Thank you

Thank you

Having completed three weeks of non-stop public outreach, we want to thank you for making the effort to turn out – often during dinnertime, away from family and friends, let alone on priceless summer evenings – to tell us what’s on your mind when it comes to the Great Lakes. I was heartened that you participated in a way that was enthusiastic and constructive, often providing ideas and examples of efforts that work to restore the Great Lakes. After all, saving the Great Lakes will take all of us working together to leave this magnificent ecosystem better for the next generation.

Thanks also to our federal agency partners who made the time to help support these outreach efforts. U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority; federal coordination going into the recent stakeholder meetings helped deliver on our collective commitment to transparency.

It also gave us a chance to explain the federal commitment to the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We need action…to pour the bulk of our efforts into the physical work it takes to rehabilitate habitat, reduce toxics, and cut runoff pollution through better land-use practices. The need for that action is urgent. Most of the problems in the Great Lakes are well-known and their solutions ready to use. And, we …meaning all of us…need to be accountable for ensuring our investment in time and resources is achieving results.

In thanking you for turning out, I’d also like to share with you some of the common themes and issues we heard during the public meetings and some of my initial thinking about them.

We heard you that tackling runoff pollution, especially from agricultural lands, must be a high priority. While enhancing support for existing, successful runoff prevention programs like strong land-use planning, we’re also interested in hearing about new, innovative ways to combat this threat.
“The Action Plan Outline seems like more of a list of actions than a framework,” and “where’s the debate about the Outline?” were things we heard. It’s important to remember that this year’s Initiative builds from years of debate and frame-working under the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy finalized in 2005. The Initiative intends to move toward the action (hence the name Action Plan) phase of this ongoing effort. In other words, while our work to envision and strategize for a healthy Great Lakes will never be done, now more than ever is the time to act. To support actual on-the-ground and in-the-water work to take care of the ecosystem so it can take care of us, economically, ecologically and socially.
Some of you suggested there’s too much money dedicated to accountability, monitoring, partnerships and other systems-based work, more than is suggested for aquatic nuisance species (ANS). First, measuring success under the new Initiative is second in importance only to success itself. Especially in the early stages of the Initiative, we need solid systems to track progress; otherwise, we won’t be able to learn how to do things even better going forward. Second, money itself won’t solve our ANS problems. Rulemakings, permits, state plans and other regulatory efforts that aren’t part of the Initiative are among the most powerful tools that we need to leverage to deal with pest invaders.
Another common thought was that there needs to be more oversight of spending under the Initiative. We agree that the tools need to be in place to ensure you can see that your funding is showing results. That’s part of why, as mentioned above, we’re make a major investment in accounting systems, as resource-intensive as that may be.
Some asked the question, “shouldn’t there be, for example, 3 or 4 big grants rather than lots of smaller ones?” It’s a fair question, but there is no formula for funding Great Lakes restoration, nor should there be. First, the beauty of the Initiative is that it’s a broad assault on Great Lakes threats, not one that nibbles at a few threats. Second, to ensure we see results, some work might be funded through big grants. Some critical efforts, however, can achieve success through smaller, laser-precise work. Generally, we want to move as much of the funding in the most efficient way to where it’s most needed rather than by artificially setting a limit on the number of grants.
We also heard that education and helping the ecosystem cope with climate change need to be given higher priority. These are helpful thoughts and we’re interested in doing these things.

With the help of the Great Lakes Commission, we hope to soon post a summary of more of your concerns online.

I wish we could tell you that even with the most urgent, accountable actions taken today, we’ll be able to deliver a perfectly healthy ecosystem a year or two from now, but we can’t. It’s taken 150 years for the Great Lakes to decline in health and it will take time to get momentum to the point where we see major results moving in the other direction. But we have to start now. There isn’t a minute to waste. We feel this urgency every second at the U.S. EPA.

We’re working hard to finish the Action Plan that will serve as the blueprint for Great Lakes restoration in the coming years and to release an “anticipatory” request for proposals in advance of Congress approving funding for the Initiative. Please keep an eye out for both in the coming weeks.

Thank you for caring about the Great Lakes by showing up and continuing to pour your energy into your Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Cameron Davis
Senior Advisor to the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Local Navigation