Great Lakes
An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals
Gao ID: GAO-03-515 April 30, 2003
The five Great Lakes, which comprise the largest system of freshwater in the world, are threatened on many environmental fronts. To address the extent of progress made in restoring the Great Lakes Basin, which includes the lakes and surrounding area, GAO (1) identified the federal and state environmental programs operating in the basin and funding devoted to them, (2) evaluated the restoration strategies used and how they are coordinated, and (3) assessed overall environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort.
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve the localized application of national or state environmental initiatives and do not specifically focus on unique basin concerns. However, several programs specifically address environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. GAO identified 33 federal Great Lakes specific programs, and states funded 17 additional unique Great Lakes specific programs. Other governmental, bi-national, and nongovernmental organizations also fund restoration activities within the basin. GAO identified several Great Lakes environmental strategies being used at the bi-national, federal, and state levels. These strategies are not coordinated or unified in a fashion comparable to other large restoration projects such as the South Florida Ecosystem. In an effort to improve coordination, federal and state officials recently published Great Lakes Strategy 2002, but this document is largely a description of existing and planned program activities rather than an overarching plan. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office has coordination authority over many activities but has not fully exercised it to this point. With available information, it is not possible to comprehensively assess restoration progress in the Great Lakes. Current indicators rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments to determine whether conditions are improving, such as whether fish are safe to eat. The ultimate success of an ongoing bi-national effort to develop a set of overall indicators for the Great Lakes is uncertain because it relies on the resources voluntarily provided by several organizations. Further, no date for completing a final list of indicators has been established.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-03-515, Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-515
entitled 'Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring
Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals' which was
released on May 21, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
April 2003:
Great Lakes:
An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to
Better Achieve Restoration Goals:
GAO-03-515:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-515, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The five Great Lakes, which comprise the largest system of freshwater
in the world, are threatened on many environmental fronts. To address
the extent of progress made in restoring the Great Lakes Basin, which
includes the lakes and surrounding area, GAO (1) identified the
federal and state environmental programs operating in the basin and
funding devoted to them, (2) evaluated the restoration strategies used
and how they are coordinated, and (3) assessed overall environmental
progress made in the basin restoration effort.
What GAO Found:
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these
programs involve the localized application of national or state
environmental initiatives and do not specifically focus on unique
basin concerns. However, several programs specifically address
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. GAO identified 33
federal Great Lakes specific programs, and states funded 17 additional
unique Great Lakes specific programs. Other governmental, binational,
and nongovernmental organizations also fund restoration activities
within the basin.
GAO identified several Great Lakes environmental strategies being used
at the binational, federal, and state levels. These strategies are
not coordinated or unified in a fashion comparable to other large
restoration projects such as the South Florida Ecosystem. In an
effort to improve coordination, federal and state officials recently
published Great Lakes Strategy 2002, but this document is largely a
description of existing and planned program activities rather than an
overarching plan. EPA‘s Great Lakes National Program Office has
coordination authority over many activities but has not fully
exercised it to this point.
With available information, it is not possible to comprehensively
assess restoration progress in the Great Lakes. Current indicators
rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments to
determine whether conditions are improving, such as whether fish are
safe to eat. The ultimate success of an ongoing binational effort to
develop a set of overall indicators for the Great Lakes is uncertain
because it relies on the resources voluntarily provided by several
organizations. Further, no date for completing a final list of
indicators has been established.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency:
* ensure that the Great Lakes National Program Office fulfills its
coordination responsibilities and develop an overarching Great Lakes
strategy; and
* develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the
Great Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration
progress.
EPA generally agreed with GAO‘s conclusions that better planning,
coordination, monitoring and the development of indicators are needed,
and stated it would provide the Congress, GAO, and the Office of
Management and Budget with a formal response to the report
recommendations at a later date.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-515.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841, or John Wanska at (312) 220-7628. owanskaj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
Background:
Results in Brief:
Principal Findings:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Chapter 1: Introduction:
The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource:
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office Is Responsible for Leading
U.S. Efforts to Improve the Great Lakes Basin:
States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes
Environmental Activities:
Significant Environmental Challenges Remain to Restore the Great Lakes:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental
Programs Operate in the Great Lakes Basin:
Most Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or
Statewide Focus:
Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on Certain Geographic
Areas or Problems:
Foundations and Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration
Activities:
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack
of Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts:
An Overarching Strategy and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for
Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects:
Strategies for the Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching
Restoration Approach:
GLNPO Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great
Lakes Restoration Programs:
Major Planning Efforts Have Not Yielded Extensive Restoration Activity
because of a Lack of Funding and Other Barriers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to
Determine Overall Restoration Progress:
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Calls for a Monitoring System
to Ensure Objectives Are Met:
Current Indicators Do Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making an
Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great
Lakes Program Information:
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great Lakes Specific
Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001:
Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects
in the Great Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992
through 2001:
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs,
Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001:
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection
Agency:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada
Affecting the Great Lakes:
Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes:
Table 3: Geographic Area, Population, and States for Three Restoration
Areas:
Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great Lakes Indicators:
Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin:
Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes:
Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes
Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin:
Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Figure 5: Number of Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal Agency:
Figure 6: Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific Programs
by Federal Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001:
Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized
Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through
2001:
Abbreviations:
AOCs: Areas of concern:
ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:
CERP: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan:
Corps: Army Corps of Engineers:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FSA: Farm Services Agency:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
GLNPO: Great Lakes National Program Office:
GLWQA: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement:
IADN: International Atmospheric Deposition Network:
IJC: International Joint Commission:
LaMPs: Lakewide Management Plans:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NPS: National Park Service:
NRCS: National Resource Conservation Service:
OAR: Office of Air and Radiation:
ORD: Office of Research and Development:
OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
RAPs: Remedial Action Plans:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
SOLEC: State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
USGS: United States Geological Survey:
USPC: United States Policy Committee:
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 30, 2003:
Congressional Requesters:
As requested, we are reporting to you on the federal and state
environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin. This report
contains recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on the need to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for basin
restoration, coordinate the multiple restoration activities in the
basin, and facilitate the expeditious development of environmental
indicators for measuring restoration progress.
As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 30 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier. We will then send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; various other federal
departments and agencies; and the International Joint Commission. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/gao.gov.
Should you or your staff need further information, please contact me on
(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VI.
John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
List of Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Evan Bayh
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mike DeWine
United States Senate:
The Honorable Carl Levin
United States Senate:
The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
United States Senate:
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Sherrod Brown
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Dingell
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Vernon Ehlers
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Steven LaTourette
House of Representatives:
The Honorable James Oberstar
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Louise Slaughter
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bart Stupak
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
The United States and Canada recognize the Great Lakes--the largest
system of freshwater in the world--as a natural resource that is
threatened on many environmental fronts. To protect this resource and
to address common water quality problems, the two countries entered
into the bilateral Great LakesWater Quality Agreement in 1972 and last
revised it in 1987. However, three decades after the original
agreement, polluted beaches are frequently closed to swimmers, fish are
unsafe to eat for high risk individuals, and raw sewage is still being
dumped into the lakes. Progress has been made on a number of
significant fronts, such as controlling the nonnative sea lamprey,
reducing the water's phosphorus content, and improving fish
populations, but much more remains to be accomplished before the
overall goals of the agreement can be met. Several recently released
reports have questioned whether the current environmental activities in
the Great Lakes being funded by numerous organizations and various
programs are adequate to fulfill the U.S. commitments and whether
restoration progress is sufficient in the basin. In 2002, GAO reported
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to take action to
improve its oversight for cleaning up contaminated areas.
To address the progress of restoration, 14 members of Congress
participating on the Great Lakes Task Force asked GAO to (1) identify
the federal and state environmental programs operating in the Great
Lakes Basin and the funding being devoted to them, (2) evaluate how the
restoration strategies are used and coordinated, and (3) assess overall
environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort thus far.
Background:
Millions of people in the United States and Canada rely on the five
Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Erie, Huron, and Ontario--as a
principal source of drinking water, recreation, and economic
livelihood. Over time, industrial, agricultural, and residential
development on lands adjacent to the lakes has seriously degraded the
lakes' water quality, posing threats to human health and the
environment, and forcing restrictions on activities, such as swimming
and fish consumption.
To protect the Great Lakes Basin, and to address water quality
problems, the governments of the United States and Canada entered into
the bilateral Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. In the
agreement, the United States and Canada agreed to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes
Basin. A new agreement with the same name was reached in 1978. The
agreement was amended in 1983 and 1987, expanding the scope of
activities by prescribing prevention and cleanup measures to improve
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. The agreement obligates
the International Joint Commission (IJC), an international body, to
assist in the implementation of the agreement.
The Clean Water Act directs EPA to lead efforts to meet the goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and establishes the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) within EPA, charging it with, among
other things, cooperating with federal, state, tribal, and
international agencies to develop action plans to carry out the U.S.
responsibilities under the agreement. GLNPO is further responsible for
coordinating the agency's actions both in headquarters and in the
regions to improve Great Lakes' water quality. In addition to GLNPO,
numerous federal, state, binational, and nonprofit organizations
conduct activities that focus on improving the overall Great Lakes
Basin environment or some specific environmental issue within the
basin.
Results in Brief:
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs
involve the localized application of national or state environmental
initiatives that do not specifically focus on basin concerns. For
example, EPA's Superfund program addresses some of the contaminated
sites located within the basin. Superfund officials, like officials for
most nationwide, as well as most statewide, programs, do not track or
itemize their overall funding by region, such as isolating the portion
of funding going to specific areas (e.g., the basin), making it
difficult to determine their contribution to total Great Lakes
spending. In addition to the nationwide federal programs, the Congress
has also enacted 33 federal programs focused specifically on the Great
Lakes Basin, for which about $387 million was spent in fiscal years
1992 through 2001, to specifically address environmental conditions in
the Great Lakes. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers expended about
$358 million during the same time period for legislatively directed
projects within the basin, such as $93.8 million for restoration of
Chicago's shoreline. States funded 17 additional Great Lakes specific
programs, for which about $956 million was expended during the same
general time period to address unique state needs, such as Ohio's
program to control shoreline erosion along Lake Erie. In addition to
federal and state programs, county and municipal governmental
organizations, binational organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, fund restoration
activities within the basin.
The numerous restoration programs currently underway in the Great Lakes
Basin employ a variety of environmental strategies at the binational,
federal, and state levels to address specific environmental problems,
but there is no overarching plan for coordinating and tying together
the strategies and program activities into a coherent approach to
attain overall basin restoration. Experience with other large-scale
ecosystem restoration efforts, such as the South Florida ecosystem, has
demonstrated the importance of having a comprehensive strategic plan
with clearly articulated goals, objectives, and criteria for measuring
success and a decision-making body for weighing the merits of, and
prioritizing funding for, proposed cleanup and restoration projects.
Without such a plan for the basin, it is difficult to determine overall
progress and ensure that limited resources are being effectively
utilized. Although federal and state officials recently developed and
published a report, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, to fill this void, the
document, largely a description of existing and planned program
activities, did not provide a basis or mechanisms to prioritize or make
funding commitments to implement the various activities. GLNPO, the
office within EPA charged with fulfilling U.S. responsibilities under
the agreement and for coordinating federal actions for improving Great
Lakes' water quality, has not fully exercised this authority because it
has not entered into agreements with other agency organizations
regarding their restoration responsibilities as required by the Clean
Water Act. GAO is recommending that EPA ensure that GLNPO fulfills its
coordination responsibilities and, in consultation with the governors
of the Great Lakes states, federal agencies, and other organizations,
develop an overarching strategy that clearly defines the roles and
responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing funding for Great
Lakes projects, and submit a proposal to the Congress detailing the
time-phased funding requirements necessary to implement the strategy.
A comprehensive assessment of restoration progress in the Great Lakes
Basin cannot be determined with the piecemeal information currently
available. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement called for the
development and implementation of a monitoring system, but this
requirement has not yet been met. The environmental indicators
currently being used to determine overall progress are inadequate
because they rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments
to determine whether conditions are improving. An ongoing binational
effort initiated in 1996 has worked to develop a set of overall
indicators for the Great Lakes through a series of biennial
conferences. The ultimate success of this effort, which relies on the
volunteer contributions of several organizations, is uncertain and thus
far no completion date for developing a final list of indicators has
been set. GAO is recommending that EPA, in coordination with Canadian
officials, develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for
the Great Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration
progress and require these indicators to be used to evaluate,
prioritize, and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative
restoration projects.
Principal Findings:
Many Federal and State Programs Fund Restoration Activities in the
Great Lakes Basin:
About 200 programs--148 federal and 51 state--fund restoration
activities within the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve
the localized application of national or state environmental
initiatives and do not specifically focus on basin concerns. Officials
from 11 agencies identified 115 of these broadly scoped federal
programs, and officials from 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states identified
34 similar state programs. EPA administers the majority of the federal
programs that provide a broad range of environmental activities
involving research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. For
example, EPA's nationwide Superfund program funds cleanup activities at
contaminated areas throughout the basin. While the broad scoped federal
and state programs contribute to basin restoration, program officials
do not track or try to isolate the portion of funding going to specific
areas like the basin, making it difficult to determine their
contribution to total Great Lakes spending. However, GAO was able to
identify basin-specific information on some of these programs.
Specifically, basin related expenditures for 53 of the 115 broadly
scoped federal programs totaled about $1.8 billion in fiscal years 1992
through 2001, and the expenditures for 14 statewide programs totaled
$461.3 million during basically the same time period.
Several federal and state programs were specifically designed to focus
on the Great Lakes Basin environmental conditions. Officials from 7
federal agencies identified 33 Great Lakes specific programs that had
expenditures of $387 million in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Most of
the programs funded a variety of activities, such as research, cleanup,
or pollution prevention. An additional $358 million was expended for
legislatively directed Corps of Engineers projects in the basin, such
as $93.8 million to restore Chicago's shoreline. Officials from 7
states reported 17 Great Lakes specific programs that expended about
$956 million in 1992 through 2001, with Michigan's programs accounting
for 96 percent of this amount. State programs focused on unique state
needs, such as Ohio's program to control shoreline erosion along Lake
Erie, and Michigan's program to provide bond funding for environmental
activities. Besides federal and state programs, county and municipal
organizations, binational organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, fund restoration
activities within the basin.
Different Strategies, Lack of Coordination, and Limited Funding Impede
Restoration Efforts:
Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin is a major endeavor involving many
environmental programs and organizations. The magnitude of this effort
cannot succeed without a comprehensive strategy or plan similar to
those developed for other large ecosystem restoration projects, such as
the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay. Because of the many
parties involved in planning, strategizing, and conducting restoration
activities in the basin, an overarching strategy and a comprehensive
plan are needed that clearly articulate goals, objectives, and criteria
for measuring success and that establish a decision-making body to
weigh the merits of, and prioritize funding for, proposed cleanup and
restoration projects.
Several organizations have developed strategies for the basin at the
binational, federal, and state levels that address either the entire
basin or the specific problems in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes
Strategy 2002, developed by a committee of federal and state officials,
is the most recent of these strategies. While this strategy identified
restoration objectives and planned actions by various federal and state
agencies, it is largely a description of existing program activity
relating to basin restoration. State officials involved in developing
the strategy told us that states had already planned the actions
described in it, but that these actions were contingent on funding for
specific environmental programs. The strategy acknowledged that it
should not be construed as a commitment for additional funding or
resources, and it did not provide a basis for prioritizing activities.
In addition, other strategies addressed particular contaminants,
restoration of individual lakes, or cleanup of contaminated areas. Ad
hoc coordination among federal agencies, states, and other
environmental organizations occurs in developing these strategies or
when programmatic activity calls for coordination.
Although there are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing,
there is no one organization that is coordinating restoration efforts.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to charge
GLNPO with coordinating actions within EPA for improving the Great
Lakes' water quality, but the agency has not fully exercised this
authority because it has not entered into agreements with other agency
organizations regarding their Great Lakes activities as required by the
Clean Water Act. GLNPO officials believe that they fulfilled their
responsibilities under the act by having federal agencies and state
officials agree to the restoration activities discussed in the Great
Lakes Strategy 2002; however, the strategy did not represent formal
agreements to conduct specific activities with identified resources.
Extensive strategizing, planning, and coordinating have not resulted in
significant restoration. The ecosystem remains compromised and
contaminated sediments in the lakes produce health problems, as
reported by the IJC. Federal and state officials have cited a lack of
funding as the chief barrier to restoration progress, but they
mentioned that other barriers, such as the absence of an effective
coordinating agency, also impede restoration progress.
Insufficient Data and Measures Prevent Determination of Overall
Restoration Progress:
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended in 1987, calls for
establishing a monitoring system to measure restoration progress and
assess the degree that the United States and Canada are complying with
the goals and objectives of the agreement. Implementation of this
provision has not progressed to the point that overall restoration
progress can be measured or determined based on quantitative
information. Recent assessments of overall progress, which rely on a
mix of quantitative data and subjective judgments, do not provide an
adequate basis for making an overall assessment. The current assessment
process has emerged from a series of biennial State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) initiated in 1994 for developing
indicators agreed upon by conference participants. The number of
indicators considered during the SOLEC conferences has been pared down
from more than 850 indicators in 1998 to 80 indicators in 2000,
although data was available for only 33 of them. While this lack of
data precluded an overall quantitative-based assessment of the Great
Lakes Basin, a qualitative assessment based on general observations was
provided. The ultimate success of the SOLEC process in providing an
overall quantitative-based assessment of the Great Lakes is uncertain
because the assessment process relies on the voluntary participation of
many federal, state, and local agency officials in an informal
partnership arrangement. In addition, the objectives of the SOLEC
process are not directly focused on developing a surveillance and
monitoring program as envisioned in the agreement. Other indicators of
environmental improvements reported for the numerous federal and state
programs operating in the basin focus on program activities, often
describing outputs, such as tons of contaminated sediment removed,
rather than environmental outcomes, such as improvement of
environmental conditions as a result of removing contaminated sediment.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that
federal dollars are effectively spent, GAO recommends that the
Administrator, EPA, ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for
coordinating programs within the Great Lakes Basin; charge GLNPO with
developing, in consultation with the governors of the Great Lakes
states, federal agencies, and other organizations, an overarching
strategy that, clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for
coordinating and prioritizing funding for projects; and submit a time-
phased funding requirement proposal to the Congress necessary to
implement the strategy.
To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and
to ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, GAO
recommends that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian
officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1)
develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great
Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress
and (2) require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize,
and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration
projects.
Agency Comments:
GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. The agency generally agreed with the findings and
recommendations in the report. EPA provided written comments; the full
text of which is included in appendix V.
EPA stated that significant accomplishments have improved environmental
conditions in the Great Lakes and that GAO's conclusions and
recommendations can help ensure that more improvements are made. While
EPA agreed with the overall conclusions, namely that better planning,
coordination, monitoring, and the development of indicators are needed,
it did not specifically address GAO's individual recommendations,
stating that it would provide the Congress, GAO, and the Office of
Management and Budget with a formal response to the final report
recommendations at a later date.
EPA stated that while it can improve its delivery and coordination of
restoration programs in the Great Lakes Basin, the complexities of the
Great Lakes in terms of scope, geographical scale, and other factors
require long-term, complex solutions implemented at a variety of
levels. As GAO's report demonstrates, the complexity of the Great Lakes
restoration effort provides the basis for the recommendation that EPA
develop an overarching strategy that guides the multiple restoration
efforts.
EPA highlighted two of its recent efforts to demonstrate compliance
with its coordinating responsibilities under the Clean Water Act: the
formation of the United States Policy Committee (USPC) and its
subsequent release of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 and SOLEC for
developing environmental indicators for the Great Lakes Basin. As GAO
noted, these coordination efforts are significant but cannot be
sustained over the long term given the uncertainties surrounding
funding sources. Specifically, it provides extensive information on
ongoing restoration efforts, but the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides
no commitment for funding and resources to assure its implementation.
As such, the strategy remains largely a description of ongoing
activities that assumes that federal and state restoration programs
will maintain the status quo in both the extent of their efforts and
funding. Similarly, the SOLEC process, which has successfully engaged a
wide range of binational parties, remains a volunteer effort dependent
on voluntary funding and does not replace the need to develop the
surveillance and monitoring program envisioned in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
[End of section]
Chapter 1: Introduction:
The United States and Canada view the Great Lakes as a valuable
national natural resource that needs to be protected and restored to
environmental health. The first bilateral agreement between the two
countries to protect the Great Lakes was reached in 1972. Since that
time further agreements have strengthened the commitment of the two
countries to improve environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the lead federal agency,
is charged with ensuring that U.S. responsibilities are fulfilled.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is authorized to
implement various Great Lakes activities. States and other
organizations also play a vital and integral role in fulfilling U.S.
commitments. Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great
Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including
increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas
contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.
The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource:
The five Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario--are
a critical resource for the United States and Canada. The lakes form
the largest freshwater system on Earth, accounting for 20 percent of
the world's fresh surface water and over 95 percent of the U.S. fresh
surface water supply for the contiguous 48 states. The lakes provide a
drinking water source for over 26 million U.S. residents and water for
the region's industry. Together, they form an inland waterway to the
Atlantic Ocean that facilitates the relatively inexpensive transport of
goods both within and outside the region. The lakes are also a
recreational resource for boating, swimming, and sport fishing.
The Great Lakes Basin is a large area that extends well beyond the five
lakes proper to include their watersheds, tributaries, connecting
channels, and a portion of the St. Lawrence River. The basin
encompasses nearly all of the state of Michigan and parts of Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the
Canadian province of Ontario. (See fig. 1.):
Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Recognizing the importance and mutual interest in the Great Lakes and
other boundary waters, the United States and Canada signed the Boundary
Waters Treaty in 1909. The treaty gave both countries equal rights to
use the waterways that flow along the international border and provided
that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary not be
polluted on either side to the point of injuring human health or the
property of the other country. The treaty also established the
International Joint Commission (IJC) as a permanent binational agency
organized to help resolve and prevent disputes concerning the waters
along the border.
With increased concern over contaminants in the Great Lakes, the
governments of the United States and Canada signed the first
international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972 to
improve the environmental conditions in the lakes. The agreement
focused on controlling phosphorus as a principal means of dealing with
eutrophication in the lakes. In 1978, the two countries signed a new
GLWQA, which was revised again in 1983. The 1978 agreement reflected an
increased understanding of the scope of pollution problems in the Great
Lakes and called for (1) controlling all toxic substances that could
endanger the health of any living species and (2) restoring and
enhancing water quality throughout the entire basin. The 1983
supplement added the requirement to further limit phosphorus discharges
and for the two countries to prepare and implement plans for reducing
phosphorus. In 1987, the agreement was revised for the last time to
commit the two countries to cooperate with state and provincial
governments to ensure, among other things, the development of Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMP) to address environmental problems in open
waters and Remedial Action Plans (RAP) for problems in designated
"areas of concern" located in the basin. (See table 1.):
Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada
Affecting the Great Lakes:
Name of agreement: Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909; Key provisions: *
Establishes the IJC as a permanent binational agency organized to help
resolve and prevent disputes concerning the waters along the border; *
Gives both countries equal rights to use the waterways that flow along
the international border; * Provides that the boundary waters and
waters flowing across the boundary are not to be polluted on either
side to the point of injuring human health or the property of the other
country.
Name of agreement: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972; Key
provisions: * Provides for more effective cooperation to restore and
enhance the Great Lakes; * Emphasizes finding solutions to the more
obvious water quality problems.
Name of agreement: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978; Key
provisions: * Establishes both general and specific water quality
objectives for the Great Lakes; * Calls for developing and
implementing programs to reduce and control phosphorus inputs to the
lakes; * Requires a coordinated surveillance and monitoring program.
Name of agreement: Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed October 16, 1983; Key
provisions: * Further specifies phosphorus inputs and required the
preparation and implementation of plans for reducing phosphorus.
Name of agreement: Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978, signed November 18, 1987; Key provisions: * Adds several
annexes for issues to be addressed and activities to be conducted by
the two governments. These included the development of RAPs and LaMPs,
as well as addressing issues, such as airborne toxic substances,
contaminated sediment, and control of phosphorus; * Requires a
comprehensive review of the agreement's operation and effectiveness
approximately every 6 years; * Calls for a monitoring system to
measure restoration progress and assess the degree to which the United
States and Canada are complying with the goals and objectives of the
agreement; * Calls for semi-annual meetings between the United States
and Canada to coordinate work plans and evaluate progress in
implementing the agreement.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In implementing the 1987 revisions to the agreement, officials for the
two countries released complete LaMPs for four lakes in 2000--Erie,
Michigan, Ontario, and Superior--and have updated them every 2 years.
For Lake Huron, an alternative action plan was prepared instead of a
LaMP. Implementation of RAPs for designated areas of concern (AOC)--
namely sites that have failed to meet the objectives of the GLWQA and
failures that have caused, or are likely to cause, impairment of
beneficial uses, such as swimming or fishing--has not fared as well.
The countries identified 43 contaminated areas: 26 located entirely
within the United States, 12 located entirely within Canada, and 5 for
which both countries share responsibility.[Footnote 1] In 2002, we
reported slow progress in cleaning up the contaminated areas and as of
April 2002 none of the 26 areas under U.S. responsibility had been
restored to beneficial use.[Footnote 2] We also reported that the RAP
process had either been abandoned or modified for several areas. We
concluded that EPA was not effectively ensuring RAP implementation for
contaminated areas. EPA subsequently took several steps to improve the
RAP process, such as gathering information on the status of the
contaminated areas and consolidating responsibility for the process
within GLNPO.
In addition to two types of plans--LaMPs and RAPs--the agreement
contains 16 other "annexes" that define issues that the two countries
need to address and activities that they need to conduct, such as
airborne toxic substances, contaminated sediment, and control of
phosphorus. The 1987 amendment to the GLWQA included a provision that
requires a comprehensive review of the agreement about every 6 years,
focusing on the agreement's operation and effectiveness. A 1999
binational review of the agreement found that certain provisions of the
agreement were out of date and concluded that certain changes should be
considered; however, as of March 2003, the two countries had yet to
revise the agreement.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office Is Responsible for Leading
U.S. Efforts to Improve the Great Lakes Basin:
The responsibility for leading the U.S. Great Lakes efforts rests with
GLNPO. The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to
require EPA to lead and coordinate efforts with other federal agencies
and state and local authorities to meet the goals in the agreement. It
also established GLNPO within EPA to fulfill U.S. responsibilities
under the agreement and to coordinate EPA's actions both at
headquarters and the affected EPA regional offices. Specifically, the
act requires GLNPO to:
* cooperate with federal and state agencies in developing and
implementing plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under the
agreement,
* coordinate EPA's efforts to improve water quality of the Great Lakes,
* monitor water quality in the Great Lakes, and:
* serve as a liaison with Canada.
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water
Act to further define GLNPO's role and required that all RAPs be
submitted to the office and that the office take the lead in developing
a LaMP for Lake Michigan. The act also assigned additional
responsibilities to GLNPO in developing water quality standards for the
Great Lakes and assessing contaminated sediment characteristics and
remediation technologies. In addition to these responsibilities, GLNPO
will help implement provisions of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002,
which authorized funds for cleaning up AOCs. Key provisions of these
statutes are summarized in the following table:
Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes:
Name of statute: Water Quality Act of 1987; Key provisions: * Amends
the Clean Water Act to provide that EPA should take the lead in
coordinating with other federal agencies and state and local
authorities to meet the goals in the agreement; * Establishes GLNPO
within EPA to fulfill the U.S. responsibilities under the agreement and
to coordinate EPA's actions at headquarters and the affected EPA
regional offices. Specifically, it requires GLNPO to; * cooperate with
federal and state agencies in developing and implementing plans to
carry out the U.S. responsibilities under the agreement; * coordinate
EPA's efforts to improve water quality of the Great Lakes; * monitor
water quality in the Great Lakes, and; * serve as a liaison with
Canada.
Name of statute: Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990; Key
provisions: * Requires that all RAPs be submitted to GLNPO; * Directs
GLNPO to take the lead in developing a LaMP for Lake Michigan; *
Provides additional responsibility for GLNPO in developing water
quality standards for the Great Lakes and assessing contaminated
sediment characteristics along with remediation technologies; *
Requires that GLNPO be a separate line item in EPA's annual budget
request.
Name of statute: Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002; Key provisions: *
Authorizes $50 million per year from fiscal year 2004 through 2008 for
contaminated sediment projects in AOCs for which the United States has
full or partial responsibility; * Requires EPA to report to the
Congress by November 2003 on oversight of RAPs.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The legislative authorization of GLNPO was preceded by an uneven EPA
commitment to addressing Great Lakes issues. In 1972, EPA's Region V
Office in Chicago established the Office of Great Lakes Coordinator to
monitor a demonstration program on the water quality in the Great Lakes
and to conduct research. In 1978, the region established a larger
coordinating office, also named the Great Lakes National Program
Office, to direct and oversee fulfillment of the U.S. obligations for
the agreement and any spending for that purpose. As we reported in
1982, that office had difficultly obtaining cooperation from other
agency offices to fulfill its mission, leading us to recommend that
GLNPO be allowed to coordinate actions within EPA, other federal
agencies, and states in developing strategies to improve Great Lakes'
water quality.[Footnote 3] In the years immediately following our
report, however, the administration excluded GLNPO from the agency's
budget proposal. The Congress restored the funding each time it was
excluded from the budget and the region provided staff and other
support for the office. The Water Quality Act of 1987 required the EPA
Administrator to include in the agency's annual budget submission to
the Congress a separate budget line item for GLNPO. According to GLNPO
officials, recent GLNPO budgets have been generally funded by the
Congress at the previous years' level or somewhat greater.
GLNPO is a unique entity within EPA. Unlike other EPA entities that
have responsibility for an overall media, such as EPA's Office of Air,
GLNPO is focused on a wide range of environmental issues in a specific
geographical area of the country. GLNPO and its staff are not
physically located with other national program offices in EPA
headquarters, and its staff of about 40 professionals is relatively
small when compared with EPA's other national programs. The manager is
also selected differently than other program office heads. The Great
Lakes National Program Manager is the Regional Administrator for EPA's
Region V, as opposed to an individual appointed to specifically head a
national program office, such as the Office of Water within EPA.
States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes
Environmental Activities:
States, provincial governments, international organizations, local
organizations, independent commissions, and nonprofit organizations
are all involved in Great Lakes issues. The eight Great Lake states and
the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec in Canada have
historically played key roles in Great Lakes activities. The GLWQA
envisioned that the two countries would cooperate with states and
provincial governments on a variety of matters, including the
development of RAPs for contaminated areas and monitoring environmental
conditions within the basin. State and provincial government
involvement is necessary for implementing other agreements, such as the
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the Great Lakes Strategy
2002. Similarly, the federal government's partnerships with the states
are essential for implementation of EPA's Great Lakes and other
environmental initiatives.
The IJC assists in the implementation of the agreement between the two
countries, reports every 2 years on implementation progress, and offers
recommendations to the two countries. The GLWQA created three
binational organizations to assist the IJC in its oversight role:
* Great Lakes Water Quality Board, which is the principal adviser to
the IJC and is composed of an equal number of Canadian and U.S.
members, including representatives from the governments and each state
and provincial government.
* Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, which advises the IJC and the
Water Quality Board on research and scientific matters. The board is
comprised of managers of Great Lakes research programs and recognized
experts.
* Great Lakes Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario, which provides
administrative and technical support to the boards and operates a
public information service for the IJC.
In addition, the IJC has established several other organizations that
provide advice and assistance, including the Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers, the International Air Quality Advisory Board, and
the Health Professionals Task Force.
Significant Environmental Challenges Remain to Restore the Great Lakes:
Despite early successes in cleaning up the nation's water, the Great
Lakes Basin continues to face significant environmental challenges.
Specifically, 41 areas within the Great Lakes, contaminated with toxic
substances, need cleanup actions to restore beneficial uses, such as
swimming and fishing. Water polluted with toxic substances still flows
into the Great Lakes from specific points, such as wastewater treatment
plants, and also from nonpoint sources, such as sediment runoff from
agricultural land and urban areas. Nonnative species continue to invade
the Great Lakes, threatening to interrupt the ecological balance in the
region. The number of invasive species increased steadily throughout
the 1900s, and the basin now contains more than 160 nonnative species
that threaten native fish and plants. Figure 2 illustrates the various
sources of pollution to the Great Lakes.
Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
One of the initial environmental successes in the Great Lakes has been
the significant reduction in the amount of phosphorus that municipal
waste treatment facilities discharged into the lakes. Phosphorus causes
excessive algae growth, which greatly reduced the quality of fish
populations in the Great Lakes. With improved waste treatment
facilities and reduction of phosphates in detergents, phosphorus levels
in the Great Lakes were reduced and fish populations improved. However,
a portion of Lake Erie remains a "dead zone" no longer able to support
fish populations, and this problem appears to be worsening since 1990.
Another notable success was the control of certain invasive species,
such as the sea lamprey. The sea lamprey was first found in Lake
Ontario and quickly spread through out the Great Lakes. Lampreys
attached to native fish, feeding on the body fluids and leaving them
either scarred or dead. Federal, provincial, and state governments
initiated control measures that have reduced the populations
significantly.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Fourteen members of Congress participating on the Great Lakes Task
Force asked us to (1) identify the federal and state environmental
programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) evaluate restoration
strategies used and how they are coordinated, and (3) assess overall
environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort.
To identify environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin,
we used a structured data collection instrument provided to each of the
8 Great Lakes states--Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin---and 13 federal agencies. For each
program, we requested information about the program's purpose, the
restoration strategies being used, the extent of program coordination
with other federal or state agencies, the amount of funding provided,
and the overall environmental progress achieved in restoration efforts.
A detailed listing of federal and state agencies that provided program
information is included as appendix I.
Furthermore, we interviewed and gathered program documentation from
officials representing EPA's Office of Water, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, and Great Lakes National Program Office, along
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). These organizations
were selected because they have major responsibilities for Great Lakes
cleanup and restoration efforts and account for the majority of funds
expended for Great Lakes programs. To obtain additional information on
state programs, we interviewed state officials from five of the eight
Great Lakes states--Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin.
These states were selected because they reported the majority of state
programs involved in basin restoration. We also gathered and analyzed
documentation from other governmental and nongovernmental
organizations involved in restoration activities, including counties,
townships, conservation districts, and nonprofit organizations.
To evaluate how restoration strategies were used and how they were
coordinated, we reviewed and analyzed the data collection instrument
responses received from federal and state program officials. From these
responses, we identified various coordination methods and determined
whether coordination was ongoing or infrequent and whether it was
informal or formally documented in a written agreement. We obtained and
analyzed strategies for the basin prepared by various organizations or
working groups. These strategies were categorized as to whether they
were basin-wide strategies or whether they addressed specific
environmental problems, such as controlling mercury pollution, or
geographical areas, such as controlling point source pollution for Lake
Superior. For the recent basin strategy developed by a committee of
regional federal and state officials in 2002, we interviewed officials
representing GLNPO, other federal agencies, and states involved in
developing the strategy to further understand the strategy's goals,
objectives, and resources available to carry out the strategy. We also
evaluated the agencies' efforts to coordinate the various strategies.
To determine overall environmental progress made in basin restoration
efforts, we obtained and analyzed Great Lakes progress reports prepared
by representatives of the United States and Canada in response to the
GLWQA. We interviewed GLNPO officials to understand the process for
gathering information and reaching conclusions on progress contained in
the reports. We gathered and analyzed information on the development of
environmental indicators used as part of the reporting process and
interviewed GLNPO officials regarding the resources available and
implementation plan for monitoring agreed-upon indicators. In our
effort to determine the progress environmental programs operating in
the basin have achieved, we obtained information on the program
accomplishments from responses to the data collection instrument and
interviews with various federal and state program officials. We used
these responses and studies to identify barriers to developing
indicators and overall restoration progress in the Great Lakes.
We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment.
EPA's written comments are presented in appendix V. In addition, we
received technical comments from EPA that we have incorporated
throughout the report as appropriate and technical comments from state
and federal program officials on the information and characterization
of information they provided.
We conducted our work from May 2002 through March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
the Great Lakes Basin:
About 200 federal and state environmental programs operate within the
Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve the localized
application of national or state initiatives and do not specifically
focus on unique basin concerns, but about 50 specifically address
environmental conditions in the basin. The majority of the programs are
administered by federal agencies, and for the broad-based programs it
is difficult to identify program expenditures that apply to the basin.
For the Great Lakes specific programs, expenditures totaled about $1.4
billion over 10 years, with the majority of expenditures coming from
state programs. In addition to these program expenditures, the Corps of
Engineers expended about $358 million on specifically authorized
projects within the basin.
Most Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or
Statewide Focus:
Most of the federal or state programs that address environmental
conditions in the Great Lakes Basin operate both within and outside of
the basin. Of the 148 federal and 51 state programs operating both
within and outside the basin, 149 federal and state programs were
identified by agency officials as being designed to address
environmental conditions at a nationwide or statewide level, while 50
programs provide Great Lakes specific restoration efforts. (See fig.
3.):
Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes
Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Of the 149 non-Great Lakes specific programs, 115 are federal programs
administered by 11 federal agencies and 34 are state programs
administered by 7 states that provide a wide range of restoration
activities that either directly restore or support restoration
activities. EPA and agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) administer most of the federal programs. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps); the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and
the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Coast Guard administer the
remaining ones. (See fig. 4.):
Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Generally, federal and state programs fund a diverse number of
activities relating to cleanup of contaminated areas, habitat
restoration, pollution prevention, and research that benefit the basin
and other geographical areas outside of the basin. For example, EPA's
RCRA Subtitle I Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks program regulates the use of underground petroleum tanks
to prevent the contamination of drinking water nationwide. This program
addresses associated activities in the basin. Likewise, the
Conservation Reserve Program administered by the Department of
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides payments to
agricultural landowners to establish long-term, resource conserving
vegetative cover on eligible farmland for reducing erosion. Some of
this funding benefits activities in the basin. The National Fish
Passage Program administered by FWS helps the basin and other areas of
the country restore native fish and other aquatic species to self-
sustaining levels by funding projects to facilitate unimpeded flows and
fish movements by removing barriers or providing ways for fish to
bypass barriers.
Additionally, non-Great Lakes specific research programs provide
information that helps support restoration activities. For example,
EPA's Aquatic Stressors Research Program funds research activities to
advance scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in
ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the
Great Lakes. Another program is the Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal
Change and Analysis program administered by NOAA, which develops and
distributes regional landscape data through remote sensing technology.
The program develops baseline land cover and characterization
information for coastal areas.
Officials from 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states reported 34 state programs
that affect areas both within and outside the basin. Of the 34
programs, 13 are in Minnesota, 7 in Ohio, 6 in Wisconsin, 4 in New
York, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 1 each in Indiana and Michigan. The
programs cover a wide range of activities directly involved in
restoration or supporting restoration activities. For example, the
Minnesota Mercury Initiative program, which was created in 1999 to
reduce mercury contamination in fish by curtailing air deposition of
mercury in state waters, solicits voluntary mercury reductions from
large companies to achieve its goals. Similarly, Ohio's Ground Water
Resources program fosters development of groundwater as a viable and
sustainable water supply both within and outside the basin and involves
collecting and distributing information on groundwater resources in the
Lake Erie and Ohio River Basins. A detailed listing of all federal and
state non-Great Lakes specific programs is included as appendix II.
The portion of expenditures devoted to activities in the basin for most
of these general federal and state programs is generally not available.
However, the following examples provide expenditure information on some
of the programs:
* EPA's Superfund program officials calculated that EPA's Region V,
which encompasses 6 of the 8 Great Lakes states, expended $745.6
million on cleanup activities within the basin during fiscal years 1992
through 2001.
* NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program, which supports education
programs and research relating to the development of marine resources,
expended $69.6 million for the basin during fiscal years 1995 through
2001.
* The Corps' Shore Protection Program, which provides project funding
for planning and constructing structures for protecting shores against
waves and currents, expended just over $1 million for these activities
in the basin during fiscal years 1992 through 2001.
Expenditure data for activities in the basin was available for 53 of
the 115 federal non-Great Lakes specific programs and totaled about
$1.8 billion during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Similarly,
expenditures for activities in the basin for 14 state non-Great Lakes
specific programs were about $461.3 million in state fiscal years 1992
through 2001.
Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on Certain Geographic
Areas or Problems:
We identified 50 federal and state programs that focus specifically on
addressing environmental conditions within the basin. Of these, 33 are
Great Lakes specific programs that are funded by federal agencies while
17 programs are funded by 7 states. FWS and EPA conduct most of the
federal programs while three agencies identified one program each--
Interior's National Park Service (NPS), USDA's Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Department of Health and Human
Service's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
(See fig. 5.):
Figure 5: Number of Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal Agency:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The federal programs support a variety of activities, such as research,
cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and other activities that
directly focus on Great Lakes environmental issues. For example:
* EPA's Niagara River Toxics Management Plan program focuses on
reducing toxic chemicals input into the Niagara River, achieving
ambient water quality, and improving and protecting the water quality
of Lake Ontario. The program began in 1987, and funding for remediation
efforts comes from two EPA programs.
* EPA's Great Lakes Air Deposition Program funds projects to better
understand the impacts of atmospheric deposition of pollutants, such as
mercury and other toxics, which are a major source of contamination.
The program funds projects in monitoring, modeling, and emissions
inventory development, which assist in identifying pollution sources.
* The Corps' Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation
program provides technical support to the development and
implementation of remedial action plans to clean up contaminated areas
in the Great Lakes. Funds are provided for planning and administrative
implementation activities and may not be used for actual construction
cleanup.
* FWS's Lake Trout Restoration program began in the late 1970s to
rehabilitate the lake-trout populations in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
The goal of the program is to increase the population of native lake
trout to a level where it is self-sustaining through natural
reproduction, with a harvestable annual surplus.
* USDA's Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control, administered by NRCS, focuses on improving Great Lakes water
quality by preventing soil erosion through education programs, grants,
and technical assistance. Runoff from agricultural land is a source of
nonpoint pollution to the Great Lakes.
* FWS's Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance program, which began in
1993, provides surveillance activities for the ruffe--a nonnative fish
that competes with native species, such as walleye and perch. The
surveillance activities include monitoring, detecting newly
established populations, tracking existing populations, and evaluating
current control and management activities.
EPA, NOAA, and FWS provide most of the funding for Great Lakes specific
programs. Of the $387.4 million expended by federal agencies for these
programs during fiscal years 1992 through 2001, 64 percent, or $248.9
million, was for EPA programs; 17 percent, or $67.2 million, for NOAA
programs; and 9 percent, or $33.4 million, for FWS programs. (See fig.
6.):
Figure 6: Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific Programs
by Federal Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While ongoing Great Lakes specific federal programs fund various
restoration activities, the Corps funds additional activities through
specifically authorized environmental projects that do not fall under
its ongoing programs. Most of these projects are authorized under the
biennial Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and are for project
studies or construction. Once authorized, these projects can be funded
through the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Acts. For most
projects, the Corps can only expend the funds if local partners meet
the cost-sharing requirements established by the authorization. For
example, specific local government projects for wastewater facilities
or combined sewer overflow mitigation identified in WRDA cannot be
funded until a cost-sharing agreement is reached with the local
government. In addition to projects authorized in WRDA, projects may be
authorized and initial funding provided through the annual
appropriation process.
In fiscal years 1992 through 2001, the Corps expended approximately
$358 million on specifically authorized projects. These projects funded
a variety of activities, such as the $93.8 million restoration of
Chicago's shoreline and the $78.7 million for restoring the Little
Calumet River in Indiana. According to a Corps official, many projects
are authorized in this manner because of the unique nature or scope of
the project or because of the capabilities of states and local
organizations to fund projects. Two states, Illinois and Indiana,
received the majority of specific project funding during fiscal years
1992 through 2001, as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized
Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through
2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Information on the individual Corps projects funded during fiscal years
1992 through 2001 for the basin is contained in appendix III.
In addition to the federal programs and specifically authorized Corps
projects, 17 state Great Lakes Basin specific programs fund a wide
range of activities that address unique state concerns or problems in
the Great Lakes. The following examples of some specific state programs
show the range of activities that states undertake.
* Ohio's Shore Structure Permit Program protects the Lake Erie
shoreline by providing assistance to coastal residents and communities
in the proper design and construction of structures for controlling
erosion, wave action, and flooding along or near the shoreline. The
program began in the 1930s, and funding is provided from state lease
revenues for mining mineral resources from the bed of Lake Erie.
* The Clean Michigan Initiative provides general obligation bond
funding for environmental activities in Michigan. These activities
include Brownfields redevelopment, nonpoint source pollution control,
cleanup of contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. About
$255.9 million was expended for projects throughout Michigan, with only
a small portion of the state's land area extending outside the basin.
* Pennsylvania established the Office of the Great Lakes, which
provides administrative oversight and support to other state offices
that have environmental responsibilities. It funds staff travel,
salary, and administrative costs of about $100,000 per year for
outreach and education activities. Restoration of a particular
contaminated area in Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, is a major focus of
the office's activities.
The states' Great Lakes specific programs include those funded through
the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The Great Lakes Governors created and
incorporated the fund as a permanent endowment, with each state
providing a fixed contribution amount based on the average use of Great
Lakes water from 1976 through 1985.[Footnote 4] Each participating
state receives one-third of the fund's annual income based on its
proportional endowment contribution. Payments to the states totaled
about $31 million from years 1990 through 2001, but payments were
suspended in 2002 because of low fund investment performance. States
use the funds to support a wide range of basin activities. For example,
Michigan funds research projects undertaken by universities and for-
profit groups in areas such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species.
Minnesota's dividends from the fund are relatively small, and therefore
they are combined with state-funded projects, such as a mercury control
project and a project retrofitting a sampling vessel. Ohio's program
involves the award of grants that support research and implementation
projects, in alternating years, and require 10 percent matching funds
by the recipient. New York uses its program to fund research,
environmental planning, monitoring, and field assessment, and the state
has mandated that monies cannot be used to fund construction or cleanup
activities. In addition to paying out state dividends, the fund
supported 191 grants for regional projects totaling about $40 million.
These grants were awarded from the remaining two-thirds of the fund's
undistributed income.
Of the 17 state Great Lakes specific programs, 5 were funded by
Michigan, 4 by Ohio, 3 by Wisconsin, 2 by Pennsylvania, and 1 each by
Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. Total expenditures for the programs
were about $956 million during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Michigan
programs accounted for 96 percent of the expended amount because of
major expenditures for three state programs and about 99 percent of the
state's border lies within the basin. A detailed listing of all federal
and state Great Lakes specific programs is included as appendix IV.
Foundations and Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration
Activities:
Besides federal and state government agencies, other organizations,
such as foundations, fund a variety of restoration activities in the
Great Lakes Basin by providing grants to nonprofit and other
organizations, including government agencies. Specifically, four
foundations and one trust provide funds for restoration activities.
* The Joyce Foundation supports various public policy initiatives,
including long-term efforts to protect the Great Lakes environment, and
provides grants to organizations for environmental projects, such as a
grant to support activities that examine institutional issues facing
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
* The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supports efforts to conserve
freshwater ecosystems in North America, including the Great Lakes.
Grants are provided to improve capacity building for environmental
organizations and to protect and restore selected freshwater ecosystems
through conservation activities.
* The George Gund Foundation provides support for conservation efforts
within the Great Lakes Basin and is particularly interested in capacity
building of nonprofit environmental organizations. Grants are provided
to organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation, to support
ongoing efforts to reduce the contamination of waters by airborne
mercury.
* The Delta Institute funds activities for the development of policies
and practices for sustainable development and environmental stewardship
in the Great Lakes region. Among other things, the Delta Institute
provides funding for the development of Lakewide Management Plans, the
Lake Michigan Regional Air Toxics Strategy, and the Lake Erie Fish
Consumption Advisory Education Project.
* The Great Lakes Fishery Trust provides grants to nonprofit and
governmental organizations to benefit Great Lakes fishery resources,
such as a grant to FWS to develop a management plan for lake sturgeon.
The trust was created as part of a court settlement for fish losses at
a hydroelectric facility in Michigan, and the trust manages the assets
of the settlement.
In addition to these organizations, other governmental and
nongovernmental organizations fund restoration activities. For
example, individual municipalities, such as the City of Toledo, Ohio,
led and funded a demonstration project to develop a process for
physically stabilizing and isolating contaminated sediment under a
permeable covering to avoid dredging the sediment. Municipalities are
also instrumental in funding projects to improve wastewater treatment
facilities that discharge treated water into the Great Lakes. Several
municipalities participate in the International Association of Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors, which holds annual conferences to adopt
unified positions and make recommendations for the protection,
promotion, and development of the Great Lakes. Counties and township
governments also fund environmental activities that benefit the Great
Lakes. For example, township governments may have growth development
plans that include conservation objectives to help control pollution
and preserve open areas in the township. Counties in the Great Lakes
Basin fund activities and projects to control nonpoint source
pollution, soil erosion, and wildlife areas. Conservation districts
within counties provide technical assistance and education in areas
such as erosion control and agricultural chemical control. Within the
basin, there are 213 counties and 209 conservation districts that
support conservation or restoration activities within the Great Lakes
Basin.
Numerous nongovernmental organizations also provide coordination
roles, policy perspectives, or financially support restoration
activities, including the following:
* Council of Great Lakes Governors, a partnership of governors from the
eight Great Lakes States and the Canadian Premiers of Ontario and
Quebec, encourages and facilitates environmentally responsible
economic growth throughout the Great Lakes region.
* Great Lakes Commission, an agency promoting the orderly, integrated,
and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of water and
related natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin and the St. Lawrence
River, includes representatives from the eight Great Lakes states and
the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
* Great Lakes Fishery Commission, created by the Canadian and U.S.
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries in 1955, coordinates fisheries
management and research, and management of sea lamprey. The U.S.
Department of State and Canada's Fisheries and Ocean Department provide
funding for the commission.
* International Association for Great Lakes Research, a scientific
organization comprised of researchers studying the Great Lakes and
other large lakes of the world, hosts annual conferences and publishes
the Journal of Great Lakes Research.
* Great Lakes Research Consortium, an organization of 16 colleges and
universities in New York, with 9 affiliate campuses in Ontario,
dedicated to collaborative research and education on the Great Lakes,
focuses its activities on improving and understanding the Great Lakes
ecosystem, including the physical, biological, and chemical processes
along with the social and political forces that affect human impact on
the lakes.
* Great Lakes United, an international coalition organization focused
on preserving and restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
ecosystem, promotes effective policy initiatives, carries out education
programs, and promotes citizen action and grassroots leadership for
Great Lakes environmental activities. The coalition is made up of
member organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists,
hunters and anglers, labor unions, communities, and citizens of the
United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes.
* Lake Michigan Federation, which works to restore fish and wildlife
habitat, conserve land and water, and eliminate toxics in the watershed
of Lake Michigan.
* The Nature Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the plants,
animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life
on Earth by protecting the lands and waters that need to survive. The
major initiative of the Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Office is the
Great Lakes Planning Initiative. The initiative has designated 270
priority sites for conservation in the Great Lakes and is in the
process of developing a planning document for each of these sites that
will guide conservation work and coordination with other organizations
and agencies.
* The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a private, nonprofit, and
nonpartisan research organization dedicated to economic vitality,
environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest
states, has a major area of emphasis on the Great Lakes and has issued
several reports on a variety of Great Lakes topics.
While these organizations are involved in Great Lakes activities, each
is unique in terms of why it was created, its goals and objectives,
scope of operations, and funding source. Several of the organizations
are binational, such as the Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes
United, and focus only on Great Lakes issues. For other organizations,
such as The Nature Conservancy and the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the
Great Lakes are one of several issues addressed by the organizations.
[End of section]
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts:
The magnitude of the area comprising the Great Lakes Basin and the many
environmental programs operating within the basin require the
development of one overarching strategy to address and manage the
complex undertaking of restoring the basin's environmental health. The
Great Lakes region cannot hope to successfully receive support as a
national priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for
restoring the Great Lakes. In lieu of such a plan, organizations at the
binational, federal, and state levels have developed their own
strategies for the Great Lakes, which have inadvertently made the
coordination of various programs operating in the basin more
challenging. Although coordination among federal agencies, states, and
other environmental organizations occurs when strategies are being
developed or when programmatic activity calls for coordination, the
myriad of current strategies and coordination efforts makes it
difficult to determine which organization is in charge. While the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has authority for coordinating
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal efforts, it has
not fully exercised its authority. Numerous strategizing, planning, and
coordinating efforts have not resulted in extensive restoration
activity because of a lack of funding and other barriers.
An Overarching Strategy and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for
Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects:
The Great Lakes region cannot be successfully supported as a national
priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for restoring
the Great Lakes. Clearly defined responsibilities for coordination are
essential for effective management of large watershed restoration
projects. An overarching strategy and governance process to guide
restoration activities that transpire over many years have been
developed for other large ecosystem restoration projects. The Great
Lakes Basin lacks an overarching strategy and in its absence, numerous
strategies have been developed to address environmental activities,
each with a different purpose and scope. Some strategies attempt to
address the entire basin while others are focused on specific
environmental problems or geographical areas.
Overarching Strategies Are Essential to Guide Restoration Efforts:
Because of the complexity of large ecosystem restoration projects and
multiple stakeholders, restoration efforts for other large ecosystems,
such as the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay, have
developed overarching strategies to guide their activities. These
strategies were deemed essential by the organizations involved in the
efforts for guiding activities that would occur over extended time
periods and with multiple stakeholders whose participation may change
over time.
The South Florida ecosystem is a large restoration project initiative
with an overall strategic plan to guide its restoration activities.
This ecosystem covers a large geographical area that encompasses a
major portion of South Florida, including the Everglades wetlands.
Numerous changes brought on by urbanization, agricultural activities,
and federal efforts to control flooding have detrimentally affected the
ecosystem. In response to growing deterioration of the ecosystem,
federal agencies established a task force in 1993 to coordinate their
restoration activities. In 1996, the task force was expanded to include
state, local, and tribal members and was formalized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. However, as we reported in 1999, a
strategic plan had not been developed laying out how the restoration
initiative would be accomplished, including quantifiable goals and
performance measures.[Footnote 5] Without a strategic plan, we noted
the ability to accomplish the restoration initiative in a timely and
efficient manner was at risk because of its complexity and a mechanism
was needed to provide the authority for making management decisions. In
a subsequent report,[Footnote 6] we noted that a strategic plan for the
ecosystem would clearly communicate to the Congress and other
participants in the restoration effort what it is trying to achieve,
the time frames for achieving the expected results, and the level of
funding that would be needed. Such a plan was also needed because of
the inevitable personnel turnover in task force representation
occurring over time and the subsequent need to inform new task force
members of restoration progress.
The strategic plan developed for the South Florida ecosystem by the
task force made substantial progress in guiding the restoration
activities. The plan, which the task force submitted in July 2000,
identifies the resources needed to achieve restoration and assigns
accountability for specific actions for the extensive restoration
effort estimated to cost $14.8 billion. As we reported in 2001, the
plan needed additional elements, including a clear picture of how the
restoration will occur and linkage between strategic goals and outcome-
oriented goals for tracking and measuring restoration progress. The
restoration effort was elevated to nationwide recognition with the
authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). This act
contained provisions specifying the coordination among stakeholders,
the funding responsibilities, and the authorization for program
regulations.
The Chesapeake Bay watershed is another example of a large restoration
effort with an overarching strategy. In a 1983 agreement to restore the
Chesapeake Bay, the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the
District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and EPA signed an
agreement to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The
participants saw the need to establish an executive council to marshal
public support for the bay effort and be accountable to the public for
progress made under the agreement. Under the 1983 agreement, the
executive council must meet at least twice yearly to assess and oversee
the implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect the
water quality and living resources of the bay. The council established
an implementation committee of agency representatives to coordinate
technical matters and the development and evaluation of management
plans. In a subsequent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, the partners agreed
to a new ecosystem approach to the bay. While continuing to focus
restoration efforts on individual species and habitat, such as the blue
crab and the oyster reef, the new agreement recognizes the linkage
among these efforts and addresses their interdependence within the
context of a single, broad ecosystem approach. Several reports by the
council have detailed the status of progress toward the goals set forth
in the agreements.
The South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay watershed are large
ecosystems with overarching strategies, but the overall area and
population affected by these ecosystems are significantly less than the
Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes influence more people, land, water,
and states by a substantial margin. The population within the basin is
more than five times that of the population near the South Florida
project and more than twice the population near the Chesapeake Bay. The
basin comprises more than 11 times the area of the South Florida
project and more than 3 times the area of Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, the
basin encompasses eight states as opposed to one state for the South
Florida project and six states and the District of Columbia for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. (See table 3.):
Table 3: Geographic Area, Population, and States for Three Restoration
Areas:
Restoration area: Great Lakes Basin; Area size: (in square miles):
201,000; Area population: 33 million; Number of affected states: 8.
Restoration area: Chesapeake Bay watershed; Area size: (in square
miles): 64,000; Area population: 16 million; Number of affected states:
6.
Restoration area: South Florida ecosystem; Area size: (in square
miles): 18,000; Area population: 6 million; Number of affected states:
1.
Sources: Environment Canada, EPA, and GAO.
[End of table]
Strategies for the Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching
Restoration Approach:
Numerous strategies developed for the Great Lakes Basin address
environmental restoration activities with different perspectives,
purposes, and scopes. Several comprehensive strategies attempt to
address restoration activities for the entire basin. Other strategies
address a particular concern or geographic area. However, none of the
current strategies provides an overarching approach that can be used as
a restoration blueprint to guide overall activities similar to the
South Florida ecosystem restoration.
The most recent comprehensive strategy developed for the entire basin-
-the Great Lakes Strategy 2002--was developed by the U.S. Policy
Committee (USPC), a group of mostly federal regional, and state
officials and coordinated by GLNPO. The group focused on federal,
state, and tribal government activities as they relate to environmental
protection and natural resource management and to fulfilling the goals
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The strategy sets
forth goals, objectives, and actions in various environmental issues,
such as storm water discharges, along with goals, objectives, and key
actions to achieve for these issues. The strategy also recognizes the
other strategies that have been developed for the Great Lakes.
Developing the strategy occurred over several months, requiring
significant time and efforts by GLNPO and USPC members to agree on the
various goals, objectives, and actions. GLNPO officials plan periodic
follow-up with USPC representatives to determine the progress made in
reaching the objectives. Toward this end, GLNPO has prepared a matrix
listing over 100 planned actions for achieving the objectives and will
conduct follow-up inquiries with the responsible agency officials to
determine progress as an accountability mechanism.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides extensive information on planned
activities to achieve the objectives, but it is largely a descriptive
compilation of existing program activities that relates to basin
restoration. For example, the strategy addresses Brownfields
redevelopment by identifying the number of Brownfields sites within the
basin and describing ongoing Brownfields activities.[Footnote 7] The
key action called for in the strategy is to continue support for local
Brownfields redevelopment efforts through various planned or ongoing
activities at the state and federal levels. The strategy also promotes
clean and healthy beaches by noting that EPA will implement the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000. The act
requires all states with coastal waters, including the Great Lakes
states, to review water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters
and adopt protective water quality standards.
To attain the strategy's objectives, federal and state agencies need to
provide level funding to avoid modification of the planned actions and
activities, according to GLNPO officials. The strategy states that
"(it) should not be construed as a commitment by the U.S. government
for additional funding and resources for its implementation. Nor does
it represent a commitment by the U.S. government to adopt new
regulations."[Footnote 8] GLNPO officials agreed that the strategy
continues with the status quo and is a statement of what they hope to
accomplish with better coordination. Some state officials involved in
developing the strategy stated that state actions described in the
strategy were already planned and that implementation is contingent on
states funding the relevant environmental programs.
In 2001, the Great Lakes Commission published another basin strategy,
The Great Lakes Program to Ensure Environmental and Economic
Prosperity, which outlines seven major goals for the Great Lakes Basin.
The goals are:
* cleaning up toxic hot spots,
* preventing the introduction or limiting the spread of invasive
species,
* controlling nonpoint source pollution,
* restoring and conserving wetlands and critical coastal habitat,
* ensuring the sustainable use of our water resources,
* strengthening decision support capability, and:
* enhancing the commercial and recreational value of our waterways.
For each goal, the strategy contains recommendations for actions that
target specific programs, authorizations, and appropriations. For
example, the commission helped develop and promote the adoption of an
action plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.
The commission's strategy involves coordinated efforts among the
commission and its partner agencies and organizations to secure much
needed federal appropriations and legislative initiatives. This
strategy emphasizes federal/state and U.S./Canadian partnerships as a
means to achieving its goals, but it does not provide detailed
implementation plans or identify funding sources to achieve the goals.
GLNPO officials stated that they believe this strategy and the Great
Lakes Strategy 2002 are complimentary rather than competing strategies.
Two other organizations--Great Lakes United and the Council of Great
Lakes Governors--are developing basin-wide restoration strategies.
Great Lakes United, an international coalition of basin stakeholders,
has developed and circulated several documents addressing Great Lakes
issues. By 2003, Great Lakes United plans to integrate these draft
issue documents into an overall agenda for the comprehensive
restoration of the basin. The Council of Great Lakes Governors'
strategy is being based on the priorities of the Great Lakes governors
and is to be used as a basis for identifying priority restoration
efforts for the basin.
Additional Strategies Focus on Specific Issues or Geographic Areas:
Other Great Lakes specific strategies address unique environmental
problems or specific geographical areas. A strategy for each lake
addresses open lake waters through Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP),
which EPA is responsible for developing. Toward this end, EPA formed
working groups for each lake to identify and address restoration
activities. For example, the LaMP for Lake Michigan, issued in 2002,
includes a summary of the lake's ecosystem status and addresses
progress in achieving the goals described in the previous plan, with
examples of significant activities completed and other relevant topics.
The Binational Executive Committee for the United States and Canada
issued its Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997 that
established a collaborative process by which EPA and Environment
Canada, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies,
states, the province of Ontario, and tribes, work toward the goal of
the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great
Lakes. The strategy particularly addresses substances that
bioaccumulate in fish or animals and pose a human health risk. After
establishing various challenges for both or either country to meet, the
strategy lays out priority activities to meet the challenges. The
strategy also incorporates the regular assessment of progress made.
Among the successes in reducing persistent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes is the cleanup of contaminated sediment sites at some Great
Lakes harbors; reduced levels of PCBs, dioxins, and DDT; and improved
sport fisheries.
Michigan developed a strategy for environmental cleanup called the
Clean Michigan Initiative. This initiative provides money for a variety
of environmental, parks, and redevelopment programs. It includes nine
components, including Brownfields redevelopment and environmental
cleanups, nonpoint source pollution control, clean water, cleanup of
contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. The initiative is
funded by a $675 million general obligation bond and as of early 2003,
most of the funds had not been distributed.
GLNPO Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great
Lakes Restoration Programs:
Ultimate responsibility for coordinating Great Lakes restoration
programs rests with GLNPO, which has the statutory authority to
coordinate EPA's and other federal agency activities. However, GLNPO
has not fully exercised this authority, and other organizations or
committees have formed to assume coordination and strategy development
roles.
The Clean Water Act provides GLNPO with the authority to coordinate the
actions of EPA's headquarters and regional offices aimed at improving
Great Lakes water quality. It also provides GLNPO with the authority to
coordinate EPA's actions with the actions of other federal agencies and
state and local authorities for obtaining input in developing water
quality strategies and obtaining support in achieving the objectives of
the GLWQA. Finally, the statute provides that the EPA Administrator
shall ensure that GLNPO enters into agreements with the various
organizational elements of the agency engaged in Great Lakes activities
and with appropriate state agencies. The agreements should specifically
delineate the duties and responsibilities, time periods for carrying
out duties, and resources committed to these duties. GLNPO officials
stated that they do not enter into formal agreements with other EPA
offices but rather fulfill their responsibilities under the act by
having federal agencies and state officials agree to the restoration
activities contained in the Great Lakes Strategy 2002. However, the
strategy does not represent formal agreements to conduct specific
duties and responsibilities with committed resources. The absence of
these agreements was also reported in a September 1999 report by EPA's
Office of Inspector General.[Footnote 9] The report stated that GLNPO
did not have agreements as required by the act and recommended that
such agreements be made to improve working relationships and
coordination.
Other organizations or groups have formed to fulfill coordinating roles
in Great Lakes restoration activities, both at the basin level and on a
smaller scale for specific issues of concern. For example, the USPC,
which was formed initially by GLNPO in 1988 to develop a Great Lakes
strategy and provide a coordinating role, developed a strategy and a
coordinating plan, "Protecting the Great Lakes," in 1992 to cover the
5-year period from 1992 through 1997. Officials from federal agencies
not on the USPC never approved the plan, and many parties involved in
environmental activities in the basin felt left out of the strategy
development process. The USPC was disbanded in 1995, and the strategy
was not used as a guide for restoration activities. GLNPO officials
formed a second U.S. Policy Committee in 1999, similar in structure to
the first committee, which included federal regional and state
officials. The USPC recently developed the Great Lakes Strategy 2002,
and it meets semi-annually to coordinate agency actions and commitments
associated with the strategy, as well as to review progress and ensure
accountability. Another group, the Midwest Natural Resources Group,
established in 1998, contains a Great Lakes focus team that conducts
coordination meetings for eliminating duplication across federal
bureaus and agencies. Within this group, representatives from EPA and
the Corps facilitate activities, such as developing monitoring
protocols, sharing facilities and vessels across agencies, and
increasing data sharing.
With several entities involved in coordinating, planning, and
strategizing, it appears at times that federal and state officials
cannot be sure which entity bears ultimate responsibility for and
authority over these activities and their implementation at any given
time and whether the entity is a permanent body or an ad hoc
organization that may disband if interest wanes. State of Minnesota
officials, who were asked to provide input for several restoration
plans, stated that they found the significant overlap of the plans
inefficient and thought it would be helpful to have a more streamlined
approach to Great Lakes issues. They stated that it would be better to
have an overall structure to carry out environmental activities.
Officials from The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit organization
conducting environmental activities in the Great Lakes, stated that it
is difficult to understand the array of public sector entities and
their involvement in Great Lakes issues. They observed that the Great
Lakes community is fractionalized with participants, both public and
private, pushing their own agendas rather than a true vision vetted
with all stakeholders. They further noted that the heavy bureaucratic
framework of many groups and processes made them skeptical that actual
work would be conducted.
A USGS official stated that the lack of a unified vision among the many
Great Lakes federal, state, and local agencies impedes progress. He
noted that individual efforts are not structured or organized in such a
way that they can be integrated to provide the hierarchical means to
assess, diagnose, and restore the system. The burden to provide the
leadership that will bring a Great Lakes program to a level that is
consistent with other large-scale efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay
restoration, rests largely with EPA--the only agency under the Clean
Water Act and associated agreements with Canada--with regulatory
authority to do so. More money, the official said, would not improve
restoration progress unless it is combined with a strong, overarching
effort of coordination and organization. GLNPO officials stated that
the success of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Restoration Project can be
attributed to the buy-in of high-level officials, such as the governors
of the related states, a level of influential support that they say
GLNPO lacks.
While several organizations are conducting coordination in developing
strategies, at the individual program level, most federal and state
officials reported coordination with their programmatic counterparts in
various ways while implementing their programs. For example, section
404 of the Clean Water Act requires a formal arrangement between EPA
and the Corps to coordinate management of a dredge and fill permit
program each year, with the agencies jointly reviewing about 10,000
permit applications for the basin. Coordination activities can be
formalized in memoranda of understanding or agreement, interagency
agreements, or letters of collaboration. For example, in a 1997
memorandum of agreement among NOAA, EPA, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and two Wisconsin Indian tribes, the parties agreed
to coordinate their efforts in removing contaminated sediments from the
Lower Fox River in Wisconsin. The agreement specifies an organizational
structure, including what the parties' duties are, what their
responsibilities are, and how disputes will be resolved. In addition to
such formal coordination, informal coordination also occurs between
federal and state officials through meetings or telephone calls. For
example, officials from EPA's Region V Water Division coordinated
Coastal Environmental Management Program activities with eight federal
agencies in developing LaMPs. This coordination included
correspondence, conference calls, and various face-to-face meetings.
Major Planning Efforts Have Not Yielded Extensive Restoration Activity
because of a Lack of Funding and Other Barriers:
Although major planning efforts aimed at restoring the Great Lakes
exist, several barriers have prevented these efforts from resulting in
extensive restoration activity. Great Lakes program officials often
cited insufficient funding for program activities as a major barrier
and a reason for not achieving and measuring restoration progress in
the Great Lakes. They also cited several other factors affecting
progress, including the lack of local technical expertise for
conducting restoration activities, poor coordination among groups
conducting environmental activity, and a lack of leadership.
:
Limited Restoration Progress after Many Years of Planning:
After years of planning restoration activities for the Great Lakes
Basin, significant restoration progress remains to be achieved. Several
IJC reports have pointed out the slow restoration progress. For
example, in 2002, the IJC reported that after more than 15 years of
planning and incremental activity, restoration of the Great Lakes
through remedial actions remains elusive and difficult and more needs
to be done quickly.[Footnote 10] Moreover, the IJC stated in 2000 that
the Great Lakes ecosystem remains compromised and that contaminated
sediments in the lakes produce health problems.[Footnote 11]
Restoration challenges remain in several areas, such as controlling
invasive species.
The slow restoration progress is illustrated by the 26 contaminated
areas in the Great Lakes Basin for which the United States is
responsible for ensuring cleanup under the GLWQA. In April 2002, we
reported that none of the areas had been restored to beneficial use and
only half of the areas selected remedial and regulatory measures to
address the problems, and all areas had defined their respective
environmental problems.[Footnote 12] The slow progress of cleanup
efforts reflects a general departure from the process specified in the
agreement, and in some cases the process was abandoned. Based on these
findings, it was clear that EPA was not fulfilling its responsibility
to ensure that plans for cleaning up the areas were being developed or
implemented. Citing resource constraints along with the need to tend to
other Great Lakes priorities, EPA reduced its staff and the amount of
funding it allocated to states for developing and implementing plans
for contaminated areas. Subsequent to our report, GLNPO officials took
actions to improve the implementation of cleanup plans.
Lack of Funding Is a Key Barrier to Achieving Restoration Progress:
Inadequate funding has also contributed to the failure to restore and
protect the Great Lakes, according to the IJC biennial report on Great
Lakes water quality issued in July 2000.[Footnote 13] The IJC restated
this conclusion in a 2002 report, concluding that any progress to
restore the Great Lakes would continue at a slow incremental pace
without increased funding.[Footnote 14] Lack of funding is consistently
mentioned in prior IJC reports as a major roadblock to restoration
progress. For example, the 1993 biennial report concluded that
remediation of contaminated areas could not be accomplished unless
government officials came to grips with the magnitude of cleanup costs
and started the process of securing the necessary resources.[Footnote
15] Despite this warning, however, as we reported in 2002, EPA reduced
the funding available for ensuring the cleanup of contaminated areas
under the assumption that the states would fill the funding void.
States, however, did not increase their funding, and restoration
progress slowed or stopped altogether.[Footnote 16]
Officials for 24 of 33 federal programs and for 3 of 17 state programs
reported insufficient funding for federal and state Great Lakes
specific programs. They cited specific consequences of funding
deficits, including:
* Funding for GLNPO's monitoring programs has not kept pace with
increased operating costs, allowed for infrastructure repairs for its
research vessel, provided for sufficient atmospheric deposition
monitoring, or provided for monitoring new or emerging contaminants.
* Michigan's Great Lakes Protection Fund receives funding requests
exceeding the amount of money that is available in any given year. For
example, in fiscal year 2001, the state received requests for $10.4
million for project funding and was able to fund projects totaling only
$700,000.
States are particularly strapped to provide funding for restoration
activities within recent budget constraints. For example, an official
with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated that the
priority for funding an unmandated Great Lakes program is secondary to
other programs specifically mandated by the Clean Water and Clean Air
Acts and other environmental programs. An official from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency stated that Minnesota and other states do not
routinely set aside funds to implement restoration activities for the
Great Lakes. Restoration projects are funded within the constraints of
the states' current budgets, and existing funding requirements take
precedent. State officials also pointed out the difficulty states face
in providing funds to meet federal program matching fund requirements
for restoration activities. Although the matching fund percentage
required may be relatively low, such as 10 percent, the aggregate
amount for several programs can be significant. For example, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality officials informed us that during
fiscal years 1992 through 2001, the state expended over $83 million in
matching funds to obtain federal funding for programs that contributed
to restoration or protection in the basin. During this same period,
Ohio's environmental programs expended more than $14 million in
matching fund amounts. Corps and other federal officials stated that
some states do not solicit federal program funds because they lack the
ability to meet the matching fund requirements.
Other Significant Barriers Exist for Restoration Progress:
While the lack of funding is the most often cited barrier to
restoration progress, other factors, such as lack of technical
expertise and effective coordination, also create barriers to
restoration progress. A NOAA official stated that while financial
resource limitations hinder the restoration process, increased funding
without better coordination among the various agencies would not be
effective. In a similar observation, a Minnesota state official said
that there is no agency at the federal or state level that knows all
the programs and funding that exist to address Great Lakes problems or
the steps one must take to obtain these funds. The official further
commented that a significant lack of technical knowledge within program
management for many Great Lakes projects prevents agencies from
identifying and assessing environmental needs and measuring restoration
progress. In commenting on efforts to cleanup contaminated areas in the
Great Lakes, the IJC reported several other problems besides the lack
of funding for cleanup sites, namely the lack of government leadership
and accountability, delays caused by disagreements, and inadequate
planning.
Conclusions:
Although there are several strategies that address restoration of the
Great Lakes Basin, no one overarching strategy or plan unifies these
strategies in the pursuit of a common goal, similar to the restoration
plan for the South Florida ecosystem. The magnitude of the restoration
effort and the number of parties involved in the basin restoration
necessitate that the major parties involved develop and agree upon an
overarching strategy that addresses basin improvements. Without such an
overall strategy or plan, there is no road map to follow for achieving
the restoration goals agreed to between the United States and Canada in
the GLWQA. An overarching strategy for the basin is needed to establish
restoration goals, outline how restoration will occur, identify the
resources needed to achieve restoration, assign accountability for
restoration, and provide a mechanism for measuring progress for
achieving goals. While there is a general consensus that more funding
is needed for the restoration, without an overall strategy that
prioritizes activities, it is unclear which activities should receive
additional funding. Furthermore, without a strategy, the cycle of
preparing numerous plans without significant restoration progress will
likely continue. Although GLNPO is responsible for coordinating U.S.
restoration activities within the basin, EPA has not ensured that GLNPO
fulfills this responsibility by entering into agreements for conducting
restoration activities.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that
federal dollars are effectively spent, we recommend that the
Administrator, EPA,
* ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for coordinating
programs within the Great Lakes Basin;
* charge GLNPO with developing, in consultation with the governors of
the Great Lakes states, federal agencies, and other organizations, an
overarching strategy that clearly defines the roles and
responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing funding for
projects; and:
* submit a time-phased funding requirement proposal to the Congress
necessary to implement the strategy.
Agency Comments:
While EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better coordination
and that our recommendations can help ensure that environmental
improvements are made, it did not address the specific recommendations
to improve coordination of Great Lakes activities. Rather, the agency
stated it would provide to our agency, the Congress, and the Office of
Management and Budget a formal response to the final report
recommendations. The agency stated that it fulfilled its coordination
responsibilities by convening the USPC and developing the Great Lakes
Strategy 2002. We recognized these efforts in our report, but they do
not fulfill GLNPO's responsibility for coordinating programs in the
Great Lakes Basin, nor does the strategy fulfill the need for an
overarching strategy for the basin. EPA does acknowledge that its
strategy can be used as a foundation for any future Great Lakes
ecosystem restoration plan. The complete text of EPA's comments is
presented in appendix V.
[End of section]
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
Overall Restoration Progress:
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) calls for a monitoring
system to measure restoration progress and ensure that its objectives
are met. To date, the implementation of this provision has been
limited. While there is recognizable progress in improving some
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, current
environmental indicators do not provide an adequate basis for
determining overall progress. Recent assessments of overall progress
have relied on a mix of quantitative data and subjective judgments, and
progress reported on federal and state programs focuses on program
activities, frequently citing outputs rather than environmental
outcomes. A binational effort to develop a set of overall indicators
was initiated in 1996, but the completion date for this effort and the
availability of resources needed to gather baseline indicators data are
uncertain.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Calls for a Monitoring System
to Ensure Objectives Are Met:
One of the 17 agreement annexes in the GLWQA, as amended in 1987,
requires that the United States and Canada undertake a joint
surveillance and monitoring program to measure restoration progress and
assess the degree to which the parties are complying with goals and
objectives of the agreement. The program also provides for an
evaluation of water quality trends, identification of emerging
problems, and support for developing remedial action plans for
contaminated areas and lakewide management plans for critical
pollutants. Prior to the 1987 amendments, the 1978 agreement between
the two countries also contained a requirement for surveillance and
monitoring and for the development of a Great Lakes International
Surveillance Plan. The IJC Water Quality Board was involved in managing
and developing the program until the 1987 amendments placed this
responsibility on the United States and Canada. According to a
binational review of the agreement in 1999, this change resulted in a
significant reduction in the two countries' support for surveillance
and monitoring. In fact, the organizational structure to implement the
surveillance plan was abandoned in 1990, leaving only one initiative in
place--the International Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN). In
1990, the two countries initiated IADN--a network of 15 air-monitoring
stations located throughout the basin.
With the surveillance and monitoring efforts languishing, the IJC
established the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force in 1993 to
identify the appropriate framework to evaluate progress in the Great
Lakes. As the entity responsible for evaluating progress towards
meeting the goals and objectives of the agreement, the IJC task force,
in 1996, proposed that the following nine desired measurements and
outcomes be used to develop indicators for measuring progress (see
table 4).
Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great Lakes Indicators:
Measurement: Fishability; Desired outcome: No restrictions on the human
consumption of fish resulting from the input of persistent toxic
substances.
Measurement: Swimmability; Desired outcome: No public beaches closed or
swimming restrictions imposed because of human activities.
Measurement: Drinkability; Desired outcome: Treated drinking water is
safe for human consumption, and there are no restrictions because of
human activities.
Measurement: Healthy human populations; Desired outcome: Human
populations in the Great Lakes Basin are healthy and free from acute
illness because of exposure to high levels of contaminants or chronic
illness because of exposure to low level contaminants.
Measurement: Economic viability; Desired outcome: The regional economy
is viable and sustainable and provides adequate sustenance and dignity
for the basin population.
Measurement: Biological community integrity and diversity; Desired
outcome: The ability of biological communities to function normally in
the absence of environmental stress by maintaining ecosystem health,
ecological integrity, and the diversity of biological communities.
Measurement: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic
substances; Desired outcome: The virtual elimination of inputs of
persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes.
Measurement: Absence of excess phosphorus; Desired outcome: The absence
of excess phosphorus entering the watersheds because of human
behavior.
Measurement: Physical environment integrity; Desired outcome: The
development, compatible use, and maintenance of aquatic habitat in the
quantity and quality necessary and sufficient to sustain an endemic
assemblage of fish and wildlife populations.
Source: IJC.
[End of table]
Shortly before the task force began its work, the United States and
Canada had agreed to hold conferences every 2 years to assess the
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes in order to develop
binational reports on the environmental conditions to measure progress
under the agreement. Conference participants included U.S. and Canadian
representatives from federal, state, provincial, and tribal agencies,
as well as other organizations with environmental restoration or
pollution prevention interests in the Great Lakes Basin. The first
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)[Footnote 17] was held
in 1994 and culminated in a "State of the Great Lakes 1995" report,
which provided an overview of the Great Lakes ecosystem at the end of
1994 and concluded that overall the aquatic community health was mixed
or improving. The same assessment was echoed in the 1997 state of the
lakes report. Meanwhile, the IJC agreed that monitoring the nine
desired outcome areas recommended by the task force would help assess
overall progress. It recommended that SOLEC, during the conference in
2000, establish environmental indicators that would allow the IJC to
evaluate what had been accomplished and what needed to be done as it
relates to the public's ability to eat the fish, drink the water, and
swim in the water without any restrictions. The other outcomes would be
addressed at a later date.
Current Indicators Do Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making an
Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress:
The indicators developed through the SOLEC process and the
accomplishments reported by federal and state program managers do not
provide an adequate basis for making an overall assessment for Great
Lakes restoration progress. The SOLEC process is ongoing, and the
indicators that are still being developed are not generally supported
by sufficient underlying data for making progress assessments. The
ultimate success of SOLEC is uncertain because of limited resources
committed to the process, and until indicators are finalized, the
accomplishments now reported for individual Great Lakes specific
programs do not provide an adequate basis for assessing overall
progress. Program accomplishments usually describe program outputs,
rather than outcomes, and do not adequately portray whether
environmental conditions are improving or deteriorating.
Recent Assessments of Environmental Conditions Rely on Limited Data:
SOLEC's recent assessments of the Great Lakes ecosystem have relied on
limited quantitative data and subjective judgments in determining the
status of desired outcomes, such as swimmability, drinkability, and the
edibility of fish within the Great Lakes. At the 1998 SOLEC conference,
groups of experts narrowed down a list of more than 850 indicators to
80 basin ecosystem indicators with the objective of reaching an
agreement on a list of comprehensive indicators for the basin. The
proposed indicators were reviewed, discussed, and revised during the
conference and placed in seven categories, such as open waters, coastal
wetlands, land use, and human health. Within these categories, the
indicators were further classified as a current condition (state), such
as population of salmon and trout, or an adverse impact (pressure),
such as sea lamprey diminishing fish populations. Conference
participants devoted extensive effort to commenting on and modifying
these indicators.
The SOLEC 2000 conference focused on assessing the previously
identified 80 indicators for reporting on the overall condition of the
Great Lakes. Participants further reduced the number of indicators
ultimately assessed because data was only readily available for 33
indicators. Subject experts assessed and classified the indicators on a
scale with five classifications--good; mixed, improving; mixed; mixed,
deteriorating; and poor. Participants developed these classifications
using the following definitions:
* Good. The state of the ecosystem component is presently meeting
ecosystem objectives or otherwise is an acceptable condition.
* Mixed, improving. The ecosystem component displays both good and
degraded features, but overall, conditions are improving toward an
acceptable state.
* Mixed. The state of the ecosystem component has some features that
are in good condition and some features that are degraded, perhaps
different between lake basins.
* Mixed, deteriorating. The ecosystem component displays both good and
degraded features, but overall, conditions are deteriorating from an
acceptable state.
* Poor. The ecosystem component is severely negatively impacted and
does not display even minimally acceptable conditions.
For example, the level of contaminants in snapping turtle eggs is an
indicator for coastal wetlands. The indicator was assessed and placed
in the mixed assessment category because of the high levels of
contaminants in snapping turtle eggs found at eight locations in Lakes
Ontario and Erie, and the St. Lawrence River. The classification of
indicators into categories was based on the SOLEC partners' best
professional judgments and was not necessarily supported by sound
science-based reliable data. The 33 indicators became the basis for the
"State of the Great Lakes 2001" report, which concluded that a detailed
quantitative assessment could not be made, but that an overall
qualitative assessment of "mixed" should be applied to the basin
ecosystem. The assessment was based on six observations. One positive
observation was that the Great Lakes surface waters remain one of the
best drinking water sources in the world; a negative observation was
that invasive species continue to present a significant threat to the
biological community.
After the SOLEC 2000 conference, IJC staff assessed the indicators
supported by data that measured the desired outcomes of swimmability,
drinkability, and the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes.[Footnote
18] Overall, the IJC commended SOLEC's quick response that brought
together information regarding the outcomes and SOLEC's ongoing
efforts. The IJC, however, recognized that sufficient data were not
being collected from around the Great Lakes and that the methods of
collection, the data collection time frames, the lack of uniform
protocols, and the incompatible nature of some data jeopardized their
use as indicators. Specifically, for the desired outcome of
swimmability, which was assessed as "mixed," the IJC concurred that it
was not always safe to swim at certain beaches but noted that progress
for this desired outcome was limited because beaches were sampled by
local jurisdictions without uniform sampling or reporting methods. At
the 2002 SOLEC conference, the number of indicators assessed under the
5-tiered scale increased from 33 to 45. The IJC expressed concern that
there are too many indicators, insufficient supporting backup data, and
a lack of commitment and funding from EPA to implement and make
operational the agreed upon SOLEC baseline data collection and
monitoring techniques. The IJC recommended in its last biennial report
that any new indicators should be developed only where resources are
sufficient to access scientifically valid and reliable information.
Successful Development and Assessment of Indicators Are Difficult to
Discern:
The ultimate successful development and assessment of indicators for
the Great Lakes through the SOLEC process are uncertain because
insufficient resources have been committed to the process, no plan
provides completion dates for indicator development and implementation,
and there is a lack of control over the data being collected. While the
SOLEC process has successfully engaged a wide range of binational
parties in developing indicators, the resources devoted to this process
are largely provided on a volunteer basis without firm commitments to
continue in the future. GLNPO officials described the SOLEC process as
a professional, collaborative process dependent on the voluntary
participation of officials from federal and state agencies, academic
institutions, and other organizations attending SOLEC and developing
information on specific indicators. The resources provided for the
process cannot be assured in the future and the financial resources
committed by GLNPO to the process have primarily consisted of
contributing funding for hosting the conferences and providing two
staff members to manage the process. EPA supports the development of
environmental indicators as evidenced by the fact that, since 1994,
GLNPO has provided about $100,000 annually to sponsor the conferences.
Additionally, GLNPO spends over $4 million per year to collect
surveillance data for its open-lake water quality monitoring program,
which also provides supporting data for some of the indicators
addressed by SOLEC. A significant portion of these funds supports the
operation of GLNPO's research vessel, the Lake Guardian, an offshore
supply vessel converted for use as a research vessel. GLNPO also
supports activities that are linked or otherwise feed information into
the SOLEC process, including the following:
* collecting information on plankton and benthic communities in the
Great Lakes for open water indicator development;
* sampling various chemicals in the open-lake waters, such as
phosphorus for the total phosphorus indicator;
* monitoring fish contaminants in the open waters, directly supporting
the indicator for contaminants in whole fish and a separate monitoring
effort for contaminants in popular sport fish species that supports the
indicator for chemical contaminants in edible fish tissue; and:
* operating 15 air-monitoring stations with Environment Canada
comprising the IADN that provides information for establishing trends
in concentrations of certain chemicals and loadings of chemicals into
the lakes. EPA uses information from the network to take actions to
control the chemicals and track progress toward environmental goals.
Because SOLEC is a voluntary process, the indicator data resides in a
diverse number of sources with limited control by SOLEC organizers.
GLNPO officials stated that EPA does not have either the authority or
the responsibility to direct the data collection activities of federal,
state, and local agencies as they relate to surveillance and monitoring
of technical data elements that are needed to develop, implement, and
assess Great Lakes environmental indicators. They further stated that
the current SOLEC indicator process is based on unofficial professional
relationships established between the SOLEC partnerships. Efforts are
underway for the various federal and state agencies to take ownership
for collecting and reporting data outputs from their respective areas
of responsibility and for SOLEC to be sustained and implemented; each
indicator must have a sponsor. However, any breakdown in submission of
this information would leave a gap in the SOLEC indicator process.
SOLEC's 10-year plan, as presented at the 2000 conference, describes
its objectives and the planned conference themes through 2006 with the
theme for 2008 and beyond yet to be determined. Its stated objectives
are to:
* assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted
indicators,
* strengthen decision making and management,
* inform local decision makers of Great Lakes environmental issues,
and:
* provide a forum for communication and networking among stakeholders.
Three of the SOLEC objectives do not focus directly on developing
indicators, nor do the stated objectives align with the surveillance
and monitoring program envisioned in the GLWQA. Whereas the agreement
called for a joint surveillance and monitoring program to assess
compliance with the agreement, evaluating water quality trends,
identification of emerging problems, and support for the development of
Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, the achievements
reported for the SOLEC process, which include the number of background
papers produced and reports prepared on the state of the lakes, do not
align with the expected results envisioned by the surveillance and
monitoring program.
In November 2001, EPA committed to an agencywide initiative to develop
environmental indicators for addressing the agency's nationwide
environmental conditions, stating that "indicators help measure the
state of our air, water and land resources and the pressures placed on
them, and the resulting effects on ecological and human health."
However, this initiative does not specifically relate to the Great
Lakes. The short-term goal for this initiative is to develop
information that will indicate current nationwide environmental
conditions and to help EPA make sound decisions on what needs to be
done. The long-term goal is to bring together national, regional,
state, and tribal indicator efforts to describe the condition of
critical environmental areas and human health concerns.
Federal and State Programs Measure Progress in Several Ways, Often
Citing Outputs Rather than Outcomes:
Progress reported by officials from individual federal and state
programs in the basin is generally not presented in a manner that
describes how the programs have improved environmental conditions
within the Great Lakes Basin. Program output data are frequently cited
as measures of success versus actual program accomplishments. As a
rule, program output data describe activities, such as projects funded,
and are of limited value in determining environmental progress. For
example, accomplishments reported for Michigan's Great Lakes Protection
Fund were that it funded 125 research projects over an 11-year period
and publicized its project results at an annual forum and on a Web
site. Another example is the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon
Reintroduction Program administered by FWS. Under its accomplishments,
program officials cited the completion of a pilot study and technical
assistance provided to a Native American tribe. For the 50 federal and
state programs created specifically to address conditions in the basin,
27 reported accomplishments in terms of outputs, such as reports or
studies prepared or presentations made to groups. Because research and
capacity building programs largely support other activities, it is
particularly difficult to relate reported program accomplishments to
outcomes. For example, the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
conducts extensive research and environmental modeling that helps to
improve management of aquatic environments and understanding of coastal
and estuarine processes. The federal and state environmental program
officials responding to our evaluation generally provided output data
or, as reported for 15 programs, the accomplishments had not been
measured for these Great Lakes specific programs.
Only eight of the federal or state Great Lakes specific programs
reported outcome information, much of which generally described how
effective the programs' activity or action had been in improving
environmental conditions. For example, EPA's Region II program for
reducing toxic chemical inputs into the Niagara River, which connects
Lake Erie to Lake Ontario, reported reductions in priority toxics from
1986 through 2002 from ambient water quality monitoring. Other
significant outcomes reported as accomplishments for the Great Lakes
included (1) reducing phosphorus loadings by waste treatment plants and
limiting phosphorus use in household detergents; (2) prohibiting the
release of some toxicants into the Great Lakes, and reducing to an
acceptable level the amount of some other toxicants that could be
input; (3) effectively reducing the sea lamprey population in several
invasive species infested watersheds; and (4) restocking the fish-
depleted populations in some watersheds.
Conclusions:
Without a monitoring system for the Great Lakes Basin, it is impossible
to determine overall restoration progress and compliance with goals and
objectives of the GLWQA. While it is clear that some restoration
progress has occurred for some environmental conditions, definitive
observations on overall restoration progress are difficult to make
without indicators to measure progress, baseline indicator data, and a
process for monitoring indicators. The current SOLEC process fills an
important void, but it cannot fulfill the requirements of the
surveillance and monitoring program called for in the agreement. SOLEC
serves a useful purpose in creating a consensus on which indicators are
the most useful and inventorying available indicator data. There is no
assurance, however, that the SOLEC process, which relies heavily on the
voluntary participation of interested officials, will continue, or if
it does continue, whether it will yield sufficient information for an
overall quantitative assessment of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and
to ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, we are
recommending that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian
officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1)
develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great
Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress
and (2) require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize,
and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration
projects.
Agency Comments:
EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better monitoring and
generally agreed that our recommendations can help ensure improvements.
However, it did not address the specific recommendations for a
monitoring system called for in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Rather, the agency stated it would provide to our agency,
the Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget a formal response
to the final report recommendations. EPA stated that GLNPO has
supported the SOLEC effort, but it did not comment on the
recommendations for developing indicators and a monitoring system to
measure overall restoration progress. The complete text of EPA's
comments is presented in appendix V.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great Lakes
Program Information:
Federal agencies:
Environmental Protection Agency:
* Great Lakes National Program Office:
* Office of Research and Development:
* Regions II, III, and V:
Department of Agriculture:
* Agricultural Research Service:
* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
* Farm Services Agency:
* Forest Service:
* Natural Resource Conservation Service:
Department of Commerce:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Department of Defense:
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Department of Health and Human Services:
* Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:
Department of Homeland Security:
* U.S. Coast Guard:
Department of Interior:
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
* U.S. Geological Survey:
* National Park Service
State agencies:
Illinois:
* Illinois Environmental Protection Agency:
Indiana:
* Indiana Department of Natural Resources:
Ohio:
* Ohio Environmental Protection Agency:
* Ohio Department of Natural Resources:
Michigan:
* Michigan Department of Environmental Quality:
* Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
Minnesota:
* Minnesota Department of Commerce:
* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
* Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
* Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources:
* Minnesota State Planning Agency:
New York:
* New York Department of Environmental Conservation:
Pennsylvania:
* Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
Wisconsin:
* Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
Years 1992 through 2001:
Table 5 contains a listing of the non-Great Lakes specific programs
managed by federal agencies.
Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Program name: Army Corps of Engineers.
Program name: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This restoration program funds the planning, design, and
construction of projects to restore and enhance aquatic ecosystems.
Program activities began in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: $2,243,800[A].
Program name: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program, which was established in 1992, funds the
planning, design, and construction of projects to protect, restore, and
enhance aquatic habitats using sediments dredged from federal
navigation projects. It is classified as a restoration program;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$384,600[C].
Program name: Cleaning and Snagging; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers:
Originally created in 1954, the purpose of this program is to plan,
design, and construct projects for emergency removal of debris that
threatens to aggravate damage caused by flooding; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,000.
Program name: Confined Disposal Facilities; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This cleanup program was established in 1970. Its purpose is
to design, construct, and operate confined disposal facilities for the
disposal of contaminated dredged materials from federal navigation
projects; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $72,696,140.
Program name: Emergency Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1946 and its
purpose is to plan, design, and construct projects to protect public
facilities and services from stream bank and shoreline erosion;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$8,086,400.
Program name: Environmental Dredging; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers:
This environmental cleanup program was created in 1990. The program's
purpose is to assist in the planning, design, and construction of
projects to remove contaminated sediments from areas outside federal
navigation channels; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $670,700[B].
Program name: Environmental Improvements; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this restoration program, which was started
in 1986, is to plan, design, and construct projects to restore and
enhance aquatic ecosystems at sites impacted by Corps projects;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$13,016,400[D].
Program name: Flood Plain Management Services; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: Created in 1960, this program provides flood plain
information and technical assistance to states and local communities;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$4,784,500.
Program name: Planning Assistance to States; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program was created in 1974, and its purpose is to
provide staff and financial assistance to states in planning for the
use, development, and conservation of water resources; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,123,500.
Program name: Shore Protection; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The
purpose of this restoration program, created in 1962, is to plan,
design, and construct projects to restore and protect shores against
waves and currents; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $1,038,000.
Program name: Small Flood Control Projects; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, which was created in 1948, funds activities
related to the planning, design, and construction of projects to reduce
flood damages; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $11,375,100.
Program name: Small Navigation Projects; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: Created in 1960, the purpose of this program is to plan,
design, and construct projects to improve navigation; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $7,871,000.
Program name: Tribal Partnership Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program was started in 2000, and it seeks to provide
tribal groups with assistance in planning for the use, development, and
conservation of water resources; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service
(ARS).
Program name: Agricultural Research Service Research Units; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This research and pollution prevention program
started in 1990 to develop agricultural best management practices,
including water management strategies for corn and soybean production
systems, and to assess the impact of these practices on field, farm,
and watershed scales; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $2,293,700.
Program name: Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
Program name: Hatch Act Research Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This research program was started in the late 1800s to
promote efficient production, marketing, distribution, and utilization
of crops and livestock essential to the food supply and health and
welfare of the American people, while conserving resources and
improving rural living conditions; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,582,000[E].
Program name: Integrated Activities Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program supports integrated research, education, and
extension on critical agricultural issues. Program activities began in
2000; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$11,081,000[E].
Program name: McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of the program, which
began in 1962, is to support research essential to the efficient and
effective use of the nation's forest resources; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $140,000[E].
Program name: National Research Initiative Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program provides support for research with the
greatest potential of expanding the knowledge base needed to solve
current problems and unforeseen issues involving the future
agricultural and forestry enterprise. The program was created in 1965
and activities began in 1991; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: $433,000[E].
Program name: Small Business Innovation Research Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which began in 1986,
is to strengthen the role of small, innovative firms in federally
funded research and development activities; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $383,000[E].
Program name: Special Research Grants Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program was created in 1965 to fund research on
problems of national, regional, and local interest that fall beyond the
normal emphasis of the formula programs; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $1,675,000[E].
Program name: Department of Agriculture-Farm Services Agency (FSA).
Program name: Conservation Reserve Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This voluntary restoration and conservation program for
agricultural landowners was created in 1985. Through this program,
landowners receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to
establish long-term, resource conserving vegetative covers on eligible
farmland; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $540,718,000.
Program name: Emergency Conservation Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program provides emergency funding for farmers and
ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods,
hurricanes, or other natural disasters and for carrying out emergency
water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. This
restoration program began in 1978; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,670,000.
Program name: Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (FS).
Program name: Atmospheric Ecosystem Interactions at Multiple Scales;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program, which began in
1996, focuses on air quality in the western Great Lakes. The program
examines factors that impact summertime surface ozone pollution
patterns and activities, including observing smoke trajectories from
prescribed and wildland fires; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Cooperative Forestry; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers:
Originally created in the 1930s, the current program started in 1978 to
address watershed health and water quality activities on nonfederal
forest lands. It provides restoration and management assistance
activities, including cooperative federal, state, and local forest
stewardship; prevention and control of insects and diseases; and
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Forest Health Management; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program was created in1947, with current program
activities having begun in 1978 as a coordinated effort among federal,
state, and local entities for the management of forest health on
nonfederal forested lands. The program funds activities to sustain
healthy forest conditions; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Management; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which dates back
to the 1930s, is to connect people to the land by providing
recreational settings and services; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $36,685,000[G].
Program name: Soil, Water, and Air Management; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program funds activities related to the management of
water, soil, and air resources for public use, including the inventory,
assessment, and monitoring of these resources. It is classified as a
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention program; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $8,939,000[G].
Program name: Watershed, Lake, Riparian and Stream Analysis, and
Restoration; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research and
restoration program, which started in 2000, studies watershed and
stream processes from relatively undisturbed systems to highly degraded
systems. It develops technologies to restore these systems and tests
them in rural forested and urban landscapes; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $165,000[H].
Program name: Wildland Fire Management; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: Originally created in the 1920s, the purpose of the current
program is to protect state and private lands from wildland fires by
providing protection and management assistance; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Resources Management;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, which began in the
1930s, funds activities related to
cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and habitat improvement.
The program's goal is to maintain diverse and productive wildlife,
fish, and sensitive plant habitats as an integral part of managing
national forest ecosystems; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: $24,486,000[G].
Program name: Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).
Program name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, created in 1985, is to
provide technical, educational, and financial assistance to eligible
farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural
resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and
cost-effective manner. It funds pollution prevention, soil and water
conservation, and water quality improvement activities; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Farmland Protection Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, which began in 1996, provides matching funds
to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranch
land in agricultural uses. The Department of Agriculture provides up to
50 percent of the fair market easement value; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS); Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program is a partnership of federal land
management agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, and state
and local units of government that provides soil survey information
necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the
nation's limited soil resources. It dates back to 1935; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Plant Materials for Conservation/Plant Materials;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which
began in 1937, is to use native plants to solve natural resource
problems. Scientists search for plants that meet an identified
conservation need, such as wetland restoration, and test their
performance. Once proven, new species are released to the private
sector for commercial production; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Resource Conservation and Development; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program, which started in 1962, encourages and
improves the capability of state and local units of government and
local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and
carry out programs for resource conservation and development. Program
activities include cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention,
coordination, and conservation technical services; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: River Basin Studies, Watershed Surveys and Planning, and
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This mid-1940s program was created to provide planning
assistance to federal, state, and local agencies for developing and
coordinating water
and related land resources programs in watershed and river basins.
Program activities include restoration, pollution prevention, and
financial and technical assistance for watershed protection and flood
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Soil and Water Conservation/Conservation Technical
Assistance; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides
voluntary conservation technical assistance to
land users, communities, units of state and local governments, and
other federal agencies in planning and implementing conservation
systems. It began in 1935, and it addresses natural resource issues,
such as
erosion, fish and wildlife habitat, and air quality. Its activities
relate to cleanup, pollution prevention, restoration, and technical
assistance; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Wetland Reserve Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This voluntary program provides landowners with financial
and technical assistance to restore and protect wetlands. It began in
1985, and it funds cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This is a voluntary restoration program for the
development and improvement of wildlife habitat, primarily on private
lands. It provides technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share
assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The
program began
in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Program name: Coastal Mapping/Mapping and Charting Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program is part of the National Geodetic
Survey. The primary mission of this program is to define the shoreline
for nautical charts; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal Change and Analysis
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program,
which started in 2001, is to develop and distribute data in the coastal
zone through remote sensing technology. The Great Lakes are the current
focus of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $458,000[I].
Program name: Coastal Zone Management Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program began in 1972. It is a federal-state
partnership that provides a basis for protecting, restoring, and
responsibly developing the nation's important and diverse coastal
communities and resources. The program includes encouraging and
assisting states in the wise use of land and water, and encouraging the
participation and cooperation of all government sectors with programs
affecting the coast; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $107,906,394[J].
Program name: Geodesy Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This
program, managed by the National Geodetic Survey, monitors crustal
motion in the Great Lakes by measuring latitudes, longitudes, and
elevations at 16 water level stations. This information provides better
knowledge about flooding and drainage scenarios in the region; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Landscape Characterization and Restoration Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This restoration program, which began
in 1997, helps coastal resource managers examine the effects of
management on coastal habitat through habitat restoration planning
activities and ecosystem studies; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS);
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: NERRS is a network of protected areas
established to promote informed management of the nation's coastal and
estuarine habitats. This state-federal partnership accomplishes this
through linked programs of scientific understanding, education, and
stewardship. This research program began in 1972; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,174,000.
Program name: National Sea Grant College Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: The purpose of this research program, which began in
1968, is to support education and research in the various fields
relating to the development of marine resources. All Great Lakes
states, except Pennsylvania, have a Sea Grant College; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $69,600,000.
Program name: National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Project; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program is a contaminant-monitoring
program for U.S. coastal waters. It collects samples from some 300
sites in the conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
and the Great Lakes. Samples are analyzed for a broad suite of
contaminants, including toxic elements, pesticides, industrial
chemicals, and hydrocarbons. This pollution prevention program began
nationwide in 1986, with monitoring in the Great Lakes beginning in
1992; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$240,000.
Program name: National Weather Service (NWS); Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, which dates back to the 1890s, provides water,
hydrologic, and climate warnings for the United States and its adjacent
waters. Ten NWS Great Lakes forecast offices provide users with
continuous real-time data and forecasts. NWS also operates the
Environmental Modeling Center, which produces numerical weather
prediction models that are transmitted to these forecast offices, and
the National Data Buoy Center, which manages an observational network;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Coastal Protection
and Restoration Division; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This
division has undertaken, in coordination with cleanup and trustee
agencies, environmental assessment, pollution prevention, cleanup,
mitigation, and restoration activities to protect and restore coastal
habitats and resources at hazardous waste sites nationwide since 1985
(in the Great Lakes since 1993); Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Damage Assessment
Center; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The Damage Assessment Center,
which started in 1990, conducts
natural resources damage assessments to restore coastal resources
injured by oil and hazardous material releases. The center conducts
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention activities; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Hazardous Materials
(HAZMAT); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, which started
in 1987, conducts activities to reduce risks to coastal habitats and
resources from oil and chemical spills by providing advice and
developing tools to aid in spill response. HAZMAT undertakes cleanup,
restoration, and pollution prevention activities; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Program name: Aquatic Nuisance Species Regional Coordination and
Technical Assistance; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program
provides regional aquatic nuisance species coordination and technical
assistance to the Fisheries Program of FWS's Northeast Region.
Activities support regional prevention and control of aquatic nuisance
species introductions and range expansions; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $808,900.
Program name: Aquatic Nuisance Species Surveillance and Control;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was started in 1991 to
prevent and control infestations
in the coastal and inland waters of the United States by the zebra
mussel and other nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Its activities
include research, prevention of species introductions, control of
introduced species, and mitigation of impacts to native fish and
wildlife resources; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $3,659,400.
Program name: Endangered Species Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This conservation and restoration program was created in
1973 to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide
for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$4,078,500[L].
Program name: Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance - Great Lakes
Operations; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, dating back
to 1972, aids in conservation of native fish and wildlife species and
their habitats. It provides support for the management of
interjurisdictional fisheries, aids in restoration of depleted fish
populations to preclude listing as endangered species, and provides
technical assistance to state and tribal fish and wildlife management
agencies to fulfill federal trust responsibilities. The program funds
research, restoration, and technical assistance activities; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $5,915,000.
Program name: La Crosse Fish Health Center; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This center, which began operating in 1962, provides fish
health inspection services to six national and four tribal fish
hatcheries to minimize the risk of introducing disease agents into the
wild. This program assists state research facilities and private fish
hatcheries in diagnosing and controlling infectious disease agents and
provides technical assistance regarding fish health and propagation;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$3,057,545.
Program name: National Fish Passage Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program restores native fish and other aquatic species
to self-sustaining levels. Generally, this restoration is done by
removing barriers to fish movement or providing ways for aquatic
species to bypass them. The program works on a voluntary basis with
federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as private partners
and stakeholders. This restoration program's activities began in 1999;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$268,500[N].
Program name: Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program's goal is to restore, replace,
rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources injured or
lost as a result of contamination by oil or hazardous substances. This
cleanup and restoration program began in 1981; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,496,000[(M)(O)].
Program name: New York Aquatic Resource Management; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: The focus of this program is natural resource assessment
and
management planning on military installations. Specifically, the goal
of this program is to determine the presence or absence of threatened
or endangered species of state or national concern and to prepare a
comprehensive natural resource management plan for the Seneca
Army Depot and Fort Drum, both of which lie within the Great Lakes
Basin; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$197,032[P].
Program name: New York Natural Resource Management Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The primary focus of this program is natural
resource assessment and planning on military installations. Activities
under this program include conducting a natural resource community
survey for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, conducting additional
surveys as needed, and preparing and implementing management plans to
protect the natural resources. Program activities began in 1998;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$174,204[Q].
Program name: Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Private Lands Program);
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a voluntary habitat
restoration program that provides restoration expertise and financial
assistance to private landowners, tribes,
and other conservation partners who voluntarily restore fish and
wildlife habitat on their properties. The program targets restoring
habitat for migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and threatened
or endangered species on private land. Program activities began
in 1987; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$5,240,000[M].
Program name: Department of Interior-U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Program name: Biological Information Management Delivery; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This research program has two primary areas
relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: the National Biological Information
Infrastructure (NBII) and the
Gap Analysis Program (GAP). NBII was created in 1993 and provides
increased access to data and information on biological resources. The
GAP provides broad geographic information on biological diversity that
planners, managers, and policy makers need to make informed decisions.
In addition, the program provides support for Great Lakes research,
primarily at the USGS Great Lakes Science Center; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $1,653,800[M].
Program name: Biological Research and Monitoring; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This research program, dating back to 1927, funds
biological studies to develop new methods and techniques to identify,
observe, and manage fish and wildlife. Studies are designed to
identify, understand, and control invasive species and their habitats;
inventory populations of animals, plants, and their habitats; and
monitor changes in abundance, distribution, and health of biological
resources through time and determine the causes of the changes;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$10,078,775[D].
Program name: Coastal and Marine Geology; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The program provides scientific information needed to
evaluate the
origin and impact of natural coastal processes, especially
understanding
the effect of human-induced changes. This program has been
providing information and products to guide the preservation and
sustainable development of the nation's marine and coastal environments
since 1994; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Cooperative Research Units Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program, created in 1935, establishes and maintains
cooperative partnerships with states and universities to address local,
state,
regional, national and international issues related to fish, wildlife,
and natural resources of concern. The activities of the program are
research, technical assistance, and student education; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $6,250,000[R].
Program name: Cooperative Topographic Mapping (CTM) Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This research program provides data that
locates and describes the features of the earth's surface. The program
provides support for the National Map by continuing to maintain basic
data for the United States
and its territories; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Cooperative Water Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This is an ongoing partnership between USGS and nonfederal
agencies. The program jointly funds water resources projects in every
state, Puerto Rico, and several U.S. Trust territories. Research, data
collection, assessment, and aerial appraisal activities are conducted
through this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program studies and addresses natural and
human-induced changes on the landscape. It encompasses global change
research, integrates natural hazard data layers, delivers landscape
information, and provides computer support; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Land Remote Sensing Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, initiated in the 1930s, promotes the use of
remote sensing for understanding the earth's land environment through
photography and other imagery from aircraft, as well as satellites;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Mineral Resources Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, created in 1879, provides scientific
information for
resource assessments and research results of mineral potential,
production, consumption, and environmental behavior. This information
is used to characterize the life cycles of mineral commodities from
deposit formation, exploration, and discovery through production, use,
reuse, and disposal; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was established in 1992 to
implement and coordinate an expanded geologic mapping effort by USGS,
the state geological surveys, and universities. The primary goal of the
program is to collect, process, analyze, translate, and disseminate
earth-science information through geologic maps; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The long-term mission and goals of
the NAWQA program, which began in 1991, are to provide long-term,
nationwide information on the quality of streams, groundwater, and
aquatic ecosystems. NAWQA's goals are to assess the status and trends
of national water quality and to understand the factors that affect
it; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$16,039,000[R].
Program name: National Water Use Information Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1979 to collect, store,
analyze, and disseminate water-use information, both nationally and
locally, to a wide variety of government agencies and private
organizations. It is a cooperative program that includes state and
local government entities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: USGS Ground-Water Resources Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program encompasses regional studies of groundwater
systems; provides multidisciplinary studies of critical groundwater
issues; provides access to groundwater data, and research and methods
development. It also provides scientific information and many of the
tools that are used by federal, state, and local management and
regulatory agencies to make important decisions about the nation's
groundwater resources. It was created in 1995; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $60,000[I].
Program name: USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1982 to provide
scientific information and tools that explain the occurrence, behavior,
and effects of toxic substances in the nation's hydrologic
environments. Program results support decision making by resource
managers, regulators, industry, and the public. Work is performed by
USGS scientists who collaborate with a wide range of federal and
nonfederal organizations and individuals; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Water Resource Research Act Programs; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program, dating back to 1964, provides an
institutional mechanism for promoting state, regional, and national
coordination of water resources, research, and training. It comprises a
network of institutes to facilitate research and information technology
transfer. With its matching requirements, it is also a mechanism for
promoting state investments in research and training; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Earth Surface Dynamics Program - Central Great Lakes
Geologic Mapping Coalition; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 1998
initiated research program provides scientific information to evaluate
natural coastal processes and understand human-induced changes. It
develops predictive models of natural systems and the effects of human
activities on them, and the capability to predict future changes.
Program data is used to guide the preservation and sustainable
development of the nation's marine and coastal environments; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,977,000[P].
Program name: Department of Homeland Security-Coast Guard.
Program name: National Invasive Species Act/Ballast Water Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: Under this program, the Secretary of
Transportation issues national guidelines to prevent the introduction
of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters by ships; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $8,000,000[S].
Program name: Oil Spill Removal Organization Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This is a voluntary pollution prevention program
created by the Coast Guard to assist facility and vessel responders in
writing their oil spill response plans; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Program name: Air Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The
purpose of this program, which began in 1970, is to (1) protect and
enhance the quality of the nation's air resources, (2) initiate and
accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the
prevention and control of air pollution, (3) provide technical and
financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with
the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and
control programs, and (4) encourage and assist the development and
operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Aquatic Stressors Research Program; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: The goal of this research program, which began in 1975,
is to advance scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in
ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the
Great Lakes; identify impaired watersheds and diagnose causes of
degradation; and develop risk-based assessments for supporting
restoration and remediation decisions; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Children's Health Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program (1) identifies and evaluates children's health
issues, (2) develops approaches for addressing these issues, and (3)
prioritizes and implements appropriate actions on children's health
issues. This 1997 program funds pollution prevention activities and is
largely a voluntary program building state capacity in human health;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Monitoring; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: Operating since 1972, this program develops
and implements comprehensive monitoring programs at the state and
tribal levels to address all water quality management needs under the
CWA. This program focuses on research; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Clean Water Section 106 Grants; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This 1972 program awards grants to states and to eligible
Indian tribes as base program support to maintain their surface water
and groundwater programs. Program activities include planning, water
quality standards development and implementation, monitoring,
permitting, education and outreach, and program administration;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Clean Water State Revolving Fund; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to provide grants to states
for long-term financing for construction of wastewater treatment
facilities and implementation of state management plans. This program
began in 1972; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program provides grants to states to establish
drinking water state revolving funds, whose purpose is to support
drinking water system infrastructure improvements. These grants provide
loans and other types of financial assistance to eligible public water
supply authorities. The program started in 1996; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Environmental Justice Small Grants; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This program, which began in 1994, provides financial
assistance to grassroots community-based groups to support projects to
design, demonstrate, or disseminate practices, methods, or techniques
related to environmental justice; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $256,047[M].
Program name: Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention
Grants; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This pollution prevention
program provides low income, minority communities with pollution
prevention resources to address community environmental issues. This
program started as a pilot program in 1995 through discretionary funds,
but the last year of funding was 2001; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to advance
scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological
conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the Great
Lakes. The program identifies impaired watersheds and diagnoses causes
of degradation and forecasts risk-based assessments and options to
support restoration and remediation decisions. This research program
began in 1989; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Food Quality Protection Act/Strategic Agricultural
Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this
program is to ensure continuing safety of the nation's food supply by
promoting the transition from potentially hazardous conventional
pesticides to pesticides with reduced risk to human health and the
environment. This program started in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Global Climate Change Research Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to advance
scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological
conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the Great
Lakes. Program activities identify impaired watersheds and diagnose
causes of degradation. This research program began in 1975; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This 1992 program assists federally recognized
Indian tribes and nations to build their overall capacity to manage
environmental programs and conduct activities; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to assure that
U.S. waters remain fishable, swimmable, and drinkable, through
regulating point source discharges to surface water. The program
ensures that discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation of
water quality standards. This program started in 1972 and is largely
delegated to states; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Non-Point Source Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to attain the goals of the
CWA. This restoration and pollution prevention program started in
1987; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1980 to conduct several
activities related to PCBs. These activities include reviewing and
tracking projects involving
the remediation, storage, and disposal of PCBs; conducting inspections
to determine compliance with federal PCB regulations; and conducting
projects for reducing the use of PCBs. This program includes cleanup
and pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Pollution Prevention (P2) Demonstration Grants; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides grants for capacity
building and for innovative pollution prevention projects, especially
those projects having potential
for regional impacts. Funded projects include supporting the Great
Lakes regional P2 roundtable, providing technical assistance, and
coordinating P2 partnerships. This pollution prevention program began
in 1993; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: Pollution Prevention for States Grant Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this grant program is to promote
strategies and solutions that assist businesses and industries in
reducing waste at the source. The majority of grants fund state-based
projects in areas of technical assistance and training, education and
outreach, regulatory integration, data collection and research,
demonstration projects, and recognition programs. This pollution
prevention program began in 1991; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Public Water Supply Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to ensure that clean and safe
drinking water is provided to the public. This program was created in
1974; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Brownfields; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of the program
is to encourage re-use of properties that have been stigmatized by the
presence of, or perception of, environmental contamination. This
restoration program began in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement and Compliance Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides for the on-site
evaluation and inspection of hazardous waste sites to enforce
compliance with regulations designed for protecting human health and
the environment and conserving valuable material and energy resources.
This program, started in 1976, involves cleanup, restoration, and
pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Management Program
Support; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program assists state
governments in the development and implementation of an authorized
state hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling
the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste. Funding first began in 1978; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The goals of this program are evaluating the
potential environmental risk impacts from RCRA-regulated hazardous
waste facilities, ensuring adequate facility investigation, ensuring
cleanup of contaminants, and managing facilities' long-term controls
for the protection of human health and the environment. This cleanup
and restoration program started in 1980; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Permitting; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to issue permits that allow
for monitoring
the handling of hazardous waste to ensure better waste management
and restoration of contaminated waste sites through a regulated
permitting program. This program started in 1980, and it addresses
restoration and pollution prevention in accordance with RCRA
regulations; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: f.
Program name: RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Assistance
Program/Jobs Through Recycling Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to promote use of integrated
solid waste management systems to solve municipal solid waste
generation and management problems at the local, regional, and national
levels. The program provides assistance to state, local, and tribal
governments and organizations to increase waste diversion from
landfills and incinerators. This pollution prevention program started
in 1976; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle D Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 1993 program was created to
assist tribes to achieve solid waste management and promote compliance
with the provisions of RCRA Subtitle D. This is a cleanup, restoration,
and pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: RCRA Subtitle I Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This
program regulates the use of underground storage tanks and requires
cleanup of releases and spills. This cleanup program started in 1989;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)/Environmental
Priorities Program (EPP); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose
of RGI is to (1) fund projects that are identified as high
priority, (2) support geographic place-based projects, (3) address
multimedia problems, and (4) highlight agency priorities and
strategies. The purpose of EPP is to fund projects or purchases that
aid in environmental protection. These activities were started in 1994,
and they include research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $6,753,937[T].
Program name: Solid Waste Management Assistance Program/Jobs Through
Recycling Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of
this program is to promote use of integrated solid waste management
systems to solve municipal solid waste generation and management
problems at the local, regional, and national levels. The program
provides assistance to state, local, and tribal governments and
organizations to increase waste diversion from landfills and
incinerators. This pollution prevention program started in 1976;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: State and Tribal Environmental Justice (EJ) Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created to provide
capacity building financial assistance to states and tribes that are
working to address EJ issues. This program started in 1998; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Superfund; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of
this program is to protect human health and the environment from risks
associated with abandoned hazardous waste sites and to respond to
hazardous substance spill emergencies. The primary focus of the program
is the assessment and remediation of long-term cleanups. This cleanup
program was created in 1980; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: $749,149,250[U].
Program name: Total Maximum Daily Load Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this 1973 program is to identify waters not
meeting state water quality standards, and for those waters, calculate
the maximum amount of a pollutant the water can receive and still meet
water quality standards. This is a restoration program according to EPA
officials; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [F].
Program name: Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: This 1993 program was created to assist tribes in solid
waste management and promote compliance with the provisions of RCRA
Subtitle D. This is a cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention
program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
[F].
Program name: Underground Injection Control; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The program was created to protect underground sources of
drinking water by controlling underground injection. This is a
pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program regulates the use
of underground storage tanks and requires the cleanup of releases and
spills. This cleanup program started in 1989; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Waste Pesticide Collection Program (Agricultural Clean
Sweep or Waste Pesticide Disposal); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers:
This pollution prevention program achieves reductions in persistent
bioaccumulative toxins and prevents contamination of air, soil, and
water resources by safely disposing of pesticides. This program started
in 1988; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$194,000[J].
Program name: Water Quality Management Planning; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program, which began in 1972, is to
promote the enhancement of water quality through water quality
management planning. This program involves both restoration and
pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Water Quality Standards Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to support efforts to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters by defining the uses to be protected and the water
quality conditions needed to protect these uses; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].
Program name: Wetlands; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of
this 1972 program is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Wetland
Program Development Grants are designed to assist state, tribal, and
local government agencies in building their wetland management
programs; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $129,000[V].
Sources: The Corps, ARS, CSREES, FSA, FS, NRCS, NOAA, FWS, USGS, Coast
Guard, EPA, and GAO.
[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column
represent program federal fiscal year expenditures.
[B] Funding represents fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
[C] Funding represents fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
[D] Funding represents fiscal years 1994 through 2001.
[E] Funding is for all Great Lakes states, except for Pennsylvania.
Figures were only available for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
[F] Great Lakes Basin funding is not known for this nationwide program.
[G] Funding amounts are for the Huron-Manistee, Ottawa, and Hiawatha
Forests, all of which are entirely within the Great Lakes Basin. There
is additional funding within the basin, but the precise amount could
not be determined.
[H] Funding represents fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
[I] Funding represents fiscal year 2001.
[J] Funding represents fiscal years 1993 through 2001.
[K] This program did not receive any specific funding for the Great
Lakes Basin for this time period.
[L] Funding is for fiscal years 1995 to 2001. Support totaling $47.9
million has come in from additional sources over the same time frame.
All Sea Grant programs and projects are matched to at least the 50
percent level by nonfederal funds from academia, state agencies,
industry, or other sources.
[M] Funding represents fiscal years 1995 through 2001.
[N] Funding represents fiscal years 1999 through 2001.
[O] Funding represents base funding. Department of Interior provides
approximately $850,000 more in competitive funding annually.
[P] This funding is for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 and it was
provided by several different sources, including the program's specific
funding authority.
[Q] Funding for this program came from the Department of Defense.
[R] Funding amounts are appropriated funds.
[S] Funding is approximate. The agency did not respond to our survey,
so the figures were obtained from the report entitled The Great Lakes
at the Millennium: Priorities for Fiscal 2001, prepared by the
Northeast-Midwest Institute.
[T] Funding amount is for Region 2 and Region 5.
[U] Funding amount is for Region 3 and Region 5.
[V] Funding amount is for Region 2 only.
[End of table]
Table 6 contains a listing of the non-Great Lakes specific programs
managed by state agencies.
Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):
Program name: Lake and River Enhancement Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program started in 1987,
and it funds restoration activities by providing technical and
financial assistance for projects that reduce nonpoint source sediment
and nutrient pollution in Indiana's and adjacent state's surface
waters; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ):
Program name: Michigan State University Forestry Department
Dendroremediation; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): This is a research program administered by Michigan State
University. The project began in fiscal year 2000 and funds
activities to determine the existence of woody plants, especially
native species that would be useful for various approaches to the
remediation of heavy metals in soil and/or groundwater. The
program also looked to determine whether plants adapted to
growing on a site with elevated heavy metals in soils results
in greater tolerance for, and ability to takeup, heavy metals; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): $594,888.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR):
Program name: Comprehensive Local Water Planning Challenge Grant
Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The
challenge grant program began in 1989, and it funds priority projects
identified by local governments in their local water plans.
It funds restoration activities by providing financial and technical
assistance to counties for development and implementation of local
water plans; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR): $428,732[C].
Program name: Erosion, Sediment Control, and Water Quality Cost-Share
Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This
program was initiated in 1977, and it provides funds to soil
and water conservation districts for cost-sharing conservation
projects that protect and improve water quality by controlling
soil erosion and reducing sedimentation. This restoration
program provides technical and financial assistance to
landowners who install permanent nonproduction-oriented
practices to protect and improve soil and water resources; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): $1,293,298[C].
Program name: Lakeshore Engineering Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created in
1991 to support local governments'
large erosion control projects on Lake Superior shores by providing
engineering assistance, education, and best management practices.
Its activities relate to restoration and research to control erosion
from private and public shorelines; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $976,313[D].
Program name: Local Water Planning and Wetland Conservation Act;
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This block
grant program began in 1985 to assist local
governments in implementing four state-mandated programs.
Water planning grants are available for restoration activities
related to implementing comprehensive water plans and the
local administration of grants; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $3,205,505[E].
Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC):
Program name: Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund); Purpose:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The petrofund program
was created in 1987 to fund the
replacement or upgrade of all underground petroleum storage tanks
by 1998. The program provides financial assistance to owners and
operators of petroleum storage tanks to assist in cleaning up
contamination or replacing leaking tanks. Available program
funding is capped at $1 million per project; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):
$18,514,720[F].
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):
Program name: Conservation Partnership Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was started in
1995 to provide grants to private organizations and local units of
government for activities related to restorations of fish, wildlife,
and native plant habitats. The program also funds research to improve
fish and wildlife habitats; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Environmental Partnership Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program was
initiated in 1997 to provide funding for private companies and local
governments for research, cleanup, pollution prevention, and education
projects that deal with environmental conservation principles; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): [B].
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):
Program name: Basin Planning; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): MPCA created this program in 1995 to coordinate water
management efforts around the state's 10 major drainage basins by
focusing financial and staff resources upon key water resource
management priorities. The program provides support to local and state
agencies and citizen groups to develop watershed plans for making sound
resource management decisions. Program activities included research,
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):
$175,000[G].
Program name: Clean Water Partnership; Purpose: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): The program was created in 1987 to fund
activities related to runoff
from agricultural and urban areas. The program provides funds to
local governments for projects that protect and improve lakes,
streams, and groundwater resources in Minnesota. Funds can be requested
for research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention projects;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): $2,613,798[H].
Program name: Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act;
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This is
Minnesota's Superfund program. It was created in 1983 to fund
activities related to investigating and cleaning up releases of
hazardous substances or contaminants. As of 1989, the program's
authority included funding to investigate and clean up contamination
from agricultural chemicals; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $864,410[H].
Program name: Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Program (Closed Landfill
Program); Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This
cleanup program was created in 1994 as an alternative to using the
federal and state Superfund laws to address the cleanup and long-term
maintenance of 106 closed municipal sanitary landfills in the state.
Eight of these landfills are in the Lake Superior watershed. Funds are
provided for cleanup activities only; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $485,135[I].
Program name: Minnesota Mercury Initiative; Purpose: Indiana Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this program is to help
reduce mercury contamination in Minnesota fish. Because about 98
percent of mercury in Minnesota waters is due to air deposition, the
state looked for ways to reduce mercury in the air. The program
solicits voluntary mercury emission reductions from large companies;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Voluntary Petroleum Investigation and Cleanup; Purpose:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was
created in 1996 to provide technical assistance and liability assurance
to expedite and facilitate the development, transfer, and investigation
and/or cleanup of property that is contaminated from petroleum
products. MPCA provides technical oversight for this cleanup program;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC):
Program name: Clean Water and Clean Air Bond Act; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was established in
1996. It consolidates the funding application processes of several
state agencies and programs with a focus on cleanup, restoration, water
resource improvement, pollution prevention, nonpoint source abatement,
aquatic habitat restoration, safe drinking water system improvement,
solid waste management, and other environmental conservation efforts;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): $428,820,724[J].
Program name: Environmental Protection Act and Fund; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this program is
to address the cleanup, restoration, historic preservation, land and
open space conservation, and waterfront revitalization of New York
watersheds. Proposed projects are reviewed under the consolidated bond
application process; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $97,154,829[J].
Program name: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Environmental
Conservation Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): This program was created in 1972 to provide the necessary
resources to support the state's critical fish and wildlife
conservation programs by focusing on the care, management, protection,
and enlargement of fish and wildlife resources through research and
restoration. Activities also include habitat improvement and
enforcement; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR): $2,500,000[J].
Program name: New York State Environmental Quality Protection Fund
(Superfund); Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):
This program was started in 1980 in response to the federal Superfund.
The state's Superfund program is focused on the investigation,
emergency response, and enforcement of cleanups at hazardous waste
sites; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [K].
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):
Program name: Dam Safety; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): Created in 1963, the purpose of this regulatory
program is to protect the citizens of Ohio from flooding due to dam
failure. The program provides support to the owners of dams and
residents in downstream areas by permitting the construction of new
dams and dikes, approving repairs to existing dams and dikes, and
responding to safety emergencies; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Ground Water Resources; Purpose: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was started in 1959, and it
seeks to collect, maintain, interpret, and distribute information on
the groundwater resources of Ohio in both the Lake Erie and Ohio River
basins. Its basic purpose is to foster the development of groundwater
as a viable and sustainable water supply for the citizens of the
state; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Hydraulic/Canal Operations; Purpose: Indiana Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created during the 1800s
to operate and maintain the watered portions of the historic Miami/Erie
and Ohio/Erie Canals, including water supply distribution, storm water
control, historic preservation and recreation. Residents and properties
adjacent and downstream from the canal and reservoirs are protected
from flooding through the operation of hydraulic structures; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR): [B].
Program name: Pollution Abatement Cost Share; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): Since 1979, this program has
provided funding to landowners to assist in the installation of needed
best management practices that abate animal waste pollution, soil
erosion, or degradation of the state's waters by soil sediment;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Water Inventory and Stream and Water Gauging; Purpose:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this
program, created in 1959, is to collect, compile, analyze, and
disseminate hydrologic and climatological data and information
concerning all aspects of the hydrologic cycle, operate the statewide
groundwater observation well network, and administer cooperative
agreements with USGS for stream gauging and other water resource
projects; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Water Planning; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): This program was created in 1959 to address the need
for water supply planning on a regional and statewide basis. It also
includes administering the Lake Erie and Ohio River basins' diversion
permit and consumptive use permit programs, water resource inventory,
and the Lake Erie Basin Plan; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA):
Program name: Clean Ohio Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): This program, which began in 2001, awards grants for
cleanup and restoration of polluted areas and the preservation and
conservation
of green space and farmland. The first grant was not awarded
until 2002; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP):
Program name: Growing Greener Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program began in 1999 to
address critical concerns related to education and outreach, as well as
wetland restoration, soil erosion and sedimentation controls, and creek
assessments in Lake Erie tributaries; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $700,000[L].
Program name: Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Program; Purpose: Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created in
1980 to support studies of evasive species, bluff evaluations, and
property preservation activities identified by the Office of the Great
Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): $938,000[M].
Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC):
Program name: Brownfields Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program began in 1998 to provide
financial assistance for Brownfields redevelopment and related
environmental remediation projects. It also funds associated
environmental remediation activities with emphasis on cleanup and
restoration; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR):
Program name: Dry Cleaner Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): This environmental response program was created in
1997 to provide financial assistance awards for reimbursement of
certain eligible costs to investigate and remediate contamination from
dry cleaning solvents at current and certain former dry cleaning
facilities. Program efforts are focused on cleanup and restoration;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Runoff Management Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): This program began in 1998 and is aimed at
abating urban and rural polluted runoff. Three components of the
program include (1) implementation of the voluntary Priority Watershed/
Lake Projects, (2) point source permitting of storm water and
agricultural runoff sources, and (3) implementation of state regulatory
performance standards. Its primary focus is research and cleanup;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Site Assessment Grants; Purpose: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program was started in 2000 to
provide local governments with grants to perform the initial
investigation of contaminated properties and certain other eligible
activities. Its focus is the restoration and cleanup of abandoned,
idle, or underused industrial or commercial facilities and sites;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: State Funded Response Program (Environmental Repair);
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This is the
state's version of the Superfund program, authorized in 1978, but not
started until 1985. The program focuses on the cleanup and restoration
of all types of hazardous substance sites, including unlicensed or
abandoned sites, and can also be used to respond to hazardous substance
spills; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].
Program name: Sustainable Urban Development Zone Program; Purpose:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This 1999 WDNR pilot
program operates in cooperation with other state agencies and the
cities of Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, and Beloit. It
seeks to promote the use of financial incentives to clean up, restore,
and redevelop contaminated properties in the five cities. Funds may be
used to investigate environmental contamination and clean up
Brownfields properties in the cities; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):
$1,700,000[N].
Sources: IDNR, MDEQ, MBWSR, MDOC, MDNR, MPCA, NYDEC, ODNR, OEPA, PDEP,
WDOC, WDNR, and GAO.
[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column
represent program state fiscal year expenditures.
[B] Program officials could not provide specific Great Lakes funding
for this statewide program.
[C] This funding was only for those counties that reside within the
Great Lakes Basin.
[D] This amount was provided from 1993 through 2001. It includes total
grant funds and 80 percent of the administrative salary costs for the
engineer.
[E] This program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by local
government.
[F] These funds were spent in the Lake Superior watershed to clean up
628 sites. A 2 percent fee on bulk petroleum sales generates the
funding.
[G] This figure relates to Lake Superior funding only for this
statewide program.
[H] This figure is a 10 year average and relates to Lake Superior
funding only.
[I] This funding was provided from 1995 through 2001, and only for the
eight Great Lakes specific sites.
[J] These funds were either expended or committed for Great Lakes Basin
projects during the period 1998 through 2001 (state fiscal year).
[K] Program officials could not identify the Great Lakes funding for
this statewide program; however, responsible parties have provided more
than $400 million for cleanup actions.
[L] Program funding covers state fiscal years1999 through 2001.
[M] This funding figure is for state fiscal year 2001 only.
[N] This amount was identified as the expenditure during state fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 by three of the cities. It is not total Great Lakes
spending.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the
Great Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001:
[End of section]
State: Illinois:
Project title: Des Plaines River, Ill; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction - The purpose of this project was to
develop measures to reduce or prevent damage from flooding to areas,
such as reservoirs, and levees; make channel modifications; remove
threatened structures from flood-prone areas; and enhance flood plain
management; Amount: $2,496,507.
Project title: Kankakee River Basin; Program description:
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 1,591,856.
Project title: Illinois Shore Erosion; Program description:
State: Stream bank and shoreline protection - This project was designed
to protect public structures or facilities from damages caused by
stream bank erosion or flooding caused by waves from coastal storms, to
include hardened protective structures; Amount: 254,177.
Project title: Chicago River North Branch 1946; Program
description: Navigation improvements - These projects may
involve new channels and structures, such as breakwaters and piers or
modifications to existing navigation facilities, such as deepening or
lengthening navigation channel; Amount: 64,100.
Project title: Southeast Chicago, Ill; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 595,800.
Project title: Waukegan Harbor, Ill; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 338,128.
Project title: Casino Beach, Ill; Program description:
Erosion control - The purpose of this project is providing erosion
control; Amount: 2,111,815.
Project title: Illinois Beach State Park; Program description:
State: Ecosystem restoration - These projects seek to restore, protect,
or enhance aquatic habitat, such as wetlands and spawning areas, and
include efforts to restore degraded lakes and rivers, remove
contamination, and provide natural vegetation; Amount: 160,640.
Project title: McCook & Thornton Reservoir; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 32,770,600.
Project title: Kankakee River Icebreaker; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 9,200.
Project title: North Branch Chicago River; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 6,754,844.
Project title: O'Hare Reservoir; Program description:
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 28,088,930.
Project title: Chicago Shoreline; Program description:
Streambank and shoreline protection; Amount: 93,824,976.
Project title: Illinois & Michigan Canal; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 307,100.
Project title: Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal; Program
description: Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 1,778,721.
Project title: Des Plaines Wetlands Project;
Program description: Flood damage reduction;
Amount: 183,308.
Amount: $171,330,702.
State: Indiana.
Project title: Beauty Creek Watershed, Ind; Program
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: $95,900.
Project title: Deep River Basin, Ind; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 68,600.
Project title: Long Lake, Ind; Program description:
Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 75,000.
Project title: Hammond, Ind; Program description:
Streambank and shoreline protection; Amount: 42,000.
Project title: Little Calumet River Basin, Dyer, Ind; Program
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 310,700.
Project title: Little Calumet River Basin Township; Program
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 82,900.
Project title: Lake George; Program description: Flood
damage reduction; Amount: 1,117,300.
Project title: Little Calumet River, Cady Marsh Ditch; Program
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 1,355,588.
Project title: Indiana Shore Erosion; Program description:
State: Erosion control; Amount: 8,239,944.
Project title: Little Calumet River; Program description:
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 78,770,000.
Project title: Indiana Harbor CDF; Program description:
Navigation improvements; Amount: 1,297,300.
Project title: Burns Waterway Harbor, Ind; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 13,384,194.
Project title: Calumet Region, Ind.[A]; Program description:
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: 58,903.
Project title: Wolf Lake, Ind; Program description:
Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 98,700.
Project title: Fort Wayne Metro Area, Ind;
Program description: Flood damage reduction;
Amount: 33,944,000.
Amount: $138,941,029.
State: Michigan.
Project title: Clinton River Spillway, Mich; Program
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: $2,403,300.
Project title: Cedar River Harbor, Mich; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 193,000.
Project title: Great Lakes Connecting Channels & Harbors, Mich;
Program description: Navigation improvements; Amount:
300,800.
Project title: Great Lakes Connecting Channels &
Harbors Replacement Lock, Mich; Program description: Project
titleState: : Navigation improvements; Amount:
2,740,000.
Amount: $5,637,100.
State: Minnesota.
Project title: Silver Bay Harbor, Minn; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: $2,600,100.
Project title: Knife River Harbor, Minn; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 116,000.
Project title: Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn. & Wisc;
Program description: Navigation
improvements; Amount: 645,400.
Amount: $3,361,500.
State: New York.
Project title: New York State Barge Canal; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: $25,479.
Project title: Onondaga Lake, N.Y.[A]; Program description:
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: 4,169,999.
Project title: Onondaga Lake, N.Y.
PL 101-596; Program description: Environmental infrastructure;
Amount: 2,864,213.
Project title: Olcott Harbor, N.Y; Program description:
Navigation improvements; Amount: 1,056,243.
Project title: State: Buffalo Flood and Water
Quality; Program description: State: Environmental infrastructure;
Amount: State: 435,987.
Project title: State: Ellicott Creek, N.Y; Program description: State:
Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 131,307.
Project title: State: Oneida Lake, N.Y; Program description: State:
The purpose of this project is ecosystem restoration and flood damage
reduction; Amount: State: 68,881.
Project title: Hamlin and Lakeside Beach State
Park; Program description: Stream bank and
shoreline protection; Amount: 47,887.
Amount: $8,799,996.
State: Ohio.
Project title: State: Cleveland Harbor Recon
Study; Program description: State: Navigation improvements; Amount:
State: $292,994.
Project title: State: Cleveland Harbor Phase I; Program description:
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: State: 4,001,960.
Project title: State: Reno Beach, Howard Farms; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 4,357,730.
Project title: State: Ottawa River, Ohio; Program description: State:
Navigation improvements; Amount: State: 183,000.
Project title: State: Ohio Infrastructure[A]; Program description:
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: State: 160,840.
Project title: State: Maumee River, Ohio; Program description: State:
Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 102,037.
Project title: State: Western Lake Erie Basin; Program description:
State: The purpose of this project is flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration; Amount: State: 67,164.
Project title: State: Cayuga Creek Watershed; Program description:
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 25,868.
Project title: Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio;
Program description: Flood damage reduction;
Amount: 71,722.
Amount: $9,263,315.
State: Pennsylvania.
Project title: State: Presque Isle, Penn. Permanent; Program
description: State: Stream bank and shoreline protection; Amount:
State: $15,295,637.
Project title: Erie Harbor, East Canal Basin,
Penn; Program description: Environmental
infrastructure; Amount: 5,480,000.
Amount: $20,775,637.
State: Wisconsin.
State: Wisconsin had one project that was jointly shared with
Minnesota; Amount: 0.
Total Amount: $358,109,279.
Sources: Corps of Engineers and GAO.
[A] According to the Corps, this special project was authorized as an
open-ended project without a stated expiration time frame. Project
funding could be appropriated several years into the future.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
Years 1992 through 2001:
Table 7 contains a listing of the federal programs that specifically
fund activities in the Great Lakes Basin.
Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Army Corps of Engineers:
Program name: Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this fiscal year 2000 program,
which began in 2002, is to plan, design, and construct projects to
restore Great Lakes fisheries and their beneficial uses; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [B].
Program name: Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment
Remediation; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was started
in 1990 to plan, design, and construct research demonstration projects
of promising technologies for contaminated sediment remediation;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [C].
Program name: Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment
Remediation Support; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program,
which was authorized in 1990, is designed to provide technical support
focused on the development and implementation of remedial action plans
to clean up the Great Lakes' areas of concern; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,595,600[D].
Program name: Great Lakes Tributary Models; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program was created in 1996. Its purpose is to develop
computer models of sediment loading and transport to Great Lakes
tributaries to support state and local conservation and pollution
prevention activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army
Corps of Engineers: $1,103,424.
Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation
Service:
Program name: Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: Originally authorized in
1936, the program, as amended, funds pollution prevention projects that
improve Great Lakes water quality by promoting soil erosion and
sediment control through information and education programs, grants,
technical assistance, and coalition building; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,625,000[E].
Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
Program name: Episodic Events, Great Lakes Experiment; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This research program began in 1997 to create a
modeling program for seasonal sediment resuspension. It assesses the
(1) impact on transporting and the transformation of chemically
important materials and (2) effect on Lake Michigan ecology; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,792,000[F].
Program name: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was established in 1970 and
established the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory to
conduct physical, chemical, and environmental modeling research and to
provide scientific expertise and services to manage and protect
ecosystems; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $63,401,000[G].
Department of Health and Human Services-Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry:
Program name: Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a community-based research
program that began in 1992, with emphasis on public health education
and intervention strategies. Its goal is to prohibit exposure to toxic
chemicals and prevent adverse health outcomes in citizens of the Great
Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers:
$24,400,000[H].
Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service:
Program name: 1836 Fisheries Treaty - Implementation of the August 7,
2000 Consent Decree; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was
mandated in 2000 by a Federal District Court decree. It requires FWS to
increase lake trout stocking for restoration programs and to evaluate
factors impeding lake trout restoration. It also provides technical
assistance to five Native American tribes in the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority, the State of Michigan, and selected federal
agencies involved with managing sport and commercial fisheries in
certain areas of Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $695,000.
Program name: Blue Pike Activities in the Great Lakes; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This is a research program that was started in 1993
to establish the scientific relationships among the original Lake Erie
blue pike, the recently caught "blue walleyes," and other closely
related species using genetic analysis of their DNA; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].
Program name: Ecosystem Management in the Lower Great Lakes; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1990 to develop
and adopt aquatic community and habitat goals and objectives. It also
develops and conducts comprehensive and standardized ecological
monitoring to support ecosystem management; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].
Program name: Evaluation and Restoration of Great Lakes Estuaries and
Tributaries; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this
program, which began in 1992, is to identify, inventory, protect, and
rehabilitate significant aquatic habitats, including those used by fish
and wildlife for spawning, breeding, nesting, rearing, and feeding;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].
Program name: Great Lakes Coastal Program; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: This program, which began in 2000, funds projects that seek
to protect and restore Great Lakes coastal ecosystems for the benefit
of fish, wildlife, and people. Its goals are to identify and prioritize
coastal habitats and conduct research to evaluate ecosystem health,
identify threats, and lend biological focus to the planning processes
of other agencies; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $500,000[J].
Program name: Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: Since 1991, this program has developed and
implemented proposals for restoration of fish and wildlife resources in
the Great Lakes Basin. It has provided assistance to the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, states, Indian tribes, and others to encourage
cooperative conservation, restoration, and management of the fish and
wildlife resources and their habitats; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $10,512,000[K].
Program name: Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program started in 1993, and it
funds projects that seek to conserve, rehabilitate, and reestablish
self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon to levels that permit
delisting from state and federal endangered species lists. Objectives
include identification and restoration of critical habitat and public
education; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $246,650[L].
Program name: Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program was started in
1993 to determine the feasibility of re-introducing/restoring Atlantic
salmon to the Lake Ontario watershed; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].
Program name: Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River American Eel Restoration
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program, which
started in 1997, provides research funds to protect and enhance the
abundance of American eel populations in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence
River watershed; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [I].
Program name: Lower Great Lakes Lake Trout Restoration Program;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program is to
rehabilitate the lake trout population of Lakes Erie and Ontario so the
new population can become self-sustaining through natural reproduction
and produce a harvestable annual surplus. Program activities began in
the late 1970s; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [I].
Program name: Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance Program; Purpose:
Army Corps of Engineers: This 1993 program provides funding for
surveillance of invasive species to ensure prompt detection of new
populations of ruffe and monitor or track expansions of already
existing populations; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $241,439[M].
Program name: National Fish Hatchery System - Great Lakes Operations;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program began operation in 1950
to manage, produce, and stock native coaster brook trout and lake trout
from native Great Lakes strains. This program is part of the
interagency restoration programs coordinated through the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, and is based on a strategic plan for management of
Great Lakes Fisheries; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $18,205,000.
Program name: New York State Canal System Aquatic Nuisance Species
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a multifaceted
program started in 1998. It includes various components to address
aquatic invasive species issues within the Canal system. It seeks to
work with partner agencies to detect, monitor, and manage populations
of aquatic invasive species inhabiting or transiting the Canal and
implement prevention strategies as appropriate; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $221,342[N].
Department of Interior-National Park Service:
Program name: Midwest Region - Great Lakes Strategic Plan Activities;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this 1993-initiated
program is to foster research cooperation among state and federal
agencies involved with natural resource issues of mutual interest.
These issues include aquatic exotic species, such as the sea lamprey,
shoreline stabilization and monitoring, bald eagle monitoring, near
shore fisheries, beach nourishment and fecal coliform issues, air
quality, and cultural resource issues; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $6,127,000[O].
Environmental Protection Agency:
Program name: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This program, initiated in 1990, assesses the
health of the Great Lakes ecosystem through a series of air-monitoring
stations in cooperation with Canada. It provides information to measure
the amounts of chemicals and toxic substances deposited into the Great
Lakes through air deposition to establish trend analysis and cause/
effect relationships; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [P].
Program name: Coastal Environmental Management; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of this program, which started in 1991, is to
provide grants that would assist in the preparation and implementation
of lakewide management plans and remedial action plans for the areas of
concern in the Great Lakes. This program addresses cleanup,
restoration, and pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $59,100,000.
Program name: Funding Guidance - Competitive Grants; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: This is a grant program in which GLNPO, in concert
with Regions 2,3, and 5, funds a consortium of programs, agencies, and
public and private institutions for reducing the level of toxic
substances in the Great Lakes; protecting and restoring vital habitats;
protecting human health; and restoring and maintaining stable, diverse,
and self-sustaining populations. This program started in 1993, and it
funds research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: [P].
Program name: Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant Program; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The goals of the Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant
Program are to (1) better understand the impacts of deposition of
pollutants to all water bodies in the Great Lakes region, (2) ensure
continued progress in reducing sources and loadings of atmospheric
deposition to the Great Lakes region, and (3) reduce the environmental
and public health impacts associated with air emissions and subsequent
atmospheric deposition. This research program began in 1993; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $11,135,500.
Program name: Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which started in 1997,
is to reduce and eliminate persistent toxic substances, especially
those that bioaccumulate, in the Great Lakes. The strategy uses
pollution prevention as a preferred approach. Research and cleanup are
also components of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [P].
Program name: Lakewide Management Plans; Purpose: Army Corps of
Engineers: The purpose of the program is to protect the Great Lakes
from beneficial use impairments for the "open waters" of each lake and
to develop strategies to improve the environmental health of the lake.
This program, initiated in 1987, is a cleanup, restoration, and
pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Army Corps of Engineers: [P].
Program name: Monitoring Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The
purpose of this research program, which began in 1975, is to assess the
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes. Information is gathered to measure
whole lake response to control measures using trend analysis and cause/
effect relationships; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: [P].
Program name: Niagara River and New York State Areas of Concern;
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, started
in 1987, is to restore and protect the beneficial uses in these areas
of concern through a remedial action plan. Cleanup, restoration, and
pollution prevention are goals of this program; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,086,250.
Program name: Niagara River Toxics Management Plan; Purpose: Army Corps
of Engineers: The purpose of this program is to reduce toxic chemical
inputs to the Niagara River; achieve ambient water quality that will
protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife; and while doing so,
improve and protect water quality in Lake Ontario. This program started
in 1987 with the goal of cleanup, restoration, and pollution
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of
Engineers: $11,150,000.
Program name: RCRA Subtitle C State Program Support - Great Lakes
Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this
program, started in 1992, is to assist states in developing and
implementing an authorized state hazardous waste management program for
the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes. Cleanup and pollution prevention are the
goals of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps
of Engineers: $22,009,710.
Program name: State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference; Purpose: Army
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, started in 1994, is to
assess the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes and to provide
information to measure whole lake response to control measures using
trend analysis and cause/effect relationships; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [P].
Sources: The Corps, NRCS, NOAA, ATSDR, FWS, NPS, EPA, and GAO.
[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column
represent program federal fiscal year expenditures.
[B] This program was authorized by WRDA in 2000, and first funded in
2002.
[C] Thus far, no funds have been expended for this program.
[D] The program was first funded in 1994.
[E] The Great Lakes funding first began in 1994.
[F] The amount expended is for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
[G] NOAA provides base funding for the facility, which averaged over
$6.3 million during the 10-year period, but many other federal and
state agencies also provide research funds to the laboratory.
[H] The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research
project results would most likely be applicable both within and outside
the basin.
[I] Funding to support this program comes from a portion of the annual
allocation received by the lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office.
The amount received from 1992 through 2001 was $2,770,450.
[J] Funding is for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 only.
[K] According to FWS, the authorizing act expires in 2004.
[L] Partial funding for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
[M] Funding is for fiscal years 1995 through 2001, funding was first
provided in 1995.
[N] Funding provided for fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
[O] This is not total funding; expenditures were not available for
three known units.
[P] This is a GLNPO program. Funding for GLNPO programs was not
available individually. Total GLNPO funding for 1993-2001 is
$143,400,000.
[Q] Funding provided for fiscal years 1993-2001.
[End of table]
Table 8 contains a listing of the state programs that specifically fund
activities in the Great Lakes Basin.
Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):
Program name: Illinois Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The governors of the
eight Great Lakes states created an endowment fund program in 1989.
States contributed to the
fund and received dividends to use for their Great Lakes projects. The
Illinois GLPF program funds special studies and projects related to
Great Lakes research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention.
The projects are selected as part of the states' budget process;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA): $5,000,000.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ):
Program name: 1988 Quality of Life Bond Fund; Purpose: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This $660 million general
obligation bond program was initiated
in 1988 to finance environmental programs focused on cleanup
of toxic and other contamination sites. It provided funds to
address problems relating to solid waste, sewage treatment
and water quality, reusing industrial sites, and preserving green
space. Funded activities included research, cleanup, restoration, and
pollution prevention. The program was replaced by the
Clean Michigan Initiative in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):
$492,000,000[C].
Program name: Clean Michigan Initiative; Purpose: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): Michigan voters approved this
$675 million general obligation
bond program for environmental activities in 1998 to replace the
Quality of Life Bond Fund. It is used for cleanup, restoration, or
pollution prevention projects, and a portion of the fund is
available for parks and monitoring activities; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):
$255,900,000[D].
Program name: Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): By mandate, Michigan's
GLPF program only funds research projects undertaken by universities
and for-profit groups in
areas such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species. The
research project agenda is determined each year by a MDEQ Technical
Advisory Board and may be based on legislative direction,
recommendations from MDEQ departments,
or current environmental issues, such as ballast water; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA): $5,199,601[F].
Program name: Part 201 Programs; Purpose: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA): This is the state's version of the federal
Superfund program
that started in 1995. Its funding is provided by the state
Cleanup and Redevelopment Fund, the Revitalization
Revolving Loan Fund, the State Site Cleanup Fund, and the Municipal
Landfill Cost-Share Grant Program. It can be used
to fund research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention;
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA): $169,000,000.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):
Program name: Fisheries Research in Great Lakes and Inland Waters;
Purpose: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program
funds research projects on fisheries populations, habitats, and
anglers. The Fisheries Division of MDEQ began funding this research in
the 1930s, and overtime it has grown in scope, with Great Lakes
fisheries research stations opening in the early 1970s; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA): [E].
Minnesota State Planning Agency (MSPA):
Program name: Minnesota Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): By state statute,
funds from Minnesota's GLPF can only be spent to protect water quality
in the Great Lakes. Grants are awarded to finance projects that advance
goals of the binational Toxic Substances Control Agreement and Water
Quality Agreement. Projects involve research, cleanup, restoration, or
pollution prevention activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $987,000[G].
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC):
Program name: New York Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): New York's GLPF
program provides for overall intra-and interstate coordination and
planning of the state's Great Lakes programs, and is a source of grants
for research, data collection, technology development, policy analysis,
and public outreach; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $1,494,053[H].
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):
Program name: Great Lakes Charter Programs; Purpose: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This suite of programs was
created in response to the charter agreement signed by the Great Lakes
governors. The purpose of this 1985 initiated program is to administer
the Lake Erie-Ohio River Basin diversion and consumptive use permit
programs called for under the charter. The program includes a water
resource inventory and the Lake Erie Basin plans. Program funds support
restoration, planning, and protection activities; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA): $600,000.
Program name: Shore Structure Permit Program; Purpose: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): Created in the 1930s, this
program was transferred to ODNR in 1949 to assist coastal residents and
communities in the proper design and construction of structures
intended to control erosion, wave action, and flooding along the Ohio
shore of Lake Erie. Program officials review construction permits for
shore structures and provide technical assistance to shoreline property
owners as it relates to structures involving shoreline erosion, lake
access, and coastal flooding; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): [I].
Program name: Submerged Lands Leasing; Purpose: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA): This program, which was established in 1917,
reviews lease applications for the proposed and existing occupation of
submerged lands by structures along the coast of Lake Erie. Leasing
submerged land enables the state to manage the public trust and protect
the rights of shoreline property owners. It provides technical
assistance to shoreline property owners regarding shoreline erosion and
lake access structures as it relates to flooding and erosion; Program
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA): $2,084,296[J].
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA):
Program name: Ohio Lake Erie Commission/Lake Erie Protection Fund (Ohio
Great Lakes Protection Fund - GLPF); Purpose: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA): The Ohio GLPF program provides grants to fund
research, support cleanup and restoration efforts, and educate
nonprofit, government, or public entities seeking to protect or enhance
Lake Erie; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $6,943,894.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP):
Program name: Pennsylvania Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Pennsylvania GLPF
provides grants to fund education, research, and monitoring
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $253,721.
Program name: Pennsylvania's Office of the Great Lakes; Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program began in
1995 and was created as the focal point for research, restoration,
cleanup, and pollution prevention activities affecting the Great Lakes.
This office works with other PDEP offices that provide the projects'
funding; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA): $700,000[K].
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR):
Program name: Great Lakes Harbors and Bays Restoration Funding;
Purpose: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This 1990
initiated program allows DNR to conduct activities to cleanup or
restore environmental areas that are adjacent to, or a tributary of
Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, if the activities are included in
remedial action plans approved by the department; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):
$2,316,271.
Program name: Wisconsin Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Wisconsin GLPF
program provides funds to municipalities and other governmental units,
groups, nonprofit organizations, universities and others for various
projects. Funds are used for (1) implementing activities included in
remedial action plans, (2) restoring or protecting fish and wildlife
habitats in or adjacent to Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, or (3)
planning or providing information related to cleaning up or protecting
the Great Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $2,224,914.
Program name: Great Lakes Salmon and Trout Stamp Program; Purpose:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program was
created in 1982 to provide funding for projects pertaining to Great
Lakes fish stocking programs. The stocking program activities include
evaluation, research, or species propagation; Program expenditures
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):
$11,150,000[L].
Sources: IEPA, MDEQ, MDNR, MSPA, NYDEC, ODNR, OEPA, PDEP, WDNR, and
GAO.
[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column
represent program state fiscal year expenditures.
[B] This figure represents the amount awarded through grants during
fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1998.
[C] This represents funds expended between 1992 and 1997. After 1997,
projects were funded from the Clean Michigan Initiative program.
[D] Clean Michigan Program expenditures were from 1999 through 2001.
[E] Program officials were not able to provide research expenditures
for this program before 2002.
[F] This figure represents the amount expended for research grants from
1997 through 2001. Grant expenditure data were not readily available
for earlier years.
[G] Project funds were first awarded in 1995. Of the amount shown,
$537,000 was provided by the GLPF, and the other $450,000 in project
costs was provided by other state funding sources.
[H] The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research
project results are primarily applicable only within New York's Great
Lakes Basin.
[I] Funds were not available for this program.
[J] Amounts relate to the cost to administer the program; leasing fees
cover other program costs.
[K] This figure relates to costs to administer the program since 1995.
Program grant amounts were not provided.
[L] Annual expenditures were estimated, but this figure represents
total expenditures during the period 1992 through 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE.
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD.
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590.
APR 17 2003:
John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and the Environment U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed General Accounting
Office (GAO) Report Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for
Measuring Progress are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. We
appreciate your staff's efforts to understand the scope and
complexities of the United States Great Lakes Program and we are giving
careful consideration to the draft report. Our comments are outlined
below. We will provide Congress, GAO, and the White House Office of
Management and Budget with a formal response to the final report
recommendations.
We agree with the GAO's call for better planning, coordination,
monitoring, and the development of indicators for measuring the health
of the Great Lakes. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
and its partner State, Tribal, and Federal agencies have taken the
initiative in these areas to establish the fundamental building blocks
for these efforts. I would like to highlight the following four
examples of this work: the establishment of the United States Policy
Committee (USPC), the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) Indicators
development process, the release of the USPC's Great Lakes Strategy
2002, and the development of the multi-partner Lakewide Management
Plans.
In the report, GAO identifies language in Section 118 of the Clean
Water Act which identifies GLNPO's coordinatioe responsibilities for
improving Great Lakes Water Quality. GLNPO responded to this charge by
convening the USPC which is comprised of federal, state, and tribal
agencies with significant natural resource and environmental protection
authorities and responsibilities. While the formation and operation of
the USPC is not backed by a statutory mandate, it has become an
effective vehicle for formulating and implementing priorities of basin-
wide significance for the Great Lakes.
One of the major outcomes from formation of the USPC is the Great Lakes
Strategy 2002, in which GLNPO played a strong leadership role, which
coordinates and streamlines efforts of the many governmental partners
involved with protecting the Great Lakes. The Strategy serves an
important planning and coordination function by focusing on multi-lake
and basin-wide environmental issues, and establishes common goals that
the governmental partners will work
toward. It also advances the implementation of the United States
responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987.
The Strategy supports existing efforts underway, including the Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) and the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas
of Concern, by addressing issues that are beyond the scope of these
programs, and helping integrate them into an overall basinwide context.
It is important to recognize that LaMPs and RAPs work at more focused
geographical scales and are also important mechanisms to coordinate
priorities and actions for the Great Lakes.
We view the Great Lakes Strategy as making significant progress in
Great Lakes planning and coordination, due to its scope and the number
of participating agencies. We believe the Strategy has helped the Great
Lakes Program meet and exceed the requirements for coordination
specified in Section 118 of the Clean Water Act. The Act calls for the
development of plans, programs, and demonstration projects for nutrient
management and the control of toxics pollutants. The Great Lakes
Strategy incorporates these areas and also addresses invasive species,
habitat protection and restoration, sustainable land use, brownfields
redevelopment, minimizing wet weather events, safe beaches, and
implementing best management practices on agricultural lands. These are
areas crucial to Great Lakes protection and restoration, but which are
not specified in Section 118. It is our view that the long term basin-
wide goals, objectives, and environmental indicators in the Strategy
can form a solid foundation for any future ecosystem restoration plan
for the Great Lakes.
One other product created by the USPC, in coordination with our
Canadian colleagues, under the auspices of the Binational Executive
Committee (BEC), is the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) Indicators
development process. This unprecedented binational effort, which
involves many public and private stakeholders, is helping the USPC and
BEC member agencies create a suite of the environmental indicators
necessary and sufficient to inform management decisions. GLNPO has
consistently supported the SOLEC effort and will continue to do so
contingent on available resources.
While we can improve upon the delivery and coordination of our
programs, the scope, geographic scale, the remedial costs involved, and
the interwoven complexities of the environmental issues impacting the
Great Lakes require long-term, complex solutions implemented at a
variety of levels and by many partners. The implementation can be
further complicated by the multi-media nature of the problems
encountered and the inter-agency, inter-jurisdictional, and
international coordination required to implement these actions. Despite
this situation, we continue to make significant environmental progress
in the Great Lakes.
In closing, I want to reiterate EPA's strong commitment to the
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. We have many significant
accomplishments that have improved environmental conditions and we
recognize that the GAO conclusions and recommendations can help ensure
that even more environmental improvements are made.
I appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff on this
project and look forward to offering detailed responses to the
recommendations contained in the report. Should you need additional
information or have further questions, please contact Mr. Gary
Gulezian, Director of EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, at
312-886-4040.
Very truly yours,
Thomas V. Skinner:
Great Lakes National Program Manager:
Signed by Thomas V. Skinner:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John Wanska (312) 220-7628:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the name above, Willie Bailey, Heather Holsinger,
Stephanie Luehr, Karen Keegan, Jonathan McMurray, and Rosemary Torres
Lerma made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Two areas in Canada were restored and removed from the list of
AOCs.
[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to
Define Organizational Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight
and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May
17, 2002).
[3] See U.S. General Accounting Office, A More Comprehensive Approach
Is Needed To Clean Up The Great Lakes, CED-82-83 (Washington D.C.: May
21, 1982).
[4] Indiana does not participate in the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making Process
Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track, GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999).
[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in Developing a Strategic Plan,
but Actions Still Needed, GAO-01-361 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2001).
[7] "Brownfields" are properties with real or perceived environmental
contamination that hampers redevelopment efforts.
[8] See U.S. Policy Committee, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, (p.3), (Feb.
22, 2002).
[9] See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's Great Lakes
Program, EPA/OIG Rept. 99P00212 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 1999).
[10] See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept.
12, 2002).
[11] International Joint Commission, Tenth Biennial Report on Great
Lakes Water Quality, (June 29, 2000).
[12] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to
Define Organizational Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight
and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May
17, 2002).
[13] See IJC, Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (June
29, 2000).
[14] See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept.
12, 2002).
[15] See IJC, Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality,
(Dec. 15, 1993).
[16] See GAO-02-563, cited on p. 53, footnote 12.
[17] SOLEC is co-chaired by representatives from the U.S. EPA and
Environment Canada.
[18] See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept.
12, 2002).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: