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. ***