    Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring
    Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals
    (30-APR-03, GAO-03-515).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-515
        ACCNO:   A06801
      TITLE:     Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for
    Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals
         DATE:   04/30/2003
      SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring
    	     Environmental policies
    	     International agreements
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Water quality
    	     Water resources conservation
    	     Land management
    	     Great Lakes
    	     Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-515

    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

    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.

    Great Lakes: Largest Body of Freshwater in the World

    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. 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. Highlights of GAO- 03- 515, a report to

    congressional requesters

    April 2003

    GREAT LAKES

    An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed To
    Better Achieve Restoration Goals

    Page i GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes Letter 1 Executive Summary 3 Purpose 3
    Background 3 Results in Brief 4 Principal Findings 6 Recommendations for
    Executive Action 9 Agency Comments 9 Chapter 1 Introduction 11

    The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource 11 EPA*s Great Lakes National Program
    Office Is Responsible for Leading U. S. Efforts to Improve the Great Lakes
    Basin 15 States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great
    Lakes Environmental Activities 17 Significant Environmental Challenges
    Remain to Restore the Great Lakes 18 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20
    Chapter 2 Numerous Federal and State Environmental

    Programs Operate in the Great Lakes Basin 22 Most Programs Operating in
    the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or

    Statewide Focus 22 Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on
    Certain Geographic Areas or Problems 25 Foundations and Other
    Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration Activities 31 Chapter 3
    Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack

    of Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts 35 An Overarching Strategy and
    Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for

    Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects 35 Strategies for the
    Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching Restoration Approach 38 GLNPO
    Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great Lakes
    Restoration Programs 41 Major Planning Efforts Have Not Yielded Extensive
    Restoration Activity because of a Lack of Funding and Other Barriers 44
    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Conclusions 47 Recommendations for Executive Action 47 Agency Comments 48
    Chapter 4 Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress 49 The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
    Calls for a Monitoring

    System to Ensure Objectives Are Met 49 Current Indicators Do Not Provide
    an Adequate Basis for Making an Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress
    51 Conclusions 56 Recommendations for Executive Action 57 Agency Comments
    57 Appendix I Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great

    Lakes Program Information 58

    Appendix II Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001 60

    Appendix III Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the Great
    Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 77

    Appendix IV Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001 80

    Appendix V Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 87

    Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 90

    Page iii GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes Tables

    Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada Affecting
    the Great Lakes 13 Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes 16
    Table 3: Geographic Area, Population, and States for Three

    Restoration Areas 38 Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great
    Lakes Indicators 50 Table 5: Federal Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs 60
    Table 6: State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs 72 Table 7: Federal
    Great Lakes Specific Programs 80 Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific
    Programs 84 Figures

    Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin 12 Figure 2: Pollution
    Sources to the Great Lakes 19 Figure 3: Percentage of Non- Great Lakes
    Specific and Great Lakes Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes
    Basin 22 Figure 4: Federal Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs 23 Figure 5:
    Number of Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal Agency 26 Figure 6:
    Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal
    Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 28 Figure 7: Percentage of
    Expenditures for Specifically Authorized

    Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 29

    Page iv GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes 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

    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. It may contain
    copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
    materials separately from GAO*s product.

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    Executive Summary Page 3 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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 Executive
    Summary

    Purpose Background

    Executive Summary Page 4 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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. Results in Brief

    Executive Summary Page 5 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    Executive Summary Page 6 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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. Principal Findings

    Many Federal and State Programs Fund Restoration Activities in the Great
    Lakes Basin

    Executive Summary Page 7 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Besides federal and state programs, county and municipal organizations,
    binational organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, such as
    nonprofit organizations, fund restoration activities within the basin.

    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 Different Strategies, Lack of Coordination, and

    Limited Funding Impede Restoration Efforts

    Executive Summary Page 8 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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. Insufficient
    Data and

    Measures Prevent Determination of Overall Restoration Progress

    Executive Summary Page 9 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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. Recommendations for

    Executive Action Agency Comments

    Executive Summary Page 10 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 11 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 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.) Chapter 1: Introduction

    The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 12 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin 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

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 13 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 Key provisions

    Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909

     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.

    Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972

     Provides for more effective cooperation to restore and enhance the Great
    Lakes.

     Emphasizes finding solutions to the more obvious water quality problems.
    Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978

     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. Phosphorus
    Load Reduction Supplement to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of

    1978, signed October 16, 1983  Further specifies phosphorus inputs and
    required the preparation and implementation of plans for

    reducing phosphorus. Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
    of 1978, signed November 18, 1987

     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

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 14 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Name of agreement Key provisions

    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. 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. 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. 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.

    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).

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 15 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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: EPA*s Great Lakes

    National Program Office Is Responsible for Leading U. S. Efforts to
    Improve the Great Lakes Basin

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 16 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes Name of statute Key
    provisions

    Water Quality Act of 1987  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. Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
    1990

     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. Great Lakes Legacy Act of

    2002

     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. 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

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 17 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    strategies to improve Great Lakes* water quality. 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, 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.

    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). States and Other

    Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes Environmental Activities

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 18 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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. Significant Environmental

    Challenges Remain to Restore the Great Lakes

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 19 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes

    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.

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 20 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 Objectives, Scope,

    and Methodology

    Chapter 1: Introduction Page 21 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 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 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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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:

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

     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. 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.) Great Lakes Specific

    Environmental Programs Focus on Certain Geographic Areas or Problems

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Figure 5: Number of Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal Agency

    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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.)

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Figure 6: Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific Programs by
    Federal Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

    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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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

    4 Indiana does not participate in the Great Lakes Protection Fund.

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    about $40 million. These grants were awarded from the remaining twothirds
    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.

    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, Foundations and

    Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration Activities

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

     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

    Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State Environmental Programs Operate in
    the Great Lakes Basin

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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.

    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. 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

    Overarching Strategies Are Essential to Guide Restoration Efforts

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 36 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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, 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

    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).

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.)

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Table 3: Geographic Area, Population, and States for Three Restoration
    Areas Restoration area

    Area size (in square miles) Area population Number of

    affected states

    Great Lakes Basin 201,000 33 million 8 Chesapeake Bay watershed 64,000 16
    million 6 South Florida ecosystem 18,000 6 million 1

    Sources: Environment Canada, EPA, and GAO.

    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 Strategies for the

    Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching Restoration Approach

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 39 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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.*
    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.

    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).

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 40 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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
    Additional Strategies

    Focus on Specific Issues or Geographic Areas

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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 GLNPO Has
    Not Fully

    Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great Lakes Restoration Programs

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    resources. The absence of these agreements was also reported in a
    September 1999 report by EPA*s Office of Inspector General. 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

    9 See U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA*s Great Lakes Program,
    EPA/ OIG Rept. 99P00212 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 1, 1999).

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 43 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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
    highlevel 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,

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 44 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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
    faceto- face meetings.

    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.

    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.
    10 Moreover, the IJC stated in 2000 that the Great Lakes ecosystem remains

    compromised and that contaminated sediments in the lakes produce health
    problems. 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

    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). Major Planning

    Efforts Have Not Yielded Extensive Restoration Activity because of a Lack
    of Funding and Other Barriers

    Limited Restoration Progress after Many Years of Planning

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 45 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    all areas had defined their respective environmental problems. 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.

    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. 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. 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. 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. 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:
    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. Lack of
    Funding Is a Key

    Barrier to Achieving Restoration Progress

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 46 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

     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.

    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 Other Significant Barriers

    Exist for Restoration Progress

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 47 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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.

    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
    Conclusions

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack of
    Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts

    Page 48 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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. Agency
    Comments

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 49 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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). 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

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 50 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great Lakes Indicators
    Measurement Desired outcome

    Fishability No restrictions on the human consumption of fish resulting
    from the input of persistent toxic substances. Swimmability No public
    beaches closed or swimming restrictions

    imposed because of human activities. Drinkability Treated drinking water
    is safe for human consumption,

    and there are no restrictions because of human activities. Healthy human
    populations 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. Economic viability The regional economy is viable and
    sustainable and

    provides adequate sustenance and dignity for the basin population.
    Biological community integrity and diversity 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. Virtual
    elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances

    The virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances into the
    Great Lakes.

    Absence of excess phosphorus The absence of excess phosphorus entering the

    watersheds because of human behavior. Physical environment integrity 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. 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) 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
    17 SOLEC is co- chaired by representatives from the U. S. EPA and
    Environment Canada.

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 51 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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. 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.

    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 Current
    Indicators Do

    Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making an Overall Assessment of
    Restoration Progress

    Recent Assessments of Environmental Conditions Rely on Limited Data

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 52 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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,

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 53 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    drinkability, and the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes. 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.

    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

    18 See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept. 12,
    2002). Successful Development

    and Assessment of Indicators Are Difficult to Discern

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 54 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 55 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.
    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 Federal and
    State

    Programs Measure Progress in Several Ways, Often Citing Outputs Rather
    than Outcomes

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 56 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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
    Conclusions

    Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to Determine
    Overall Restoration Progress

    Page 57 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Recommendations for

    Executive Action Agency Comments

    Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great Lakes Program
    Information

    Page 58 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes 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

    Illinois

     Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Appendix I: Federal and State
    Agencies That

    Provided Great Lakes Program Information Federal agencies

    State agencies

    Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great Lakes Program
    Information

    Page 59 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes 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

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 60 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 Purpose

    Program expenditures

    (1992- 2001) a Army Corps of Engineers

    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration This restoration program funds the planning,
    design, and construction of projects to restore and enhance aquatic
    ecosystems. Program activities began in 1998.

    $2,243,800 a Beneficial Use of Dredged Material 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.

    $384,600 c Cleaning and Snagging 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.

    $4,000 Confined Disposal Facilities 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.

    $72,696,140 Emergency Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection 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. $8,086,400

    Environmental Dredging 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. $670,700 b

    Environmental Improvements 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.

    $13,016,400 d Flood Plain Management Services Created in 1960, this
    program provides flood plain information and technical assistance to
    states and local communities. $4,784,500 Planning Assistance to States
    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.

    $3,123,500 Shore Protection 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. $1,038,000

    Small Flood Control Projects This program, which was created in 1948,
    funds activities related to the planning, design, and construction of
    projects to reduce flood damages. $11,375,100 Small Navigation Projects
    Created in 1960, the purpose of this program is to plan, design, and

    construct projects to improve navigation. $7,871,000 Tribal Partnership
    Program 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.

    f

    Department of Agriculture- Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

    Agricultural Research Service Research Units 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.

    $2,293,700

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 61 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a Department of Agriculture- Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)

    Hatch Act Research Program 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.

    $4,582,000 e Integrated Activities Program This program supports
    integrated research, education, and extension on

    critical agricultural issues. Program activities began in 2000.
    $11,081,000 e McIntire- Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program 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. $140,000 e National Research Initiative Program 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.

    $433,000 e Small Business Innovation Research Program 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. $383,000 e

    Special Research Grants Program 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.

    $1,675,000 e

    Department of Agriculture- Farm Services Agency (FSA)

    Conservation Reserve Program 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.

    $540,718,000 Emergency Conservation Program 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.

    $4,670,000

    Department of Agriculture- Forest Service (FS)

    Atmospheric Ecosystem Interactions at Multiple Scales 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.

    f Cooperative Forestry 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.

    f Forest Health Management 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.

    f Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Management The purpose of this
    program, which dates back to the 1930s, is to connect

    people to the land by providing recreational settings and services.
    $36,685,000 g Soil, Water, and Air Management 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. $8,939,000 g

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 62 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Watershed, Lake, Riparian and Stream Analysis, and Restoration 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.

    $165,000 h Wildland Fire Management 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.

    f Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Resources Management 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.

    $24,486,000 g

    Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

    Environmental Quality Incentives Program 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.

    f Farmland Protection Program 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.

    f National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) 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.

    f Plant Materials for Conservation/ Plant Materials 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.

    f Resource Conservation and Development 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.

    f River Basin Studies, Watershed Surveys and Planning, and Watershed
    Protection and Flood Prevention

    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.

    f Soil and Water Conservation/ Conservation Technical Assistance

    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.

    f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 63 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Wetland Reserve Program 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.

    f Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 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.

    f

    Department of Commerce- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA)

    Coastal Mapping/ Mapping and Charting Program This program is part of the
    National Geodetic Survey. The primary mission of this program is to define
    the shoreline for nautical charts.

    f Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal Change and Analysis Program 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.

    $458,000 i Coastal Zone Management Program 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.

    $107,906,394 j Geodesy Program 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.

    f Landscape Characterization and Restoration Program 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. f

    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) NERRS is a network of
    protected areas established to promote informed management of the nation's
    coastal and estuarine habitats. This statefederal partnership accomplishes
    this through linked programs of scientific understanding, education, and
    stewardship. This research program began in 1972.

    $2,174,000 National Sea Grant College Program 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.

    $69,600,000 National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Project 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.

    $240,000 National Weather Service (NWS) 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.

    f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 64 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Office of Response and Restoration - Coastal Protection and Restoration
    Division

    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).

    f Office of Response and Restoration - Damage Assessment Center 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.

    f Office of Response and Restoration - Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) 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.

    f

    Department of Interior- Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

    Aquatic Nuisance Species Regional Coordination and Technical Assistance

    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. $808,900 Aquatic Nuisance
    Species Surveillance and Control 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.

    $3,659,400 Endangered Species Program 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.

    $4,078,500 l Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance - Great Lakes
    Operations

    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. $5,915,000 La Crosse
    Fish Health Center 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.

    $3,057,545 National Fish Passage Program This program restores native fish
    and other aquatic species to selfsustaining 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. $268,500 n

    Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program 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.

    $2,496,000 (m)( o)

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 65 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    New York Aquatic Resource Management 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.

    $197,032 p New York Natural Resource Management Program 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.

    $174,204 q Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Private Lands Program) 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.

    $5,240,000 m

    Department of Interior- U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)

    Biological Information Management Delivery 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.

    $1,653,800 m Biological Research and Monitoring 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.

    $10,078,775 d Coastal and Marine Geology 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.

    f Cooperative Research Units Program 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.

    $6,250,000 r Cooperative Topographic Mapping (CTM) Program 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.

    f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 66 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Cooperative Water Program 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.

    f Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program 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.

    f Land Remote Sensing Program 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. f

    Mineral Resources Program 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.

    f National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 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. f National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program 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.

    $16,039,000 r National Water Use Information Program 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.

    f USGS Ground- Water Resources Program 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.

    $60,000 i USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program 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. f Water Resource Research
    Act Programs 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.

    f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 67 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Earth Surface Dynamics Program - Central Great Lakes Geologic Mapping
    Coalition

    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.

    $2,977,000 p

    Department of Homeland Security- Coast Guard

    National Invasive Species Act/ Ballast Water Program Under this program,
    the Secretary of Transportation issues national

    guidelines to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into U.
    S. waters by ships. $8,000,000 s

    Oil Spill Removal Organization Program 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.

    f

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Air Program 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.

    f Aquatic Stressors Research Program 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.

    f Children's Health Program 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.

    f Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Monitoring and Section 106 Grants

    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. Section 106 Grants awards grants
    to states and to eligible Indian tribes as base program support to
    maintain their surface water and groundwater programs.

    f Clean Water State Revolving Fund 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.

    f Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 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.

    f Environmental Justice Small Grants 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.

    $256,047 m

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 68 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention Grants 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.

    f Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 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.

    f Food Quality Protection Act/ Strategic Agricultural Initiative 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.

    f Global Climate Change Research Program 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.

    f Indian Environmental General Assistance Program This 1992 program
    assists federally recognized Indian tribes and nations to build their
    overall capacity to manage environmental programs and conduct

    activities. f

    National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 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.

    f Non- Point Source Program The purpose of this program is to attain the
    goals of the CWA. This

    restoration and pollution prevention program started in 1987. f

    Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Program 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.

    f Pollution Prevention (P2) Demonstration Grants 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.

    f Pollution Prevention for States Grant Program 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.

    f Public Water Supply Program 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.

    f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 69 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Brownfields 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.

    f RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement and Compliance Program 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. f RCRA Subtitle C
    Hazardous Waste Management Program Support 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.

    f RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Program 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.

    f RCRA Subtitle C Permitting 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.

    f RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Assistance Program/ Jobs Through
    Recycling Initiative

    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.

    f RCRA Subtitle D Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants 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. f

    RCRA Subtitle I Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage
    Tanks

    This program regulates the use of underground storage tanks and requires
    cleanup of releases and spills. This cleanup program started in 1989. f

    Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)/ Environmental Priorities Program
    (EPP) 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.

    $6,753,937 t State and Tribal Environmental Justice (EJ) Program 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.

    f Superfund 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. $749,149,250 u

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 70 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Total Maximum Daily Load Program 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.

    f Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants 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.

    f Underground Injection Control The program was created to protect
    underground sources of drinking water

    by controlling underground injection. This is a pollution prevention
    program. f

    Waste Pesticide Collection Program (Agricultural Clean Sweep or Waste
    Pesticide Disposal)

    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.
    $194,000 j Water Quality Management Planning 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. f

    Water Quality Standards Program 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.

    f Wetlands 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.

    $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.

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 71 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 72 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Table 6 contains a listing of the non- Great Lakes specific programs
    managed by state agencies.

    Table 6: State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs Program name Purpose

    Program expenditures

    (1992- 2001) a Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

    Lake and River Enhancement Program 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.

    b

    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Michigan State
    University Forestry Department Dendroremediation 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. $594,888

    Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR)

    Comprehensive Local Water Planning Challenge Grant Program 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.

    $428,732 c Erosion, Sediment Control, and Water Quality Cost- Share
    Program 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.

    $1,293,298 c Lakeshore Engineering Program 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. $976,313 d Local Water Planning and Wetland
    Conservation Act 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. $3,205,505 e

    Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC)

    Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund) 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.

    $18,514,720 f

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 73 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
    (MDNR)

    Conservation Partnership Program 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.

    b Environmental Partnership Grant Program 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.

    b

    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

    Basin Planning 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.

    $175,000 g Clean Water Partnership 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.

    $2,613,798 h Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act 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.

    $864,410 h Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Program (Closed Landfill Program)
    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.

    $485,135 i Minnesota Mercury Initiative 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.

    b Voluntary Petroleum Investigation and Cleanup 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.

    b

    New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)

    Clean Water and Clean Air Bond Act 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.

    $428,820,724 j

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 74 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a

    Environmental Protection Act and Fund 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.

    $97,154,829 j Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Environmental
    Conservation Fund

    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.

    $2,500,000 j New York State Environmental Quality Protection Fund
    (Superfund) 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.

    k

    Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)

    Dam Safety 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.

    b Ground Water Resources 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.

    b Hydraulic/ Canal Operations 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.

    b Pollution Abatement Cost Share 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.

    b Water Inventory and Stream and Water Gauging 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.

    b Water Planning 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.

    b

    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)

    Clean Ohio Fund 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. b

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 75 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
    Protection (PDEP)

    Growing Greener Grant Program 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.

    $700,000 l Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Program 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.

    $938,000 m

    Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC)

    Brownfields Grant Program 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.

    b

    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

    Dry Cleaner Fund 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.

    b Runoff Management Program 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.

    b Site Assessment Grants 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.

    b State Funded Response Program (Environmental Repair) 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.

    b Sustainable Urban Development Zone Program 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. $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.

    Appendix II: Federal and State Non- Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal
    Years 1992 through 2001

    Page 76 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the Great
    Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 Page 77 GAO- 03- 515 Great
    Lakes

    State Project title Program description Amount Illinois Des Plaines River,
    Ill. 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.

    $2,496,507 Kankakee River Basin Flood damage reduction 1,591,856 Illinois
    Shore Erosion 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.

    254,177 Chicago River North Branch 1946 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.

    64,100 Southeast Chicago, Ill. Flood damage reduction 595,800 Waukegan
    Harbor, Ill. Flood damage reduction 338,128 Casino Beach, Ill. Erosion
    control * The purpose of this project is providing

    erosion control. 2,111,815 Illinois Beach State Park 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.

    160,640 McCook & Thornton Reservoir Flood damage reduction 32,770,600
    Kankakee River Icebreaker Flood damage reduction 9,200 North Branch
    Chicago River Flood damage reduction 6,754,844 O'Hare Reservoir Flood
    damage reduction 28,088,930 Chicago Shoreline Streambank and shoreline
    protection 93,824,976 Illinois & Michigan Canal Navigation improvements
    307,100 Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Ecosystem restoration 1,778,721 Des
    Plaines Wetlands Project Flood damage reduction 183,308

    $171,330,702 Indiana

    Beauty Creek Watershed, Ind. Flood damage reduction $95,900 Deep River
    Basin, Ind. Flood damage reduction 68,600 Long Lake, Ind. Ecosystem
    restoration 75,000 Hammond, Ind. Streambank and shoreline protection
    42,000 Little Calumet River Basin, Dyer, Ind. Flood damage reduction

    310,700 Little Calumet River Basin Township Flood damage reduction

    82,900 Lake George Flood damage reduction 1,117,300 Little Calumet River,
    Cady Marsh Ditch Flood damage reduction 1,355,588 Indiana Shore Erosion
    Erosion control 8,239,944 Little Calumet River Flood damage reduction
    78,770,000 Indiana Harbor CDF Navigation improvements 1,297,300

    Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the Great
    Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001

    Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the Great
    Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 Page 78 GAO- 03- 515 Great
    Lakes

    State Project title Program description Amount

    Burns Waterway Harbor, Ind. Navigation improvements 13,384,194 Calumet
    Region, Ind. a Environmental infrastructure 58,903 Wolf Lake, Ind.
    Ecosystem restoration 98,700 Fort Wayne Metro Area, Ind. Flood damage
    reduction 33,944,000

    $138,941,029 Michigan

    Clinton River Spillway, Mich. Flood damage reduction $2,403,300 Cedar
    River Harbor, Mich. Navigation improvements 193,000 Great Lakes Connecting
    Channels & Harbors, Mich. Navigation improvements 300,800 Great Lakes
    Connecting Channels & Harbors Replacement Lock, Mich.

    Navigation improvements 2,740,000

    $5,637,100 Minnesota

    Silver Bay Harbor, Minn. Navigation improvements $2,600,100 Knife River
    Harbor, Minn. Navigation improvements 116,000 Duluth- Superior Harbor,
    Minn. & Wisc. Navigation improvements

    645,400

    $3,361,500 New York

    New York State Barge Canal Navigation improvements $25,479 Onondaga Lake,
    N. Y. a Environmental infrastructure 4,169,999 Onondaga Lake, N. Y. PL
    101- 596 Environmental infrastructure 2,864,213 Olcott Harbor, N. Y.
    Navigation improvements 1,056,243 Buffalo Flood and Water Quality
    Environmental infrastructure 435,987 Ellicott Creek, N. Y. Flood damage
    reduction 131,307 Oneida Lake, N. Y. The purpose of this project is
    ecosystem restoration and flood

    damage reduction. 68,881 Hamlin and Lakeside Beach State Park Stream bank
    and shoreline protection 47,887

    $8,799,996 Ohio

    Cleveland Harbor Recon Study Navigation improvements $292,994 Cleveland
    Harbor Phase I Navigation improvements 4,001,960 Reno Beach, Howard Farms
    Flood damage reduction 4,357,730 Ottawa River, Ohio Navigation
    improvements 183,000 Ohio Infrastructure a Environmental infrastructure
    160,840 Maumee River, Ohio Flood damage reduction 102,037 Western Lake
    Erie Basin The purpose of this project is flood damage reduction and

    ecosystem restoration. 67,164 Cayuga Creek Watershed Flood damage
    reduction 25,868 Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio Flood damage reduction
    71,722

    $9,263,315

    Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects in the Great
    Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 Page 79 GAO- 03- 515 Great
    Lakes

    State Project title Program description Amount Pennsylvania Presque Isle,
    Penn. Permanent Stream bank and shoreline protection $15,295,637

    Erie Harbor, East Canal Basin, Penn. Environmental infrastructure
    5,480,000

    $20,775,637 Wisconsin

    Wisconsin had one project that was jointly shared with Minnesota. 0

    Total $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.

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 80 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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 Program name Purpose

    Program expenditures

    (1992- 2001) a Army Corps of Engineers

    Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration 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.

    b Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation This program
    was started in 1990 to plan, design, and construct

    research demonstration projects of promising technologies for contaminated
    sediment remediation.

    c Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation Support 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.

    $2,595,600 d Great Lakes Tributary Models 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.

    $1,103,424

    Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service

    Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 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.

    $3,625,000 e Department of Commerce- National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration Episodic Events, Great Lakes Experiment 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.

    $3,792,000 f Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 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.

    $63,401,000 g Department of Health and Human Services- Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry

    Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program 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.

    $24,400,000 h Department of Interior- Fish and Wildlife Service

    1836 Fisheries Treaty - Implementation of the August 7, 2000 Consent
    Decree 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

    $695,000

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 81 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a Superior, Huron, and Michigan.

    Blue Pike Activities in the Great Lakes 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.

    i Ecosystem Management in the Lower Great Lakes 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.

    i Evaluation and Restoration of Great Lakes Estuaries and Tributaries 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.

    i Great Lakes Coastal Program 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.

    $500,000 j Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act 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. $10,512,000 k Great Lakes Lake
    Sturgeon Rehabilitation Program 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.

    $246,650 l Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program This
    research program was started in 1993 to determine the

    feasibility of re- introducing/ restoring Atlantic salmon to the Lake
    Ontario watershed.

    i Lake Ontario/ St. Lawrence River American Eel Restoration Program 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.

    i Lower Great Lakes Lake Trout Restoration Program 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.

    i Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance Program 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.

    $241,439 m National Fish Hatchery System - Great Lakes Operations 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.

    $18,205,000

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 82 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a New York State Canal System Aquatic

    Nuisance Species Program 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.

    $221,342 n Department of Interior- National Park Service

    Midwest Region - Great Lakes Strategic Plan Activities 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.

    $6,127,000 o Environmental Protection Agency

    Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 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.

    p Coastal Environmental Management 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. $59,100,000 Funding
    Guidance - Competitive Grants 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.

    p Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant Program 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. $11,135,500

    Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 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.

    p Lakewide Management Plans 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 p

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 83 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a pollution prevention program. Monitoring
    Program 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.

    p Niagara River and New York State Areas of Concern 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.

    $2,086,250 Niagara River Toxics Management Plan 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.

    $11,150,000 RCRA Subtitle C State Program Support - Great Lakes Initiative
    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.

    $22,009,710 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 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.

    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.

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 84 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    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.

    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 Program name Purpose

    Program expenditures

    (1992- 2001) a Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

    Illinois Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) 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. $5,000,000

    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 1988 Quality of Life
    Bond Fund 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.

    $492,000,000 c Clean Michigan Initiative 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.

    $255,900,000 d Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) 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.

    $5,199,601 f Part 201 Programs 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.

    $169,000,000

    Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

    Fisheries Research in Great Lakes and Inland Waters This program funds
    research projects on fisheries populations, habitats, and anglers. The
    Fisheries Division of MDEQ began e

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 85 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a funding this research in the 1930s, and
    overtime it has grown in

    scope, with Great Lakes fisheries research stations opening in the early
    1970s.

    Minnesota State Planning Agency (MSPA)

    Minnesota Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) 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.

    $987,000 g New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)

    New York Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) 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.

    $1,494,053 h Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)

    Great Lakes Charter Programs 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.

    $600,000 Shore Structure Permit Program 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.

    i Submerged Lands Leasing 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. $2,084,296 j Ohio
    Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)

    Ohio Lake Erie Commission/ Lake Erie Protection Fund (Ohio Great Lakes
    Protection Fund - GLPF)

    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.

    $6,943,894

    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP)

    Pennsylvania Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) The Pennsylvania GLPF
    provides grants to fund education, research, and monitoring activities.
    $253,721 Pennsylvania's Office of the Great Lakes 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 $700,000 k

    Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years
    1992 through 2001

    Page 86 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Program name Purpose Program

    expenditures (1992- 2001) a offices that provide the projects* funding.

    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

    Great Lakes Harbors and Bays Restoration Funding 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.

    $2,316,271 Wisconsin Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) 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. $2,224,914

    Great Lakes Salmon and Trout Stamp Program 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.

    $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.

    Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Page 87 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Page 88 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

    Page 89 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 90 GAO- 03- 515 Great Lakes

    John Wanska (312) 220- 7628 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. Appendix VI:
    GAO Contact and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments

    (360170)

    The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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.

    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 fulltext 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.

    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

    Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
    fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
    512- 7470 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 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

    GAO Reports and Testimony

    Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
    Programs Public Affairs
    *** End of document. ***