Great Lakes: A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring System
Are Needed to Achieve Restoration Goals (16-JUL-03, GAO-03-999T).
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 the 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-03-999T
ACCNO: A07566
TITLE: Great Lakes: A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring
System Are Needed to Achieve Restoration Goals
DATE: 07/16/2003
SUBJECT: Environmental monitoring
Federal aid programs
Federal funds
Program management
State programs
Water pollution control
Water quality
Federal/state relations
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-03-999T
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT Wednesday, July
16, 2003 GREAT LAKES
A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring System Are Needed to Achieve
Restoration Goals
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and
Environment
GAO- 03- 999T
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs
are nationwide or statewide programs that do not specifically focus on the
Great Lakes. 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. Although Great Lakes funding is not routinely tracked
for many of these programs, we identified a total of about $3.7 billion in
basinspecific projects for fiscal years 1992 through 2001. 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. Without an overarching plan
for these strategies, it is difficult to determine overall progress. The
Water Quality Act of 1987 charged EPA*s Great Lakes National Program
Office with the responsibility for coordinating federal actions for
improving the Great Lakes* water quality, however, it has not fully
exercised this authority 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 the 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 recommended in its April
2003 report that the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
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- 999T. 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- 999T, a report to the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce
and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
July 16, 2003
GREAT LAKES
A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring System Are Needed to Achieve
Restoration Goals
Page 1 GAO- 03- 999T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here
today to discuss our work on environmental restoration activities in the
Great Lakes Basin. As you know, the Great Lakes represent the largest
system of freshwater in the world and a natural resource that is
threatened on many environmental fronts. To protect this resource and to
address common water quality problems, the United States and Canada
entered into the bilateral Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in
1972. However, today, more than three decades after the original agreement
was signed, beaches are frequently closed to swimmers due to pollution,
fish are unsafe for high risk individuals to eat, and raw sewage is still
being dumped into the lakes.
Progress has been made on a number of significant fronts, including
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, including ours, have questioned whether the
current environmental activities in the Great Lakes being funded by
numerous organizations and various programs have resulted in significant
restoration progress in the basin, or even whether they are adequate to
fulfill the United States commitments under the agreement. In 2002, we
reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to take
action to improve its oversight for cleaning up specifically designated
contaminated areas. 1 My testimony today is based on our April 2003
report, which was prepared at the request of 14 members of Congress* Great
Lakes Task Force. Specifically, GAO was asked 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 efforts thus far. In summary, Mr. Chairman,
we found the following:
1 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).
Page 2 GAO- 03- 999T
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these are
nationwide or statewide programs that do not specifically focus on the
Great Lakes, but do fund projects that help clean up the basin. We could
not determine the total Great Lakes specific funding contributions from
these programs, because funds are not typically tracked for specific areas
such as the basin. However, based on partial information available from 11
federal agencies and 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states, we determined that at
least $1.8 billion in federal funding and $461.3 million in state funding
went
to basin- related projects in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. In addition,
there were 33 federal programs focused specifically on the Great Lakes
Basin, for which about $387 million was spent in fiscal years 1992 through
2001, and the states funded 17 additional Great Lakes specific programs,
for which about $956 million was expended during the same general time
period.
The numerous restoration programs operating 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 these disparate strategies and
program activities into a coherent approach for attaining overall basin
restoration
goals. Without such a plan for the basin, it is difficult to determine
overall progress and ensure that limited resources are being used
effectively. Other large- scale ecosystem restoration efforts, such as
those for the Chesapeake Bay and the South Florida ecosystem, have
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.
The absence of a unified Great Lakes restoration effort stems, in part,
from the lack of an effective, authoritative organizational entity for
planning, monitoring, and establishing funding priorities. The Clean Water
Quality Act of 1987 charged EPA*s Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) with the responsibility for coordinating federal actions for
improving the Great Lakes* water quality. However, GLNPO has not fully
exercised this authority. For example, it has not entered into agreements
with other agency organizations regarding their restoration
responsibilities, as required by the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the lack of consistent, reliable information and
measurement indicators makes it impossible to comprehensively assess
restoration progress in the Great Lakes Basin. While the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement long ago called for the development and implementation
of a
Page 3 GAO- 03- 999T
monitoring system, this requirement has not yet been met. Furthermore, any
effort to develop indicators must rely on limited quantitative data and
subjective judgments to determine whether conditions are improving. In
1996, a binational effort was initiated to develop a set of overall
indicators for the Great Lakes through a series of biennial conferences,
but the ultimate success of this effort, which relies on the volunteer
contributions of several organizations, is uncertain at best.
To improve coordination and help ensure that funds are spent effectively,
we recommended that the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
(1) charge GLNPO with the responsibility for developing an overarching
Great Lakes strategy with specific goals and priorities for evaluating and
funding alternative projects, (2) submit a proposal to Congress for
funding the plan, and (3) develop environmental indicators and a
monitoring system that can be used to measure overall restoration
progress. EPA generally agreed with our conclusions but stated that it
would provide a formal response to our recommendations at a later date.
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.
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.
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 their 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 and amended in 1983 and
1987. The agreement prescribes prevention and cleanup measures to
Background
Page 4 GAO- 03- 999T
improve environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. The agreement
obligates the International Joint Commission (IJC), an international body,
to assist in and report on 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 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 responsibilities of the U. S. 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. About
200 programs* 148 federal and 51 state* fund restoration activities within
the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs, however, involve the
localized application of national or state environmental initiatives and
do not specifically focus on basin concerns. Officials from 11 federal
agencies identified 115 of these broadly scoped federal programs, and
officials from seven of the eight 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 these broadly scoped federal and state
programs contribute to basin restoration, program officials do not track
or try to isolate the portion of funding directed toward specific areas,
such as the basin, which makes it difficult to determine their
contributions to total
Great Lakes spending. However, basin- specific information was available
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. Expenditures for 14 broadly scoped
statefunded programs totaled $461.3 million during approximately the same
time period.
Several federal and state programs were specifically designed to focus on
environmental conditions across the Great Lakes Basin. Officials from
seven federal agencies identified 33 Great Lakes specific programs that
had expenditures of $387 million in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Most
of these programs funded a variety of activities, such as research,
cleanup, or pollution prevention. An additional $358 million was expended
for Many Federal and
State Programs Fund Restoration Activities in the Great Lakes Basin
Page 5 GAO- 03- 999T
legislatively directed Corps of Engineers projects in the basin, such as a
$93.8 million project to restore Chicago*s shoreline. Officials from seven
states reported 17 Great Lakes specific programs that expended about $956
million in 1992 through 2001, with Michigan*s programs accounting for 96
percent of this amount. State programs focused on unique state needs, such
as Ohio*s program to control shoreline erosion along Lake Erie and
Michigan*s program to provide bond funding for environmental
activities. Besides federal and state government agencies, other
organizations, such as foundations, fund a variety of restoration
activities in the Great Lakes Basin by approving grants to nonprofit and
other organizations. Other governmental and nongovernmental organizations
fund restoration activities. For example, individual municipalities,
township governments, counties, and conservation districts are involved in
various restoration activities.
Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin is a major endeavor involving many
environmental programs and organizations. The magnitude of the area
comprising the basin and the numerous environmental programs operating
within it require the development of one overarching strategy to address
and manage the complexities of restoring the basin*s environmental health.
The Great Lakes region cannot hope to successfully receive support as a
national priority without a 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 the various programs
operating in the basin more challenging.
The Great Lakes Basin needs a comprehensive strategy or plan similar to
the plans developed for other large ecosystem restoration efforts, such as
those for the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay. In South
Florida, federal, state, local and tribal organizations joined forces to
participate on a centralized task force formalized in the Water Resource
Development Act of 1996. The strategic plan developed for the South
Florida ecosystem by the task force made substantial progress in guiding
the restoration activities. The plan identifies the resources needed to
achieve restoration and assigns accountability for specific actions for
the extensive restoration effort, estimated to cost $14.8 billion. The
Chesapeake Bay watershed also has an overarching restoration strategy
stemming from a 1983 agreement signed by Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; The
Lack of a
Coordinated, Overarching Strategic Plan Has Impeded Restoration Efforts
Page 6 GAO- 03- 999T
and EPA. The implementation of this strategy has resulted in improvements
in habitat restoration and aquatic life, such as increases in bay grasses
and in the shad population.
Several organizations have developed strategies for the basin at the
binational, federal, or state levels that address either the entire basin
or the specific problems in the Great Lakes. EPA*s 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 told us that the states had already planned the actions
described in it, but that these actions were contingent on funding for
specific environmental programs. The strategy included a statement 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, we identified other strategies that addressed particular
contaminants, the restoration of individual lakes, or the cleanup of
contaminated areas. Ad hoc coordination takes place among federal
agencies, states, and other
environmental organizations in developing these strategies or when
programmatic activity calls for coordination.
Other Great Lakes strategies address unique environmental problems or
specific geographical areas. For example, a strategy for each lake
addresses the 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. However, EPA
has not used the LaMPs to assess the overall health of the ecosystem.
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, tribes and the
province of Ontario work toward the virtual elimination of persistent
toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The strategy was designed to address
particular substances that bioaccumulate in fish or animals and pose a
human health risk.
Page 7 GAO- 03- 999T
Michigan developed a strategy for environmental cleanup called the Clean
Michigan Initiative. This initiative provides funding 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.
Although there are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing, no
one organization coordinates restoration efforts. We found that extensive
strategizing, planning, and coordinating have not resulted in significant
restoration. Thus, the ecosystem remains compromised and contaminated
sediments in the lakes produce health problems, as reported by the IJC. 2
In addition to the absence of a coordinating agency, federal and state
officials cited a lack of funding commitments as a principal barrier that
impedes restoration progress. Inadequate funding has also contributed to
the failure to restore and protect the Great Lakes, according to the IJC
biennial report on Great Lakes water quality issued in July 2000. 3 The
IJC restated this position in a 2002 report, concluding that any progress
to restore the Great Lakes would continue at a slow incremental pace
without increased funding. 4 In its 1993 biennial report, the IJC
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. 5
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. 6 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.
2 See IJC, Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (June 29,
2000). 3 See IJC Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (June
29, 2000). 4 See IJC, Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality (Sept. 12, 2002). 5 See IJC, Seventh Biennial Report on Great
Lakes Water Quality (Dec. 15, 1993). 6 See GAO- 02- 563.
Page 8 GAO- 03- 999T
The ultimate responsibility for coordinating Great Lakes restoration
programs rests with GLNPO; however, GLNPO has not fully exercised this
authority. Other organizations or committees have been formed to assume
coordination and strategy development roles. The Clean Water Act
provides GLNPO with the authority to fulfill the responsibilities of the
U. S. under the GLWQA. Specifically, the act directs EPA to coordinate the
actions of EPA*s headquarters and regional offices aimed at improving
Great Lakes water quality. It also provides GLNPO 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.
The act also provides that the EPA Administrator shall ensure that GLNPO
enters into agreements with the various organizational elements of the
agency engaged in Great Lakes activities and with appropriate state
agencies. The agreements should specifically delineate the duties and
responsibilities, time periods for carrying out duties, and resources
committed to these duties. GLNPO officials stated that they do not enter
into formal agreements with other EPA offices but rather fulfill their
responsibilities under the act by having federal agencies and state
officials agree to the restoration activities contained in the Great Lakes
Strategy 2002. However, the strategy does not represent formal agreements
to conduct specific duties and responsibilities with committed resources.
EPA*s Office of Inspector General reported the absence of these agreements
in September 1999. 7 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.
To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that federal
dollars are effectively spent, we recommended 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.
7 See U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA*s Great Lakes Program,
EPA/ OIG Rept. 99P00212 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 1, 1999).
Page 9 GAO- 03- 999T
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended in 1987, calls for
establishing a monitoring system to measure restoration progress and
assess the degree to which the United States and Canada are complying with
the goals and objectives of the agreement. However, 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) 8 initiated in 1994 for developing indicators agreed upon by
conference participants.
Prior to the 1987 amendments to the GLWQA, 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 gave this responsibility to the United
States and Canada. 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), which
involved a network of 15 air- monitoring stations located throughout the
basin.
With the surveillance and monitoring efforts languishing, IJC established
the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force in 1993 to identify the
appropriate framework to evaluate progress in the Great Lakes. In 1996,
the task force proposed that nine desired measurements and outcomes be
used to develop indicators for measuring progress in the Great Lakes.
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
environmental conditions to measure progress under the agreement. Besides
assessing environmental conditions, the conferences were focused on
achieving three other objectives, including providing a forum for
communication and networking among stakeholders. Conference
8 SOLEC is co- chaired by representatives from the U. S. EPA and
Environment Canada. The Lack of an
Effective Monitoring System Makes it Impossible to Assess Overall
Restoration Progress
Page 10 GAO- 03- 999T
participants included U. S. and Canadian representatives from federal,
state, provincial, and tribal agencies, as well as from other
organizations with environmental restoration or pollution prevention
interests in the Great Lakes Basin. The 1994 SOLEC conference 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. This same assessment
was
echoed in the 1997 state of the lakes report. Meanwhile the IJC agreed
that the nine desired outcome areas recommended by the task force would
help assess overall progress. It recommended that SOLEC, during the
conference in 2000, establish environmental indicators that would allow
the IJC to evaluate what had been accomplished and what needed to be done
for three of the nine indicators* the public*s ability to eat the fish,
drink the water, and swim in the water without any restrictions. However,
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 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. After the SOLEC 2000
conference, IJC staff assessed the indicators supported by data that
measured the desired outcomes of swimmability, drinkability, and the
edibility of fish in the Great Lakes. 9 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 throughout the Great Lakes Basin 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, 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 by conference participants increased
9 See IJC, Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (Sept.
12, 2002).
Page 11 GAO- 03- 999T
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 no entity is
coordinating the data collection. Even though 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
voluntary 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. 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 has neither the authority nor
the responsibility to direct the data collection activities of federal,
state, and local agencies as they relate to the surveillance and
monitoring of technical data elements that are needed to develop,
implement, and assess Great Lakes environmental indicators. 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 submitting this information would leave
a gap in the SOLEC indicator process.
EPA supports the development of environmental indicators as evidenced by
the fact that, since 1994, GLNPO has provided about $100,000 annually to
sponsor the SOLEC 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,
however, 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:
Page 12 GAO- 03- 999T
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.
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.
Program officials frequently cite output data as measures of success
rather
than actual program accomplishments in improving environmental conditions
in the basin. As a rule, program output data describe activities, such as
projects funded, and are of limited value in determining environmental
progress. For example, in reporting the accomplishments for Michigan*s
Great Lakes Protection Fund, officials noted that the program had funded
125 research projects over an 11- year period and publicized its project
results at an annual forum and on a Web site. Similarly, the Lake Ontario
Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program administered by the U. S.
Department of the Interior*s Fish and Wildlife Service listed under its
accomplishments the completion of a pilot study and technical assistance
provided to a Native American tribe.
Page 13 GAO- 03- 999T
Of 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. The federal and state environmental program
officials who responded to our evaluation generally provided output data
or, as reported for 15 programs, reported that the accomplishments had not
been measured for the programs.
Only eight of the federal or state Great Lakes specific programs reported
outcome information, much of which generally described how effective the
programs* activities or actions 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.
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
recommended 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.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
Page 14 GAO- 03- 999T
For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony were Willie
Bailey, Karen Keegan, Rosemary Torres- Lerma, Jonathan McMurray, Margaret
Reese, and John Wanska.
(360377)
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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO s Mission 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 full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list,
known as Today s Reports, on its Web site daily. The list contains links
to the full- text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you
every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select Subscribe to e- mail
alerts under the Order GAO Products 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 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. ***