Despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent to solve the problem the past decade, the 2015 Collaborative Agreement between Ohio Governor John Kasich, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and a target of a 40 percent phosphorus loading reduction into Lake Erie adopted by the states, province and federal governments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, actions to date and plans for the future fall short.
States, Federal Plans Inadequate
Unfortunately, the states and federal government are failing to offer solutions commensurate with the problem. Recently, state and federal agencies released draft Domestic Action Plans, plans required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to define the actions necessary to meet the target reduction. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires that the multiple plans be combined into one Domestic Action Plan for the U.S. and one for Canada by February 2018.
The draft plans released to date include many useful initiatives but all fall far short of providing any assurance that the proposed actions add up to meeting the 40 percent reduction target. The plans read like a grocery list without a recipe.
We need these plans to have definitive actions that will accelerate adoption of practices to keep nutrients on farm fields and include commitments for accountability should the reduction targets not be met. The plans need to address the realities of climate change and its impacts on agricultural nutrient and water management. To be sure, there are some good things in the plans, but there is no assurance the plans add up to what is ultimately needed to protect our drinking water, health, and economy from the ongoing scourge of harmful algal blooms.
We need these plans to identify how resources at the federal, state, local, both public and private, will be leveraged together to produce a synthesized, coordinated effort. In the United States, we need to fully utilize the programs and authorities in the Clean Water Act to meet the goal.
While the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for both accountability and adaptive management – a systematic, science-based process where progress is assessed and future actions are adjusted – we believe the federal plan needs to include a specific framework for that accountability and adaptive management. Such a framework should include commitments to specific benchmarks with metrics to assess progress and consequences for nonattainment of water quality goals.
It is time for the federal and state agencies to move beyond general statements about adaptive management and commit to milestones with timeframes and be accountable for meeting phosphorus loading targets for Lake Erie.
Science Highlights Manageable Solutions
The good news is that manageable solutions exist to curb harmful algal blooms. Last week, a group of researchers in Ohio with participation from the National Wildlife Federation, released a white paper on the current status of the science with suggested strategies to meet titled: Summary of Findings and Strategies to Move Toward a 40% Phosphorus Reduction.
This paper summarizes key findings about what we know today: that the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers are the largest tributary loaders of phosphorus and that 87 percent is coming from nonpoint sources, primarily agriculture. The remaining loads are a combination of wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows and home sewage treatment systems.
The paper also summarizes what we know about nutrient loss from agricultural fields, effective management practices and insights about the practices farmers are likely to adopt based on several years of farmer survey data in the Maumee River basin. By synthesizing all of this information, the authors outline a number of suggested strategies to move towards that 40 percent phosphorus reduction.
Key Actions Needed
Utilizing the insights from the white paper, NWF has identified key actions that should be components of the U.S. Domestic Action Plan and acted upon by the state and federal agencies:
- Adopt nutrient water quality standards across U.S. states within the Western Lake Erie Basin that incorporate the binational phosphorus loading targets adopted under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement thereby bringing the targets under Clean Water Act authorities and programs;
- Establish programs to accelerate the adoption of subsurface placement of organic and inorganic fertilizer. Subsurface placement has emerged as a key management practice to prevent nutrient runoff from farm fields. Information should be gathered on the availability of equipment needed for subsurface placement so that programs can be designed to accelerate access and procurement for farmers;
- Mandate soil-test informed application rates so that fertilizer is only applied only in amounts needed for crop growth (also known as crop removal rates);
- Revise the USDA standards (NRCS 590 Practice Standard) for each state in the Western Lake Erie Basin to reduce soil test levels allowable for manure application and develop strategies and policies to aid farmers with manure application and distribution challenges;
- Include a framework for accountability as part of the commitment to adaptive management made by federal and state agencies with specific benchmarks, timelines and consequences for failing to achieve the target reductions.
Many farmers are embracing practices to help protect our rivers, lakes, and streams. But more needs to be done. To accelerate the adoption of solutions by farmers, elected officials can use incentive-based/voluntary and mandatory measures. At the end of the day, it is imperative that state and federal leaders act with urgency, because the status quo is not working, and delay will only lead to more damaging ecological and economic consequences and more costly to solve.
Gail Hesse serves as director, Great Lakes water program, for the National Wildlife Federation. She is the former executive director of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission.
August 2, 2017 marks the three-year anniversary since residents of Toledo awoke unable to drink their water due to toxins from a harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. The harmful algal bloom that caused the Toledo disaster was not an anomaly: Harmful algal blooms have been increasing in the last decade not just in Lake Erie and parts of the other Great Lakes, but also in our inland lakes and rivers, including a more than 500 mile long bloom in the Ohio River in 2015. Millions of dollars spent on testing and treatment have been able to provide clean drinking water since 2014 despite algal toxin detection at water intakes. In the last three years, what has been the response to address the runoff pollution responsible for fueling the algal blooms? And, is it enough?
ACTION TO DATE
Several positive, constructive steps have been taken. The Ohio General Assembly passed SB1 prohibiting the application of fertilizer (with some exemptions) on frozen, snow-covered ground or saturated ground; the State of Ohio made loans available for public water supplies and wastewater treatment plants to upgrade testing and treatment facilities; the Ohio Department of Higher Education committed several million dollars to address critical science questions regarding water treatment, public health, ecological impacts and how nutrients migrate from fertilizer applications on farm fields into streams to ultimately fuel the algae.
The agricultural community is implementing a certification program for farmers and farm service dealers to ensure nutrient management on participating farm fields minimize the potential for runoff and maximize crop use of those nutrients. Agricultural groups have contributed funding to support on-farm research that will help us understand which management practices and in what combination will make the most difference in reducing runoff off from farm fields.
USEPA and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service have funded agricultural management practices necessary to prevent runoff from farm fields.
NOAA provides forecast services that enable stakeholders to understand the projected magnitude of the bloom each spring and provides bi-weekly updates during the bloom season. The spring forecast is developed in partnership with several universities using nutrient load data from Heidelberg University. These analytical tools, along with ongoing stream monitoring, are critical for understanding how Lake Erie is changing and importantly, how we need to better manage our land and water resources.
IS IT ENOUGH?
So with all of the steps that have been taken, including an investment in the science to better understand the ecological dynamics and impacts, are we likely to see change? NOAA predicts a larger than normal bloom for 2017, a 7.5 on a scale of ten and the 2017 bloom is likely to be the third largest bloom on record. We seem to be a long way from seeing improvements.
A bi-national commitment between the U.S. and Canadian governments adopted a 40 percent phosphorus reduction target under the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Currently, governments on both sides of the border are working on plans to meet that 40 percent reduction.
WHAT’S MISSING?
We need these plans to have definitive management actions that will keep nutrients on farm fields and prevent discharges from point sources. And we need these plans to identify how resources at the federal, state, local, both public and private, will be leveraged together to produce a synthesized, coordinated effort. In the United States, we need to fully utilize the programs and authorities in the Clean Water Act to meet the goal. And all of us, those who care about our public health and water resources, need to hold our policy leaders accountable for implementation of these plans so that the target goal can be met. We must also ensure there is commitment to the analytical tools we need to understand a changing environment. Ultimately, we need a healthy Lake Erie and early summers when we no longer dread the annual algal bloom forecast.
About the Author:
Gail Hesse serves as director, Great Lakes water program, for the National Wildlife Federation. She is the former executive director of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission.
David DeGennaro, agriculture policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation, had this to say about the bill: “It’s is a bad idea, end of story. Congress needs to reject weakening Clean Air Act protections and reject providing further incentives to expand ethanol production, which has been a complete disaster for our drinking water, public health, wildlife, and economy. Instead, Congress can roll up its sleeves to work on common-sense reforms that work for family farmers and help us move forward on our clean fuel goals the right way.”
Groups sent the following letter to U.S. senators, asking them to oppose the bill.
ActionAid USA — Alaska Wilderness League — Clean Air Task Force — Center for
Biological Diversity — Earth Action, Inc. — Earthjustice — Friends of the Earth — Mighty
Earth — National Wildlife Federation — Physicians for Social Responsibility — Rachel
Carson Council — Safe Climate Campaign — Sierra Club — West Harlem Environmental
Action, Inc.
June 12, 2017
Dear Senators,
We write today on the behalf of our millions of supporters and members urging you to strongly oppose any attempt to expand the use of E15 (E15 is a mixture of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol) during the ozone season. Increasing the proportion of ethanol in gasoline during the summer months can lead to more ozone pollution that will cause more smog in our communities. Ground-level ozone impairs lung functioning and contributes to increased incidences of asthma and other lung diseases, especially among children and the elderly.
While the ethanol industry sees this waiver as an opportunity to sell more of its product, it is really a debate about clean air and human health. The Environmental Protection Agency currently limits the use of ethanol during the summer precisely because of ethanol’s greater emission of smog-forming compounds. These compounds make the air harder to breathe, are potentially carcinogenic, and have real impact on the people’s lives. Waiving clean air standards at the behest of one favored industry would not only set a precedent for bad policy, it could cost lives.
The push for E15 has no basis in science and would do additional harm to our air, water, and land beyond increased ozone. Already, increased use of corn ethanol across the country has contributed to the conversion of more than 7 million acres of grassland and other habitats into crop productions, and has worsened water quality through additional polluted farm runoff. Moreover, according to the National Research Council, EPA data show corn ethanol “to have life-cycle GHG emissions higher than gasoline in 2012 or 2017 unless it is produced in a biorefinery that uses biomass as a heat source”
(NRC 2011.) Increased production of corn ethanol—a likely outcome if E15 use is allowed year-round—would exacerbate these existing problems.
Now is not the time to increase the usage of E15 in our fuel supply, given that a shift to higher ethanol blends can exacerbate smog formation. Too many cities across the country already suffer from bad air days due to increased ground-level ozone.
We strongly urge you to reject any attempt to allow the year-round use of higher ethanol blends.
Sincerely,
ActionAid USA
Alaska Wilderness League
Clean Air Task Force
Center for Biological Diversity
Earth Action, Inc.
Earthjustice
Friends of the Earth
Mighty Earth
National Wildlife Federation
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rachel Carson Council
Safe Climate Campaign
Sierra Club
West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.
If you care about bringing back a vanishing North American wildlife species, add your voice calling for a stop to the destruction of our scarce, remaining grasslands.
This pipeline – Line 5, built in 1953 – happens to be operated by the same company responsible for one of the largest inland oil spills in North American history: Enbridge (U.S) Inc. During that pipeline rupture, previously known cracks formed into a 6 foot gash which spilled over 840,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010.
Originally built to last 50 years, Line 5 underneath the Straits is now almost 15 years past its prime. There are numerous places along the underwater section of the pipeline where protective coating is missing, and for much of the history of the pipeline, numerous sections of pipe were not properly supported on the Lake Michigan lakebed – where it gets pummeled by currents. In fact, those supports were not replaced until video from a National Wildlife Federation dive inspection revealed them. Recently, Enbridge itself confirmed that part of its outer protection coating was missing from sections of the pipeline.
A recent 2017 NWF report revealed that the land-based sections of Line 5 have leaked 29 times since 1968, spilling over 1 million gallons of oil. We cannot risk a spill in the Straits, which a 2016 University of Michigan study estimates could cover 700 miles of shoreline and impact a 17,000-square mile spill zone.
At risk are the fish and wildlife of the Great Lakes, the drinking water relied upon by citizens, and the region’s recreation and tourism economy which supports the northern Michigan way of life. So it should be no surprise that two-thirds of Michiganders oppose the continued operation of the pipeline under the Straits, as reported by a 2016 EPIC-MRA poll commissioned by NWF.
The State of Michigan released a report on alternatives to Line 5 on June 29, 2017, while the week before it scrapped a risk analysis due to a conflict of interest arising from an employee of the firm hired to do the analysis also working on a separate project for Enbridge. A public information session on the alternatives report is schedule for July 6 near Lansing, MI.
Additional News & Resources:
Infographic: Propane Alternatives to Line 5
Infographic: The Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Disaster
Infographic: The 29 Spills of Line 5
NWF Video: The Kalamazoo River Oil Spill Disaster (Ep. 1)
NWF Video: Seven Years and Counting (Ep. 2)
NWF Video: Actions Speak Louder than Words (Ep. 3)
Video: The Dirty Secret at the Bottom of the Great Lakes (Motherboard)
The results of the University of Michigan study are stark. If the pipelines—which carry more than 23 million gallons of oil a day—ruptured or leaked, oil could drift as far west as Manistique and the Leelanau Peninsula in Lake Michigan, through the straits, and down Lake Huron past the thumb and close to Port Huron and the Canadian coastline through the Bruce Peninsula and beyond. This potential spill zone is greater than 17,000 square miles.
Disaster Waiting to Happen
Before the University of Michigan Water Center released its groundbreaking study, most of what we knew about the potential impacts of an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac was anecdotal or not specific to Line 5. It’s obvious that no good will come from Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 laying on the bottom of the Straits – twin pipelines built to last 50 years which are corroding now that they are in year 63. But, I was blown away by just how far-ranging a spill could be.
The study modeled 840 scenarios in the Straits of Mackinac — an area with extremely strong and highly variable currents that can move more than 10 times the volume of water going over Niagara Falls. Check out how the oil moves in these sample scenarios.
The study used conservative estimates for the volume of oil spilled, even taking Enbridge Energy’s own estimates for a “worst case” oil spill as one point of reference, which is a “best case” by any rational method. The author of the study, Dr. David Schwab, concludes that an area in Lakes Michigan and Huron greater than the total surface area of Lakes Erie and Ontario combined and over 700 miles of Michigan and Ontario coastline are potentially at risk.
A couple of things really stand out to me. First, Dr. Schwab – the foremost authority on currents in the Straits of Mackinac – only analyzed ice-free conditions because there is no reliable way to model spills under ice. That raises the question of whether the pipeline under the Straits should be operating in winter. Second, Enbridge will surely criticize this study because it does not account for any cleanup or spill response. My question is: When you look at these maps, do you see any foreseeable circumstance where a real cleanup can occur? You’d need to know where the oil is heading, be in broad daylight, have no ice cover, and no significant wind or waves. Sound like a scenario you want to bet the Great Lakes future on?
NWF’s answer is no, which is why we’ve launched one lawsuit and have issued notice on a second. Current spill response plans simply aren’t adequate. In fact, this report is just the latest in our ongoing campaign to protect the Great Lakes from dangerous oil pipelines. From our report, Sunken Hazard, which brought Line 5 to public attention, our mission has been clear: the world’s most important freshwater resource deserves the highest level of protection and care.
Risk to Environment, Economy, Way of Life
Think of what’s at stake: drinking water, beaches, marinas, Mackinac Island and a good chunk of the region’s recreational tourism economy. An oil spill in the Great Lakes could be devastating to the environment, fish, and wildlife, and could potentially impact endangered and threatened species such as the piping plover and Kirtland’s warbler.
The pipeline operator’s response to these threats has largely been saying “trust us”. That’s a tough sell for a company with a track record of spills, accidents, and major disasters.
A few years ago, after Enbridge Energy refused to share safety and inspection records of the pipelines under the Straits, we sent a dive team down to get a look for ourselves and found that the pipelines didn’t have the proper supports for Line 5—a violation of their easement. The state has also strongly critiqued Enbridge recently for denying access to critical safety information.
What are we risking the Great Lakes for? Enbridge’s Line 5 delivers oil mostly from the Canadian tar sands to Canadian and export markets. The Straits of Mackinac – the “worst possible place for an oil spill in the Great Lakes,” according to Dr. Schwab – are serving as a shortcut. Michiganders have nearly all the risk and virtually no benefit from this oil, especially since Michigan and the U.S. oil needs can be met using alternative pipelines.
That’s why we hope that Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is correct when he states that Line 5’s “days are numbered” and that the risky oil pipeline would not have received a permit today. The state is studying the potential risk the underwater pipelines pose, as well as possible alternatives to the pipeline in order to determine “how quickly we can remove the pipeline currently running below the Straits of Mackinac,” according to Schuette. That’s the kind of leadership we need from all state officials, including Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.
Take ActionTell Michigan’s Governor Snyder to shut down Enbridge Line 5!
I’m serving on Snyder’s Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board, and I think our role is exactly what the attorney general lays out – figuring out how to quickly stop oil from flowing under the Straits of Mackinac while ensuring that any alternative does not add more risks to our water, health, wildlife and environment. In the wake of the Flint crisis, it’s hard to imagine a more important responsibility than protecting our drinking. The University of Michigan study adds even more urgency to this task. It shows in unprecedented detail that the Straits of Mackinac are simply incompatible with oil pipelines.
If you live in the Great Lakes region, you have a tremendous opportunity to stand up and protect them by voicing your support for a plan to keep Asian carp and other invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
A few days ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a long-awaited report that examines options to prevent the spread of various invasive fish, parasites, grasses, algae, and other organisms from the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes and vice versa.
The report shows unequivocally that physically separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems is the most effective way to stop the transfer of harmful invasive species from one body of water to the other.
Unfortunately, the report also contains options that do not adequately protect the Lakes.
Speaking up at the public hearing is a critical chance to tell the U.S. Army Corps to pursue the one real solution to defend the Great Lakes from Asian carp, because actions that do not move us toward this goal are a distraction that further delays the permanent solution so desperately needed.
Asian Carp Pose Urgent Threat to Great Lakes
Asian carp are non-native fish that pose a threat to people and wildlife. The skittish fish can weigh upwards of 60 pounds and become easily startled—hurling themselves out of the water at the sound of boats. The fish have battered boaters, making rivers unsafe for water recreation. Asian carp also gobble up food faster than native fish can, driving native fish away. In some stretches of river where Asian carp have taken hold, the non-native Asian carp now constitute between 60-90 percent of living organisms.
Many areas of the Great Lakes and the rivers that run into them are highly susceptible to an Asian carp invasion. It’s imperative to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes—like all invasive species, once they take hold, they are impossible to eradicate. And there is little room for error: It takes as few as 10 male and 10 female fish, according to a Canadian study, for Asian carp to establish a breeding population.
Asian carp have not established themselves in the Great Lakes—but they are steadily advancing toward Lake Michigan. The fish, which had been imported into this country to clean Southern fish ponds, escaped during floods. Since then, the fish has been migrating up the Mississippi River, into the Illinois River, and are now in Chicago area canals built more than 100 years ago to connect the waters of the Mississippi River with the Great Lakes.
Current Defenses Inadequate
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have pinpointed Chicago area waterways as the most likely pathway for the Asian carp to invade the Great Lakes. And it’s not just a one-way street. The artificial connection has allowed invasive species in the Great Lakes to colonize waters west of the Mississippi. This graphic that shows the stunning spread of invasive zebra mussels from the Great Lakes, through the Chicago canals, and as far west as California underscores why it’s so important to separate the two systems.
The only thing preventing Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes is a series of electric fences designed to repel the fish. But these defenses are flawed. Just two weeks ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted the electric fences could be breached in a variety of ways, leaving the Great Lakes at risk. The network of electric barriers is nothing more than a Band-Aid fix to a problem that demands a long-term, permanent and comprehensive solution.
Physical Barrier Most Effective Solution
The most effective way of keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes is to physically separate the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ own study identifies physical separation as the only effective solution to stop invasive species from migrating between these two iconic waters.
The Army Corps study comes two years after an independent analysis found that physically separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems was both feasible and affordable.
Now, it’s time to make the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers act. Over the next few weeks, the agency will be hosting public comment sessions around the region. It’s time for Great Lakes advocates to speak up.
Speak Up in Person to Defend the Great Lakes
Please attend one of the listening sessions below and tell the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers you support physically separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems.
Let us know you can attend by sending an email to info@nwa.org—we’ll send you more information and help you prepare to speak up for the Great Lakes:
Milwaukee, WI
Monday, January 13, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. CST
Register to Speak in Milwaukee
Cleveland, OH
Thursday, January 16, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. EST
Register to Speak in Cleveland
Ann Arbor, MI
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. EST
Register to Speak in Ann Arbor
Traverse City, MI
Thursday, January 23, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. EST
Register to Speak in Traverse City
Twin Cities in Bloomington, MN
Monday, January 27, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. CST
Register to Speak in Bloomington
St. Louis in Alton, IL
Thursday, January 30, 2014 from 4:00 PM — 7:00 PM CST
Register to Speak in Alton
Your voice can make a big difference in protecting the Great Lakes and its fish and wildlife now and for generations to come!
Whitefish faced many serious threats in the Detroit River. Hardening of the river’s shoreline, dredging of rocky spawning grounds on the river bottom, and industrialization along the river leading to pollution and sewage contamination drove the fish out of the river. The year 1916 marked the last time researchers documented whitefish spawning in the river.
But that changed. Passage of the landmark Clean Water Act in 1972 and investment to fix the nation’s sewers help cut discharges of pollution and waste into the Detroit River. The formation of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in 2001—the first International Wildlife Refuge in North America—led to an unprecedented effort by citizens, businesses and federal agencies to restore this urban refuge.
The removal of steel and concrete along the river’s shores—combined with efforts to restore area habitat and wetlands—helped heal the river so that now mayflies, yellow perch, lake sturgeon and bald eagles have returned after a decades-long absence. And, in 2006, scientists once again observed whitefish spawning in the river.
Restoration of the Detroit River is part of a larger effort to restore the health of the Great Lakes. Thanks to the 2012 budget, restoration efforts will keep moving forward to help the recovery of whitefish and other fish and wildlife which depend on the Great Lakes.
Fish, Wildlife, Great Lakes Winners in 2012 Budget
The 2012 federal budget provides strong support for Great Lakes programs. The budget provides $300 million to restore fish and wildlife habitat, clean up toxic pollution that poses a health risk to people and wildlife, and stop pesticide, fertilizer, oil, grease and other polluted run-off from farms and cities. It also supports efforts to confront invasive species like the Asian carp that threaten native fish and wildlife.
“The 2012 budget represents a significant victory for fish, wildlife and the Great Lakes,” said the National Wildlife Federation’s Jeff Skelding, who serves as campaign director for the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition. “This investment is critical for Great Lakes fish and wildlife.”
Delivering Results for Wildlife
In communities around the region, Great Lakes restoration activities are producing results and making a difference for wildlife.
- In Northern Michigan, replacing a culvert that restricted the Platte River, a blue ribbon trout stream, is helping to restore the river’s natural flow and to reduce stream bank erosion that was suffocating prime spawning areas for trout and salmon.
- Near Buffalo, N.Y., removing invasive plants and restoring a 15-acre wetland on Buffalo Creek, is helping improve fish and wildlife populations in the creek—as well as bolster efforts to restore the Buffalo River.
- In Cleveland, Ohio, removing an old dam from Euclid Creek is allowing fish and other aquatic life to return to the waterway and helping to improve water quality.
More, however, needs to be done.
Vision for a Revitalized Great Lakes
The decades-long assault on the Great Lakes will not be cured over night. Habitat destruction, sewage contamination, invasive species and toxic pollution like PCBs have taken a heavy toll on the Lakes and its wildlife, leading to the extinction of species like the blue pike and drastic decline of other species such as lake trout.
That’s why more than 1,500 citizens came together in 2005 to craft a plan to restore the Great Lakes and the fish species that relied on them, such as whitefish, lake herring, lake trout, yellow perch, walleye, coaster brook trout, lake sturgeon, American eel, and Atlantic salmon.
That plan—supported by the National Wildlife Federation—offers manageable solutions to bring back the Lakes and its wildlife. It’s great that the 2012 federal budget supports actions to restore the Great Lakes. It will be equally important for the U.S. Congress and President Obama to maintain support for these programs in the 2013 budget and beyond. Cutting funding will only make problems worse and more costly to solve.