[House Prints 109-A]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                        GREAT LAKES RESTORATION:
                             HOW? HOW SOON?

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

                            COMMITTEE PRINT

                                 BY THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 21, 2006

                               __________

                            Serial No. 109-A

                               __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Science


     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science




                                 _____

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

27-093PS              WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free 
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001











                                 ______

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

             HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California         LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California              DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama                   JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              AL GREEN, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington         DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           VACANCY
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
                                 ------                                

         Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards

                  VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             DAVID WU, Oregon
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         MARK UDALL, Colorado
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington         BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan  JIM MATHESON, Utah
VACANCY                                  
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       BART GORDON, Tennessee
                AMY CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
            MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
            JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member
                 OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member
                MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
               SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
                 CHAD ENGLISH Professional Staff Member
                  JAMIE BROWN Majority Staff Assistant


















                            C O N T E N T S

                             April 21, 2006

                                                                   Page
Witness List.....................................................     2

Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                           Opening Statement

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, 
  Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............     9
    Written Statement............................................    11

                                Panel I:

Ms. Jan O'Connell, Director of the National Sierra Club Board
    Oral Statement...............................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    16

The Honorable George Heartwell, Mayor of the City of Grand Rapids
    Oral Statement...............................................    17

                               Panel II:

Mr. Gary V. Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program 
  Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Oral Statement...............................................    21
    Written Statement............................................    23
    Biography....................................................    26

Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
  Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; Director, Great 
  Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and 
  Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    Oral Statement...............................................    26
    Written Statement............................................    28

Ms. Catherine Cunningham Ballard, Chief, Coastal and Land 
  Management Unit, Department of Environmental Quality, State of 
  Michigan
    Oral Statement...............................................    36
    Written Statement............................................    38
    Biography....................................................    41

Dr. Alan D. Steinman, Director, Annis Water Resources Institute, 
  Grant Valley State University
    Oral Statement...............................................    42
    Written Statement............................................    44

Dr. Donald Scavia, Professor and Associate Dean, School of 
  Natural Resources & Environment; Director, Michigan Sea Grant, 
  University of Michigan; Science Advisor to the Healing Our 
  Waters Great Lakes Coalition
    Oral Statement...............................................    48
    Written Statement............................................    52
    Biography....................................................    59
    Financial Disclosure.........................................    61

Discussion
  The Restoration of Science Legislation and Funding.............    62
  EPA's Role in Implementing the Great Lakes Regional 
    Collaboration Strategy.......................................    66
  The Role of Scientific Data and Program Managers...............    67
  The Importance of Presenting Comprehensive Science to Policy-
    makers.......................................................    69
  Making the Great Lakes a Reservoir.............................    70
  Concern For the Great Lakes Environment........................    71
  Invasive Species...............................................    72
  Public Involvement.............................................    74

              Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration 
  (Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes), December 
  2005...........................................................    76























 
                GREAT LAKES RESTORATION: HOW? HOW SOON?

                              ----------                              


                         FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 2006

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
                                         Standards,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.


                            hearing charter

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        Great Lakes Restoration:

                             How? How Soon?

                         friday, april 21, 2006
                          1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
                          l.v. eberhard center
                     grand valley state university
                         301 west fulton street
                   grand rapids, michigan 49504-6495

Purpose

    On April 21, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the 
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the House 
Science Committee will hold a briefing to explore how agencies and 
policy-makers prioritize and manage science to meet resource management 
information needs for Great Lakes restoration.
    The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), a consortium of 
federal, State, regional, local, and non-governmental stakeholders led 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), recently completed a 
comprehensive strategy for restoring the Great Lakes and associated 
watersheds. The strategy, which is strongly supported by the many 
organizations involved in its creation, establishes goals and provides 
guidance to the many agencies, organizations, and resource managers 
involved in Great Lakes restoration. It also describes the science and 
scientific tools needed to support the restoration priorities.
    The briefing will examine the following overarching questions:

        1.  Does the GLRC strategy adequately identify and set 
        priorities for science needs?

        2.  Will the GLRC strategy help overcome longstanding 
        coordination issues, particularly as they relate to science?

        3.  Has the GLRC strategy led to or is it expected to lead to 
        effective use of science in making decisions on Great Lakes 
        restoration? What is the appropriate role for regional, 
        federal, State, and local scientists and decision-makers in 
        this process?

        4.  What near-term progress can be made to meet priority 
        restoration goals with existing science and scientific 
        information? To what extent will additional research be 
        required to meet other high priority goals?

Witnesses:

          Mr. Gary Gulezian of EPA's Great Lakes National 
        Program Office. EPA is the lead federal agency on the Great 
        Lakes Regional Collaboration and is responsible for 
        coordinating research and restoration activities of federal 
        agencies in the Great Lakes.

          Dr. Stephen Brandt, Director of the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Great Lakes 
        Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) in Ann Arbor 
        Michigan. GLERL's mission includes the development of new 
        knowledge, information and tools for use in managing Great 
        Lakes resources.

          Ms. Catherine Cunningham Ballard, Chief of the 
        Coastal Management Program in Michigan's Environmental Science 
        and Services Division of the Department of Environmental 
        Quality. The Coastal Management Program funds scientific 
        research that directly informs coastal management decisions.

          Dr. Alan Steinman, Director of the Annis Water 
        Resources Institute (AWRI) at Grand Valley State University, 
        Muskegon, Michigan. Experts at AWRI study land use changes and 
        the impacts on water resources and ecosystem services, and 
        provide information and tools to local and state governments 
        and other resource managers.

          Dr. Don Scavia of the Healing Our Waters Coalition. 
        Healing Our Waters is a non-governmental organization involved 
        in Great Lakes restoration and in the Great Lakes Regional 
        Collaboration process.

Summary of Issues:

    Great Lakes restoration has been a regional priority since the 1972 
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada established common 
water quality objectives to be achieved by both countries. However, 
most stakeholders in the region believe that restoration efforts have 
not yet met the water quality or other subsequent ecosystem goals. 
While there is consensus among those involved in restoration efforts 
that scientific research and information must underpin any Great Lakes 
restoration process, research programs in the Great Lakes remain 
uncoordinated. This hearing will examine the following major issues 
that relate to science and its role in Great Lakes restoration:

        1.  Leadership and coordination--Many agencies, non-
        governmental organizations, resource users, and other 
        stakeholders share the belief that strong leadership and 
        coordination is needed to facilitate cohesive efforts to 
        address the complex and large-scale problems that face the 
        Great Lakes. Currently, the lack of coordination of science 
        programs is widely perceived to result in duplication of effort 
        and missed opportunities to address the complex, multi-
        disciplinary scientific questions facing resource managers.

        2.  Integrating Science and Resource Management--Individual 
        program and issue-specific efforts are underway to support 
        integration of science and scientific information into Great 
        Lakes resource management decisions. However, the effectiveness 
        and reach of these programs has not yet been evaluated and it 
        is unclear to what extent they reflect priorities in the GLRC 
        strategy.

        3.  Prioritizing Science and Information Needs--The GLRC 
        strategy identifies science and restoration needs, but does not 
        prioritize the list of needs. This leaves it unclear where 
        scientists and agencies that fund Great Lakes science should 
        focus their efforts.

        4.  Near-term Opportunities--The GLRC strategy acknowledges 
        that new funding and more research will be required to meet 
        long-term restoration goals. Despite that, opportunities exist 
        for near-term progress by federal, State, regional and local 
        managers based on currently available scientific knowledge and 
        funding. Many stakeholders believe the effectiveness of 
        continued restoration efforts rely critically on identifying 
        and implementing these near-term opportunities.

Background:

Great Lakes Restoration Efforts
    The Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater system in the 
world. Over 35 million people use the Great Lakes system for drinking 
water, irrigation, commerce, transportation, food, recreation, and 
cultural needs. Early concerns with the health of the Great Lakes and 
those that depend on them focused on industrial pollution and sewage. 
In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Agreement formally recognizing the need for a comprehensive and 
coordinated approach to address water quality concerns in the Great 
Lakes basin. Since then, even as progress has been made reducing point 
source pollution, there has been growing concern with nonpoint source 
pollution, such as urban and agricultural runoff, contaminated sediment 
and the growth of nonnative species.
    In 1987, after many unsuccessful efforts to coordinate research and 
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Congress directed EPA to 
coordinate federal research and restoration activities related to Great 
Lakes water quality through the Great Lakes National Program Office 
(GLNPO).
    In 2002, GLNPO completed the Great Lakes Strategy. Developed by 
consensus among federal, State, tribal and regional agencies, the 
document laid out research and restoration goals, as well as planned 
actions to reach these goals. However, in 2003 the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) (``An Overall Strategy and Indicators for 
Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals,'' 
GAO Report 03-515, April 2003) criticized the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 
for simply describing previously planned program activities, failing to 
prioritize research and restoration activities, and failing to secure 
meaningful commitments for action from the participants. Also, GAO 
recommended that GLNPO be charged with development of an overall Great 
Lakes restoration strategy in consultation with governors, federal 
agencies, and other stakeholder organizations.
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
    On May 18, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13340, 
establishing the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and charging it 
with the development of a comprehensive restoration strategy through a 
process known as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC). Setting 
it apart from previous efforts, the GLRC involved over 1500 people and 
brought federal, State, tribal and regional agencies together with 
academic, industry, and other non-governmental representatives in an 
attempt to develop a strategy for Great Lakes restoration. This 
strategy includes the perspectives of, and subsequently has the support 
of, a broad cross-section of public and private sector stakeholders. 
GLRC established working groups with representatives of federal, State, 
tribal and regional agencies, academia, industry, and other non-
governmental organizations to develop goals and recommendations in 
eight priority areas identified by the Council of Great Lakes Governors 
(Aquatic Invasive Species; Habitat/Species; Coastal Health; Areas of 
Concern/Sediments; Nonpoint Source Pollution; Toxic Pollutants; 
Indicators and Information; and Sustainable Development).
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
    The results of the eight working groups were compiled into a 
comprehensive restoration strategy. On December 12, 2005, EPA released 
the GLRC Strategy (http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration/
strategy.html). The document summarizes the issues and proposes actions 
to address the eight restoration priorities. Each chapter of the 
strategy addresses one of the priority issues listed above and includes 
recommended goals, actions and milestones. Some of the recommendations 
include cost estimates. However, the strategy does not prioritize the 
recommendations from each individual chapter into an overall 
recommendation.
Science in the GLRC Strategy
    The Indicators and Information chapter of the GLRC Strategy 
directly addressed the science needs to support Great Lakes restoration 
with five broad recommendations: implementation of comprehensive and 
coordinated observing systems; support for ongoing development of 
science-based indicators of ecosystem health; doubling of funding for 
Great Lakes research; establishment of a regional information 
management infrastructure; and creation of a workgroup to improve 
communication of scientific and technical information between 
scientists, policy-makers and the public.

Major Issues:

Leadership and Coordination
    Problem: As the scale and complexity of issues facing the Great 
Lakes have increased, so has the call for large-scale, coordinated 
science programs. In 2003, GAO identified EPA as the federal agency 
with the statutory authority to take the needed leadership and 
coordination roles in Great Lakes research and restoration efforts, and 
noted that EPA had not yet exercised its full authority in these 
capacities. Currently, the lack of coordination of science programs is 
widely perceived to result in duplication of effort and missed 
opportunities to address the complex, multi-disciplinary scientific 
questions facing Great Lakes resource managers.
    GLRC Action: Many participants in GLRC believe EPA exhibited new 
leadership throughout the development of the GLRC strategy. However, 
the GLRC strategy expresses community consensus and does not set 
priorities, and it remains to be seen what the next steps will be now 
that the GLRC strategy is complete.
    Remaining Questions: Will EPA continue to take a strong leadership 
and coordination role for itself as the GLRC Strategy is implemented, 
and research and restoration priorities are set? What are the 
appropriate leadership and coordination roles for the other federal and 
non-federal participants in the GLRC process?
Integrating Science and Resource Management
    Problem: Effectively integrating science and science-based 
information into resource management practices is critical to the long-
term success of any ecosystem restoration efforts. EPA and NOAA, as 
well as many non-governmental organizations, have begun developing 
science-to-management initiatives to address this issue in the Great 
Lakes. These programs bring scientists and resource managers together 
to collaboratively develop tools that both accurately reflect the state 
of the scientific knowledge, and meet the real-world information and 
decision-support needs of resource managers. However, the effectiveness 
and reach of these programs have not yet been evaluated and it is 
unclear to what extent they reflect priorities in the GLRC strategy.
    GLRC Action: The GLRC process strengthened working relationships 
between and among scientists and resource managers who work on Great 
Lakes issues by bringing them together to develop restoration goals. 
While this partnership is not formalized in the Strategy (or any other 
official document), it reflects an intangible benefit of the GLRC 
process because it improves communication among those involved at all 
levels of Great Lakes research and restoration.
    Remaining Questions: Are the current science-to-management programs 
resulting in better use of science in resource management decisions? 
Are the programs reaching those resource managers who most need them, 
and are they meeting their needs for science and scientific 
information?
Prioritizing Science and Information Needs
    Problem: The Indicators and Information chapter of the GLRC 
strategy focused explicitly on science and information needs. Other 
chapters called for additional new research and information, 
highlighting the need for a strong science program to support Great 
Lakes restoration. However, the science and information needs are not 
prioritized.
    GLRC Action: Specific scientific recommendations include 
installation of an integrated observing system, formation of a 
communications working group, development of new ecosystem forecasting 
models, and doubling of Great Lakes research funding. Costs for these 
recommendations range from $200 thousand per year to $35 million per 
year.
    Remaining Questions: The GLRC Strategy does not prioritize its 
recommendations for science needs. What is the process by which these 
priorities will be set? Will science and information priorities be 
driven by scientists, managers, or both?
Near-term Opportunities
    Problem: While the final Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
Strategy was enthusiastically welcomed by the Great Lakes research and 
management communities, concerns remain about what happens next. The 
GLRC strategy acknowledges that significant new funding will be 
required to meet long-term research and restoration goals. The cost for 
full implementation of the GLRC Strategy over five years has been 
estimated at over $20 billion.
    GLRC Action: Even without new money or further research, some 
stakeholders believe significant opportunities remain for near-term 
progress by federal, State, regional and local managers. Examples may 
include expanding science-to-management programs, wider dissemination 
of existing scientific information and tools, and implementing more 
effective networks to disseminate science and management information.
    Remaining Questions: What are the near-term opportunities for 
progress on Great Lakes restoration, based on currently available 
science and funding? What can federal agencies do to ensure that these 
opportunities are fully exploited? Are there near-term science needs 
that, if met, will open up new near-term restoration opportunities? To 
what extent should these opportunities be pursued if doing so comes at 
the cost of other programs?

Witness Questions:

Mr. Gary Gulezian, Director of EPA's Great Lakes National Program 
        Office
    Please provide a brief overview of the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration (GLRC) and the key elements of the recently published 
GLRC Strategy, particularly a description of the science needs as 
outlined in the Strategy. In addition, please address the following 
questions:

        1.  What is EPA's role in implementing the Strategy? In 
        particular, what is EPA's role in:

                a.  coordinating implementation of new and existing 
                science programs and policies;

                b.  setting budget priorities for federal Great Lakes 
                research programs; and

                c.  strengthening the relationship between scientists 
                and policy-makers?

        2.  To what extent has EPA shifted funding to implement the 
        GLRC Strategy and to what extent will it shift funding in the 
        future?

        3.  What are the biggest challenges that you see in 
        implementing the Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting 
        science and information needs?

        4.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a 
        result of implementation of the GLRC Strategy?

Dr. Stephen Brandt, Director of NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental 
        Research Lab
    Please briefly describe the role of NOAA and the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Lab in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
(GLRC). In addition, please address the following questions:

        1.  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management 
        planning decisions? What kinds of scientific information are 
        now being taken into account in those decisions because of the 
        GLRC? To what extent has the GLRC helped foster new or stronger 
        collaboration between scientists and policy-makers? What is 
        NOAA's role in strengthening the relationship between 
        scientists and policy-makers?

        2.  To what extent has NOAA shifted funding to implement the 
        GLRC Strategy and to what extent will it shift funding in the 
        future?

        3.  What are the biggest challenges that you see in 
        implementing the Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting 
        science and information needs?

        4.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a 
        result of implementing the GLRC Strategy?

Ms. Catherine Cunningham Ballard, Coastal Manager, Michigan Department 
        of Environmental Quality
    Please briefly describe the resource management responsibilities of 
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, please 
describe your involvement in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
(GLRC) by addressing the following questions:

        1.  What are the top three recommendations in the GLRC Strategy 
        that you believe could be implemented with existing funding? 
        What scientific research, scientific information, or science-
        based products are required to support the implementation of 
        these three recommendations? Would your answers be different if 
        funding could be increased?

        2.  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management 
        planning decisions? What kinds of scientific information are 
        now being taken into account in those decisions because of the 
        GLRC? To what extent has the GLRC helped foster new or stronger 
        collaboration between scientists and policy-makers? What is 
        your role in strengthening the relationship between scientists 
        and policy-makers?

        3.  Does the Strategy effectively reflect your needs and help 
        you to prioritize your work? Are there additional actions EPA 
        and other federal agencies should be taking to help implement 
        the GLRC? What scientific research, scientific information, or 
        science-based products do you need for making resource 
        management policy decisions? If possible, please describe 
        examples of research that you have found particularly useful to 
        your work as a resource manager.

        4.  What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing the 
        Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting science and 
        information needs?

        5.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a 
        result of implementing the GLRC Strategy?

Dr. Alan Steinman, Director of the Annis Water Resources Institute
    Please briefly describe your participation, and that of the Annis 
Water Resources Institute (AWRI), in the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration (GLRC) and the resulting Strategy. In addition, please 
address the following questions:

        1.  What are the top three recommendations in the GLRC Strategy 
        that you believe could be implemented with existing funding? 
        What scientific research, scientific information, or science-
        based products are required to support the implementation of 
        these three recommendations? Would your answers be different if 
        funding could be increased?

        2.  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management 
        planning decisions? What kinds of scientific information are 
        now being taken into account in those decisions because of the 
        GLRC? To what extent has the GLRC helped foster new or stronger 
        collaboration between scientists and policy-makers? What is 
        your role in strengthening the relationship between scientists 
        and policy-makers?

        3.  Does the Strategy effectively reflect your needs and help 
        you to prioritize your work? Are there additional actions EPA 
        and other federal agencies should be taking to help implement 
        the GLRC?

        4.  What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing the 
        Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting science and 
        information needs?

        5.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a 
        result of implementing the GLRC Strategy?

Dr. Donald Scavia, Healing Our Waters Coalition
    Please briefly describe your coalition's participation in the Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), and the resulting Strategy. In 
addition, please address the following questions:

        1.  What are the top three recommendations in the GLRC Strategy 
        that you believe could be implemented with existing funding? 
        What scientific research, scientific information, or science-
        based products are required to support the implementation of 
        these three recommendations? Would your answers be different if 
        funding could be increased?

        2.  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management 
        planning decisions? What kinds of scientific information are 
        now being taken into account in those decisions because of the 
        GLRC? To what extent has the GLRC helped foster new or stronger 
        collaboration between scientists and policy-makers? What is 
        your role in strengthening the relationship between scientists 
        and policy-makers?

        3.  Are there additional actions EPA and other federal agencies 
        should be taking to help implement the GLRC?

        4.  What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing the 
        Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting science and 
        information needs?

        5.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a 
        result of implementing the GLRC Strategy?
    Mr. Ehlers: I would like to call this field briefing to 
order. Thank you very much for being here. It's such beautiful 
weather--we just had a great news conference outdoors and I'm 
sorry that that delayed us, but I think we kept getting 
questions just because people were happy to be out there in the 
sun and fresh air. We tried to put this off as long as 
possible. But I welcome all of you here and look forward to 
hearing your testimony, and also I'm pleased to have the 
interest of visitors here.
    Let me just introduce a guest to the audience, Bob Glazier 
in the back, staff member of Congressman Joe Schwartz from the 
Battle Creek area. Outstanding Congressman, very good 
environmentalist, and very interested in this. And it's just a 
pleasure to have him as a colleague.
    The process--this is not a full legislative hearing. If we 
have a hearing, it's much more formal. There would have to be a 
Democrat here as well. We would have to have both parties 
represented to have an official hearing. So it's called a field 
briefing instead of a field hearing. But we still have an 
official reporter, so everything you say, whether proper or 
improper, will be recorded and put into the transcript.
    The process is, I read my opening statement, which 
describes what we are trying to do and how we are going to do 
it. And then we will hear testimony from a fairly large group 
of individuals. The first two individuals are honored guests, 
Jan O'Connell and Mayor Heartwell, who will be joining us 
shortly. And they will not be receiving questions from us. But 
after that, we will have a whole series of witnesses who will 
receive questions. So I hope that makes it very clear precisely 
what the process is.
    For those of you from out of town, welcome to Grand Rapids. 
For those of you who are from in town, aren't you glad you live 
here? Especially on a day like this. It's good to have you here 
in my home town. And particularly I wanted to welcome our panel 
of witnesses. Some have traveled from some distance to be here. 
And we appreciate not only their willingness to be here, but 
the work that they have put into their testimony, the ideas 
they are bringing forward to help improve the legislation that 
I have proposed. So thank you for your willingness to come and 
testify this afternoon about the work that all of you are 
trying to do--or are doing--to protect and preserve the Great 
Lakes.
    The Great Lakes are a unique and extraordinary resource 
that provides drinking water, food, recreation and 
transportation to over 30 million people. And transportation 
may not seem that important, but without it our state would not 
have been founded. As you know, in the early days, the only 
transportation, of course, at one time, maybe hard to believe, 
there were 20,000 boats on the Great Lakes around the State of 
Michigan. Michigan was such a bog, travel was almost 
impossible.
    The valuable collection of water surrounding us comprises 
95 percent of the surface fresh water to the United States. 
Unfortunately, this great and beautiful resource faces 
significant environmental threats. We have been struggling for 
decades for problems with industrial pollution, sewage and non-
native species. And as an attempt to address some of the 
problems, particularly the pollution entering the Great Lakes, 
I developed a Legacy Act a few years ago, which fortunately the 
President has supported completely and funded rather well, and 
we are making substantial progress in cleaning up the toxic 
sediments that are in the rivers, but we have much further to 
go.
    In 2004, I met with the new administrator of the Department 
of Environmental Protection, better known as the EPA. Mr. 
Levitt was the Governor of Utah, came to Washington to take on 
this position. Mr. Levitt as the Governor of Utah was only 
familiar with one lake, the Great Salt Lake. And because my 
committee and the subcommittee that I'm chairing involves the 
EPA, I immediately invited him to my office. We had a very nice 
visit, which I proceeded at great lengths to talk about the 
Great Lakes and its problems. Mr. Levitt did a fantastic job at 
the EPA, but even more fantastic job with the Great Lakes. He 
really took it to heart. He persuaded the President to issue an 
Executive Order, which recognizes the Great Lakes as a national 
treasure. And the Executive Order called for a regional 
collaboration of national significance on the Great Lakes. This 
Regional Collaboration met and found the mayors around the 
Great Lakes--we have our Mayor Heartwell here on behalf of the 
mayors--involved the mayors, involved the Indian tribes, 
involved the governors of the other Great Lake states, and it 
involved the environmental groups. And we have Jan O'Connell, 
board member of the Sierra Club here representing the 
environmental groups.
    Some 1,500 participants worked for a couple of years to 
develop recommendations on the Great Lakes. And last year, 
December 15th, we met in Chicago and released the results of 
all their work. They developed recommendations for eight key 
areas, aquatic invasive species, habitat protection, coastal 
health, areas of concern and contaminated sediments, non-point 
source pollution, toxic pollution, scientific research and 
monitoring, and sustainable development.
    The Committee I chaired was a Subcommittee of Science. I am 
interested in the science of the Great Lakes because I am 
determined that whatever we do will be scientifically 
appropriate so that we maximize the impact of the dollars we 
spend and we don't waste money doing it. That's not going to 
work. Our briefing today will focus on the current 
environmental management programs in place to address these 
many issues, how current science research supports effective 
management, and what science information needs exist for future 
restoration efforts. Note the emphasis on the science. We need 
to know what works and what doesn't work. Science can help us 
answer that question.
    Our witnesses will also provide their insights on the 
recommendations made by the Regional Collaboration and what 
they see as the next step forward to support protection and 
clean up of the Great Lakes.
    I have introduced legislation in Congress to implement some 
of the near-term recommendations made under the Regional 
Collaboration Strategy. This bill, easy to remember number, 
5100, H.R. 5100 includes increased funding and flexibility for 
the Legacy Act to help remediate contaminated sediment in areas 
of concern. It also includes comprehensive invasive species 
legislation, and it provides states and cities with assistance 
to upgrade their water infrastructure--particularly getting rid 
of sewer overflows--and reauthorizes and strengthens the Fish 
and Wild Life Restoration Act. It's a comprehensive, long-
standing bill. We hope it passes. And I will work very 
diligently not only to see that it passes, but also that it 
gets funded.
    On the research and monitoring side, Title VII of the bill 
authorizes increased resources for the federal agencies already 
conducting important scientific research and monitoring 
activities in the Great Lakes. For example, NOAA's Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Lab, and USGS's Great Lakes Science 
Center. In addition, it also authorizes extramural grants to 
universities and other private-sector research institutions. 
The bill also requires the EPA, USGS and NOAA to submit a 
coordinated joint research plan every year to identify those 
research activities that will assist in the implementation of 
the Regional Collaboration's recommendation. You see, there is 
a lot of good work going on already, but we want to make sure 
it's all coordinated. Once again, to get the maximum value for 
the buck.
    This bill also directs the President to establish and 
maintain an integrated system of ocean, coastal, and Great 
Lakes observations, data communication and management, 
analysis, modeling, research, education and outreach. NOAA 
would be the lead federal agency for implementation and 
operation of the system. NOAA would also certify one or more 
regional associations to be responsible for the development and 
operation of regional observing, such as in the Great Lakes 
region. The bill also directs the EPA to develop, in 
coordination with other federal agencies and Canada--remember 
Canada has to be an equal partner here--indicators of water 
quality and related environmental factors in the Great Lakes. 
And a network to monitor those indicators regularly throughout 
the Great Lakes basin. The EPA would collect initial benchmark 
data in four years and report to Congress on changes in water 
quality.
    As the Regional Collaboration Strategy recognizes, a 
successful restoration effort has to include a process to 
measure progress and to identify when success has been 
achieved. To ensure that resources are not wasted, it is 
important that the Strategy include benchmarks to measure 
progress.
    As a scientist, for me this piece is critical. We have to 
have ways to collect information, analyze it, and determine 
whether what we are doing is successful or not, and how we 
might need to change our approach. I am eager to hear great 
things from our witnesses. Such as, how we can improve our 
research and monitoring programs to assist the clean up and 
protection programs that are implemented; how we can ensure 
that all of our efforts are making the best possible use of 
what science has shown us about the Great Lakes. And, finally, 
what we can do right now, with what we already know to move the 
restoration process forward immediately.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
    For those of you from out-of-town, welcome to Grand Rapids! It's 
good to have you here in my home town. In particular I want to welcome 
our panel of witnesses. Thank you for your willingness to come and 
testify this afternoon about the work that you are doing to protect and 
restore the Great Lakes.
    The Great Lakes are unique and extraordinary resources that provide 
drinking water, food, recreation and transportation to over 30 million 
people. This invaluable collection of water comprises 95 percent of the 
surface freshwater of the United States. Unfortunately, the Lakes face 
significant environmental threats. We've been struggling for decades 
with problems of industrial pollution, sewage, and non-native species.
    In May 2004, President Bush recognized the Great Lakes as a 
``national treasure'' and issued an Executive Order calling for a 
``regional collaboration of national significance'' on the Great Lakes. 
In December 2005, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration produced a 
strategic action plan for protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. The 
Regional Collaboration is a partnership of Federal, State, and local 
government officials and program managers; scientists; industry 
representatives; environmental advocates and interested private 
stakeholders. The fifteen hundred participants in this ground-breaking 
initiative focused their attention on addressing the most critical 
threats to the Lakes. They developed recommendations for eight key 
areas: aquatic invasive species, habitat protection, coastal health, 
Areas of Concern and contaminated sediment, non-point source pollution, 
toxic pollutants, scientific research and monitoring, and sustainable 
development.
    Our briefing today will focus on the current environmental 
management programs in place to address these many issues, how current 
science research supports effective management, and what science and 
information needs exist for future restoration efforts. We need to know 
what works and what doesn't work, and science can help us answer that 
question. Our witnesses will also provide their insights on the 
recommendations made by the Regional Collaboration and what they see as 
the next steps forward to support protection and clean up of the Great 
Lakes.
    I have introduced legislation in Congress to implement some of the 
near-term recommendations made in the Regional Collaboration strategy. 
My bill, H.R. 5100, includes increased funding and flexibility for the 
Legacy Act program to help remediate contaminated sediment in Areas of 
Concern. It also includes comprehensive invasive species legislation, 
it provides states and cities with assistance to upgrade their water 
infrastructure, and it reauthorizes and strengthens the Great Lakes 
Fish & Wildlife Restoration Act.
    On the research and monitoring side, Title VII of the bill 
authorizes increased resources for the federal agencies already 
conducting important scientific research and monitoring activities in 
the Great Lakes--NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab and 
USGS's Great Lakes Science Center. In addition, it also authorizes 
extramural grants to universities and other private-sector research 
institutions. The bill also requires the EPA, USGS, and NOAA to submit 
a coordinated joint research plan every year to identify those research 
activities that will assist in the implementation of the Regional 
Collaboration's recommendations.
    This bill also directs the President to establish and maintain an 
integrated system of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observations, data 
communication and management, analysis, modeling, research, education, 
and outreach. NOAA would be the lead federal agency for implementation 
and operation of the system. NOAA would certify one or more regional 
associations to be responsible for the development and operation of 
regional observing, such as in the Great Lakes region.
    The bill directs the EPA to develop, in coordination with other 
federal agencies and Canada, indicators of water quality and related 
environmental factors in the Great Lakes and a network to monitor those 
indicators regularly throughout the Great Lakes basin. The EPA would 
collect initial benchmark data within four years and report to Congress 
on changes in water quality.
    As the Regional Collaboration strategy recognizes, a successful 
restoration effort has to include a process to measure progress and to 
identify when success has been achieved. To ensure that resources are 
not wasted, it is important that the strategy include benchmarks to 
measure progress.
    As a scientist, for me this piece is critical. We have to have ways 
to collect information, analyze it and determine whether what we are 
doing is successful or not, and how we might need to change our 
approach. I am eager to he three things from our witnesses:

          how we can improve our research and monitoring 
        programs to assist the clean up and protection programs that 
        are implemented;

          how we can ensure that all of our efforts are making 
        the best possible use of what science has told us about the 
        Great Lakes; and

          finally, what we can do right now, with what we 
        already know, to move the restoration process forward.

Witnesses

    Our first panel is made up of two local champions of the Great 
Lakes.

          Jan O'Connell is currently a national board member 
        and treasurer for the Sierra Club.

          George Heartwell is the mayor of Grand Rapids and has 
        been actively involved in the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, a 
        coalition of mayors and other local leaders organized by 
        Chicago's Mayor Daley.

    On our second panel, we have a distinguished group of Great Lakes 
scientists and environmental managers.

          Mr. Gary Gulezian is the Director of the EPA's Great 
        Lakes National Program Office and has been a lead participant 
        on the Regional Collaboration's Executive Committee.

          Dr. Steven Brandt is the Director of the Great Lakes 
        Environmental Research Laboratory within the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration.

          Ms. Catherine Cunningham Ballard is the Chief of the 
        Coastal Management Program within the Michigan Department of 
        Environmental Quality. She will provide us with the perspective 
        of an on-the-ground program manager who can attest to current 
        capabilities and future science and resource needs.

          Dr. Alan Steinmann is the Director of Grand Valley 
        State University's Annis Water Resources Institute Muskegon, 
        Michigan.

          Dr. Don Scavia is a Professor of Natural Resources at 
        the University of Michigan and heads the Michigan Sea Grant 
        program. He is also a leading science advisor to the Healing 
        Our Waters Coalition, a coalition over 70 environmental 
        organizations that participated in the Regional Collaboration 
        and that advocates for Great Lakes clean up. It is sponsored in 
        part by the Wege Foundation. I am pleased to recognize Peter 
        Wege and Ellen Satterlee for their contributions to this cause.

                                Panel I:

    Mr. Ehlers: We will now begin with our witnesses. As I 
mentioned earlier, our first panel is made up of two local 
champions of the Great Lakes. Jan O'Connell is currently a 
national board member, treasurer for the Sierra Club. And she 
will be followed by Mayor Heartwell, who is also a champion of 
the environment.
    Please recognize Ms. O'Connell--I should mention that I 
have known her for, what, 20 years?
    Ms. O'Connell: At least.
    Mr. Ehlers: Maybe longer. Both of us have been active in 
the environmental movement here in Grand Rapids. Originally, I 
think West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and then we 
both got involved in the Sierra Club. She, of course, is at the 
national level. And we are very pleased and proud to have you 
here, Jan.

STATEMENT OF MS. JAN O'CONNELL, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SIERRA 
                           CLUB BOARD

    Ms. O'Connell: Thank you. Well, good afternoon, 
Representative Ehlers. Thank you for giving me the opportunity 
to speak with you today. As you mentioned, I'm a resident of 
Grand Rapids, and Director of the National Sierra Club Board. 
The Sierra Club is the Nation's oldest and largest grass roots 
organization with nearly 800,000 members nationwide. For the 
past 25 years, the Sierra Club has been a strong advocate for 
the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem. I 
testified just this past August here at Grand Valley State 
University before the U.S. EPA in support of full funding to 
restore the Great Lakes. And I'm here today again to restate 
the need to fully fund the restoration of the Great Lakes.
    The Great Lakes are at a tipping point. And we cannot 
afford to wait any longer before taking action to protect this 
vital, and yet vulnerable resource. Every day we wait, our job 
gets larger and, of course, more costly. It's time we stop 
addressing the problems that plague the lake on a piecemeal 
basis, and start talking and taking a comprehensive approach to 
bringing the Great Lakes back to health.
    The scientific public opinion and physical argument for 
safeguarding these national treasures have been made. More than 
1500 individuals who represented Federal, State, local and 
tribal governments, non-governmental entities, and private 
citizens spent countless hours participating on strategy teams 
as part of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration to develop a 
blueprint for comprehensive restoration, which was released in 
just this past December, '05. The Sierra Club participated 
fully in this effect contributing staff and volunteer time on 
many strategy teams. And we fully support the restoration 
blueprint that resulted from this collaborative process.
    Now we need to act, to implement this blueprint for Great 
Lakes restoration. I want to applaud the efforts of a 
bipartisan group of U.S. legislators who just this month 
introduced bills that would implement many of these most 
critical recommendations in the restoration strategy.
    Our own representative Verne Ehlers from Grand Rapids, and 
Representative Emanuel from Chicago in the House. And in the 
Senate, Representative DeWine from Ohio, and Representative 
Karl Levin from Michigan. We support these bills as an 
important step forward and applaud the leadership of the 
sponsors. Now we need to act.
    I believe at this time the single greatest barrier to 
restoring the Great Lakes is the lack of adequate funding. And 
I have heard arguments that it may be difficult to win approval 
for a project this size that benefits only a region. But I want 
to bring to the forefront that the Great Lakes are one of the 
natural wonders of the world, and are more than just water. 
They are the heart of America's culture, economy and health. 
They contain one-fifth of the world's fresh water, supplying 
over 42 million people with their water needs every day. Al 
Beton, a Ph.D. who sits on our State Executive Committee of the 
Sierra Club, was the acting Chief Scientist of NOAA in the late 
'90s. And he is the also former Director of the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory. He is supporting a December, 
'05 report made by scientists suggesting that the immune system 
of the Great Lakes is breaking down, and the ecosystem is in 
danger of collapse. Dr. Beton has stated that the Great Lakes 
are deteriorating at a rate unprecedented in the recent 
history, and are nearing the tipping point of an ecosystem-wide 
breakdown. He, too, has stated that if we want to restore this 
resource the time to act is now. To date, approximately 60 
scientists, including the region's Sea Grant Director, have 
endorsed this paper, prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem 
Protection and Restoration, outweighing the tipping point of 
irreversible changes. Don Scavia will be telling you more about 
this report later today.
    The report states that despite progress in some areas, the 
Great Lakes are exhibiting a number of disrupting and 
disturbing systems that lead scientists to determine that the 
lakes may be at the verge of a breakdown. Some of the systems--
symptoms include: Rapid disappearance of Diporeia. It's a key 
fish food that is essential to the Great Lakes' food chain. 
Beach closings caused by bacterial contamination, resurgence of 
Lake Erie's dead zone, and the sudden and widespread decline in 
native fish, particularly the yellow perch. This paper provides 
us with a science-based plan to restore our Great Lakes. And 
the scientists are also all saying now is the time to act.
    One of the areas that I believe needs urgent attention is 
to set up measures to take action immediately to slow the 
introduction and spread of invasive species into the Great 
Lakes. It's been reported that every eight months a new 
invasive is being added to the 160 alien species that are 
already present in the lakes. Once in the lakes, invaders are 
virtually impossible to control or remove. And many cause 
irreparable ecological harm and economic impacts. Currently 
this is costing the region an estimated five billion dollars 
annually to try and control these short-term--by short-term--
band-aid approach. Investing in prevention would be a much 
wiser and more effective use of resources.
    We urgently need a permanent barrier in Illinois to stop 
the 100 pound Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes and 
destroying the food web. Stringent balanced water standards 
need to be set up and enforced to prevent the introduction of 
more costly and damaging invases by a balanced water.
    Nationwide, more than 780 scientists, resource managers, 
agricultural officials, and other experts, plus 120 citizens 
have signed a call to action on invasive species, all stating 
that now is the time to act. There are other critical issues 
that need attention, such as toxic contamination, polluted 
runoff and sewage overflows. These problems and their solutions 
are outlined in some detail in the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration Strategy.
    From a political perspective it may seem daunting to 
address the multitude of stressors that are impacting the Great 
Lakes. But from a scientific perspective, a comprehensive 
approach is the only way to restore the ecological integrity of 
the Great Lakes' ecosystem. For that reason, we must find a way 
to overcome the barriers to full implementation of the Great 
Lakes Restoration Strategy. It is our responsibility to protect 
this irreplaceable resource that was left us, and to be good 
stewards of our riches.
    In addition, if we invest wisely in Great Lakes 
restoration, we have the opportunity to build a new future for 
the region as a whole: One with healthy communities, good jobs 
and a strong and growing economy that is based on the 
responsible use of our most abundant natural resource.
    I would like to personally thank Representative Ehlers for 
putting this briefing together today, and the attention that 
the U.S. House Committee for Environment, Technology and 
Standards is giving to this issue; to the science concerns of 
evidence that best supports the effective restoration of the 
Great Lakes. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Connell follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Jan O'Connell
    Good afternoon Representative Ehlers and Members of the Committee. 
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My 
name is Jan O'Connell, and I'm a resident of Grand Rapids and Director 
on the National Sierra Club Board. The Sierra Club is the nation's 
oldest and largest grassroots organization, with nearly 800,000 members 
nationwide. For the past 25 years the Sierra Club has been a strong 
advocate for the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes 
ecosystem.
    I testified just this past August here at Grand Valley State 
University before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 
support of full funding to restore the Great Lakes and I'm here again 
today to re-state the need to fully fund the restoration of the Great 
Lakes. The Great Lakes are at a tipping point and we cannot afford to 
wait any longer before taking action to protect this vital and yet 
vulnerable resource. Every day we wait, our job gets larger and more 
costly. It's time we stop addressing the problems that plague the lakes 
on a piecemeal basis and start taking a comprehensive approach to 
bringing the Great Lakes back to health.
    The scientific, public opinion, and fiscal argument for 
safeguarding this national treasure have been made. More than 1,500 
individuals--who represented Federal, State, local and tribal 
governments, non-governmental entities and private citizens--spent 
countless hours participating on strategy teams as part of the Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration to develop a blueprint for comprehensive 
restoration, which was released in December of '05. The Sierra Club 
participated fully in this effort, contributing staff and volunteer 
time on many strategy teams and we fully support the restoration 
blueprint that resulted from this collaborative process.
    Now we need to act to implement this blueprint for Great Lakes 
restoration. I want to applaud the efforts of a bipartisan group of 
U.S. legislators who just this month (April) introduced bills that 
would implement many of the most critical recommendations in the 
restoration strategy: Reps Vern Ehlers (R-Grand Rapids) & Rahm Emanuel 
(D-Chicago) (H.R. 5100) and Sens. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Carl Levin 
(D-Michigan), (S. 2545). We support these bills as an important step 
forward and applaud the leadership of the sponsors. ``Now we need to 
act!''
    I believe at this time the single greatest barrier to restoring the 
Great Lakes is the lack of adequate funding. And I have heard arguments 
that it may be difficult to win approval for a project this size that 
benefits only a region but I want to bring to the forefront that the 
Great Lakes, are one of the natural wonders of the world and are more 
than just water. They are the heart of America's culture, economy and 
health. They contain one-fifth of the world's fresh water surface 
water, supplying over 42 million people with their water needs every 
day.
    Al Beeton, Ph.D., who sits on the state Executive Committee of the 
Sierra Club, was the Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA (National Oceanic & 
Atmospheric Administration) back in the late 90's and also former 
Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. He is 
supporting a December '05 report made by scientists suggesting that the 
immune system of the Great Lakes is breaking down and the ecosystem is 
in danger of collapse. ``Dr. Beeton, has stated that the Great Lakes 
are deteriorating at a rate unprecedented in their recent history and 
are nearing the tipping point of an ecosystem-wide breakdown.'' ``He 
too has stated that if we want to restore this resource, the time to 
act is now.'' To date approximately 60 scientists, including the 
region's Sea Grant directors, have endorsed this paper, ``Prescription 
for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Avoiding the 
Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes,'' and its recommendations. Don 
Scavia will be telling you more about this report later today. The 
report states that despite progress in some areas, the Great Lakes are 
exhibiting a number of disturbing symptoms that led scientists to 
determine that the Lakes may be at the verge of a breakdown. Some of 
the symptoms include; rapid disappearance of Diporeia--a key fish food 
that is essential to the Great Lakes food chain, beach closings caused 
by bacterial contamination, resurgence of Lake Erie's ``dead zone'' and 
the sudden and widespread decline in native fish particularly the 
yellow perch. This paper provides us with a science-based plan to 
restoring our Great Lakes. And scientists are also all saying that, 
``Now is the time to act!''
    One of the areas that I believe needs urgent attention, is to set 
up measures to take action immediately to slow the introduction and 
spread of invasive species into the Great Lakes. It's been reported 
that every eight months a new invasive is being added to the 160 alien 
species already present in the lakes. Once in the lakes, invaders are 
virtually impossible to control or remove and many cause irreparable 
ecological harm and economic impacts. Currently, this is costing the 
region an estimated $5 billion annually to try and control through a 
short-term band-aid approach. Investing in prevention would be a much 
wiser and more effective use of resources. We urgently need a permanent 
barrier in Illinois to stop the 100-pound Asian Carp from entering the 
Great Lakes and destroying the food web. Stringent ballast water 
standards need to be set-up and enforced to prevent the introduction of 
more costly and damaging invasives via ballast water. Nationwide, more 
than 780 scientists, resource managers, agricultural officials and 
other experts--plus 120 citizens groups back in 2003 signed a ``Call to 
Action on Invasive Species.'' All stating that now is the time to act!
    There are other critical issues that need attention, such as toxic 
contamination, polluted runoff and sewage overflows--these problems, 
and their solutions, are outlined in some detail in the Great Lakes 
Regional Collaboration Strategy. From a political perspective, it may 
seem daunting to address the multitude of stressors that are impacting 
the Great Lakes. But from a scientific perspective, a comprehensive 
approach is the only way to restore the ecological integrity of the 
Great Lakes ecosystem. For that reason, we must find a way to overcome 
the barriers to full implementation of the Great Lakes restoration 
strategy. It is our responsibility to protect this irreplaceable 
resource that was left to us and to be good stewards of its riches. In 
addition, if we invest wisely in Great Lakes restoration, we have the 
opportunity to build a new future for the region as a whole--one with 
healthy communities, good jobs, and a strong and growing economy that 
is based on the responsible use of our most abundant natural resource.
    I would like to personally thank Representative Ehlers for putting 
this briefing together here today and the attention the U.S. House 
Committee for Environment, Technology, and Standards is giving to this 
issue by being here to listen to the science concerns and evidence that 
best supports the effective restoration of our Great Lakes.

    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much, Ms. O'Connell. I 
appreciate your testimony.
    The next guest is here as a representative of all of the 
Great Lakes mayors who were active in the whole collaboration 
process. In that collaboration, I was very pleased that our own 
mayor in Grand Rapids was a very active participant. I would 
say he, along with Mayor Daley of Chicago, were a dynamic duo 
in terms of impact of policies. It was a pleasure for me to get 
to know Mayor Daley personally for the first time. And we spent 
a fair amount of time together at a couple of meetings--
fascinating individual. And I can see why Chicago is called the 
City that works. But at the same time I, I still prefer your 
style.
    Now, Mayor Daley is a wonderful person, and it's a pleasure 
to get to know him--very staunch environmentalist. And he made 
major contributions to the entire Regional Collaboration. But 
Mayor Heartwell was right with him. And we are honored today to 
have the Mayor of the City of Grand Rapids, George Heartwell, 
presenting his views on this topic.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE HEARTWELL, MAYOR OF THE CITY 
                        OF GRAND RAPIDS

    Mr. Heartwell: Thank you, Congressman. You called me a 
champion of the Great Lakes. And I'm--I'm honored by that 
title. I believe that my efforts pale by comparison to what you 
are doing and what you are positioned to do in Washington. And 
I couldn't have been prouder at the--in Chicago, at the last 
gathering as the Great Lakes Collaborative Agreement was signed 
that it was my Congressman who was--who was leading the way and 
introducing the Collaborative that day.
    I'm proud to be the Mayor of a city that understands that 
it's both its quality of life and its economic future are 
integrally connected to the Great Lakes. We are an inland city. 
And it's too easy for inland cities to forget how important the 
Great Lakes basin is to our own well-being and livelihood.
    You have correctly stated that I serve on the Board of 
Directors of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities 
Initiative. We are a group of 85 mayors who, from both United 
States and Canada, working for the protection and restoration 
of the Great Lakes. Mayor Daley is indeed our fearless leader, 
Chairman. And Mayor Daley had tried very hard to clear his 
calendar to be here today and sends his regrets to you, sir, 
that he was not able to do that. But has asked that I speak on 
behalf of the Initiative.
    The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has been 
extensively involved in development of the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaborative Strategy. We are signatories to the compact, 
signed in December of 2004 in Chicago. And with Jan O'Connell 
and 200 other people, I was pleased to be a part of the--
working on the Strategy right here in Grand Rapids last August. 
The Strategy provides an excellent guide for Federal, State and 
local, as well as tribal governments, as well as industry and 
nonprofits to work on priorities and actions for the Great 
Lakes. Two key things are needed at this point. Action--not 
more planning--action, and funding. Cities across the basin 
will be looking to take key actions on such things as reducing 
sewer overflows, eliminating beach closures, protecting and 
restoring key habitats and wetlands, helping clean up 
contaminated areas of concern, encouraging proper disposal of 
household hazardous waste, and Mercury, using water more 
efficiently, many, many others.
    Mayors and governors set out priority actions on December 
12th, 2005 in a letter to President Bush. I am certain that you 
have seen that, Congressman. I will also leave a copy when I 
leave today. We are looking expectantly to the administration, 
and to Congress, to proceed swiftly on many of these points.
    I would only highlight three of them this afternoon in this 
brief time. First, comprehensive invasive species legislation. 
Second, funding for water infrastructure, and wetland programs, 
waterfront revitalization. And, thirdly, completing the 
electronic fish barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 
to keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.
    I want to congratulate you, Congressman Ehlers, and 
Congressman Emanuel as well in the introduction of the Great 
Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act. It does, as you have 
mentioned, contain many of the things that mayors and governors 
called for in our letter to the President. The Great Lakes and 
St. Lawrence Cities Initiative supports this legislation 
entirely. We are particularly pleased with provisions for 
addressing invasive species, funding waste water 
infrastructure, funding wetland and habitat protection, funding 
for areas of concern under the Great Lakes Legacy Act--a bill 
which you sponsored, Congressman Ehlers. And also improving 
indicators information and research. The important use of data 
that you have been so fundamentally behind.
    It's essential that we move ahead with restoration now. 
Investments today can avoid much larger costs and expenditures 
down the road. We only need to look to Louisiana and hurricane 
Katrina to see how that lesson can be learned.
    Cities are prepared to do our part. We pledge to work with 
Congress, with the administration, with States, with tribes, 
the private sector, with non-governmental organizations to make 
this happen. I want to thank you for providing the opportunity 
this afternoon to speak.
    Mr. Ehlers: Well, I want to thank you for participating. I 
also wanted to pass on to you, and you may have heard this 
already, but Grand Rapids is becoming known for the good work 
on the combined sewer overflow (inaudible). And I--as you may 
recall, I brought the EPA administrator here a few years ago to 
take a look at what we have done. And he told me after he 
inspected it, he said, I am going to use Grand Rapids as a 
model for what other cities in this nation could be doing 
regarding sewer overflow. And I explained to him how it 
started, and how the city has basically paid most of it 
themselves with some funding with the rebuilding home fund. But 
we taxed the citizens. And people in this city are willing to 
do this to keep this river and lake clean. And that's a real 
testimony to the support this community has for a clean lake 
and clean environment.
    Mr. Heartwell: Indeed. At this point in our Sewer 
Separation Project, we have invested more than $2,000 per man, 
woman and child in Grand Rapids--I'm sorry, over $1,000 per 
man, woman and child--over $200 million already. By the time we 
are done, that investment will go to over $320,000,000. So 
it's--it's a tremendous commitment that this community has 
made. You have been effective in bringing some resources back 
from Washington for us to do that. Keep up that good work, 
please.
    Mr. Ehlers: Yeah. But, actually, I'm very proud that Grand 
Rapids is doing it with so much of their own money, and setting 
an example for other groups. They won't budge until the Federal 
Government will say we will pay 50 percent--it's just not going 
to happen.
    One other comment about the centrality of Grand Rapids. 
This is the home of the Wege Foundation. And the Wege 
Foundation has founded--funded the Healing the Waters 
Initiative. I don't know if they have founded it, but they are 
certainly supporting it. Peter Wege was hoping to appear here 
today, of course. And I don't see anyone from the Wege 
Foundation, but they may be hidden behind someone. Am I 
overlooking someone?
    Unknown Person: I think they are going to be here, but they 
will be here late.
    Mr. Ehlers: They will be here late. Thank you.
    Thank you very much for your testimony, both of you. I 
appreciate it very much. And we will dismiss you without 
questioning, which is an honor that very few people get.
    Mr. Heartwell: Thank you, sir.
    Ms. O'Connell: Thank you.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you. Thank you for your good work.
    Let me also mention while they are exiting, we have heard 
references to Representative Emanuel, Senator DeWine and 
Senator Levin. Recognize that this work did not come out of a 
vacuum. In fact, in the last Congress, Representative Emanuel 
introduced the bill to clean up the Great Lakes--quite a 
different approach, but--from the one I had. I introduced a 
bill as well. We could not work out an agreement together, but 
now that the Coalition has come out, we have come together to--
on sponsoring the same bill together.
    And similarly in the Senate, Senator Levin and Senator 
DeWine are the sponsors and co-sponsors. But also Senator 
Voinovich played a very active role in this, but he ceded to 
his fellow statesperson, Senator DeWine to be the principal co-
sponsor. But if you ever see Voinovich, he appeared here at the 
Healing Our Waters event, great speech. Both of them are very 
active. So, please, when you talk to people from those states, 
let them know we appreciate their effort because this is not 
always a political--politically popular stance. And people need 
to know how much we appreciate it.
    All right. Time to call up the second panel. Put the name 
tags out.

                               Panel II:

    I want to thank our panel for appearing here. We have Mr. 
Gary Gulezian, Director of the EPA's Great Lakes National 
Program Office, and has been a lead participant on the Regional 
Collaboration's Executive Committee. While I'm talking about 
the EPA, that reminds me, I talked a great deal about Mr. 
Levin--Governor Levin who has provided great leadership. But he 
was--and frankly too good--and got promoted to be Secretary of 
Health Education. And--not Education, but Health and Human 
Services. So he has reached a higher office. But he has been 
replaced by Steve Johnson, who has also taken the Great Lakes 
to his heart and has been in this community, and also was in 
Muskegon not too long ago for the opening of the one of the 
Great Lakes Legacy projects there. We are happy to have you 
here.
    Next, Dr. Steven Brandt is a Director of the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory within the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. By some strange quirk of fate, 
they ended up not being in the Great Lakes, they are in the 
fair city of Ann Arbor. But whoever made the decision may have 
been smoking with when Ann Arbor celebrates--but I'm sure Dr. 
Brandt would be welcome to move to the west coast of Michigan. 
But he has done an outstanding job there.
    Next, Ms. Catherine Cunningham Ballard is the Chief of the 
Coastal Management Program within the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality. She will provide us with a perspective 
of an on the ground program manager who can attest to the 
current capabilities of future science and resource needs. And 
we are pleased to have you here because the states are going to 
be the ones implementing almost everything we do.
    Dr. Alan Steinman is the Director of Grand Valley State 
University's Annis Water Resources Institute in Muskegon, 
Michigan. Pleased to have you here. It's an outstanding 
facility doing great work--and they have a couple of nice 
boats. If you ever want to take a boat ride, call Dr. Steinman 
and see if you can learn something about the science of the 
Great Lakes from a boat.
    Next, Dr. Don Scavia is a Professor of Natural Resources at 
the University of Michigan, and heads the Michigan Sea Grant 
program--a very important outreach from NOAA. He is also a 
leading science advisor to the Healing Our Waters Coalition, 
which we have mentioned before. It's a coalition of over 70 
environmental organizations that participated in the Regional 
Collaboration, and that vigorously advocates for Great Lakes 
clean-up. It is sponsored in part by the Wege Foundation, as I 
mentioned. Hopefully we will have a chance to thank him 
personally later on.
    With that, it's my pleasure to adjourn to the participants 
for their testimony. And we will start with you, Mr. Gulezian.

   STATEMENT OF MR. GARY V. GULEZIAN, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES 
 NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Gulezian: Thank you.
    Mr. Ehlers: Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention the rules 
of the House of Representatives. You each have five minutes to 
present your testimony. Your entire testimony will be entered 
into the permanent record, but we ask that you shorten your 
oral testimony to five minutes, so then we will have some time 
to have some give and take with questions and answers.
    Mr. Gulezian: Good afternoon, Congressman Ehlers. As you 
noted, I'm Director of U.S. EPA's National Program Office, 
which is located in Chicago. Thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and the Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration as they relate to issues of 
science, research, and environmental restoration of the Great 
Lakes.
    First a little background. On May 18, 2004, President Bush 
signed the Great Lakes Executive Order. The Executive Order 
recognized the Great Lakes as a national treasure and created a 
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force composed of nine federal 
agencies. The Order also directed U.S. EPA administrator to 
convene a Regional Collaboration of national significance. The 
Federal Interagency Task Force was charged with coordinating 
the more than 140 federal programs that helped fund and 
implement environmental restoration and management activities 
throughout the Great Lakes ecosystem. It was established to 
ensure that these programs would fund effective, coordinated 
and environmentally sound activities. EPA provides support for 
the task force in carrying out its functions. The EPA's 
administrator serves as the chair of the Great Lakes 
Interagency Task Force.
    The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was designed to take 
program coordination beyond the federal level, and to 
comprehensively address nationally significant environmental 
and natural resource issues involving the Great Lakes. The 
Collaboration involves participation of the Federal Government, 
Great Lakes States, tribal and local governments, communities 
and other interests. As part of the Regional Collaboration, 
more than 1,500 people participated in a year long effort to 
draft the Great Lakes Restoration Strategy that prioritizes 
problems and recommends long- and short-term actions for 
achieving a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem.
    This Strategy, as you noted earlier, was released to the 
public last December. The EPA administrator participates as a 
member of the Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration, along with representatives from States, tribes 
and municipalities. This past March, the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration Executive Committee finalized its framework for 
implementation that will ensure the collaboration continues, 
and that the priorities included in the Great Lakes restoration 
strategy are pursued. The Task Force and Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration provide new opportunities for working 
cooperatively on Great Lakes' issues. The Great Lakes community 
now speaks with one voice regarding problems and priorities. 
With a strengthened network of partners, we are in a better 
position to focus our energy on common goals.
    The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration partners are using 
the Great Lakes Restoration Strategy to guide ongoing and 
future Great Lakes basin activities. Appropriate research 
models, scientific methodologies, restoration activities and 
management approaches are being designed so that environmental 
and natural resource problems are addressed collaboratively, 
efficiently and effectively. For example, the Great Lakes 
Watershed Restoration Grant Program, a new partnership of five 
federal agencies and a not-for-profit organization, which was 
formed as a result of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
now funds on-the-ground habitat restoration actions across the 
basin combining the funds of those separate federal agencies.
    Collaboration among Great Lakes stakeholders in the science 
community to address key Great Lakes environmental problems is 
not new. A number of institutions worked to align their 
resources to address the most pressing research science and 
restoration issues in the Great Lakes. These institutions 
include among others, the International Joint Commissions 
Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, Great Lakes Fisheries 
Commission, EPA, State of the Lakes, Ecosystem Conferences, and 
Lakewide Management Plans. Great strides have been made in 
understanding and solving environmental problems as a result of 
the collaborative work of these enterprises. The Lakewide 
Management process, for example, has involved hundreds of 
agencies, organizations and individuals from the United States 
and Canada in actions to detect, investigate and manage 
environmental problems at a lake basin scale.
    The existing infrastructure partnerships has been augmented 
by the Executive Order which directs The Interagency Task Force 
to ensure the federal research and monitoring programs are 
well-coordinated and focused on the areas with the greatest 
need. And by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration which lays 
the foundation for cooperatively addressing environmental 
problems at the basin wide, lake wide and local scales. These 
expanded networks of agencies and organizations use existing 
mechanisms in institutions to address key problems and needs as 
defined in the Great Lakes restoration strategy.
    There is now an emerging understanding of how we must 
integrate science and management decisions to the Great Lakes. 
In general, Great Lakes research and science needs to include 
efficient and comprehensive monitoring of the environment, 
indicators that help to assess the status of the ecosystem and 
inform management decisions, and forecasting tools for 
predicting how specific management actions improve problems. 
The integration of research and monitoring into programs that 
are restoring the Great Lakes will ensure that we are 
addressing the right problems through implementation 
activities, and that we are aware of any emerging issues before 
they become major problems.
    My written testimony includes several examples of science 
research and ecosystem management projects that are under way, 
and where we are working together with other partners to 
address significant questions about the Great Lakes. These 
examples include the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences, 
The Beach Health Workshop, Lake Erie Dead Zone Research, the 
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study, Diporeia disappearance 
investigations, and multi-agency cooperative monitoring. And I 
would be pleased to answer any questions about those projects 
later.
    In closing, I would like to thank you for inviting me to 
participate in this briefing. We look forward to working with 
you and with other partners on science and research issues and 
how they can contribute to the goal of a cleaner, healthier 
Great Lakes. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 
have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gulezian follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Gary V. Gulezian
    Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Gulezian, Director of the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program 
Office (EPA) located in Chicago. Thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (Task Force), the Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), the Great Lakes Strategy, and the 
science and research issues in support of restoring and protecting the 
Great Lakes, one of our country's most important environmental 
treasures.

BACKGROUND

    On May 18, 2004, President Bush signed the Great Lakes Executive 
Order that established the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and 
promoted a Regional Collaboration of National Significance for the 
Great Lakes.
    The Executive Order directed a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force 
to, among other activities, ``ensure coordinated federal scientific and 
other research associated with the Great Lakes system.'' The Task Force 
increases and improves collaboration and integration among the more 
than 140 federal programs that help fund and implement environmental 
restoration and management activities throughout the Great Lakes 
ecosystem. It helps to ensure that these programs are funding 
effective, coordinated, and environmentally sound activities. EPA 
provides support for the Task Force in carrying out its functions. 
EPA's Administrator serves as the Chair of the Task Force. EPA also 
coordinates a number of programs and research initiatives in concert 
with other federal agencies.
    The Executive Order supported a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
to address nationally significant environmental and natural resource 
issues involving the Great Lakes through partnerships among the Federal 
Government, Great Lakes states, tribal and local governments, 
communities, and other interests. More than 1,500 people participated 
in a year-long effort to draft a Great Lakes Strategy that prioritizes 
problems and recommends long- and short-term actions for achieving a 
healthy Great Lakes ecosystem.
    The EPA Administrator participates as a member of the Executive 
Committee of the GLRC along with representatives from States, tribes, 
and municipalities. In March, the GLRC Executive Committee finalized a 
Framework for Implementation that will ensure the Collaboration 
continues and that priorities included in the Great Lakes Strategy are 
pursued.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION INCREASED

    The Task Force and the GLRC provide new opportunities for 
collaboration. The Great Lakes community now speaks with one voice 
regarding problems and priorities. With a strengthened network of 
partners we are in a better position to focus our energies on common 
goals.
    GLRC partners are using the Great Lakes Strategy to guide ongoing 
and future Great Lakes basin activities. Appropriate research models, 
scientific methodologies, restoration activities and management 
approaches are being designed so that environmental and natural 
resource problems are addressed collaboratively, efficiently and 
thoroughly. For example, the Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Grant 
Program, a partnership of five federal agencies and a not-for-profit 
organization formed as a result of the GLRC, now jointly funds on-the-
ground habitat restoration actions across the basin.
    Underpinning the foundation for collaboration in the Great Lakes is 
the President's Ocean Action Plan of December 17, 2004, which calls on 
federal agencies to work together with their partners in State, local 
and tribal authorities, as well as with the private sector, our 
international partners and other interests, to make our oceans, coasts, 
and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more productive. It 
specifically calls on the new ocean governance structure established by 
Executive Order 13366 and the Ocean Action Plan to support the Great 
Lakes Interagency Task Force and Great Lakes collaboration.

SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

    Collaboration among Great Lakes stakeholders and the science 
community to address key Great Lakes environmental problems is not new. 
A number of Institutions work to align their resources to address the 
most pressing research, science, and restoration issues in the Great 
Lakes. These institutions include: the International Joint Commission's 
Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, the Great Lakes Fishery 
Commission, the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC), and 
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs), in partnership with numerous 
universities. Great strides have been made in understanding and solving 
environmental problems as a result of these partnerships. The Lakewide 
Management Plan process, for example, has involved hundreds of 
agencies, organizations and individuals from the U.S. and Canada in 
actions to detect, research, and manage environmental problems at a 
Lake basin scale.
    The existing infrastructure of partnerships has been augmented by 
the Executive Order, which directs the Task Force to ensure that 
federal research and monitoring programs are well coordinated and 
focused on the areas with the greatest need; and by the GLRC, which 
lays the foundation for addressing environmental problems at the 
basinwide, lakewide and local scales collaboratively. These new 
expanded networks of agencies and organizations use existing mechanisms 
and institutions to address key problems and needs as defined by the 
Great Lakes Strategy.
    In general, Great Lakes research and science needs include 
efficient and comprehensive monitoring of the environment; indicators 
that help to assess the status of the ecosystem and inform management 
decisions; and, forecasting tools for predicting how specific 
management actions improve problems. The integration of research and 
monitoring into programs that are restoring the Great Lakes will ensure 
that we are addressing the right problems through implementation 
activities, and that we are aware of any emerging issues before they 
become major environmental problems.
    The following examples illustrate science, research, and ecosystem 
management projects that are underway and where we are working with 
other partners or collaborators to address significant questions about 
the Great Lakes. In addition, our work on the Interagency Task Force 
and GLRC presents us with new opportunities to strengthen existing 
mechanisms and institutions to address the pressing Great Lakes 
environmental problems identified by the Great Lakes Strategy:
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
    In 1987, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was amended to 
require the U.S. and Canada to track and report on progress toward the 
Agreement's goals. What emerged was the State of the Great Lakes 
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process, which includes a biennial 
conference and a series of reports on Great Lakes ecosystem and human 
health based on indicators. The seventh of these conferences will be 
held November 1-3, 2006, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    The State of the Great Lakes 2005 report presents the findings from 
56 out of approximately 80 Great Lakes indicators plus the status of 
each Great Lake. Dozens of authors and contributors were involved in 
the preparation of the indicator reports, representing at least 11 U.S. 
and Canadian federal agencies, 19 state and provincial agencies, and 
over 40 municipalities, tribes, academic affiliations, environmental 
commissions, non-government organizations, industry and private 
organizations.
    One result of SOLEC is the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium. 
Federal, State, provincial, non-governmental organizations, and 
academic institutions--more than 150 people--are developing a long-term 
monitoring program to assess the ecological integrity of Great Lakes 
coastal wetlands. With a better information base, management actions 
focused on protection and restoration of coastal wetlands will be more 
effective.
Improving the Health of Great Lakes Beaches
    The Great Lakes Strategy identifies the issue of beach closings as 
a significant Great Lakes issue. A November 4, 2005, Beach Health 
Workshop held in Green Bay, Wisconsin brought together beach managers 
throughout the basin, the Great Lakes Beach Association (GLBA), U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), and EPA. Years of collaboration and coordination 
of beach research and monitoring activities were presented.
    In addition, the needs and concerns of beach managers, public 
health officials, and other stakeholders were expressed and research 
priorities and strategies for addressing beach closure and recreational 
water quality issues defined. A primary goal was to forge a new 
cooperation among federal agencies and State, tribal, and local groups 
concerned with beach health in order to focus our research efforts in a 
unified direction that would best serve the beach health community. A 
series of follow up actions is being pursued by workshop participants, 
including the development of a standardized sanitary survey for 
identification of contamination sources impacting beaches.
Lake Erie Dead Zone
    Because U.S. and Canadian efforts successfully reduced the amount 
of phosphorus entering the Great Lakes, throughout the 1980s scientists 
were cautiously optimistic that the area of low oxygen in Lake Erie 
during the summer was also being reduced, both in area and duration. In 
the early 1990s, however, agency scientists and academic researchers 
identified signs that Lake Erie's low oxygen problems were getting 
worse instead of better. Beginning in 2002 and continuing in 2003, EPA 
sponsored the Lake Erie Trophic Study to investigate the causes of the 
Lake Erie ``dead zone'' and of increasing phosphorus levels in the 
Lake. Partners included Lake Erie experts from more than 20 U.S. and 
Canadian universities and other institutions. Environment Canada 
extended the study with EPA support in 2004, and the NOAA laboratory in 
Ann Arbor, Michigan organized the International Field Year on Lake Erie 
in 2005. Results are informing the management actions of agencies in 
both Canada and the U.S. in the areas of nonpoint source pollution 
remediation, wetland restoration, and aquatic invasive species control.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
    Combining expertise from federal and State agencies and 
universities, the importance of atmospheric and river inputs to Lake 
Michigan of PCBs, mercury, atrazine and trans-nonachlor were measured 
and modeled by more than 25 researchers. The most recent results of the 
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study were presented to the Great Lakes 
States in October 2005. The study is helping federal and State agencies 
direct their resources to the sources of pollution that are 
contributing most significantly to water quality impairments and fish 
consumption advisories.
Health of the Great Lakes Aquatic Food Chain
    One of the most dramatic and enigmatic changes in the biotic 
community of the Great Lakes has been the decline of the deep-water 
amphipod Diporeia. Diporeia is a very small, shrimp-like organism that 
is a keystone species in the food web of offshore waters. It is also an 
important, high-calorie food resource for fish. EPA's Great Lakes 
National Program Office and NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research 
Laboratory co-sponsored a workshop in October 2005 to better understand 
the causes of the decline of this organism, to develop a list of 
research recommendations, and to explore possible management 
interventions. Cooperative research will improve fishery managers' 
ability to protect a variety of fish species from possible decline due 
to food chain disruption.
Cooperative Lakewide Monitoring Approach
    A cooperative lakewide monitoring approach to assess each of the 
Great Lakes over a five-year cycle is being carried out by federal and 
State agencies. Cooperative monitoring began in Lake Ontario in 2003 
and has continued in Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Superior. Each year 
federal and State agencies, in consultation with academic 
professionals, identify the priority information needs for each Lake, 
``pool'' their resources, and jointly implement the monitoring and 
research effort. Following each year of monitoring, data and 
information are shared among the agencies. The approach has involved 
consultation with the Lakewide Management Plan leaders, representatives 
from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Committees, and key 
representatives from the scientific community. To date, the cooperative 
sharing of resources resulting from this approach, including shared 
research vessel time, has saved an estimated one half million dollars.

CONCLUSION

    In closing, I would like to thank you for inviting me to 
participate in this briefing. We look forward to working with you and 
with other partners on science and research issues and how they can 
contribute to the goal of a cleaner, healthier Great Lakes. I would be 
happy to answer any questions that you may have.

                     Biography for Gary V. Gulezian
    Gary Gulezian is the Director of the Great Lakes National Program 
Office (GLNPO) in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 
(USEPA) office in Chicago. He has served in this position since 
September of 1997.
    GLNPO is charged with the responsibility to lead and coordinate 
U.S. efforts in implementing the goals and objectives of the Canada-
U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. GLNPO brings together 
federal, State, tribal and local partners in an integrated, ecosystem 
approach to protect, maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, 
and physical integrity of the Great Lakes. The program monitors Lake 
ecosystem indicators; manages and provides public access to Great Lakes 
data; helps communities address contaminated sediments in their 
harbors; supports local protection and restoration of important 
habitats; promotes pollution prevention through activities and projects 
such as the Canada-U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS).
    Prior to becoming GLNPO's Director, Mr. Gulezian was the Chief of 
the Air Toxics and Radiation Branch in the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency's Region 5 office in Chicago. In this capacity, Mr. 
Gulezian was responsible for coordinating the implementation of the 
Regional Office's programs which dealt with hazardous air pollutants 
and radiation. Additionally, Mr. Gulezian had the overall 
responsibility for directing federal air pollution control efforts in 
the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin including regulation 
development, enforcement and grants management.
    Mr. Gulezian joined USEPA in 1977. During his tenure with the 
Agency he has worked with programs involving the control of mobile 
sources, federal rule-making on State Implementation Plans, cleanup of 
radioactively-contaminated sites, radiological emergency response, and 
the control of indoor radon.
    Mr. Gulezian holds a Baccalaureate degree from Dartmouth College 
where he specialized in aquatic biology and a Master's degree from the 
Harvard University School of Public Health in the field of 
Environmental Health Sciences.
    Mr. Gulezian lives in Oak Park, Illinois, with his wife, Greta, and 
their three children.

    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much. And thanks also to the 
EPA for their effective management of the Legacy Act. We are 
making real progress.
    Mr. Gulezian: We are very excited to have the resources 
associated with the Legacy Act. And it has been good to clean 
up some of those contaminated areas.
    Mr. Ehlers: Right.
    Dr. Brandt.

  STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN B. BRANDT, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
  ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; 
   DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, 
     NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 
                     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Dr. Brandt: Thank you, Chairman Ehlers. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak to you about how NOAA research is 
prioritized to meet user needs and about NOAA's role in the 
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. Research underpins NOAA's 
science-based mission of understanding and predicting changes 
of the Earth's environment to improve the quality of people's 
lives and to meet our nation's economic, social and 
environmental needs.
    NOAA's five year research plan emphasizes an ecosystem-
based approach to management and restoration, the integration 
of research and observations, a focus on prediction and 
forecasting, and translating research findings into decision 
support tools.
    This plan is totally consistent with the Great Lakes 
Research Collaboration Strategy that states that research 
``must transition to the ecosystem approach with greater 
emphasis on predicted forecasting, and that restoration efforts 
will require coupled research and observation programs.'' All 
NOAA research is targeted toward such applications. Research 
information services, ace decision-making, management, public 
safety, and environmental and economics sustainability. 
Research also serves the public by improving NOAA forecasts by 
developing new tools and services. To ensure that NOAA research 
meets the needs of policy-makers, we regularly seek feedback 
from the policy-makers and other stakeholders. I will provide 
two examples of how we work with our stakeholders to ensure 
that research needs--research meets user needs and is 
accessible to users. Most of NOAA's research in the Great Lakes 
is conducted by the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
Laboratory and the National Sea Grant Program.
    The National Sea Grant Program engages top universities to 
conduct research to support NOAA's mission. Sea Grant works in 
every coastal state and every Great Lakes coastal state to 
conduct applied research, extension and education to foster 
science-based decisions about the use and conservation of our 
nation's aquatic resources. Sea Grant is unique in that it has 
about nearly 60 extension agents living in coastal areas 
throughout the region, as well as two regional extension agents 
located with GLERL. The role of these extension agents is to 
ensure that NOAA research immediately gets into the hands of 
those that require this information for decision-making. The 
other equally important role of these agents is to take the 
pulse of the user communities on a daily basis and assess their 
needs. This regular feedback helps steer NOAA research 
priorities and research information services.
    Focused workshops are another example of how NOAA 
integrates its science into management. For example, in 2003, a 
workshop was held at GLERL to assess the region's need in 
ecological forecasting. A published report identified 
stakeholder's needs for 24 different ecological forecasts. 
Subsequently, GLERL has set nearly all of its research and 
ecological priorities to meet these needs. Operational systems 
are now in place in providing detailed forecasts for waves, 
water levels, circulation and water temperature.
    Last November, GLERL teamed up with the Great Lakes Beach 
Association, the USGS and EPA to host a beach health workshop 
to identify concerns and information needs of beach managers 
and public health officials to define research priorities for 
forecasting beach closures for public health. This workshop 
helped forge new cooperation between federal agencies, and 
State, tribal and local groups concerned with beach health, and 
helped to set research priorities for NOAA's Center of 
Excellence for Great Lakes' health. This center will also set 
up a web site, for example, as a hub for information on beach 
closures throughout the Great Lakes basin, and to learn about 
the current forecasting technologies being developed. My 
written testimony has a number of other similar examples.
    NOAA has a long history, and is a strong supporter of 
partnerships. NOAA strongly supports the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration, which is a unique partnership of Federal, State, 
local governments, tribes and other stakeholders. NOAA is also 
one of the 11 agencies on the regional working group, and has 
had an expert on each of the eight strategy teams developed as 
part of the Collaboration. The Collaboration effort has 
increased national visibility of the Great Lakes as a natural 
resource, and has been a valuable resource for combining agency 
expertise and fostering a spirit of cooperation on Great Lakes 
issues. NOAA considers the Strategy a valuable user-generated, 
comprehensive document for determining regional priorities and 
needs. And NOAA will use it as an important reference for 
prioritizing regional activities.
    As part of the Administration's response to the Strategy, 
the Task Force released a list of near-term action items that 
could be initiated over the next two years at present funding 
levels. NOAA is taking the lead on several items, including 
implementation of the U.S. contribution to observing systems, 
which in a large part would be defined by and be responsive to 
local needs.
    Finally, NOAA's '07 budget requests funds to develop a 
Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program and office in the Great 
Lakes region, which will serve as a focal point for NOAA's 
restoration efforts in the region. The program will support 
science-based restoration projects that achieve significant 
improvement and habitat function and human use benefits, while 
insuring appropriate monitoring and feedback. Working with our 
partners, results will be used to apply lessons learned to 
other science-based restoration efforts throughout the Great 
Lakes basin.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I'm happy to 
answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Brandt follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Stephen B. Brandt
    Good morning, Chairman Ehlers. I am Stephen Brandt, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
and Director of the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 
(GLERL). I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about how NOAA 
research is applied to meet user needs through information services and 
through transition of research to operations, and about NOAA's role in 
Great Lakes regional collaboration.

THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN SERVING THE PUBLIC

    Research underpins NOAA's science-based mission of understanding 
and predicting changes in the Earth's environment and conserving and 
managing coastal and marine resources to meet our nation's economic, 
social, and environmental needs. Robust environmental observation, 
assessment, and prediction capabilities provide the foundation for 
performing NOAA's mission. Research is the cornerstone on which to 
build and improve environmental forecasts that can enable ecosystem-
based management and provide critical weather and climate information 
for decision-makers and the public.
    We ensure NOAA research and services meet the needs of our 
stakeholders by seeking regular feedback from the research community, 
operational users, and stakeholders. NOAA scientists and our external 
partners work together to improve the quality of people's lives and to 
meet our nation's economic, social, and environmental needs.
    In January of 2005, NOAA released Research in NOAA: Toward 
Understanding and Predicting Earth's Environment, a five-year (FY 2005-
2009) plan for integrating research in NOAA. In this report, we examine 
how NOAA can better understand, monitor, and predict the behavior of 
Earth's complex natural systems, by working with federal and State 
agency partners to establish regional observing systems, and working 
with the international community to build an integrated Global Earth 
Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). GEOSS will build on the existing 
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and Global Ocean Observing 
System (GOOS). The integrated observing and modeling system will, in 
large part, be defined by and be responsive to local needs.
    The five-year plan establishes how, in the near-term, NOAA's 
research enterprise will deliver improvements to existing forecasting 
tools. Additionally, NOAA is developing new observation systems, 
models, and other assessment tools that will advance environmental 
forecasting and management in the long-term. This plan (available at 
http://nrc.noaa.gov/Docs/NOAA-5-
Year-Research-Plan-010605.pdf) 
identifies outcomes for the near-term and research milestones we will 
use to measure progress towards achieving those outcomes. The five-year 
plan also describes how we prioritize research within NOAA, who our 
partners are, and the mechanisms by which we conduct research.
    All NOAA research is targeted for application. There are two forms 
of applications:

        (1)  Information Services: This research is designed to aid 
        decision-making, management, public safety, and environmental 
        and economic sustainability.

        (2)  Research to Operations: This research is designed to 
        better serve the public by improving NOAA forecasts, and 
        developing new tools and developing new services.

ASSESSING USER NEEDS FOR INFORMATION SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES

    NOAA's research and extension programs have an established presence 
within coastal and Great Lakes communities, and we work with our 
stakeholders to ensure research meets user needs and is accessible to 
users. As examples, I will describe Sea Grant Extension, Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory workshops, and NOAA Remote Sensing 
Applications in the Great Lakes.
Sea Grant Extension
    The National Sea Grant College program serves as a unifying 
mechanism within NOAA to engage top universities in conducting 
scientific research to support NOAA's mission. Sea Grant works in every 
coastal and Great Lakes state to conduct applied research, extension, 
education, and communication designed to foster science-based decisions 
about the use and conservation of our aquatic resources. The goal of 
these activities is to achieve a sustainable environment and encourage 
the responsible use of America's coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes 
resources.
    Sea Grant's integrated research, education and outreach programs 
provide resources to address problems identified by coastal residents 
and businesses, and local, regional, State and federal agencies. 
Through the Great Lakes region's eight Sea Grant programs (IL-IN, MI, 
MN, NY, OH, PA, WI and Lake Champlain), NOAA is able to mobilize 
significant independent science and advice from the academic community 
in the Great Lakes, on the complete range of issues faced by the 
region.
    To address regional Great Lakes challenges and ensure that the 
public remains well-informed of regional science and policy 
developments, Sea Grant has numerous extension agents throughout the 
region, and two extension agents co-located with GLERL. Through these 
regional extension agents and the use of modern communications and 
education tools, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network ensures that NOAA 
research immediately gets into the hands of coastal managers, industry, 
and local officials that require this information for decision-making. 
Tools such as local advisory groups with broad representation, 
facilitated community meetings, the inclusion of outreach activities 
with every research project conducted, and technology transfer allow 
Sea Grant extension agents to take the `pulse' of the user communities 
on a daily basis and assess their needs. This feedback helps steer NOAA 
research priorities and research information services. The result is a 
well-informed society that is able to protect lives and livelihoods, 
and ensure public safety.
    The Sea Grant program also provides resources to researchers and 
academics allowing them to team up and provide information to the 
public. As one example, Sea Grant works to educate the community to 
promote healthy choices with regard to PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) 
contamination in fish. For each of the Great Lakes and a majority of 
their tributaries, there is a fish advisory in place to safely limit 
consumption of contaminated fish. High-risk groups such as pregnant 
women, children, and women of child-bearing age should limit 
consumption of PCB-contaminated fish. Sea Grant provides easily-
accessible fish advisory information on PCBs in English, Korean, 
Spanish, and Polish. Wide distribution of these materials has reached 
many of the 534,000 people comprising non-English-speaking audiences in 
Illinois and Indiana. All four translations are included in the ``ABCs 
of PCBs'' publication, so that a single version can serve a variety of 
audiences. These materials are provided in hard copy at all Sea Grant 
workshops and are distributed to the appropriate communities. The 
``ABCs of PCBs'' is also available free of charge on the IL-IN Sea 
Grant web site (http://www.iisgcp.org/products/iisg0206.pdf).
    In another example, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York Regional Sea 
Grant programs, with additional input from Environment Canada, have 
developed an extensive education and outreach campaign related to Avian 
Botulism on the Great Lakes. Public workshops have been conducted on 
this problem, alternating annually between Pennsylvania and New York. 
These workshops have served to keep agencies and stakeholders aware of 
fish and bird kills occurring on the Great Lakes and have resulted in 
increased research funding on the subject.
Great Lakes Environmental Laboratory Workshops
    Communicating with user communities has been integral in setting 
research priorities at GLERL. For example, in August, 2003, a Great 
Lakes regional workshop was held at GLERL to assess the region's 
ecological forecasting needs. Recognizing that making predictions 
useful to decision-makers is the heart of the ecological forecasting 
concept, the workshop's preliminary needs assessment challenged 
workshop participants to think broadly about the ecological forecasting 
needs of the coastal constituencies. A December, 2004, report produced 
from the workshop identified stakeholders' needs for 24 ecological 
forecasts, and GLERL has set nearly all of its research priorities to 
meet these needs. As discussed in more detail below, operational 
systems are now in place to provide ecological forecasts for waves, 
water levels, circulation, and water temperature. Research is ongoing 
at GLERL to develop the remaining operational forecasting capabilities.
    In November, 2005, GLERL teamed up with the Great Lakes Beach 
Association, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to host a Beach Health Workshop in conjunction 
with the Great Lakes Beach Conference. A primary goal of the conference 
was to identify concerns and information needs of beach managers and 
public health officials. Another goal was to define research priorities 
to address recreational water quality issues in the Great Lakes that 
lead to beach closures for public health. Finally, the workshop helped 
forge new cooperation between federal agencies and State, tribal, and 
local groups concerned with beach health.
    The overarching questions for this workshop were: How can NOAA, 
EPA, and USGS research programs help State and local agencies meet 
their recreational water quality goals, related specifically to beach 
closures? And, what tools do the beach managers actually need? The 
workshop allowed our agencies to ask key questions of a diverse group 
of stakeholders. With attendees from across the region, we were able to 
gather information to aid in developing effective strategies to meet 
the research needs of the Great Lakes Beach Health community. Key 
findings included:

          A need for more comprehensive and standardized 
        training material for beach managers;

          Better communication networks between State, local 
        and federal agencies;

          More accessibility to real-time beach closing data; 
        and

          A need for a regional data network.

    By creating a stronger communication network with the beach health 
community, NOAA is opening the door for better information management, 
quicker delivery of available tools and technology, and more efficient 
resource sharing strategies. The GLERL Center for Great Lakes and Human 
Health web site is being updated to become a central location for 
health departments, State agencies, beach managers and multiple user 
groups to check beach conditions throughout the Great Lakes Basin, and 
learn about current forecasting technologies being developed. This web 
site will become a ``hub'' for federal, State, and local agencies to 
obtain information on beach closures.
    In addition, GLERL has been working very closely with EPA Region V, 
USGS, and the Great Lakes Beach Association in developing a strong 
communication network between local, State, and federal agencies. We 
participate in monthly or bi-monthly conference calls and distribute 
information on the BeachNet listserv (http://www.great-lakes.net/glba/
beachnet.html). BeachNet is an e-mail discussion list that seeks to 
facilitate communication between people interested in the improvement 
of recreational beach water quality in the Great Lakes basin. GLERL is 
also working with the Great Lakes Human Health Network to disseminate 
information on current research and forecasting models being developed 
by GLERL researchers. As the technology is transferred, we plan to host 
training workshops for beach managers to learn to use forecasting 
models, in coordination with the Great Lakes Human Health Network. The 
Great Lakes Sea Grant Network is another means that GLERL is utilizing 
to increase communication and disseminate information on beach 
closures.
NOAA Remote Sensing Applications in the Great Lakes
    NOAA makes data from its Geostationary Operational Environmental 
Satellites (GOES) and Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 
Satellites (POES) fully and freely available for Great Lakes research 
and operations. This information is available in near real-time to any 
person or institution (academic, private sector, etc.) that has an 
antenna capable of receiving the data directly from NOAA's satellites. 
This data is also available in near real-time on the Internet (http://
www.ssd.noaa.gov). Additionally, archived satellite data for 
retrospective analyses are available through the Comprehensive Large 
Array-data Stewardship System (CLASS), an electronic library of NOAA 
environmental data (http://www.class.noaa.gov/nsaa/products/welcome). 
To build on current satellite contributions to the Great Lakes region, 
NOAA's future GOES-R Series and NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting 
Operational Environmental Satellite System; a partnership with the 
Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration) will continue these detection capabilities. These 
satellite data are used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and the 
private sector to assist in weather forecasting and to protect lives 
and property in the region.
    Another example of meeting user needs with satellite data is NOAA's 
CoastWatch Program, which processes near real-time satellite data, and 
makes it available to federal, State, & local marine scientists, 
coastal resource managers, and the general public. This nationwide 
program, initially established through NOAA's Coastal Ocean program in 
1987, includes two components: (1) central operations and (2) regional 
nodes. Central operations, managed by NOAA's National Environmental 
Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), coordinates the 
processing, delivery, quality control and storage of data products. Six 
regional nodes are located around the country, hosting equipment and 
personnel to provide near real-time data distribution and regional 
scientific expertise to the local user community. The Great Lakes 
regional node is located at GLERL. Together, central operations and the 
regional nodes provide for the distribution pathway for CoastWatch data 
and products. The CoastWatch Great Lakes regional node makes a variety 
of data and products available to the public on their web site (http://
coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/cwdata/). CoastWatch data available on this 
site includes surface environmental analyses; surface temperature 
contours; satellite imagery; and in situ data including air temperature 
and pressure, wind and wave conditions, water level, bathymetry, and 
weather/meteorological information. One popular CoastWatch web site was 
developed in collaboration with the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and 
Michigan State University (http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/). This site 
provides up-to-the-minute surface water temperatures for all five Great 
Lakes--a tremendous resource for commercial and recreational fishers. 
Lake, regional, and port image charts are updated four times daily and 
can help recreational and industrial anglers save fuel by pinpointing 
optimal areas for fishing. Nearly 808,000 Great Lakes surface water 
temperature images were downloaded from this site over six months 
during the 2003 fishing season. Through the National Ice Center, a 
collaborative program among NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. 
Navy, the maritime industry is provided with critical information 
regarding the extent of sea ice coverage, which is a major navigational 
hazard for commercial and recreational interests. This information is 
also available via the Internet at http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/
gl-ches/index.htm.

TRANSITION OF RESEARCH TO OPERATIONS

    NOAA is committed to maximizing the value of its research to 
society and to meet mission objectives thereby ensuring the successful 
transition of research to operations. Ensuring successful transitions 
is allowing NOAA to provide the best, most up-to-date information and 
services to our stakeholders and users. Below I will highlight some 
examples of successful transitions from research to operations 
programs. I would like to highlight here some of the administrative 
work we have been doing to clarify and aid in this process.
    Over the past year, NOAA has taken significant steps to ensure that 
the transition of research to operations is streamlined. These steps 
include:

          Formation of a Transition Board (March, 2005);

          Development of a Policy on Transition of Research to 
        Operations (signed May, 2005);

          Development of implementation procedures the new 
        transition policy (December, 2005); and

          Identification of ongoing NOAA research projects for 
        transition (February, 2006).

    The Policy on Transition of Research to Application (available at 
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/?ames/NAOs/Chap-216/
naos-216-105.html) was developed in response to 
the recommendations of a recent NOAA-wide research review by a working 
group of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The policy provides a 
mechanism for systematically reviewing all research annually to 
identify research to be transferred. The Policy applies to all NOAA 
research, whether conducted in house or externally, and will facilitate 
the transition of best available science and cutting-edge technologies 
from NOAA research to operational status within NOAA.
    NOAA's Great Lakes research programs such as GLERL and Sea Grant 
provide for cutting edge research that leads to the successful transfer 
of research to operations. Below are some examples of research to 
operations successes in the Great Lakes region.
Great Lakes Water Level Information and Forecasts
    Maritime commerce on the Great Lakes is significant. In 2004, 43.48 
million metric tons of cargo passed through the St. Lawrence Seaway, 
representing a cargo value of $7 billion. Water levels, currents, 
meteorological and other data are critical for safe and economically 
efficient commercial Great lakes shipping. Vessels in the 1,000-foot 
class forfeit 267 tons of cargo for each inch of reduced draft. 
Regardless of the cargo type, revenue is significantly affected when 
ships ``light-load'' to avoid grounding when accurate water levels are 
not available. NOAA provides the information required by the Great 
Lakes shipping community through the 52 National Water Level 
Observation Network (NWLON) stations on the Lakes, the Soo Locks 
Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), and accurate water-
level forecasts.
    The Great Lakes NWLON stations are a part of NOAA's National Ocean 
Service's National Water Level Program. The Great Lakes NWLON provides 
real-time water level data to mariners that is updated every six 
minutes and is available via the Internet (http://
glakesonline.nos.noaa.gov/) or though voice modem. NOAA has also 
integrated meteorological data from the National Weather Service buoys 
on the Lakes into the NWLON voice modem access, so that mariners have a 
single point of access for critical water level and meteorological 
information.
    PORTS, a program of NOAA's National Ocean Service, supports safe 
and cost-efficient navigation by providing ship masters and pilots with 
accurate real-time water level, currents, meteorological, salinity, air 
gap (bridge clearance), and other information required to avoid 
groundings and collisions. PORTS real-time data is available via the 
web (http://140.90.121.76/d-ports.html) and telephone voice 
access (301-713-9596 for Great Lakes station information). The Soo 
Locks PORTS provides decision support information required to make the 
critical transit between Lakes Superior and Huron.
    Both the NWLON and PORTS systems provide critical environmental 
data to U.S. port authorities and maritime shippers allowing them to 
make sound decisions regarding loading of tonnage (based on available 
bottom clearance), maximizing loads, and limiting passage times, 
without compromising safety. They are also critical to environmental 
protection, since marine accidents can lead to hazardous material 
spills that can destroy ecosystems and the tourism, fishing, and other 
industries.
    While NOAA's PORTS and NWLON programs work to provide real-time 
data and information about water levels in the Great Lakes, research 
conducted at GLERL provides models that are used to provide monthly 
forecasts of Great Lakes water levels for 6-12 months into the future. 
Incorporating NOAA's temperature and precipitation outlooks along with 
detailed watershed runoff and evaporation models, GLERL's latest 12 
month forecasts have proven accurate within two centimeters. These 
forecasts, which are available at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/wr/ahps/
curfcst/curfcst.html, are important to the shipping and fishing (both 
commercial and recreational) industries for planning purposes.
    NOAA forecasts can also be received by ships and boats via NOAA 
Weather Radio All-Hazards, and through the Digital Marine Weather 
Dissemination System (DMAWDS), a system the National Weather Service 
(NWS) operates in the Great Lakes for the specific purpose of 
disseminating NOAA forecasts to commercial shippers. DMAWDS provides 
graphic displays of NWS model data for the Great Lakes on a personal 
computer. Data available for display include barometric pressure, air 
and sea temperature, wind, and wave height. Data are obtained through 
the DMAWDS bulletin board, which requires a password for entry. DMAWDS 
access is available to ships participating in the Voluntary Observing 
Ships (VOS) program. Through the VOS program, observations are taken by 
deck officers, coded in a special format known as the ships synoptic 
code, and transmitted in real-time to NWS. The VOS program operates at 
no cost to the vessel, with communications charges, observing equipment 
and reporting supplies furnished by the National Weather Service. To 
participate, vessels can contact a Port Meteorological Officer; these 
individuals are located at some NWS offices and serve as liaison for 
commercial navigation interests.
Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System
    In April, 2006, NOAA announced the completion of the Great Lakes 
Operational Forecast System (GLOFS) for lakes Superior, Huron, and 
Ontario. This system, first implemented in Lakes Erie and Michigan in 
October, 2005, is a NOAA automated model-based prediction system aimed 
at providing improved predictions (guidance) of water levels, water 
currents and water temperatures in the five Great Lakes (Erie, 
Michigan, Superior, Huron and Ontario) for the commercial, recreation, 
and emergency response communities. This system is an excellent example 
of how NOAA is meeting its mission responsibility through research 
projects that were developed in NOAA laboratories and are now being 
transferred to operational use. This forecast system, which is built on 
15 years of solid research and testing, will benefit all who use the 
Great Lakes--be it for recreational or commercial purposes. In addition 
to supporting critical economic uses, the GLOFS also will enhance 
efforts to promote public safety by providing better navigational and 
coastal information to civil authorities and coastal managers involved 
in search and rescue missions and other emergency response operations.
    NOAA's Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 
(CO-OPS) maintains the GLOFS in an operational environment 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week providing accurate information needed by this 
diverse user population in their day-to-day use of the lakes. GLOFS 
generates hourly ``nowcast'' guidance (analyses) for present conditions 
and four times daily forecast guidance (out to 30 hours) of total water 
level, current speed and direction, and water temperature for each of 
the Great Lakes. The GLOFS predictions will enable users to increase 
the margin of safety and maximize the efficiency of commerce throughout 
the Great Lakes. Both the nowcasts and the forecasts use information 
generated by a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model that includes real-
time data and forecast guidance for winds, water levels, and other 
meteorological parameters to predict water levels, currents, and 
temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the five lakes. Key 
products include data and animated map plots of water levels, water 
currents, and water temperatures; these products are available at 
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ofs/glofs.html.
Ecosystem Forecasting
    NOAA conducts scientific research directed towards creating new 
tools and approaches for management and protection of coastal 
ecosystems. To anticipate and minimize how stresses from human and 
natural causes will affect ecological processes, NOAA is developing 
ecological forecasting tools which predict the effects of biological, 
chemical, physical, and human-induced changes on ecosystems and their 
components. These tools include research on understanding ecological 
processes, conceptual models of ecosystem function, and statistical and 
process-driven prediction models. As these tools are developed in the 
research environment, NOAA scientists identify, consult, and 
collaborate with user groups representing the ultimate operators and 
beneficiaries to determine the most useful operational parameters, 
products, and delivery methods. This often requires the involvement of 
the operational branches of NOAA (National Ocean Service, National 
Weather Service, National Environmental and Satellite Data Service, 
and/or National Marine Fisheries Service) to plan for routine 
application and dissemination of ecological forecasts. As previously 
described, public workshops are conducted to identify user needs and 
services are developed accordingly. This model has been successfully 
applied by GLERL for forecasts of Great Lakes ice conditions, water 
levels, circulation and thermal structure, and waves, and is in the 
process of being applied for beach closures, harmful algal blooms, 
hypoxia/anoxia, and fish recruitment.
Great Lakes Height Modernization
    Height Modernization is a program within NOAA's National Geodetic 
Survey (NGS) that provides accurate height information by integrating 
Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with existing survey 
techniques. For years, GPS has been used to determine accurate 
positions (latitude and longitude), but now, by following Height 
Modernization standards, specifications and techniques, GPS can 
efficiently establish accurate elevations for all types of positioning 
and navigational needs.
    Post-glacial rebound is causing water from the upper Great Lakes to 
move into the lower reaches of the lakes. NOAA is working with Canada 
and several states to conduct GPS surveys to monitor the effects of 
post-glacial rebound on the Great Lakes region. The goal of this 
collaborative effort is to maintain accurate height relationships 
between U.S. and Canadian water level gauges to provide valuable 
information on how this phenomenon will affect water levels. 
Establishing GPS Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) at 
water level gauges is part of this effort. A GPS survey organized under 
the auspices of the International Joint Commission's Great Lakes 
Coordinating Committee was conducted in 2005, and will provide a more 
complete picture of vertical change throughout the region. Updated 
accurate elevations from this survey are being processed and, when 
published, will provide vital data to coastal managers, planners, local 
governments, and others.
Harmful Algal Blooms
    The rapid proliferation of toxic or nuisance algae is called a 
harmful algal bloom (HAB). HABs are scientifically complex and 
economically significant and can occur in marine, estuarine, and 
freshwaters. HAB toxins can cause human illness, halt the harvesting 
and sale of fish and shellfish, alter marine habitats, and adversely 
impact fish, endangered species, and other marine organisms.
    HABs are conservatively estimated to exceed $1 billion in economic 
damage over the next several decades while a single HAB event can cause 
millions of dollars in damages through direct and indirect impacts on 
fisheries resources, local coastal economies, and public health and 
perception. In the Great Lakes, NOAA scientists have documented HAB 
toxin levels that were 10 times higher than the World Health 
Organization recreational standards and much higher than drinking water 
standards in some areas. This can result in human health problems.
    NOAA is working with its federal partners to organize HAB research 
around a suite of complementary and interconnected programs and 
activities that involve a mix of extramural and intramural research, 
long-term regional ecosystem-scale studies supported by short-term 
targeted studies, collaborations between academic and federal 
scientists, and multiple partnerships with federal, State and tribal 
managers. An excellent example of this approach is the collaboration 
between the extramural ECOHAB (Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful 
Algal Blooms) and MERHAB (Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful 
Algal Blooms) research programs of the National Ocean Service and 
NOAA's intramural research laboratories. ECOHAB is a multi-agency 
partnership between NOAA's Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research 
(CSCOR) and the National Science Foundation, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 
the Office of Naval Research.
    GLERL has been conducting research on HABs for over a decade. The 
purpose of this research is to assess the causes and consequences of 
the blooms and to develop bloom forecasting capabilities. This research 
aims to understand the processes regulating HAB dynamics and provide 
stakeholder products to help mitigate the impacts of HABs. NOAA 
modeling expertise is assuring successful development, validation, and 
demonstration of HAB forecasts to support more effective ecosystem 
management. These forecasts provide one type of HAB research product 
that assists coastal managers in better managing our resources and 
protecting coastal population from potential detrimental effects 
through the integration of biology, chemical and physical oceanography, 
and weather information and products.
    Sea Grant extension agents, located in every coastal and Great 
Lakes state, facilitate the flow of HAB information within local and 
regional communities. In addition, Sea Grant has supported research 
focused on the physiology and behavior of individual HAB species and 
toxins, causes of HABs, and predicting or detecting the occurrence of 
HABs and their toxins.
    The National Ocean Service MERHAB program in the Lower Great Lakes 
is an eight campus multi-disciplinary effort to develop monitoring 
strategies for HABs in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain 
watersheds. This project is also examining the basic science of 
cyanobacteria and toxin formation. In most cases, cyanobacteria (blue-
green algae) are the building blocks for HABs. Proliferations of blue-
green algae are often triggered by increases in available nitrogen or 
phosphorus in the environment. By increasing our basic understanding of 
cyanobacteria (i.e., basic nitrogren:phosphorus ratios, nutrient uptake 
rates, growth rates), we should be able to help local managers better 
predict when conditions are right for bloom formation. Assistance is 
provided to government and local monitoring agencies through the 
various campus toxin analysis services.

GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION

    On May 18, 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order that 
described the Great Lakes as a ``national treasure'' and sought to 
improve restoration efforts at the regional and federal levels. The 
Executive Order established a regional collaboration and promoted 
agency coordination through a cabinet-level Great Lakes Interagency 
Task Force. The Department of Commerce is represented on this 
Interagency Task Force by the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher.
    In December, 2004, this regional collaborative effort was 
officially launched in Chicago with the creation of the Great Lakes 
Regional Collaboration of National Significance (GLRC), a unique 
partnership of key members from Federal, State, and local governments, 
tribes, and other stakeholders. NOAA is very supportive of this effort. 
In addition, NOAA is one of the 11 agencies on the Regional Working 
Group and has an expert on each of the eight strategy teams developed 
as part of the GLRC. Underpinning the foundation for collaboration in 
the Great Lakes is the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan of December 
17, 2004, which calls on federal agencies to work together with their 
partners in State, local and tribal authorities, as well as with the 
private sector, our international partners and other interests, to make 
our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more 
productive. The U.S. Ocean Action Plan specifically calls on the new 
ocean governance structure established by Executive Order 13366 and 
supports the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and Great Lakes Region 
Collaboration.
    The GLRC strategic planning process builds upon extensive past 
efforts and works toward a common goal of restoring and protecting the 
Great Lakes ecosystem for this and future generations. ``A Strategy to 
Restore and Protect the Great Lakes'' (Strategy) was released on 
December 12, 2005. Earlier, a draft strategy was released for public 
comment and public hearings on the draft strategy were held throughout 
the Great Lakes region. The final strategy proposes a forward-looking 
vision to restore and protect the Great Lakes for the benefit of all.
    As part of the Administration's response to the Strategy, the Great 
Lakes Task Force released a list of Near-Term Action items that could 
be initiated over the next two years at present funding levels. NOAA is 
taking the lead on several items that pertain to the `Information and 
Indicator' section of the Strategy. The Great Lakes Task Force list of 
Near-Term Action items identified NOAA as the lead on continued 
implementation of the U.S. contribution to GEOSS and IOOS in the Great 
Lakes and coordination of existing Great Lakes National Status and 
Trends monitoring with other agencies. NOAA's FY 2007 budget request 
includes $1.5 million for a Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program and 
associated Great Lakes Restoration Office for the mobilization of 
NOAA's restoration assets to restore Great Lakes aquatic resources and 
to serve as a focal point for NOAA's restoration efforts in the region. 
The program will support restoration projects that achieve significant 
improvement in habitat function and provide community-wide human use 
benefits, while ensuring appropriate monitoring and feedback. Working 
with our partners, results will be used to apply lessons learned to 
other science-based restoration efforts throughout the Great Lakes 
basin.

CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss how NOAA meets user needs through information 
services and through transition of research to operations, and about 
NOAA's role in Great Lakes regional collaboration. I would be happy to 
answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much for your testimony and for 
your work. I know NOAA is a major agency, little appreciated. 
It's ironic that the Department of Commerce, which everyone 
associates with business, has a budget that is 71 percent 
devoted to science, and much of it is NOAA--more than half of 
the Department's budget is NOAA. I also find it ironic that an 
organization with the name of NOAA is in charge of helping 
people survive floods, even though it's spelled a little 
differently than the original Noah.
    I will take just a break here a moment. I wanted to 
recognize a special guest. We talked before about Healing the 
Waters, and the importance of the work of the Wege Foundation. 
I am pleased that we have been joined by Peter Wege, and also 
by Ellen Satterlee, the Chief of Staff for the Wege Foundation, 
and also Terry McCarthy.
    Peter, let's--this is unusual. I have to say that Mr. 
Wege--and I have known him for many years--has always been a 
supporter of environmental restoration. And at this point he 
has become sort of the godfather of the environmental movement. 
And that's intended in a good way. But every time I meet with 
Mr. Wege, he has more ideas of how we can protect the Great 
Lakes. And it's a pleasure to have you here.
    Mr. Wege: Thank you. I got a lot more coming.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you. You will be pleased to know that my 
wife has now purchased a Prius. I can't purchase it. Someone 
representing the State of Michigan, I can't buy a Japanese car.
    Okay. Next we are pleased to proceed to Ms. Ballard.

 STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERINE CUNNINGHAM BALLARD, CHIEF, COASTAL 
AND LAND MANAGEMENT UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 
                       STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Ms. Ballard: Representative Ehlers, I want to thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today, and also say it's an honor to 
me to be able to present these comments to you.
    My name is Cathie Cunningham Ballard. And I'm here today to 
represent the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
where I serve as chief of the land coastal and land management 
unit. In my position, I have responsibility for managing 
State's coastal resources and implementing the State's coastal 
zone management program. This requires addressing numerous 
issues that impact the coast including, but not limited to, 
habitat conservation, erosion, invasive species, and working 
closely with local governments to address community development 
and land use issues.
    I'm going to--I'm really pleased that you have held this 
oversight hearing or briefing now to discuss the important link 
between science and resource management. My testimony today 
will focus on three topics. One, the Coastal States 
Organization's effort to bring together the science and 
management community to identify research needs. 
Recommendations for implementation for the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration, and activities that the House Science Committee 
can undertake to improve the delivery of relevant science into 
the coastal management decision-making process.
    As you know, the Coastal States Organization represents the 
interests of the governors of the 35 coastal states and 
territories on issues related to coastal, Great Lakes, and 
ocean management. As the governor's appointed member of the 
Coastal States Organization, I have been able to participate in 
CSO's Science to Management initiative.
    The purpose of the Science to Management initiative is to 
bring together coastal scientists and managers to bridge 
communication between the two communities, to share scientific 
findings, and also to identify coastal managers' research 
needs. The initiative began in 2003 when the CSO sent a survey 
to about 230 state coastal managers in the Great Lakes. It 
represented diverse interests, such as coastal management, 
fisheries, wetlands, water quality, research and coastal 
hazards. In the survey, coastal managers were asked to identify 
what their top priority issues that they would be facing in the 
next three to five years. Respondents were nearly unanimous in 
identifying land use, the impacts of land use. And that was 98 
percent that were surveyed. 94 percent was habitat change. And 
I think it was really interesting when they identified what the 
top research need was. It was to identify what the impacts of 
land use is on those coastal habitats. We know there is 
fragmentation. And a lot of--how we are developing our land is 
having a big influence on those coastal habitats.
    The survey went on to identify a number of research needs. 
They are in my testimony. I won't identify all of those. But 
one thing they did do is also held a two-day workshop. And one 
of the days was to--they brought together researchers, 
scientists, and people who were doing studies on the Great 
Lakes, along with the resource managers to kind of have that 
discussion. Second day they brought in the Great Lakes 
Observation System, people working on that to identify how 
coastal managers' needs could be incorporated into the gloss.
    The second would be the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. 
I have been a coastal manager for 19 years. And I have to say 
this is a first time I can remember this people coming together 
to talk about the strategy for the Great Lakes and restoration. 
So it--really commend the people who worked on that. I know 
from participating, some of the groups, they are--just 
synthesizing all of that information to be able to prioritize 
those recommendations was quite an effort.
    I would like to offer the following steps or things as a 
coastal manager that I would recommend. One, you have already 
done that through the introduction of the implementation plan. 
And I think that is really helpful because it will allow us to 
show some success and be a catalyst for getting additional 
funding.
    I think it's important to maintain and expand the 
communication networks that were set up during the process. I 
think the process itself had a unifying effect on coastal 
managers and Great Lakes managers.
    Also, I would urge you to use existing programs where you 
can to the full advantage to implement the Strategy. You have a 
number of organizations that have been working very hard and 
very well over the past years. And I would--rather than, you 
know, creating a lot of new programs, I would look to where can 
you implement the Strategy using those, because I think 
especially with limited resources, that's going to be 
important.
    Also, increase short- and long-term monitoring. I think 
there is a perception that we have a lot more data than what we 
really do have. And as you said earlier, it's hard to measure 
where you are going if you don't really know what the current 
status is. And also if we do set up these monitoring 
strategies, it's going to allow us to document success which, 
again, will be a catalyst for increasing funding.
    Among the states, there is a real strong need for 
consistent and--consistent data among the states and in the 
region if we are going to do ecosystem management. I also would 
urge you to focus on the nearshore and tributary areas. Those 
are our most productive, also diverse coastal habitats, and 
also very vulnerable to human impacts.
    And also interpretation to communicate science to managers. 
As we do set up these observation systems, there is so much 
data coming out of these. We really need someone who is going 
to be able to interpret that data and disseminate it to coastal 
managers. I have heard it called the fire hose of data that's 
coming at us. So that will be important.
    And also I think it's going to be important to incorporate 
ecological and biological information to those. Right now they 
are kind of set up to do more of the chemical and physical. So 
I would like to see more biological data, because that would 
help us as coastal managers.
    I'm probably a little long because I'm probably getting--to 
assist in carrying out the Strategy, I would encourage the 
Committee to work with the Coastal States Organization. It's a 
great way to hit all of the coastal management community. They 
are housed in Washington. Gina Carter has been working with 
Chad. Also, to continue periodic oversight hearings on 
coordination of federal research dollars to answer coastal 
management questions. Insert fiscal appropriation bill language 
which directs the Great Lakes to develop an implementation 
plan, which you have already done. And then, I guess, partner 
with the states and other constituents in hoping to enact H.R. 
5100 and secure some funds to implement as well.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ballard follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Catherine Cunningham Ballard
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you 
for the opportunity to testify. My name is Cathie Cunningham Ballard. I 
am before you today representing the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality where I serve as the Chief of the Coastal and 
Land Management Unit. In my position, I have responsibility for 
managing the state's coastal resources and implementing the state's 
Coastal Zone Management Program. This requires addressing numerous 
issues that impact the coasts including, but not limited to, habitat 
conservation, erosion, invasive species, and working closely with local 
governments to address community development and land use.
    In addition to my role with the State, my passion for the coasts 
and science extends into my personal interests. For example, I serve as 
President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Planning Association 
and Chair of the Land Use and Water Quality Committee of the Coastal 
States Organization. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of 
the Land Information and Access Association, a non-profit organization 
that encourages public participation and access to geo-spatial 
information and technology. Just recently, I was appointed to the Ocean 
Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences Committee charged 
with review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan, developed by the 
Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.

Introduction

    I am delighted that you have elected to hold this oversight hearing 
to discuss the important link between science and wise decision-making 
in managing the Great Lakes' coastal resources. My testimony today will 
focus on three topics: 1) The Coastal States Organization's effort to 
bring together the science and management community to identify 
research needs; 2) key successes and next steps for regional 
initiatives such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration; and 3) 
activities the House Science Committee can undertake to improve the 
delivery of relevant science into the coastal management decision-
making process.

Coastal States Organization Science to Management Initiative

    As a Governor-appointed member of the Coastal States Organization 
(CSO), I have the pleasure of working closely with my colleagues from 
around the Nation. As you know, CSO represents the interests of the 
Governors of the thirty-five coastal states and territories on issues 
related to coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean management. These managers 
around the country work diligently with dwindling resources and 
mounting pressures to ensure our coasts remain viable and vibrant 
components of our nation's ecosystems and economy.
    As the Chair of the Land Use and Water Quality Committee, I 
actively participate in the CSO initiative we call Science to 
Management. The purpose of the Science to Management Initiative is to 
bring together the coastal scientists and managers to bridge 
communication between the two communities, share scientific findings, 
and identify managers' research needs to improve decision-making.
    The Initiative began in 2003 with a survey of 230 state coastal 
managers representing diverse interests in coastal zone, fisheries, 
wetlands, water quality, research and hazards. In the survey, coastal 
managers were asked to identify the top issues they will face in the 
next five years. The respondents nearly unanimously agreed that land 
use (98 percent) and habitat change (94 percent) were the top issues 
confronting coastal managers.
    The survey went on to query the managers' needs related to 
research, technology, and information on land use and habitat. For 
example, Great Lakes coastal managers identified the following needs:
Land Use

          Research Need: Biological and Socio-economic analyses 
        of various land use options on coastal habitats

          Information Need: Geo-spatial data for GIS

          Technology Need: Customized GIS

Habitat Change

          Research Need: Cumulative impact assessments

          Information Need: Trends analysis and ability to 
        document changes

          Technology Need: Best management practices for 
        habitat restoration

    Following the survey, CSO hosted focus groups at a regional level 
to collect more specific information on coastal managers' research 
needs. In April 2005, CSO held two workshops in the Great Lakes, one on 
the topic of land use and another on managers' needs from the Great 
Lakes Observation System. Issues that came to the forefront during 
those workshops included shoreline erosion and sediment management, 
aquatic invasive species, and water quality. During the workshops, the 
participants identified specific needs and priority products to meet 
those needs. For shoreline erosion and sediment management, for 
example, the managers requested research to support their capacity to:

          Calculate erosion-recession rates

          Determine sediment quality, supply, and transport

          Document rip currents

          Access real-time wind and wave observations in the 
        near-shore to respond to erosion and recreation issues

          Document the impact of public and private shoreline 
        structures (e.g., breakwaters, groins, etc.) on hydrology and 
        biology

          Better understand lake level dynamics and assess 
        impacts of federal and State regulations on lake levels

    These are only a sample of the significant gaps in the state of 
Great Lakes knowledge and data collection that came to light during 
these workshops. For additional information and State needs, I refer 
you to http://www.great-lakes.net/coastalstates/ for the presentation 
and meeting workbook, and http://www.great-lakes.net/coastalstates/ppt/
summary01.pdf for the final report.
    It is important that the work conducted and needs identified via 
the CSO Science to Management Initiative not just sit on the shelf but 
serve as a vital step toward expanding the dialogue between the 
management and science communities. These needs and recommendations can 
be turned into action by directing research dollars towards answering 
the managers questions, incorporating the managers' needs into on-going 
Great Lakes land use, habitat, and restoration strategies and 
initiatives such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, and 
ensuring that those responsible for shaping the development of the 
Great Lakes Observation System take into consideration the needs of 
coastal managers as they make data collection and resource allocation 
decisions.

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

    The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) has been a 
cooperative and unifying activity for the Great Lakes science, 
management, business, and advocacy community. In my nineteen years of 
coastal management, this was the first time that all the levels of 
government and private stakeholders came together to craft a 
comprehensive Strategy for restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. As 
Chief of a state program with a long and productive record of 
protecting and restoring coastal habitats, improving coastal water 
quality, and promoting sustainable use of Great Lakes coastal 
resources, it is heartening to see a rising level of energy and 
interest among such a broad base of stakeholders.
    In commenting on the Strategy, I want to say that I appreciate the 
inclusive approach used in developing it, and also want to commend 
everyone involved who worked so hard to synthesize the information that 
was collected and prioritized the many recommendations proposed. The 
strengths of the Strategy are that it builds upon and reinforces 
existing efforts, provides a set of common and consensus-based goals 
for protection and restoration, focuses attention on the critical 
nature of the near-shore and tributary areas, identifies concrete 
activities for action, and recommends the funding needed to address the 
challenges facing the region.
    The Collaboration partners have presented the region, and the 
Nation, with an unprecedented opportunity to take action now to protect 
and restore this national treasure. While all of the Collaboration 
partners face budgetary constraints, and restoration of the Great Lakes 
will necessarily occur over many years, it is vital that definitive 
action commence soon to advance the goals of the Collaboration. Whether 
and how this Strategy is implemented will be a measure of our success 
for generations to come.
    I offer the following as steps and actions to consider as we move 
forward:

          Develop an Implementation Plan. An implementation 
        plan is needed to prioritize the actions listed in the 
        Strategy. A priority list will assist government and private 
        partners in determining how to allocate existing resources, and 
        provide a framework for targeting new funding. The 
        implementation plan should be scalable so that, as new funds 
        are appropriated, it is clear which projects will be funded 
        first. The implementation plan should also identify how the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration, and other federal agencies will 
        allocate their resources and technical assistance to help 
        achieve the Strategy goals.

          Maintain and Expand Communication Networks. The 
        Strategy catalyzed the establishment of communication networks 
        in the region. These communication networks should be 
        maintained and expanded to bring in new partners and 
        stakeholders. Communication helps encourage partners to buy in 
        to the Strategy and its recommendations. Buy-in will be crucial 
        for ensuring the partners apply their resources toward 
        achieving the Strategy objectives.

          Increase Short- and Long-term Monitoring. Monitoring 
        is an essential component of the Strategy, and is a means of 
        improving our basic understanding of the Great Lakes as well as 
        a tool for tracking progress and measuring the Strategy's 
        effectiveness. Among the states, there is a strong need for 
        consistent and sustained collection of data and increased 
        understanding of emerging environmental trends.

          Focus on the Nearshore, and Tributary Areas. The 
        tributaries to the Great Lakes and nearshore areas are among 
        the most biologically productive and diverse coastal habitats. 
        They also are highly vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts. The 
        Strategy highlights the influence of nearshore activities on 
        the health and integrity of Great Lakes ecosystems. 
        Consequently, recommendations benefiting the nearshore and 
        tributary areas should be foremost among implementation 
        priorities.

          Interpret and Communicate Science to Coastal 
        Managers. There is a perception that coastal managers are 
        managing resources with the best available science. This is not 
        the case. In fact, many Great Lakes states often do not have 
        access to the type of data or resources available to coastal 
        ocean states. In Michigan, for example, we don't have LIDAR 
        images of our coasts. LIDAR provides coastal resource managers 
        with three dimensional images of shoreline bathymetry. That 
        tool is crucial in the management of coastal erosion, sand dune 
        protection, and forecasting capabilities. There is a need to 
        increase coordination between resource managers and the science 
        community, develop mechanisms that direct science and federal 
        research dollars towards managers' priorities, and to deliver 
        relevant scientific findings in useful formats.

          Ensure the Great Lakes Observation Systems also 
        address biological and ecological parameters. The Regional 
        Association should continue to include coastal managers in 
        setting research and funding priorities. It will also be 
        critical to find a way to interpret and disseminate the data 
        that is collected. Resource managers are not equipped to use 
        the fire-hose of raw data that will be collected by these new 
        systems.

          Finally, there will have to be new funding to 
        implement the GLRC recommendations. Even when existing programs 
        are used, the Strategy will only be a success if new and 
        considerable resources are applied.

Recommendations for the House Science Committee

    To assist in carrying out the Strategy and ensure that relevant 
science is available to coastal managers, the House Science Committee 
may consider the following actions:

          Work with the states and Coastal States Organization 
        in strengthening communication channels between the science and 
        management communities;

          Continue periodic oversight hearings on (1) the 
        coordination of federal research dollars to answer coastal 
        management questions, and (2) implementation of the Strategy;

          Insert in a fiscal appropriation bill language that 
        directs the Great Lakes to develop an implementation plan which 
        prioritizes activities under the Strategy and is scalable based 
        upon available and new resources;

          Partner with the states and other constituents to 
        enact H.R. 5100 and secure new funds to implement the Strategy.

Conclusion

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for this 
opportunity to testify on a topic of great importance to the Great 
Lakes coastal management community. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you or others on the Subcommittee may have.

               Biography for Catherine Cunningham Ballard
    Catherine Cunningham Ballard holds a B.S. in Resource Development 
from Michigan State University, where she also attended graduate 
school. She is Chief of the Michigan Coastal Management Program, 
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. As the Program Chief, Ms. 
Ballard develops policy and distributes funds for protecting, 
restoring, and promoting appropriate, sustainable use of Michigan's 
Great Lakes coastal resources. Ms. Ballard has a strong interest in 
land use and growth management issues at the State and national level.
    Ms. Ballard was recently appointed to the Ocean Studies Board of 
the National Academy of Sciences Committee charged with review of the 
Ocean Research Priorities Plan, developed by the Joint Subcommittee on 
Ocean Science and Technology. She also recently joined the Advisory 
Board of the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine 
Environmental Technology, a partnership between NOAA and the University 
of New Hampshire. Ms. Ballard is President of the Michigan Chapter of 
the American Planning Association, on the Executive Committee and Chair 
of the Coastal Water Quality and Land Use Committee, Coastal States 
Organization, on the Board of Directors for the Land Information Access 
Association, a non-profit that encourages public participation and 
access to geo-spatial information and technology. She also serves on 
the Advisory Committees of the Great Lakes Water Studies Institute and 
Great Lakes Nonprofit Institute at Northwestern Michigan College, Board 
of Directors of the Michigan Lighthouse Project and Michigan Lighthouse 
Fund, and Alumni Board of Directors, College of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources, Michigan State University. Recent past service includes 
participation in a NOAA Coastal Services Center Blue Ribbon Panel. In 
2003, Ms. Ballard received the ``Outstanding State Official'' Award 
from the Michigan Association of Regions.

    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much.
    Dr. Steinman.

   STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN D. STEINMAN, DIRECTOR, ANNIS WATER 
       RESOURCES INSTITUTE, GRANT VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Steinman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
the invitation to appear before you and testify with regard to 
restoration activities in the Great Lakes today.
    My name is Alan Steinman. I'm the Director of the Annis 
Water Resources Institute located in Muskegon, Michigan. And 
it's a part of Grand Valley State University. On behalf of the 
University, I welcome you.
    Prior to moving to Michigan, I was intimately involved with 
the restoration of the Florida Everglades, having served as the 
Director of the Lake Okeechobee Restoration Program for the 
South Florida Water Management District. My current position, I 
oversee an academic institution that's involved in a variety of 
restoration projects in the Great Lakes. And I was personally 
involved in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration having served on 
three of the strategy teams.
    I want to preface my responses by saying that as a 
scientist and as administrator at a public university, and 
economically depressed state, I fully understand the importance 
of prioritizing our actions based upon existing resources. 
However, given the national and global importance of the Great 
Lakes, I believe a more appropriate question to be asking us is 
what three recommendations should be implemented, not what 
could be implemented based on existing resources. However, I am 
a pragmatist. And in the spirit of answering the questions as 
posed, in my opinion, the top three priorities for Great Lakes 
restoration are, one, controlling the introduction of aquatic 
invasive species; two, protecting the nearshore and coastal 
waters of the Great Lakes, and three, addressing the problems 
associated with nonpoint source pollution.
    What can we do with existing resources? To aquatic invasive 
species, we need to take a long, hard look at whether ocean 
shipping in the Great Lakes makes economic sense. And if the 
answer is no, whether this policy should be altered.
    For protecting nearshore and coastal waters, we can, one, 
promulgate and enforce appropriate regulatory and incentive-
based programs to control the sources throughout the Great 
Lakes. And, secondly, implement an information and education 
program for the general public.
    And for nonpoint source pollution, we can implement a 
basin-wide phosphorus ban and lawn fertilizer in all regions 
where soil tests indicate that additional phosphorus is not 
necessary.
    What can be done if we had more resources? For aquatic 
invasives, we need to develop a comprehensive monitoring system 
throughout the Great Lakes to detect the introduction, 
establishment and spread of new invasives. And, secondly, we 
need to invest in research to determine the anticipated, and 
more importantly, the unanticipated impacts of these species.
    For coastal health, we need to replace and upgrade our 
sanitary infrastructure. This is a real problem Great Lakes 
where many of our systems are old and failing.
    And for nonpoint source pollution, we need to restore our 
wetlands and repairing buffers which serve as the kidneys for 
the Great Lakes, and develop and implement comprehensive 
nutrient management plans on our farms.
    The Collaboration is still in its infancy. As a 
consequence, it is--it has not yet led to more informed 
resource management planning decisions. But the foundation is 
in place for it to do so in the future. I'm a strong proponent 
for making sure science has a place at the decision-making 
table--something I'm sure you appreciate. However, my 
experiences during the Everglades restoration process convinced 
me that, one, decisions will be made irrespective whether 
scientists are in the room or not. And, secondly, how the 
science is presented to the policy-makers makes an enormous 
difference on whether the scientifically-based recommendations 
are implemented. The Collaboration has the potential to be a 
critical driver in melding science and policy, but it needs 
time to develop and mature.
    With respect to your third question, strategy does not 
presently help me prioritize my work, but it has the potential 
to do so in the future. Because the recommendations from each 
strategy team were based on key problems already facing the 
Great Lakes, my own research agenda, and many of my colleagues 
were already being driven by these issues. As the strategy 
evolves, and funding streams are identified, it's inevitable 
that priorities will shift to reflect those realities and the 
available funding.
    I think it's absolutely essential that the federal agencies 
not implement the Strategy in a top-down fashion. This type of 
approach will result in enormous delays at best, and complete 
failure at worse. My assessment is based on experience in South 
Florida where during the initial phases of the comprehensive 
Everglade restoration plan, the U.S. Army Corp. of engineers 
adopted a top-down command and control approach to the 
restoration effort. They encountered enormous resistance by 
local communities, municipalities and agencies. This ultimately 
resulted in costly delays if the politics were worked out. The 
strategy teams and Collaboration must be inclusive. Leadership 
roles should not be exclusive to federal partners, and should 
include state agencies, NGO's, and academics in these positions 
as well. And the information must be distributed in an honest 
and transparent manner.
    Based on my experience with the Collaboration on the 
Everglades, the biggest challenges, implementing the Strategy 
will be eight-fold. First, we need to generate the credible 
peer review science on which to base actions. Fortunately we 
have much of this information already in hand. Second, we need 
to manage the information that's generated--the fire hose as 
Cathie refers to it. Third, we need to adopt a holistic 
approach. Fourth, we need to obtain the public buy-in. Fifth, 
we need to secure long-term, dedicated funding. Six, we need to 
build an adaptive framework into this process. Seven, we need 
to develop a meaningful evaluation and accountability process. 
And, finally, we need to avoid turf battles.
    My expectations for the Strategy over the next year are 
modest. I hope that we will see the development of a formal 
process with an organizational structure. And strategy teams 
will be prioritizing their actions, identifying mechanisms to 
procure the necessary funding, developing a series of 
conceptual models to determine how their goals align within the 
Great Lakes as a whole, and among the other strategy teams, and 
laying a common ground work with our elected officials to 
engage their support.
    In summary, I hope these examples and lessons learned, 
which were based on ``my personal experience'' and that of many 
other people involved in restoration throughout this country, 
will help place this issue in a broader, more pragmatic 
context, and be of use to you and your subcommittee. Thank you 
again for the invitation to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Steinman follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Alan D. Steinman
    Good afternoon. My name is Alan Steinman. I am the Director of the 
Annis Water Resources Institute (AWRI) located in Muskegon, Michigan, 
about 30 miles to the west of this building, on the shoreline of the 
Great Lakes. The Institute is part of Grand Valley State University 
(GVSU). Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the 
invitation to appear before you and testify with regard to restoration 
activities in the Great Lakes.
    Prior to moving to the Great Lakes region, I was involved 
intimately in the restoration of the Everglades, having served as the 
Director of the Lake Okeechobee Restoration Program for the South 
Florida Water Management District. In my current position, I oversee an 
academic institution that is involved in a variety of local and 
regional restoration projects dealing with some of the most pressing 
water resource issues facing the Great Lakes, including contaminated 
sediments, impacts of land use change on coastal resources, nonpoint 
source pollution, and invasive species.
    I was directly involved in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
by serving on two strategy teams: 1) nonpoint source pollution, where I 
chaired the nutrient work group; and 2) sustainable development, where 
I served on the water uses work group. In addition, faculty members at 
AWRI served on the aquatic invasive species and habitat conservation 
strategy teams as part of the regional collaboration effort.
    My written testimony today addresses questions focusing on the 
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC). My responses are based on my 
personal experience with the Collaboration and my on-the-ground 
experience of implementing large-scale restoration efforts in south 
Florida.

1)  What are the top three recommendations in the GLRC Strategy that 
you believe could be implemented with existing resources? What 
scientific research, scientific information, or science-base products 
are required to support the implementation of these three 
recommendations? Would your answers be different if funding was 
increased?

    As a scientist and administrator at a public university in an 
economically depressed state, I understand the importance of 
prioritizing actions based upon existing resources. However, given the 
national and global importance of the Great Lakes, I must premise my 
remarks with the observation that I believe it is far more important to 
ask this panel what top three recommendations should be implemented, 
not could be implemented. I am a pragmatic individual, and fully 
understand that resources are limited, but I also believe it is a 
fundamental mistake to prioritize restoration actions based on what our 
current resources allow, as opposed to prioritizing based on the most 
critical needs, and then developing strategies to acquire the necessary 
funds.
    With that caveat in mind, the top three priorities for Great Lakes 
restoration in my opinion are 1) controlling the introduction of 
aquatic invasive species; 2) protecting the nearshore and coastal 
waters of the Great Lakes; and 3) addressing the problems associated 
with nonpoint source pollution. I briefly discuss each of these 
priorities, and associated recommendations based on currently available 
funding.
Aquatic Invasive Species:
    The proliferation of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes is 
changing the way that energy and materials cycle throughout the system. 
There is an enormous wealth of peer-reviewed scientific literature to 
support this finding, and the implications are staggering. In addition 
to the changes in the ecology of the Great Lakes, the economic losses 
in the Great Lakes basin from aquatic invasives were estimated in 2005 
at $5 billion/yr.\1\ This largely reflects costs associated with 
changes in our recreational and commercial fisheries, as well as the 
costs of controlling zebra mussels and sea lampreys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pimental, D. 2005. Aquatic nuisance species in the New York 
State Canal and Hudson River systems and the Great Lakes basin: an 
economic and environmental assessment. Environmental Management 35:1-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of these introductions have occurred through ballast water. 
Clearly, action needs to be taken to control ship-mediated introduction 
of aquatic invasive species. A recent study conducted by John Taylor, a 
colleague of mine from the Seidman College of Business here at Grand 
Valley State University,\2\ concluded that a cessation of ocean 
shipping on the Great Lakes would result in a transportation cost 
penalty of $55 million/yr. Given that the economic losses to the Great 
Lakes associated with aquatic invasive species are estimated to be two 
orders of magnitude larger than the transportation cost penalty, one 
question that should be discussed is whether ocean shipping in the 
Great Lakes continues to make economic sense, and if the answer is no, 
should the policy be changed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Taylor, J.C. and J.L. Roach. 2005. Ocean shipping in the Great 
Lakes: Transportation cost increases that would result from a cessation 
of ocean vessel shipping. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, 
MI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting Nearshore and Coastal Waters:
    The protection of nearshore and coastal waters is critical for two 
reasons. First, from an ecological perspective, these areas serve as an 
important buffer, protecting the open waters of the Great Lakes from 
impairments originating from the land. These nearshore and coastal 
areas, such as coastal wetlands, embayments, drowned river mouth 
systems, and estuaries, serve as kidneys of the Great Lakes, in the 
sense that they filter out pollutants before they reach our open 
waters. Second, these coastal areas are heavily used by humans for 
recreation. When they are impaired, our society suffers economic, 
recreational, and spiritual losses.
    Ultimately, we need to replace and upgrade our sanitary 
infrastructure. However, this is a very expensive program, and local 
dollars are clearly insufficient to meet the needs. I view this 
recommendation as a ``should''; what can be done with existing 
resources is identify the sources of these pollutants impacting coastal 
health, promulgate and enforce appropriate regulatory and incentive-
based programs to control the sources, and implement an information and 
education strategy for the general public. New technologies are being 
developed right now by scientific communities in the Great Lakes to 
improve our abilities to track these sources to their origins. 
Continued funding of these research and development programs, as well 
as incentives for public-private partnerships to commercialize these 
techniques, is absolutely critical if this recommendation is to 
succeed.
Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS)
    Nonpoint source pollution comes from diffuse sources; it flows off 
of lawns, impervious surfaces, and farms, and now contributes more 
pollution to our nation's waterways than point source pollution (that 
coming from discrete sources, such as pipes).\3\ There are five 
nonpoint source pollutants of particular concern in the Great Lakes: 
nutrients, contaminants, pathogens, sedimentation, and altered flow 
regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N. 
Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters 
with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8:559-568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The recommendations in the GLRC Strategy dealing with NPS all 
require the infusion of new dollars to restore wetlands and riparian 
buffers, reduce soil loss, develop and implement nutrient management 
plans on farms, and improve the hydrology of select watersheds. These 
are critical implementation projects, but again fall in the ``should'' 
category; it is important that they be developed in a coordinated and 
logical fashion. In the interim, a basin-wide phosphorus ban in lawn 
fertilizer in all regions where soil tests indicate that additional 
phosphorus is not needed, could be implemented quickly, at minimal 
cost, and begin the process of reducing NPS pollution in the Great 
Lakes.

2)  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management planning 
decisions? What kinds of scientific information are now being taken 
into account in those decisions because of the GLRC? To what extent has 
the GLRC helped foster new or stronger collaboration between scientists 
and policy-makers? What is your role in strengthening the relationship 
between scientists and policy-makers?

    The GLRC is still in its infancy. The process of having over 1,500 
people, from diverse sectors and backgrounds, working together to draft 
a Strategy for the long-term sustainability of the Great Lakes was, in 
itself, an incredibly informative experience. Has it led to more 
informed resource management planning decisions? From my vantage point, 
no--not yet. But the foundation is in place for the GLRC to make that 
happen in the future. The Strategy can be thought of a skeleton, to 
which some flesh and blood have now been added. However, the animation 
of the Strategy is yet to come.
    I believe there has been a growing recognition that collaboration 
between scientists and policy-makers is a win-win situation. It is 
critical that scientists present information to policy-makers in an 
understandable and real-world fashion; however, it is also incumbent on 
policy-makers that they understand scientific information is imperfect 
and often fraught with uncertainty. The GLRC has the potential to be a 
critical driver in this process, but the Collaboration needs time to 
develop and mature.
    There are many new initiatives in Michigan that are working on the 
scientist-policy-maker collaboration. For example, the Water Resource 
Fellows\4\ that was started last year at Michigan State University was 
designed to shape water policy in Michigan and evaluate the role of 
science in that process. Michigan Sea Grant is funding projects based 
on an Integrated Assessment approach,\5\ whereby existing scientific 
information is assessed through a formal decision-making process to 
answer policy or management questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ http://www.environment.msu.edu/water/
    \5\ http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/ia/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, many of the projects conducted at the Annis Water 
Resources Institute\6\ at GVSU are designed explicitly to deliver 
scientifically-defensible alternatives to decision-makers, so that they 
can make the best informed decisions possible. Examples include a 
watershed-based interactive tool (WIT) for local decision-makers, 
educators, and stakeholders of the Lower Grand River Watershed that 
shows how everyday activities influence water quality in the region.\7\ 
This tool incorporates information from management plans, as well as 
materials on the natural history of the Lower Grand River Watershed 
(LGRW), interactive maps of the LGRW, general watershed concepts, 
lesson plans for watershed education, and information on how everyday 
activities can affect water quality in the LGRW. The WIT also can help 
local units of government and non-profit entities in writing their own 
nonpoint source management plan. This type of tool helps us address two 
of the top priorities affecting the Great Lakes: nearshore ecological 
health and nonpoint source pollution. AWRI is also involved in 
addressing how best to control phosphorus in our aquatic ecosystems. 
Phosphorus is a key element responsible for algal blooms. Recently, the 
frequency of these blooms, and in particular, potentially toxic 
cyanobacterial blooms, has been increasing in the Great Lakes basin.\8\ 
Our studies have explored ways to reduce phosphorus from the watershed, 
as well as in-lake management strategies.\9\ Finally, legacies of 
contaminated sediment continue to plague the ecological health in 
portions of the Great Lakes. In Muskegon County alone, we have two 
Areas of Concern. Studies at AWRI, identifying the toxic chemicals and 
their degree of toxicity, have been instrumental in helping catalyze 
the remediation of Tannery Bay in White Lake and Ruddiman Creek in 
Muskegon Lake.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ http://www.gvsu.edu/wri/
    \7\ http://www.gvsu.edu/wri/isc/index.cfm?id=C8931AA2-EA91-B9B9-
8DB821BC1ACF8A05
    \8\ http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Centers/HumanHealth/hab/
EventResponse/
    \9\ Steinman, A., R. Rediske, and K.R. Reddy. 2004. The reduction 
of internal phosphorus loading using alum in Spring Lake, Michigan. 
Journal of Environmental Quality 33:2040-2048.
    \10\ http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/whitelake/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am a strong proponent of making sure science has a place at the 
decision-making table. My experiences in south Florida with the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) convinced me that 1) 
decisions will be made irrespective of whether scientists are in the 
room or not, and 2) how the science is presented to policy-makers makes 
an enormous difference in whether the scientifically-based 
recommendations are implemented. As a consequence, I work closely with 
my local, State, and federal elected officials to keep them updated on 
key findings, and stay engaged in these initiatives.

3)  Does the Strategy effectively reflect your needs and help you to 
prioritize your work? Are there additional actions EPA and other 
federal agencies should be taking to help implement the GLRC?

    Not at present, but it has the strong potential to do so in the 
future. Because the formation of the Strategy teams and the 
recommendations from each team were predicated on the largest perceived 
problems facing the Great Lakes, both my own research agenda and that 
of staff at AWRI already were driven by these issues, and I suspect 
this was the case for most other scientists in the region. As the 
Strategy evolves, and funding streams are identified, it is inevitable 
that priorities will shift to reflect those realities.
    It is absolutely essential that the federal agencies not implement 
the Strategy in a purely top-down fashion. This type of approach will 
result in enormous delays at best, and in complete failure at worst. My 
assessment is based on experience in south Florida, where during the 
initial phases of CERP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted a top-
down, command-and-control approach to the restoration effort, and 
encountered resistance by local communities and agencies. This 
ultimately resulted in costly delays as the politics were worked out. 
The Strategy Teams must be inclusive, leadership roles should not be 
exclusive to federal partners (i.e., include State and local agencies, 
NGOs, academics in those positions, as well), and information must be 
distributed in an honest and transparent manner. Information control is 
a form of power, and failure to disseminate information erodes the 
collegiality and trust that will be essential if these teams are to 
implement the recommendations in a thoughtful and meaningful manner.

4)  What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing the 
Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting science and information 
needs?

    As noted in my written testimony of May, 2004 to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, the biggest challenges associated with implementing the 
Strategy are very similar to those encountered with other large-scale 
ecosystem restoration projects. Successful restoration programs must 
address more than the science of the system, although that is clearly 
an essential component. Based on my experience, the biggest challenges 
are the following:

        1)  Generating the credible, peer-reviewed science on which to 
        base actions

        2)  Knowledge management

        3)  Adopting a holistic approach

        4)  Obtaining public buy-in

        5)  Securing long-term dedicated funding

        6)  Building an adaptive framework into the process

        7)  Developing a meaningful evaluation and accountability 
        process

        8)  Avoidance of turf battles

    Credible, Peer-Reviewed Science: There is often an innate distaste 
from funding agencies, elected officials, and the public for more 
``studies.'' Understandably, people want to see tangible action, dirt 
turned, and on-the-ground results. However, it is critical that these 
activities be predicated on scientific results that have withstood the 
rigors of peer-review. The up-front investment in this scientific 
information, assuming that the experimental design, scientific 
analysis, and conclusions are vetted and peer-reviewed, will pay 
dividends many times over in the long-run by minimizing the likelihood 
that ineffective or inappropriate actions will be taken.
    Knowledge Management: There is a wealth of information currently 
being generated in the Great Lakes basin. Some of it is coordinated, 
but much of it is not. Major challenges associated with this issue 
include (1) prioritizing what information is most essential for the 
restoration effort (conceptual models can help kick-start this 
process); (2) developing and implementing the appropriate database 
management system; (3) maintaining and updating the database; and (4) 
making the database user-friendly.
    Holistic Approach: Large-scale restoration efforts often require a 
team of experts to successfully implement a project. For example, one 
of the recommendations to control nonpoint source pollution is to 
restore hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands. Determining the 
best location for restoration requires that hydrologists, chemists, 
producers, modelers, and ecologists collaborate to identify the optimum 
soil type, flow patterns, and biotic sensitivity. In addition, planners 
and engineers are needed to integrate the sites with existing 
infrastructure and to design the projects. Real estate experts and 
lawyers may be needed to conduct and finalize the land transactions. 
Clearly, the public must be behind the project as well, or success is 
unlikely (see below).
    Public Buy-in: Ultimately, ecosystem restoration projects that do 
not have the approval and backing of the general public are doomed to 
failure. Getting public support is more than just including them in the 
early planning stages of a proposed project; it involves communicating 
with them in a language they can understand, outlining the entire 
restoration process, and providing honest input on both the 
uncertainties of success\11\ and the cost estimates associated with the 
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Peterson, G.D., S.R. Carpenter, and W.A. Brock. 2003. 
Uncertainty and the management of multi-state ecosystems: an apparently 
rational route to collapse. Ecology 84:1403-1411; and Steinman, A.D., 
K.E. Havens, and L. Hornung. 2002. The managed recession of Lake 
Okeechobee, Florida: integrating science and natural resource 
management. Conservation Ecology 6(2):17. [online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Long-Term Dedicated Funding: Ecosystem restoration projects come in 
all shapes and sizes, and with varying price tags. However, large 
projects, which transcend multiple jurisdictions and involve many 
disciplines, such as in south Florida or in the Great Lakes, are 
expensive. To maintain momentum and sustain interest in the project, 
especially when projects are controversial and litigation is a threat, 
it is critical that the partners recognize that funding sources are not 
ephemeral.
    Adaptive Management: No project goes according to plan. Ecosystems 
are notoriously stochastic in their responses, so it is particularly 
important that flexibility be built into the restoration plan. Adaptive 
management involves assessing the data collected during the restoration 
process, comparing how the system is responding to the anticipated 
results, and fine-tuning the restoration activities to meet the 
restoration goals.
    Evaluation and Accountability: Large-scale restoration projects 
attract considerable attention because of their visibility, funding 
requirements, and need to balance competing demands for the resources 
at stake. It is critical that a rigorous evaluation process be 
established to assess the success of the project and to provide 
accountability to the public and scientific community at-large.
    Turf Battles: Given the number of parties already established in 
the region, it will be a tremendous challenge to foster a cooperative, 
collaborative environment. Federal and State governmental agencies have 
largely driven the process to date; it is essential that these entities 
reach out to academic institutions, NGOs, local officials, tribal 
governments, and other entities.

5)  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a result of 
implementing the GLRC Strategy?

    My expectations are modest, to be quite honest. My hope is that we 
would see the development of a formal process, with an organizational 
structure, to the GLRC Strategy. Assuming this structure parallels what 
has been developed to date, these Strategy Teams would be prioritizing 
their actions, identifying mechanisms to procure the necessary funding, 
developing a series of conceptual models to determine how their goals 
align within the Great Lakes as a whole and among other Teams, and 
laying a common groundwork with elected officials and engaging their 
support.

Summary

    The Great Lakes ecosystem provides an enormous number of services 
and functions to the region. It is currently facing a variety of 
stresses and pressures, which should be addressed through a 
comprehensive, coordinated ecosystem restoration plan. Although 
ecosystem restoration is still far from being an exact science, there 
are certain elements whose inclusion is strongly recommended in order 
to ensure the greatest chance of success. These include involving the 
public in a substantive way, basing restoration activities on sound 
science, being inclusive during plan development and implementation, 
retaining a flexible approach, and building accountability into the 
process.
    I hope that the examples and lessons learned presented here, which 
are based on my personal experience and that of many other dedicated 
people, will help place this issue in a broader and more pragmatic 
context, and be of use to you and the Subcommittee. Thank you again for 
the invitation to appear today.

    Mr. Ehlers: Well, thank you, very much for your testimony.
    Dr. Scavia.

 STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD SCAVIA, PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE DEAN, 
 SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT; DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN 
   SEA GRANT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE 
            HEALING OUR WATERS GREAT LAKES COALITION

    Dr. Scavia: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify with you today. As you mentioned earlier, I am a 
professor of natural resources at the University of Michigan, 
and Michigan Sea Grant Director. But today I'm representing the 
Healing Our Waters Coalition. The Coalition is dedicated to the 
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. And represents 
85 national, regional, State and local organizations. And I 
serve as a senior science advisor to the Coalition's steering 
committee.
    Mr. Ehlers: Could I ask you to pull your mic a little bit 
closer to your mouth?
    Dr. Scavia: Sure. Before joining the faculty at the 
University of Michigan, I served in NOAA as a research 
scientist and research manager for 29 years. Providing me with 
a national perspective on the significance of the Great Lakes--
something you are battling day-to-day--the need for restoration 
strategy, and the role science can play in restoration.
    My testimony today focuses on four areas. One, the need to 
act now to protect the natural resources. The, second, to set 
priorities identified by State and academic scientific 
communities. Third, the need for strong science-based for the 
restoration. And, fourth, the critical role for an independent 
voice that the Great Lakes universities can provide.
    A significant portion of my testimony derives directly from 
the white paper that has been endorsed by over 60 leading 
scientists across the Great Lakes basin. This paper, a 
Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and 
Restoration (Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible 
Changes), is included as part of my written testimony.
    This paper points out that the Great Lakes may be nearing a 
tipping point. Beyond which, the ecosystems may move into a new 
state, one that is less desirable from a recreational, 
commercial and esthesic perspective. And, more importantly, one 
from which it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to 
recover.
    Similar concerns have been raised by ocean environments in 
a document (inaudible). However, the Great Lakes are probably 
more vulnerable than the oceans because they are relatively 
closed and evolutionarily younger, ill-prepared systems, ill-
prepared to deal with these large fluctuations and stress. As 
mentioned earlier, this food web destruction is a particular 
point--case in point for the tipping point. The NOAA 
documentation of the loss of the bottom dwelling animal 
Diporeia is a really important case here. This dramatic decline 
is likely to lend to the invasions of the zebra and quagga 
muscles. And may be one of the clearest warning signs that the 
lakes are moving into a regime (inaudible) muscles and high 
populations and prevent any substantial recovery. In fact, Dave 
Jude, a colleague of mine from the University of Michigan told 
me just this week that for the first time he has found enormous 
numbers of quagga muscles in Lake Michigan at depths where only 
a few or none had been found before. At 100 meter depths he 
pulled up between 600 to 700 pounds of quagga muscles in just a 
ten minute bottom trawl. So many members of the fish community 
depend on Diporeia, but their replacement with this lower food 
quality muscles may result in a tipping of the entire ecosystem 
towards a whole new food web structure of far less value to 
society.
    However, the problem with tipping points, particularly 
ecological tipping points, is that you can't be sure if you 
have reached it until you have gotten there. So we really urge 
precautionary approach to avoid the tipping point and act now.
    The Subcommittee asked us to identify three top 
recommendations for the Collaboration. In our view, the top 
three, like Al's, are, one, to stop introduction to new 
invasive species. Two, to restore the nearshore ecosystems, 
including the watersheds, tributaries, and connecting rivers 
and straits to increase the ability of the Great Lakes' 
ecosystems to mitigate stress. And, three, to reduce the loads 
of nonpoint source pollution.
    My written testimony provides rationale for these three 
priorities. But the short version for invasive species is that 
prevention is about the only really effective way of dealing 
with the issue. Once invasive species establish significant 
populations in the Great Lakes, there is little that can be 
done to control them or their impacts.
    The rationale for focusing on reference to restore 
watersheds, tributaries and the nearshore is that it will never 
be possible to completely eliminate the stresses. So we need to 
help the lakes help themselves by restoring the natural ability 
to cope with and self-mitigate stress. That buffering system, 
focusing on the watersheds and nearshore has been lost in many 
places, and it needs to be restored.
    The focus on pollution from the resources is critical. 
These sources, particularly land-based ones, are not now 
accurately addressing the regulatory processes, and are key 
destructions of ecosystems (inaudible).
    The Subcommittee also asked us to identify scientific 
research information and products that are required for 
implementation. While investing in long-range basic research is 
important, and such investments in the Great Lakes 
significantly lag behind those in the marine environments, 
these investments need to complement science that directly 
supports restoration.
    We recommend a science plan with three broad complements--
integrative assessment, monitoring, and restoration innovation. 
Integrated assessments are designed to harvest the decades of 
monitoring the research output, integrate and synthesize that 
information, and deliver the results in ways that are 
accessible to decision-makers. These assessments not only draw 
on talents and subject matter of experts, but also engage the 
broader stakeholder communities in defining boundaries, 
integrating traditional knowledge, and identifying socially 
acceptable options. The results are peer reviewed and subject 
to public comment, but the process should be supported by funds 
independent of those with vested interests in any particular 
solution.
    This approach has been actually effective in a number of 
areas, including the causes and consequences of hypoxia in the 
Gulf of Mexico, an assessment that was mandated by your Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act that led to a federal-State-tribal 
Action Plan for reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico.
    We have made integrative assessment a priority for Michigan 
Sea Grant. And are hoping other programs, including federal 
programs, model it.
    The second priority is monitoring, which, of course, is 
essential for identifying emerging issues and tracking 
restoration. Most managers and scientists now have raised the 
notion of adaptive management, where adjustments in approaches 
are made as restoration proceeds. Without effective monitoring 
geared towards tracking progress at the right scales, adaptive 
management is not possible. Effective monitoring in this 
context must be done in scales that are relative to local and 
State decision-makers, as well as federal policy-makers. 
Therefore, priority should be placed on the nearshore 
terrestrial and aquatic regions, and support the State agencies 
and academic community to add detail--spatial detail to the 
traditional lake and regional-scale federal efforts.
    The third component is restoration innovation. Invest in 
new ways to deal with existing and emerging threats and new 
cost effective technologies for restoration, including new ways 
to detect threats, new ecosystem forecasting tools, new 
restoration technologies, and ways to reduce uncertainties with 
future integrated assessments.
    It's easy to identify these needs; their solutions are much 
harder to predict, and are best sought after investing in 
nurturing the skills and talents of Great Lakes scientists, 
particularly through the universities.
    The Subcommittee also asked to identify the biggest 
challenge implementation. And I think we have all said the same 
thing, it's the money. We need money for implementation. I 
would like to suggest a significant rule of thumb, that ten 
percent of the investment in restoration ought to go to the 
science base to support that restoration.
    I would like to close with a comment on the particular role 
of universities. This might appear a bit self-serving from 
where I sit now, but I hope my 20 years in federal service 
balances that to some extent.
    During the 1960s, '70s and '80s, the Great Lakes community 
was well supported and provided important complimentary science 
to the agency science. I know this first hand because I worked 
in a Great Lakes federal lab between 1957 and '90. During that 
time, academic research and modeling played important roles in 
guiding nutrient (inaudible) and reduced algal overgrowth and 
increased water clarity; sea lamprey controls that allowed 
rebounds in fish population, habitat protection that is leading 
to the recoveries of native species, like Lake Superior lake 
trout and bald eagles.
    However, at a time when the need for science-based support 
for management policy decisions of the Great Lakes is more--
most important, the research community is in decline. An aging 
work force is now being replaced by young scientists. Old and 
outdated scientific tools and facilities are not being 
upgraded. Funding for federal and State science agencies are 
not keeping up with inflation. And critically important funding 
for the Great Lakes academic community is becoming scarce, 
resulting in a significant loss of Great Lakes researchers from 
our universities. We simply need more support from the academic 
community. To be most effective, academic work needs to be 
independent, based on competition and peer review, and well-
funded. There are existing federal programs that do that in 
ways that are connected to the federal and State sciences, but 
handmaiden to it. Those include NOAA's Center for Sponsored 
Coastal Ocean Research, Great Lakes Sea Grant programs, EPA's 
Science to Achieve Results programs. These programs have 
missions that complement each other and the federal labs. They 
have established processes for engaging the academic community 
and administering grants. However, they need more funding and 
more encouragement to expand their programs into the Great 
Lakes.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to address your subcommittee. Thank you for your 
leadership on this endeavor. But most particularly thank you 
for keeping science on the table. It's really important. 
Without strong science-based restoration, it would be less 
effective and more costly to the taxpayers. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Scavia follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Donald Scavia
    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this 
opportunity to testify before you today on this issue of critical 
national importance. My name is Don Scavia, and I come here in several 
capacities: I am Professor of Natural Resources and Environment and 
Associate Dean at the University of Michigan, and Director of Michigan 
Sea Grant.
    I also represent the Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition. The 
coalition is dedicated to the protection and restoration of the Great 
Lakes, and represents 85 national, regional, State, and local 
organizations, including Great Lakes conservation organizations such as 
the Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United, and the Ohio 
Environmental Council; national conservation organizations like Ducks 
Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, the Sierra Club, and the Audubon Society; 
and educational institutions such as Shedd Aquarium and the Brookfield 
Zoo. I serve as Science Advisor to the Coalition's Steering Committee.
    Before joining the faculty at UM, I served in NOAA as a research 
scientist and research manager for 29 years, providing me with a 
national perspective on the significance of the Great Lakes, the need 
for the restoration strategy, and the role science can play in that 
restoration.
    My testimony today focuses on four areas: 1) the need to act now to 
protect these national treasures; 2) a set of priorities identified by 
scientific community in their white paper: ``A Prescription for Great 
Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration,'' 3) the need for a strong 
science base for restoration, and 4) the critical role for an 
independent voice that Great Lakes universities can provide.

It is critical to act now

    The view from the majority of the science community is that we know 
enough now to take action. There are indeed important science needs, 
but they should not create a rationale for inaction. Making a 
substantial investment in the Great Lakes restoration and protection 
now will ensure that the economic and ecological health of the Great 
Lakes region is strong and healthy. This is not only of great 
importance to the region, but also to the Nation. Delaying that 
investment will make future actions far more costly and could result in 
irreversible damage to this national and global treasure.
    A significant portion of my testimony draws directly from the white 
paper: Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and 
Restoration: Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes,\1\ 
which I include as part of my testimony. The paper was written by eight 
scientists and endorsed by over 60 other leading scientists from every 
state in the Great Lakes basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ http://www.restorethelakes.org/PrescriptionforGreatLakes.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The authors and endorsers of the white paper point out that Great 
Lakes ecosystems may be nearing a tipping point--beyond which the lake 
ecosystems would move to a new state, one that is less desirable from a 
recreational, commercial, and aesthetic perspective and, more 
importantly, one from which it will be very difficult, if not 
impossible, to recover. The problem with ecological tipping points, 
though, is that you cannot be sure you have reached it until it is too 
late. Thus, we urge a precautionary approach to avoid passing that 
critical point.
    In another consensus report (Scientific Consensus on Marine 
Ecosystem-Based Management) \2\ over 200 scientists cautioned against 
reaching thresholds beyond which altered marine ecosystems may not 
return to their previous states. In that report, they also state that 
because the tipping point for these irreversible changes may be 
impossible to predict, increased levels of precaution are prudent. 
While the same ecological principles cited for the world's oceans apply 
to the Great Lakes, the lakes may be even less able to cope with stress 
than typical coastal marine environments because the Lakes are 
relatively closed and evolutionarily younger systems ill-adapted to 
large fluctuations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://compassonline.org/files/inline/
EBM%20Consensus%20Statement-FINAL-July%2012-
v12.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Symptoms of stress

    There is widespread agreement among scientists that the Great Lakes 
are exhibiting symptoms of stress from toxic chemicals, invasive 
species, excess nutrients, shoreline modifications, change in land use, 
hydrologic alterations, and climate change. While most of these 
stresses are not new, more than ever we are seeing symptoms of 
ecosystem breakdown--in other words an ecosystem nearing its ``tipping 
point''--caused by the combinations of these stresses that overwhelm 
natural buffering capacities that enable ecosystems to be resilient. 
Large areas in the lakes are undergoing rapid changes where these 
combinations of persistent and new stresses are interacting to trigger 
synergistic ecosystem degradation. Rapid ecological responses to new 
stresses that may interact with each other and with remnant features of 
past responses to older stresses, have exhibited sudden and unpredicted 
changes in the past five to 10 years, to an extent that is unique in 
Great Lakes' recorded history. The new stresses have complicated past 
and current efforts to remediate earlier harmful phenomena, such as:

          Extirpation or major declines in important native 
        species (such as lake trout and deepwater ciscoes) due to over 
        fishing and invasive species (such as sea lamprey predation on 
        lake trout, and competition with deepwater ciscoes by invasive 
        alewives and rainbow smelt);

          Declines in other valued and important native aquatic 
        species (including certain plankton, unionid clams, and certain 
        native fish species) caused by altered food webs and 
        introductions of aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra and 
        quagga mussels, round gobies and predatory zooplankton such as 
        Bythotrephes cederstroemi and Cercopagis pengoi (two species of 
        water fleas);

          Widespread reproductive failures of keystone, 
        heritage, and other (both native and introduced) fish species, 
        including lake trout, sturgeon, lake herring, coaster brook 
        trout, and Atlantic and Pacific salmon caused by toxic 
        contamination and loss of habitat, including loss of over 90 
        percent of wetlands along the Huron/Erie corridor;

          Approximately 50 percent of the threatened and 
        endangered birds are wetland dependent species, and no wonder 
        given the estimated 60 percent loss of wetlands in the Great 
        Lakes watershed;

          Toxic contamination of fish threatens not only the 
        species themselves, but also other wildlife and people, 
        resulting in fish consumption advisories throughout the Great 
        Lakes and inland lakes and rivers;

          General reduction in water quality, increased toxic 
        algal blooms, Type E botulism in fish and waterfowl, and 
        contamination of drinking water;

          Fouling of coastlines and near-shore areas from 
        sewage overflows and contaminated runoff, resulting in beach 
        closings, and loss of habitat for fish and waterfowl;

          Elimination of the rooted plant community and 
        disruption of food webs in Sandusky Bay and Cootes Paradise in 
        Hamilton Harbour, due to sediment and other pollutant loads.

    Critical food-web disruptions are a particular case in point with 
regard to the tipping point. These disruptions date back to at least 
the invasion of the sea lamprey and the cascade of loss of native 
fishes and invasions of alewife, rainbow smelt, and a host of others.
    However, more recent dramatic disruptions include the now well-
documented rapid disappearance of the once abundant benthic 
invertebrate, Diporeia, from large areas of all the lakes except 
Superior. These dramatic declines are likely linked quite closely with 
the zebra and quagga mussel invasion, and may be one of the clearest 
warning signs of a tipping point where the Lakes may be moving into a 
new regime where these mussels maintain high populations, and prevent 
any substantial recovery of Diporeia, the once primary diet of 
important fish. In fact, Dave Jude--my colleague at the University of 
Michigan told me just this week that for the first time he has found 
enormous numbers of quagga mussels in Lake Michigan at depths where 
only few or none were found before. At a 100-meter depth, he pulled up 
between 600 and 700 pounds of quagga mussels in just a 10 minute bottom 
trawl tow. So many members of the fish community have historically 
depended on Diporeia that lacking this critical food source is another 
clear indicator of the ecosystem reaching a tipping point.

Restoration Priorities

    The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (``GLRC'') has done an 
outstanding job of identifying the major stresses, and their 
recommendations for addressing them come just in time. The 
Collaboration is truly an historic event in two important respects. 
First, it is the first time that all levels of government and virtually 
all private stakeholders have come together to draft and support a 
single Great Lakes restoration plan, the ``Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration Strategy.'' Over 1,500 people participated in the 
drafting of the final plan, including representatives from cities, 
counties, State agencies, tribal representatives, federal agencies, 
Congressional staff, businesses, conservation organizations, university 
scientists, and concerned citizens. Many of the scientists who drafted 
the ``Prescription paper'' as well as members of the Great Lakes 
Healing Our Waters Coalition actively participated in the 
Collaboration.
    The GLRC Strategy sets a second precedent: it is the most 
comprehensive Great Lakes restoration and protection plan in history. 
It documents virtually all of the problems besetting the Great Lakes; 
it recommends concrete solutions; it identifies programs to implement 
those solutions; and it recommends the funding needed for those 
programs to succeed. This level of consensus is unprecedented. And 
unlike so many other plans that have come before it, this isn't just 
the plan for any one stakeholder or any one lake. It has received input 
and endorsement from the scientific community, agencies, public 
interest organizations, businesses, and recreationists. And, it comes 
as a result of the president's May 2004 Executive Order. Importantly, 
many of the GLRC recommendations build upon and strengthen successful 
existing efforts.
    The GLRC is a critical first step in forming a permanent 
institutional mechanism to guide restoration efforts and to facilitate 
coordination among public agencies, research institutions, and 
stakeholder organizations to reach consensus on specific priority 
actions and integrated measures of progress. It is important to also 
recognize, however, that these international waters require strong 
coordination and cooperation with Canada. So, the next step in planning 
should integrate GLRC efforts with those of the Great Lakes Fishery 
Commission, International Joint Commission, and environmental and 
resource programs of Great Lakes states and provinces.
    The GLRC recommendations are important because the aim to reduce 
ecosystem stresses. However, it will never be possible to eliminate 
them completely, and even then it will likely take decades to achieve. 
So we must, at the same time, and perhaps with more urgency work to 
restore the Lakes' natural buffering capacity by increasing its 
resiliency--or ability to cope with stress. The consensus of the 
authors and endorsers of the ``Prescription paper'' is that the most 
important way to increase that resiliency is to restore the terrestrial 
and aquatic environments of the nearshore regions and connecting rivers 
and straights.
    One key priority, however, that cannot be addressed through a 
primary focus on restoring this nearshore resiliency is the effort to 
stop invasive species from entering the Lakes. This can only be done 
through comprehensive, basin scale efforts. In this case, prevention is 
far more effective than restoration because removal of established 
invasive species, or restoration from their impacts are almost 
impossible.
    A focus on the nearshore region--Over time, the combined effects of 
the suite of stresses have overwhelmed the ecosystem's self-regulating 
mechanisms. In the past, healthy nearshore communities and tributaries 
helped reduce the impact of many stresses on or entering the lakes. We 
now recognize that these nearshore and tributary areas constitute a 
buffer zone and add to the lakes' ability to rebound from stress, and 
without healthy buffers, the lakes' health is much more vulnerable. For 
this reason, it is of critical importance to ensure that the nearshore 
and tributary areas receive the most significant and urgent restoration 
attention.
    Specific geographic areas where stresses have contributed or are 
likely to contribute to the degradation of the nearshore/tributary 
areas should be targeted first. These areas may well include those 
locations already identified as Areas of Concern by the International 
Joint Commission (expanded geographically to ensure they include all 
the major sources of stress) as well as nearshore/tributary areas that 
are now showing symptoms or vulnerability to multiple sources of 
stress. And this may require increased institutional focus (including 
increased emphasis within LaMP efforts) on these nearshore areas. This 
also has the added advantage of restoring urban coastlines, which in 
many instances have the most potential for restoration and is 
consistent with the Great Lakes Cities-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative 
``urban revitalization'' agenda. The goal should be to reestablish the 
natural states critical to nearshore and tributary communities so they 
can once again perform their stabilizing function, or, if that is not 
feasible, enhance critical elements that play a role in stabilizing the 
communities. Many of the GLRC recommendations, if implemented properly, 
will provide this needed emphasis on near-shore (e.g., recommendations 
related to the AOCs, wetlands, coastal health, nonpoint source 
pollution).
    With this focus on the nearshore and connecting rivers and 
straights, the Prescription paper proposes the following four major 
components that must be combined to develop a successful ecosystem 
restoration effort:

          Restore--Restore critical elements of the ecosystem's 
        self-regulating mechanisms. To the extent possible, reestablish 
        natural attributes of critical nearshore and tributary 
        communities so they can once again perform their stabilizing 
        function. Where full restoration of natural attributes is not 
        possible, improve desirable aspects through enhancement of 
        important functions.

          Remediate--As outlined in the GLRC report, remediate 
        abusive practices that create sources of stress. Reduce or 
        eliminate physical habitat alterations, pollution loadings, 
        pathways for invasive species, and other stressors or their 
        vectors into the lakes.

          Protect--Protect the functioning portions of the 
        ecosystem from impairment. Preserve those portions of the 
        ecosystems that now are healthy, and those that can be restored 
        or enhanced, through sustainable development practices within 
        the Great Lakes basin.

          Measure--Building on existing efforts, measure 
        ecosystem health through a set of agreed-upon integrative 
        indicators that can serve to assess current conditions and 
        monitor the progress of restoring the lakes. This final 
        component is also key element of the three-pronged approach to 
        the recommended plan for science in support of restoration 
        outlined below.

Science Priorities

    While investments in long-range, basic research is important, and 
such investments in the Great Lakes lag significantly behind those of 
coastal and marine environments, these investments in the future need 
to be complemented with science that directly supports the urgent needs 
for restoration. I should note, however, that thoughtful research can 
be both basic and useful as Donald Stokes outlined clearly in his book, 
Pasteur's Quadrant.\3\ I recommend a science plan with three broad 
components: Integrated Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration 
Innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Stokes, D.E. 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant. Basic Science and 
Technological Innovation. Brookings. Washington, DC. 180 Pg.

Integrated Assessment--Decades of research and monitoring have produced 
vast quantities of data and information on Great Lakes conditions, 
processes, and functioning. However, much of this information is 
inaccessible or not organized and synthesized in ways most useful to 
local, State, and federal decision-makers. Providing this information, 
along with its level of certainty, in credible and timely ways on 
issues identified by decision-makers is an essential element of science 
support for restoration and protection.
    Integrated Assessment (IA) is a formal approach to synthesizing and 
delivering relevant, independent scientific input to decision-making 
through a comprehensive analysis of existing natural and social 
scientific information in the context of a policy or management 
questions. These assessments not only draw on the talents of subject 
matter experts, but also engage the broader stakeholder community in 
defining boundaries, integrating traditional knowledge, and identifying 
socially-acceptable solution options. The IA results are peer reviewed 
and subject to public comment, and the process should be supported by 
funds independent of those with vested interests in any particular 
solution option. IA takes the following structured approach:

        1.  Define the policy relevant question around which the 
        assessment is to be performed. This is done in conjunction with 
        managers and policy-makers such that the analysis is directed 
        toward solving specific policy or management needs.

        2.  Document the status and trends of appropriate 
        environmental, social, and economic conditions related to the 
        issue. This is a value-independent description of current 
        conditions and, to the extent possible, the historical trends 
        in those properties.

        3.  Describe the environmental, social, and economic causes and 
        consequences of those trends. This often includes simulation, 
        statistical, and other explanatory models and analyses. Again, 
        these descriptions are fact-based although subject to analysis 
        and interpretation.

        4.  Provide forecasts of likely future conditions under a range 
        of policy and/or management actions. This can be quantitative 
        forecasts from models or other trend analysis tools. These are 
        subject to considerable scientific evaluation and 
        interpretation.

        5.  Provide technical guidance for the most cost effective 
        means of implementing each of those management options. These 
        efforts are designed to provide those who are responsible for 
        implementation the menu of approaches available to them, along 
        with some evaluation of their potential for success and cost-
        effectiveness.

        6.  Provide an assessment of the uncertainties associated with 
        the information generated for the above steps and outline key 
        monitoring, research, and modeling needs to improve future 
        assessments in this area. This assessment of uncertainties is 
        often a guide to future research needs.

    Such approaches have been very useful, for example, in assessments 
of the impacts of climate variability\4\ and the causes and 
consequences of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico\5\ (called for in the 
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act), as well as a 
key element of the new science program for Michigan Sea Grant.\6\ The 
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia IA, for example, led to a federal-State-tribal 
Action Plan for reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf, the primary 
anthropogenic driver of hypoxia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm
    \5\ http://www.nos.noaa.gov/Products/pubs-hypox.html
    \6\ http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/ia/index.html

Monitoring--extremely important. This effort should build on ongoing 
efforts such as the development and application of State of the Lakes 
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) indicators. However, major negative 
changes in the ecosystem are occurring while many of the indicators 
that governments have traditionally used to measure Great Lakes health 
(water clarity, ambient water pollution levels, and certain contaminant 
levels in wildlife) actually show improvement. Because nonlinear 
changes may confound expected relationships between sources of stress 
and the lakes' response, traditional indicators alone may not be 
adequate descriptors of ecosystem health and may not be useful in 
predicting future conditions. While some type of consensus on 
indicators is desirable, given the dynamic nature of the system and our 
understanding of it, flexibility must also be included in their 
development and use.
    Monitoring is essential to not only identify emerging issues, but 
importantly in the context of restoration, to track progress. Most 
managers and scientists now embrace the notion of adaptive management 
where adjustments in strategies are made as restoration proceeds. But, 
without effective monitoring systems, geared toward tracking progress 
at the right scales, adaptive management is not possible. A key issue 
for an effective monitoring network in this context is the ability for 
rapid detection of change on scales relevant to local and State 
decision-makers, as well as federal policy-makers. Therefore, a 
priority should be placed on the nearshore terrestrial and aquatic 
ecosystem in concert with the geographic focuses of restoration. This 
requires close coordination of State and tribal agencies and the 
academic community to add higher spatial resolution to the Lake- and 
region-scale efforts of the federal agencies.

Restoration Innovation--While we have enough information to proceed now 
with restoration, the task is long term and we need investments in new 
ways to deal with existing and emerging threats, as well as to find the 
most cost-effective technologies for identifying threats and 
restoration approaches. Such innovations could include: new ways to 
detect and monitor threats to ecosystem structure and functioning; 
improved methods for synthesizing and integrating information to 
provide useful forecasts of the impacts of management action or 
inaction; technologies for restoring wetlands, coastal habitats, and 
contaminated sites; methods to value ecosystem goods and services; 
assessments of the social causes and impacts of ecosystem change; and 
means to reduce uncertainties in Integrated Assessments.
    While the needs for such innovations can be identified, their 
solutions are hard to predict, and are best sought through investing 
in, and nurturing, the skills and talents of Great Lakes scientists, 
including through academic programs.

The Role of Universities

    A strong and effective science program supporting restoration and 
protection of the Great Lakes needs the innovation, expertise, and 
independent voice of the academic community. During the 1960s, 70s, and 
80s, the Great Lakes academic community was well-supported and provided 
an important complement to the science conducted in the federal and 
State labs. I know this first hand because I worked in a Great Lakes 
federal lab from 1975-1990. Working together, and with State agencies 
and environmental NGOs, these communities identified and analyzed the 
most important issues of the time--fisheries decline, eutrophication, 
and chemical contamination. Academic institutions contributed expertise 
in fisheries biology, food-web structure, ecosystem dynamics, 
biogeochemistry, ecosystem modeling, and engineering to these successes 
through cooperation and participation in activities and programs under 
the auspices of the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and 
Great Lakes Fisheries Convention, for example.
    Through both applied research and research that improved our 
fundamental understanding of the Lakes' physical and ecological 
dynamics, academic research and modeling played historically important 
roles in critical resource management and policy decisions:

          Reducing phosphorus inputs to reduce algal growth and 
        improve water clarity;

          Sea lamprey control;

          Reductions in industrial pollution;

          Reduction in contaminants such as DDT and PCBs;

          Reduced occurrences and magnitude of chemical spills 
        and discharge of objectionable and nuisance materials that form 
        scums, sludge, and odors;

          Confinement and removal of contaminated sediment;

          Growing recoveries of some native species, such as 
        the lake trout in Lake Superior and the bald eagle throughout 
        the Great Lakes.

    And these efforts have had significant impacts. In many places, 
nutrient control reduced algal overgrowth and increased water clarity, 
sea lamprey control allowed a rebound in fish populations, reduced 
industrial pollution resulted in declines of DDT and PCBs in fish and 
wildlife by as much as 90 percent, confinement and removal of 
contaminated sediment are progressing, and populations of native 
species, such as the lake trout in Lake Superior and the bald eagle 
throughout the Great Lakes are making substantial recoveries.
    In spite of this progress, and as outlined above and in the GLRC 
report and the ``Prescription paper,'' the Great Lakes are exhibiting a 
multiplicity of nagging and emerging issues that are impeding further 
ecological and economic recovery. Just when we need more research and 
monitoring to assist sound, science-based management and policy 
decisions, the Great Lakes research community is in decline. An aging 
work force will soon retire taking with it historical knowledge and 
perspective because of limited ability to hire young scientific 
replacements. Old and outdated scientific tools, facilities, and 
vessels are not being upgraded to address the complex problems of 
today. Funding for both federal and State science agencies are not 
keeping up with inflation and funding to the Great Lakes academic 
community is scarce, resulting in a significant loss of Great Lakes 
researchers from Great Lakes academic institutions.
    Academics can and should play strong, even dominant, roles in 
Integrated Assessment, in assisting in and interpreting results from 
monitoring programs, in identifying and clarifying emerging issues, and 
in providing innovative solutions to both long-standing and new issues. 
Academics can be viewed as knowledgeable and interested parties in this 
management, but not constrained by the mission and viewpoints of their 
home organization. To be most effective, their work needs to be 
independent, based on competition and peer review, and well-funded. 
There are existing models for federal programs that can provide that 
support in ways that are connected to and integrated with federal and 
State science, but not handmaiden to it. These include EPA's Science to 
Achieve Results (STAR) program, NOAA's Center for Sponsored Coastal 
Ocean Research (CSCOR), and the Great Lakes Sea Grant programs. Each of 
these programs has a distinct mission that complements the others, as 
well as those of the federal labs. They have established processes for 
interacting with the academic community and administering effective 
extramural grant programs. They require increased funding and 
encouragement to continue to expand their programs in the Great Lakes, 
focused on supporting restoration and protection needs.
    It is important to build upon proven models of academic-
governmental partnerships like Sea Grant and NOAA's CSCOR with well-
funded, objective, and independent academic research that has strong 
linkages to resource management and policy needs. These programs can 
supply the people and new technologies for problem-solving, technology 
transfer, and the communication of science to policy-makers and the 
public.

Summary and Conclusion

    I would like to recap some of the key concepts from the above as 
responses to specific questions provided for this hearing:

1.  What are the top three recommendations in the GLRC Strategy that 
you believe could be implemented with existing funding? What scientific 
research, scientific information, or science-based products are 
required to support the implementation of these three recommendations? 
Would your answers be different if funding could be increased?

    The top three recommendations, as outlined above, are 1) focus on 
restoring the nearshore ecosystems--including watersheds and 
tributaries and the connecting rivers and straights--to increase the 
ability of the Great Lakes ecosystems to mitigate stress, 2) stop 
introductions of new invasive species, and 3) reduce the loads of 
nonpoint source pollution. These are priorities for both existing and 
increased funding; however, little more can be done at existing funding 
levels.
    The key science priorities are 1) support for Integrated 
Assessments that harvest the decades of monitoring data and research 
output, integrate that information with stakeholder perspectives and 
considerations, and synthesize and deliver the results in ways that are 
accessible to decisions-makers as they consider the key management and 
policy actions underpinning restoration; 2) support for increased 
monitoring nearshore regions by states and Universities at the higher 
spatial and temporal resolution needed to track progress and support 
adaptive management at relevant restoration scales; and 3) support for 
``restoration innovation''--creation of new technologies, 
methodologies, and processes for cost-effective restoration over the 
next decade.

2.  Has the GLRC led to more informed resource management planning 
decisions? What kinds of scientific information are now being taken 
into account in those decisions because of the GLRC? To what extent has 
the GLRC helped foster new or stronger collaboration between scientists 
and policy-makers? What is your role in strengthening the relationship 
between scientists and policy-makers?

    The simple answer to the first part of this question is ``no.'' The 
GLRC focused on developing a Strategy for the future, and not on 
informing today's specific resource management planning decisions. 
While the GLRC has fostered new and stronger collaborations among 
decision-makers and opinion leaders from a wide array of sectors, 
including some from the science community, it is too soon to know if 
these new collaborations will make a difference. The stage has been set 
by the Collaboration, though, and I am hopeful.
    My role in strengthening the relationships between scientists and 
policy-makers, as Michigan Sea Grant Director, has been to work with 
decision-makers in Michigan's Departments of Natural Resources and 
Environmental Quality to identify key Great Lakes restoration issues 
that need science support, and solicit proposals from the academic 
community to conduct Integrated Assessments for them. Sea Grant and key 
partners will fund several IA projects this next funding cycle, both to 
address those needs and to serve as a model for other funding programs 
interested in strengthening the relationship between scientists and 
policy-makers. We would like to see federal grant programs focused in 
the same way.

3.  Are there additional actions EPA and other federal agencies should 
be taking to help implement the GLRC?

    As mentioned above, the GLRC was an important first step in forming 
permanent institutional mechanisms to guide restoration and to 
facilitate coordination among public agencies, research institutions, 
and stakeholder organizations. It is important for EPA and the other 
U.S. federal agencies to also recognize that Great Lakes protection and 
restoration require strong coordination and cooperation with Canada. I 
am sure the U.S. agencies recognize this. So, the next step in planning 
and implementation would be to integrate GLRC efforts with those of the 
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, International Joint Commission, and 
environmental and resource programs of Great Lakes states and 
provinces.

4.  What are the biggest challenges you see in implementing the 
Strategy, particularly in terms of meeting science and information 
needs?

    The biggest challenges for implementation are 1) ensuring adequate 
funding for implementing the GLRC Strategy recommendations, and 2) 
identifying appropriate leadership and coordination among federal 
agencies, and allowing for honest engagement of the full stakeholder 
community.
    I understand the overall estimates for funding are quite 
significant, but it is time for Great Lakes restoration to receive 
support commensurate with its national importance and at least 
comparable to other large-scale regional restoration efforts. This is 
particularly true when one compares, not only the range of stresses 
that impact the Great Lakes, but their enormous size compared to other 
regional restoration initiatives. It is also important to ensure 
appropriate funding for the science priorities outlined above for 
supporting the restoration effort. A rule of thumb that can make sense 
is to provide 10 percent of restoration costs for science support.
    The overall restoration task is daunting and requires effective 
leadership from the Federal Government (preferably one agency); 
however, top-down approaches (whether for implementing restoration or 
for conducting supporting science) will not work. Setting specific 
goals, priorities, and responding to science needs requires full 
participation of Federal, State, and local governments; NGOs; 
Universities; and the private sector. It is not yet clear, that the 
GLRC has mechanisms in place to do that.

5.  What outcomes do you expect to see one year from now as a result of 
implementing the GLRC Strategy?

    Frankly, I do not expect too much in one year. It is very early in 
the process and developing the Strategy was a major undertaking that 
engaged the broadest spectrum of U.S. participants. However, I fear 
that the lack of any significant new funding in the President's budget 
may set the stage that prevents holding the Collaboration together. 
Everyone participated in good faith, and many compromises were made to 
form solidarity behind the Strategy. Without significant movement and 
funding toward implementation, I am not sure much will be accomplished.

Closing

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the 
Subcommittee for your leadership in scheduling this hearing and 
maintain the momentum for Great Lakes restoration. I particularly would 
like to thank you for keeping science on the table. Without a strong 
science base, restoration will be less effective and more costly to the 
taxpayers.
    I would also like to thank you for inviting me to participate in 
this hearing. The Great Lakes science academic community looks forward 
to working with you and all of our Collaboration partners to continue 
this important work, because it is only through concerted, coordinated 
action that we will realize our mutually-held goal of a cleaner, 
healthier Great Lakes.
    I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

                      Biography for Donald Scavia
    Dr. Scavia is the Research Associate Dean and Professor of Natural 
Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, Director of 
the Michigan Sea Grant Program, and Interim Director of the Cooperative 
Institute for Limnology and Ecosystem Research. He is Associate Editor 
for journals of the Ecological Society of America and the Estuarine 
Research Federation, on the Advisory Board for the North American 
Nitrogen Center and the Science Committee for NSF's Collaborative 
Large-scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental Research, 
and has served on the Boards of Directors for the American Society of 
Limnology and Oceanography and the International Association for Great 
Lakes Research.
    As the Chief Scientist of NOAA's National Ocean Service between 
2002 and 2005, Dr. Scavia was responsible for the quality, integrity, 
and responsiveness of NOS's science programs, and for ensuring that 
NOS's operations and resource management are based on solid science and 
technology. Before becoming the NOS Chief Scientist, Dr. Scavia was 
Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and Director 
of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, where he managed coastal and Great 
Lakes research programs in NOS laboratories, monitoring and assessment 
offices, and extramural research.
    Between 1975 and 1990, Dr. Scavia was a research scientist with 
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, 
Michigan, focusing on modeling and empirical studies on nutrient 
cycling, bacteria and phytoplankton production, food-web dynamics, and 
biological-physical coupling at all scales.
    Dr. Scavia holds Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees in 
Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 
University of Michigan. He has published over 60 articles in the 
primary literature and led development of dozens of interagency 
scientific assessments and program development plans.



                               Discussion

    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much. I really appreciate your 
testimony. And I notice virtually all of you asked for more 
science and better understanding of science in the Congress. 
None of you, however, mentioned plans to run for Congress. And 
let me emphasize how important that is. I was the first 
research physicist elected after 220 years of the United States 
Congress. That's a lousy record for the academic community. And 
so think about it. You can regard it as a capstone on a career, 
or a way to launch yourself into the presidency. Wouldn't hurt 
to have a scientist as a president, too. But I'm not going to 
live forever.
    Mr. Wege: Why don't you run, Vernon?
    Mr. Ehlers: But I won't live forever. So we start 
recruiting some replacements and some additions.
    Thank you. Excellent testimony. Very good. I have some 
questions for you. And I appreciate--on this first one, I would 
like a quick answer from each one of you. We have--we are all 
excited about the Collaboration, the results of the 
Collaboration, the Healing of Our Waters Program, the 
introduction of this bill. There is great happiness and 
excitement in the Great Lakes community, and in the 
environmental community about these. But we all have to 
recognize the bill hasn't passed yet, it's going to take a lot 
of hard work to get it there--and time, I might add. And then 
getting the money is going to be tough. So my first question 
is, what near-term progress can we make on restoration with 
current science, current legislation and current funding? What 
can we do right now? And it's open--I would like answers from 
all five of you, but I would like a volunteer to start it off.

           The Restoration of Science Legislation and Funding

    Mr. Gulezian: I can start. There is a tremendous amount 
that we can do with the current resources that we have. When 
the Federal Interagency Task Force took stock of the investment 
that the federal agencies get for the Great Lakes, we came up 
with a number of about a half a billion dollars a year. That's 
not a paltry sum. If that--if that funding is directed 
effectively, if we can take some of the lessons that we learned 
from the Collaboration, I think that there is a good ability to 
make a lot of progress. And we are beginning to see that now.
    With the Legacy Act, for example, we have completed three 
projects. There is another one that's about to start. But in 
addition to doing contaminated sediment clean-up, we are also 
looking at the kind of habitat restoration that would need to 
be done in those areas of concern. Now, we can't do that with 
the Legacy Act funds, but there are funds from other agencies 
that can be brought to bear. And we are having discussions with 
other agencies to do just that. So that's an example of how we 
can do a better job of utilizing and realigning our existing 
resources.
    Mr. Ehlers: Very good. Good comment.
    Dr. Brandt.
    Dr. Brandt: Yeah. I think one of the important things will 
be to build on the success of this Collaboration. This is the 
first time when you have 1,500 people from all different sorts 
of agencies working together and have a consensus, I think 
that's something new in the Great Lakes. And it's something--
it's going to be a challenge to continue that--sort of that 
spirit and level of excitement.
    I think things are already happening. I will just give two 
examples. One is that there has been--really has been an 
increase in the collaboration amongst the federal agencies. I 
think the development of the regional working group, which was 
created by the Executive Order, where as the highest ranking 
officer in the region for the 11 agencies, we meet regularly 
once a week phone calls on all sorts of activities, research, 
observing systems. And we coordinate regularly. We even had an 
example where we had a rapid response to a snake head that was 
found off of Chicago. And we got all of the federal agencies 
together. I put my ship on snake head alert, that we could get 
to Chicago within six hours. We did this in a one-hour 
conference call. And within two days we confirmed that that was 
an isolated release. We could not have done that without this 
regular meeting of the regional working group.
    I think another--second example relates to the 
International Joint Commission Council of the Great Lakes 
Research Managers. As you mentioned, the coordination of 
efforts needs to include a candidate. The Council of Great 
Lakes Research Managers in the last two years, largely at the 
inspiration of the Regional Collaboration, have developed 
procedures to put together a coordination strategy for research 
on the Great Lakes. That's international, across states, across 
federal agencies. We are working on that strategy. And the next 
biennial report we will have that adopted by the International 
Joint Commission. I think the International Joint Commission 
recognized the need for that Collaboration, largely spear-
headed by this Executive Order. And I think that is under way.
    Those two efforts of enhanced collaboration address a lot 
of the issues that were talked about in the JAO report with 140 
different programs. We are now collaborating at a level that we 
had not before. And that will increase efficiency, particularly 
in research and science.
    Mr. Ehlers: That's good new, news, too. Sometimes I think 
what we need is a Great Lakes czar. But not with the intent of 
having a czar who is going to tell people what to do, rather a 
czar who is going to bring people together on the right issues, 
and make sure that we are all working together. And someone who 
would help to develop the priorities and advise the 
administration and Congress. There are so many different 
agencies and actors. And I don't want to stop any of them. But 
I want to make sure it's all coordinated so we get the best 
bang for the buck. Thank you.
    Ms. Ballard.
    Ms. Ballard: Congressman Ehlers, I think just holding the 
funding for existing programs that you have--as you know, the 
Coastal Zone Management Program is really a very inexpensive 
national program. I think if we get 60 million dollars a year 
to run the entire program, we are doing pretty good. Michigan's 
share of that next year is about 2.8 million. About half of 
that is passed through to coastal communities to address 
coastal management issues at the local level. And I would say 
about a fifth of that goes into research. I'm just thinking in 
the past year, we have done inventories of critical nesting 
areas along the shoreline. That has been about a three, four 
year program that we have been doing that. Doing assessments of 
coastal wetlands in the Saginaw Bay area. Dr. Uzarski from 
Grand Valley, Dr. Tim Burton from Michigan State, and Denny 
Albert had been doing baseline assessments for the past two or 
three years. When the Michigan legislature changed our 
submerged lands regulations to allow beach grooming due to low 
water levels, because we had that baseline data, we have been 
able to document the impacts. And I have to say they have been 
pretty dramatic. Already, just with one year of beach grooming, 
we are seeing a loss of diversity of species; we are seeing a 
lot more lower populations of other species, too. So without 
those baseline research that we had funded, we probably would 
not have been able to document the impacts on such a short 
amount of time.
    We have also funded studies to document the impacts of 
shoreline structures on offshore. What we are finding is 
sometimes we are getting scour offshore, and we are actually 
creating zebra muscle habitat by having a cobble substrait 
there. Also working with Michigan State to do dune modeling, so 
we can determine the impacts on shore lines. What's going to 
happen if we permit certain activities. So just with that 2.8 
million Michigan sees, we have been able to fund all of that 
research.
    I also want to say with coastal resource managers saying 
that land use is impacting water quality, it's fragmenting 
habitats. I think the CZM program is one of the only programs 
that is funding local comprehensive environmental planning, and 
watershed planning. We have the 319 program that's funded 
through EPA that also does that. But for regular, environmental 
planning, we are it. And over the past four years we have 
invested about 4.5 million dollars in coastal management--or 
local master plans, zoning ordinances, and development of 
GAS's--decision-making support tools. A lot of bang for the 
buck.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you. What's striking about something like 
that, 60 million dollars, of course, sounds like a huge amount 
of money. That's 20 cents per capita in the United States. And 
talking about getting big bang for 20 cents--I think that's 
pretty good.
    Dr. Steinman.
    Dr. Steinman: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned three things that 
we could do with existing resources--briefly to restate them. 
One is, we need to take a look at ocean shipping and whether it 
makes economic sense. There was a recent study done by a 
colleague of mine here at Grand Valley State University, 
identifying the fact that currently economic losses--the 
transportation cost penalty of having shipping on the Great 
Lakes is approximately 55 million dollars per year. But the 
economic losses associated with invasive species are estimated 
to be about five billion dollars a year. So you have two orders 
of magnitude difference. We need to look at that policy and see 
whether it makes sense or not.
    Secondly, we need to develop appropriate regulatory and 
incentive-based programs for dealing with protecting our 
nearshore and coastal waters.
    And then with nonpoint source pollution, look at the 
phosphorus--possible phosphorus ban in lawn fertilizer. I do 
want to also add to that that I think there is an obligation on 
a part of the scientists here, and also on our elected 
officials, to make sure that they understand how that 
information--scientific information is presented. We need to 
present the information in an understandable and transparent 
fashion to our elected officials, whether it's at the local, 
State or federal basis. But it's also incumbent on our elected 
officials to recognize that this information isn't perfect, 
there is uncertainty in the information that we present; and we 
can't be paralyzed in that process. So developing that 
educational capacity is going to be an important factor in us 
moving forward in the future.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you.
    Finally, Dr. Scavia.
    Dr. Scavia: I have three very, very different suggestions. 
One is, I like the idea of a Great Lakes czar in some fashion, 
particularly the way you described it. It was interesting when 
I looked at the GAO reports and other reports about, there is 
not enough coordination in the Great Lakes. I actually see it 
quite differently. I think there is an abundance of 
coordination in the Great Lakes region. There is maybe too many 
different pieces of coordination. It would be nice to have some 
way to actually organize all of the organizers and get some 
priorities--I think that would be a way forward.
    Second one is very different. That is, there are programs 
in place for dealing with nonpoint source pollution, wetlands, 
buffer creations, and they are all funded through the Farm 
Bill. I would just be hopeful that in the next round of the 
Farm Bill, which may actually be a funding opportunity well in 
advance of what we want to do in the Great Lakes Restoration 
Bill, we can try to find a way to better direct Farm Bill 
resources to the region focusing on wetland restoration, 
nonpoint source pollution.
    And the third brings back this idea of mitigated 
assessment, and harvesting existing information. Over the past 
year-and-a-half, I worked with agencies like Cathie's and 
Michigan DNR to get them to identify problems that they were 
dealing with, that they were just stymied with because they did 
not have enough information to make a decision. Or they knew 
what they wanted to do but there wasn't enough ammunition 
behind what ought to happen. And based on that discussion, we 
realized that the information that they need is out there. It's 
just not analyzed, synthesized, peer reviewed, and made 
available in the right way. So I think we can actually go on 
Congress by putting in place the programs and funding the 
activities to bring the scientists and the scientific 
information to the table for those decision-makers.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much.
    Just a question specifically for Mr. Gulezian. Can you 
please detail what you see as EPA's role in implementing the 
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy? In particular, EPA 
plays a key role that is critical to the success of the 
collaborational process. And do you envision the EPA to 
continue to take that strong leadership role in implementing 
the strategy or are there other actors within the 
administration who should be involved or perhaps who want to be 
involved but shouldn't be? I appreciate your comment.

          EPA's Role in Implementing the Great Lakes Regional 
                         Collaboration Strategy

    Mr. Gulezian: Under the President's Executive Order, EPA's 
administrator was identified as the lead of the federal 
Interagency Task Force. And it's through the Task Force that 
the Federal Government participates in the Collaboration. The 
Federal Government is continuing to participate in the 
Collaboration, and EPA will continue to lead and coordinate 
that effort. So I really think that EPA is sort of at the point 
as a coordinator of the federal resources that can be brought 
to bear to work with with the Collaboration. Which isn't to say 
that we are the lead agency for all of the actions, but it's 
very much a coordinating role to move the Federal Government's 
participation in the actions forward, and to keep the 
Collaboration itself alive and healthy.
    Mr. Ehlers: And in a sense, that gets back to my earlier 
comment about having the Great Lakes czar. Someone has to 
provide the leadership. And if the administration has 
designated the EPA, then we want to make sure the EPA does it.
    Mr. Gulezian: I would like to mention that EPA's 
administrator, Steve Johnson, is maintaining a very high level 
of involvement in Great Lakes activities. We have regular 
briefings with him. And he has been a strong participant in the 
Collaboration activities.
    Mr. Ehlers: So developing the Collaboration report was a 
consensus process, a collaborative effort. And I guess my 
question is, what--and a lot of people played an active role. 
Would you see a place for others to continue taking a very 
active role as being appropriate in this, or do you think it 
has to primarily reside with the EPA?
    Mr. Gulezian: No, I think it's very important for the other 
federal agencies to be involved from the federal level. And 
also as part of the Collaboration, there has been to be 
continuing strong involvement from the State governments, from 
the municipalities, from the tribes, and also from all of the 
non-governmental entities that were a part of the 
Collaboration. So I think it really has to move forward in very 
much the same form in which it was--it was created.
    I mentioned that a framework for implementation of the 
Collaboration was agreed to by the Executive Committee of the 
Collaboration in March. And that contemplates continuing 
efforts of all of the governmental partners, and continuing 
involvement and input and collaboration from the non-
governmental partners as well. At this point the governmental 
partners are identifying key actions that we want to work on 
together, where we can use our existing resources to move on 
some of the priority actions that are identified in the 
Strategy. And my guess is there will probably be a strong 
element related to wetland restoration, and probably also to 
response to invasive species. And the expectation is that the 
partners will work together on that and can solve more broadly 
and involve the public on those activities as well. And also 
hold itself accountable to those activities that are--that are 
committed to in the near-term.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much. All of you heard that 
interchange. I--don't feel obligated to respond or comment. But 
I want to give you the opportunity to any one of you who wants 
to add something to that. Feel free to interject something.
    I would be happy to listen to the audience afterwards, 
okay?
    No one else seems to want to interject anything in that.

            The Role of Scientific Data and Program Managers

    EPA and NOAA, both have programs that put science in the 
hands of the resource managers. Ms. Ballard expressed concern, 
this is not happening to the degree that it should. And I'm 
wondering whose responsibility it is, no matter what the 
agency, to see that the science gets into the hands of the 
managers who need it? I hope I'm not paraphrasing what you 
said, Ms. Ballard.
    Ms. Ballard: No, but I could respond. I say since the 
Collaboration has started, I think there has been outreach. I 
know with the Sea Grant, we have been involved in the 
integrative assessments, identifying issues. I know we have 
extended an invitation to your staff to attend the CZM. We have 
a Great Lakes regional meeting where all of the coastal zone 
management managers from the Great Lakes get together once a 
year. We have extended that invitation to have someone from 
GLERL attend, and also somebody from GLOFS so we can continue 
the discussion and how to incorporate resource management needs 
into the observation systems. So I think there has probably 
been more communication with the research community more 
broadly than we have had in a while. And I think it's some of 
the relationships that came out of the Collaboration.
    Mr. Ehlers: Any other comment on that?
    Mr. Gulezian: I guess I would just like to say that it's 
really a shared responsibility of the researchers and of the 
managers. EPA has a conference every two years called the State 
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. And it's a conference where 
university researchers, researchers and scientists from the 
State, federal, tribal agencies get together to characterize 
the overall health of the Great Lakes system through a review 
of indicators and indicator data. So it's primarily a science-
based conference.
    One feature that we added to it two solicks (phonetic) ago, 
was a manager session where we invited federal agency heads in 
the region, and State department heads to attend. It was 
relatively poorly attended by the managers. We had a few there, 
but not what we would have liked. So there really has to be a 
commitment on both sides from the managers and from the 
scientists for it to happen.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you.
    Anyone else?
    Dr. Scavia: When I was in NOAA, one of the things I did was 
run the National Science Program, National Grant Program, and 
struggled with this question for a long time. We were trying to 
find the best ways to integrate the scientists and the 
managers, and did not do that very well--very difficult to do 
at that scale. Having now transitioned to the State level, and 
running Michigan's Sea Grant Program, I see it from a very 
different perspective. I think what really needs to be done is 
to go beyond looking at sort of big collections of lots of 
managers and lots of scientists to sort of talk about what all 
needs are, and to establish a process, a routine and regular 
process where managers and scientists get together to talk 
about specific problems and specific crises--identifying the 
specific needs. And that doesn't just happen. I think there is 
actually a process that you have to put in place--it needs to 
operate at at least the State, if not the local level--to 
actually help direct the larger scale, national--the national 
programs. So I really do think it needs a process and needs to 
be talked about--talking about specifics.
    Mr. Ehlers: Okay.
    Dr. Brandt.
    Dr. Brandt: If I can just add a little bit. I do believe 
it's the federal scientists, it is their responsibility to make 
sure that their research results are used. And I think that--
and it is a challenge. And there are a number of mechanisms to 
do this. And I think that is good. There is no one mechanism. 
Sea Grant extension is probably, in my view, one of the best 
examples where folks actually living in the communities and 
assessing the needs of those communities. Or focused workshops 
where you are focusing on beach closures and bringing the beach 
managers in. But even in that case, as was mentioned earlier, 
it's difficult. We have to take advantage of ongoing meetings 
because resources are limited for a lot of the folks that are 
in the field. They can't go to a group meeting. We also have 
limited resources. We can't sends our scientists to every 
community. So I think there is a number of processes to be 
worked out. They are probably issue focused sort of things--
land use, for example, is a good one. But I think it's a two-
way street. And as Gary mentioned in some ways we want to make 
sure our research is used, but we also want to listen to that 
community so that the research that we are doing will be useful 
in the future. So we need to hear what they really need, and 
how it can best be made available to them.
    Mr. Ehlers: Okay. Thank you for those contributions.
    I have been a strong supporter of the Sea Grant program, as 
you know, and tried to increase the funding. Probably my 
greatest contribution there--although I think largely on 
NOAA's--on some--was to get the lakes--Great Lakes considered 
fully. I insisted on that. And there was a lot of push back. I 
said, well, that's okay. Then if you don't like that, I will 
introduce legislation to change the name from the Great Lakes 
to the Great Seas--in which case you would automatically be 
able to apply for all these. That's sort of in the category of 
change--creating Lake Champlain as a--but anyway, it seems to 
have worked. It's still very shortly funded. But at least you 
are considered part of the action. Any coastal work, any Sea 
Grant work, Great Lakes is eligible as well.
    It's time to start wrapping this up. Last question for the 
witnesses. I just want to direct it to Dr. Steinman. In your 
written statement, you explained in your experience in Florida 
``how the science is presented to policy-makers makes an 
enormous difference in whether the scientifically-based 
recommendations are implemented.'' Can you expand on that a 
bit, give us some examples of effective ways to present the 
science?

     The Importance of Presenting Comprehensive Science to Policy-
                                 makers

    Dr. Steinman: Well, it's usually easier to give an example 
of how ineffectively presenting what the results are. 
Unfortunately, we don't have that many successes down there. 
But I would--an example that I think is very illustrative. We 
had an incident in early 2000 where Florida was undergoing its 
worst drought in recorded history. As a consequence, the lake 
levels in Lake Okeechobee were reaching historic lows. And 
there had been obligations made to the sugar cane farmers, 
which is a two billion dollar a year industry in South Florida, 
that they would be made whole with respect to their water. In 
getting the water out of the lake, over the dyke, to the farms, 
was an enormous challenge. They brought in pumps half the size 
of this room in order to do that at the cost of millions of 
dollars.
    Now, when we talked about the strategy--the risk assessment 
in trying to bring the lake down in order to restore it before 
nature took over, we had identified a variety of science-based 
predictions. Some was based on NOAA's climate prediction 
center; some of it based on our own meteorologists as to what 
the impacts might be. When we went forward and presented that 
to our governing board, because they make the policy as to what 
the science should be, they were very confused. Some of these 
climate-based models are very sophisticated, very 
computationalley intensive. And they clearly did not understand 
some of the implications associated with that. As a 
consequence, we ended up in a very, very difficult position, 
both in terms of the policies for South Florida, in terms of 
making sure there was sufficient water available to all of the 
users and sectors in there. And, I think, in retrospect the 
science could have been presented in a much more transparent 
fashion, and the decision-making process might have been more 
effective in the long run. And that also goes back to my 
earlier responses to you about how important it is, how 
incumbent it is on scientists to present the information to the 
decision-makers in a way that they understand it. But that's 
not just a matter of us going in front of the decision-makers 
and elected officials and espousing what our thoughts are. We 
have to work with them along the way. There is a lot of work 
that's done behind the scenes in making sure that we talk to 
our elected officials and they understand these issues before 
it becomes a crisis. We need to hold their hands, if you will, 
if you will pardon that phrase, throughout this process so they 
understand, so nobody is blind-sided in that process.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you. It's certainly appropriate comments. 
And it has been my experience as well in my career. And I often 
act as interpreter between scientists and the Congress. But I 
have also run classes for scientists on how to lobby the 
Congress. And I can assure you that it's not appropriate to 
walk in the door and say, I am a scientist. And I am here to 
tell you what to do. Which is called the arrogant approach, but 
it's surprisingly often used. But I appreciate your comments in 
that regard.
    I appreciate all of your participation, very good ideas, 
comments. It's time to draw the hearing to a close. Something 
that is never done in a congressional hearing, a briefing, is 
to entertain questions from the audience, but I know there are 
a few. And so what I'm going to do is close out the hearing, 
and then proceed informally to take questions from a few people 
for a short time. If any of you have any questions.
    So the Committee briefing is adjourned.
    (Briefing concluded at 2:50 p.m.)
    Mr. Ehlers: I will now ask those members of the audience 
who wanted to ask the questions--we had one over there. Do you 
still have your question?
    Jan Shear: Well, actually, it was more a comment----
    Mr. Ehlers: Could you identify yourself?
    Jan Shear: My name is Jan Shear. I am a volunteer for Clean 
Water Action here in Grand Rapids.
    Mr. Gulezian was talking about the implementation, I think, 
of the Collaboration decisions. And I think I understood the 
process to be that government is now--or the government 
entities are now getting together to come up with how to 
implement them. Then you would bring in the other entities. And 
I--I just have a couple concerns with that approach. One of 
which is that I think you may lose the opportunity to--for some 
efficiencies in the process of implementation by not including 
the other members of the party from the beginning in the 
implementation process.
    And I also think that psychologically you use the 
opportunity to, to implement things more quickly. As everybody 
says, well, why didn't they include me, I could have told them, 
you know, such-and-such won't work, or that this will work 
better or whatever. And then I think you get into problems in 
the implementation. That was the only comment that I had.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you for your comment.
    Mr. Wege. For the record, Peter Wege.

                   Making the Great Lakes a Reservoir

    Mr. Wege: I would like to make a couple statements. One is, 
I have always--I have been pushing this for a long time--that 
there are lakes around in New York City, private lakes, regular 
lakes in the Adirondacks that are supplying water to New York. 
Wouldn't it be a great idea to have a Federal Government, a 
Canadian government and all of the states surrounding the Great 
Lakes to declare the Great Lakes a reservoir? Now just think 
what that would do. You would--you would immediately get the 
rust buckets from Russia out of here, out of the--from coming 
into the Great Lakes. And just have the lakes, have the 
original boats that are on the lakes right now. But that's--
that's what--that canal, that Erie Canal, and all of the other 
things that brought in more stuff--as this group knows--brought 
in all of the species and so forth that caused actually 
billions of dollars to clean up if we are going to do that. But 
just think of what that would do. Immediately it would become a 
reservoir. And then you would have all of the laws to take care 
of the streams coming in. We have been working on the Muskegon 
River for over three years now. We are going to have a book out 
on it on what we are doing up there. And it could be a model 
for the rest of the rivers that are going into the Great Lakes 
from Michigan, anyhow. And then think of all of the rivers that 
are going in from the eight states and Canada that are 
polluting the Great Lakes in some cases. Some of them are 
cleaned up, but some--a lot of them aren't. So I'm just 
throwing that out for what it's worth. And maybe if you could 
consider it, if the scientists could consider it in some of 
the--we have 17 colleges and universities now in the Econo 
College forum that would certainly get behind you and help you 
out on research or doing whatever you would like to have them 
do. And it wouldn't cost you very much either. I think we could 
do that. That's just a couple ideas I think would help the 
Great Lakes, okay?
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much. Very interesting idea. 
You would have to make it clear that this is a reservoir 
intended for the neighboring lakes and not for Arizona and a 
few other states.
    Mr. Wege: That's right.
    Mr. Ehlers: You would have to be careful on how you use the 
word reservoir.
    Mr. Wege: The eight states of Great, and the two provinces 
of Canada.

                Concern For the Great Lakes Environment

    Mary Schmidt: My name is Mary Schmidt. I actually met you 
last summer at the public hearing. I just retired from National 
Tennessee and moved to Western Michigan. And I think I, like 
most of the people that I have come in contact with, 
absolutely--we moved here because we loved the Great Lakes. But 
we had no idea--I certainly had no idea of the really fragile 
state of the ecosystem here. And as I am--and I spent the 
summer going to hearings and learning about this. And as I have 
continued to travel around the country, I'm amazed at even 
within Michigan the lack of awareness around what a crisis that 
it is. And coming out of the business world, you know, I have 
always--I retired after 24 years with the health care 
corporation--that you have to have a burning platform to drive 
change. And I give you great, great--I love your passion. I 
just am so excited that--the legislation that you have 
introduced.
    My concern is to get the funding and to get it passed. 
People around this country have to recognize how critical it is 
and how important fresh water is actually to their health. And 
as I have looked at all of the work that has been done over the 
last several years around the issue of the Great Lakes, and all 
of the wonderful collaboration, one of the apparent 
opportunities to bring another to the table strikes me in terms 
of health care. Because I--I haven't seen a lot of health care 
executives at the table or at these hearings. And, yet, when 
you think about our communities, you know, it is hospitals, it 
is the health care world that is responsible for our short-term 
and long-term health. And I just wonder if, perhaps, there is 
an opportunity, albeit they have--believe me having come from 
that world, and I spent the last 14 years calling on CEOs of 
hospitals--that they have got a lot of issues, as well you know 
on their plate right now. But I think there might be an 
opportunity, certainly when we start thinking about educating 
the public, that there might be an opportunity to really use an 
organization--organizations that are in each of our communities 
to both educate and really energize the public around the 
correlation between fresh water and healthy lives. And so I 
just throw that out there because I think that the issue of 
funding is going to really require us getting, you know, the 
communities at large aware of really the crisis situation that 
we are in. And not just here in the Great Lakes. As I am 
digging more and more around the country, you know, fresh water 
is a very, very scarce resource. So I just wanted to throw that 
out. And, again, a huge thank you for all that you have done in 
this area. It's very, very exciting.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you for your comments. I have always 
found it striking that, you know, I'm very proud that we have 
always led the world in having clean, pure drinking water. And 
we are losing that. And I find it fascinating that communities 
say they can't afford to get rid of combined sewer overflow, or 
to keep their systems up, the public just won't vote for it. At 
the same time, this nation is spending over eight billion 
dollars a year on bottled water. What an irony. Spending eight 
billion on bottled water, which is not much better than we get 
out of the tap when we live near the Great Lakes. So I 
appreciate your comments.
    Yes, sir?
    Bob Stegmeier: And maybe the water is not as good when it 
comes out of the tap.

                            Invasive Species

    My name is Bob Stegmeier. I am involved in the Conservation 
League of America. And I have been in your districts forever. 
As this briefing came along, I thought, what are the, you know, 
what are the most important things? And before I came here, 
they were, one and two or two and one, I'm not sure which. Get 
that barrier in the Chicago River properly protected, properly 
built so that it--you know, it does its job to keep the Asian 
carp out of the Great Lakes. The thought came to me is, that 
ought to almost have terrorist, you know, designation, whether 
it be a terrorist or just somebody who, you know, wasn't quite 
all there. But that's either number one or number two.
    And the second is, to me, and I saw--I heard it here from 
almost everybody--close the door on the invasive species coming 
in through the Great Lakes shipping. I mean, Peter had the idea 
of making a reservoir. That would keep the shipping out. Mr.--
Dr. Steinman says it's--is the shipping worth it? It sounds 
like the shipping is not worth it. But we can close the door--
the door ought to be closable, and it ought to be closable now 
and soon. And then--the coastal, all the other problems that I 
hear here are certainly there. But the invasive species just 
comes one after another after another. Thank you. And for your 
effort and Bill 5100, thank you.
    Mr. Ehlers: Well, thank you for your comments. An amusing 
note here. Some years ago when I first introduced the bill to 
control invasive species, I was visited by an executive in the 
shipping industry who explained to me how--what we were 
proposing was so expensive it would really make it difficult 
for them to do business. And I said, okay, you have convinced 
me. I will drop the bill. Instead, I will put in the bill 
saying that you pay for the damage caused by the invasive 
species. So he had a direct correlation to it. Well, no, we 
can't afford that. I said, exactly. That's my point. But thank 
you for your comment.
    Yes, sir?
    Greg Monn: Representative Ehlers, I want to thank you--I'm 
sorry, I'm Greg Monn (phonetic). I'm the chair of the Statewide 
Public Advisory Council for the 14 areas of concern here in 
Michigan. And I represent White Lake as the area of concern, 
but I also want to thank Peter for his support for the Muskegon 
River Watershed as he mentioned. I'm a board member there.
    But we have a handout over here that talks about some of 
the legislative priorities that we perceive three, as well as 
some of the success stories, as Al had talked about, Lemon 
Creek (sic) is one of the Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-ups, as 
well as (inaudible) bay--that was cleaned up (inaudible) Lake. 
Not necessarily with--it was before the Legacy Act was passed.
    But one of the things is to ensure that there is adequate 
federal and State funding for working in the areas of concern. 
Most of the money that is spent here in Michigan comes through 
the Federal Government. And recently in Michigan that was 
increased. And we see dramatic changes within the state program 
just with the doubling of the staff that's there. Things are 
picking up. There is criteria available now here in Michigan. 
We need to ensure that. The current resources dwindled 
potentially. The effort of the Great Lakes, we need to applaud 
your efforts to bring that attention to it along with the 
Regional Collaboration.
    What's more critical, and what I see in the question I want 
to pose to the Committee is that there is adequate support for 
local decision-makers within the community--public advisory 
councils. What I would call, I think Al talked about a little 
bit and some of the other speakers, grass roots efforts. They 
are the speakers; they are the communities that recognize that 
the canary in the coal mine is dying. We see those things 
immediately, as well as the science that backs it up.
    The third thing is that mandate to coordinate all of the 
federal programs and State programs. I think EPA is starting 
that process for the last couple years--but bringing all those 
different programs. I think there was about 11 different 
agencies. And I thought I made a note of somewhere around 140 
programs that are involved that way, that aren't necessarily 
focused coordinated and communicated between that. And the 
question I bring is the stewardship effort. When we talk about 
prevention, that seems to be still one of the main stays, or 
one of the name sakes, base things of people--if we had that 
growing up.
    When I think about 1970, I went to the first event--
graduated from high school--that was a long time ago--with 
Earth Day. You know, I had no idea. Rivers were on fire 
throughout the United States, throughout the Great Lakes. Do we 
have to wait until those kinds of things happen again to bring 
public reaction, to bring public--and I want to understand what 
emphasis there amongst all of the programs that we talked about 
so far today that brings stewardship ethic along with it. If 
not, really more so is being predominant emphasis, predominant 
program that these programs relate to. And I would throw that 
out. It's a difficult question, but it's worthy of discussion, 
I think. Thank you.
    Mr. Ehlers: Thank you, very much. And I would say that, you 
know, it was easy back in the old days when you have sewage 
flowing down the river or river and fire, it's easy to get the 
public excited. Now we are talking about contamination that you 
can't see, particularly chemical contamination. You can't see 
mercury. You can't see the toxics, the PCVs in the water. And 
so the danger is real, if not worse than it was before. And you 
have to somehow factor--back to the comments of Dr. Steinman, 
you have to educate the public to these dangers as well as 
educating the legislative leaders to it. And it's not easy. But 
it's something we can do. I see no other hands up--one last 
one. You will be the last one. Okay?

                           Public Involvement

    Kim Spring: Thank you, very much. My name is Kim Spring. 
I'm a community organizer for Clean Water Action here in Grand 
Rapids. And we serve on the steering committee for Healing Our 
Waters, but I'm not the person that normally attends those 
meetings. But I'm very curious to know--I read on the press 
release that--as well as the sponsors, there were 25 other 
congressional members supporting this legislation. What can our 
members do here in Michigan, that gives 170,000 members just 
here in Michigan, to bridge the gap between the elected 
officials who aren't on-board yet, and what the people of 
Michigan want, which is clean water and a healthy Great Lakes 
ecosystem? How can we help with our members to bring some more 
people on board from the Michigan delegation?
    Mr. Ehlers: I wouldn't worry as much about Michigan as I 
would some other states. So if you are in other states, you 
know, the standard thing is simply to get your members to write 
their legislators, Senators, and Members of Congress. And ask 
them to co-sponsor the bill. And I don't remember the Senate 
number, but the House number is easy--5100. I deliberately 
worked--it's not easy to get a special number, but I had my 
office staff yelling at me.
    Ms. O'Connell: 2545.
    Mr. Ehlers: So the Senate, 2545. And the House, 5100. And 
the more co-sponsors we have, the better off we are. And once 
we get above the magic number of 218 in the House--that's the 
majority to get it passed--suddenly you get a lot of attention. 
So any of you can help. Whether you are Trout Unlimited or 
Clean Water Action or whatever. Get people to write their 
member of Congress to endorse--to co-sponsor 5100.
    Thank you very, very much for attending. I would dearly 
love to have the names--because we had so many good comments--I 
would like to have the names of everyone who is here. We do 
have a sign up sheet over here. If you have a card, you can 
just drop it off instead of signing up. Otherwise, sign up or 
just write your name on a piece of paper and leave it on the 
table so that we can keep you informed of further developments 
if something else comes up. Thank you again for your deep 
interest in this. I deeply appreciate it. So good night.
    [Proceedings adjourned at 3:10 p.m.]








                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record




                      Prescription for Great Lakes

                  Ecosystem Protection and Restoration

          (Avoiding the Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes)

                             December 2005

Jack Bails, Vice President, Public Sector Consultants Alfred Beeton, 
        Ph.D., retired Director of Great Lakes Environmental 
        Laboratory, Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan

Jonathan Bulkley, Ph.D., Professor, University of Michigan

Michele DePhilip, Aquatic Ecologist, Great Lakes Program, The Nature 
        Conservancy

John Gannon, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, International Joint Commission

Michael Murray, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Great Lakes Natural Resource 
        Center, National Wildlife Federation

Henry Regier, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

Donald Scavia, Ph.D., Professor and Sea Grant Director, University of 
        Michigan

Note: Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

OVERVIEW

    There is widespread agreement that the Great Lakes presently are 
exhibiting symptoms of extreme stress from a combination of sources 
that include toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, 
shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. 
Many of these sources of stress and others have been impacting the 
lakes for over a century. These adverse impacts have appeared gradually 
over time, often in nearshore areas, in the shallower portions of the 
system, and in specific fish populations. Factors such as the size of 
the lakes, the time delay between the introduction of stress and 
subsequent impacts, the temporary recovery of some portions of the 
ecosystem, and failure to understand the ecosystem-level disruptions 
caused by the combination of multiple stresses have led to the false 
assumption that the Great Lakes ecosystem is healthy and resilient.
    Because it has taken the Great Lakes four centuries of exposure to 
these human-induced stresses to get to this point, some argue we have 
decades to control these and other sources of stress and promote the 
lakes' recovery.\1\ From this perspective, protecting the Great Lakes 
is not particularly urgent and action can wait until we conduct more 
studies, while taking small corrective measures when the opportunity or 
need arises. However, if not addressed with great urgency, the Great 
Lakes system may experience further--and potentially irreversible--
damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Report to the President on 
the Implementation of the Great Lakes Executive Order, undated, 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/collaboration/
final-rttp-10282005.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In large areas of the lakes, historical sources of stress have 
combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which 
ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the 
traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected 
ecosystem response. There is compelling evidence that in many parts of 
the Great Lakes we are at or beyond this tipping point. Certain areas 
of the Great Lakes are increasingly experiencing ecosystem breakdown, 
where intensifying levels of stress from a combination of sources have 
overwhelmed the natural processes that normally stabilize and buffer 
the system from permanent change.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ This is analogous to discussions of resilience and catastrophic 
change in ecosystems as presented in Scheffer et al. (2001), whereby 
assuming alternative stable states are available, sufficient 
perturbation in any ecosystem can shift it to an alternative (and 
potentially ``unwanted'') stable state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the specific episodes of ecosystem breakdown have been 
unpredictable and alarming, few Great Lakes researchers are surprised 
by these occurrences. A number of papers were published in the 1980s 
describing stresses in various areas of the Great Lakes, including Lake 
Erie and shallow embayments in lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario. 
These papers described the symptoms of the Great Lakes ecosystem under 
distress, and laid the foundation for a conceptual ecological framework 
for understanding the changes that were occurring at that time. Rapport 
et al. (1985) discussed ecosystem self-regulating mechanisms (such as 
responses to invasive species) and the process by which stresses can 
give rise to early warnings, coping mechanisms, and ultimately lead to 
ecosystem breakdown if the overall stress is sufficiently prolonged 
and/or intense. The ecosystem adaptation syndrome discussed in the 
paper can be used to help formulate a systematic ecosystem approach to 
environmental management of the Great Lakes. This ecosystem breakdown 
concept helps explain the scope, intensity, and speed of the ecosystem 
changes that have occurred in the Great Lakes since the 1980s.
    Examples of ecosystem breakdown or major changes in the lakes 
include: (1) persistence of the anoxic/hypoxic zone in the central 
basin of Lake Erie and other stresses in the eastern and western 
basins; (2) continued symptoms of impairment (including eutrophication) 
in Saginaw Bay and Green Bay; (3) well-documented rapid disappearance 
of the once abundant amphipods in the genus Diporeia in sediments of 
large areas of all the lakes (except for Lake Superior), and 
concomitant food web disruptions; (4) recent declines in growth, 
condition and numbers of lake whitefish in Lake Michigan and portions 
of Lake Huron; and (5) elimination of the macrophyte (i.e., rooted 
plant) community and simplification of the benthic food web, in 
Sandusky Bay on Lake Erie and Cootes Paradise in Hamilton Harbour on 
Lake Ontario, due to sediment and other pollutant loads.
    The major cause of ecosystem breakdown is the severe damage that 
has been done to the Great Lakes' self-regulating mechanisms. In the 
past, healthy nearshore communities and tributaries helped reduce the 
impact of many stresses on or entering the lakes. Over time, the 
combined effects of a whole suite of stresses from a variety of human-
induced sources have overwhelmed the ecosystem's self-regulating 
mechanisms. This diagnosis suggests that it is appropriate and 
necessary to address multiple sources of stress in order to reverse the 
trend toward widespread ecosystem breakdown. The following is a list of 
Great Lakes management objectives based on this diagnosis.

          Restore

           Restore critical elements of the ecosystem's self-regulating 
        mechanisms. To the extent possible, re-establish natural 
        attributes of critical nearshore and tributary communities so 
        they can once again perform their stabilizing function. Where 
        full restoration of natural attributes is not possible, improve 
        desirable aspects through enhancement of important 
        functions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Establishment of restoration goals obviously needs to 
acknowledge ecological constraints (e.g., the presence of numerous 
invasive species--including introduced fish--that are currently 
important components of food webs) as well as consider other human use 
objectives (e.g., maintenance of sport fisheries that include 
introduced species) (see, for example, discussions in Kitchell et al., 
2000; Mills et al., 2003; Sproule-Jones, 2003).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Remediate

           Remediate abusive practices that create sources of stress. 
        Reduce or eliminate physical habitat alterations, pollution 
        loadings, pathways for invasive species, and other stressors or 
        their vectors into the lakes.

          Protect

           Protect the functioning portions of the ecosystem from 
        impairment. Preserve those portions of the ecosystems that now 
        are healthy, and those that can be restored or enhanced, 
        through sustainable development practices within the Great 
        Lakes basin.

          Measure

           Building on existing efforts, measure ecosystem health 
        through a set of agreed-upon integrative indicators that can 
        serve to assess current conditions and monitor the progress of 
        restoring the lakes.

    The conceptual model here indicates the importance of immediate and 
sustained action. It advocates using the principles of ecosystem-based 
management to restore and protect the Great Lakes. Without such action, 
the lakes could potentially suffer irreversible and catastrophic 
damage.

SYMPTOMS

    Many of the changes the Great Lakes have experienced in response to 
sources of stress have been documented for decades. Examples of 
symptoms and sources of stresses to the lakes include:

          Extirpation or major declines in important native 
        species (such as lake trout and deepwater ciscoes) due to 
        overfishing and effects from aquatic invasive species (such as 
        sea lamprey predation on lake trout, and competition with 
        deepwater ciscoes by introduced alewives and rainbow smelt);

          Widespread reproductive failures of keystone, 
        heritage, and other (both native and introduced) fish species, 
        including lake trout, sturgeon, lake herring, coaster brook 
        trout, and Atlantic and Pacific salmon;

          Fouling of coastlines, resulting in beach closings 
        and loss of habitat for fish and waterfowl;

          Toxic contamination of fish, which threatens the 
        health of people, wildlife, and some fish species themselves, 
        and results in fish consumption advisories throughout the Great 
        Lakes and inland lakes and rivers;

          Loss of coastal wetlands, including over 90 percent 
        of the pre-settlement wetlands along the Lake Huron/Lake Erie 
        corridor;

          More recent introductions of aquatic invasive species 
        (e.g., zebra and quagga mussels, round gobies and predatory 
        zooplankton such as Bythotrephes cederstroemi and Cercopagis 
        pengoi (two species of water fleas) ) leading to declines in 
        valued/important native aquatic species (including certain 
        plankton, unionid clams and certain native fish species);

          Decreased populations of benthic organisms in many 
        locations, causing decreased health in lake whitefish and with 
        the potential to impact other species; and

          General water quality degradation, associated algal 
        blooms, Type E botulism in fish and waterfowl, and 
        contamination of drinking water (e.g., Johnson et al., 1998; 
        Beeton et al., 1999; IJC, 2000; IJC, 2002; IJC, 2004; Whelan 
        and Johnson, 2004).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ In some cases, policies designed to address these stresses have 
been effective. Most notably, the passage in the United States of the 
Clean Water Act in 1972 and subsequent amendments initiated the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for point sources and 
resulted in billions of dollars in investments by Federal, State, and 
local governments to upgrade, improve, and extend wastewater collection 
and treatment systems directly tributary to the Great Lakes; similar 
scale investments were made in Canada. The ban on the use and 
manufacturing of certain toxic chemicals, and strict protections put on 
others, has helped allow key indicator species (eagles, herring gulls) 
to return to health. However, even with substantial investments over 
the past three decades, wastewater treatment plants and sewer systems 
are in need of substantial new capital expenditures for major repairs, 
upgrades and, in some cases, replacement, and it is clear that local 
funding alone will not be adequate to the task. In addition, though a 
subject of research and policy focus for a number of years, nonpoint 
source pollution--including urban runoff, agricultural runoff, air 
deposition, and contaminated sediments--continues to be a significant 
contributor of pollutants to Great Lakes waters.

    Historically, these and other symptoms were attributed to six major 
anthropogenic or human-induced sources of stress to the ecosystems in 
each lake.\5\ The symptoms may appear stepwise like a chain reaction or 
self-organize in a complex, ecologically degraded manner. Listed in no 
particular order are those anthropogenic sources of stress: (1) 
overfishing (i.e., extracting larger quantities of fish than the system 
can sustain naturally); (2) nutrient loading (i.e., addition of 
phosphorus and nitrogen in excess of natural levels, usually via human 
waste and urban and agricultural runoff); (3) the release of toxic 
chemicals (e.g., mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other 
chlorinated hydrocarbons), including many that are both persistent and 
bioaccumulative;\6\ (4) increased sediment loading as well as other 
sources of stress associated with land use practices (e.g., physical 
changes including alteration of vegetative land cover, wetland filling, 
modification of shorelines); (5) introduction of invasive (nonnative) 
exotic plant and animal species (e.g., purple loosestrife, sea lamprey, 
and zebra mussel); and (6) hydrologic alterations in tributary and 
connecting waterways, diversion and/or alteration of flows through the 
construction of dams, channels, and canals, alteration of natural 
drainage patterns (e.g., leading to increased surface water runoff and 
stream flows in urban areas with increased imperviousness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Although we often speak of a ``Great Lakes ecosystem,'' in most 
cases each lake basin has its own ecosystem, further divided into sub-
basin ecosystems.
    \6\ In addition to chemicals that have been of longstanding concern 
in the Great Lakes, increasing attention is being directed at chemicals 
of emerging concern, including those found in products such as 
pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and flame retardants. Some of 
these and other chemicals may act as endocrine disruptors or otherwise 
alter regulatory systems in biota, and potentially add to the stress 
caused by toxic chemicals of principal focus in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of the symptoms of stress on the Great Lakes are attributable 
to a combination of these six sources of stress. Fouling of coastlines 
and near-shore areas arises from sewage overflows and contaminated 
runoff. Historically, valued species of fish declined in number or 
disappeared as a result of overfishing and, to varying degrees, 
invasive species, lost habitat connectivity, and toxic chemicals. 
Presently, invasive species and concomitant food web changes as well as 
lost connectivity of tributary spawning habitat play a larger role in 
affecting fish populations. Toxic chemical contamination in fish, which 
also threatens the health of humans and fish-consuming wildlife, is a 
direct result of historical and current toxic chemical releases. The 
loss of coastal wetlands stems from changes in land use practices and 
hydrologic alterations. Changes in water quality are caused directly by 
toxic chemical, nutrient, microbial and sediment pollution, as well as 
through actions of some invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels). 
Invasive species are the most likely principal source of food web 
disruptions now occurring in the Great Lakes, and are implicated in 
reproductive failures of some fish species (e.g., walleyes, lake trout, 
yellow perch, and lake herring) (McDonald et al., 1998; Fielder and 
Thomas, 2005).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ One example of reproductive effects on salmonids involves the 
action of the enzyme thiaminase, which transforms the essential vitamin 
thiamine. In a recent study, lake trout fed diets with substantial 
amounts of thiaminase (either in bacterial form or with alewives (an 
introduced species with naturally elevated levels of the enzyme)) 
produce eggs more susceptible to embryonic early mortality syndrome 
(Honeyfield et al., 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It should be noted that superimposed on these primary stresses are 
the broader, large-scale changes in global and regional climate. A 
recent analysis of the potential global warming and regional climate 
change impacts to the Great Lakes region included declining lake levels 
and the duration of winter ice, jeopardizing reproduction of some 
fisheries, and general lake warming that could negatively impact 
coldwater fish species, favor invasions of warm water nonnative 
species, and expand the duration of summer stratification and increase 
the potential for hypoxia (``dead zones'') (Kling et al., 2003). These 
findings were generally consistent with earlier predictions for the 
Great Lakes in a scenario with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide 
levels, although the researchers emphasized that the many complex 
interactions could lead to varied responses in individual ecosystems 
(e.g., thermal habitat changes in deep stratified lakes vs. shallow 
lakes and streams) (Magnuson et al., 1997). In addition to these 
potential compounding factors in the lakes proper, earlier ice breakup 
and earlier peaks in spring runoff will change the timing of stream 
flows, while increases in heavy rainstorms may cause more frequent 
flooding with potential increases in erosion, and additional water 
pollution from nutrients, pesticides, and other contaminants. While it 
is difficult to know how these changes will interact with the other six 
classes of stress identified above, there is little doubt that global 
warming will add yet another source of stress to the already perturbed 
Great Lakes ecosystem.

DIAGNOSING THE DISEASE

    The Great Lakes ecosystem and the major human-induced sources of 
stress on it can be portrayed as a series of overlapping circles in a 
Venn Diagram, as shown in Figure 1.\8\ For areas where stresses act 
singly or jointly but not at intense levels, an ecosystem may change 
adaptively to an unhealthy state of diminished vigor and unpleasant 
aesthetics but not suffer major transformation to a disorganized 
critical state. Such a contrast could be analogous to a person feeling 
sick and redirecting vital efforts to recover at home rather than being 
taken to a crisis center for surgery or other intensive care. In an 
ecosystem in which only one stress acts intensely, positive (or 
reinforcing) or synergistic feedback loops can emerge, leading to a 
runaway or catastrophic breakdown process. However, such feedback loops 
are more likely to occur as the adverse effects of a number of stresses 
interact. The probability of disastrous ecosystemic breakdown appears 
to increase with the number of stresses acting on and interacting in 
the ecosystem. Thus, in this conceptual model, the probability of 
breakdown is likely to be highest at the center of the Venn Diagram 
where all types of stress act and interact to varying degrees. The 
prevention of this type of ecosystem breakdown should be the focus of 
attention in any restoration and protection efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The locations of stresses on the diagram is somewhat arbitrary, 
as the model is limited to working with stresses that are represented 
in two dimensions. It is possible that two or more stresses might 
interact in stronger ways (and others less coherently) that can be 
represented in the diagram.




    The magnitude (intensity), shape, and degree of overlap of the 
stresses have varied over time and space. For example, overfishing 
began in the late 1800s and continued into the 20th Century, while 
invasive species had significantly effected the ecosystem by the middle 
of the 20th Century. Other stresses have had significant effects more 
locally, such as nutrient loading in Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, and the 
western and central basins of Lake Erie, and toxic chemicals in the 
basin's industrial complexes such as along the Niagara, Detroit and Fox 
rivers (although due in part to diffuse loadings, many contaminants 
long ago become more widespread throughout the lakes themselves). In 
order to address these areas of overlap, there remains the need to 
better understand the salient features of these areas.

Conceptual Understanding of Ecosystem Stress Adaptation

    The nearshore areas are important in the ecosystemic self-
organization of the Great Lakes. Before the significant impact of 
humans (i.e., following European settlement), the nearshore areas were 
in equilibrium with surrounding areas. There was a healthy abundance 
and diversity of organisms interacting to various degrees with 
surrounding areas (from wetlands to offshore), and loads of nutrients 
and other constituents from land could be assimilated and/or 
transferred between communities without major disruptions to the 
functioning ecosystem. With development and industrialization in the 
Great Lakes, land use changes, increased pollution, and other factors 
have increased stress on these nearshore areas.
    As the types and intensity of stress increased, two things 
happened. First, inflowing nutrients were shunted to the open waters of 
nearshore areas where photosynthetic energy fixation then erupted as 
plankton blooms. The blooms resulted in the loss of many valued, native 
species of nearshore communities and an increase in other species, 
native and nonnative, that favor open waters. Second, the entire 
ecosystem, including community abundance and composition, became 
unstable and began to undergo wider and more frequent fluctuations. 
Increased loadings of sediments from watershed runoff, toxic chemical 
inputs, oxygen depletion (following increased nutrient loads), 
hydrological alterations and other sources of stress created a hostile 
environment to bottom dwelling, pollution-sensitive species and to the 
eggs of most Great Lakes fishes (Rapport et al., 1985; Steedman and 
Regier, 1987). Some of these changes were concomitant with or followed 
upon earlier changes to the upper portions of the food web due to a 
combination of introduction of aquatic invasive species (such as the 
sea lamprey, rainbow smelt and alewives) and overfishing, leading to 
extirpation or significant depletions of open water species such as 
lake trout and deepwater ciscoes (Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis, 1999).
    More recently, the invasion of zebra mussels in Lake St. Clair in 
1988 and later arrival of quagga mussels have altered this nutrient 
flow dynamic in the Great Lakes yet again. Extensive colonization by 
zebra mussels in nearshore areas of the lower lakes has resulted in the 
reduction of nutrient and energy supplies to the open waters (Hecky et 
al. 2004). The extreme filtering capacities of zebra mussels for 
plankton has transferred energy from the water column to the nearshore 
benthic areas, and diminished the transport of nutrients via currents 
to the deeper waters. Also, quagga mussels colonize deeper waters and 
out-compete other organisms for food resources directly. The increased 
nearshore retention of nutrients along with clearer water has led to an 
increase in undesirable species of algae. Organic material filtered by 
mussels is transformed into biodeposits (pseudofeces and feces) that 
while serving in part as a food source for some organisms, are not 
utilized as a food source by many other benthic organisms (see below). 
In addition, the zebra mussels themselves are undesirable prey for most 
native Great Lakes fish species, but are readily consumed by invasive 
round gobies. The introduction and spread of zebra and quagga mussels 
has not only led to declines in native mussels (Nalepa et al., 1996) 
and other benthic species (see, for example, Nalepa et al., 1998; 
Dermott, 2001; Lozano et al., 2001), but has also facilitated the 
spread of other invasive species (Ricciardi, 2001).
    With sufficient cumulative stress (including habitat loss, nutrient 
loadings, oxygen depletion, and invasive species), the capability of 
once healthy, resilient, and diverse coastal communities to buffer 
against natural and human perturbations can be overwhelmed. In essence, 
the health-sustaining system of the Great Lakes is seriously weakened. 
Once the resilient capabilities are exceeded the ecosystem organization 
abruptly and catastrophically changes, resulting in ecosystem 
breakdown. Under extreme circumstances where the suite of stresses 
become severely intense, the ecosystem adaptive responses in some cases 
move into another phase dominated by species that can tolerate and 
benefit from those sources of stress. The presence of surface scum, 
mats of fungi, strands of filamentous algae, and surface blooms of 
toxin-producing algae create this new phase in the water column. This 
surface association has appeared seasonally in certain bays and in the 
shallow waters of the Great Lakes, but has had adverse affects on both 
the nearshore and open water communities.
    Scientists throughout the world are documenting the actual and 
expected damage that the loss of such ecosystem resiliency can cause. 
In March, 2005, the United Nations issued a final draft of a report 
endorsed by 1,200 of the world's leading scientists called the 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report (United Nations, 
2005). One of the report's conclusions follows:

         There is established but incomplete evidence that changes 
        being made in ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of 
        nonlinear changes in ecosystems (including accelerating, 
        abrupt, and potentially irreversible changes), with important 
        consequences for human well-being. Changes in ecosystems 
        generally take place gradually. Some changes are nonlinear, 
        however: once a threshold is crossed, the system changes to a 
        very different state. And these nonlinear changes are sometimes 
        abrupt; they can also be large in magnitude and difficult, 
        expensive, or impossible to reverse. (Emphasis in original, 
        endnote omitted) (United Nations 2005)

    The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report conclusions 
are repeated in a ``Scientific Consensus Statement for Marine 
Ecosystem-Based Management'' recently adopted by over 200 scientists 
(Scientific Consensus 2005). The scientists signing the Consensus 
Statement on marine environments (as do the scientists endorsing this 
prescription paper) emphasize the need for a holistic, ecosystem-based 
management approach, including the dangers of managing only individual 
sources of stress or specific species:

         Ecosystems can recover from many kinds of disturbance, but are 
        not infinitely resilient. There is often a threshold beyond 
        which an altered ecosystem may not return to its previous 
        state. The tipping point for these irreversible changes may be 
        impossible to predict. Thus, increased levels of precaution are 
        prudent as ecosystems are pushed further from pre-existing 
        states. Features that enhance the ability of an ecosystem to 
        resist or recover from disturbance include the full natural 
        complement of species, genetic diversity within species, 
        multiple representative stands (copies) of each habitat type, 
        and lack of degrading stress from other sources. (Emphasis in 
        original.) (Scientific Consensus, 2005)

    While the same ecological principles cited for the world's oceans 
apply to the Great Lakes, the lakes may be less able to cope with 
stress than typical coastal marine environments. Ecosystems that have 
evolved in relatively unstable environments, such as those in the 
intertidal ocean communities that are exposed to frequent tidal 
movements and that have great diversity of species, are more likely to 
resist and/or recover from moderate human-induced stress. In contrast, 
the Great Lakes ecosystem is a relatively young (<12,000 years), mostly 
oligotrophic system that has evolved in a relatively stable environment 
with a more limited number of species. The lakes represent a more 
closed system than coastal ocean waters, and respond more slowly to 
contaminant loadings (with longer hydraulic flushing times than coastal 
areas). Because of these differences, the lakes may be rapidly altered 
by even moderate stresses such as changes in water quality, system 
hydrology, or the introduction of invasive species (Rapport and Regier, 
1995). Thus, action to avoid the tipping point for irreversible 
ecosystem changes in the Great Lakes may be even more urgent than for 
coastal marine environments.

Great Lakes Ecosystem Response to Loss of Resiliency

    In the Great Lakes, nonlinear changes are no longer a future 
threat--these types of changes are taking place now. While in some 
areas some indicators of ecosystem health have continued to improve 
over the past decade, other large areas in the lakes are undergoing 
rapid changes where combinations of effects of old and new stresses are 
interacting synergistically to trigger a chain reaction process of 
ecosystem degradation. The rapidness of this chain-reaction process, 
seen over the past five to fifteen years and involving sudden and 
unpredictable changes, is unique in the Great Lakes' recorded history. 
Some of the most significant changes observed include the radical food 
web disruptions occurring in Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario; 
the reoccurrence of the anoxic/hypoxic zone in the central basin and 
other impairments (such as blooms of Microcystis cyanobacteria in the 
western basin) in Lake Erie; and ongoing problems related to invasive 
species and other impairments in Lake Ontario. A profile of components 
of these potentially devastating ecosystem responses follows.

Profiles of Ecosystem Breakdown

Food Web Disruptions
    Invasions of aquatic nonnative species in the Great Lakes have been 
a concern since the mid-twentieth century when sea lamprey, combined 
with other sources of stress, decimated populations of lake trout in 
the Upper Great Lakes. Facilitations between a series of invasive 
introductions have resulted in a synergistic effect leading to 
significant alterations of critical ecosystem processes in the Great 
Lakes. For example, reductions in lake trout and other predator species 
due to sea lamprey predation in Lakes Michigan and Huron paved the way 
for explosive increases in the populations of other invaders (e.g., 
alewife and rainbow smelt) which, in turn, competed with and preyed 
upon native forage species (Holeck et al., 2004).
    More recently, researchers have documented a dramatic decline in 
abundances of the amphipod Diporeia in sediments of Lake Michigan. 
Diporeia is a critical component of the food web, important in the 
diets of many fish species. Historically, it has been the dominant food 
source for species such as slimy and deepwater sculpin, bloater, and 
lake whitefish. In the early 1980s average abundances of Diporeia in 
bottom sediments from Lake Michigan were as high as 12,200 individuals/
m2. However, Diporeia numbers began declining by the early 
1990s, and by 2000 became severely depleted from sediment samples from 
Lake Michigan in much of the southern and northern portions of the 
lake, in some cases disappearing altogether (Nalepa et al., 1998; 
GLERL, 2003).
    Populations of other macroinvertebrates have declined significantly 
in Lake Michigan as well. Oligochaete worms and fingernail clams showed 
declines in parallel with those of Diporeia in nearshore areas from 
1980-1993 (Madenjian et al., 2002). While researchers have not been 
able to establish a direct link, they have associated the decline of 
Diporeia with increases in the abundance of the nonnative zebra mussel 
in Lake Michigan beginning in 1989. Diporeia and other benthic 
organisms depend on diatoms and detritus from other phytoplankton as a 
primary source of food, the same source of energy that zebra mussels 
utilize (Nalepa et al., 1998). Recent research indicates that the loss 
of amphipods is having serious consequences for the fish of Lake 
Michigan, including whitefish (Pothoven et. al., 2001), sculpin and 
bloater (Hondorp at al. 2005), and alewife (Madenjian et al., 2002). 
Evidence also indicates that similar food web disruptions are occurring 
or have already occurred in Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario (e.g., Nalepa 
et al., 2003; Dermott and Kerec, 1997; Lozano et al., 2001).
Lake Erie: Re-emerging Problems and New Threats
    For the Lake Erie ecosystem, cautious optimism about restoration 
was expressed in the early 1990s as the result of reductions in 
phosphorus loadings, improved dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom 
waters of the central basin, and increased fish populations 
(Markarewicz, 1991). However, while improvements have continued by some 
measures (e.g., increased water clarity, establishment of rooted 
aquatic plants), other impairments have persisted and/or increased in 
intensity in recent years. For example, recent data indicate that since 
the early 1990s springtime phosphorus concentrations have increased, 
summertime dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Erie's central basin have 
decreased, and walleye numbers have begun to decline (IJC, 2004). Lake 
Erie nutrient loads and cycling, oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen levels 
and related issues have been the subject of a number of studies in 
recent decades, and it has been recognized that a combination of 
factors (including physical factors such as thickness of the bottom 
water layer, or hypolimnion) can affect deeper water dissolved oxygen 
levels.\9\ Because of the number of factors involved, it is likely that 
no single factor explains the more recent periods of hypoxia (low 
oxygen conditions) in the central basin. Factors that could be 
influencing the persistent development of central basin summertime 
hypoxia include climate change and altered weather patterns (e.g., 
changes in temperatures and timing and intensity of storm events), 
changes in nutrient loadings (in particular from nonpoint sources--some 
data show increased phosphorus loadings from Ohio tributaries in the 
past decade), and altered internal cycling of phosphorus in response to 
the presence of zebra and quagga mussels (e.g., IJC, 2004; U.S. EPA and 
Environment Canada, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See for example Kay and Regier (1999) (and related papers in 
the State of Lake Erie volume) and Charlton (1987), Rosa and Burns 
(1987) and other papers in the same issue of the Journal of Great Lakes 
Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Avian botulism is another feature of the stress complex in Lake 
Erie (with cases also observed in Lakes Ontario and Huron), leading to 
episodic summertime die-offs of fish and fish-eating birds. The die-
offs (which have included freshwater drum and birds such as common 
loons (Gavia immer) and red-breasted mergansers (Mergus serrator) ) are 
linked to the generation of a neurotoxin produced by the anaerobic 
bacterium Clostridium botulinum. While the mechanisms leading to the 
outbreaks remain to be confirmed, the botulism toxin has been found in 
dreissenid mussels and invasive round gobies (a principal predator of 
zebra mussels), leading to the hypothesis that round gobies are 
transferring the toxin from zebra mussels to organisms higher in the 
food web (Domske, 2003; Ricciardi, 2005).
    Another stress in Lake Erie is the return of blooms of the blue-
green algae (or cyanobacteria) Microcystis. In addition to being a low 
quality food for other aquatic species, these algae can produce the 
microcystin toxin, which at sufficient levels can be harmful to fish, 
wildlife and humans. Microcystis are selectively expelled during 
feeding by zebra mussels, and thus zebra mussel colonization appears to 
be facilitating the re-emergence of these problem blooms (Vanderploeg, 
2002). Another problem is the increasing frequency of algal mat 
development in nearshore areas (in particular in the eastern basin) by 
the filamentous green alga Cladophora. Blooms of this alga, which 
impair recreation and otherwise detract from beach aesthetic value, are 
linked to nearshore hypoxia/anoxia (U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 
2004).
    Yet another significant potential threat to the ecosystem of Lake 
Erie and the other lakes is the presence of Asian carp in waters near 
the lakes. Several of these species have been imported to the southern 
U.S. to control unwanted organisms found in aquaculture facilities, and 
in some cases have escaped into the wild. While several individual 
Asian carp have been caught in Lake Erie, there are no established 
populations in Lake Erie or any of the other Great Lakes. However, at 
least two of the species have migrated up the Mississippi and Illinois 
Rivers and are within several miles of Lake Michigan. If the fish 
(which are planktivores and can range up to 40 kg) manage to breach 
barriers (such as the electric barrier on the Des Plaines River in 
Illinois), enter the Great Lakes, and become established, they could 
cause significant impacts on the ecosystem through competition with 
other fish that feed on plankton (U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 
2004).
    Other emerging or ongoing symptoms of stress in Lake Erie include 
the continued presence of invasive species (including round gobies and 
quagga mussels), rising water temperatures, limited shallow water 
habitat due to hydromodified shorelines on the southern shore (in 
particular in the western basin), continuing presence of toxic 
chemicals (e.g., PCBs and persistent pesticides) leading to fish 
consumption advisories, and findings of pharmaceuticals, hormones and 
other chemicals of emerging concern in the Detroit River (IJC, 2004; 
U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 2004).
Ongoing Impairments in Lake Ontario
    Lake Ontario is also continuing to struggle with multiple sources 
of stress. While Diporeia declines have been reported since the 1990s 
following invasion by zebra mussels, as previously noted, the invasive 
quagga mussels have contributed to further alterations of the benthic 
community over broader areas in the lake. Other species that have 
invaded Lake Ontario in the past 10-15 years, with the potential to 
out-compete other native species, include the amphipod Echinogammarus 
ischnus, the New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and the 
predatory zooplankton Cercopagis pengoi (or fishhook water flea). The 
combination of a number of stresses over the past two decades 
(including oligotrophication, invasion by zebra and quagga mussels, 
fishery management practices, and climate change) has significantly 
altered the Lake Ontario fish community, with declines in alewife, 
native sculpin and whitefish, and increases in some native species 
associated with lamprey control (Mills et al., 2003). In addition, as 
with the other Great Lakes, numerous fish consumption advisories remain 
in place for Lake Ontario, including for PCBs, dioxins, mirex/
photomirex and mercury (U.S. EPA, 2005; Ontario MOE, 2005).

PRESCRIPTION FOR RECOVERY

    A number of management efforts (at local, state, national, and 
binational levels) directed at protecting and restoring the Great Lakes 
over the past three-plus decades have been developed and implemented, 
and there have been a number of successes. Sea lamprey control efforts 
starting in the 1950s have been relatively successful at controlling 
populations of this species, which has taken a significant toll on 
populations of lake trout and other native fish. Binational efforts 
following the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 
(GLWQA) in 1972 resulted in lowering of phosphorus loads to the lakes 
and improvements in a number of water quality indicators (in particular 
in the more heavily (nutrient) impacted lower lakes). Subsequent 
efforts under the GLWQA directed at toxic chemical contamination in 
Areas of Concern (AOC) (through Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)) have made 
some progress in addressing contaminated sediments, with two of 43 AOCs 
delisted. Implementation of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) has also 
proceeded in recent years, with a number of efforts underway through 
the LaMP process in each lake to address numerous beneficial use 
impairments.\10\ Other efforts have been ongoing over the past decade 
to address specific problems in the lakes or basin, such as the Canada-
U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy (addressing mostly persistent, 
bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals) and the Great Lakes Panel on 
Aquatic Nuisance Species. In addition, the development of indicators of 
ecosystem health has been conducted through the State of the Lakes 
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ For Lake Huron, the lakewide effort is the Lake Huron 
Binational Partnership, which is not nominally a LaMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The complexity of the jurisdictional management for the Great Lakes 
has long been recognized, involving management by two federal 
governments, eight states and two provinces, Native American and First 
Nation tribes, municipalities, as well as institutions such as the 
International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and 
the Great Lakes Commission offering policy and management guidance. 
Challenges in implementing programs to protect the Great Lakes have 
been highlighted in recent reports, including a 2003 U.S. General 
Accounting Office (GAO) report. The report noted there were 148 federal 
(U.S.) and 51 state programs funding work on environmental restoration 
within the Great Lakes basin; a smaller number of federal programs (33) 
were focused specifically on the basin. The report also noted the lack 
of any overarching approach to coordinate program activities in support 
of Great Lakes restoration, as well as the lack of a coordinated 
monitoring program to determine basinwide progress toward meeting 
restoration goals (U.S. GAO, 2003).
    Indeed when faced with a particularly damaging human perturbation 
in the Great Lakes, our corrective response has generally been to focus 
on a particular cause of stress and not on the integrated sources of 
stress that allowed it to occur. For example, when excessive nutrients 
and associated algal blooms impaired Lake Erie, we focused on the major 
point sources of phosphorus that fed the algae and lead to oxygen 
depletion. For a short period, we dampened down that perturbation. 
However, now that similar degraded conditions have reappeared, we are 
uncertain if such conditions are due to insufficient control of 
excessive nutrients, are caused by invasive species, or the result of a 
combination of stress sources not effectively addressed when the 
problems were first identified. Compounding the issue, the Great Lakes 
ecosystem's adaptive responses, transforming into undesired, unhealthy 
states, seem to be increasing in a dramatic way, in particular due to 
the uncontrolled introduction of new invasive organisms that out-
compete native species whose natural habitat has been severely degraded 
in a number of areas. In spite of some efforts at addressing invasive 
species introductions (such as ballast water exchange requirements in 
the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act 
of 1990, which do not affect the large majority of ships entering the 
Great Lakes declaring ``no ballast on board'' but which in fact may 
contain residual ballast water), the rate of introduction of new 
aquatic invaders has remained high over the past 15 years, averaging 
over one new species every eight months since 1970 (Ricciardi, 2001).
    Two broad approaches for addressing Great Lakes problems by the 
policymaking and management communities are treating each symptom, or 
treating the disease. In addressing each perturbation individually, for 
example, one would look for approaches to control the spread of zebra 
or quagga mussels, approaches for reducing polluted runoff, and 
strategies for addressing existing contaminants and chemicals of 
emerging concern. Conversely, the Great Lakes community can address the 
unacceptable adaptive changes in the lakes by focusing attention on the 
multiple sources of stress that have led to wide-scale disruption of 
essential nearshore/tributary processes. While recognizing the 
difficulty in addressing a number of individual stresses (e.g., many 
years of efforts at suppressing sea lamprey populations), we believe 
focusing on the multiple sources of stress will lead to the best 
possible policymaking for and management of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
    As we focus on multiple sources of stress, several critical 
ecosystem objectives should be maintained: (1) restore and enhance the 
self-regulating mechanisms of the Great Lakes by focusing on the health 
of key geographic areas. This includes major tributaries and key 
nearshore areas; (2) to the extent possible, remediate existing and 
prevent major new perturbations (e.g., stop the introduction of new 
invasive species and pollutants); (3) protect existing healthy elements 
by adopting sustainable land and water use practices in the basin that 
maintain the long-term health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and 
associated benefits; (4) better monitor ecosystem health and the 
progress of restoration and protection efforts.
    Steedman and Regier (1987) outlined and defined a set of components 
for Great Lakes ecosystem rehabilitation and those definitions have 
been modified to formulate the following suggested four primary 
management objectives for the Great Lakes.

1.  Restore and Enhance Critical Nearshore Areas, Tributaries, and 
Connecting Channels

    The ecosystem-based conceptual model should be applied to identify 
specific geographic areas where the combination of individual sources 
of stress have contributed or are likely to contribute to the 
degradation of the nearshore/tributary areas. These are areas where 
ecosystem breakdown is occurring or is likely to occur, and where 
action is most likely to restore resiliency to the Great Lakes. These 
consensus-targeted areas for coordinated restoration and protection 
efforts may well include those locations already identified as Areas of 
Concern by the International Joint Commission (expanded geographically 
to ensure they include the major sources of stress) as well as 
nearshore/tributary areas that are now showing symptoms or 
vulnerability to multiple sources of stress. This may require increased 
institutional focus (including increased emphasis within LaMP efforts) 
on these nearshore areas. The goal should be to reestablish the natural 
states critical to nearshore and tributary communities so they can once 
again perform their stabilizing function, or, if that is not feasible, 
enhance critical elements that play a role in stabilizing the 
communities.

2.  Remediate Basinwide Sources of Stress

    Some of the major stress sources need to be managed through 
systematic, basinwide approaches. Impacts of stress are often lakewide, 
if not basinwide, and the remedies are not linked to a limited 
geographical area. Basinwide stress reduction recommendations include:

     Support research on control of existing invasive species 
(e.g., round gobies, zebra and quagga mussels), and to the extent they 
are identified, implement any control measures.

     Prevent the introduction of new invasive species.

     Mitigate existing negative impacts and prevent significant 
future human alterations of tributary hydrology and Great Lakes 
shoreline structure. This can include promoting connectivity of habitat 
(such as wetlands or free-flowing rivers) important for many species.

     Reduce loadings of nutrients, sediments/dredged material, 
toxic chemicals, and microbial pollution to the Great Lakes and 
tributaries from all sources, including addressing continued 
development pressures and potential for increases in polluted runoff.

    Actions such as these will be critical in preventing new 
perturbations as well as enabling the recovery process. Addressing 
nonnative species introductions is a key issue. Unlike chemical 
pollution (except in extreme cases of local pollution), nonnative 
species, if established, can be extremely difficult to control and have 
the potential to engineer the ecosystem to a significantly altered 
state.

3.  Protect Healthy Functioning Elements

    Sustainable development practices within the Great Lakes basin are 
required to preserve those portions of the ecosystem that now are 
healthy, and those that can be restored or enhanced. Recovery of 
healthy nearshore communities and tributaries, once begun, must be 
maintained; the conditions that caused the impairments in the first 
place must be addressed. Watershed-based approaches to land use 
management provide the best opportunity to minimize negative impacts on 
the surface water and groundwater essential to the sustainability of 
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Actions should support and expand activities 
that employ holistic, watershed-based approaches to land and water use 
decisions.

4.  Monitor Ecosystem Health

    Monitoring the ecosystem response through an agreed-upon set of 
integrative indicators will be an extremely important part of any Great 
Lakes restoration effort. This effort should build on ongoing efforts 
such as the development and application of SOLEC indicators. Major 
changes in the ecosystem are occurring while many of the indicators 
that governments have traditionally used to measure Great Lakes health 
(water clarity, ambient water pollution levels, and certain contaminant 
levels in wildlife) are actually improving. Because nonlinear changes, 
such as those the Great Lakes are currently experiencing, may confound 
expected relationships between sources of stress and the lakes' 
response, traditional indicators may not be adequate descriptors of the 
health of the ecosystem and may not be useful in predicting future 
conditions. While some type of consensus on indicators is desirable, 
given the dynamic nature of the system and our understanding of it, 
flexibility must also be included in the development and use of 
indicators.

    Certain features of the ecosystem appear to be particularly 
responsive to the seven sources of stress (including climate change) 
identified above. Emblematic species such as certain fish-eating birds 
and populations and reproductive health of key fish species (such as 
lake trout, lake herring, walleye, yellow perch, and lake sturgeon) as 
well as wetland sub-ecosystem complexes should clearly be part of any 
monitoring program. In addition, monitoring should include a strong 
human health component, in particular involving tribal/First Nation 
communities and other populations heavily dependent on Great Lakes 
fisheries and other resources. There have been varying degrees of 
research on integrative indicators of ecosystem integrity with most 
effort focused on emblematic species and wetland complexes. Some 
evidence suggests smaller organisms at the bottom of the food chain 
respond more quickly to change, and thus monitoring micro- and macro-
invertebrates might well reveal the earliest signs of ecosystem 
disruption and/or recovery (Odum, 1985).

    A key issue for any monitoring network is the ability for rapid 
detection and identification of new threats, in particular aquatic 
invasive species. This is particularly important given the difficulty 
in controlling invaders once established, and the significant economic 
costs and ecological disruption nonnative species can cause (Pimentel 
et al., 2000). Use of predictive tools based in part on an 
understanding of existing invasions can assist in monitoring for 
potential invasive species (Ricciardi, 2003).

SUMMARY

    The health of the Great Lakes ecosystem is in jeopardy. While a 
number of remediation and other activities have been pursued through 
the years to address Great Lakes problems, additional actions are 
urgently needed to restore system elements, particularly in critical 
nearshore/tributary zones where a chain reaction of adaptive responses 
to a suite of stresses may be leading to catastrophic changes: 
ecosystem breakdown and potentially irreversible ecosystem collapse. 
Without at least partial restoration of these areas, the negative 
symptoms being observed in the Great Lakes will likely intensify and 
could degrade irreversibly. Concurrently, actions are needed to control 
or eliminate sources of basinwide threats to the essential biological, 
physical, and chemical components of the Great Lakes' ecosystem 
stability and health. Finally, large areas of the Great Lakes basin 
waters remain relatively healthy and productive and they provide a wide 
range of benefits to the people of the region. Protecting the remaining 
areas from further stress is significantly more cost-effective than 
attempting restoration after damage has occurred. In summary,

          Historically, when faced with a particularly damaging 
        ecosystem impact, policy responses have focused on particular 
        symptoms and not on the integrated sources of stress that cause 
        these symptoms.

          To increase the effectiveness of policy and on-the-
        ground restoration, sources of stress and, especially, 
        interactions between those sources need to be explicitly 
        considered.

          One way to prioritize efforts is to focus on specific 
        geographic areas that have experienced ecosystem breakdown and 
        develop efforts to address the multiple sources of stress that 
        have contributed to these impacts.

          Some major sources of stress to the Great Lakes have 
        broad implications and need to be addressed basin-wide since 
        the sources (and their impacts) are not always limited to 
        single locations.

          Watershed-based approaches offer the best opportunity 
        to protect existing basin waters by establishing sustainable 
        land and water use development practices.

LITERATURE CITED

Beeton, A.M., C.E. Sellinger, and D.E. Reid, 1999. An Introduction to 
        the Laurentian Great Lakes Ecosystem. In W.W. Taylor and C.P. 
        Ferreri, Eds., Great Lakes Fishery Policy and Management: A 
        Binational Perspective. Michigan State University Press, pp. 3-
        54.

Charlton, M.N. 1987. Lake Erie oxygen revisited. Journal of Great Lakes 
        Research 13:697-708.

Dermott, R., 2001. Sudden disappearance of the amphipod Diporeia from 
        eastern Lake Ontario, 1993-1995. Journal of Great Lakes 
        Research 27:423-433.

Dermott, R., and D. Kerec. 1997. Changes to the deepwater benthos of 
        eastern Lake Erie since the invasion of Dreissena: 1979-1993. 
        Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:922-930.

Domske, H.M., 2003. Botulism in Lake Erie Workshop Proceedings, Co-
        sponsored by New York Sea Grant, Ohio Sea Grant, and 
        Pennsylvania Sea Grant, April 3, 2003, Buffalo, NY.

Eshenroder, R.L. and M.K. Burnham-Curtis. 1999. Species succession and 
        sustainability of the Great Lakes fish community. In W.W. 
        Taylor and C.P. Ferreri, Eds., Great Lakes Fishery Policy and 
        Management: A Binational Perspective. Michigan State University 
        Press. pp. 145-184.

Fielder, D.G. and M.V. Thomas, 2005 (in press), Fish Population 
        Dynamics of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, 1998-2004. Michigan 
        Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Research Report.

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), 2003. Decline in 
        Lake Michigan Bottom Life, brochure, available at: http://
        www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/dipoflyer/dipo.html

Hecky, R.E., R.E.H. Smith, D.D. Barton, S.J. Guilford, W.D. Taylor, 
        M.N. Charlton, and T.E. Howell. 2004. The Nearshore Phosphorus 
        Shunt: A Consequence of Ecosysyem Engineering By Dreissenids in 
        the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 
        Aquatic Sciences 61:1285-1293.

Holeck, K.T., E.L. Mills, H.J. McIsaac, M.R. Dochoda, R.I. Colautti, 
        and A. Ricciardi, 2004. Bridging Troubled Waters: Biological 
        Invasions, Transoceanic Shipping, and the Laurentian Great 
        Lakes. Bioscience 54:919-929.

Hondorp, D.W., S.A. Pothoven, S.A., and S.B. Brandt, 2005. Influence of 
        Diporeia Density on Diet Composition, Relative Abundance, and 
        Energy Density of Planktivorous Fishes in Southeast Lake 
        Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 
        134:588-601.

Honeyfield, D.C., Hinterkopf, J.P., Fitzsimons, J.D., Tillitt, D.E., 
        Zajicek, J.L., and Brown, S.B. (2005). Development of thiamine 
        deficiencies and early mortality syndrome in lake trout by 
        feeding experimental and feral fish diets containing 
        thiaminase. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 17:4-12.

International Joint Commission (IJC), 2000. 10th Biennial Report on 
        Great Lakes Water Quality, International Joint Commission, July 
        2000. Available at: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/
        10br/en/indexen.html

IJC, 2002. 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, 
        International Joint Commission, September 2002, Available at: 
        http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/11br/english/report/
        index.html

IJC, 2004.12th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, 
        International Joint Commission, September 2004, Available at: 
        http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/12br/english/report/
        index.html

Johnson, B.L., H.E. Hicks, D.E. Jones, W. Cibulas, A. Wargo, and C.T. 
        De Rosa, 1998. Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic 
        Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basins. Journal 
        of Great Lakes Research 24:698-722.

Kay, J.J., and H.A. Regier, 1999. An ecosystemic two-phase attractor 
        approach to Lake Erie's ecology. In: M. Munawar, T. Edsall & 
        I.F. Munawar, Eds., State of Lake Erie (SOLE)--Past, Present 
        and Future. Ecovision World Monograph Series, Backhuys 
        Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 510-533.

Kitchell, J.F., S.P. Cox, C.J. Harvey, T.B. Johnson, D.M. Mason, K.K. 
        Schoen, K. Aydin, C. Bronte, M. Ebener, M. Hansen, M. Hoff, S. 
        Schram, D. Schreiner, and C.J. Walters, 2000. Sustainability of 
        the Lake Superior Fish Community: Interactions in a Food Web 
        Context. Ecosystems 3:545-560.

Kling, G.W., K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky, S.K. 
        Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.W. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Zak, 
        R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser, and M.L. Wilson, 2003. Confronting 
        Climate Change in the Great Lakes: Impacts on Our Communities 
        and Ecosystems, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, 
        Massachusetts and Ecological Society of America, Washington, 
        D.C.

Lozano, S.J., J.V. Scharold, and T.F. Nalepa. 2001. Recent Declines in 
        Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities in Lake Ontario. Canadian 
        Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:518-529.

Madenjian, C.P., Fahnenstiel, G.L., Johengen, T.H., Nalepa, T.F., 
        Vanderploeg, H.A., Fleischer, G.W., Schneeberger, P.J., 
        Benjamin, D.M., Smith, E.B., Bence, J.R., Rutherford, E.S., 
        Lavis, D.S., Robertson, D.M., Jude, D.J., Ebener, M.P., 2002. 
        Dynamics of the Lake Michigan Food Web, 1970-2000. Canadian 
        Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59(4):736-753.

Magnuson, J.J., Webster, K.E., Assel, R.A., Bowser, C.J., Dillon, P.J., 
        Eaton, J.G.., Evans, H.E., Fee, E.J., Hall, R.I., Mortsch, 
        L.R., Schindler, D.W., Quinn, F.H., 1997. Potential Effects of 
        Climate Changes on Aquatic Systems: Laurentian Great Lakes and 
        Precambrian Shield Region. Hydrological Processes 11(8):825-
        871.

Makarewitz, J.C. and P. Bertram. 1991. Evidence for the Recovery of the 
        Lake Erie Ecosystem. Bioscience 41:216-223.

McDonald, G.J., D. Fitzsimond, and D.C. Honeyfield, Eds. 1998. Early 
        Life Stage Mortality Syndrome in Fishes of the Great Lakes and 
        Baltic Sea. Proceedings of American Fisheries Society Symposium 
        21, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. 
        Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, J.C. 
        Makarewicz, E.S. Millard, I.F. Munawar, M. Munawar, R. 
        O'Gorman, R.W. Owens, L.G. Rudstam, T. Schaner, and T.J. 
        Stewart. 2003. Lake Ontario: Food Web Dynamics in a Changing 
        Ecosystem (1970-2000). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 
        Aquatic Sciences 60:471-490.

Nalepa, T.F. 1998. Dramatic changes in benthic macroinvertebrate 
        populations in southern Lake Michigan. Aquatic Nuisance Species 
        Update 4(3):1.

Nalepa, T.F., D.J. Hartson, G.W. Gostenik, D.L. Fanslow, and G.A. Lang, 
        1996. Changes in the Freshwater Mussel Community of Lake St 
        Clair: From Unionidae to Dreissena Polymorpha in Eight Years. 
        Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:354-369.

Nalepa, T.F., D.J. Hartson, D.L. Fanslow, G.A. Lang, and S.J. Lozano. 
        1998. Declines in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations in 
        Southern Lake Michigan, 1980-1993. Canadian Journal of 
        Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(11):2402-2413.

Nalepa, T.F., D.L. Fanslow, M.B. Lansing, and G.A. Lang, 2003. Trends 
        in the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community of Saginaw Bay, Lake 
        Huron, 1987 to 1996: Responses to Phosphorus Abatement and the 
        Zebra Mussel, Dreissena Polymorpha. Journal of Great Lakes 
        Research 29:14-33.

Odum, E.P. 1985. Trends to be Expected in Stressed Ecosystems. 
        Bioscience 35:419-422.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2005. Guide to Eating 
        Ontario Sport Fish, 2005-2006.

Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. 
        Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in 
        the United States. Bioscience 50:53-65.

Pothoven, S.A., T.F. Nalepa, P.J. Schneeberger, and S.B. Brandt, 2001. 
        Changes in diet and body condition of lake whitefish in 
        southern Lake Michigan associated with changes in benthos. 
        North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:876-883.

Rapport, D.J., H.A. Regier and T.C. Hutchinson. 1985. Ecosystem 
        Behavior Under Stress. The American Naturalist 125:617-640.

Rapport, D.J. and H.A. Regier. 1995. Disturbance and stress effects on 
        ecological systems. In B. Patten and S.E. Jorgensen, Eds. 
        Complex Ecology: The Part-whole Relation in Ecosystems. 
        Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 397-414.

Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative Interactions Among Aquatic Invaders: 
        Is an `Invasional Meltdown' Occurring in the Great Lakes? 
        Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2513-
        2525.

Ricciardi, A., 2003. Predicting the Impacts of an Introduced Species 
        From Its Invasion History: An Empirical Approach Applied to 
        Zebra Mussel Invasions. Freshwater Biology 48:972-981.

Ricciardi, A. 2005. Facilitation and synergistic interactions among 
        introduced aquatic species. In: H.A. Mooney, R.N. Mack, J. 
        McNeely, L.E. Neville, P.J. Schei, J.K. Waage, Eds. Invasive 
        Alien Species: A New Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 
        pp. 162-178.

Rosa, F. and N.M. Burns. 1987. Lake Erie Central Basin Oxygen Depletion 
        Changes From 1929-1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 13:684-
        696.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. 
        Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.

Scientific Consensus. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine 
        Ecosystem-Based Management. Released March 21, 2005, at House 
        Ocean Caucus Luncheon, Washington D.C. Communication 
        Partnership for Science and the Sea. Available: http://
        compassonline.org/files/inline/EBM%20Consensus 
        %20Statement-FINAL-Mar%2021%2005-
        vp.pdf. (May 2005).

Sproule-Jones, M. 2003. Restoration of the Great Lakes: Promises, 
        Practices, Performances. Vancouver: UBC Press, 160 pp.

Steedman, R.J., and H.A. Regier. 1987. Ecosystem Science for the Great 
        Lakes: Perspectives on Degradative Transformations. Canadian 
        Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44, Supplement 2:95-
        130.

United Nations. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. 
        United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Millennium 
        Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat. Available: http://
        www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx. (May 
        2005).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, 2004. Lake 
        Erie LaMP 2004 Report, prepared by Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. National List of Fish 
        Advisories database, available at: http://epa.gov/waterscience/
        fish/advisories/

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO--now Government Accountability 
        Office), 2003, Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators 
        for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration 
        Goals, GAO-03-515, April 2003.

Vanderploeg, H. 2002. The zebra mussel connection: Nuisance algal 
        blooms, Lake Erie anoxia, and other water quality problems in 
        the Great Lakes, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 
        flyer, revised September 2002.

Whelan, G.E. and J.E. Johnson. 2004. Successes and failures of large 
        scale ecosystem manipulation using hatchery production: the 
        Upper Great Lakes experience. In M.J. Nickum, P.M. Mazik, J.G. 
        Nickum and D.D. MacKinlay, Eds. Propagated Fish in Resource 
        Management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 44, Bethesda, 
        Maryland, pp. 3-32.

ADDITIONAL GENERAL REFERENCES

Beeton, A.M. 1966. Indices of Great Lakes Eutrophication. Great Lakes 
        Research Division, University of Michigan, Publication 15, Ann 
        Arbor, Michigan.

Beeton, A.M., and W.T. Edmondson. 1972. The Eutrophication Problem. 
        Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:673-682.

Cook, P., J.A. Robbins, D.D. Endicott, K.B. Lodge, P.D. Guiney, M.K. 
        Walker, E.W. Zabelo, and R.E. Peterson. 2003. Effects of aryl 
        hydrocarbon receptor-mediated early life stage toxicity on lake 
        trout populations in Lake Ontario during the 20th century. 
        Environmental Science and Technology 37:3864-3877.

Dobson, T., H.A. Regier, and W.W. Taylor. 2002. Governing Human 
        Interactions With Migratory Animals, With a Focus on Humans 
        Interacting With Fish in Lake Erie: Then, Now, and in the 
        Future. Canada-United States Law Journal 28:389-446.

Edwards, C.J., and H.A. Regier, editors. 1990. An ecosystem approach to 
        the integrity of the Great Lakes in turbulent times. Great 
        Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication 90-4, Ann Arbor, 
        Michigan.

Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big 
        Difference. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.

Hecky, R.E., R.E.H. Smith, D.R. Barton, S.J. Guildford, W.D. Taylor, 
        M.N. Charlton, and T.H. Howell. 2004. The Nearshore Phosphorus 
        Shunt: Consequences of Ecosystem Engineering by Dreissenids in 
        the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fish and 
        Aquatic Sciences 61:1285-1293.

Holsen, T.M., M. Cohen, T.J. Holsen, and A. Corso. 2004. The Ann Arbor 
        Statement: Actions to Improve Atmospheric Transport and 
        Deposition Science, resulting from Great Lakes Binational 
        Toxics Strategy Long Range Transport Workshop: The Atmospheric 
        Pathway of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes, Sept. 16-17, 
        2003, Ann Arbor, MI.

Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler, 2004. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region, 
        Revised Edition, revised by G.R. Smith, University of Michigan 
        Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 276 pp.

Kay, J.J., and H.A. Regier. 1999. An ecosystem two-phase attractor 
        approach to Lake Erie's ecology. In M. Munawar, T. Edsal, and 
        I.F. Munawar, Eds., State of Lake Erie (SOLE)--Past, Present 
        and Future. Ecovision World Monograph Series, Backhuys 
        Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 511-533.

Koestler, A., and J.R. Smythies, Eds. 1976. Beyond Reductionism. 
        Hutchinson, London.

Loftus, K.H., and H.A. Regier, Eds. 1972. Proceedings of the Salmonid 
        Communities in Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) Symposium. Journal of 
        the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:613-986.

Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of 
        Chicago Press, Chicago.

Odum, E.P. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 64:262-
        270.

Regier, H.A. and W.L. Hartman. 1973. Lake Erie's Fish Community: 150 
        Years of Cultural Stress. Science 180:1248-1255.

Regier, H.A. and J.J. Kay. 1996. An Heuristic Model of the 
        Transformations of the Aquatic Ecosystems of the Great Lakes-
        St. Lawrence River basin. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 
        5:3-21.

Regier, H.A., T.H. Whillans, W.J. Christie, and S.A. Bocking. 1999. 
        Over-Fishing in the Great Lakes: The Context and History of the 
        Controversy. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 2:239-248.

Reynoldson, T.B., and A.L. Hamilton. 1993. Historic changes in 
        populations of burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia limbata) from Lake 
        Erie based on sediment tusk profiles. Journal of Great Lakes 
        Research 19:250-257.

Schneider, J.C., and J.H. Leach. 1979. Walleye Stocks in the Great 
        Lakes, 1800--1975: Fluctuations and Possible Causes. Great 
        Lakes Fisheries Commission Technical Report 31:1-51.

Selye, H. 1974. Stress Without Distress. J.P. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania.

Van Oosten, J. 1930. The Disappearance of the Lake Erie Cisco--A 
        Preliminary Report. Transactions of the American Fisheries 
        Society 60:204-214.

Vallentyne, J.R. 1974. The algal bowl. Canada Department of 
        Environment, Miscellaneous Publication 22, Ottawa, Ontario.

Vanderploeg, H.A., Nalepa, T.F., Jude, D.J., Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., 
        Liebig, J.R., Grigorovich, I.A., and Ojaveer, H. 2002. 
        Dispersal and Emerging Ecological Impacts of Ponto-Caspian 
        Species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of 
        Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1209-1228.

Verduin, J. 1964. Changes in Western Lake Erie During the Period 1948-
        1962. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 15:639-644.

Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication 
        of lakes and flowing waters with particular reference to 
        phosphorus and nitrogen as factors in eutrophication. OECD, 
        Technical Report DAS/CSI/68, Paris.

Vollenweider, R.A. 1990. Eutrophication: conventional and non-
        conventional considerations and comments on selected topics. 
        Pages 77-134 in R. De Benardi, G. Giussani, and L. Barbanti, 
        Eds., Scientific Perspectives in Theoretical and Applied 
        Limnology. Memorie dell'Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia Dott. 
        Marco de Marchi. Verbania Pallanza, Italy.

Vollenweider, R.A., M. Munawar, and P. Stadelman. 1974. A Comparative 
        Review of Phytoplankton and Primary Production in the 
        Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board 
        of Canada 31:739-762.

Acknowledgments

    The development of this white paper (including meetings and 
discussions among the authors and other scientists) was made possible 
through the generous support of the Wege Foundation and the Joyce 
Foundation. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors, 
and do not necessarily represent the views of the financial supporters.



