This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-515 
entitled 'Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring 
Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals' which was 
released on May 21, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

April 2003:

Great Lakes:

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

GAO-03-515:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-515, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The five Great Lakes, which comprise the largest system of freshwater 
in the world, are threatened on many environmental fronts.  To address 
the extent of progress made in restoring the Great Lakes Basin, which 
includes the lakes and surrounding area, GAO (1) identified the 
federal and state environmental programs operating in the basin and 
funding devoted to them, (2) evaluated the restoration strategies used 
and how they are coordinated, and (3) assessed overall environmental 
progress made in the basin restoration effort.

What GAO Found:

There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental 
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin.  Most of these 
programs involve the localized application of national or state 
environmental initiatives and do not specifically focus on unique 
basin concerns.  However, several programs specifically address 
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes.  GAO identified 33 
federal Great Lakes specific programs, and states funded 17 additional 
unique Great Lakes specific programs.  Other governmental, binational, 
and nongovernmental organizations also fund restoration activities 
within the basin.

GAO identified several Great Lakes environmental strategies being used 
at the binational, federal, and state levels.  These strategies are 
not coordinated or unified in a fashion comparable to other large 
restoration projects such as the South Florida Ecosystem.  In an 
effort to improve coordination, federal and state officials recently 
published Great Lakes Strategy 2002, but this document is largely a 
description of existing and planned program activities rather than an 
overarching plan.  EPAs Great Lakes National Program Office has 
coordination authority over many activities but has not fully 
exercised it to this point.

With available information, it is not possible to comprehensively 
assess restoration progress in the Great Lakes.  Current indicators 
rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments to 
determine whether conditions are improving, such as whether fish are 
safe to eat.  The ultimate success of an ongoing binational effort to 
develop a set of overall indicators for the Great Lakes is uncertain 
because it relies on the resources voluntarily provided by several 
organizations.  Further, no date for completing a final list of 
indicators has been established.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Administrator, Environmental Protection 
Agency:

* ensure that the Great Lakes National Program Office fulfills its 
coordination responsibilities and develop an overarching Great Lakes 
strategy; and
* develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the 
Great Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration 
progress. 

EPA generally agreed with GAOs conclusions that better planning, 
coordination, monitoring and the development of indicators are needed, 
and stated it would provide the Congress, GAO, and the Office of 
Management and Budget with a formal response to the report 
recommendations at a later date.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-515.

To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 
512-3841, or John Wanska at (312) 220-7628. owanskaj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

Background:

Results in Brief:

Principal Findings:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

Chapter 1: Introduction:

The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource:

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

States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes 
Environmental Activities:

Significant Environmental Challenges Remain to Restore the Great Lakes:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

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

Most Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or 
Statewide Focus:

Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on Certain Geographic 
Areas or Problems:

Foundations and Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration 
Activities:

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

An Overarching Strategy and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for 
Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects:

Strategies for the Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching 
Restoration Approach:

GLNPO Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great 
Lakes Restoration Programs:

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

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

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

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Calls for a Monitoring System 
to Ensure Objectives Are Met:

Current Indicators Do Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making an 
Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

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

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

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

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

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection 
Agency:

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada 
Affecting the Great Lakes:

Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes:

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

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

Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Figures:

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin:

Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes:

Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes 
Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin:

Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

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

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

Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized 
Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through 
2001:

Abbreviations:

AOCs: Areas of concern:

ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

CERP: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan:

Corps: Army Corps of Engineers:

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:

FSA: Farm Services Agency:

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:

GLNPO: Great Lakes National Program Office:

GLWQA: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement:

IADN: International Atmospheric Deposition Network:

IJC: International Joint Commission:

LaMPs: Lakewide Management Plans:

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

NPS: National Park Service:

NRCS: National Resource Conservation Service:

OAR: Office of Air and Radiation:

ORD: Office of Research and Development:

OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:

RAPs: Remedial Action Plans:

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:

SOLEC: State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference:

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:

USGS: United States Geological Survey:

USPC: United States Policy Committee:

WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

April 30, 2003:

Congressional Requesters:

As requested, we are reporting to you on the federal and state 
environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin. This report 
contains recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
on the need to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for basin 
restoration, coordinate the multiple restoration activities in the 
basin, and facilitate the expeditious development of environmental 
indicators for measuring restoration progress.

As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this 
report until 30 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly 
announce its contents earlier. We will then send copies to appropriate 
congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; various other federal 
departments and agencies; and the International Joint Commission. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/gao.gov.

Should you or your staff need further information, please contact me on 
(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 
VI.

John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Signed by John B. Stephenson:

List of Congressional Requesters:

The Honorable Evan Bayh
United States Senate:

The Honorable Mike DeWine
United States Senate:

The Honorable Carl Levin
United States Senate:

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
United States Senate:

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Sherrod Brown
House of Representatives:

The Honorable John Dingell
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Vernon Ehlers
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Steven LaTourette
House of Representatives:

The Honorable James Oberstar
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Louise Slaughter
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Bart Stupak
House of Representatives:

[End of section]

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

The United States and Canada recognize the Great Lakes--the largest 
system of freshwater in the world--as a natural resource that is 
threatened on many environmental fronts. To protect this resource and 
to address common water quality problems, the two countries entered 
into the bilateral Great LakesWater Quality Agreement in 1972 and last 
revised it in 1987. However, three decades after the original 
agreement, polluted beaches are frequently closed to swimmers, fish are 
unsafe to eat for high risk individuals, and raw sewage is still being 
dumped into the lakes. Progress has been made on a number of 
significant fronts, such as controlling the nonnative sea lamprey, 
reducing the water's phosphorus content, and improving fish 
populations, but much more remains to be accomplished before the 
overall goals of the agreement can be met. Several recently released 
reports have questioned whether the current environmental activities in 
the Great Lakes being funded by numerous organizations and various 
programs are adequate to fulfill the U.S. commitments and whether 
restoration progress is sufficient in the basin. In 2002, GAO reported 
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to take action to 
improve its oversight for cleaning up contaminated areas.

To address the progress of restoration, 14 members of Congress 
participating on the Great Lakes Task Force asked GAO to (1) identify 
the federal and state environmental programs operating in the Great 
Lakes Basin and the funding being devoted to them, (2) evaluate how the 
restoration strategies are used and coordinated, and (3) assess overall 
environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort thus far.

Background:

Millions of people in the United States and Canada rely on the five 
Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Erie, Huron, and Ontario--as a 
principal source of drinking water, recreation, and economic 
livelihood. Over time, industrial, agricultural, and residential 
development on lands adjacent to the lakes has seriously degraded the 
lakes' water quality, posing threats to human health and the 
environment, and forcing restrictions on activities, such as swimming 
and fish consumption.

To protect the Great Lakes Basin, and to address water quality 
problems, the governments of the United States and Canada entered into 
the bilateral Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. In the 
agreement, the United States and Canada agreed to restore and maintain 
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes 
Basin. A new agreement with the same name was reached in 1978. The 
agreement was amended in 1983 and 1987, expanding the scope of 
activities by prescribing prevention and cleanup measures to improve 
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. The agreement obligates 
the International Joint Commission (IJC), an international body, to 
assist in the implementation of the agreement.

The Clean Water Act directs EPA to lead efforts to meet the goals of 
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and establishes the Great Lakes 
National Program Office (GLNPO) within EPA, charging it with, among 
other things, cooperating with federal, state, tribal, and 
international agencies to develop action plans to carry out the U.S. 
responsibilities under the agreement. GLNPO is further responsible for 
coordinating the agency's actions both in headquarters and in the 
regions to improve Great Lakes' water quality. In addition to GLNPO, 
numerous federal, state, binational, and nonprofit organizations 
conduct activities that focus on improving the overall Great Lakes 
Basin environment or some specific environmental issue within the 
basin.

Results in Brief:

There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental 
restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs 
involve the localized application of national or state environmental 
initiatives that do not specifically focus on basin concerns. For 
example, EPA's Superfund program addresses some of the contaminated 
sites located within the basin. Superfund officials, like officials for 
most nationwide, as well as most statewide, programs, do not track or 
itemize their overall funding by region, such as isolating the portion 
of funding going to specific areas (e.g., the basin), making it 
difficult to determine their contribution to total Great Lakes 
spending. In addition to the nationwide federal programs, the Congress 
has also enacted 33 federal programs focused specifically on the Great 
Lakes Basin, for which about $387 million was spent in fiscal years 
1992 through 2001, to specifically address environmental conditions in 
the Great Lakes. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers expended about 
$358 million during the same time period for legislatively directed 
projects within the basin, such as $93.8 million for restoration of 
Chicago's shoreline. States funded 17 additional Great Lakes specific 
programs, for which about $956 million was expended during the same 
general time period to address unique state needs, such as Ohio's 
program to control shoreline erosion along Lake Erie. In addition to 
federal and state programs, county and municipal governmental 
organizations, binational organizations, and nongovernmental 
organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, fund restoration 
activities within the basin.

The numerous restoration programs currently underway in the Great Lakes 
Basin employ a variety of environmental strategies at the binational, 
federal, and state levels to address specific environmental problems, 
but there is no overarching plan for coordinating and tying together 
the strategies and program activities into a coherent approach to 
attain overall basin restoration. Experience with other large-scale 
ecosystem restoration efforts, such as the South Florida ecosystem, has 
demonstrated the importance of having a comprehensive strategic plan 
with clearly articulated goals, objectives, and criteria for measuring 
success and a decision-making body for weighing the merits of, and 
prioritizing funding for, proposed cleanup and restoration projects. 
Without such a plan for the basin, it is difficult to determine overall 
progress and ensure that limited resources are being effectively 
utilized. Although federal and state officials recently developed and 
published a report, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, to fill this void, the 
document, largely a description of existing and planned program 
activities, did not provide a basis or mechanisms to prioritize or make 
funding commitments to implement the various activities. GLNPO, the 
office within EPA charged with fulfilling U.S. responsibilities under 
the agreement and for coordinating federal actions for improving Great 
Lakes' water quality, has not fully exercised this authority because it 
has not entered into agreements with other agency organizations 
regarding their restoration responsibilities as required by the Clean 
Water Act. GAO is recommending that EPA ensure that GLNPO fulfills its 
coordination responsibilities and, in consultation with the governors 
of the Great Lakes states, federal agencies, and other organizations, 
develop an overarching strategy that clearly defines the roles and 
responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing funding for Great 
Lakes projects, and submit a proposal to the Congress detailing the 
time-phased funding requirements necessary to implement the strategy.

A comprehensive assessment of restoration progress in the Great Lakes 
Basin cannot be determined with the piecemeal information currently 
available. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement called for the 
development and implementation of a monitoring system, but this 
requirement has not yet been met. The environmental indicators 
currently being used to determine overall progress are inadequate 
because they rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments 
to determine whether conditions are improving. An ongoing binational 
effort initiated in 1996 has worked to develop a set of overall 
indicators for the Great Lakes through a series of biennial 
conferences. The ultimate success of this effort, which relies on the 
volunteer contributions of several organizations, is uncertain and thus 
far no completion date for developing a final list of indicators has 
been set. GAO is recommending that EPA, in coordination with Canadian 
officials, develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for 
the Great Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration 
progress and require these indicators to be used to evaluate, 
prioritize, and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative 
restoration projects.

Principal Findings:

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

About 200 programs--148 federal and 51 state--fund restoration 
activities within the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve 
the localized application of national or state environmental 
initiatives and do not specifically focus on basin concerns. Officials 
from 11 agencies identified 115 of these broadly scoped federal 
programs, and officials from 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states identified 
34 similar state programs. EPA administers the majority of the federal 
programs that provide a broad range of environmental activities 
involving research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. For 
example, EPA's nationwide Superfund program funds cleanup activities at 
contaminated areas throughout the basin. While the broad scoped federal 
and state programs contribute to basin restoration, program officials 
do not track or try to isolate the portion of funding going to specific 
areas like the basin, making it difficult to determine their 
contribution to total Great Lakes spending. However, GAO was able to 
identify basin-specific information on some of these programs. 
Specifically, basin related expenditures for 53 of the 115 broadly 
scoped federal programs totaled about $1.8 billion in fiscal years 1992 
through 2001, and the expenditures for 14 statewide programs totaled 
$461.3 million during basically the same time period.

Several federal and state programs were specifically designed to focus 
on the Great Lakes Basin environmental conditions. Officials from 7 
federal agencies identified 33 Great Lakes specific programs that had 
expenditures of $387 million in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Most of 
the programs funded a variety of activities, such as research, cleanup, 
or pollution prevention. An additional $358 million was expended for 
legislatively directed Corps of Engineers projects in the basin, such 
as $93.8 million to restore Chicago's shoreline. Officials from 7 
states reported 17 Great Lakes specific programs that expended about 
$956 million in 1992 through 2001, with Michigan's programs accounting 
for 96 percent of this amount. State programs focused on unique state 
needs, such as Ohio's program to control shoreline erosion along Lake 
Erie, and Michigan's program to provide bond funding for environmental 
activities. Besides federal and state programs, county and municipal 
organizations, binational organizations, and nongovernmental 
organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, fund restoration 
activities within the basin.

Different Strategies, Lack of Coordination, and Limited Funding Impede 
Restoration Efforts:

Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin is a major endeavor involving many 
environmental programs and organizations. The magnitude of this effort 
cannot succeed without a comprehensive strategy or plan similar to 
those developed for other large ecosystem restoration projects, such as 
the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay. Because of the many 
parties involved in planning, strategizing, and conducting restoration 
activities in the basin, an overarching strategy and a comprehensive 
plan are needed that clearly articulate goals, objectives, and criteria 
for measuring success and that establish a decision-making body to 
weigh the merits of, and prioritize funding for, proposed cleanup and 
restoration projects.

Several organizations have developed strategies for the basin at the 
binational, federal, and state levels that address either the entire 
basin or the specific problems in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes 
Strategy 2002, developed by a committee of federal and state officials, 
is the most recent of these strategies. While this strategy identified 
restoration objectives and planned actions by various federal and state 
agencies, it is largely a description of existing program activity 
relating to basin restoration. State officials involved in developing 
the strategy told us that states had already planned the actions 
described in it, but that these actions were contingent on funding for 
specific environmental programs. The strategy acknowledged that it 
should not be construed as a commitment for additional funding or 
resources, and it did not provide a basis for prioritizing activities. 
In addition, other strategies addressed particular contaminants, 
restoration of individual lakes, or cleanup of contaminated areas. Ad 
hoc coordination among federal agencies, states, and other 
environmental organizations occurs in developing these strategies or 
when programmatic activity calls for coordination.

Although there are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing, 
there is no one organization that is coordinating restoration efforts. 
The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to charge 
GLNPO with coordinating actions within EPA for improving the Great 
Lakes' water quality, but the agency has not fully exercised this 
authority because it has not entered into agreements with other agency 
organizations regarding their Great Lakes activities as required by the 
Clean Water Act. GLNPO officials believe that they fulfilled their 
responsibilities under the act by having federal agencies and state 
officials agree to the restoration activities discussed in the Great 
Lakes Strategy 2002; however, the strategy did not represent formal 
agreements to conduct specific activities with identified resources. 
Extensive strategizing, planning, and coordinating have not resulted in 
significant restoration. The ecosystem remains compromised and 
contaminated sediments in the lakes produce health problems, as 
reported by the IJC. Federal and state officials have cited a lack of 
funding as the chief barrier to restoration progress, but they 
mentioned that other barriers, such as the absence of an effective 
coordinating agency, also impede restoration progress.

Insufficient Data and Measures Prevent Determination of Overall 
Restoration Progress:

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended in 1987, calls for 
establishing a monitoring system to measure restoration progress and 
assess the degree that the United States and Canada are complying with 
the goals and objectives of the agreement. Implementation of this 
provision has not progressed to the point that overall restoration 
progress can be measured or determined based on quantitative 
information. Recent assessments of overall progress, which rely on a 
mix of quantitative data and subjective judgments, do not provide an 
adequate basis for making an overall assessment. The current assessment 
process has emerged from a series of biennial State of the Lakes 
Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) initiated in 1994 for developing 
indicators agreed upon by conference participants. The number of 
indicators considered during the SOLEC conferences has been pared down 
from more than 850 indicators in 1998 to 80 indicators in 2000, 
although data was available for only 33 of them. While this lack of 
data precluded an overall quantitative-based assessment of the Great 
Lakes Basin, a qualitative assessment based on general observations was 
provided. The ultimate success of the SOLEC process in providing an 
overall quantitative-based assessment of the Great Lakes is uncertain 
because the assessment process relies on the voluntary participation of 
many federal, state, and local agency officials in an informal 
partnership arrangement. In addition, the objectives of the SOLEC 
process are not directly focused on developing a surveillance and 
monitoring program as envisioned in the agreement. Other indicators of 
environmental improvements reported for the numerous federal and state 
programs operating in the basin focus on program activities, often 
describing outputs, such as tons of contaminated sediment removed, 
rather than environmental outcomes, such as improvement of 
environmental conditions as a result of removing contaminated sediment.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that 
federal dollars are effectively spent, GAO recommends that the 
Administrator, EPA, ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for 
coordinating programs within the Great Lakes Basin; charge GLNPO with 
developing, in consultation with the governors of the Great Lakes 
states, federal agencies, and other organizations, an overarching 
strategy that, clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for 
coordinating and prioritizing funding for projects; and submit a time-
phased funding requirement proposal to the Congress necessary to 
implement the strategy.

To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and 
to ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, GAO 
recommends that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian 
officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1) 
develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great 
Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress 
and (2) require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize, 
and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration 
projects.

Agency Comments:

GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and 
comment. The agency generally agreed with the findings and 
recommendations in the report. EPA provided written comments; the full 
text of which is included in appendix V.

EPA stated that significant accomplishments have improved environmental 
conditions in the Great Lakes and that GAO's conclusions and 
recommendations can help ensure that more improvements are made. While 
EPA agreed with the overall conclusions, namely that better planning, 
coordination, monitoring, and the development of indicators are needed, 
it did not specifically address GAO's individual recommendations, 
stating that it would provide the Congress, GAO, and the Office of 
Management and Budget with a formal response to the final report 
recommendations at a later date.

EPA stated that while it can improve its delivery and coordination of 
restoration programs in the Great Lakes Basin, the complexities of the 
Great Lakes in terms of scope, geographical scale, and other factors 
require long-term, complex solutions implemented at a variety of 
levels. As GAO's report demonstrates, the complexity of the Great Lakes 
restoration effort provides the basis for the recommendation that EPA 
develop an overarching strategy that guides the multiple restoration 
efforts.

EPA highlighted two of its recent efforts to demonstrate compliance 
with its coordinating responsibilities under the Clean Water Act: the 
formation of the United States Policy Committee (USPC) and its 
subsequent release of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 and SOLEC for 
developing environmental indicators for the Great Lakes Basin. As GAO 
noted, these coordination efforts are significant but cannot be 
sustained over the long term given the uncertainties surrounding 
funding sources. Specifically, it provides extensive information on 
ongoing restoration efforts, but the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides 
no commitment for funding and resources to assure its implementation. 
As such, the strategy remains largely a description of ongoing 
activities that assumes that federal and state restoration programs 
will maintain the status quo in both the extent of their efforts and 
funding. Similarly, the SOLEC process, which has successfully engaged a 
wide range of binational parties, remains a volunteer effort dependent 
on voluntary funding and does not replace the need to develop the 
surveillance and monitoring program envisioned in the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Agreement.

[End of section]

Chapter 1: Introduction:

The United States and Canada view the Great Lakes as a valuable 
national natural resource that needs to be protected and restored to 
environmental health. The first bilateral agreement between the two 
countries to protect the Great Lakes was reached in 1972. Since that 
time further agreements have strengthened the commitment of the two 
countries to improve environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin. 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the lead federal agency, 
is charged with ensuring that U.S. responsibilities are fulfilled. 
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is authorized to 
implement various Great Lakes activities. States and other 
organizations also play a vital and integral role in fulfilling U.S. 
commitments. Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great 
Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including 
increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas 
contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.

The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource:

The five Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario--are 
a critical resource for the United States and Canada. The lakes form 
the largest freshwater system on Earth, accounting for 20 percent of 
the world's fresh surface water and over 95 percent of the U.S. fresh 
surface water supply for the contiguous 48 states. The lakes provide a 
drinking water source for over 26 million U.S. residents and water for 
the region's industry. Together, they form an inland waterway to the 
Atlantic Ocean that facilitates the relatively inexpensive transport of 
goods both within and outside the region. The lakes are also a 
recreational resource for boating, swimming, and sport fishing.

The Great Lakes Basin is a large area that extends well beyond the five 
lakes proper to include their watersheds, tributaries, connecting 
channels, and a portion of the St. Lawrence River. The basin 
encompasses nearly all of the state of Michigan and parts of Illinois, 
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the 
Canadian province of Ontario. (See fig. 1.):

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


Recognizing the importance and mutual interest in the Great Lakes and 
other boundary waters, the United States and Canada signed the Boundary 
Waters Treaty in 1909. The treaty gave both countries equal rights to 
use the waterways that flow along the international border and provided 
that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary not be 
polluted on either side to the point of injuring human health or the 
property of the other country. The treaty also established the 
International Joint Commission (IJC) as a permanent binational agency 
organized to help resolve and prevent disputes concerning the waters 
along the border.

With increased concern over contaminants in the Great Lakes, the 
governments of the United States and Canada signed the first 
international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972 to 
improve the environmental conditions in the lakes. The agreement 
focused on controlling phosphorus as a principal means of dealing with 
eutrophication in the lakes. In 1978, the two countries signed a new 
GLWQA, which was revised again in 1983. The 1978 agreement reflected an 
increased understanding of the scope of pollution problems in the Great 
Lakes and called for (1) controlling all toxic substances that could 
endanger the health of any living species and (2) restoring and 
enhancing water quality throughout the entire basin. The 1983 
supplement added the requirement to further limit phosphorus discharges 
and for the two countries to prepare and implement plans for reducing 
phosphorus. In 1987, the agreement was revised for the last time to 
commit the two countries to cooperate with state and provincial 
governments to ensure, among other things, the development of Lakewide 
Management Plans (LaMP) to address environmental problems in open 
waters and Remedial Action Plans (RAP) for problems in designated 
"areas of concern" located in the basin. (See table 1.):

Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada 
Affecting the Great Lakes:

Name of agreement: Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909; Key provisions: * 
Establishes the IJC as a permanent binational agency organized to help 
resolve and prevent disputes concerning the waters along the border; * 
Gives both countries equal rights to use the waterways that flow along 
the international border; * Provides that the boundary waters and 
waters flowing across the boundary are not to be polluted on either 
side to the point of injuring human health or the property of the other 
country.

Name of agreement: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972; Key 
provisions: * Provides for more effective cooperation to restore and 
enhance the Great Lakes; * Emphasizes finding solutions to the more 
obvious water quality problems.

Name of agreement: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978; Key 
provisions: * Establishes both general and specific water quality 
objectives for the Great Lakes; * Calls for developing and 
implementing programs to reduce and control phosphorus inputs to the 
lakes; * Requires a coordinated surveillance and monitoring program.

Name of agreement: Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement to the Great 
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed October 16, 1983; Key 
provisions: * Further specifies phosphorus inputs and required the 
preparation and implementation of plans for reducing phosphorus.

Name of agreement: Protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 
of 1978, signed November 18, 1987; Key provisions: * Adds several 
annexes for issues to be addressed and activities to be conducted by 
the two governments. These included the development of RAPs and LaMPs, 
as well as addressing issues, such as airborne toxic substances, 
contaminated sediment, and control of phosphorus; * Requires a 
comprehensive review of the agreement's operation and effectiveness 
approximately every 6 years; * Calls for a monitoring system to 
measure restoration progress and assess the degree to which the United 
States and Canada are complying with the goals and objectives of the 
agreement; * Calls for semi-annual meetings between the United States 
and Canada to coordinate work plans and evaluate progress in 
implementing the agreement.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

In implementing the 1987 revisions to the agreement, officials for the 
two countries released complete LaMPs for four lakes in 2000--Erie, 
Michigan, Ontario, and Superior--and have updated them every 2 years. 
For Lake Huron, an alternative action plan was prepared instead of a 
LaMP. Implementation of RAPs for designated areas of concern (AOC)--
namely sites that have failed to meet the objectives of the GLWQA and 
failures that have caused, or are likely to cause, impairment of 
beneficial uses, such as swimming or fishing--has not fared as well. 
The countries identified 43 contaminated areas: 26 located entirely 
within the United States, 12 located entirely within Canada, and 5 for 
which both countries share responsibility.[Footnote 1] In 2002, we 
reported slow progress in cleaning up the contaminated areas and as of 
April 2002 none of the 26 areas under U.S. responsibility had been 
restored to beneficial use.[Footnote 2] We also reported that the RAP 
process had either been abandoned or modified for several areas. We 
concluded that EPA was not effectively ensuring RAP implementation for 
contaminated areas. EPA subsequently took several steps to improve the 
RAP process, such as gathering information on the status of the 
contaminated areas and consolidating responsibility for the process 
within GLNPO.

In addition to two types of plans--LaMPs and RAPs--the agreement 
contains 16 other "annexes" that define issues that the two countries 
need to address and activities that they need to conduct, such as 
airborne toxic substances, contaminated sediment, and control of 
phosphorus. The 1987 amendment to the GLWQA included a provision that 
requires a comprehensive review of the agreement about every 6 years, 
focusing on the agreement's operation and effectiveness. A 1999 
binational review of the agreement found that certain provisions of the 
agreement were out of date and concluded that certain changes should be 
considered; however, as of March 2003, the two countries had yet to 
revise the agreement.

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

The responsibility for leading the U.S. Great Lakes efforts rests with 
GLNPO. The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to 
require EPA to lead and coordinate efforts with other federal agencies 
and state and local authorities to meet the goals in the agreement. It 
also established GLNPO within EPA to fulfill U.S. responsibilities 
under the agreement and to coordinate EPA's actions both at 
headquarters and the affected EPA regional offices. Specifically, the 
act requires GLNPO to:

* cooperate with federal and state agencies in developing and 
implementing plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under the 
agreement,

* coordinate EPA's efforts to improve water quality of the Great Lakes,

* monitor water quality in the Great Lakes, and:

* serve as a liaison with Canada.

The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water 
Act to further define GLNPO's role and required that all RAPs be 
submitted to the office and that the office take the lead in developing 
a LaMP for Lake Michigan. The act also assigned additional 
responsibilities to GLNPO in developing water quality standards for the 
Great Lakes and assessing contaminated sediment characteristics and 
remediation technologies. In addition to these responsibilities, GLNPO 
will help implement provisions of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, 
which authorized funds for cleaning up AOCs. Key provisions of these 
statutes are summarized in the following table:

Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes:

Name of statute: Water Quality Act of 1987; Key provisions: * Amends 
the Clean Water Act to provide that EPA should take the lead in 
coordinating with other federal agencies and state and local 
authorities to meet the goals in the agreement; * Establishes GLNPO 
within EPA to fulfill the U.S. responsibilities under the agreement and 
to coordinate EPA's actions at headquarters and the affected EPA 
regional offices. Specifically, it requires GLNPO to; * cooperate with 
federal and state agencies in developing and implementing plans to 
carry out the U.S. responsibilities under the agreement; * coordinate 
EPA's efforts to improve water quality of the Great Lakes; * monitor 
water quality in the Great Lakes, and; * serve as a liaison with 
Canada.

Name of statute: Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990; Key 
provisions: * Requires that all RAPs be submitted to GLNPO; * Directs 
GLNPO to take the lead in developing a LaMP for Lake Michigan; * 
Provides additional responsibility for GLNPO in developing water 
quality standards for the Great Lakes and assessing contaminated 
sediment characteristics along with remediation technologies; * 
Requires that GLNPO be a separate line item in EPA's annual budget 
request.

Name of statute: Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002; Key provisions: * 
Authorizes $50 million per year from fiscal year 2004 through 2008 for 
contaminated sediment projects in AOCs for which the United States has 
full or partial responsibility; * Requires EPA to report to the 
Congress by November 2003 on oversight of RAPs.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

The legislative authorization of GLNPO was preceded by an uneven EPA 
commitment to addressing Great Lakes issues. In 1972, EPA's Region V 
Office in Chicago established the Office of Great Lakes Coordinator to 
monitor a demonstration program on the water quality in the Great Lakes 
and to conduct research. In 1978, the region established a larger 
coordinating office, also named the Great Lakes National Program 
Office, to direct and oversee fulfillment of the U.S. obligations for 
the agreement and any spending for that purpose. As we reported in 
1982, that office had difficultly obtaining cooperation from other 
agency offices to fulfill its mission, leading us to recommend that 
GLNPO be allowed to coordinate actions within EPA, other federal 
agencies, and states in developing strategies to improve Great Lakes' 
water quality.[Footnote 3] In the years immediately following our 
report, however, the administration excluded GLNPO from the agency's 
budget proposal. The Congress restored the funding each time it was 
excluded from the budget and the region provided staff and other 
support for the office. The Water Quality Act of 1987 required the EPA 
Administrator to include in the agency's annual budget submission to 
the Congress a separate budget line item for GLNPO. According to GLNPO 
officials, recent GLNPO budgets have been generally funded by the 
Congress at the previous years' level or somewhat greater.

GLNPO is a unique entity within EPA. Unlike other EPA entities that 
have responsibility for an overall media, such as EPA's Office of Air, 
GLNPO is focused on a wide range of environmental issues in a specific 
geographical area of the country. GLNPO and its staff are not 
physically located with other national program offices in EPA 
headquarters, and its staff of about 40 professionals is relatively 
small when compared with EPA's other national programs. The manager is 
also selected differently than other program office heads. The Great 
Lakes National Program Manager is the Regional Administrator for EPA's 
Region V, as opposed to an individual appointed to specifically head a 
national program office, such as the Office of Water within EPA.

States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes 
Environmental Activities:

States, provincial governments, international organizations, local 
organizations, independent commissions, and nonprofit organizations 
are all involved in Great Lakes issues. The eight Great Lake states and 
the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec in Canada have 
historically played key roles in Great Lakes activities. The GLWQA 
envisioned that the two countries would cooperate with states and 
provincial governments on a variety of matters, including the 
development of RAPs for contaminated areas and monitoring environmental 
conditions within the basin. State and provincial government 
involvement is necessary for implementing other agreements, such as the 
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the Great Lakes Strategy 
2002. Similarly, the federal government's partnerships with the states 
are essential for implementation of EPA's Great Lakes and other 
environmental initiatives.

The IJC assists in the implementation of the agreement between the two 
countries, reports every 2 years on implementation progress, and offers 
recommendations to the two countries. The GLWQA created three 
binational organizations to assist the IJC in its oversight role:

* Great Lakes Water Quality Board, which is the principal adviser to 
the IJC and is composed of an equal number of Canadian and U.S. 
members, including representatives from the governments and each state 
and provincial government.

* Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, which advises the IJC and the 
Water Quality Board on research and scientific matters. The board is 
comprised of managers of Great Lakes research programs and recognized 
experts.

* Great Lakes Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario, which provides 
administrative and technical support to the boards and operates a 
public information service for the IJC.

In addition, the IJC has established several other organizations that 
provide advice and assistance, including the Council of Great Lakes 
Research Managers, the International Air Quality Advisory Board, and 
the Health Professionals Task Force.

Significant Environmental Challenges Remain to Restore the Great Lakes:

Despite early successes in cleaning up the nation's water, the Great 
Lakes Basin continues to face significant environmental challenges. 
Specifically, 41 areas within the Great Lakes, contaminated with toxic 
substances, need cleanup actions to restore beneficial uses, such as 
swimming and fishing. Water polluted with toxic substances still flows 
into the Great Lakes from specific points, such as wastewater treatment 
plants, and also from nonpoint sources, such as sediment runoff from 
agricultural land and urban areas. Nonnative species continue to invade 
the Great Lakes, threatening to interrupt the ecological balance in the 
region. The number of invasive species increased steadily throughout 
the 1900s, and the basin now contains more than 160 nonnative species 
that threaten native fish and plants. Figure 2 illustrates the various 
sources of pollution to the Great Lakes.

Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


One of the initial environmental successes in the Great Lakes has been 
the significant reduction in the amount of phosphorus that municipal 
waste treatment facilities discharged into the lakes. Phosphorus causes 
excessive algae growth, which greatly reduced the quality of fish 
populations in the Great Lakes. With improved waste treatment 
facilities and reduction of phosphates in detergents, phosphorus levels 
in the Great Lakes were reduced and fish populations improved. However, 
a portion of Lake Erie remains a "dead zone" no longer able to support 
fish populations, and this problem appears to be worsening since 1990.

Another notable success was the control of certain invasive species, 
such as the sea lamprey. The sea lamprey was first found in Lake 
Ontario and quickly spread through out the Great Lakes. Lampreys 
attached to native fish, feeding on the body fluids and leaving them 
either scarred or dead. Federal, provincial, and state governments 
initiated control measures that have reduced the populations 
significantly.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Fourteen members of Congress participating on the Great Lakes Task 
Force asked us to (1) identify the federal and state environmental 
programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) evaluate restoration 
strategies used and how they are coordinated, and (3) assess overall 
environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort.

To identify environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin, 
we used a structured data collection instrument provided to each of the 
8 Great Lakes states--Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New 
York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin---and 13 federal agencies. For each 
program, we requested information about the program's purpose, the 
restoration strategies being used, the extent of program coordination 
with other federal or state agencies, the amount of funding provided, 
and the overall environmental progress achieved in restoration efforts. 
A detailed listing of federal and state agencies that provided program 
information is included as appendix I.

Furthermore, we interviewed and gathered program documentation from 
officials representing EPA's Office of Water, Office of Air and 
Radiation, Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response, and Great Lakes National Program Office, along 
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). These organizations 
were selected because they have major responsibilities for Great Lakes 
cleanup and restoration efforts and account for the majority of funds 
expended for Great Lakes programs. To obtain additional information on 
state programs, we interviewed state officials from five of the eight 
Great Lakes states--Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin. 
These states were selected because they reported the majority of state 
programs involved in basin restoration. We also gathered and analyzed 
documentation from other governmental and nongovernmental 
organizations involved in restoration activities, including counties, 
townships, conservation districts, and nonprofit organizations.

To evaluate how restoration strategies were used and how they were 
coordinated, we reviewed and analyzed the data collection instrument 
responses received from federal and state program officials. From these 
responses, we identified various coordination methods and determined 
whether coordination was ongoing or infrequent and whether it was 
informal or formally documented in a written agreement. We obtained and 
analyzed strategies for the basin prepared by various organizations or 
working groups. These strategies were categorized as to whether they 
were basin-wide strategies or whether they addressed specific 
environmental problems, such as controlling mercury pollution, or 
geographical areas, such as controlling point source pollution for Lake 
Superior. For the recent basin strategy developed by a committee of 
regional federal and state officials in 2002, we interviewed officials 
representing GLNPO, other federal agencies, and states involved in 
developing the strategy to further understand the strategy's goals, 
objectives, and resources available to carry out the strategy. We also 
evaluated the agencies' efforts to coordinate the various strategies.

To determine overall environmental progress made in basin restoration 
efforts, we obtained and analyzed Great Lakes progress reports prepared 
by representatives of the United States and Canada in response to the 
GLWQA. We interviewed GLNPO officials to understand the process for 
gathering information and reaching conclusions on progress contained in 
the reports. We gathered and analyzed information on the development of 
environmental indicators used as part of the reporting process and 
interviewed GLNPO officials regarding the resources available and 
implementation plan for monitoring agreed-upon indicators. In our 
effort to determine the progress environmental programs operating in 
the basin have achieved, we obtained information on the program 
accomplishments from responses to the data collection instrument and 
interviews with various federal and state program officials. We used 
these responses and studies to identify barriers to developing 
indicators and overall restoration progress in the Great Lakes.

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. 
EPA's written comments are presented in appendix V. In addition, we 
received technical comments from EPA that we have incorporated 
throughout the report as appropriate and technical comments from state 
and federal program officials on the information and characterization 
of information they provided.

We conducted our work from May 2002 through March 2003 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

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

About 200 federal and state environmental programs operate within the 
Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve the localized 
application of national or state initiatives and do not specifically 
focus on unique basin concerns, but about 50 specifically address 
environmental conditions in the basin. The majority of the programs are 
administered by federal agencies, and for the broad-based programs it 
is difficult to identify program expenditures that apply to the basin. 
For the Great Lakes specific programs, expenditures totaled about $1.4 
billion over 10 years, with the majority of expenditures coming from 
state programs. In addition to these program expenditures, the Corps of 
Engineers expended about $358 million on specifically authorized 
projects within the basin.

Most Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or 
Statewide Focus:

Most of the federal or state programs that address environmental 
conditions in the Great Lakes Basin operate both within and outside of 
the basin. Of the 148 federal and 51 state programs operating both 
within and outside the basin, 149 federal and state programs were 
identified by agency officials as being designed to address 
environmental conditions at a nationwide or statewide level, while 50 
programs provide Great Lakes specific restoration efforts. (See fig. 
3.):

Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes 
Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Of the 149 non-Great Lakes specific programs, 115 are federal programs 
administered by 11 federal agencies and 34 are state programs 
administered by 7 states that provide a wide range of restoration 
activities that either directly restore or support restoration 
activities. EPA and agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) administer most of the federal programs. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (the Corps); the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Department of 
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and 
the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Coast Guard administer the 
remaining ones. (See fig. 4.):

Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Generally, federal and state programs fund a diverse number of 
activities relating to cleanup of contaminated areas, habitat 
restoration, pollution prevention, and research that benefit the basin 
and other geographical areas outside of the basin. For example, EPA's 
RCRA Subtitle I Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground 
Storage Tanks program regulates the use of underground petroleum tanks 
to prevent the contamination of drinking water nationwide. This program 
addresses associated activities in the basin. Likewise, the 
Conservation Reserve Program administered by the Department of 
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides payments to 
agricultural landowners to establish long-term, resource conserving 
vegetative cover on eligible farmland for reducing erosion. Some of 
this funding benefits activities in the basin. The National Fish 
Passage Program administered by FWS helps the basin and other areas of 
the country restore native fish and other aquatic species to self-
sustaining levels by funding projects to facilitate unimpeded flows and 
fish movements by removing barriers or providing ways for fish to 
bypass barriers.

Additionally, non-Great Lakes specific research programs provide 
information that helps support restoration activities. For example, 
EPA's Aquatic Stressors Research Program funds research activities to 
advance scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in 
ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the 
Great Lakes. Another program is the Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal 
Change and Analysis program administered by NOAA, which develops and 
distributes regional landscape data through remote sensing technology. 
The program develops baseline land cover and characterization 
information for coastal areas.

Officials from 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states reported 34 state programs 
that affect areas both within and outside the basin. Of the 34 
programs, 13 are in Minnesota, 7 in Ohio, 6 in Wisconsin, 4 in New 
York, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 1 each in Indiana and Michigan. The 
programs cover a wide range of activities directly involved in 
restoration or supporting restoration activities. For example, the 
Minnesota Mercury Initiative program, which was created in 1999 to 
reduce mercury contamination in fish by curtailing air deposition of 
mercury in state waters, solicits voluntary mercury reductions from 
large companies to achieve its goals. Similarly, Ohio's Ground Water 
Resources program fosters development of groundwater as a viable and 
sustainable water supply both within and outside the basin and involves 
collecting and distributing information on groundwater resources in the 
Lake Erie and Ohio River Basins. A detailed listing of all federal and 
state non-Great Lakes specific programs is included as appendix II.

The portion of expenditures devoted to activities in the basin for most 
of these general federal and state programs is generally not available. 
However, the following examples provide expenditure information on some 
of the programs:

* EPA's Superfund program officials calculated that EPA's Region V, 
which encompasses 6 of the 8 Great Lakes states, expended $745.6 
million on cleanup activities within the basin during fiscal years 1992 
through 2001.

* NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program, which supports education 
programs and research relating to the development of marine resources, 
expended $69.6 million for the basin during fiscal years 1995 through 
2001.

* The Corps' Shore Protection Program, which provides project funding 
for planning and constructing structures for protecting shores against 
waves and currents, expended just over $1 million for these activities 
in the basin during fiscal years 1992 through 2001.

Expenditure data for activities in the basin was available for 53 of 
the 115 federal non-Great Lakes specific programs and totaled about 
$1.8 billion during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Similarly, 
expenditures for activities in the basin for 14 state non-Great Lakes 
specific programs were about $461.3 million in state fiscal years 1992 
through 2001.

Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on Certain Geographic 
Areas or Problems:

We identified 50 federal and state programs that focus specifically on 
addressing environmental conditions within the basin. Of these, 33 are 
Great Lakes specific programs that are funded by federal agencies while 
17 programs are funded by 7 states. FWS and EPA conduct most of the 
federal programs while three agencies identified one program each--
Interior's National Park Service (NPS), USDA's Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Department of Health and Human 
Service's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
(See fig. 5.):

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


The federal programs support a variety of activities, such as research, 
cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and other activities that 
directly focus on Great Lakes environmental issues. For example:

* EPA's Niagara River Toxics Management Plan program focuses on 
reducing toxic chemicals input into the Niagara River, achieving 
ambient water quality, and improving and protecting the water quality 
of Lake Ontario. The program began in 1987, and funding for remediation 
efforts comes from two EPA programs.

* EPA's Great Lakes Air Deposition Program funds projects to better 
understand the impacts of atmospheric deposition of pollutants, such as 
mercury and other toxics, which are a major source of contamination. 
The program funds projects in monitoring, modeling, and emissions 
inventory development, which assist in identifying pollution sources.

* The Corps' Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation 
program provides technical support to the development and 
implementation of remedial action plans to clean up contaminated areas 
in the Great Lakes. Funds are provided for planning and administrative 
implementation activities and may not be used for actual construction 
cleanup.

* FWS's Lake Trout Restoration program began in the late 1970s to 
rehabilitate the lake-trout populations in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. 
The goal of the program is to increase the population of native lake 
trout to a level where it is self-sustaining through natural 
reproduction, with a harvestable annual surplus.

* USDA's Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment 
Control, administered by NRCS, focuses on improving Great Lakes water 
quality by preventing soil erosion through education programs, grants, 
and technical assistance. Runoff from agricultural land is a source of 
nonpoint pollution to the Great Lakes.

* FWS's Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance program, which began in 
1993, provides surveillance activities for the ruffe--a nonnative fish 
that competes with native species, such as walleye and perch. The 
surveillance activities include monitoring, detecting newly 
established populations, tracking existing populations, and evaluating 
current control and management activities.

EPA, NOAA, and FWS provide most of the funding for Great Lakes specific 
programs. Of the $387.4 million expended by federal agencies for these 
programs during fiscal years 1992 through 2001, 64 percent, or $248.9 
million, was for EPA programs; 17 percent, or $67.2 million, for NOAA 
programs; and 9 percent, or $33.4 million, for FWS programs. (See fig. 
6.):

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


While ongoing Great Lakes specific federal programs fund various 
restoration activities, the Corps funds additional activities through 
specifically authorized environmental projects that do not fall under 
its ongoing programs. Most of these projects are authorized under the 
biennial Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and are for project 
studies or construction. Once authorized, these projects can be funded 
through the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Acts. For most 
projects, the Corps can only expend the funds if local partners meet 
the cost-sharing requirements established by the authorization. For 
example, specific local government projects for wastewater facilities 
or combined sewer overflow mitigation identified in WRDA cannot be 
funded until a cost-sharing agreement is reached with the local 
government. In addition to projects authorized in WRDA, projects may be 
authorized and initial funding provided through the annual 
appropriation process.

In fiscal years 1992 through 2001, the Corps expended approximately 
$358 million on specifically authorized projects. These projects funded 
a variety of activities, such as the $93.8 million restoration of 
Chicago's shoreline and the $78.7 million for restoring the Little 
Calumet River in Indiana. According to a Corps official, many projects 
are authorized in this manner because of the unique nature or scope of 
the project or because of the capabilities of states and local 
organizations to fund projects. Two states, Illinois and Indiana, 
received the majority of specific project funding during fiscal years 
1992 through 2001, as shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized 
Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through 
2001:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


Information on the individual Corps projects funded during fiscal years 
1992 through 2001 for the basin is contained in appendix III.

In addition to the federal programs and specifically authorized Corps 
projects, 17 state Great Lakes Basin specific programs fund a wide 
range of activities that address unique state concerns or problems in 
the Great Lakes. The following examples of some specific state programs 
show the range of activities that states undertake.

* Ohio's Shore Structure Permit Program protects the Lake Erie 
shoreline by providing assistance to coastal residents and communities 
in the proper design and construction of structures for controlling 
erosion, wave action, and flooding along or near the shoreline. The 
program began in the 1930s, and funding is provided from state lease 
revenues for mining mineral resources from the bed of Lake Erie.

* The Clean Michigan Initiative provides general obligation bond 
funding for environmental activities in Michigan. These activities 
include Brownfields redevelopment, nonpoint source pollution control, 
cleanup of contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. About 
$255.9 million was expended for projects throughout Michigan, with only 
a small portion of the state's land area extending outside the basin.

* Pennsylvania established the Office of the Great Lakes, which 
provides administrative oversight and support to other state offices 
that have environmental responsibilities. It funds staff travel, 
salary, and administrative costs of about $100,000 per year for 
outreach and education activities. Restoration of a particular 
contaminated area in Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, is a major focus of 
the office's activities.

The states' Great Lakes specific programs include those funded through 
the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The Great Lakes Governors created and 
incorporated the fund as a permanent endowment, with each state 
providing a fixed contribution amount based on the average use of Great 
Lakes water from 1976 through 1985.[Footnote 4] Each participating 
state receives one-third of the fund's annual income based on its 
proportional endowment contribution. Payments to the states totaled 
about $31 million from years 1990 through 2001, but payments were 
suspended in 2002 because of low fund investment performance. States 
use the funds to support a wide range of basin activities. For example, 
Michigan funds research projects undertaken by universities and for-
profit groups in areas such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species. 
Minnesota's dividends from the fund are relatively small, and therefore 
they are combined with state-funded projects, such as a mercury control 
project and a project retrofitting a sampling vessel. Ohio's program 
involves the award of grants that support research and implementation 
projects, in alternating years, and require 10 percent matching funds 
by the recipient. New York uses its program to fund research, 
environmental planning, monitoring, and field assessment, and the state 
has mandated that monies cannot be used to fund construction or cleanup 
activities. In addition to paying out state dividends, the fund 
supported 191 grants for regional projects totaling about $40 million. 
These grants were awarded from the remaining two-thirds of the fund's 
undistributed income.

Of the 17 state Great Lakes specific programs, 5 were funded by 
Michigan, 4 by Ohio, 3 by Wisconsin, 2 by Pennsylvania, and 1 each by 
Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. Total expenditures for the programs 
were about $956 million during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Michigan 
programs accounted for 96 percent of the expended amount because of 
major expenditures for three state programs and about 99 percent of the 
state's border lies within the basin. A detailed listing of all federal 
and state Great Lakes specific programs is included as appendix IV.

Foundations and Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes Restoration 
Activities:

Besides federal and state government agencies, other organizations, 
such as foundations, fund a variety of restoration activities in the 
Great Lakes Basin by providing grants to nonprofit and other 
organizations, including government agencies. Specifically, four 
foundations and one trust provide funds for restoration activities.

* The Joyce Foundation supports various public policy initiatives, 
including long-term efforts to protect the Great Lakes environment, and 
provides grants to organizations for environmental projects, such as a 
grant to support activities that examine institutional issues facing 
the Great Lakes ecosystem.

* The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supports efforts to conserve 
freshwater ecosystems in North America, including the Great Lakes. 
Grants are provided to improve capacity building for environmental 
organizations and to protect and restore selected freshwater ecosystems 
through conservation activities.

* The George Gund Foundation provides support for conservation efforts 
within the Great Lakes Basin and is particularly interested in capacity 
building of nonprofit environmental organizations. Grants are provided 
to organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation, to support 
ongoing efforts to reduce the contamination of waters by airborne 
mercury.

* The Delta Institute funds activities for the development of policies 
and practices for sustainable development and environmental stewardship 
in the Great Lakes region. Among other things, the Delta Institute 
provides funding for the development of Lakewide Management Plans, the 
Lake Michigan Regional Air Toxics Strategy, and the Lake Erie Fish 
Consumption Advisory Education Project.

* The Great Lakes Fishery Trust provides grants to nonprofit and 
governmental organizations to benefit Great Lakes fishery resources, 
such as a grant to FWS to develop a management plan for lake sturgeon. 
The trust was created as part of a court settlement for fish losses at 
a hydroelectric facility in Michigan, and the trust manages the assets 
of the settlement.

In addition to these organizations, other governmental and 
nongovernmental organizations fund restoration activities. For 
example, individual municipalities, such as the City of Toledo, Ohio, 
led and funded a demonstration project to develop a process for 
physically stabilizing and isolating contaminated sediment under a 
permeable covering to avoid dredging the sediment. Municipalities are 
also instrumental in funding projects to improve wastewater treatment 
facilities that discharge treated water into the Great Lakes. Several 
municipalities participate in the International Association of Great 
Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors, which holds annual conferences to adopt 
unified positions and make recommendations for the protection, 
promotion, and development of the Great Lakes. Counties and township 
governments also fund environmental activities that benefit the Great 
Lakes. For example, township governments may have growth development 
plans that include conservation objectives to help control pollution 
and preserve open areas in the township. Counties in the Great Lakes 
Basin fund activities and projects to control nonpoint source 
pollution, soil erosion, and wildlife areas. Conservation districts 
within counties provide technical assistance and education in areas 
such as erosion control and agricultural chemical control. Within the 
basin, there are 213 counties and 209 conservation districts that 
support conservation or restoration activities within the Great Lakes 
Basin.

Numerous nongovernmental organizations also provide coordination 
roles, policy perspectives, or financially support restoration 
activities, including the following:

* Council of Great Lakes Governors, a partnership of governors from the 
eight Great Lakes States and the Canadian Premiers of Ontario and 
Quebec, encourages and facilitates environmentally responsible 
economic growth throughout the Great Lakes region.

* Great Lakes Commission, an agency promoting the orderly, integrated, 
and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of water and 
related natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin and the St. Lawrence 
River, includes representatives from the eight Great Lakes states and 
the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

* Great Lakes Fishery Commission, created by the Canadian and U.S. 
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries in 1955, coordinates fisheries 
management and research, and management of sea lamprey. The U.S. 
Department of State and Canada's Fisheries and Ocean Department provide 
funding for the commission.

* International Association for Great Lakes Research, a scientific 
organization comprised of researchers studying the Great Lakes and 
other large lakes of the world, hosts annual conferences and publishes 
the Journal of Great Lakes Research.

* Great Lakes Research Consortium, an organization of 16 colleges and 
universities in New York, with 9 affiliate campuses in Ontario, 
dedicated to collaborative research and education on the Great Lakes, 
focuses its activities on improving and understanding the Great Lakes 
ecosystem, including the physical, biological, and chemical processes 
along with the social and political forces that affect human impact on 
the lakes.

* Great Lakes United, an international coalition organization focused 
on preserving and restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River 
ecosystem, promotes effective policy initiatives, carries out education 
programs, and promotes citizen action and grassroots leadership for 
Great Lakes environmental activities. The coalition is made up of 
member organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, 
hunters and anglers, labor unions, communities, and citizens of the 
United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes.

* Lake Michigan Federation, which works to restore fish and wildlife 
habitat, conserve land and water, and eliminate toxics in the watershed 
of Lake Michigan.

* The Nature Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the plants, 
animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life 
on Earth by protecting the lands and waters that need to survive. The 
major initiative of the Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Office is the 
Great Lakes Planning Initiative. The initiative has designated 270 
priority sites for conservation in the Great Lakes and is in the 
process of developing a planning document for each of these sites that 
will guide conservation work and coordination with other organizations 
and agencies.

* The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a private, nonprofit, and 
nonpartisan research organization dedicated to economic vitality, 
environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest 
states, has a major area of emphasis on the Great Lakes and has issued 
several reports on a variety of Great Lakes topics.

While these organizations are involved in Great Lakes activities, each 
is unique in terms of why it was created, its goals and objectives, 
scope of operations, and funding source. Several of the organizations 
are binational, such as the Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes 
United, and focus only on Great Lakes issues. For other organizations, 
such as The Nature Conservancy and the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the 
Great Lakes are one of several issues addressed by the organizations.

[End of section]

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

The magnitude of the area comprising the Great Lakes Basin and the many 
environmental programs operating within the basin require the 
development of one overarching strategy to address and manage the 
complex undertaking of restoring the basin's environmental health. The 
Great Lakes region cannot hope to successfully receive support as a 
national priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for 
restoring the Great Lakes. In lieu of such a plan, organizations at the 
binational, federal, and state levels have developed their own 
strategies for the Great Lakes, which have inadvertently made the 
coordination of various programs operating in the basin more 
challenging. Although coordination among federal agencies, states, and 
other environmental organizations occurs when strategies are being 
developed or when programmatic activity calls for coordination, the 
myriad of current strategies and coordination efforts makes it 
difficult to determine which organization is in charge. While the Great 
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has authority for coordinating 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal efforts, it has 
not fully exercised its authority. Numerous strategizing, planning, and 
coordinating efforts have not resulted in extensive restoration 
activity because of a lack of funding and other barriers.

An Overarching Strategy and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for 
Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects:

The Great Lakes region cannot be successfully supported as a national 
priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for restoring 
the Great Lakes. Clearly defined responsibilities for coordination are 
essential for effective management of large watershed restoration 
projects. An overarching strategy and governance process to guide 
restoration activities that transpire over many years have been 
developed for other large ecosystem restoration projects. The Great 
Lakes Basin lacks an overarching strategy and in its absence, numerous 
strategies have been developed to address environmental activities, 
each with a different purpose and scope. Some strategies attempt to 
address the entire basin while others are focused on specific 
environmental problems or geographical areas.

Overarching Strategies Are Essential to Guide Restoration Efforts:

Because of the complexity of large ecosystem restoration projects and 
multiple stakeholders, restoration efforts for other large ecosystems, 
such as the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay, have 
developed overarching strategies to guide their activities. These 
strategies were deemed essential by the organizations involved in the 
efforts for guiding activities that would occur over extended time 
periods and with multiple stakeholders whose participation may change 
over time.

The South Florida ecosystem is a large restoration project initiative 
with an overall strategic plan to guide its restoration activities. 
This ecosystem covers a large geographical area that encompasses a 
major portion of South Florida, including the Everglades wetlands. 
Numerous changes brought on by urbanization, agricultural activities, 
and federal efforts to control flooding have detrimentally affected the 
ecosystem. In response to growing deterioration of the ecosystem, 
federal agencies established a task force in 1993 to coordinate their 
restoration activities. In 1996, the task force was expanded to include 
state, local, and tribal members and was formalized in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996. However, as we reported in 1999, a 
strategic plan had not been developed laying out how the restoration 
initiative would be accomplished, including quantifiable goals and 
performance measures.[Footnote 5] Without a strategic plan, we noted 
the ability to accomplish the restoration initiative in a timely and 
efficient manner was at risk because of its complexity and a mechanism 
was needed to provide the authority for making management decisions. In 
a subsequent report,[Footnote 6] we noted that a strategic plan for the 
ecosystem would clearly communicate to the Congress and other 
participants in the restoration effort what it is trying to achieve, 
the time frames for achieving the expected results, and the level of 
funding that would be needed. Such a plan was also needed because of 
the inevitable personnel turnover in task force representation 
occurring over time and the subsequent need to inform new task force 
members of restoration progress.

The strategic plan developed for the South Florida ecosystem by the 
task force made substantial progress in guiding the restoration 
activities. The plan, which the task force submitted in July 2000, 
identifies the resources needed to achieve restoration and assigns 
accountability for specific actions for the extensive restoration 
effort estimated to cost $14.8 billion. As we reported in 2001, the 
plan needed additional elements, including a clear picture of how the 
restoration will occur and linkage between strategic goals and outcome-
oriented goals for tracking and measuring restoration progress. The 
restoration effort was elevated to nationwide recognition with the 
authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) 
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). This act 
contained provisions specifying the coordination among stakeholders, 
the funding responsibilities, and the authorization for program 
regulations.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed is another example of a large restoration 
effort with an overarching strategy. In a 1983 agreement to restore the 
Chesapeake Bay, the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the 
District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and EPA signed an 
agreement to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The 
participants saw the need to establish an executive council to marshal 
public support for the bay effort and be accountable to the public for 
progress made under the agreement. Under the 1983 agreement, the 
executive council must meet at least twice yearly to assess and oversee 
the implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect the 
water quality and living resources of the bay. The council established 
an implementation committee of agency representatives to coordinate 
technical matters and the development and evaluation of management 
plans. In a subsequent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, the partners agreed 
to a new ecosystem approach to the bay. While continuing to focus 
restoration efforts on individual species and habitat, such as the blue 
crab and the oyster reef, the new agreement recognizes the linkage 
among these efforts and addresses their interdependence within the 
context of a single, broad ecosystem approach. Several reports by the 
council have detailed the status of progress toward the goals set forth 
in the agreements.

The South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay watershed are large 
ecosystems with overarching strategies, but the overall area and 
population affected by these ecosystems are significantly less than the 
Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes influence more people, land, water, 
and states by a substantial margin. The population within the basin is 
more than five times that of the population near the South Florida 
project and more than twice the population near the Chesapeake Bay. The 
basin comprises more than 11 times the area of the South Florida 
project and more than 3 times the area of Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, the 
basin encompasses eight states as opposed to one state for the South 
Florida project and six states and the District of Columbia for the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. (See table 3.):

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

Restoration area: Great Lakes Basin; Area size: (in square miles): 
201,000; Area population: 33 million; Number of affected states: 8.

Restoration area: Chesapeake Bay watershed; Area size: (in square 
miles): 64,000; Area population: 16 million; Number of affected states: 
6.

Restoration area: South Florida ecosystem; Area size: (in square 
miles): 18,000; Area population: 6 million; Number of affected states: 
1.

Sources: Environment Canada, EPA, and GAO.

[End of table]

Strategies for the Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching 
Restoration Approach:

Numerous strategies developed for the Great Lakes Basin address 
environmental restoration activities with different perspectives, 
purposes, and scopes. Several comprehensive strategies attempt to 
address restoration activities for the entire basin. Other strategies 
address a particular concern or geographic area. However, none of the 
current strategies provides an overarching approach that can be used as 
a restoration blueprint to guide overall activities similar to the 
South Florida ecosystem restoration.

The most recent comprehensive strategy developed for the entire basin-
-the Great Lakes Strategy 2002--was developed by the U.S. Policy 
Committee (USPC), a group of mostly federal regional, and state 
officials and coordinated by GLNPO. The group focused on federal, 
state, and tribal government activities as they relate to environmental 
protection and natural resource management and to fulfilling the goals 
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The strategy sets 
forth goals, objectives, and actions in various environmental issues, 
such as storm water discharges, along with goals, objectives, and key 
actions to achieve for these issues. The strategy also recognizes the 
other strategies that have been developed for the Great Lakes. 
Developing the strategy occurred over several months, requiring 
significant time and efforts by GLNPO and USPC members to agree on the 
various goals, objectives, and actions. GLNPO officials plan periodic 
follow-up with USPC representatives to determine the progress made in 
reaching the objectives. Toward this end, GLNPO has prepared a matrix 
listing over 100 planned actions for achieving the objectives and will 
conduct follow-up inquiries with the responsible agency officials to 
determine progress as an accountability mechanism.

The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides extensive information on planned 
activities to achieve the objectives, but it is largely a descriptive 
compilation of existing program activities that relates to basin 
restoration. For example, the strategy addresses Brownfields 
redevelopment by identifying the number of Brownfields sites within the 
basin and describing ongoing Brownfields activities.[Footnote 7] The 
key action called for in the strategy is to continue support for local 
Brownfields redevelopment efforts through various planned or ongoing 
activities at the state and federal levels. The strategy also promotes 
clean and healthy beaches by noting that EPA will implement the Beaches 
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000. The act 
requires all states with coastal waters, including the Great Lakes 
states, to review water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters 
and adopt protective water quality standards.

To attain the strategy's objectives, federal and state agencies need to 
provide level funding to avoid modification of the planned actions and 
activities, according to GLNPO officials. The strategy states that 
"(it) should not be construed as a commitment by the U.S. government 
for additional funding and resources for its implementation. Nor does 
it represent a commitment by the U.S. government to adopt new 
regulations."[Footnote 8] GLNPO officials agreed that the strategy 
continues with the status quo and is a statement of what they hope to 
accomplish with better coordination. Some state officials involved in 
developing the strategy stated that state actions described in the 
strategy were already planned and that implementation is contingent on 
states funding the relevant environmental programs.

In 2001, the Great Lakes Commission published another basin strategy, 
The Great Lakes Program to Ensure Environmental and Economic 
Prosperity, which outlines seven major goals for the Great Lakes Basin. 
The goals are:

* cleaning up toxic hot spots,

* preventing the introduction or limiting the spread of invasive 
species,

* controlling nonpoint source pollution,

* restoring and conserving wetlands and critical coastal habitat,

* ensuring the sustainable use of our water resources,

* strengthening decision support capability, and:

* enhancing the commercial and recreational value of our waterways.

For each goal, the strategy contains recommendations for actions that 
target specific programs, authorizations, and appropriations. For 
example, the commission helped develop and promote the adoption of an 
action plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species.

The commission's strategy involves coordinated efforts among the 
commission and its partner agencies and organizations to secure much 
needed federal appropriations and legislative initiatives. This 
strategy emphasizes federal/state and U.S./Canadian partnerships as a 
means to achieving its goals, but it does not provide detailed 
implementation plans or identify funding sources to achieve the goals. 
GLNPO officials stated that they believe this strategy and the Great 
Lakes Strategy 2002 are complimentary rather than competing strategies.

Two other organizations--Great Lakes United and the Council of Great 
Lakes Governors--are developing basin-wide restoration strategies. 
Great Lakes United, an international coalition of basin stakeholders, 
has developed and circulated several documents addressing Great Lakes 
issues. By 2003, Great Lakes United plans to integrate these draft 
issue documents into an overall agenda for the comprehensive 
restoration of the basin. The Council of Great Lakes Governors' 
strategy is being based on the priorities of the Great Lakes governors 
and is to be used as a basis for identifying priority restoration 
efforts for the basin.

Additional Strategies Focus on Specific Issues or Geographic Areas:

Other Great Lakes specific strategies address unique environmental 
problems or specific geographical areas. A strategy for each lake 
addresses open lake waters through Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP), 
which EPA is responsible for developing. Toward this end, EPA formed 
working groups for each lake to identify and address restoration 
activities. For example, the LaMP for Lake Michigan, issued in 2002, 
includes a summary of the lake's ecosystem status and addresses 
progress in achieving the goals described in the previous plan, with 
examples of significant activities completed and other relevant topics.

The Binational Executive Committee for the United States and Canada 
issued its Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997 that 
established a collaborative process by which EPA and Environment 
Canada, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies, 
states, the province of Ontario, and tribes, work toward the goal of 
the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great 
Lakes. The strategy particularly addresses substances that 
bioaccumulate in fish or animals and pose a human health risk. After 
establishing various challenges for both or either country to meet, the 
strategy lays out priority activities to meet the challenges. The 
strategy also incorporates the regular assessment of progress made. 
Among the successes in reducing persistent toxic substances in the 
Great Lakes is the cleanup of contaminated sediment sites at some Great 
Lakes harbors; reduced levels of PCBs, dioxins, and DDT; and improved 
sport fisheries.

Michigan developed a strategy for environmental cleanup called the 
Clean Michigan Initiative. This initiative provides money for a variety 
of environmental, parks, and redevelopment programs. It includes nine 
components, including Brownfields redevelopment and environmental 
cleanups, nonpoint source pollution control, clean water, cleanup of 
contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. The initiative is 
funded by a $675 million general obligation bond and as of early 2003, 
most of the funds had not been distributed.

GLNPO Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating Great 
Lakes Restoration Programs:

Ultimate responsibility for coordinating Great Lakes restoration 
programs rests with GLNPO, which has the statutory authority to 
coordinate EPA's and other federal agency activities. However, GLNPO 
has not fully exercised this authority, and other organizations or 
committees have formed to assume coordination and strategy development 
roles.

The Clean Water Act provides GLNPO with the authority to coordinate the 
actions of EPA's headquarters and regional offices aimed at improving 
Great Lakes water quality. It also provides GLNPO with the authority to 
coordinate EPA's actions with the actions of other federal agencies and 
state and local authorities for obtaining input in developing water 
quality strategies and obtaining support in achieving the objectives of 
the GLWQA. Finally, the statute provides that the EPA Administrator 
shall ensure that GLNPO enters into agreements with the various 
organizational elements of the agency engaged in Great Lakes activities 
and with appropriate state agencies. The agreements should specifically 
delineate the duties and responsibilities, time periods for carrying 
out duties, and resources committed to these duties. GLNPO officials 
stated that they do not enter into formal agreements with other EPA 
offices but rather fulfill their responsibilities under the act by 
having federal agencies and state officials agree to the restoration 
activities contained in the Great Lakes Strategy 2002. However, the 
strategy does not represent formal agreements to conduct specific 
duties and responsibilities with committed resources. The absence of 
these agreements was also reported in a September 1999 report by EPA's 
Office of Inspector General.[Footnote 9] The report stated that GLNPO 
did not have agreements as required by the act and recommended that 
such agreements be made to improve working relationships and 
coordination.

Other organizations or groups have formed to fulfill coordinating roles 
in Great Lakes restoration activities, both at the basin level and on a 
smaller scale for specific issues of concern. For example, the USPC, 
which was formed initially by GLNPO in 1988 to develop a Great Lakes 
strategy and provide a coordinating role, developed a strategy and a 
coordinating plan, "Protecting the Great Lakes," in 1992 to cover the 
5-year period from 1992 through 1997. Officials from federal agencies 
not on the USPC never approved the plan, and many parties involved in 
environmental activities in the basin felt left out of the strategy 
development process. The USPC was disbanded in 1995, and the strategy 
was not used as a guide for restoration activities. GLNPO officials 
formed a second U.S. Policy Committee in 1999, similar in structure to 
the first committee, which included federal regional and state 
officials. The USPC recently developed the Great Lakes Strategy 2002, 
and it meets semi-annually to coordinate agency actions and commitments 
associated with the strategy, as well as to review progress and ensure 
accountability. Another group, the Midwest Natural Resources Group, 
established in 1998, contains a Great Lakes focus team that conducts 
coordination meetings for eliminating duplication across federal 
bureaus and agencies. Within this group, representatives from EPA and 
the Corps facilitate activities, such as developing monitoring 
protocols, sharing facilities and vessels across agencies, and 
increasing data sharing.

With several entities involved in coordinating, planning, and 
strategizing, it appears at times that federal and state officials 
cannot be sure which entity bears ultimate responsibility for and 
authority over these activities and their implementation at any given 
time and whether the entity is a permanent body or an ad hoc 
organization that may disband if interest wanes. State of Minnesota 
officials, who were asked to provide input for several restoration 
plans, stated that they found the significant overlap of the plans 
inefficient and thought it would be helpful to have a more streamlined 
approach to Great Lakes issues. They stated that it would be better to 
have an overall structure to carry out environmental activities. 
Officials from The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit organization 
conducting environmental activities in the Great Lakes, stated that it 
is difficult to understand the array of public sector entities and 
their involvement in Great Lakes issues. They observed that the Great 
Lakes community is fractionalized with participants, both public and 
private, pushing their own agendas rather than a true vision vetted 
with all stakeholders. They further noted that the heavy bureaucratic 
framework of many groups and processes made them skeptical that actual 
work would be conducted.

A USGS official stated that the lack of a unified vision among the many 
Great Lakes federal, state, and local agencies impedes progress. He 
noted that individual efforts are not structured or organized in such a 
way that they can be integrated to provide the hierarchical means to 
assess, diagnose, and restore the system. The burden to provide the 
leadership that will bring a Great Lakes program to a level that is 
consistent with other large-scale efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay 
restoration, rests largely with EPA--the only agency under the Clean 
Water Act and associated agreements with Canada--with regulatory 
authority to do so. More money, the official said, would not improve 
restoration progress unless it is combined with a strong, overarching 
effort of coordination and organization. GLNPO officials stated that 
the success of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Restoration Project can be 
attributed to the buy-in of high-level officials, such as the governors 
of the related states, a level of influential support that they say 
GLNPO lacks.

While several organizations are conducting coordination in developing 
strategies, at the individual program level, most federal and state 
officials reported coordination with their programmatic counterparts in 
various ways while implementing their programs. For example, section 
404 of the Clean Water Act requires a formal arrangement between EPA 
and the Corps to coordinate management of a dredge and fill permit 
program each year, with the agencies jointly reviewing about 10,000 
permit applications for the basin. Coordination activities can be 
formalized in memoranda of understanding or agreement, interagency 
agreements, or letters of collaboration. For example, in a 1997 
memorandum of agreement among NOAA, EPA, the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources, and two Wisconsin Indian tribes, the parties agreed 
to coordinate their efforts in removing contaminated sediments from the 
Lower Fox River in Wisconsin. The agreement specifies an organizational 
structure, including what the parties' duties are, what their 
responsibilities are, and how disputes will be resolved. In addition to 
such formal coordination, informal coordination also occurs between 
federal and state officials through meetings or telephone calls. For 
example, officials from EPA's Region V Water Division coordinated 
Coastal Environmental Management Program activities with eight federal 
agencies in developing LaMPs. This coordination included 
correspondence, conference calls, and various face-to-face meetings.

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

Although major planning efforts aimed at restoring the Great Lakes 
exist, several barriers have prevented these efforts from resulting in 
extensive restoration activity. Great Lakes program officials often 
cited insufficient funding for program activities as a major barrier 
and a reason for not achieving and measuring restoration progress in 
the Great Lakes. They also cited several other factors affecting 
progress, including the lack of local technical expertise for 
conducting restoration activities, poor coordination among groups 
conducting environmental activity, and a lack of leadership.
:

Limited Restoration Progress after Many Years of Planning:

After years of planning restoration activities for the Great Lakes 
Basin, significant restoration progress remains to be achieved. Several 
IJC reports have pointed out the slow restoration progress. For 
example, in 2002, the IJC reported that after more than 15 years of 
planning and incremental activity, restoration of the Great Lakes 
through remedial actions remains elusive and difficult and more needs 
to be done quickly.[Footnote 10] Moreover, the IJC stated in 2000 that 
the Great Lakes ecosystem remains compromised and that contaminated 
sediments in the lakes produce health problems.[Footnote 11] 
Restoration challenges remain in several areas, such as controlling 
invasive species.

The slow restoration progress is illustrated by the 26 contaminated 
areas in the Great Lakes Basin for which the United States is 
responsible for ensuring cleanup under the GLWQA. In April 2002, we 
reported that none of the areas had been restored to beneficial use and 
only half of the areas selected remedial and regulatory measures to 
address the problems, and all areas had defined their respective 
environmental problems.[Footnote 12] The slow progress of cleanup 
efforts reflects a general departure from the process specified in the 
agreement, and in some cases the process was abandoned. Based on these 
findings, it was clear that EPA was not fulfilling its responsibility 
to ensure that plans for cleaning up the areas were being developed or 
implemented. Citing resource constraints along with the need to tend to 
other Great Lakes priorities, EPA reduced its staff and the amount of 
funding it allocated to states for developing and implementing plans 
for contaminated areas. Subsequent to our report, GLNPO officials took 
actions to improve the implementation of cleanup plans.

Lack of Funding Is a Key Barrier to Achieving Restoration Progress:

Inadequate funding has also contributed to the failure to restore and 
protect the Great Lakes, according to the IJC biennial report on Great 
Lakes water quality issued in July 2000.[Footnote 13] The IJC restated 
this conclusion in a 2002 report, concluding that any progress to 
restore the Great Lakes would continue at a slow incremental pace 
without increased funding.[Footnote 14] Lack of funding is consistently 
mentioned in prior IJC reports as a major roadblock to restoration 
progress. For example, the 1993 biennial report concluded that 
remediation of contaminated areas could not be accomplished unless 
government officials came to grips with the magnitude of cleanup costs 
and started the process of securing the necessary resources.[Footnote 
15] Despite this warning, however, as we reported in 2002, EPA reduced 
the funding available for ensuring the cleanup of contaminated areas 
under the assumption that the states would fill the funding void. 
States, however, did not increase their funding, and restoration 
progress slowed or stopped altogether.[Footnote 16]

Officials for 24 of 33 federal programs and for 3 of 17 state programs 
reported insufficient funding for federal and state Great Lakes 
specific programs. They cited specific consequences of funding 
deficits, including:

* Funding for GLNPO's monitoring programs has not kept pace with 
increased operating costs, allowed for infrastructure repairs for its 
research vessel, provided for sufficient atmospheric deposition 
monitoring, or provided for monitoring new or emerging contaminants.

* Michigan's Great Lakes Protection Fund receives funding requests 
exceeding the amount of money that is available in any given year. For 
example, in fiscal year 2001, the state received requests for $10.4 
million for project funding and was able to fund projects totaling only 
$700,000.

States are particularly strapped to provide funding for restoration 
activities within recent budget constraints. For example, an official 
with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated that the 
priority for funding an unmandated Great Lakes program is secondary to 
other programs specifically mandated by the Clean Water and Clean Air 
Acts and other environmental programs. An official from the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency stated that Minnesota and other states do not 
routinely set aside funds to implement restoration activities for the 
Great Lakes. Restoration projects are funded within the constraints of 
the states' current budgets, and existing funding requirements take 
precedent. State officials also pointed out the difficulty states face 
in providing funds to meet federal program matching fund requirements 
for restoration activities. Although the matching fund percentage 
required may be relatively low, such as 10 percent, the aggregate 
amount for several programs can be significant. For example, Michigan 
Department of Environmental Quality officials informed us that during 
fiscal years 1992 through 2001, the state expended over $83 million in 
matching funds to obtain federal funding for programs that contributed 
to restoration or protection in the basin. During this same period, 
Ohio's environmental programs expended more than $14 million in 
matching fund amounts. Corps and other federal officials stated that 
some states do not solicit federal program funds because they lack the 
ability to meet the matching fund requirements.

Other Significant Barriers Exist for Restoration Progress:

While the lack of funding is the most often cited barrier to 
restoration progress, other factors, such as lack of technical 
expertise and effective coordination, also create barriers to 
restoration progress. A NOAA official stated that while financial 
resource limitations hinder the restoration process, increased funding 
without better coordination among the various agencies would not be 
effective. In a similar observation, a Minnesota state official said 
that there is no agency at the federal or state level that knows all 
the programs and funding that exist to address Great Lakes problems or 
the steps one must take to obtain these funds. The official further 
commented that a significant lack of technical knowledge within program 
management for many Great Lakes projects prevents agencies from 
identifying and assessing environmental needs and measuring restoration 
progress. In commenting on efforts to cleanup contaminated areas in the 
Great Lakes, the IJC reported several other problems besides the lack 
of funding for cleanup sites, namely the lack of government leadership 
and accountability, delays caused by disagreements, and inadequate 
planning.

Conclusions:

Although there are several strategies that address restoration of the 
Great Lakes Basin, no one overarching strategy or plan unifies these 
strategies in the pursuit of a common goal, similar to the restoration 
plan for the South Florida ecosystem. The magnitude of the restoration 
effort and the number of parties involved in the basin restoration 
necessitate that the major parties involved develop and agree upon an 
overarching strategy that addresses basin improvements. Without such an 
overall strategy or plan, there is no road map to follow for achieving 
the restoration goals agreed to between the United States and Canada in 
the GLWQA. An overarching strategy for the basin is needed to establish 
restoration goals, outline how restoration will occur, identify the 
resources needed to achieve restoration, assign accountability for 
restoration, and provide a mechanism for measuring progress for 
achieving goals. While there is a general consensus that more funding 
is needed for the restoration, without an overall strategy that 
prioritizes activities, it is unclear which activities should receive 
additional funding. Furthermore, without a strategy, the cycle of 
preparing numerous plans without significant restoration progress will 
likely continue. Although GLNPO is responsible for coordinating U.S. 
restoration activities within the basin, EPA has not ensured that GLNPO 
fulfills this responsibility by entering into agreements for conducting 
restoration activities.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that 
federal dollars are effectively spent, we recommend that the 
Administrator, EPA,

* ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for coordinating 
programs within the Great Lakes Basin;

* charge GLNPO with developing, in consultation with the governors of 
the Great Lakes states, federal agencies, and other organizations, an 
overarching strategy that clearly defines the roles and 
responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing funding for 
projects; and:

* submit a time-phased funding requirement proposal to the Congress 
necessary to implement the strategy.

Agency Comments:

While EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better coordination 
and that our recommendations can help ensure that environmental 
improvements are made, it did not address the specific recommendations 
to improve coordination of Great Lakes activities. Rather, the agency 
stated it would provide to our agency, the Congress, and the Office of 
Management and Budget a formal response to the final report 
recommendations. The agency stated that it fulfilled its coordination 
responsibilities by convening the USPC and developing the Great Lakes 
Strategy 2002. We recognized these efforts in our report, but they do 
not fulfill GLNPO's responsibility for coordinating programs in the 
Great Lakes Basin, nor does the strategy fulfill the need for an 
overarching strategy for the basin. EPA does acknowledge that its 
strategy can be used as a foundation for any future Great Lakes 
ecosystem restoration plan. The complete text of EPA's comments is 
presented in appendix V.

[End of section]

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

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) calls for a monitoring 
system to measure restoration progress and ensure that its objectives 
are met. To date, the implementation of this provision has been 
limited. While there is recognizable progress in improving some 
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, current 
environmental indicators do not provide an adequate basis for 
determining overall progress. Recent assessments of overall progress 
have relied on a mix of quantitative data and subjective judgments, and 
progress reported on federal and state programs focuses on program 
activities, frequently citing outputs rather than environmental 
outcomes. A binational effort to develop a set of overall indicators 
was initiated in 1996, but the completion date for this effort and the 
availability of resources needed to gather baseline indicators data are 
uncertain.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Calls for a Monitoring System 
to Ensure Objectives Are Met:

One of the 17 agreement annexes in the GLWQA, as amended in 1987, 
requires that the United States and Canada undertake a joint 
surveillance and monitoring program to measure restoration progress and 
assess the degree to which the parties are complying with goals and 
objectives of the agreement. The program also provides for an 
evaluation of water quality trends, identification of emerging 
problems, and support for developing remedial action plans for 
contaminated areas and lakewide management plans for critical 
pollutants. Prior to the 1987 amendments, the 1978 agreement between 
the two countries also contained a requirement for surveillance and 
monitoring and for the development of a Great Lakes International 
Surveillance Plan. The IJC Water Quality Board was involved in managing 
and developing the program until the 1987 amendments placed this 
responsibility on the United States and Canada. According to a 
binational review of the agreement in 1999, this change resulted in a 
significant reduction in the two countries' support for surveillance 
and monitoring. In fact, the organizational structure to implement the 
surveillance plan was abandoned in 1990, leaving only one initiative in 
place--the International Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN). In 
1990, the two countries initiated IADN--a network of 15 air-monitoring 
stations located throughout the basin.

With the surveillance and monitoring efforts languishing, the IJC 
established the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force in 1993 to 
identify the appropriate framework to evaluate progress in the Great 
Lakes. As the entity responsible for evaluating progress towards 
meeting the goals and objectives of the agreement, the IJC task force, 
in 1996, proposed that the following nine desired measurements and 
outcomes be used to develop indicators for measuring progress (see 
table 4).

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

Measurement: Fishability; Desired outcome: No restrictions on the human 
consumption of fish resulting from the input of persistent toxic 
substances.

Measurement: Swimmability; Desired outcome: No public beaches closed or 
swimming restrictions imposed because of human activities.

Measurement: Drinkability; Desired outcome: Treated drinking water is 
safe for human consumption, and there are no restrictions because of 
human activities.

Measurement: Healthy human populations; Desired outcome: Human 
populations in the Great Lakes Basin are healthy and free from acute 
illness because of exposure to high levels of contaminants or chronic 
illness because of exposure to low level contaminants.

Measurement: Economic viability; Desired outcome: The regional economy 
is viable and sustainable and provides adequate sustenance and dignity 
for the basin population.

Measurement: Biological community integrity and diversity; Desired 
outcome: The ability of biological communities to function normally in 
the absence of environmental stress by maintaining ecosystem health, 
ecological integrity, and the diversity of biological communities.

Measurement: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic 
substances; Desired outcome: The virtual elimination of inputs of 
persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes.

Measurement: Absence of excess phosphorus; Desired outcome: The absence 
of excess phosphorus entering the watersheds because of human 
behavior.

Measurement: Physical environment integrity; Desired outcome: The 
development, compatible use, and maintenance of aquatic habitat in the 
quantity and quality necessary and sufficient to sustain an endemic 
assemblage of fish and wildlife populations.

Source: IJC.

[End of table]

Shortly before the task force began its work, the United States and 
Canada had agreed to hold conferences every 2 years to assess the 
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes in order to develop 
binational reports on the environmental conditions to measure progress 
under the agreement. Conference participants included U.S. and Canadian 
representatives from federal, state, provincial, and tribal agencies, 
as well as other organizations with environmental restoration or 
pollution prevention interests in the Great Lakes Basin. The first 
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)[Footnote 17] was held 
in 1994 and culminated in a "State of the Great Lakes 1995" report, 
which provided an overview of the Great Lakes ecosystem at the end of 
1994 and concluded that overall the aquatic community health was mixed 
or improving. The same assessment was echoed in the 1997 state of the 
lakes report. Meanwhile, the IJC agreed that monitoring the nine 
desired outcome areas recommended by the task force would help assess 
overall progress. It recommended that SOLEC, during the conference in 
2000, establish environmental indicators that would allow the IJC to 
evaluate what had been accomplished and what needed to be done as it 
relates to the public's ability to eat the fish, drink the water, and 
swim in the water without any restrictions. The other outcomes would be 
addressed at a later date.

Current Indicators Do Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making an 
Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress:

The indicators developed through the SOLEC process and the 
accomplishments reported by federal and state program managers do not 
provide an adequate basis for making an overall assessment for Great 
Lakes restoration progress. The SOLEC process is ongoing, and the 
indicators that are still being developed are not generally supported 
by sufficient underlying data for making progress assessments. The 
ultimate success of SOLEC is uncertain because of limited resources 
committed to the process, and until indicators are finalized, the 
accomplishments now reported for individual Great Lakes specific 
programs do not provide an adequate basis for assessing overall 
progress. Program accomplishments usually describe program outputs, 
rather than outcomes, and do not adequately portray whether 
environmental conditions are improving or deteriorating.

Recent Assessments of Environmental Conditions Rely on Limited Data:

SOLEC's recent assessments of the Great Lakes ecosystem have relied on 
limited quantitative data and subjective judgments in determining the 
status of desired outcomes, such as swimmability, drinkability, and the 
edibility of fish within the Great Lakes. At the 1998 SOLEC conference, 
groups of experts narrowed down a list of more than 850 indicators to 
80 basin ecosystem indicators with the objective of reaching an 
agreement on a list of comprehensive indicators for the basin. The 
proposed indicators were reviewed, discussed, and revised during the 
conference and placed in seven categories, such as open waters, coastal 
wetlands, land use, and human health. Within these categories, the 
indicators were further classified as a current condition (state), such 
as population of salmon and trout, or an adverse impact (pressure), 
such as sea lamprey diminishing fish populations. Conference 
participants devoted extensive effort to commenting on and modifying 
these indicators.

The SOLEC 2000 conference focused on assessing the previously 
identified 80 indicators for reporting on the overall condition of the 
Great Lakes. Participants further reduced the number of indicators 
ultimately assessed because data was only readily available for 33 
indicators. Subject experts assessed and classified the indicators on a 
scale with five classifications--good; mixed, improving; mixed; mixed, 
deteriorating; and poor. Participants developed these classifications 
using the following definitions:

* Good. The state of the ecosystem component is presently meeting 
ecosystem objectives or otherwise is an acceptable condition.

* Mixed, improving. The ecosystem component displays both good and 
degraded features, but overall, conditions are improving toward an 
acceptable state.

* Mixed. The state of the ecosystem component has some features that 
are in good condition and some features that are degraded, perhaps 
different between lake basins.

* Mixed, deteriorating. The ecosystem component displays both good and 
degraded features, but overall, conditions are deteriorating from an 
acceptable state.

* Poor. The ecosystem component is severely negatively impacted and 
does not display even minimally acceptable conditions.

For example, the level of contaminants in snapping turtle eggs is an 
indicator for coastal wetlands. The indicator was assessed and placed 
in the mixed assessment category because of the high levels of 
contaminants in snapping turtle eggs found at eight locations in Lakes 
Ontario and Erie, and the St. Lawrence River. The classification of 
indicators into categories was based on the SOLEC partners' best 
professional judgments and was not necessarily supported by sound 
science-based reliable data. The 33 indicators became the basis for the 
"State of the Great Lakes 2001" report, which concluded that a detailed 
quantitative assessment could not be made, but that an overall 
qualitative assessment of "mixed" should be applied to the basin 
ecosystem. The assessment was based on six observations. One positive 
observation was that the Great Lakes surface waters remain one of the 
best drinking water sources in the world; a negative observation was 
that invasive species continue to present a significant threat to the 
biological community.

After the SOLEC 2000 conference, IJC staff assessed the indicators 
supported by data that measured the desired outcomes of swimmability, 
drinkability, and the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes.[Footnote 
18] Overall, the IJC commended SOLEC's quick response that brought 
together information regarding the outcomes and SOLEC's ongoing 
efforts. The IJC, however, recognized that sufficient data were not 
being collected from around the Great Lakes and that the methods of 
collection, the data collection time frames, the lack of uniform 
protocols, and the incompatible nature of some data jeopardized their 
use as indicators. Specifically, for the desired outcome of 
swimmability, which was assessed as "mixed," the IJC concurred that it 
was not always safe to swim at certain beaches but noted that progress 
for this desired outcome was limited because beaches were sampled by 
local jurisdictions without uniform sampling or reporting methods. At 
the 2002 SOLEC conference, the number of indicators assessed under the 
5-tiered scale increased from 33 to 45. The IJC expressed concern that 
there are too many indicators, insufficient supporting backup data, and 
a lack of commitment and funding from EPA to implement and make 
operational the agreed upon SOLEC baseline data collection and 
monitoring techniques. The IJC recommended in its last biennial report 
that any new indicators should be developed only where resources are 
sufficient to access scientifically valid and reliable information.

Successful Development and Assessment of Indicators Are Difficult to 
Discern:

The ultimate successful development and assessment of indicators for 
the Great Lakes through the SOLEC process are uncertain because 
insufficient resources have been committed to the process, no plan 
provides completion dates for indicator development and implementation, 
and there is a lack of control over the data being collected. While the 
SOLEC process has successfully engaged a wide range of binational 
parties in developing indicators, the resources devoted to this process 
are largely provided on a volunteer basis without firm commitments to 
continue in the future. GLNPO officials described the SOLEC process as 
a professional, collaborative process dependent on the voluntary 
participation of officials from federal and state agencies, academic 
institutions, and other organizations attending SOLEC and developing 
information on specific indicators. The resources provided for the 
process cannot be assured in the future and the financial resources 
committed by GLNPO to the process have primarily consisted of 
contributing funding for hosting the conferences and providing two 
staff members to manage the process. EPA supports the development of 
environmental indicators as evidenced by the fact that, since 1994, 
GLNPO has provided about $100,000 annually to sponsor the conferences.

Additionally, GLNPO spends over $4 million per year to collect 
surveillance data for its open-lake water quality monitoring program, 
which also provides supporting data for some of the indicators 
addressed by SOLEC. A significant portion of these funds supports the 
operation of GLNPO's research vessel, the Lake Guardian, an offshore 
supply vessel converted for use as a research vessel. GLNPO also 
supports activities that are linked or otherwise feed information into 
the SOLEC process, including the following:

* collecting information on plankton and benthic communities in the 
Great Lakes for open water indicator development;

* sampling various chemicals in the open-lake waters, such as 
phosphorus for the total phosphorus indicator;

* monitoring fish contaminants in the open waters, directly supporting 
the indicator for contaminants in whole fish and a separate monitoring 
effort for contaminants in popular sport fish species that supports the 
indicator for chemical contaminants in edible fish tissue; and:

* operating 15 air-monitoring stations with Environment Canada 
comprising the IADN that provides information for establishing trends 
in concentrations of certain chemicals and loadings of chemicals into 
the lakes. EPA uses information from the network to take actions to 
control the chemicals and track progress toward environmental goals.

Because SOLEC is a voluntary process, the indicator data resides in a 
diverse number of sources with limited control by SOLEC organizers. 
GLNPO officials stated that EPA does not have either the authority or 
the responsibility to direct the data collection activities of federal, 
state, and local agencies as they relate to surveillance and monitoring 
of technical data elements that are needed to develop, implement, and 
assess Great Lakes environmental indicators. They further stated that 
the current SOLEC indicator process is based on unofficial professional 
relationships established between the SOLEC partnerships. Efforts are 
underway for the various federal and state agencies to take ownership 
for collecting and reporting data outputs from their respective areas 
of responsibility and for SOLEC to be sustained and implemented; each 
indicator must have a sponsor. However, any breakdown in submission of 
this information would leave a gap in the SOLEC indicator process.

SOLEC's 10-year plan, as presented at the 2000 conference, describes 
its objectives and the planned conference themes through 2006 with the 
theme for 2008 and beyond yet to be determined. Its stated objectives 
are to:

* assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted 
indicators,

* strengthen decision making and management,

* inform local decision makers of Great Lakes environmental issues, 
and:

* provide a forum for communication and networking among stakeholders.

Three of the SOLEC objectives do not focus directly on developing 
indicators, nor do the stated objectives align with the surveillance 
and monitoring program envisioned in the GLWQA. Whereas the agreement 
called for a joint surveillance and monitoring program to assess 
compliance with the agreement, evaluating water quality trends, 
identification of emerging problems, and support for the development of 
Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, the achievements 
reported for the SOLEC process, which include the number of background 
papers produced and reports prepared on the state of the lakes, do not 
align with the expected results envisioned by the surveillance and 
monitoring program.

In November 2001, EPA committed to an agencywide initiative to develop 
environmental indicators for addressing the agency's nationwide 
environmental conditions, stating that "indicators help measure the 
state of our air, water and land resources and the pressures placed on 
them, and the resulting effects on ecological and human health." 
However, this initiative does not specifically relate to the Great 
Lakes. The short-term goal for this initiative is to develop 
information that will indicate current nationwide environmental 
conditions and to help EPA make sound decisions on what needs to be 
done. The long-term goal is to bring together national, regional, 
state, and tribal indicator efforts to describe the condition of 
critical environmental areas and human health concerns.

Federal and State Programs Measure Progress in Several Ways, Often 
Citing Outputs Rather than Outcomes:

Progress reported by officials from individual federal and state 
programs in the basin is generally not presented in a manner that 
describes how the programs have improved environmental conditions 
within the Great Lakes Basin. Program output data are frequently cited 
as measures of success versus actual program accomplishments. As a 
rule, program output data describe activities, such as projects funded, 
and are of limited value in determining environmental progress. For 
example, accomplishments reported for Michigan's Great Lakes Protection 
Fund were that it funded 125 research projects over an 11-year period 
and publicized its project results at an annual forum and on a Web 
site. Another example is the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon 
Reintroduction Program administered by FWS. Under its accomplishments, 
program officials cited the completion of a pilot study and technical 
assistance provided to a Native American tribe. For the 50 federal and 
state programs created specifically to address conditions in the basin, 
27 reported accomplishments in terms of outputs, such as reports or 
studies prepared or presentations made to groups. Because research and 
capacity building programs largely support other activities, it is 
particularly difficult to relate reported program accomplishments to 
outcomes. For example, the National Oceanic Atmospheric 
Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 
conducts extensive research and environmental modeling that helps to 
improve management of aquatic environments and understanding of coastal 
and estuarine processes. The federal and state environmental program 
officials responding to our evaluation generally provided output data 
or, as reported for 15 programs, the accomplishments had not been 
measured for these Great Lakes specific programs.

Only eight of the federal or state Great Lakes specific programs 
reported outcome information, much of which generally described how 
effective the programs' activity or action had been in improving 
environmental conditions. For example, EPA's Region II program for 
reducing toxic chemical inputs into the Niagara River, which connects 
Lake Erie to Lake Ontario, reported reductions in priority toxics from 
1986 through 2002 from ambient water quality monitoring. Other 
significant outcomes reported as accomplishments for the Great Lakes 
included (1) reducing phosphorus loadings by waste treatment plants and 
limiting phosphorus use in household detergents; (2) prohibiting the 
release of some toxicants into the Great Lakes, and reducing to an 
acceptable level the amount of some other toxicants that could be 
input; (3) effectively reducing the sea lamprey population in several 
invasive species infested watersheds; and (4) restocking the fish-
depleted populations in some watersheds.

Conclusions:

Without a monitoring system for the Great Lakes Basin, it is impossible 
to determine overall restoration progress and compliance with goals and 
objectives of the GLWQA. While it is clear that some restoration 
progress has occurred for some environmental conditions, definitive 
observations on overall restoration progress are difficult to make 
without indicators to measure progress, baseline indicator data, and a 
process for monitoring indicators. The current SOLEC process fills an 
important void, but it cannot fulfill the requirements of the 
surveillance and monitoring program called for in the agreement. SOLEC 
serves a useful purpose in creating a consensus on which indicators are 
the most useful and inventorying available indicator data. There is no 
assurance, however, that the SOLEC process, which relies heavily on the 
voluntary participation of interested officials, will continue, or if 
it does continue, whether it will yield sufficient information for an 
overall quantitative assessment of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and 
to ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, we are 
recommending that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian 
officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1) 
develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great 
Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress 
and (2) require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize, 
and make funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration 
projects.

Agency Comments:

EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better monitoring and 
generally agreed that our recommendations can help ensure improvements. 
However, it did not address the specific recommendations for a 
monitoring system called for in the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement. Rather, the agency stated it would provide to our agency, 
the Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget a formal response 
to the final report recommendations. EPA stated that GLNPO has 
supported the SOLEC effort, but it did not comment on the 
recommendations for developing indicators and a monitoring system to 
measure overall restoration progress. The complete text of EPA's 
comments is presented in appendix V.

[End of section]

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

Federal agencies:

Environmental Protection Agency:

* Great Lakes National Program Office:

* Office of Research and Development:

* Regions II, III, and V:

Department of Agriculture:

* Agricultural Research Service:

* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:

* Farm Services Agency:

* Forest Service:

* Natural Resource Conservation Service:

Department of Commerce:

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Department of Defense:

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Department of Health and Human Services:

* Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

Department of Homeland Security:

* U.S. Coast Guard:

Department of Interior:

* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

* U.S. Geological Survey:

* National Park Service 

State agencies:

Illinois:

* Illinois Environmental Protection Agency:

Indiana:

* Indiana Department of Natural Resources:

Ohio:

* Ohio Environmental Protection Agency:

* Ohio Department of Natural Resources:

Michigan:

* Michigan Department of Environmental Quality:

* Michigan Department of Natural Resources:

Minnesota:

* Minnesota Department of Commerce:

* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

* Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:

* Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources:

* Minnesota State Planning Agency:

New York:

* New York Department of Environmental Conservation:

Pennsylvania:

* Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:

Wisconsin:

* Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:

[End of section]

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

Table 5 contains a listing of the non-Great Lakes specific programs 
managed by federal agencies.

Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Program name: Army Corps of Engineers.

Program name: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This restoration program funds the planning, design, and 
construction of projects to restore and enhance aquatic ecosystems. 
Program activities began in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: $2,243,800[A].

Program name: Beneficial Use of Dredged Material; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program, which was established in 1992, funds the 
planning, design, and construction of projects to protect, restore, and 
enhance aquatic habitats using sediments dredged from federal 
navigation projects. It is classified as a restoration program; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$384,600[C].

Program name: Cleaning and Snagging; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: 
Originally created in 1954, the purpose of this program is to plan, 
design, and construct projects for emergency removal of debris that 
threatens to aggravate damage caused by flooding; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,000.

Program name: Confined Disposal Facilities; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This cleanup program was established in 1970. Its purpose is 
to design, construct, and operate confined disposal facilities for the 
disposal of contaminated dredged materials from federal navigation 
projects; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $72,696,140.

Program name: Emergency Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1946 and its 
purpose is to plan, design, and construct projects to protect public 
facilities and services from stream bank and shoreline erosion; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$8,086,400.

Program name: Environmental Dredging; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: 
This environmental cleanup program was created in 1990. The program's 
purpose is to assist in the planning, design, and construction of 
projects to remove contaminated sediments from areas outside federal 
navigation channels; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $670,700[B].

Program name: Environmental Improvements; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this restoration program, which was started 
in 1986, is to plan, design, and construct projects to restore and 
enhance aquatic ecosystems at sites impacted by Corps projects; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$13,016,400[D].

Program name: Flood Plain Management Services; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: Created in 1960, this program provides flood plain 
information and technical assistance to states and local communities; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$4,784,500.

Program name: Planning Assistance to States; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program was created in 1974, and its purpose is to 
provide staff and financial assistance to states in planning for the 
use, development, and conservation of water resources; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,123,500.

Program name: Shore Protection; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The 
purpose of this restoration program, created in 1962, is to plan, 
design, and construct projects to restore and protect shores against 
waves and currents; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $1,038,000.

Program name: Small Flood Control Projects; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, which was created in 1948, funds activities 
related to the planning, design, and construction of projects to reduce 
flood damages; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $11,375,100.

Program name: Small Navigation Projects; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: Created in 1960, the purpose of this program is to plan, 
design, and construct projects to improve navigation; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $7,871,000.

Program name: Tribal Partnership Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program was started in 2000, and it seeks to provide 
tribal groups with assistance in planning for the use, development, and 
conservation of water resources; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS).

Program name: Agricultural Research Service Research Units; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This research and pollution prevention program 
started in 1990 to develop agricultural best management practices, 
including water management strategies for corn and soybean production 
systems, and to assess the impact of these practices on field, farm, 
and watershed scales; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $2,293,700.

Program name: Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).

Program name: Hatch Act Research Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This research program was started in the late 1800s to 
promote efficient production, marketing, distribution, and utilization 
of crops and livestock essential to the food supply and health and 
welfare of the American people, while conserving resources and 
improving rural living conditions; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,582,000[E].

Program name: Integrated Activities Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program supports integrated research, education, and 
extension on critical agricultural issues. Program activities began in 
2000; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$11,081,000[E].

Program name: McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of the program, which 
began in 1962, is to support research essential to the efficient and 
effective use of the nation's forest resources; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $140,000[E].

Program name: National Research Initiative Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program provides support for research with the 
greatest potential of expanding the knowledge base needed to solve 
current problems and unforeseen issues involving the future 
agricultural and forestry enterprise. The program was created in 1965 
and activities began in 1991; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: $433,000[E].

Program name: Small Business Innovation Research Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which began in 1986, 
is to strengthen the role of small, innovative firms in federally 
funded research and development activities; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $383,000[E].

Program name: Special Research Grants Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program was created in 1965 to fund research on 
problems of national, regional, and local interest that fall beyond the 
normal emphasis of the formula programs; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $1,675,000[E].

Program name: Department of Agriculture-Farm Services Agency (FSA).

Program name: Conservation Reserve Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This voluntary restoration and conservation program for 
agricultural landowners was created in 1985. Through this program, 
landowners receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to 
establish long-term, resource conserving vegetative covers on eligible 
farmland; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $540,718,000.

Program name: Emergency Conservation Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program provides emergency funding for farmers and 
ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods, 
hurricanes, or other natural disasters and for carrying out emergency 
water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. This 
restoration program began in 1978; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $4,670,000.

Program name: Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (FS).

Program name: Atmospheric Ecosystem Interactions at Multiple Scales; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program, which began in 
1996, focuses on air quality in the western Great Lakes. The program 
examines factors that impact summertime surface ozone pollution 
patterns and activities, including observing smoke trajectories from 
prescribed and wildland fires; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Cooperative Forestry; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: 
Originally created in the 1930s, the current program started in 1978 to 
address watershed health and water quality activities on nonfederal 
forest lands. It provides restoration and management assistance 
activities, including cooperative federal, state, and local forest 
stewardship; prevention and control of insects and diseases; and 
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Forest Health Management; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program was created in1947, with current program 
activities having begun in 1978 as a coordinated effort among federal, 
state, and local entities for the management of forest health on 
nonfederal forested lands. The program funds activities to sustain 
healthy forest conditions; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Management; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which dates back 
to the 1930s, is to connect people to the land by providing 
recreational settings and services; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $36,685,000[G].

Program name: Soil, Water, and Air Management; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program funds activities related to the management of 
water, soil, and air resources for public use, including the inventory, 
assessment, and monitoring of these resources. It is classified as a 
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention program; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $8,939,000[G].

Program name: Watershed, Lake, Riparian and Stream Analysis, and 
Restoration; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research and 
restoration program, which started in 2000, studies watershed and 
stream processes from relatively undisturbed systems to highly degraded 
systems. It develops technologies to restore these systems and tests 
them in rural forested and urban landscapes; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $165,000[H].

Program name: Wildland Fire Management; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: Originally created in the 1920s, the purpose of the current 
program is to protect state and private lands from wildland fires by 
providing protection and management assistance; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Resources Management; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, which began in the 
1930s, funds activities related to 
cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and habitat improvement. 
The program's goal is to maintain diverse and productive wildlife, 
fish, and sensitive plant habitats as an integral part of managing 
national forest ecosystems; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: $24,486,000[G].

Program name: Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS).

Program name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, created in 1985, is to 
provide technical, educational, and financial assistance to eligible 
farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural 
resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and 
cost-effective manner. It funds pollution prevention, soil and water 
conservation, and water quality improvement activities; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Farmland Protection Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, which began in 1996, provides matching funds 
to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranch 
land in agricultural uses. The Department of Agriculture provides up to 
50 percent of the fair market easement value; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS); Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program is a partnership of federal land 
management agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, and state 
and local units of government that provides soil survey information 
necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the 
nation's limited soil resources. It dates back to 1935; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Plant Materials for Conservation/Plant Materials; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which 
began in 1937, is to use native plants to solve natural resource 
problems. Scientists search for plants that meet an identified 
conservation need, such as wetland restoration, and test their 
performance. Once proven, new species are released to the private 
sector for commercial production; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Resource Conservation and Development; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program, which started in 1962, encourages and 
improves the capability of state and local units of government and 
local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and 
carry out programs for resource conservation and development. Program 
activities include cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, 
coordination, and conservation technical services; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: River Basin Studies, Watershed Surveys and Planning, and 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This mid-1940s program was created to provide planning 
assistance to federal, state, and local agencies for developing and 
coordinating water 
and related land resources programs in watershed and river basins. 
Program activities include restoration, pollution prevention, and 
financial and technical assistance for watershed protection and flood 
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Soil and Water Conservation/Conservation Technical 
Assistance; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides 
voluntary conservation technical assistance to 
land users, communities, units of state and local governments, and 
other federal agencies in planning and implementing conservation 
systems. It began in 1935, and it addresses natural resource issues, 
such as 
erosion, fish and wildlife habitat, and air quality. Its activities 
relate to cleanup, pollution prevention, restoration, and technical 
assistance; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Wetland Reserve Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This voluntary program provides landowners with financial 
and technical assistance to restore and protect wetlands. It began in 
1985, and it funds cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention 
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This is a voluntary restoration program for the 
development and improvement of wildlife habitat, primarily on private 
lands. It provides technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share 
assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The 
program began 
in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA).

Program name: Coastal Mapping/Mapping and Charting Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program is part of the National Geodetic 
Survey. The primary mission of this program is to define the shoreline 
for nautical charts; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal Change and Analysis 
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program, 
which started in 2001, is to develop and distribute data in the coastal 
zone through remote sensing technology. The Great Lakes are the current 
focus of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $458,000[I].

Program name: Coastal Zone Management Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program began in 1972. It is a federal-state 
partnership that provides a basis for protecting, restoring, and 
responsibly developing the nation's important and diverse coastal 
communities and resources. The program includes encouraging and 
assisting states in the wise use of land and water, and encouraging the 
participation and cooperation of all government sectors with programs 
affecting the coast; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $107,906,394[J].

Program name: Geodesy Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 
program, managed by the National Geodetic Survey, monitors crustal 
motion in the Great Lakes by measuring latitudes, longitudes, and 
elevations at 16 water level stations. This information provides better 
knowledge about flooding and drainage scenarios in the region; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Landscape Characterization and Restoration Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This restoration program, which began 
in 1997, helps coastal resource managers examine the effects of 
management on coastal habitat through habitat restoration planning 
activities and ecosystem studies; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS); 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: NERRS is a network of protected areas 
established to promote informed management of the nation's coastal and 
estuarine habitats. This state-federal partnership accomplishes this 
through linked programs of scientific understanding, education, and 
stewardship. This research program began in 1972; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,174,000.

Program name: National Sea Grant College Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: The purpose of this research program, which began in 
1968, is to support education and research in the various fields 
relating to the development of marine resources. All Great Lakes 
states, except Pennsylvania, have a Sea Grant College; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $69,600,000.

Program name: National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Project; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program is a contaminant-monitoring 
program for U.S. coastal waters. It collects samples from some 300 
sites in the conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 
and the Great Lakes. Samples are analyzed for a broad suite of 
contaminants, including toxic elements, pesticides, industrial 
chemicals, and hydrocarbons. This pollution prevention program began 
nationwide in 1986, with monitoring in the Great Lakes beginning in 
1992; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$240,000.

Program name: National Weather Service (NWS); Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, which dates back to the 1890s, provides water, 
hydrologic, and climate warnings for the United States and its adjacent 
waters. Ten NWS Great Lakes forecast offices provide users with 
continuous real-time data and forecasts. NWS also operates the 
Environmental Modeling Center, which produces numerical weather 
prediction models that are transmitted to these forecast offices, and 
the National Data Buoy Center, which manages an observational network; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Coastal Protection 
and Restoration Division; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 
division has undertaken, in coordination with cleanup and trustee 
agencies, environmental assessment, pollution prevention, cleanup, 
mitigation, and restoration activities to protect and restore coastal 
habitats and resources at hazardous waste sites nationwide since 1985 
(in the Great Lakes since 1993); Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Damage Assessment 
Center; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The Damage Assessment Center, 
which started in 1990, conducts 
natural resources damage assessments to restore coastal resources 
injured by oil and hazardous material releases. The center conducts 
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention activities; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Office of Response and Restoration - Hazardous Materials 
(HAZMAT); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, which started 
in 1987, conducts activities to reduce risks to coastal habitats and 
resources from oil and chemical spills by providing advice and 
developing tools to aid in spill response. HAZMAT undertakes cleanup, 
restoration, and pollution prevention activities; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Program name: Aquatic Nuisance Species Regional Coordination and 
Technical Assistance; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program 
provides regional aquatic nuisance species coordination and technical 
assistance to the Fisheries Program of FWS's Northeast Region. 
Activities support regional prevention and control of aquatic nuisance 
species introductions and range expansions; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $808,900.

Program name: Aquatic Nuisance Species Surveillance and Control; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was started in 1991 to 
prevent and control infestations 
in the coastal and inland waters of the United States by the zebra 
mussel and other nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Its activities 
include research, prevention of species introductions, control of 
introduced species, and mitigation of impacts to native fish and 
wildlife resources; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $3,659,400.

Program name: Endangered Species Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This conservation and restoration program was created in 
1973 to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered 
species and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide 
for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$4,078,500[L].

Program name: Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance - Great Lakes 
Operations; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, dating back 
to 1972, aids in conservation of native fish and wildlife species and 
their habitats. It provides support for the management of 
interjurisdictional fisheries, aids in restoration of depleted fish 
populations to preclude listing as endangered species, and provides 
technical assistance to state and tribal fish and wildlife management 
agencies to fulfill federal trust responsibilities. The program funds 
research, restoration, and technical assistance activities; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $5,915,000.

Program name: La Crosse Fish Health Center; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This center, which began operating in 1962, provides fish 
health inspection services to six national and four tribal fish 
hatcheries to minimize the risk of introducing disease agents into the 
wild. This program assists state research facilities and private fish 
hatcheries in diagnosing and controlling infectious disease agents and 
provides technical assistance regarding fish health and propagation; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$3,057,545.

Program name: National Fish Passage Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program restores native fish and other aquatic species 
to self-sustaining levels. Generally, this restoration is done by 
removing barriers to fish movement or providing ways for aquatic 
species to bypass them. The program works on a voluntary basis with 
federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as private partners 
and stakeholders. This restoration program's activities began in 1999; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$268,500[N].

Program name: Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program's goal is to restore, replace, 
rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources injured or 
lost as a result of contamination by oil or hazardous substances. This 
cleanup and restoration program began in 1981; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,496,000[(M)(O)].

Program name: New York Aquatic Resource Management; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: The focus of this program is natural resource assessment 
and 
management planning on military installations. Specifically, the goal 
of this program is to determine the presence or absence of threatened 
or endangered species of state or national concern and to prepare a 
comprehensive natural resource management plan for the Seneca 
Army Depot and Fort Drum, both of which lie within the Great Lakes 
Basin; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$197,032[P].

Program name: New York Natural Resource Management Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The primary focus of this program is natural 
resource assessment and planning on military installations. Activities 
under this program include conducting a natural resource community 
survey for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, conducting additional 
surveys as needed, and preparing and implementing management plans to 
protect the natural resources. Program activities began in 1998; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$174,204[Q].

Program name: Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Private Lands Program); 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a voluntary habitat 
restoration program that provides restoration expertise and financial 
assistance to private landowners, tribes, 
and other conservation partners who voluntarily restore fish and 
wildlife habitat on their properties. The program targets restoring 
habitat for migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and threatened 
or endangered species on private land. Program activities began 
in 1987; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$5,240,000[M].

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

Program name: Biological Information Management Delivery; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This research program has two primary areas 
relevant to the Great Lakes Basin: the National Biological Information 
Infrastructure (NBII) and the 
Gap Analysis Program (GAP). NBII was created in 1993 and provides 
increased access to data and information on biological resources. The 
GAP provides broad geographic information on biological diversity that 
planners, managers, and policy makers need to make informed decisions. 
In addition, the program provides support for Great Lakes research, 
primarily at the USGS Great Lakes Science Center; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $1,653,800[M].

Program name: Biological Research and Monitoring; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This research program, dating back to 1927, funds 
biological studies to develop new methods and techniques to identify, 
observe, and manage fish and wildlife. Studies are designed to 
identify, understand, and control invasive species and their habitats; 
inventory populations of animals, plants, and their habitats; and 
monitor changes in abundance, distribution, and health of biological 
resources through time and determine the causes of the changes; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$10,078,775[D].

Program name: Coastal and Marine Geology; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The program provides scientific information needed to 
evaluate the 
origin and impact of natural coastal processes, especially 
understanding 
the effect of human-induced changes. This program has been 
providing information and products to guide the preservation and 
sustainable development of the nation's marine and coastal environments 
since 1994; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Cooperative Research Units Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program, created in 1935, establishes and maintains 
cooperative partnerships with states and universities to address local, 
state, 
regional, national and international issues related to fish, wildlife, 
and natural resources of concern. The activities of the program are 
research, technical assistance, and student education; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $6,250,000[R].

Program name: Cooperative Topographic Mapping (CTM) Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This research program provides data that 
locates and describes the features of the earth's surface. The program 
provides support for the National Map by continuing to maintain basic 
data for the United States 
and its territories; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Cooperative Water Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This is an ongoing partnership between USGS and nonfederal 
agencies. The program jointly funds water resources projects in every 
state, Puerto Rico, and several U.S. Trust territories. Research, data 
collection, assessment, and aerial appraisal activities are conducted 
through this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program studies and addresses natural and 
human-induced changes on the landscape. It encompasses global change 
research, integrates natural hazard data layers, delivers landscape 
information, and provides computer support; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Land Remote Sensing Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, initiated in the 1930s, promotes the use of 
remote sensing for understanding the earth's land environment through 
photography and other imagery from aircraft, as well as satellites; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Mineral Resources Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, created in 1879, provides scientific 
information for 
resource assessments and research results of mineral potential, 
production, consumption, and environmental behavior. This information 
is used to characterize the life cycles of mineral commodities from 
deposit formation, exploration, and discovery through production, use, 
reuse, and disposal; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was established in 1992 to 
implement and coordinate an expanded geologic mapping effort by USGS, 
the state geological surveys, and universities. The primary goal of the 
program is to collect, process, analyze, translate, and disseminate 
earth-science information through geologic maps; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The long-term mission and goals of 
the NAWQA program, which began in 1991, are to provide long-term, 
nationwide information on the quality of streams, groundwater, and 
aquatic ecosystems. NAWQA's goals are to assess the status and trends 
of national water quality and to understand the factors that affect 
it; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$16,039,000[R].

Program name: National Water Use Information Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1979 to collect, store, 
analyze, and disseminate water-use information, both nationally and 
locally, to a wide variety of government agencies and private 
organizations. It is a cooperative program that includes state and 
local government entities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: USGS Ground-Water Resources Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program encompasses regional studies of groundwater 
systems; provides multidisciplinary studies of critical groundwater 
issues; provides access to groundwater data, and research and methods 
development. It also provides scientific information and many of the 
tools that are used by federal, state, and local management and 
regulatory agencies to make important decisions about the nation's 
groundwater resources. It was created in 1995; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $60,000[I].

Program name: USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1982 to provide 
scientific information and tools that explain the occurrence, behavior, 
and effects of toxic substances in the nation's hydrologic 
environments. Program results support decision making by resource 
managers, regulators, industry, and the public. Work is performed by 
USGS scientists who collaborate with a wide range of federal and 
nonfederal organizations and individuals; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Water Resource Research Act Programs; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program, dating back to 1964, provides an 
institutional mechanism for promoting state, regional, and national 
coordination of water resources, research, and training. It comprises a 
network of institutes to facilitate research and information technology 
transfer. With its matching requirements, it is also a mechanism for 
promoting state investments in research and training; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Earth Surface Dynamics Program - Central Great Lakes 
Geologic Mapping Coalition; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 1998 
initiated research program provides scientific information to evaluate 
natural coastal processes and understand human-induced changes. It 
develops predictive models of natural systems and the effects of human 
activities on them, and the capability to predict future changes. 
Program data is used to guide the preservation and sustainable 
development of the nation's marine and coastal environments; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,977,000[P].

Program name: Department of Homeland Security-Coast Guard.

Program name: National Invasive Species Act/Ballast Water Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: Under this program, the Secretary of 
Transportation issues national guidelines to prevent the introduction 
of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters by ships; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $8,000,000[S].

Program name: Oil Spill Removal Organization Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This is a voluntary pollution prevention program 
created by the Coast Guard to assist facility and vessel responders in 
writing their oil spill response plans; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Program name: Air Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The 
purpose of this program, which began in 1970, is to (1) protect and 
enhance the quality of the nation's air resources, (2) initiate and 
accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the 
prevention and control of air pollution, (3) provide technical and 
financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with 
the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and 
control programs, and (4) encourage and assist the development and 
operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Aquatic Stressors Research Program; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: The goal of this research program, which began in 1975, 
is to advance scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in 
ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the 
Great Lakes; identify impaired watersheds and diagnose causes of 
degradation; and develop risk-based assessments for supporting 
restoration and remediation decisions; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Children's Health Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program (1) identifies and evaluates children's health 
issues, (2) develops approaches for addressing these issues, and (3) 
prioritizes and implements appropriate actions on children's health 
issues. This 1997 program funds pollution prevention activities and is 
largely a voluntary program building state capacity in human health; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Monitoring; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: Operating since 1972, this program develops 
and implements comprehensive monitoring programs at the state and 
tribal levels to address all water quality management needs under the 
CWA. This program focuses on research; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Clean Water Section 106 Grants; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This 1972 program awards grants to states and to eligible 
Indian tribes as base program support to maintain their surface water 
and groundwater programs. Program activities include planning, water 
quality standards development and implementation, monitoring, 
permitting, education and outreach, and program administration; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Clean Water State Revolving Fund; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to provide grants to states 
for long-term financing for construction of wastewater treatment 
facilities and implementation of state management plans. This program 
began in 1972; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program provides grants to states to establish 
drinking water state revolving funds, whose purpose is to support 
drinking water system infrastructure improvements. These grants provide 
loans and other types of financial assistance to eligible public water 
supply authorities. The program started in 1996; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Environmental Justice Small Grants; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This program, which began in 1994, provides financial 
assistance to grassroots community-based groups to support projects to 
design, demonstrate, or disseminate practices, methods, or techniques 
related to environmental justice; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $256,047[M].

Program name: Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention 
Grants; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This pollution prevention 
program provides low income, minority communities with pollution 
prevention resources to address community environmental issues. This 
program started as a pilot program in 1995 through discretionary funds, 
but the last year of funding was 2001; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to advance 
scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological 
conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the Great 
Lakes. The program identifies impaired watersheds and diagnoses causes 
of degradation and forecasts risk-based assessments and options to 
support restoration and remediation decisions. This research program 
began in 1989; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Food Quality Protection Act/Strategic Agricultural 
Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this 
program is to ensure continuing safety of the nation's food supply by 
promoting the transition from potentially hazardous conventional 
pesticides to pesticides with reduced risk to human health and the 
environment. This program started in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Global Climate Change Research Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to advance 
scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological 
conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the Great 
Lakes. Program activities identify impaired watersheds and diagnose 
causes of degradation. This research program began in 1975; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Indian Environmental General Assistance Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This 1992 program assists federally recognized 
Indian tribes and nations to build their overall capacity to manage 
environmental programs and conduct activities; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this program is to assure that 
U.S. waters remain fishable, swimmable, and drinkable, through 
regulating point source discharges to surface water. The program 
ensures that discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation of 
water quality standards. This program started in 1972 and is largely 
delegated to states; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Non-Point Source Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to attain the goals of the 
CWA. This restoration and pollution prevention program started in 
1987; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1980 to conduct several 
activities related to PCBs. These activities include reviewing and 
tracking projects involving 
the remediation, storage, and disposal of PCBs; conducting inspections 
to determine compliance with federal PCB regulations; and conducting 
projects for reducing the use of PCBs. This program includes cleanup 
and pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Pollution Prevention (P2) Demonstration Grants; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides grants for capacity 
building and for innovative pollution prevention projects, especially 
those projects having potential 
for regional impacts. Funded projects include supporting the Great 
Lakes regional P2 roundtable, providing technical assistance, and 
coordinating P2 partnerships. This pollution prevention program began 
in 1993; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: Pollution Prevention for States Grant Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of this grant program is to promote 
strategies and solutions that assist businesses and industries in 
reducing waste at the source. The majority of grants fund state-based 
projects in areas of technical assistance and training, education and 
outreach, regulatory integration, data collection and research, 
demonstration projects, and recognition programs. This pollution 
prevention program began in 1991; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Public Water Supply Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to ensure that clean and safe 
drinking water is provided to the public. This program was created in 
1974; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
Brownfields; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of the program 
is to encourage re-use of properties that have been stigmatized by the 
presence of, or perception of, environmental contamination. This 
restoration program began in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement and Compliance Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program provides for the on-site 
evaluation and inspection of hazardous waste sites to enforce 
compliance with regulations designed for protecting human health and 
the environment and conserving valuable material and energy resources. 
This program, started in 1976, involves cleanup, restoration, and 
pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Management Program 
Support; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program assists state 
governments in the development and implementation of an authorized 
state hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling 
the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous 
waste. Funding first began in 1978; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The goals of this program are evaluating the 
potential environmental risk impacts from RCRA-regulated hazardous 
waste facilities, ensuring adequate facility investigation, ensuring 
cleanup of contaminants, and managing facilities' long-term controls 
for the protection of human health and the environment. This cleanup 
and restoration program started in 1980; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle C Permitting; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to issue permits that allow 
for monitoring 
the handling of hazardous waste to ensure better waste management 
and restoration of contaminated waste sites through a regulated 
permitting program. This program started in 1980, and it addresses 
restoration and pollution prevention in accordance with RCRA 
regulations; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: f.

Program name: RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Assistance 
Program/Jobs Through Recycling Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to promote use of integrated 
solid waste management systems to solve municipal solid waste 
generation and management problems at the local, regional, and national 
levels. The program provides assistance to state, local, and tribal 
governments and organizations to increase waste diversion from 
landfills and incinerators. This pollution prevention program started 
in 1976; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle D Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 1993 program was created to 
assist tribes to achieve solid waste management and promote compliance 
with the provisions of RCRA Subtitle D. This is a cleanup, restoration, 
and pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: RCRA Subtitle I Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking 
Underground Storage Tanks; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This 
program regulates the use of underground storage tanks and requires 
cleanup of releases and spills. This cleanup program started in 1989; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)/Environmental 
Priorities Program (EPP); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose 
of RGI is to (1) fund projects that are identified as high 
priority, (2) support geographic place-based projects, (3) address 
multimedia problems, and (4) highlight agency priorities and 
strategies. The purpose of EPP is to fund projects or purchases that 
aid in environmental protection. These activities were started in 1994, 
and they include research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution 
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $6,753,937[T].

Program name: Solid Waste Management Assistance Program/Jobs Through 
Recycling Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of 
this program is to promote use of integrated solid waste management 
systems to solve municipal solid waste generation and management 
problems at the local, regional, and national levels. The program 
provides assistance to state, local, and tribal governments and 
organizations to increase waste diversion from landfills and 
incinerators. This pollution prevention program started in 1976; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: State and Tribal Environmental Justice (EJ) Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created to provide 
capacity building financial assistance to states and tribes that are 
working to address EJ issues. This program started in 1998; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Superfund; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of 
this program is to protect human health and the environment from risks 
associated with abandoned hazardous waste sites and to respond to 
hazardous substance spill emergencies. The primary focus of the program 
is the assessment and remediation of long-term cleanups. This cleanup 
program was created in 1980; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: $749,149,250[U].

Program name: Total Maximum Daily Load Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this 1973 program is to identify waters not 
meeting state water quality standards, and for those waters, calculate 
the maximum amount of a pollutant the water can receive and still meet 
water quality standards. This is a restoration program according to EPA 
officials; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [F].

Program name: Tribal Solid Waste Assistance Grants; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: This 1993 program was created to assist tribes in solid 
waste management and promote compliance with the provisions of RCRA 
Subtitle D. This is a cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention 
program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
[F].

Program name: Underground Injection Control; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The program was created to protect underground sources of 
drinking water by controlling underground injection. This is a 
pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage 
Tanks; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program regulates the use 
of underground storage tanks and requires the cleanup of releases and 
spills. This cleanup program started in 1989; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Waste Pesticide Collection Program (Agricultural Clean 
Sweep or Waste Pesticide Disposal); Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: 
This pollution prevention program achieves reductions in persistent 
bioaccumulative toxins and prevents contamination of air, soil, and 
water resources by safely disposing of pesticides. This program started 
in 1988; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$194,000[J].

Program name: Water Quality Management Planning; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program, which began in 1972, is to 
promote the enhancement of water quality through water quality 
management planning. This program involves both restoration and 
pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Water Quality Standards Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program is to support efforts to restore 
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
nation's waters by defining the uses to be protected and the water 
quality conditions needed to protect these uses; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [F].

Program name: Wetlands; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The goal of 
this 1972 program is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill 
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Wetland 
Program Development Grants are designed to assist state, tribal, and 
local government agencies in building their wetland management 
programs; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $129,000[V].

Sources: The Corps, ARS, CSREES, FSA, FS, NRCS, NOAA, FWS, USGS, Coast 
Guard, EPA, and GAO.

[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column 
represent program federal fiscal year expenditures.

[B] Funding represents fiscal years 1998 through 2001.

[C] Funding represents fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

[D] Funding represents fiscal years 1994 through 2001.

[E] Funding is for all Great Lakes states, except for Pennsylvania. 
Figures were only available for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

[F] Great Lakes Basin funding is not known for this nationwide program.

[G] Funding amounts are for the Huron-Manistee, Ottawa, and Hiawatha 
Forests, all of which are entirely within the Great Lakes Basin. There 
is additional funding within the basin, but the precise amount could 
not be determined.

[H] Funding represents fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

[I] Funding represents fiscal year 2001.

[J] Funding represents fiscal years 1993 through 2001.

[K] This program did not receive any specific funding for the Great 
Lakes Basin for this time period.

[L] Funding is for fiscal years 1995 to 2001. Support totaling $47.9 
million has come in from additional sources over the same time frame. 
All Sea Grant programs and projects are matched to at least the 50 
percent level by nonfederal funds from academia, state agencies, 
industry, or other sources.

[M] Funding represents fiscal years 1995 through 2001.

[N] Funding represents fiscal years 1999 through 2001.

[O] Funding represents base funding. Department of Interior provides 
approximately $850,000 more in competitive funding annually.

[P] This funding is for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 and it was 
provided by several different sources, including the program's specific 
funding authority.

[Q] Funding for this program came from the Department of Defense.

[R] Funding amounts are appropriated funds.

[S] Funding is approximate. The agency did not respond to our survey, 
so the figures were obtained from the report entitled The Great Lakes 
at the Millennium: Priorities for Fiscal 2001, prepared by the 
Northeast-Midwest Institute.

[T] Funding amount is for Region 2 and Region 5.

[U] Funding amount is for Region 3 and Region 5.

[V] Funding amount is for Region 2 only.

[End of table]

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

Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR):

Program name: Lake and River Enhancement Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program started in 1987, 
and it funds restoration activities by providing technical and 
financial assistance for projects that reduce nonpoint source sediment 
and nutrient pollution in Indiana's and adjacent state's surface 
waters; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ):

Program name: Michigan State University Forestry Department 
Dendroremediation; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): This is a research program administered by Michigan State 
University. The project began in fiscal year 2000 and funds 
activities to determine the existence of woody plants, especially 
native species that would be useful for various approaches to the 
remediation of heavy metals in soil and/or groundwater. The 
program also looked to determine whether plants adapted to 
growing on a site with elevated heavy metals in soils results 
in greater tolerance for, and ability to takeup, heavy metals; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): $594,888.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR):

Program name: Comprehensive Local Water Planning Challenge Grant 
Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The 
challenge grant program began in 1989, and it funds priority projects 
identified by local governments in their local water plans. 
It funds restoration activities by providing financial and technical 
assistance to counties for development and implementation of local 
water plans; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR): $428,732[C].

Program name: Erosion, Sediment Control, and Water Quality Cost-Share 
Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This 
program was initiated in 1977, and it provides funds to soil 
and water conservation districts for cost-sharing conservation 
projects that protect and improve water quality by controlling 
soil erosion and reducing sedimentation. This restoration 
program provides technical and financial assistance to 
landowners who install permanent nonproduction-oriented 
practices to protect and improve soil and water resources; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): $1,293,298[C].

Program name: Lakeshore Engineering Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created in 
1991 to support local governments' 
large erosion control projects on Lake Superior shores by providing 
engineering assistance, education, and best management practices. 
Its activities relate to restoration and research to control erosion 
from private and public shorelines; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $976,313[D].

Program name: Local Water Planning and Wetland Conservation Act; 
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This block 
grant program began in 1985 to assist local 
governments in implementing four state-mandated programs. 
Water planning grants are available for restoration activities 
related to implementing comprehensive water plans and the 
local administration of grants; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $3,205,505[E].

Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC):

Program name: Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund); Purpose: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The petrofund program 
was created in 1987 to fund the 
replacement or upgrade of all underground petroleum storage tanks 
by 1998. The program provides financial assistance to owners and 
operators of petroleum storage tanks to assist in cleaning up 
contamination or replacing leaking tanks. Available program 
funding is capped at $1 million per project; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): 
$18,514,720[F].

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):

Program name: Conservation Partnership Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was started in 
1995 to provide grants to private organizations and local units of 
government for activities related to restorations of fish, wildlife, 
and native plant habitats. The program also funds research to improve 
fish and wildlife habitats; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Environmental Partnership Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program was 
initiated in 1997 to provide funding for private companies and local 
governments for research, cleanup, pollution prevention, and education 
projects that deal with environmental conservation principles; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): [B].

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):

Program name: Basin Planning; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): MPCA created this program in 1995 to coordinate water 
management efforts around the state's 10 major drainage basins by 
focusing financial and staff resources upon key water resource 
management priorities. The program provides support to local and state 
agencies and citizen groups to develop watershed plans for making sound 
resource management decisions. Program activities included research, 
cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): 
$175,000[G].

Program name: Clean Water Partnership; Purpose: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): The program was created in 1987 to fund 
activities related to runoff 
from agricultural and urban areas. The program provides funds to 
local governments for projects that protect and improve lakes, 
streams, and groundwater resources in Minnesota. Funds can be requested 
for research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention projects; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): $2,613,798[H].

Program name: Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act; 
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This is 
Minnesota's Superfund program. It was created in 1983 to fund 
activities related to investigating and cleaning up releases of 
hazardous substances or contaminants. As of 1989, the program's 
authority included funding to investigate and clean up contamination 
from agricultural chemicals; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $864,410[H].

Program name: Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Program (Closed Landfill 
Program); Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This 
cleanup program was created in 1994 as an alternative to using the 
federal and state Superfund laws to address the cleanup and long-term 
maintenance of 106 closed municipal sanitary landfills in the state. 
Eight of these landfills are in the Lake Superior watershed. Funds are 
provided for cleanup activities only; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $485,135[I].

Program name: Minnesota Mercury Initiative; Purpose: Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this program is to help 
reduce mercury contamination in Minnesota fish. Because about 98 
percent of mercury in Minnesota waters is due to air deposition, the 
state looked for ways to reduce mercury in the air. The program 
solicits voluntary mercury emission reductions from large companies; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Voluntary Petroleum Investigation and Cleanup; Purpose: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was 
created in 1996 to provide technical assistance and liability assurance 
to expedite and facilitate the development, transfer, and investigation 
and/or cleanup of property that is contaminated from petroleum 
products. MPCA provides technical oversight for this cleanup program; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC):

Program name: Clean Water and Clean Air Bond Act; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was established in 
1996. It consolidates the funding application processes of several 
state agencies and programs with a focus on cleanup, restoration, water 
resource improvement, pollution prevention, nonpoint source abatement, 
aquatic habitat restoration, safe drinking water system improvement, 
solid waste management, and other environmental conservation efforts; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): $428,820,724[J].

Program name: Environmental Protection Act and Fund; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this program is 
to address the cleanup, restoration, historic preservation, land and 
open space conservation, and waterfront revitalization of New York 
watersheds. Proposed projects are reviewed under the consolidated bond 
application process; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $97,154,829[J].

Program name: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Environmental 
Conservation Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): This program was created in 1972 to provide the necessary 
resources to support the state's critical fish and wildlife 
conservation programs by focusing on the care, management, protection, 
and enlargement of fish and wildlife resources through research and 
restoration. Activities also include habitat improvement and 
enforcement; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR): $2,500,000[J].

Program name: New York State Environmental Quality Protection Fund 
(Superfund); Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): 
This program was started in 1980 in response to the federal Superfund. 
The state's Superfund program is focused on the investigation, 
emergency response, and enforcement of cleanups at hazardous waste 
sites; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [K].

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):

Program name: Dam Safety; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): Created in 1963, the purpose of this regulatory 
program is to protect the citizens of Ohio from flooding due to dam 
failure. The program provides support to the owners of dams and 
residents in downstream areas by permitting the construction of new 
dams and dikes, approving repairs to existing dams and dikes, and 
responding to safety emergencies; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Ground Water Resources; Purpose: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was started in 1959, and it 
seeks to collect, maintain, interpret, and distribute information on 
the groundwater resources of Ohio in both the Lake Erie and Ohio River 
basins. Its basic purpose is to foster the development of groundwater 
as a viable and sustainable water supply for the citizens of the 
state; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Hydraulic/Canal Operations; Purpose: Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created during the 1800s 
to operate and maintain the watered portions of the historic Miami/Erie 
and Ohio/Erie Canals, including water supply distribution, storm water 
control, historic preservation and recreation. Residents and properties 
adjacent and downstream from the canal and reservoirs are protected 
from flooding through the operation of hydraulic structures; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources 
(IDNR): [B].

Program name: Pollution Abatement Cost Share; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): Since 1979, this program has 
provided funding to landowners to assist in the installation of needed 
best management practices that abate animal waste pollution, soil 
erosion, or degradation of the state's waters by soil sediment; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Water Inventory and Stream and Water Gauging; Purpose: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): The purpose of this 
program, created in 1959, is to collect, compile, analyze, and 
disseminate hydrologic and climatological data and information 
concerning all aspects of the hydrologic cycle, operate the statewide 
groundwater observation well network, and administer cooperative 
agreements with USGS for stream gauging and other water resource 
projects; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Water Planning; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): This program was created in 1959 to address the need 
for water supply planning on a regional and statewide basis. It also 
includes administering the Lake Erie and Ohio River basins' diversion 
permit and consumptive use permit programs, water resource inventory, 
and the Lake Erie Basin Plan; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA):

Program name: Clean Ohio Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): This program, which began in 2001, awards grants for 
cleanup and restoration of polluted areas and the preservation and 
conservation 
of green space and farmland. The first grant was not awarded 
until 2002; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP):

Program name: Growing Greener Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program began in 1999 to 
address critical concerns related to education and outreach, as well as 
wetland restoration, soil erosion and sedimentation controls, and creek 
assessments in Lake Erie tributaries; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): $700,000[L].

Program name: Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Program; Purpose: Indiana 
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This program was created in 
1980 to support studies of evasive species, bluff evaluations, and 
property preservation activities identified by the Office of the Great 
Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): $938,000[M].

Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC):

Program name: Brownfields Grant Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program began in 1998 to provide 
financial assistance for Brownfields redevelopment and related 
environmental remediation projects. It also funds associated 
environmental remediation activities with emphasis on cleanup and 
restoration; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR):

Program name: Dry Cleaner Fund; Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): This environmental response program was created in 
1997 to provide financial assistance awards for reimbursement of 
certain eligible costs to investigate and remediate contamination from 
dry cleaning solvents at current and certain former dry cleaning 
facilities. Program efforts are focused on cleanup and restoration; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Runoff Management Program; Purpose: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): This program began in 1998 and is aimed at 
abating urban and rural polluted runoff. Three components of the 
program include (1) implementation of the voluntary Priority Watershed/
Lake Projects, (2) point source permitting of storm water and 
agricultural runoff sources, and (3) implementation of state regulatory 
performance standards. Its primary focus is research and cleanup; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Site Assessment Grants; Purpose: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): This grant program was started in 2000 to 
provide local governments with grants to perform the initial 
investigation of contaminated properties and certain other eligible 
activities. Its focus is the restoration and cleanup of abandoned, 
idle, or underused industrial or commercial facilities and sites; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: State Funded Response Program (Environmental Repair); 
Purpose: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This is the 
state's version of the Superfund program, authorized in 1978, but not 
started until 1985. The program focuses on the cleanup and restoration 
of all types of hazardous substance sites, including unlicensed or 
abandoned sites, and can also be used to respond to hazardous substance 
spills; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Indiana Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR): [B].

Program name: Sustainable Urban Development Zone Program; Purpose: 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): This 1999 WDNR pilot 
program operates in cooperation with other state agencies and the 
cities of Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, and Beloit. It 
seeks to promote the use of financial incentives to clean up, restore, 
and redevelop contaminated properties in the five cities. Funds may be 
used to investigate environmental contamination and clean up 
Brownfields properties in the cities; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR): 
$1,700,000[N].

Sources: IDNR, MDEQ, MBWSR, MDOC, MDNR, MPCA, NYDEC, ODNR, OEPA, PDEP, 
WDOC, WDNR, and GAO.

[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column 
represent program state fiscal year expenditures.

[B] Program officials could not provide specific Great Lakes funding 
for this statewide program.

[C] This funding was only for those counties that reside within the 
Great Lakes Basin.

[D] This amount was provided from 1993 through 2001. It includes total 
grant funds and 80 percent of the administrative salary costs for the 
engineer.

[E] This program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by local 
government.

[F] These funds were spent in the Lake Superior watershed to clean up 
628 sites. A 2 percent fee on bulk petroleum sales generates the 
funding.

[G] This figure relates to Lake Superior funding only for this 
statewide program.

[H] This figure is a 10 year average and relates to Lake Superior 
funding only.

[I] This funding was provided from 1995 through 2001, and only for the 
eight Great Lakes specific sites.

[J] These funds were either expended or committed for Great Lakes Basin 
projects during the period 1998 through 2001 (state fiscal year).

[K] Program officials could not identify the Great Lakes funding for 
this statewide program; however, responsible parties have provided more 
than $400 million for cleanup actions.

[L] Program funding covers state fiscal years1999 through 2001.

[M] This funding figure is for state fiscal year 2001 only.

[N] This amount was identified as the expenditure during state fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 by three of the cities. It is not total Great Lakes 
spending.

[End of table]

[End of section]

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

[End of section]

State: Illinois:

Project title: Des Plaines River, Ill; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction - The purpose of this project was to 
develop measures to reduce or prevent damage from flooding to areas, 
such as reservoirs, and levees; make channel modifications; remove 
threatened structures from flood-prone areas; and enhance flood plain 
management; Amount: $2,496,507.

Project title: Kankakee River Basin; Program description: 
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 1,591,856.

Project title: Illinois Shore Erosion; Program description: 
State: Stream bank and shoreline protection - This project was designed 
to protect public structures or facilities from damages caused by 
stream bank erosion or flooding caused by waves from coastal storms, to 
include hardened protective structures; Amount: 254,177.

Project title: Chicago River North Branch 1946; Program 
description: Navigation improvements - These projects may 
involve new channels and structures, such as breakwaters and piers or 
modifications to existing navigation facilities, such as deepening or 
lengthening navigation channel; Amount: 64,100.

Project title: Southeast Chicago, Ill; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 595,800.

Project title: Waukegan Harbor, Ill; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 338,128.

Project title: Casino Beach, Ill; Program description: 
Erosion control - The purpose of this project is providing erosion 
control; Amount: 2,111,815.

Project title: Illinois Beach State Park; Program description: 
State: Ecosystem restoration - These projects seek to restore, protect, 
or enhance aquatic habitat, such as wetlands and spawning areas, and 
include efforts to restore degraded lakes and rivers, remove 
contamination, and provide natural vegetation; Amount: 160,640.

Project title: McCook & Thornton Reservoir; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 32,770,600.

Project title: Kankakee River Icebreaker; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 9,200.

Project title: North Branch Chicago River; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 6,754,844.

Project title: O'Hare Reservoir; Program description: 
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 28,088,930.

Project title: Chicago Shoreline; Program description: 
Streambank and shoreline protection; Amount: 93,824,976.

Project title: Illinois & Michigan Canal; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 307,100.

Project title: Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal; Program 
description: Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 1,778,721.

Project title: Des Plaines Wetlands Project; 
Program description: Flood damage reduction; 
Amount: 183,308.

Amount: $171,330,702.

State: Indiana.

Project title: Beauty Creek Watershed, Ind; Program 
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: $95,900.

Project title: Deep River Basin, Ind; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 68,600.

Project title: Long Lake, Ind; Program description: 
Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 75,000.

Project title: Hammond, Ind; Program description: 
Streambank and shoreline protection; Amount: 42,000.

Project title: Little Calumet River Basin, Dyer, Ind; Program 
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 310,700.

Project title: Little Calumet River Basin Township; Program 
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 82,900.

Project title: Lake George; Program description: Flood 
damage reduction; Amount: 1,117,300.

Project title: Little Calumet River, Cady Marsh Ditch; Program 
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: 1,355,588.

Project title: Indiana Shore Erosion; Program description: 
State: Erosion control; Amount: 8,239,944.

Project title: Little Calumet River; Program description: 
Flood damage reduction; Amount: 78,770,000.

Project title: Indiana Harbor CDF; Program description: 
Navigation improvements; Amount: 1,297,300.

Project title: Burns Waterway Harbor, Ind; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 13,384,194.

Project title: Calumet Region, Ind.[A]; Program description: 
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: 58,903.

Project title: Wolf Lake, Ind; Program description: 
Ecosystem restoration; Amount: 98,700.

Project title: Fort Wayne Metro Area, Ind; 
Program description: Flood damage reduction; 
Amount: 33,944,000.

Amount: $138,941,029.

State: Michigan.

Project title: Clinton River Spillway, Mich; Program 
description: Flood damage reduction; Amount: $2,403,300.

Project title: Cedar River Harbor, Mich; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 193,000.

Project title: Great Lakes Connecting Channels & Harbors, Mich; 
Program description: Navigation improvements; Amount: 
300,800.

Project title: Great Lakes Connecting Channels & 
Harbors Replacement Lock, Mich; Program description: Project 
titleState: : Navigation improvements; Amount: 
2,740,000.

Amount: $5,637,100.

State: Minnesota.

Project title: Silver Bay Harbor, Minn; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: $2,600,100.

Project title: Knife River Harbor, Minn; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 116,000.

Project title: Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn. & Wisc; 
Program description: Navigation 
improvements; Amount: 645,400.

Amount: $3,361,500.

State: New York.

Project title: New York State Barge Canal; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: $25,479.

Project title: Onondaga Lake, N.Y.[A]; Program description: 
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: 4,169,999.

Project title: Onondaga Lake, N.Y. 
PL 101-596; Program description: Environmental infrastructure; 
Amount: 2,864,213.

Project title: Olcott Harbor, N.Y; Program description: 
Navigation improvements; Amount: 1,056,243.

Project title: State: Buffalo Flood and Water 
Quality; Program description: State: Environmental infrastructure; 
Amount: State: 435,987.

Project title: State: Ellicott Creek, N.Y; Program description: State: 
Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 131,307.

Project title: State: Oneida Lake, N.Y; Program description: State: 
The purpose of this project is ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
reduction; Amount: State: 68,881.

Project title: Hamlin and Lakeside Beach State 
Park; Program description: Stream bank and 
shoreline protection; Amount: 47,887.

Amount: $8,799,996.

State: Ohio.

Project title: State: Cleveland Harbor Recon 
Study; Program description: State: Navigation improvements; Amount: 
State: $292,994.

Project title: State: Cleveland Harbor Phase I; Program description: 
State: Navigation improvements; Amount: State: 4,001,960.

Project title: State: Reno Beach, Howard Farms; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 4,357,730.

Project title: State: Ottawa River, Ohio; Program description: State: 
Navigation improvements; Amount: State: 183,000.

Project title: State: Ohio Infrastructure[A]; Program description: 
State: Environmental infrastructure; Amount: State: 160,840.

Project title: State: Maumee River, Ohio; Program description: State: 
Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 102,037.

Project title: State: Western Lake Erie Basin; Program description: 
State: The purpose of this project is flood damage reduction and 
ecosystem restoration; Amount: State: 67,164.

Project title: State: Cayuga Creek Watershed; Program description: 
State: Flood damage reduction; Amount: State: 25,868.

Project title: Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio; 
Program description: Flood damage reduction; 
Amount: 71,722.

Amount: $9,263,315.

State: Pennsylvania.

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

Project title: Erie Harbor, East Canal Basin, 
Penn; Program description: Environmental 
infrastructure; Amount: 5,480,000.

Amount: $20,775,637.

State: Wisconsin.

State: Wisconsin had one project that was jointly shared with 
Minnesota; Amount: 0.

Total Amount: $358,109,279.

Sources: Corps of Engineers and GAO.

[A] According to the Corps, this special project was authorized as an 
open-ended project without a stated expiration time frame. Project 
funding could be appropriated several years into the future.

[End of table]

[End of section]

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

Table 7 contains a listing of the federal programs that specifically 
fund activities in the Great Lakes Basin.

Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Army Corps of Engineers:

Program name: Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this fiscal year 2000 program, 
which began in 2002, is to plan, design, and construct projects to 
restore Great Lakes fisheries and their beneficial uses; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [B].

Program name: Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment 
Remediation; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was started 
in 1990 to plan, design, and construct research demonstration projects 
of promising technologies for contaminated sediment remediation; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [C].

Program name: Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment 
Remediation Support; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program, 
which was authorized in 1990, is designed to provide technical support 
focused on the development and implementation of remedial action plans 
to clean up the Great Lakes' areas of concern; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,595,600[D].

Program name: Great Lakes Tributary Models; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program was created in 1996. Its purpose is to develop 
computer models of sediment loading and transport to Great Lakes 
tributaries to support state and local conservation and pollution 
prevention activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army 
Corps of Engineers: $1,103,424.

Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation 
Service:

Program name: Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment 
Control; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: Originally authorized in 
1936, the program, as amended, funds pollution prevention projects that 
improve Great Lakes water quality by promoting soil erosion and 
sediment control through information and education programs, grants, 
technical assistance, and coalition building; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,625,000[E].

Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration:

Program name: Episodic Events, Great Lakes Experiment; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This research program began in 1997 to create a 
modeling program for seasonal sediment resuspension. It assesses the 
(1) impact on transporting and the transformation of chemically 
important materials and (2) effect on Lake Michigan ecology; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $3,792,000[F].

Program name: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was established in 1970 and 
established the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory to 
conduct physical, chemical, and environmental modeling research and to 
provide scientific expertise and services to manage and protect 
ecosystems; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $63,401,000[G].

Department of Health and Human Services-Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry:

Program name: Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a community-based research 
program that began in 1992, with emphasis on public health education 
and intervention strategies. Its goal is to prohibit exposure to toxic 
chemicals and prevent adverse health outcomes in citizens of the Great 
Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: 
$24,400,000[H].

Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service:

Program name: 1836 Fisheries Treaty - Implementation of the August 7, 
2000 Consent Decree; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program was 
mandated in 2000 by a Federal District Court decree. It requires FWS to 
increase lake trout stocking for restoration programs and to evaluate 
factors impeding lake trout restoration. It also provides technical 
assistance to five Native American tribes in the Chippewa-Ottawa 
Resource Authority, the State of Michigan, and selected federal 
agencies involved with managing sport and commercial fisheries in 
certain areas of Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $695,000.

Program name: Blue Pike Activities in the Great Lakes; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This is a research program that was started in 1993 
to establish the scientific relationships among the original Lake Erie 
blue pike, the recently caught "blue walleyes," and other closely 
related species using genetic analysis of their DNA; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].

Program name: Ecosystem Management in the Lower Great Lakes; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This program was created in 1990 to develop 
and adopt aquatic community and habitat goals and objectives. It also 
develops and conducts comprehensive and standardized ecological 
monitoring to support ecosystem management; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].

Program name: Evaluation and Restoration of Great Lakes Estuaries and 
Tributaries; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this 
program, which began in 1992, is to identify, inventory, protect, and 
rehabilitate significant aquatic habitats, including those used by fish 
and wildlife for spawning, breeding, nesting, rearing, and feeding; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].

Program name: Great Lakes Coastal Program; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: This program, which began in 2000, funds projects that seek 
to protect and restore Great Lakes coastal ecosystems for the benefit 
of fish, wildlife, and people. Its goals are to identify and prioritize 
coastal habitats and conduct research to evaluate ecosystem health, 
identify threats, and lend biological focus to the planning processes 
of other agencies; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $500,000[J].

Program name: Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: Since 1991, this program has developed and 
implemented proposals for restoration of fish and wildlife resources in 
the Great Lakes Basin. It has provided assistance to the Great Lakes 
Fishery Commission, states, Indian tribes, and others to encourage 
cooperative conservation, restoration, and management of the fish and 
wildlife resources and their habitats; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $10,512,000[K].

Program name: Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program started in 1993, and it 
funds projects that seek to conserve, rehabilitate, and reestablish 
self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon to levels that permit 
delisting from state and federal endangered species lists. Objectives 
include identification and restoration of critical habitat and public 
education; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $246,650[L].

Program name: Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program was started in 
1993 to determine the feasibility of re-introducing/restoring Atlantic 
salmon to the Lake Ontario watershed; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [I].

Program name: Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River American Eel Restoration 
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This research program, which 
started in 1997, provides research funds to protect and enhance the 
abundance of American eel populations in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence 
River watershed; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [I].

Program name: Lower Great Lakes Lake Trout Restoration Program; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program is to 
rehabilitate the lake trout population of Lakes Erie and Ontario so the 
new population can become self-sustaining through natural reproduction 
and produce a harvestable annual surplus. Program activities began in 
the late 1970s; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [I].

Program name: Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance Program; Purpose: 
Army Corps of Engineers: This 1993 program provides funding for 
surveillance of invasive species to ensure prompt detection of new 
populations of ruffe and monitor or track expansions of already 
existing populations; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $241,439[M].

Program name: National Fish Hatchery System - Great Lakes Operations; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This program began operation in 1950 
to manage, produce, and stock native coaster brook trout and lake trout 
from native Great Lakes strains. This program is part of the 
interagency restoration programs coordinated through the Great Lakes 
Fishery Commission, and is based on a strategic plan for management of 
Great Lakes Fisheries; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $18,205,000.

Program name: New York State Canal System Aquatic Nuisance Species 
Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: This is a multifaceted 
program started in 1998. It includes various components to address 
aquatic invasive species issues within the Canal system. It seeks to 
work with partner agencies to detect, monitor, and manage populations 
of aquatic invasive species inhabiting or transiting the Canal and 
implement prevention strategies as appropriate; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $221,342[N].

Department of Interior-National Park Service:

Program name: Midwest Region - Great Lakes Strategic Plan Activities; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this 1993-initiated 
program is to foster research cooperation among state and federal 
agencies involved with natural resource issues of mutual interest. 
These issues include aquatic exotic species, such as the sea lamprey, 
shoreline stabilization and monitoring, bald eagle monitoring, near 
shore fisheries, beach nourishment and fecal coliform issues, air 
quality, and cultural resource issues; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $6,127,000[O].

Environmental Protection Agency:

Program name: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This program, initiated in 1990, assesses the 
health of the Great Lakes ecosystem through a series of air-monitoring 
stations in cooperation with Canada. It provides information to measure 
the amounts of chemicals and toxic substances deposited into the Great 
Lakes through air deposition to establish trend analysis and cause/
effect relationships; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [P].

Program name: Coastal Environmental Management; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of this program, which started in 1991, is to 
provide grants that would assist in the preparation and implementation 
of lakewide management plans and remedial action plans for the areas of 
concern in the Great Lakes. This program addresses cleanup, 
restoration, and pollution prevention; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $59,100,000.

Program name: Funding Guidance - Competitive Grants; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: This is a grant program in which GLNPO, in concert 
with Regions 2,3, and 5, funds a consortium of programs, agencies, and 
public and private institutions for reducing the level of toxic 
substances in the Great Lakes; protecting and restoring vital habitats; 
protecting human health; and restoring and maintaining stable, diverse, 
and self-sustaining populations. This program started in 1993, and it 
funds research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention 
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: [P].

Program name: Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant Program; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The goals of the Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant 
Program are to (1) better understand the impacts of deposition of 
pollutants to all water bodies in the Great Lakes region, (2) ensure 
continued progress in reducing sources and loadings of atmospheric 
deposition to the Great Lakes region, and (3) reduce the environmental 
and public health impacts associated with air emissions and subsequent 
atmospheric deposition. This research program began in 1993; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $11,135,500.

Program name: Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, which started in 1997, 
is to reduce and eliminate persistent toxic substances, especially 
those that bioaccumulate, in the Great Lakes. The strategy uses 
pollution prevention as a preferred approach. Research and cleanup are 
also components of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [P].

Program name: Lakewide Management Plans; Purpose: Army Corps of 
Engineers: The purpose of the program is to protect the Great Lakes 
from beneficial use impairments for the "open waters" of each lake and 
to develop strategies to improve the environmental health of the lake. 
This program, initiated in 1987, is a cleanup, restoration, and 
pollution prevention program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Army Corps of Engineers: [P].

Program name: Monitoring Program; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The 
purpose of this research program, which began in 1975, is to assess the 
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes. Information is gathered to measure 
whole lake response to control measures using trend analysis and cause/
effect relationships; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: [P].

Program name: Niagara River and New York State Areas of Concern; 
Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, started 
in 1987, is to restore and protect the beneficial uses in these areas 
of concern through a remedial action plan. Cleanup, restoration, and 
pollution prevention are goals of this program; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: $2,086,250.

Program name: Niagara River Toxics Management Plan; Purpose: Army Corps 
of Engineers: The purpose of this program is to reduce toxic chemical 
inputs to the Niagara River; achieve ambient water quality that will 
protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife; and while doing so, 
improve and protect water quality in Lake Ontario. This program started 
in 1987 with the goal of cleanup, restoration, and pollution 
prevention; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of 
Engineers: $11,150,000.

Program name: RCRA Subtitle C State Program Support - Great Lakes 
Initiative; Purpose: Army Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this 
program, started in 1992, is to assist states in developing and 
implementing an authorized state hazardous waste management program for 
the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, storage, and 
disposal of hazardous wastes. Cleanup and pollution prevention are the 
goals of this program; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps 
of Engineers: $22,009,710.

Program name: State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference; Purpose: Army 
Corps of Engineers: The purpose of this program, started in 1994, is to 
assess the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes and to provide 
information to measure whole lake response to control measures using 
trend analysis and cause/effect relationships; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Army Corps of Engineers: [P].

Sources: The Corps, NRCS, NOAA, ATSDR, FWS, NPS, EPA, and GAO.

[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column 
represent program federal fiscal year expenditures.

[B] This program was authorized by WRDA in 2000, and first funded in 
2002.

[C] Thus far, no funds have been expended for this program.

[D] The program was first funded in 1994.

[E] The Great Lakes funding first began in 1994.

[F] The amount expended is for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

[G] NOAA provides base funding for the facility, which averaged over 
$6.3 million during the 10-year period, but many other federal and 
state agencies also provide research funds to the laboratory.

[H] The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research 
project results would most likely be applicable both within and outside 
the basin.

[I] Funding to support this program comes from a portion of the annual 
allocation received by the lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office. 
The amount received from 1992 through 2001 was $2,770,450.

[J] Funding is for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 only.

[K] According to FWS, the authorizing act expires in 2004.

[L] Partial funding for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

[M] Funding is for fiscal years 1995 through 2001, funding was first 
provided in 1995.

[N] Funding provided for fiscal years 1998 through 2001.

[O] This is not total funding; expenditures were not available for 
three known units.

[P] This is a GLNPO program. Funding for GLNPO programs was not 
available individually. Total GLNPO funding for 1993-2001 is 
$143,400,000.

[Q] Funding provided for fiscal years 1993-2001.

[End of table]

Table 8 contains a listing of the state programs that specifically fund 
activities in the Great Lakes Basin.

Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA):

Program name: Illinois Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The governors of the 
eight Great Lakes states created an endowment fund program in 1989. 
States contributed to the 
fund and received dividends to use for their Great Lakes projects. The 
Illinois GLPF program funds special studies and projects related to 
Great Lakes research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention. 
The projects are selected as part of the states' budget process; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency (IEPA): $5,000,000.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ):

Program name: 1988 Quality of Life Bond Fund; Purpose: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This $660 million general 
obligation bond program was initiated 
in 1988 to finance environmental programs focused on cleanup 
of toxic and other contamination sites. It provided funds to 
address problems relating to solid waste, sewage treatment 
and water quality, reusing industrial sites, and preserving green 
space. Funded activities included research, cleanup, restoration, and 
pollution prevention. The program was replaced by the 
Clean Michigan Initiative in 1998; Program expenditures (1992-
2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): 
$492,000,000[C].

Program name: Clean Michigan Initiative; Purpose: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): Michigan voters approved this 
$675 million general obligation 
bond program for environmental activities in 1998 to replace the 
Quality of Life Bond Fund. It is used for cleanup, restoration, or 
pollution prevention projects, and a portion of the fund is 
available for parks and monitoring activities; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): 
$255,900,000[D].

Program name: Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): By mandate, Michigan's 
GLPF program only funds research projects undertaken by universities 
and for-profit groups in 
areas such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species. The 
research project agenda is determined each year by a MDEQ Technical 
Advisory Board and may be based on legislative direction, 
recommendations from MDEQ departments, 
or current environmental issues, such as ballast water; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA): $5,199,601[F].

Program name: Part 201 Programs; Purpose: Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA): This is the state's version of the federal 
Superfund program 
that started in 1995. Its funding is provided by the state 
Cleanup and Redevelopment Fund, the Revitalization 
Revolving Loan Fund, the State Site Cleanup Fund, and the Municipal 
Landfill Cost-Share Grant Program. It can be used 
to fund research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention; 
Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency (IEPA): $169,000,000.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):

Program name: Fisheries Research in Great Lakes and Inland Waters; 
Purpose: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program 
funds research projects on fisheries populations, habitats, and 
anglers. The Fisheries Division of MDEQ began funding this research in 
the 1930s, and overtime it has grown in scope, with Great Lakes 
fisheries research stations opening in the early 1970s; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA): [E].

Minnesota State Planning Agency (MSPA):

Program name: Minnesota Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): By state statute, 
funds from Minnesota's GLPF can only be spent to protect water quality 
in the Great Lakes. Grants are awarded to finance projects that advance 
goals of the binational Toxic Substances Control Agreement and Water 
Quality Agreement. Projects involve research, cleanup, restoration, or 
pollution prevention activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $987,000[G].

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC):

Program name: New York Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): New York's GLPF 
program provides for overall intra-and interstate coordination and 
planning of the state's Great Lakes programs, and is a source of grants 
for research, data collection, technology development, policy analysis, 
and public outreach; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $1,494,053[H].

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):

Program name: Great Lakes Charter Programs; Purpose: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This suite of programs was 
created in response to the charter agreement signed by the Great Lakes 
governors. The purpose of this 1985 initiated program is to administer 
the Lake Erie-Ohio River Basin diversion and consumptive use permit 
programs called for under the charter. The program includes a water 
resource inventory and the Lake Erie Basin plans. Program funds support 
restoration, planning, and protection activities; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA): $600,000.

Program name: Shore Structure Permit Program; Purpose: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): Created in the 1930s, this 
program was transferred to ODNR in 1949 to assist coastal residents and 
communities in the proper design and construction of structures 
intended to control erosion, wave action, and flooding along the Ohio 
shore of Lake Erie. Program officials review construction permits for 
shore structures and provide technical assistance to shoreline property 
owners as it relates to structures involving shoreline erosion, lake 
access, and coastal flooding; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): [I].

Program name: Submerged Lands Leasing; Purpose: Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA): This program, which was established in 1917, 
reviews lease applications for the proposed and existing occupation of 
submerged lands by structures along the coast of Lake Erie. Leasing 
submerged land enables the state to manage the public trust and protect 
the rights of shoreline property owners. It provides technical 
assistance to shoreline property owners regarding shoreline erosion and 
lake access structures as it relates to flooding and erosion; Program 
expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA): $2,084,296[J].

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA):

Program name: Ohio Lake Erie Commission/Lake Erie Protection Fund (Ohio 
Great Lakes Protection Fund - GLPF); Purpose: Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA): The Ohio GLPF program provides grants to fund 
research, support cleanup and restoration efforts, and educate 
nonprofit, government, or public entities seeking to protect or enhance 
Lake Erie; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $6,943,894.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP):

Program name: Pennsylvania Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Pennsylvania GLPF 
provides grants to fund education, research, and monitoring 
activities; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $253,721.

Program name: Pennsylvania's Office of the Great Lakes; Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program began in 
1995 and was created as the focal point for research, restoration, 
cleanup, and pollution prevention activities affecting the Great Lakes. 
This office works with other PDEP offices that provide the projects' 
funding; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA): $700,000[K].

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR):

Program name: Great Lakes Harbors and Bays Restoration Funding; 
Purpose: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This 1990 
initiated program allows DNR to conduct activities to cleanup or 
restore environmental areas that are adjacent to, or a tributary of 
Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, if the activities are included in 
remedial action plans approved by the department; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): 
$2,316,271.

Program name: Wisconsin Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF); Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Wisconsin GLPF 
program provides funds to municipalities and other governmental units, 
groups, nonprofit organizations, universities and others for various 
projects. Funds are used for (1) implementing activities included in 
remedial action plans, (2) restoring or protecting fish and wildlife 
habitats in or adjacent to Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, or (3) 
planning or providing information related to cleaning up or protecting 
the Great Lakes; Program expenditures (1992-2001)[A]: Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): $2,224,914.

Program name: Great Lakes Salmon and Trout Stamp Program; Purpose: 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): This program was 
created in 1982 to provide funding for projects pertaining to Great 
Lakes fish stocking programs. The stocking program activities include 
evaluation, research, or species propagation; Program expenditures 
(1992-2001)[A]: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): 
$11,150,000[L].

Sources: IEPA, MDEQ, MDNR, MSPA, NYDEC, ODNR, OEPA, PDEP, WDNR, and 
GAO.

[A] Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column 
represent program state fiscal year expenditures.

[B] This figure represents the amount awarded through grants during 
fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1998.

[C] This represents funds expended between 1992 and 1997. After 1997, 
projects were funded from the Clean Michigan Initiative program.

[D] Clean Michigan Program expenditures were from 1999 through 2001.

[E] Program officials were not able to provide research expenditures 
for this program before 2002.

[F] This figure represents the amount expended for research grants from 
1997 through 2001. Grant expenditure data were not readily available 
for earlier years.

[G] Project funds were first awarded in 1995. Of the amount shown, 
$537,000 was provided by the GLPF, and the other $450,000 in project 
costs was provided by other state funding sources.

[H] The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research 
project results are primarily applicable only within New York's Great 
Lakes Basin.

[I] Funds were not available for this program.

[J] Amounts relate to the cost to administer the program; leasing fees 
cover other program costs.

[K] This figure relates to costs to administer the program since 1995. 
Program grant amounts were not provided.

[L] Annual expenditures were estimated, but this figure represents 
total expenditures during the period 1992 through 2001.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE.

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD.

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590.

APR 17 2003:

John B. Stephenson, Director:

Natural Resources and the Environment U.S. General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed General Accounting 
Office (GAO) Report Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for 
Measuring Progress are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. We 
appreciate your staff's efforts to understand the scope and 
complexities of the United States Great Lakes Program and we are giving 
careful consideration to the draft report. Our comments are outlined 
below. We will provide Congress, GAO, and the White House Office of 
Management and Budget with a formal response to the final report 
recommendations.

We agree with the GAO's call for better planning, coordination, 
monitoring, and the development of indicators for measuring the health 
of the Great Lakes. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) 
and its partner State, Tribal, and Federal agencies have taken the 
initiative in these areas to establish the fundamental building blocks 
for these efforts. I would like to highlight the following four 
examples of this work: the establishment of the United States Policy 
Committee (USPC), the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) Indicators 
development process, the release of the USPC's Great Lakes Strategy 
2002, and the development of the multi-partner Lakewide Management 
Plans.

In the report, GAO identifies language in Section 118 of the Clean 
Water Act which identifies GLNPO's coordinatioe responsibilities for 
improving Great Lakes Water Quality. GLNPO responded to this charge by 
convening the USPC which is comprised of federal, state, and tribal 
agencies with significant natural resource and environmental protection 
authorities and responsibilities. While the formation and operation of 
the USPC is not backed by a statutory mandate, it has become an 
effective vehicle for formulating and implementing priorities of basin-
wide significance for the Great Lakes.

One of the major outcomes from formation of the USPC is the Great Lakes 
Strategy 2002, in which GLNPO played a strong leadership role, which 
coordinates and streamlines efforts of the many governmental partners 
involved with protecting the Great Lakes. The Strategy serves an 
important planning and coordination function by focusing on multi-lake 
and basin-wide environmental issues, and establishes common goals that 
the governmental partners will work
toward. It also advances the implementation of the United States 
responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987.

The Strategy supports existing efforts underway, including the Lakewide 
Management Plans (LaMPs) and the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas 
of Concern, by addressing issues that are beyond the scope of these 
programs, and helping integrate them into an overall basinwide context. 
It is important to recognize that LaMPs and RAPs work at more focused 
geographical scales and are also important mechanisms to coordinate 
priorities and actions for the Great Lakes.

We view the Great Lakes Strategy as making significant progress in 
Great Lakes planning and coordination, due to its scope and the number 
of participating agencies. We believe the Strategy has helped the Great 
Lakes Program meet and exceed the requirements for coordination 
specified in Section 118 of the Clean Water Act. The Act calls for the 
development of plans, programs, and demonstration projects for nutrient 
management and the control of toxics pollutants. The Great Lakes 
Strategy incorporates these areas and also addresses invasive species, 
habitat protection and restoration, sustainable land use, brownfields 
redevelopment, minimizing wet weather events, safe beaches, and 
implementing best management practices on agricultural lands. These are 
areas crucial to Great Lakes protection and restoration, but which are 
not specified in Section 118. It is our view that the long term basin-
wide goals, objectives, and environmental indicators in the Strategy 
can form a solid foundation for any future ecosystem restoration plan 
for the Great Lakes.

One other product created by the USPC, in coordination with our 
Canadian colleagues, under the auspices of the Binational Executive 
Committee (BEC), is the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) Indicators 
development process. This unprecedented binational effort, which 
involves many public and private stakeholders, is helping the USPC and 
BEC member agencies create a suite of the environmental indicators 
necessary and sufficient to inform management decisions. GLNPO has 
consistently supported the SOLEC effort and will continue to do so 
contingent on available resources.

While we can improve upon the delivery and coordination of our 
programs, the scope, geographic scale, the remedial costs involved, and 
the interwoven complexities of the environmental issues impacting the 
Great Lakes require long-term, complex solutions implemented at a 
variety of levels and by many partners. The implementation can be 
further complicated by the multi-media nature of the problems 
encountered and the inter-agency, inter-jurisdictional, and 
international coordination required to implement these actions. Despite 
this situation, we continue to make significant environmental progress 
in the Great Lakes.

In closing, I want to reiterate EPA's strong commitment to the 
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. We have many significant 
accomplishments that have improved environmental conditions and we 
recognize that the GAO conclusions and recommendations can help ensure 
that even more environmental improvements are made.

I appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff on this 
project and look forward to offering detailed responses to the 
recommendations contained in the report. Should you need additional 
information or have further questions, please contact Mr. Gary 
Gulezian, Director of EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, at 
312-886-4040.

Very truly yours,

Thomas V. Skinner:

Great Lakes National Program Manager:

Signed by Thomas V. Skinner:


[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

John Wanska (312) 220-7628:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the name above, Willie Bailey, Heather Holsinger, 
Stephanie Luehr, Karen Keegan, Jonathan McMurray, and Rosemary Torres 
Lerma made key contributions to this report.


FOOTNOTES

[1] Two areas in Canada were restored and removed from the list of 
AOCs.

[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to 
Define Organizational Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight 
and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May 
17, 2002).

[3] See U.S. General Accounting Office, A More Comprehensive Approach 
Is Needed To Clean Up The Great Lakes, CED-82-83 (Washington D.C.: May 
21, 1982).

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

[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem 
Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making Process 
Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track, GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington, 
D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999).

[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem 
Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in Developing a Strategic Plan, 
but Actions Still Needed, GAO-01-361 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2001).

[7] "Brownfields" are properties with real or perceived environmental 
contamination that hampers redevelopment efforts. 

[8] See U.S. Policy Committee, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, (p.3), (Feb. 
22, 2002).

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

[10] See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept. 
12, 2002).

[11] International Joint Commission, Tenth Biennial Report on Great 
Lakes Water Quality, (June 29, 2000).

[12] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to 
Define Organizational Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight 
and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May 
17, 2002).

[13] See IJC, Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (June 
29, 2000).

[14] See IJC, 11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, (Sept. 
12, 2002).

[15] See IJC, Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, 
(Dec. 15, 1993).

[16] See GAO-02-563, cited on p. 53, footnote 12.

[17] SOLEC is co-chaired by representatives from the U.S. EPA and 
Environment Canada.

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

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: