Senator Whitehouse, the Service applauds your efforts in
    introducing the SAFE Act. We are very supportive of the need
    for and intent of this legislation and greatly appreciate the
    subcommittee's continued work to highlight the impacts of
    climate change on natural resources and the need for adaptation
    measures.
        We also recognize Senator Gillibrand's efforts, and we
    support the purpose of the Invasive Fish and Wildlife
    Protection Act. Adverse impacts from invasive species are among
    the most significant challenges facing the conservation of
    native fish and wildlife. Preventing the introduction and
    spread of these invasive species is the most cost effective
    approach to eliminating or reducing these threats.
        Our written testimony provides additional information on
    these and other bills you are considering today. Many of the
    bills that are the subject of the hearing today are important
    steps in natural resource conservation.
        In addition to these efforts already underway, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service believes there is much work to be accomplished
    on the legislative front in the conservation of our Nation's
    fish and wildlife.
        Among the Service's other top priorities are the
    Administration's proposal for full and permanent funding of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, the authority to increase the
    price of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
    Stamp, known as the Duck Stamp, and reauthorization of the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act to leverage funds for
    projects that conserve and protect water fowl habitat.
        These legislative actions are critically important to
    conserving, protecting and restoring habitat for trust species.
    These actions would also support the U.S. economy because of
    Nation's natural resources are among our most valuable economic
    assets.
        We are happy to answer any questions you have today and
    look forward to working with the subcommittee on these bills.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Let me thank both of you for your service.
        Mr. Guertin, let me start in regard to the legislation I
    have authored. I fully recognize the need for you to have the
    authority to go after those who have damaged our refuges and to
    be able to get the compensation you need in order to restore
    and repair what has been done.
        We do allow legitimate use of our refuges for hunting and
    recreation and so forth, and there is at least some concern
    that this authority could be used in a way that would be
    intimidating to lawful users of the services.
        Can you give us some assurance as to how this authority
    would be screened to make sure it is only used where there is
    culpable activity that would warrant such action?
        Mr. Guertin. We can fully assure you that if enacted, we
    would only use this legislation to seek restitution from
    responsible parties who injured natural resources. There is no
    intention to use this to do anything to detract or take away
    the right of Americans to hunt and fish on open national
    wildlife refuges and otherwise enjoy public access to these
    lands.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for that.
        Let me address invasive species for one moment because
    there are several bills that deal with that. Senator
    Gillibrand's proposal that would set up a reviewing process
    where you could deal with changing what is permitted to be
    imported into the United States, do you have comments in regard
    to that specific approach in regard to adding additional
    species that could be subject to import restrictions?
        Mr. Guertin. We are supportive of the overall policy intent
    of the Senator's proposed legislation. We think that the idea
    of putting in place some risk screening concept or methodology
    to identify in Tier Category 1 and 2 threats to the U.S. would
    be critically important to an overall strategy.
        We are very interested right now in focusing our resources
    on further species coming to the North American continent and
    then our ongoing efforts to contain species once they do come
    into the North American continent.
        We are very interested in partnering with the Senator, her
    staff and your staff, Mr. Chairman, on some program
    implementation aspects of the bill which we think would make it
    easier for the Service and the State Fish and Wildlife agencies
    to implement.
        That would include stepping down some of the implementation
    ideas as well as looking at some of the exceptions that might
    be envisioned in the current version of the legislation.
        Senator Cardin. It would be helpful if you could get
    specific comments to us as soon as possible as far as
    legislative changes because I cannot speak for the Chairman of
    the committee, but I know the calendar is moving. There might
    be efforts made to move legislation as quickly as possible.
        Any specific comments you have about language, it would
    certainly be helpful to get it to the committee and to Senator
    Gillibrand obviously.
        Senator Blumenthal's proposal regarding the big cats, I
    didn't hear any specific reference to that in your
    presentation. Do you have comments regarding that specific
    bill?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We support the overall
    intent of the legislation which would amend the Lacey Act by
    clarifying provisions of the underlying Captive Wildlife Safety
    Act which would prohibit individuals from breeding and
    possessing prohibited wildlife species.
        This would address the larger impact to public health and
    safety and we support the idea of grandfathering in those who
    already possess these animals.
        We would like to work with the Senator and the committee
    leadership on some of the exemptions that we think are applied
    a little too broadly. Certainly main accredited institutions,
    zoos, universities and other programs would be fine under the
    language but we would like to take a critical look at some of
    the potential exemptions that might fall under that.
        At the same time, we would like to work on other program
    implementation issues but we would be glad to set up a follow
    on staff level meeting to work through these kinds of program
    implementation issues, not policy level issues.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Heller's proposal dealing with the
    quagga mussel, do you have a view on that?
        Mr. Guertin. Senator, we do not oppose listing the quagga
    mussel as injurious under the Lacey Act. We do have some
    concerns about the vision in there which would exempt a lot of
    publicly managed waterways. As currently worded, we believe
    that might be too big of a blanket exemption.
        We know that the States are really leading the charge on
    combating quagga mussels and other invasive species. We
    recognize concerns from public water managers and others, but
    we think we need to sit down with folks to try and hammer out
    some way to address that.
        Because of that, we cannot currently support the
    legislation because it includes that exemption.
        Senator Cardin. The exemption is too broad in that bill?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. You have some concerns with Senator
    Blumenthal's bill, that the exemption may be too broad also,
    did I hear you correctly, some of the language in the Big Cats
    bill?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. You will try to get information and work
    with the sponsors on both of those bills? It would be helpful
    to us.
        In one example, we have legislation that would ease the
    restrictions related to Alaskan Native articles currently
    prohibited from sale, migratory bird parts. Do you have any
    advice to the committee on that?
        Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act which ratifies four international
    treaties that guide step-down provisions within each of the
    host countries to manage migratory birds.
        In looking at the language as written in the current bill,
    we believe there are some potential violations of the larger
    policy goals of those four international treaties and would
    like to take a look at that.
        We also think a way to get after this issue exists. That is
    using the ongoing leadership and work of the Alaska Migratory
    Bird Co-management Council which comprises representatives of
    the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, Native corporations, as
    well as the Fish and Wildlife Service who are currently
    evaluating what kind of flexibility there might be, if any,
    under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow Native American
    use in Alaska of some of these bird species.
        An interesting footnote to all of this is the only time the
    larger international treaties have been amended was with Canada
    and even then did not address the subsistence use of bird parts
    and things like that.
        We would like to sit down with the bill sponsors to look at
    that but urge the committee to allow the ongoing work of the
    commission in Alaska to potentially find a way forward on that
    situation as well.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for your comments.
        Mr. Shapiro, in regard to Senator Kirk's bill, you
    indicated you had some technical issues with the way that bill
    was drafted. Can you get those comments to us as quickly as
    possible?
        Mr. Shapiro. We can provide specific comments. We may also
    want to discuss with the staff what we view as some lack of
    clarity in some of the provisions around the bypass portion of
    the bill. We would be happy to do that.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We appreciate both of you being here and also appreciate
    your hard work.
        Mr. Shapiro, in the absence of legislation, does the
    Administration lack the needed authority to carry out its Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative?
        Mr. Shapiro. No, we continue to operate the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative under annual appropriations. The
    structure that has been set up is very similar to the one that
    would be put in place if the legislation we are discussing was
    passed.
        The legislation would provide a firm statutory foundation
    for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as well as the
    advisory board that would be created and the Interagency Task
    Force. That would provide some continuity and more ability to
    plan going forward knowing that those entities existed and had
    a statutory foundation.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Guertin, you mentioned on the Resource
    Protection Act that currently criminal and vandalism fines are
    collected. What happens to the revenue now?
        Mr. Guertin. Senator, that is a great question. Currently,
    if there is damage on a refuge, we have the authority to write
    the violator a ticket and collect a penalty which might be
    several hundred dollars. It goes to the General Fund of the
    Treasury, it does not come back to the refuge or hatchery where
    the damage took place.
        If this legislation were enacted, it would give the Service
    the ability to also pursue restitution or recovery of the
    actual damages much as we do with an oil spill or something
    similar and directly allocate that money back to the field
    station to remedy the damages on the ground.
        Senator Boozman. You actually determine the amount of the
    ticket and then the Department of Justice--who collects it?
        Mr. Guertin. Under current authority to write a citation,
    we have authority to collect a couple hundred dollars for a
    minor infraction up to $100,000.
        Senator Boozman. Then it goes into the General Fund?
        Mr. Guertin. The Treasury.
        Senator Boozman. If this were to pass, do you envision
    increased law enforcement in these?
        Mr. Guertin. Not necessarily, sir. We would have our
    ongoing eyes and ears of the refuge law enforcement program and
    other refuge personnel who would have this as a collateral
    duty.
        Currently their frustration is if damage occurs, there is
    no way to pursue damage restitution and the bill is passed to
    the taxpayer. The same people on the ground now would be able
    to be leaders in moving forward on a potential solution for
    damage restoration.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Shapiro, regarding the Cardin bill for
    trying to clean up the Great Lakes with the overflow from
    sewage, what would be required? What would the guilty or the
    dirty dozen be required to do to make it such that those
    overflows wouldn't happen?
        Mr. Shapiro. The decisions they would have to make with
    regard to preventing overflows would have to be evaluated on a
    case by case basis. Some of that work may have already been
    done but I am not familiar with it.
        In general, the kinds of things you would have to do is
    look at the sources of the excess water; in some cases you may
    want to use additional storage, expand certain kinds of
    treatment capacity and in some cases, there may be leakage of
    stormwater into parts of the system that can be avoided. There
    are a variety of measures that would be considered to be
    undertaken.
        I would also note that in the bill, there are exemptions
    for extraordinary circumstances that would not result in a
    penalty. In general, some form of additional engineering would
    be necessary, an investment in order to prevent conditions
    leading to the overflow occurring.
        Senator Boozman. It must be there that there are a bunch of
    non-extraordinary circumstances occurring or you wouldn't need
    the bill.
        Mr. Shapiro. Correct.
        Senator Boozman. Are these older treatment plants, do you
    think?
        Mr. Shapiro. Are they older treatment plants?
        Senator Boozman. Yes. Would a newer sewage treatment plant
    be subject to as much problem with stormwater runoff or
    whatever the problem is?
        Mr. Shapiro. Often, these problems are an accumulation
    throughout the entire system. It may not be a problem at the
    plant; it could be a problem dealing with how stormwater and in
    some cases, combined sewer discharges are collected and
    transported to the plant and leakages into the system.
        Generally speaking, if it was a new plant, it would be
    designed for the right capacity. In some cases, it could be
    that the plant is simply pushed to the extreme of its capacity
    and needs more capacity. That is a potential problem but there
    are other issues with the collection system and the management
    of water that could lead to problems that would force a bypass
    in the system.
        Essentially, you have to bypass when there is just too much
    volume coming into the treatment units and rather than run the
    risk of destroying or damaging the treatment units, you are
    forced to have a bypass.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Guertin, you were involved in the field, your
    organization, and taking care of a lot of the precious natural
    resources that many Americans enjoy from mountains to coasts
    and very warm areas to very cold areas.
        Across that great span of geography, what are the sort of
    consequences you are beginning to see already in those
    properties as the result of climate change?
        Mr. Guertin. Certainly we are seeing along many of our
    coastal refuges, particularly here on the eastern seaboard, the
    impacts of sea level rise which is starting to inundate a lot
    of coastal and estuarine habitats. We can point to a lot of
    that being caused by climate change.
        As we move into the interior of the country, there is a
    growing belief that a lot of the severity and impacts from the
    big wildfires can be attributed as well. We are wildlife
    managers so we don't necessarily claim to be experts on the
    science behind the changing climate in and of itself.
        Our mission is to evaluate what climatic changes are doing
    to the trust species the Fish and Wildlife Service oversees.
        Senator Whitehouse. You are seeing habitat changes, species
    moving into new areas where they weren't before, you are seeing
    invasive species and pests?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes. The sad story is over and over again,
    when you add up the cumulative impacts of drought, fire,
    invasive species, exacerbated with an overlay of climate
    change, there are dramatic shifts in the composition of flora
    and fauna on many of the landscapes.
        How the species are responding to that is what we are
    working on now and developing adaptation strategies under the
    Administration's Wildlife Adaptation Management Plan and
    stepping that down into the action agencies for implementation.
        Senator Whitehouse. Some of the natural resources that we
    find on this earth that are at risk and are actually suffering
    some consequences already are ones that in turn provide benefit
    to the environment. When you lose them, you don't just lose
    them, it creates a knock-on effect. A dune on a coast, when it
    is gone, doesn't protect the headlands behind it. A forest,
    when it is dead, doesn't protect the streams that run through
    it.
        Could you elaborate a bit on the extent to which some of
    this natural infrastructure is actually providing ongoing value
    beyond its mere existence into the larger natural resource we
    all enjoy and depend on?
        Mr. Guertin. I think a good example would be the
    intermountain west, Senator. When you add up the impacts from
    ongoing drought and invasive species, pine bark beetle, and
    overlay that with a series of wildfires, overlay that with
    changing climatic conditions, we are seeing a large change in
    the composition of forests out there and the Rocky Mountain
    region in particular and the kind of animals that utilize those
    habitats out there.
        That is a pretty striking example that comes home to roost
    every summer as communities and the wild urban interface have
    to struggle with the severity of these fires and the large
    amount of Federal dollars now being expended to protect the
    citizens, protect the public investment and infrastructure and
    protect these valuable natural resources well.
        Senator Whitehouse. Along the coasts, is it correct that
    there are often wetland verges between the upland and either
    the ocean coast or a lake or river coast that exist in a kind
    of dynamic environment? If they are overwhelmed and are no
    longer successful at maintaining themselves and disappear, you
    can then get considerable follow on changes.
        I heard some of this when I was traveling along the
    southeastern Atlantic coast. There is a lot of storm
    protection, for instance, from these oceanside marshlands but
    if they get flooded so that creatures and grasses who maintain
    them cannot survive, then they turn into mud and wash away, and
    you have lost all that protection on the shore. Is that a
    simplified understanding?
        Mr. Guertin. You are talking about seawater intrusion into
    freshwater habitats. There is a lot of that going on along the
    coast.
        Our understanding is if you add up the cumulative impacts
    of changes in climatic conditions, erosion, invasive species,
    depending on where you are, fire or not, drought and such, we
    are seeing a change in the underlying habitat composition
    certainly on the eastern seaboard.
        A lot of the Administration's work with congressional
    support moving forward is trying to develop more resilient
    coastlines by engineering natural systems to provide storm
    surge protection, a lot of work to try and prioritize where
    these key habitats are left and things like that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Guertin.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As the Senator from Maryland and me representing Rhode
    Island, coastal resiliency is something we have to pay a lot of
    attention to. I appreciate Mr. Guertin's testimony.
        Senator Cardin. You are absolutely right. Looking at your
    legislation, I see how it could very much benefit the State of
    Maryland. Thank you for being so concerned about the State of
    Maryland.
        Thank you both very much. That will complete that panel.
        We will now go to our non-governmental, non-Federal panel.
    Dr. Bruce Stein is the Director of Climate Change Adaptation at
    the National Wildlife Federation. Chad Lord is the Policy
    Director, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition and Senior
    Director, Water Policy, of the National Parks Conservation
    Association. Last, we have Mr. Tony Wasley, Director of the
    Nevada Department of Wildlife.
        We welcome all three of you. As I pointed out earlier, your
    written statements will be made a part of the record, without
    objection. You may proceed as you wish.
        Dr. Stein, we will start with you.

     STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. STEIN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CHANGE
                ADAPTATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

        Mr. Stein. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardin, Ranking
    Member Boozman and Senator Whitehouse, for the opportunity to
    share the National Wildlife Federation's view on several of the
    important bills with the potential to benefit the Nation's
    wildlife.
        The National Wildlife Federation is a non-partisan, non-
    profit organization whose mission is to inspire Americans to
    protect wildlife for our children's future. NWF is supported by
    49 State and territorial affiliates and more than 4 million
    members and supporters, including hunters, anglers and outdoor
    enthusiasts from across the Nation.
        My written testimony addresses a number of the bills under
    consideration by the subcommittee at this hearing. Here, I
    would like to focus on several bills that we support of
    particular interest to NWF.
        Regarding climate change, climate change is no longer a
    distant concern but already is affecting people and wildlife
    across the Nation. A rapidly changing climate, in fact, is
    emerging as the primary conservation challenge of our time.
    National resource managers increasingly will need to adopt
    climate smart approaches to conservation.
        S. 1202, the SAFE Act, introduced by Senator Whitehouse, is
    designed to help Federal and State agencies more effectively
    prepare for and adjust to the growing impacts of climate change
    on our Nation's natural resources.
        Considerable progress is now being made to incorporate
    climate adaptation and resilience into work across the Federal
    Government. The SAFE Act builds on a number of these important
    initiatives.
        In particular, the legislation would codify the National
    Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy and
    encourage implementation of this comprehensive blueprint for
    adaptation and resilience. It would also authorize key programs
    in the U.S. Geological Survey that focus on improving the
    scientific basis for reducing climate-related risk to wildlife
    and ecosystems.
        Climate adaptation will have costs but the cost of inaction
    would be far higher. The sooner we begin taking meaningful
    adaptation action, the more successful these efforts ultimately
    will be.
        Invasive species are another issue of grave concern to the
    National Wildlife Federation. We believe that the most
    effective approach to combating invasive species is by closing
    the pathways through which these species enter the country and
    spread; in other words, prevention.
        S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act,
    introduced by Senator Gillibrand, would help close those
    invasion pathways by modernizing the Nation's antiquated
    systems governing the import and interstate transport of
    harmful, non-native animals.
        Current law provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with
    only limited powers to declare a species as injurious, a
    process that is painfully slow and expensive. S. 1153 would
    strengthen the ability of the Service to make timely, science-
    based decisions as to whether a candidate for import is likely
    to be harmful to the Nation's ecosystems and economy.
        The legislation would also give the Service emergency
    listing authority similar to what USDA and the CDC already have
    to regulate imports that present disease risks.
        Quagga mussels, in fact, are an example of this need for
    modernization. A close relative of zebra mussels, as you have
    heard, they are spreading through western waterways, and
    listing is urgently needed to contain their damage.
        To expedite their listing as an injurious species, S. 2530,
    the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act, would provide
    statutory listing of this species.
        The Great Lakes are a unique and vital ecosystem that face
    a variety of serious ecological threats from polluted runoff
    such as we just heard about to a potential invasion of
    veracious Asian carp. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
    GLRI, was established to address various threats to the Lakes.
    Since its inception, it has been enormously effect.
        S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection
    Act, introduced by Senator Levin, would provide formal
    authorization for the GLRI and ensure continued progress in
    restoring the Great Lakes.
        NWF is a member of the Healing Our Waters Coalition. Chad
    Lord, to my left, will be offering additional testimony on this
    bill on behalf of that coalition.
        Finally, S. 2560, the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service Resource Protection Act, introduced by Chairman Cardin,
    would provide the Service with needed authority to receive
    compensation for damage caused by others to national wildlife
    refuges.
        Most refuges already are underfunded and currently repair
    of such damage must come from already strained budgets. The
    National Park Service and NOAA, in contrast, can recover any
    use damages for harm done to their property or resources. This
    legislation would confer similar authority to the Service and
    is a common sense solution to paying for the damages from
    vandalism and other destructive acts.
        In closing, healthy wildlife populations and habitats are
    core to who we are as a Nation. NWF is pleased to see Members
    of Congress put forward legislation to address a number of
    important wildlife related issues.
        We look forward to continuing to work with you to develop
    and pass legislation designed to protect wildlife and the
    habitats on which they and we depend.
        Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Dr. Stein.
        Mr. Lord.

     STATEMENT OF CHAD LORD, POLICY DIRECTOR, HEALING OUR WATERS--
       GREAT LAKES COALITION, AND SENIOR DIRECTOR, WATER POLICY,
                NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Lord. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and
    Senator Whitehouse, thank you for inviting me to testify here
    today.
        The bills before the subcommittee all seem to do the same
    thing, protect our country's natural resources for future
    generations. Most of these bills benefit either our national
    parks, our Great Lakes or both.
        First, we appreciate the subcommittee considering
    legislation that helps our environment adapt to a changing
    climate. Senator Whitehouse's bill is a non-regulatory bill
    that builds upon existing Federal initiatives to set a
    framework for coordination on natural resource adaptation
    planning. This is important to our national parks.
        Rising waters and intense storms threaten our national
    monuments in Washington, DC, historical structures in the
    southeast and archeological evidence of the earliest settlers
    in Alaska. Glaciers that have for decades brought families to
    national parks in Montana, Alaska and Washington are vanishing.
        Though we cannot prevent some of the effects of climate
    change from occurring, we can slow climate-related changes by
    reducing the amount of carbon dioxide we emit to the
    atmosphere. We can and need to also ensure that we are as well
    prepared as possible.
        This principle also applies to Senator Heller's invasive
    species bill that addresses the damage caused by a particularly
    nasty invasive mussel by listing them as injurious under the
    Lacey Act. If there is any experience the Great Lakes does not
    want to share with western waters, it is the damage caused by
    the quagga mussel.
        These little creatures have caused billions of dollars in
    damage throughout the Great Lakes region and have undermined
    entire lake ecosystems. Six hundred waterways and 27 States are
    also now dealing with this problem.
        Invasive species are destroying the natural resources in
    our national parks and wrecking the Great Lakes and other
    waters around the country. Invasive species cost the United
    States more than $120 billion in damages every year. It would
    be much better for our national parks, Great Lakes and all our
    ecosystems if we weren't intentionally importing things that
    cause such damage to American landscapes.
        Senator Gillibrand's bill goes a long way in updating a
    114-year-old law, bringing U.S. screening standards into the
    21st century, reducing the damage to our economy and
    environment and allowing our public lands agencies to focus on
    other critical problems.
        Wearing my Great Lakes hat, I want to particularly thank
    the subcommittee for considering two bills designed to help
    restore and protect 20 percent of the world's fresh surface
    water. To put that in perspective, the water in Lake Superior
    alone is enough to submerge all of North and South America in 1
    foot of fresh water.
        Even though they are huge, they are still vulnerable to a
    number of threats from invasive species, habitat loss, toxic
    pollution and sewer overflows which is the focus of Senator
    Kirk's bill. His bill would prohibit sewer overflows on the
    Great Lakes Basin after 2033. His bill also sets region-wide
    reporting standards so everyone everywhere throughout this
    region knows when overflows occur.
        Even if sewer overflows end tomorrow, the region is still
    left with a legacy of environmental damage caused by years of
    neglect. A new legacy is being written right now in the region,
    one where States, cities, tribes, Federal agencies and citizens
    have come together to do something about the Great Lakes'
    problems.
        In 2005, the region established for itself a restoration
    blueprint, the result of a process kicked off by an Executive
    Order from President George W. Bush. President Obama followed
    up with an implementation plan and Congress has provided the
    resources for the restoration work through something called the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI.
        The results of all this bipartisan support have been
    impressive. Toxic hot spots cleaned up after years of waiting
    create new economic opportunities. Thousands of acres of
    wetlands have been restored creating new, self-sustaining
    populations of fish like Lake Sturgeon. Ag lands put into
    conservation practices reduce algae producing runoff.
        Now is the time for Congress to authorize the GLRI for the
    long haul. The GLRI has broad based support from cities,
    States, chambers of commerce, tribes, industry and the more
    than 115 non-governmental organizations that make up the
    Healing Our Waters Coalition.
        This initiative is driven from the ground up, coordinates
    implementation activities and has created what your former
    colleague, Senator George Voinovich, kept calling for, an
    orchestra leader at the USEPA. It creates an effective and
    efficient mechanism for getting resources to the right places
    to do the right things on the ground and responds to the GAO.
    Most importantly, it is producing results.
        Senator Levin's bill authorizes the GLRI, among other
    important Great Lakes programs, putting in place a framework
    needed for ongoing and future success. Congresses and
    Presidents change; the Lakes are with us forever.
        We hope this committee will mark up this bill and send a
    strong message of support for this continuing work to transform
    last century's rust belt into this century's water belt of
    America. Moving Senator Levin's bill would also be a fitting
    tribute to one of your colleagues, a man who has fought for the
    Great Lakes his entire career.
        Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I am
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lord follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Lord.
        Mr. Wasley.

       STATEMENT OF TONY WASLEY, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
                                WILDLIFE

        Mr. Wasley. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member
    Boozman for the opportunity to provide the Nevada Department of
    Wildlife's views on S. 2530, the Protecting Lakes Against
    Quaggas Act of 2014, introduced by Senator Dean Heller on June
    25, 2014.
        The Nevada Department of Wildlife fully supports the
    legislation to add the genus Dreissena, specifically quagga
    mussels, to the National List of Invasive Species covered under
    the Lacey Act.
        In addition, the Department supports the exclusion of the
    listing on operation of public water systems, water
    conveyances, storage and distribution facilities noted in the
    Act.
        The State of Nevada has both quagga-infested waters and
    quagga-free waters and therefore must face the issue of quagga
    mussel infestation from a unique perspective. Nevada had the
    first documented population in the United States west of the
    Rocky Mountains in Lake Mead. Containment of this threat to the
    waters in which it presently exists requires creative and
    adaptive strategies.
        Additionally, in order to provide and protect priceless
    national resources such as the Lake Tahoe Basin, we must
    maintain its quagga-free status. Quagga and zebra mussels cause
    significant ecological and economic harm in the United States.
    The transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species into
    uninfected waters require shared responsibility at both the
    Federal and State level.
        In 2011, Nevada enacted the Nevada Aquatic Invasive Species
    Act, AB 167, which established provisions for protecting the
    waters of the State from aquatic invasive species. Established
    in the language were provisions providing the Nevada Department
    of Wildlife with the necessary authority to prohibit the
    transport of quagga and zebra mussels within the State. Other
    States have established similar language.
        At the Federal level, zebra mussels are currently listed as
    a prohibited species under the Lacey Act making the transport
    across State borders illegal. However, quagga mussels are
    excluded from coverage under title 18 of the U.S. Code because
    they are not previously recognized as a distinct species of
    Dreissena mussels.
        Quagga mussels are one of the greatest aquatic invasive
    species threats to the waters of the western States. For the
    Columbia River Basin, a 2010 Independent Economic Analysis
    Board report estimates that roughly $100 million annually would
    be required to maintain infrastructure operations for
    irrigation, fish passage and propagation, navigation and other
    Columbia-Snake River functions in response to an invasive
    mussel invasion.
        Such infestations have occurred in the Great Lakes and
    other eastern waterways as well as the southwestern part of the
    country. In another western State study, the invasion of quagga
    mussels into Lake Tahoe Basin could devastate Tahoe's fragile
    ecosystem and native fisheries, impact boats and recreation
    areas and could cost the Tahoe Basin more than $20 million
    annually.
        In 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead and
    are believed to have been introduced there by the movement of
    an infested watercraft trailered from the Great Lakes region.
    Since their discovery at Lake Mead, the mussels have spread
    throughout the lower Colorado River system, including Federal
    and State water supply networks.
        Currently, there are no feasible eradication methods
    available. However, when the States and Federal Government work
    together, we have increased capacity for preventing the
    movement and introduction of these invaders into uninfected
    waters.
        In 2013, in a joint effort between the Lake Mead National
    Recreation Area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
    Nevada Department of Wildlife, a prevention program was
    developed to assist in preventing quagga contaminated
    watercraft from exiting the park. Although still in its
    infancy, the program has provided the public with free
    decontaminations for fouled watercraft moving to other States
    and uninfected waters.
        The Lake Mead National Recreation Area Project has
    struggled with long term Federal funding and exists on a year-
    to-year basis. Regardless of funding issues, the program is a
    prime example of the State of Nevada and agencies within the
    Federal Government working together to prevent the spread of
    quagga mussels into uninfected waterways.
        However, current Federal law, because of the exclusion of
    quagga mussels, does not provide adequate regulatory authority
    to assist the States in situations when a watercraft owner
    knowingly ignores decontamination stations and other State
    level requirements and transports quagga mussels across State
    lines.
        Further, the provisions of S. 2530 will significantly aid
    collaborative efforts between State and Federal partners when
    addressing invasive species issues on Federal lands such as
    units of the National Park Service.
        The Nevada Department of Wildlife supports the Act entitled
    Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act of 2014. The legislation
    is also supported by the Western Governors Association, Tahoe
    Regional Planning Agency, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific
    States Marine Fisheries Commission, Northwest Power and
    Conservation Council, Irrigation and Electrical Districts
    Association of Arizona and the National Environmental Coalition
    on Invasive Species.
        The wide array of supporters indicates this legislation is
    both necessary and warranted from an economic and natural
    resource management perspective. The Act will assist the States
    by strengthening the Federal Government's authority and
    preventing the interstate transport of quagga mussels and by
    providing increased opportunity for Federal and State
    collaboration.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wasley follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. I thank all three of you for your
    testimony.
        Let me ask all three of you to respond. I think I will
    start with Mr. Wasley first.
        Dealing with the quagga mussels, the Department has raised
    some concerns about the exception related to the operation of
    public water systems or related water conveyance storage or
    distribution facilities.
        Mr. Wasley, as I understand, you support that exemption.
    Could you explain the rationale for the exemption? Dr. Stein or
    Mr. Lord, if you have any comments, I would welcome them.
        Mr. Wasley. I guess I would say that as a trained biologist
    and not having expertise in engineering or water conveyance
    systems, part of my concern is the timeliness of this and not
    letting perfect stand in the way of progress.
        The challenges of water conveyance are not insignificant.
    Water comes and goes from States throughout the west, and I
    would hate to see something like that hinder our ability to
    address this issue in a timely manner.
        Senator Cardin. Dr. Stein.
        Mr. Stein. We are very concerned about the spread of quagga
    mussels across the west and very much support the statutory
    listing of quagga mussels in this manner.
        The House bill, to which this is a companion, did not have
    that broad exemption for water conveyance systems, and quite
    honestly, we have not looked seriously at what some of the
    implications of that exemption are.
        We understand the concerns of the public water managers,
    but there is also a concern that transporting water in this way
    could, in fact, be a pathway for continued spread of the
    mussels. There is an open question, I think.
        Senator Cardin. There seems to be general agreement that
    the quagga mussel should be listed. If the Gillibrand bill were
    law, could it be handled through that bill by determination
    made as a result of the criterion that is established in that
    legislation?
        Mr. Lord. For something like the quagga mussel, probably
    not. The quagga mussel was introduced to the Great Lakes
    through the ballast tanks of ocean going vessels back in the
    1980s, so there would have been no chance to screen for that
    type of invasive species.
        What we are really looking at are other things that would
    potentially come in through U.S. customs, ports, those types of
    places where you would know what exactly it is you are looking
    for.
        Senator Cardin. Dr. Stein.
        Mr. Stein. While the primary intent of the Gillibrand bill
    would be to prevent new invasions, there is the emergency
    listing provision in the bill that I think could be invoked in
    a very time sensitive situation of this nature.
        Emergency listing has a time bound to it and so could not
    be used indefinitely, but at least it could provide immediate
    relief that could be used to provide the regulatory authorities
    to better put in place the very aggressive actions of the State
    of Nevada and Federal agencies in that region.
        Senator Cardin. Let me make a comment. You have all been
    supportive of the efforts by some of my colleagues, Senator
    Whitehouse dealing with adaptation, Senator Udall dealing with
    water efficiencies, I think Senator Feinstein has a bill also
    dealing with some of the habitat restoration.
        Last week, I was at the water treatment facility in
    Baltimore constructed 100 years ago and was state-of-the-art
    100 years ago. It is still functioning pretty much today as it
    did 100 years ago. It is carrying out its function, Baltimore
    has safe drinking water. It is good water. It is not efficient
    and costs a lot of money to run the operation. It loses a lot
    of water.
        I would just point out that the Senator Udall's efforts
    with regard to water efficiency are something that we all
    should be concerned about. We waste millions of gallons of
    water in our system because of the inefficiencies and spend
    millions of dollars in utility costs increasing our carbon
    footprint as a result of the inefficiencies of our water
    system. That is just one example.
        On adaptation, we have very valuable resources in our State
    as Senator Whitehouse mentioned. Assateague Island, one of the
    great treasures, is at risk today because of the changing
    climate in this country.
        We have seen when we adapt and do things that are smart, as
    we have on our coasts, we save literally millions of dollars in
    damages that otherwise would be caused. To me, the No. 1 effort
    is to do what we can to mitigate the circumstances surrounding
    climate changes but adaptation should be an area in which we
    all agree we can use additional resources.
        I really wanted to underscore some of the points that you
    all have made on those issues. I know our committee will try,
    as we have in the past, to work together in a bipartisan way on
    issues such as adaptation and mitigation and those types of
    areas where we can find a common area to move forward to help
    our communities.
        Let me turn it over to Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Stein, you mentioned that the National Wildlife
    Federation supported Congressman Runyan's bill to reauthorize
    the Voluntary Community Partnerships Act. Could you elaborate
    on the value you see from these volunteer programs and
    community partnerships?
        Mr. Stein. Certainly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    refuge system, which I believe covers on the order of 150
    million acres, is an extraordinary national treasure, but the
    budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is quite limited.
    In many places, they rely on active volunteer participation to
    carry out both visitor interpretative services as well as
    critical resource management activities.
        It is something that many other agencies rely on as well,
    but it is especially important on refuges. My understanding is
    that in order for the Service to continue to most fully use
    volunteers, it needs that reauthorization in order to continue.
        The National Wildlife Federation really focuses on
    connecting people with nature, especially getting kids
    connected to nature because that is our next generation of
    conservation leaders and really encourages the type of
    volunteerism that is embodied in that legislation.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Wasley, we appreciate you making the long trip to come
    and testify. You mentioned that the legislation would help you
    to work collaboratively with the Federal Government to address
    invasive species, particularly on Federal lands.
        You talked about this a little but can you elaborate a bit
    more on how the expanded authority would be of help?
        Mr. Wasley. Presently, we do have voluntary inspection
    stations and compliance, but we still have some folks that will
    willfully and knowingly cross State lines with quagga-infested
    watercraft either into the State or out of the State.
        Having a Federal law, potential violation of a Federal law,
    certainly is an additional tool and certainly provides a great
    incentive for compliance with that requirement. It elevates the
    seriousness of the infraction and will hopefully provide an
    additional functionality in screening and enforcing the current
    laws we have in the State as well as the Federal law.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        That is really all I have, Mr. Chairman. I do ask unanimous
    consent to include the testimony from Congressman Runyan in the
    record.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boozman. Also, I ask unanimous consent to include
    several statements on the Big Cats bill from the Motion Picture
    Association, Zoological Association of America and others.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, all those statements
    will be included in our record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Let me thank our witnesses. As you pointed
    out, some came a considerable distance to be with us today and
    we appreciate that very much.
        With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing.
        Since we have a representative here from the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, I want to take this opportunity to talk about
    the problems we're having in Oklahoma with the lesser prairie
    chicken and the American burying beetle, and what I think we
    should do about it.
        The American burying beetle (ABB) was listed by the Service
    in 1989. The Service states in its listing decision that the
    ABB was ``once widely distributed throughout eastern North
    America.''
        At that time, there were only two known populations of the
    beetle--one in eastern Oklahoma and one on an island off the
    coast of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island population was
    estimated to be at about 520 beetles, and the one in Oklahoma
    was thought to have less than a dozen.
        The listing decision did include some commentary about why
    the beetle's population declined, but ultimately concluded that
    ``the cause of the species' decline is unknown.''
        In 1991, the Service published a Recovery Plan for the ABB.
    The objective of the plan was to ``[protect] and [maintain] . .
    . the extant population in Rhode Island and the . . .
    populations in Oklahoma.'' In order to reconsider the listing
    status of the ABB, the Service needed to identify ``three
    populations of [ABB that] have been re-established (or
    additional populations discovered) within each of four broad
    geographical areas of its historical range.''
        The four ranges identified by the Service include the
    Midwest (which includes Oklahoma and most States between Texas,
    Louisiana, and Montana), the Great Lakes region, the Southeast
    region, and the Northeast region (which includes Rhode Island).
        In 2008, the Service performed its first 5-year review of
    the ABB. It determined that the criteria for reconsidering the
    listing of the ABB had been met in the Midwest region, ``where
    additional occurrences of the ABB have been discovered,'' and
    that, ``as a consequence, the total number of ABB in this
    recovery area is believed to greatly exceed the numerical
    target'' established under the Recovery Plan.
        This is undoubtedly true. The population now known to exist
    in Nebraska was recently estimated to contain over 3,000
    beetles, making it one of the largest known populations.
    Interestingly, Nebraska was not known to have any ABB in 1989
    when the species was listed.
        The known population in Oklahoma has also grown
    dramatically since the listing decision. When the Service
    listed the ABB, only four counties had a known ABB population;
    the Service now believes its range extends to 45 of the 77
    counties in the State. It is now believed Oklahoma's population
    is numbered in the thousands.
        Service documents from 2014 reveal that ABB is now found in
    Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas,
    Missouri, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the vast majority of
    which are located in the Midwest region.
        The 2008 5-Year Review further states that ``although one
    of four geographic recovery areas for ABB has met the criteria
    for reclassification, the species presumably remains extirpated
    in most of its historic range,'' and concludes that the ABB
    should retain its endangered status.
        I completely disagree. The ABB should no longer be listed
    in the Midwest region, and there is strong precedence for
    delisting endangered or threatened species in some areas, but
    not others.
        In 2011, the Service decided to delist the gray wolf from
    the endangered species list in Idaho, Montana, and parts of
    Oregon, Washington, and Utah while leaving it listed in
    Wyoming.
        This partial delisting was due to the healthy population
    levels that were present in those States, and it was left
    listed in Wyoming because the Service believed additional
    conservation work needed to be completed. Less than 2 years
    later, the delisting was extended to Wyoming, and in 2013 the
    gray wolf's protections under the ESA were completely removed.
        There is also a strong case to be made that the ABB should
    be completely delisted. Beginning in 2007, the Service
    promulgated an official policy stating that when it evaluates
    the probability of a species being lost to extinction across
    its range, it does so within its known existing range, not its
    hypothetical historic range.
        Knowing this, if the ABB were reconsidered as a candidate
    today, it likely would not be eligible for listing because the
    known populations are not in danger of being lost. They are, in
    fact, expanding. The historic range, described by the Service
    as being ``ubiquitous'' at some point, is reliant on very old
    data, observations, and studies, many of which are not readily
    locatable.
        There is so little known about this newly expanded presence
    of ABB. We don't know if we're just better at finding them now,
    or if the populations are actually growing. Whatever the case,
    it is clear that these beetles have proven much more resilient
    than the Service originally thought.
        With this in mind, I plan to introduce a bill next week
    that will delist the ABB from the Midwest region. There is no
    reason, especially given the lack of knowledge we have about
    the ABB, for it to remain as a protected species, particularly
    given the fact that its negative impact on economic activity
    expands with every new population that is discovered,
    especially in Oklahoma.
        Now I'd like to move on to the lesser prairie chicken,
    which was listed as a threatened species at the end of March.
    The decline in this species has largely been the result of
    drought--so it has had very little to do with human activity.
    It is likely that once the drought ends in western Oklahoma and
    the rest of the bird's known range, the population will
    flourish and strengthen to the point that a listing is no
    longer warranted.
        We've seen this recovery begin already. On July 1, when the
    Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
    released its most recent annual lesser prairie chicken
    population survey, the bird's range-wide population showed an
    increase of 20 percent to 22,415 birds. To what was the
    increase attributable? According to WAFWA, the areas that
    showed the biggest improvement were ``where more rain produced
    better prairie habitat.''
        The range-wide conservation plan WAFWA organized is what
    the Service blessed as appropriate and thorough, and it is
    being used as the primary means to achieve take permits under
    the 4d rule. This program is being administered solely by the
    State wildlife agencies, and it now has over 160 companies
    participating. These firms have collectively enrolled about 9
    million acres for conservation across the five States. As part
    of this enrollment they have committed $43 million for habitat
    conservation, which will be deployed over the next 3 years.
        Knowing this, it was extremely frustrating to me that the
    Service decided to list the LPC even while it knew that this
    conservation would happen whether or not a listing was made
    final. To me, it made sense to allow the State-driven
    conservation plan to take root prior to making a decision to
    impose Federal protection. Instead, the Service demonstrated
    that it is a solution in search of a problem, and it leaves me
    wondering why the Federal Government is so quick to insert
    itself in a situation where States are already appropriately
    addressing a problem.
        To remedy this, I will also introduce legislation that
    delists the lesser prairie chicken for a period of about 5
    years to allow the State crafted range-wide plan to take root
    and work. If the Service determines after this time period that
    the recovery goals have not been met, then it can then reassess
    its findings and determine whether a listing is appropriate.
    This legislation is a companion to H.R. 4866, which Congressman
    Markwayne Mullin introduced just a few weeks ago.
        Again, Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these
    important bills.
                      Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
                   U.S. Senator from the State of California
        Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Infrastructure
    Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.''
        This legislation will make it easier for communities across the
    Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to
    cost effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of
    growth on the environment and endangered species.
        This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered
    jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit
    more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors
    of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under section 10 of the Endangered
    Species Act of 1973.
                                   background
        Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the
    Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the
    habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the
    development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term
    ``incidental take permit.''
        Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding,
    minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered
    species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress
    intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act
    with on-going construction and development activity.
                               california example
        In California, the Western Riverside County multiple species HCP is
    a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside
    MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be
    permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and
    animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000
    acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million.
    In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs
    nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental
    impacts has facilitated the development of much needed transportation
    infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in
    expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure
    projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the
    county's economy.
        Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties,
    with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the
    development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this
    explosive population growth, neither environmental nor livability goals
    will be attained.
        In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of
    habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly situated
    communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to
    finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed.
        Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also
    signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of
    mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to
    provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now
    to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs
    remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing
    HCPs billions of dollars.
                                  how it works
        Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to
    demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their
    habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in
    biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by
    rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the
    bill would entail no Federal expenditure unless the local government
    defaulted--a very rare occurrence.
        These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at
    reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take
    advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of
    this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the
    Federal taxpayer:
         protection of more habitat more quickly,
         accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum
    environmental impact, and
         reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.
        A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure
    developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also
    expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit
    more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water
    Resources Development Act (WRDA) last month. But where the WRDA
    provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts
    related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation
    would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public
    infrastructure.
                                   conclusion
        I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will
    encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at
    minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local
    government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal
    dollars.

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]