## DRAFT September 2009 White House Council on Environmental Quality U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

# Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan FY2010 – FY2014



# February 21, 20102 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan

Table of Contents **Executive Summary..................................**

**................................................... ............................................. 3**  **A National Treasure................................**

**................................................... ............................................... 6**  **The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge ..............**

**................................................... .................................. 7**  **What is “Restoration”? .............................**

**................................................... ............................................. 8**  **Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoratio n Initiative.......................................**  **.................... 9 The Path Forward: The Action Plan ..................** 

**................................................... .................................. 10**  **Plan Overview......................................**

**................................................... .............................................. 10**  **Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs..........................................**  **.................. 11 Federal Integration and Coordination ...............** 

**................................................... ................................. 13**  **Implementing the Action Plan .......................**

**................................................... ...................................... 13**  **Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Scie nce ................................................**  **.................... 13 Project Selection ..................................** 

**................................................... .............................................. 14**  **Funding and Grants Cycle ...........................**

**................................................... ...................................... 15**  **Focus Areas........................................**

**................................................... .................................................. 1**  **6 Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern** 

**................................................... .................... 17**  **Problem Statement..................................**

**................................................... ........................................17**  **Long Term Goals ....................................**

**................................................... ........................................18**  **Objectives .........................................**

**................................................... ..............................................19**  **Measures of Progress ...............................**

**................................................... .......................................19**  **Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............**

**................................................... .............................20**  **Focus Area 2: Invasive Species .....................**

**................................................... .................................... 22**  **Problem Statement..................................**

**................................................... ........................................22**  **Long Term Goals ....................................**

**................................................... ........................................22**  **Objectives .........................................**

**................................................... ..............................................23**  **Measures of Progress ...............................**

**................................................... .......................................24**  **Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............**

**................................................... .............................24**  **Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution ..........................................**  **.............. 26 Problem Statement..................................** 

**................................................... ........................................26**  **Long Term Goals ....................................**

**................................................... ........................................27**  **Objectives .........................................**

**................................................... ..............................................28**  **Measures of Progress ...............................**

**................................................... .......................................29**  **Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............**

**................................................... .............................30**  **Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and R estoration.........................................**  **.................. 31 Problem Statement..................................** 

**................................................... ........................................31**  **Long Term Goals ....................................**

**................................................... ........................................31**  **Objectives .........................................**

**................................................... ..............................................31**  **Measures of Progress ...............................**

**................................................... .......................................32**  **Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............**

**................................................... .............................33**  **Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring , Evaluation, Communication**  **and** 

### Partnerships 35 **Problem Statement..................................**

**................................................... ........................................35**  **Long Term Goals ....................................**

**................................................... ........................................36**  **Objectives .........................................**

**................................................... ..............................................37**  **Measures of Progress ...............................**

**................................................... .......................................38**  **Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............**

**................................................... .............................38**  **Conclusion .........................................**

**................................................... .................................................. 4**  **0**3 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## Executive Summary

**The lands and waters of the Great Lakes are like no other place. In a world where fresh surface water**  **is increasingly in demand, the region contains some 20**  **percent of it. At a time when people are not looki ng as much**  **to faraway places for respite, the Great Lakes offe r some of the most majestic natural shorescapes on**  **the planet to accommodate them. As a result, people are reconnect**  **ing to their beaches, wide-open waters, petroglyphe d bluffs,**  **dune ranges and tumbling tributaries like never bef ore. Likewise, these same resources have served as**  **the raw material to build some of the Earth’s most legendar**  **y cities, create jobs to support families, and cont ribute to the**  **largest economy in the history of the world.**

**Still, our expectation that the Great Lakes will co ntinue to meet these needs has resulted in lost flo**  **ra, fauna, soil, and air and water quality to the point where the ec**  **osystem is showing signs of severe stress and its a bility to keep**  **up with these demands is in doubt.**

**While in the past we have worked to minimize harm, public demand for a new standard of care is surging**  **. That**
**standard of care is that** we must leave the Great Lakes better for the next g eneration than the condition in which
we inherited them **. We must continue to go beyond minimizing harm to proactively rehabilitating the Great Lakes.**  **Only then will they be able to keep providing jobs, recreation and sanctuary.**  The Great Lakes states and the Great Lakes Basin bo undary.4 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Understanding this, U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)**  **Administrator Lisa Jackson, in collaboration with 1 5 other federal agencies, have made restoring the G**  **reat Lakes a national priority. Signaling a commitment beyond**  **measure of past promises, in February 2009, Preside nt**  **Obama proposed $475 million for a** Great Lakes Restoration Initiative **(Initiative). This Action Plan describes**
**how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 throu gh 2014.** 

**The Initiative is not intended to be another grand statement about the Great Lakes; it is intended to**  **operationalize those statements. It builds on countless hours by e**  **lected, agency, business, public interest and other leaders,**  **which resulted in the Great Lakes Regional Collabor ation Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy**  **provides a framework for the Action Plan, and the A ction Plan is just that: an**  action **driver**

. **It articulates the most**  **significant ecosystem problems and efforts to addre ss them in five major focus areas:** 

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern **, including pollution prevention and cleanup of the most polluted**  **areas in the Great Lakes (see pages 19-21 for Measu res of Progress with specific, quantifiable targets**  **; and Principal Actions)** 

• Invasive Species **, including efforts to institute a “zero tolerance policy” toward new invasions, including the**  **establishment of self-sustaining populations of inv asive species, such as Asian Carp (pages 24-26)** 

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution **, including a targeted geographic focus on high pri ority**  **watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources (pages 29-30)** 

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration **, including bringing wetlands and other habitat bac k to**  **life, and the first-ever comprehensive assessment o f the entire 530,000 acres of Great Lakes coastal w**  **etlands for the purpose of strategically targeting restorat**  **ion and protection efforts in a science-based manne r (pages**  **33-35)**

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships **, including the implementation of goal- and results-based accountab**  **ility measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships (pages 38-39)** 

**The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measu rable ecological targets, and specific actions for**  **each of the**
**five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development**  **of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fisca**  **l years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for**  **collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. The Action Plan will also hel**  **p advance the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada.** 

**The Initiative is not the only tool in the toolbox, however. Traditional infrastructure financing unde**  **r Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and Superfund**  **cleanup enforcement, for example, represent work o utside**  **the Initiative’s scope. This work, however, continu es to be essential to Great Lakes protection and re**  **storation and EPA is working with states and tribes to ensure tha**  **t these high priority activities are properly targe ted whenever**  **possible to help further clean-up of the Great Lake s.** 

**This plan also aims to build upon the significant a mount of work already accomplished by states and ot**  **her partners in protecting and restoring the Great Lake**  **s. In addition, it tries to minimize the duplicatio n of effort by**  **focusing on high priority work that has already bee n identified in the many programs and strategies al**  **ready in place around the Great Lakes Basin. This includes w**  **ork under the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration St rategy,**  **individual states’ Great Lakes restoration plans, a nd many others.** 5 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding i ndividually and with other federal agencies. Funds**  **will be used to implement priority federal projects as well as o**  **ther programs undertaken by nonfederal entities tha t support the**  **Action Plan. Funding will be provided through grant s and cooperative agreements or through interagency**  **agreements that allow the transfer of funds to othe r federal agencies for subsequent use and distribut**  **ion. Most grants will be issued competitively. Annual reports**  **to the President, beginning in 2011, will describe accomplishments to date, action planned for the upc**  **oming year, and progress toward meeting ecosystem g oals**  **and targets. These efforts will underpin the Action Plan’s operating principles:** 

**1)** Accountability: **The Initiative is an unprecedented opportunity to heal the ecosystem. With this**  **unprecedented opportunity comes unprecedented respo nsibility, however, for**  all of us **to demonstrate we are achieving the results intended in the Action Pl**  **an. We will use transparent means of demonstrating how public dollars are being invested as directed b**  **y the best available science.**

**2)** Action: **This distinguishes the Initiative from so many oth er efforts in the past. For the most part, we**  **know the problems facing the Great Lakes. The Initi ative**  **supports our resolve to solve them. While there is a place for monitoring, sampling, surveying and**  **planning under the Initiative, these activities mus t have**  **a bias for action, that is, real on-the-ground and in-the-water project work that will breathe new lif**  **e into the ecosystem. Projects ready to go with existing p**  **lans will receive preference over efforts that requ ire**  **extensive new planning.**

**3)** Urgency: **Study after study shows the health of the lakes is in jeopardy. While we have been working**  **heroically to hold the line over the years to preve nt their further decline, we have been entrusted wi**  **th powerful new resources to rehabilitate the lakes: l**  **eadership at the highest levels demanding action, p olicy**  **tools, and the promise of significant financial res ources. With these, there are no more reasons for d**  **elay. After all, the Great Lakes have endured some 150 ye**  **ars of abuse. Though it will take time for the ecosystem to respond to our actions today, there is**  **not another minute to lose in restoring these magnificent waterways for tomorrow. To the extent t**  **hat actions undertaken now increase the resiliency of**  **the ecosystem, they will also help the Great Lakes adapt to climate change.** 

**This Action Plan – including the funding and other policy tools that will be used to leverage its outc**  **omes – is intended to realize our goals: that the fish are sa**  **fe to eat; the water is safe to drink; the beaches and waters are safe**  **for swimming, surfing, boating and recreating; nati ve species and habitats are protected and thriving;**  **no community suffers disproportionately from the impac**  **ts of pollution; and the Great Lakes are a healthy place for**  **people and wildlife to live.**6 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## A National Treasure

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

**The Great Lakes – the largest group of freshwater l akes on Earth – are true wonders of the world. An i**  **mportant part of the physical landscape and cultural heritag**  **e of North America, the Great Lakes hold 95 percent of the**  **United States’ surface fresh water. Shared with Can ada, these “freshwater seas” boast more than 10,000**  **miles of magnificent coastline and 30,000 islands and provid**  **e drinking water, transportation, power and a wide array of**  **recreational opportunities. The region’s four-seaso n climate, uniquely influenced by the Great Lakes,**  **supports boating, fishing, diving, beach enjoyment and other**  **forms of recreation that support the region’s prou d outdoor**  **heritage.**

**The environment of the Great Lakes region is blesse d with wide swaths of forest and wilderness areas,**  **rich agricultural land, hundreds of tributaries, thousan**  **ds of smaller lakes, and extensive mineral deposits . The region’s**  **sand dunes, coastal marshes, rocky shorelines, lake plain prairies, savannas, forests, fens, wetlands a**  **nd other landscapes contain features that are globally uniqu**  **e or best represented within the Great Lakes basin. For**  **example, the world’s largest freshwater dunes line the shores of Lake Michigan.** 

**The region’s glacial history and the influence of t he lakes themselves create unique conditions that s**  **upport a wealth of biological diversity**  **, including over 200 globally rare plants and anima ls and more than 40 species that**  **are found nowhere else in the world. Rare species making their home in the Great Lakes r**  **egion include the world’s last known population of the white catspaw**  **pearly mussel, the copper redhorse fish and the Kir tland’s**  **warbler. The Great Lakes**  **environment supports a world-class fishery, with an estimated 180 species of native**  **fish, including small- and large-mouth bass, muskel lunge, northern pike, lake herring, whitefish, wall**  **eye and lake**

**trout.**

**If the Great Lakes region were its own nation, it w ould house the largest economy second only to the U**  **nited States itself, providing transportation for raw mat**  **erials and finished goods; fresh water for our indu stries; drinking**  **water for our communities; and recreation for the b asin’s more than 30 million citizens.**  **The 4.3 million recreational boats registered in the eight Great La**  **kes states generate nearly $16 billion in spending on boats and**  **boating activities in a single year. That spending directly supports 107,000 jobs, a figure that grows**  **to nearly 250,000 when secondary impacts are taken into consi**  **deration.**7 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge

Pigeon River kayaking, Michigan

**The Great Lakes impact our way of life, as well as all aspects of the natural environment, from weathe**  **r and climate to wildlife and habitat. Yet for all their**  **size and power, the Great Lakes are not as resilien t as they look. In**  **the past, their fragile nature was not recognized a nd the lakes were mistreated for economic gain, pla**  **cing the ecosystem under tremendous stress from our activiti**  **es. Today, we understand that our health and our ch ildren’s**  **future depend on our collective efforts to wisely m anage this complex ecosystem.** 

**History has shown us that the Great Lakes are highl y sensitive to biological and chemical stresses. Wh**  **ile restoration progress has been made through years of**  **concerted effort and expenditures on the part of f ederal, state,**  **tribal and local governments and other stakeholders , that progress is slowing or even reversing. The G**  **reat Lakes face a number of serious challenges. The most signi**  **ficant of these include toxic substances, invasive species,**  **nonpoint source pollution and nearshore impacts, ha bitat and species loss, and a need for better infor**  **mation to guide decision making.** 

**Although releases of toxic pollutants have been red uced significantly over the last 30 years, there is**  **a legacy of contamination in sediments and continuing inputs th**  **rough rivers and air. Excessive levels of contamina nts are still**  **found in fish throughout the system. As a result, a ll Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario i**  **ssue annual fish consumption advisories. Mercury and other poll**  **utants continue to enter the Great Lakes from nearb y and**  **global sources through air deposition. Newly recogn ized chemicals of concern are also being identified**  **as potential threats to the chemical integrity of the**  **Great Lakes. Thirty toxic hotspot “Areas of Concern ” (AOCs) in**  **the United States are still in need of cleanup afte r more than 20 years; only the Oswego River has bee**  **n removed from the AOC list.** 

**Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species continue t o cause ecological and economic damage, and greatly**  **complicate efforts to restore the Great Lakes. New aquatic species of invaders have arrived at the rat**  **e of about one every eight months, adding to the more than 180**  **already established in the basin. In recent years this rate has**  **slowed but the door to new arrivals has not yet bee n shut. Enhanced prevention and control efforts are**  **necessary to stop new invasive species like Asian Carp from b**  **ecoming established in the Great Lakes.**

**Pollution from nonpoint sources contributes to impa ired water quality and excess nutrients. Many of ou**  **r coastal areas also suffer from sewer overflows that contami**  **nate the water and close the beaches.**8 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Habitat destruction and degradation due to developm ent, competition from invasive species, alteration**  **of natural lake level fluctuations and flow regimes, poor coas**  **tal development planning and land management, and h abitat**  **fragmentation have negatively impacted wildlife. Th is has led to altered food webs, a loss of biodiver**  **sity, and poorly functioning ecosystems. Yet, opportunities f**  **or the protection and restoration of critical habit at exist**  **throughout the basin.**

**While the Great Lakes region has been a leader for innovative science and advances in natural resource**  **management, there are still significant gaps in kno wledge about ecological processes and key indicator**  **s of ecosystem health. Efforts must be strategically cho**  **sen in order to obtain the additional information n eeded to**  **inform implementation activities, assist tracking a nd reporting of progress, and to identify adaptive**  **management actions. The Great Lakes also face new and emerging**  **problems such as the effects of climate change, in cluding**  **potentially changing long-term Great Lakes water le vels and the timing and duration of ice cover.** 

**Collectively, these problems have seriously comprom ised the environmental health of the Great Lakes. A**  **s a result, there is a new sense of urgency for action**  **to address the highest priorities for restoring and protecting the**  **Great Lakes. This document outlines a strategic mul ti-year approach to address those urgent problems.** 



## What is “Restoration”?

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan

Restoration is the process of assisting the recover y of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged o r destroyed. **For purposes of this Initiative, restoration includ es ecosystem protection, enhancement, rehabilitatio**  **n and remediation. A restored ecosystem is resilient;**  **its chemical, physical, and biological functions a nd processes**  **provide the requisite conditions for life. A restor ed ecosystem contains sustainable populations of na**  **tive plant and animal species and their habitats. Potential threat**  **s or further damage have been eliminated or reduced as much as**  **possible and the restored ecosystem is able to with stand future threats. Restoration**  is not **the attempt to change the ecosystem to pre-European settlement conditions; h**  **owever, a restored ecosystem does attempt to emulat e those**  **conditions to the extent possible under present-day chemical, physical and biological conditions.** 

**Restoration of degraded, damaged or destroyed water and lands is more costly than protection of resour**  **ces before damage occurs. Therefore, this Initiative recognize**  **s the wisdom of supporting ecological protection.** Protection is defined as actions taken to prevent stress to ecosy stems **. Actions include the establishment of stewardship**9 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**partnerships to manage and monitor habitats and spe cies; construction of physical barriers to prevent**  **damage to sensitive areas; implementing best management pract**  **ices to protect ecosystems; and, acquisition of lan d and**  **protection agreements such as easements. The Initia tive acknowledges that land acquisitions and protec**  **tion agreements alone**  will not **protect ecosystems from threats such as invasive s pecies, encroaching development, or**  **airborne toxic pollutants. Acquisition and protecti on agreements must be accompanied by appropriate st**  **ewardship and management actions.** 



## Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoratio n Initiative

Nelson Point State Park, Wisconsin

**When running for president, Barack Obama issued a c ampaign promise to protect and restore the Great La**  **kes. The pledge built upon a May 2004 Executive Order th**  **at created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force t o**  **coordinate federal restoration efforts. In 2005, so me 1,500 stakeholders created the Great Lakes Regio**  **nal Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy) that outline**  **s challenges facing the lakes, a framework for rest oration and**  **protection, and a common set of recommended solutio ns across eight priority issue areas:** 

• **Aquatic Invasive Species**

• **Habitat/Species**

• **Coastal Health**

• **Areas of Concern (AOCs)/Sediments**

• **Nonpoint Source**

• **Toxic Pollutants**

• **Indicators and Information**

• **Sustainable Development 1** 

**Released in May 2009, the President’s FY 2010 budge t included $475 million for a new Great Lakes Resto**  **ration Initiative (Initiative), strategically targeting pr**  **ograms and projects to address the most significant problems in the** 

**1 The Initiative collapses these eight focus areas in**  **to five. A ninth focus area, concerning water quant ity issues, was excluded from the**  **GLRC Strategy because it was being addressed throug h a separate process: the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence**  **River Basin Water Resources Compact. The Sustainable Development area also iden**  **tified water infrastructure needs in the Basin. Inf rastructure needs are not being**  **addressed by GLRI but through increased funding for the State Revolving Funds through EPA’s Regional o**  **ffices.**10 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Great Lakes ecosystem to demonstrate measurable res ults. EPA, in concert with its federal partners on**  **the Task Force and other stakeholders, is leading the develo**  **pment and implementation of this Initiative and wil l administer**  **the funding. Building upon the extensive planning a nd collaboration that was done by the Task Force an**  **d a wide variety of stakeholders and non-governmental partne**  **rs in development of the GLRC Strategy, the Task Fo rce**  **developed a plan for FY 2010. 2** 

**The Initiative presents an unprecedented opportunit y to systematically tackle the environmental challe**  **nges that have persisted for decades. In July and August 2009**  **, EPA held a series of public meetings with agencie s and**  **stakeholders in the Great Lakes states to get publi c feedback on the highest priority issues in each f**  **ocus area, both basinwide and locally, and to get suggestions for h**  **ow to address these issues to maximize results unde r the**  **Initiative. This Action Plan incorporates those bas inwide and local priorities into a five year time f**  **rame for action. Federal agencies began implementing that FY 2010 pl**  **an following Congressional appropriation of the Pre sident’s**  **$475 million request. 3** 



## The Path Forward: The Action Plan

Lake Superior wave



## Plan Overview
**This Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan (Action Pl an) outlines methods and actions to advance impleme**  **ntation of the Initiative through FY 2014 and will help pro**  **tect and restore the chemical, physical and biologi cal integrity**  **of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.**

**Five principal focus areas have been identified whi ch encompass the most significant environmental pro**  **blems in the Great Lakes (other than water infrastructure) f**  **or which urgent action is required. These include 4**  **:**

• **Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern**

• **Invasive Species**

• **Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution**

• **Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration**

• **Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships** 

**2 The FY 2010 plan, together with documents describin**  **g Agency actions therein and the programs and proje cts to carry it out, are posted to**  **http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/index.html**

**. 3**  **Objectives and targets in this plan are premised o n an assumption that $300 million will be appropria**  **ted in FY 2011, and $475 million in subsequent years.** 

**4 Regional goals for water and sewer infrastructure**  **improvements, which are supported by funding under the Clean or Drinking Water**  **State Revolving Fund programs, are being addressed through those and other processes and are not part**  **of this Action Plan.**11 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Each focus area in this Action Plan includes a prob lem statement, goals, objectives, measures of progr**  **ess and targets, and the principal actions in support of th**  **e objectives. On an annual basis, federal agencies are expected to**  **identify the specific actions they will take to imp lement the Action Plan. Federal agencies also will**  **minimize overhead in carrying out the Action Plan and, to th**  **e extent feasible, will use existing staff. EPA wil l assure that**  **the Action Plan’s goals, objectives, and targets ar e aligned with those of Great Lakes state, municipa**  **l and tribal governments.** 

**Within the five focus areas, the Action Plan will a ddress the highest priority projects. It is the int**  **ent of the Initiative’s federal agencies to target efforts and**  **funds to these projects in a way that maximizes re sults. Targeted,**  **cooperative efforts are necessary to ensure meaning ful progress on many of the complex and costly issu**  **es that have plagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issu**  **es exist basinwide (e.g., invasive species, nonpoin t source**  **pollution,) and require broad, expansive action, wh ile others are more localized (e.g., Areas of Conce**  **rn, habitat) and will have site-specific remedies.** 

**In each focus area there are efforts which will be given special attention.** 

• **In the focus area of Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, efforts will be targeted to remediate**  **contaminated sediments and to address other major p ollution sources in order to restore and delist the**  **most polluted sites in the Great Lakes basin.**

• **In the focus area of Invasive Species, efforts will be targeted to institute a “zero tolerance policy”**  **as a long term goal toward new invasions, including the**  **development of ballast water technology, an early detection surveillance program, and a rapid respons**  **e capability to address threats from new invasive species such as Asian Carp.** 

• **In the focus area of Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, efforts will be targeted**  **geographically to focus on watersheds of extreme ec ological sensitivity (such as the Green Bay/Fox**  **River, Genesee River, Maumee River, St. Louis River , and Saginaw River, places where environmental**  **problems and their solutions have been clearly iden tified).** 

• **Efforts will target implementation of lakewide biod iversity conservation blueprints and restoration of**  **important species such as the Lake Sturgeon and the Piping Plover.** 

• **In the focus area of Accountability, Education, Mon itoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships** 

**, efforts will include implementation priority Lakewi**  **de Management Plan projects for restoring the lakes**

**, as well as establishment of quality goals and resul**  **ts-based accountability measures, learning initiati ves,**  **outreach and strategic partnerships.**

**Detailed information about these efforts is include d in the focus area descriptions which follow in a**  **subsequent section of this Action Plan.** 



## Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs
**This Action Plan includes many elements of the Stra tegy and draws upon the ecological priorities, goal**  **s and objectives of numerous pre-existing issue or area-s**  **pecific plans and programs that have been developed by**  **federal, state, tribal, local and non-governmental stakeholders, such as:** 

• **Plans under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement , including Lakewide Management Plans and**  **Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern**

• **Comprehensive Management Plan for St. Clair River a nd Lake St. Clair** 

• **Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy**

• **State Wildlife Action Plans**

• **U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Habitat Action Plan** 12 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• **A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lake s Fisheries** 

• **Plans under the U.S. - Canada Convention on Great L akes Fisheries** 

• **Partners in Flight North American Land Conservation Plans** 

• **North American Waterbird Conservation Plan**

• **North American Waterfowl Management Plan**

• **U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan**

• **Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Monitoring Plan**

• **Great Lakes Fishery Plan**

• **Endangered Species Recovery Plans**

• **Coastal Management Plans under the Coastal Zone Man agement Act** 

• **Plans under the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conserva tion Program** 

• **Source Water Protection Plans**

• **Tribal-Federal Environmental Agreements**

Boats along Lake Huron

**This Action Plan takes a step toward integrating an d aligning these and other plans, including individ**  **ual states’ Great Lakes restoration plans. Our goal is to minim**  **ize the duplication of effort while using the Initi ative to do**  **high priority work that has already been identified or that may be incomplete, under other programs. A**  **s such, the Action Plan represents our best attempt to capture**  **the broad consensus of the Great Lakes community’s collective**  **commitment to advance Great Lakes protection and re storation. This broad consensus is the result of ye**  **ars of planning finally capped by 18 meetings in summer 20**  **09 with representatives of states, tribes, cities a nd other**  **stakeholders. We expect that these representatives and others will be able to continue providing input**  **to federal agencies for implementation of priority Great Lakes**  **actions by participating in these and other ongoin g planning**  **efforts. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative wil l also support the National Policy and Implementati**  **on Plan being developed in response to the President’s memo**  **randum on a “National Policy for the Oceans, Our Co asts,**  **and the Great Lakes.”**

**In addition to new federal funding through GLRI, th e Initiative will rely on partnerships to leverage**  **and harness a wider set of resources for the protection and resto**  **ration of the Great Lakes. In many instances, the m ost effective**  **solutions to the challenges facing the Great Lakes will require effective use of non-GLRI baseline fed**  **eral funding, federal regulatory or other policy tools, and the s**  **ignificant regulatory and policy tools and resource s of states,**  **tribes, and other non-federal partners. These effor ts, summarized below, are complementary to GLRI eff**  **orts.**13 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• Non-GLRI baseline federal funding **. For example, construction of water infrastructure for treatment and**  **conveyance of drinking water and wastewater.**

• Federal regulatory or other policy tools **. For example, national rulemakings and permitting that reduce**  **the risk of future invasions of ANS; permitting act ivities under the Clean Water Act; or regulatory me**  **ans to reduce atmospheric mercury deposition to the Gre**  **at Lakes.**

• Tools and resources of non-federal partners **. For example, stewardship of properties by a state , tribe or**  **non-governmental organization for the purpose of en hancing habitat protection or connectivity; or**  **implementation of source water protection plans for drinking water treatment facilities with intakes t**  **hat draw from surface or groundwater within the Great L**  **akes basin.**



## Federal Integration and Coordination
**The primary means for ensuring that the Action Plan is developed and implemented in an integrated mann**  **er is the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA.** 

**Created by presidential Executive Order in 2004, th e Interagency Task Force (Task Force), through the**  **efforts of the Regional Working Group (RWG), coordinates feder**  **al Great Lakes efforts, including some 140 federal programs that address Great Lakes issues. The Task**  **Force includes 11 of the agency and cabinet organiz ations**  **which manage those programs: EPA, State, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Developmen**  **t, Transportation, Homeland Security, Army, Council on**  **Environmental Quality, and Health and Human Servic es.** 



## Implementing the Action Plan

**Though a national treasure of magnificent grandeur, we know the Great Lakes are still vulnerable to mi**  **suse and exploitation. Degradation of the lakes and their su**  **pporting ecosystem happened over the course of more than a**  **century. Even with nature’s resiliency, discernable widespread improvements will likely also take time**  **. The goals, objectives, measures of progress and other e**  **fforts identified in this Action Plan will help ens ure**  **quantifiable annual** outputs **are in place that will lead to long-term restorati on**  outcomes **, even if such outcomes will not be immediately measurable on an ecosystem**  **scale.**



## Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Scie nce **The Task Force will implement an accountability sys tem to routinely track, measure and report progress**  **pursuant to the Action Plan. Recipients of Initiative fundin**  **g will be required to provide routine progress repo rts, at least**  **semi-annually, on their individual projects as well as progress toward the goals, objectives, and meas**  **ures of the Initiative. EPA will collect that information and r**  **eport on overall progress toward attaining the goal s and**  **objectives of the Action Plan. EPA will work with t he Task Force to identify, adapt and modify activit**  **ies in future years based on performance and newly identified nee**  **ds. These will be included in the development of fu nding**  **plans for subsequent years.**

**Beginning in March, 2010, EPA will provide annual r eports that provide funding allocations by federal**  **agency and that identify any adjustments from annual reque**  **sts. In addition, starting in 2011, EPA will work w ith its Task**  **Force partners to provide an Annual Report to the P resident on accomplishments in achieving the Action**  **Plan’s outcomes and measures. The report will also compare**  **funding allocations among participating agencies f rom**  **fiscal year to fiscal year.**

**Scientific integrity at all levels is critical to t he success of Great Lakes restoration. Therefore, t**  **he Initiative will use the best available science to prioritize and im**  **plement actions, as well as to track progress. To d o this, EPA**  **and the Task Force will take all appropriate steps so that the Action Plan and its programs and projec**  **ts optimize**14 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**the likelihood of successful restoration at relevan t scales. This will include engaging an independent**  **scientific review panel to review the scientific credibility o**  **f the Action Plan so that the best available scienc e guides efforts**  **to restore the Great Lakes. Some of the distinct pr ograms and projects in this Plan may also require a**  **more specific peer review. These scientific reviews will**  **be scaled as necessary to establish the scientific justification**  **and credibility for the Action Plan’s goals, object ives, and measures and actions The GLRI will also e**  **nsure that the rate of progress is scientifically validated, a**  **nd scientific research will guide any revisions to restoration**  **priorities as well as enable the Initiative to adap t and modify activities when necessary.** 

Flowing stream near the Chicago River 

## Project Selection
**The following criteria and principles will guide se lection of programs**  **5 and projects pursuant to this Action Plan.**  **All agencies and prospective grant applicants shoul d consult the respective Requests for Proposals (RF**  **Ps) issued each year to solicit grant proposals, as project se**  **lection criteria and principles may change from yea r to year.** 

• **Ability to strategically achieve measurable environ mental outcomes linked to the highest priority issu**  **es**

• **Ability to advance applicable ecological priorities of existing plans, such as Lakewide Management**  **Plans, Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, as well as other relevant national and regional**  **coordinated strategic planning efforts, as mentione d above** 

• **Feasibility of prompt implementation, including a b ias for projects that are both ready-to-go and will**  **have results soon (however, some funding will be used fo**  **r planning and design to ensure cost effective implementation and for monitoring, particularly whe**  **re it is needed to establish baseline conditions an d/or**  **to better understand environmental problems to info rm implementation actions)** 



### • **Observable local impacts, especially for projects a t the “field” level** 



### • **Strong bias for interagency/inter-organizational co ordination and collaboration** 

• **Support new work, or enhance (but do not replace) e xisting Great Lakes baseline activities** 

• **Public support**

• **Ability to leverage non-federal resources**

• **Promotion of long-term societal, economic, and envi ronmental sustainability** 

• **Minimization of transaction costs**

**5 Note that these funds will not be directed toward**  **water infrastructure programs that are addressed un der the Clean Water or Drinking**  **Water State Revolving Fund program.**15 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Projects and activities must also meet standards fo r:** 

• **best available science**

• **experience, ability, and authority of the funding r ecipient to properly perform the work;** 

• **reasonableness of project costs; and**

• **measuring progress and success.**

**The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force used the cri teria above to develop the focus areas of the Initi**  **ative, evaluate programs and projects, and create provisio**  **nal funding allocations.**

**Work within each focus area will be accomplished th rough federal interagency cooperation, and by worki**  **ng closely with states, tribes, local government, acad**  **emia, NGOs, and other stakeholders in the Great Lak es basin, as**  **well as Canadian representatives. As this Action Pl an encompasses numerous national and regional coord**  **inated strategic planning efforts and their associated pla**  **ns, participating agencies must assure that they co ntinue to**  **support their existing base program activities in t he Great Lakes and that added Initiative support wi**  **ll not be used to supplant their existing base funding. As a start**  **ing point for identifying their base funding, agenc ies have been**  **asked to use the 2009 Office of Management and Budg et’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Crosscut Bu**  **dget Report to Congress. Final funding allocations are d**  **ependent upon actual appropriations.**



## Funding and Grants Cycle
**Through this Action Plan and collaboration among EP A and the other agencies on the Great Lakes Interag**  **ency Task Force, and with input from Great Lakes stakeho**  **lders, the distribution of funds will be directed t o maximize**  **Great Lakes restoration and protection. Resources w ill be directed to the most significant issues and**  **opportunities.**

**To be positioned to fund projects through grants 6**  **as soon as possible after an annual appropriation is made, EPA**  **will collaborate with the Interagency Task Force to do as much up-front work as possible, including is**  **suance of a RFP as soon as possible each fiscal year. The plann**  **ing process assumes that an appropriation for grant funding for**  **states, tribes, local governments, and other organi zations can be available early in each fiscal year.** 

**Most EPA grants will be issued competitively pursua nt to RFPs addressing the five focus areas.**  **7 These**  **expressions of needed work are included in numerous issue-based and geographically focused plans as re**  **ferenced above. Should significant problems and issues need**  **to be addressed outside of the five focus areas, a competitive**  **grant program would be used to fill gaps, cut acros s or overlap focus areas, address unanticipated are**  **as, or facilitate innovation. Important criteria for grant**  **selection will include a demonstration of the abil ity to commence**  **work expeditiously to connect the project to Great Lakes priorities.** 

**Following annual appropriations, EPA will act upon expert recommendations and will select proposals an**  **d issue grants for EPA programs. Upon routine implementatio**  **n of the Initiative, EPA believes that if it were t o receive an**  **appropriation by October 1 of a given fiscal year, the first grants could be issued early in the new c**  **alendar year, with others issued in the course of the year. One o**  **r more additional RFPs would be issued as needed th roughout**  **the year.**

**Several other members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to select proposals, issue grant**  **s, and provide other assistance with funding from the Init**  **iative. Each agency would provide assistance follow ing its own**  **applicable procedures, but would require special In itiative reporting provisions that will be outlined**  **in the Interagency Agreement. EPA would be given the oppor**  **tunity to review other agencies’ Requests for Propo sals** 

**6 The term “grants,” as used in this document, inclu**  **des both grants and cooperative agreements.**

**7 As in previous years, some noncompetitive funding**  **will be made available to states and tribes to ensu re the capacity to participate in**  **ongoing work to implement Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern.** 16 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**(RFPs) and proposed project selections. Likewise, E PA would share its RFPs and proposed project select**  **ions to avoid duplication. To assist stakeholders in findin**  **g assistance opportunities pursuant to the Initiati ve in a single**  **location, EPA developed and will periodically updat e the Task Force’s Funding Guide. Grant issuing age**  **ncies will ensure that appropriate results and accountabi**  **lity information is incorporated into public report s and provided**  **to oversight groups.**



## Focus Areas

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore **The following describes the five focus areas around which significant ecological stresses and efforts**  **to address those stresses will be organized:** 

• **Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern**

• **Invasive Species**

• **Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution**

• **Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration**

• **Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships** 

**Each focus area includes subsections that provide a problem statement to describe stresses, long-term**  **goals 8**  **for addressing those stresses, objectives, measures of**  **progress to ensure efforts are on track for impleme nting long**  **term goals and principal actions to achieve that pr ogress. This section is also helpful to prospective**  **grantees and others who might receive Initiative funds to ensure**  **what they plan to propose is in keeping with overa ll Initiative**  **efforts.**

**Some priorities cut across focus areas. For example , the Task Force will “geographically target” activ**  **ities, such that federal, state and other stakeholders can leve**  **rage efforts to restore areas that are highly degra ded and of high**  **ecological importance in the Great Lakes. Geographi c targeting across the focus areas is expected at p**  **laces such as the Genesee River, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee R**  **iver, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River watersheds**

**.**
**Another cross-cutting priority will be environmenta l justice and work to reduce disproportionate ecolo**  **gical impacts. Environmental justice, as a priority, will**  **be handled under some of the individual focus area s (e.g.,** 

**8 Some long-term goals may not be achieved within th**  **e time span of this action plan.**17 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**cleanups in Areas of Concern, which may correspond to areas of potential environmental justice concern**  **). While we do not anticipate creating a separate funding so**  **urce for work in this area, special consideration w ill be given to**  **efforts that address these important priorities.**

**Similarly, projected impacts of climate change on t he Great Lakes have implications across all focus a**  **reas. Climate change impacts and the needs of the Great L**  **akes community to adapt to those impacts will be as sessed**  **and addressed by GLRI projects and programs where a ppropriate. To the extent that actions undertaken a**  **s part of this Initiative increase ecosystem resiliency, they**  **will also help the Great Lakes ecosystem adapt to climate**  **change.**



## Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern

Problem Statement **Although many point sources of pollution – discharges from discernible, often end**  **of-pipe conduits – have been reduced, legacy contamination remains. “Legacy**  **contamination” is pollutants largely left over from past practices, but that continue**  **to recirculate through the ecosystem. Such legacy pollutants, often persistent toxic**  **substances (PTS), such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),**  **continue to be present at levels above those considered safe for humans and**  **wildlife, warranting fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes, connecting**  **channels, and Midwestern and New York interior lakes.** 

**Urban communities living in or near these areas and indigenous communities that**  **still live off the land in the basin are particularly at risk from disparate impacts**  **on health from pollution in these areas, and from consuming contaminated fish.**  **Continuing sources of persistent toxic substances include releases from**  **contaminated sediments; industrial and municipal po int sources; nonpoint sources including atmospheric**  **deposition, agricultural and urban runoff, and cont aminated groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals**  **within the lakes.** 

**Efforts to restore degraded conditions in the 30 U. S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) are underway**  **using a variety of funding sources including those under th**  **e Great Lakes Legacy Act, Superfund and other tools , but**  **much more needs to be done, including the remediati on of an estimated 43 million cubic yards of contam**  **inated sediments, which are the main cause of beneficial u**  **se impairments in the majority of the AOCs.**

**In addition to the well-known toxicants like mercur y, PCBs, and banned pesticides, there are chemicals**  **of emerging concern that have been detected in the Gre**  **at Lakes over the past several years, which may pos e threats**  **to the ecosystem. Some such chemicals may include f lame retardants, surfactants, pharmaceuticals and p**  **ersonal care product constituents.**  Action Illustration: Electronic Waste and Unwanted Medicines

During the 2008 Earth Week Campaign U.S. EPA held a n electronic and unwanted medicines waste collection campaign with the goal of collecting 1 million pounds of e-w aste and one million pills of expired and unused medicines in th e Great Lakes basin. Approximately $500,000 in grants was a warded to states, tribes, and local governments. Over 100 ent ities participated in the week-long campaign across the b asin. The campaign goals were far exceeded with approximately 5 million pounds of electronic waste and 5 million pills coll ected. With funding and support from the GLRI, over the next tw o years, we anticipate broad participation in similar collec tion events throughout the Great Lakes basin, resulting in at l east 20 million pounds of electronic waste and 20 million p ills of unwanted medicines collected and kept safely out of the Great Lakes environment. Beyond the collection events, th e principal goals in this effort include raising awareness in G reat Lakes communities regarding the importance of safe dispos al of electronic waste and unwanted medicines, and contin uing to cultivate the development of ongoing and sustainabl e hazardous waste collection programs within the Grea t Lakes basin, as well as making communities and businesses aware of existing collection programs.18 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Beyond protecting human and ecosystem health relate d to fish consumption, activities in this focus are**  **a that address current and new pollution threats can also**  **help protect drinking water sources.**



### Long Term Goals

• **Goal 1: Areas of Concern are cleaned up, restoring the areas and removing the beneficial use impairmen**  **ts.**

• **Goal 2: The release of toxic substances in toxic am ounts is prevented and the release of any or all pe**  **rsistent toxic substances (PTS) to the Great Lakes basin eco**  **system is virtually eliminated.**

• **Goal 3: Exposure to toxic substances from historica lly contaminated sources is significantly reduced t**  **hrough source reduction and other exposure reduction metho**  **ds.**

• **Goal 4: Environmental levels of toxic chemicals are reduced to the point that all restrictions on the**  **consumption of Great Lakes fish can be lifted.**

• **Goal 5: The health and integrity of wildlife popula tions and habitat are protected from adverse chemic**  **al and biological effects associated with the presence of**  **toxic substances in the Great Lake Basin.**19 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010



### Objectives

• **By 2014, delist five Areas of Concern.**

• **By 2014, 46 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) will be removed in**  **Areas of Concern.**

• **By 2011, 15 million pounds of electronic waste and 15 million pills of**  **unwanted medicines will be collected or their release will have been prevented.** 

• **By 2014, 45 million pounds e-waste, 45 million pills of unwanted medicines,**  **and 4.5 million pounds of household hazardous waste in the Great Lakes**  **basin will have been collected or their release will have been prevented.** 

• **By 2014, 9.4 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be**  **remediated.**

• **Through 2014, an annual average of up to 5% annual decline will be maintained**  **or improved for the trend (year 2000 and on) in average concentrations of**  **PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.** 



### Measures of Progress **The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will signifi cantly accelerate pollution prevention and reductio**  **n in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The measures by which progress wil**  **l be evaluated in this focus area are:**

Measure Baseline/
Universe 9 2010

Target 2011

Target 2012

Target 2013

Target 2014

Cumulative Target

**1. Number of Areas of Concern**

**in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary**  **for delisting have been implemented (cumulative).**  **Baseline: 1 AOC**

**Universe: 31 AOCs 1 AOC (no**  **change) 1AOC 3AOCs 4 AOCs 5 AOCs** 

**2. AOC BUIs removed (cumulative).**  **10 Baseline: 11 BUIs** 

**Universe: 261BUIs 20 BUIs 26 BUIs 31 BUIs 41 BUIs 46 BUIs** 

**3. BUI delisting project starts at AOCs (cumulative).**  **11 Baseline/Universe:** 

**30 national and bi**

**national AOCs**

**Universe: 261BUIs 60 projects 80 projects 110 projects 140 projects 1**  **70 projects**

**9 Baseline represents the starting point for the meas**  **ure. Universe represents all that is likely possibl e to protect, restore, enhance, etc.** 
**10 This is an existing measure under the Government Pe**  **rformance Results Act.**

**11 These projects represent on-the-ground actions tha**  **t are being implemented in order to remove BUIs. Fo r example, sediment removals,**  **Superfund cleanups, habitat projects and others.** Action Illustration: Cleaning Up Areas of Concern

Thirty of the originally identified 31 toxic hotspo t “Areas of Concern” (AOCs) have been on official lists for cle anup for more than 20 years. In all that time, only the Oswe go River AOC has been delisted and only the Presque Isle AOC has attained a “recovery” status. In both cases, local governments implemented pollution control programs and a strong local citizenry developed community-based volunteer progr ams to assess, monitor and improve environmental condition s.

AOC cleanup is complex for several reasons - due to the nature of jurisdictional issues among multiple leve ls of government, the complexity of the many environmenta l programs that are being brought to the task, and th e immensity of the environmental issues being faced. For exampl e, prior analyses have placed the costs for sediment clean-u p alone across all AOCs in the Great Lakes basin on an orde r of $1 – 4 billion. In addition to sediment cleanups, AOCs fac e other costly and intractable environmental problems, such as agricultural and urban nonpoint source pollution, c ombined sewer overflows and other manifestations of aging w ater infrastructure, wetlands loss, and others. Solution s to these problems often require decades of work, all the tim e coordinating among multiple partners and authoritie s to harness and synchronize the significant resources t hat are necessary over several years.20 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Measure Baseline/
Universe 12 2010

Target 2011

Target 2012

Target 2013

Target 2014

Cumulative Target **4. Cubic yards (in millions) of**

**contaminated sediment**

**remediated in the Great Lakes (cumulative).**  **13 Baseline: 5.5**  **million cubic yards (2007 )** 

**Universe: 46 million cubic yards**  **6.3 million**

**cubic yards 7.0 million** 

**cubic yards 7.2 million** 

**cubic yards 8.6 million** 

**cubic yards 9.4 million** 

**cubic yards**

**5. Pollution (in pounds) collected through prevention** 

**and waste minimization projects in the Great Lakes**  **basin (cumulative). Baseline: 0**  **10 million pounds**  **15 million**

**pounds 25 million** 

**pounds 35 million** 

**pounds 45 million** 

**pounds**

**6. Cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend**  **in average concentrations of**

**PCBs in Great Lakes fish. 14**  **Baseline: (2000)**

**0% 34% 37% 40% 43% 46%** 



### Principal Actions to Achieve Progress **New actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to protect the Great Lakes from toxic substances, clean**  **up sediments and restore Areas of Concern include:** 

• Restore Areas of Concern/Remediate Contaminated Sediments **– Accelerate the rate of sediment cleanup in AOCs**  **throughout the Great Lakes basin through programs such as the Great**  **Lakes Legacy Act, Water Resources Development Act, Natural Resource**  **Damage Assessment, and Superfund. Restore and delist AOCs through**  **strategic actions identified in Remedial Action Plans to restore individual**  **beneficial uses. EPA will develop an enhanced management structure and**  **ultimately increase our effectiveness in managing sediment remediation in**  **AOCs. As other sediment sites may be identified, we will explore opportunities**  **and authorities to address remediation at those sites.** 

**12 Baseline represents the starting point for the meas**  **ure. Universe represents all that is likely possibl e to protect, restore, enhance, etc.** 

**13 This is an existing measure under the Government P**  **erformance Results Act.**

**14 The annual decline is 5% per year. This is based o**  **n an existing measure under the Government Performa nce Results Act. In FY 2010,**  **2008 data is compared to 2000; in FY 2011, 2009 dat a is compared to 2000; and so forth. PCBs are one i**  **ndicator for a broader suite of persistent toxic substances and one of a number bei**  **ng tracked.** Action Illustration: Contaminated Sediment Clean-up Can Also Provide Benefits to Environmental Justice Areas

Contaminated sediment is a significant source of fi sh contamination, which can disproportionately impact women of childbearing years, subsistence anglers and communi ties in areas of Environmental Justice concern. In 2009, th e U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Wisconsin Depa rtment of Natural Resources and other partners conducted a Great Lakes Legacy Act clean-up of heavily contaminated s ediments in a section of Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River. The project removed around 167,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated with PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which were available to resident fish and had worked their way downstream to Lake Michigan, causi ng environmental harm and impeding commercial and recr eational navigation. This project was in a section of the Ci ty of Milwaukee considered to be an area of potential Env ironmental Justice concern. Although the project was not carri ed out as an Environmental Justice project, nor was it in respon se to specific Environmental Justice concerns, the clean-up result ed in improved environmental health for the area, and it received support from local environmental groups and communi ty health advocates. The clean-up also spurred economic revit alization efforts in this urban river community. Yet another benefit was that the clean-up provided job training opportuniti es to disadvantaged youth.21 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• Strategic Pollution Prevention and Reduction Projec ts **– Prevent toxic and potentially toxic pollutants f rom**  **entering the Great Lakes through a variety of new s trategic actions, working closely with state, triba**  **l and local**

**governments. Initiate toxic reduction activities ta rgeting mercury in emissions, products and waste, a**  **nd expand Clean Sweep, and other collection programs a**  **nd prevention practices to promote the safe disposa l and**  **elimination of pesticides, pharmaceuticals and othe r waste stream pollutants that can cause impairment**  **s.**

• Protect Human Health through Safer Fish Consumption – **Increase protection of Great Lakes fish consumers from harmful chemicals such as mercury and PCBs, wi**  **th sound and sensible advice provided through enhanced and expanded state and tribal fish advisor**  **y programs. Work closely with the Great Lakes medic al**  **and health communities to educate the general publi c regarding the benefits and risks of Great Lakes f**  **ish consumption.** 

• Measuring Progress and Assessing New Toxic Threats **– Measure progress in cleaning up toxics in the Gr eat**  **Lakes environment through comprehensive monitoring and assessment. Coordinate with efforts to update t**  **he Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure national pro**  **grams take into account threats developing in the G reat**  **Lakes. Identify significant sources and impacts of new toxics to the Great Lakes ecosystem through rob**  **ust surveillance as well as laboratory and field studie**  **s, in order to devise and implement effective contr ol**  **strategies.** Action Illustration: Beneficial Use Impairments

AOC cleanup actions are directed toward restoring b eneficial uses that have been impaired. A Beneficia l Use Impairment (BUI) is defined in the Great Lakes Wate r Quality Agreement with Canada as “a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the G reat Lakes System sufficient to cause any of the fo llowing:

1. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; 2. tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; 3. degradation of fish wildlife populations; 4. fish tumors or other deformities; 5. bird or animal deformities or reproduction probl ems; 6. degradation of benthos; 7. restrictions on dredging activities; 8. eutrophication or undesirable algae; 9. restrictions on drinking water consumption, or t aste and odor problems; 10. beach closings; 11. degradation of aesthetics; 12. added costs to agriculture or industry; 13. degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton po pulations; 14. and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.”

EPA cooperates with states to ensure actions are ta ken to address the BUIs in each AOC. When monitorin g data shows a beneficial use is no longer impaired, the state and EPA can delist that BUI. When data sh ows all identified beneficial use impairments have been eli minated, then EPA can submit a proposal to the International Joint Commission (IJC) for removing t he designation of AOC in its entirety from the area . If the IJC concurs that all BUIs have been restored, the p arties, public and IJC can agree to delist the AOC as a whole.22 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 Sea lamprey. Photo: by Dave Brenner, courtesy of Michigan Sea Grant. 

## Focus Area 2: Invasive Species

Problem Statement **Progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly**  **undermined by the effects of non-native aquatic, we tland, and**  **terrestrial invasive species. More than 180 aquatic nuisance**  **species (ANS) now exist in the Great Lakes. The mos t invasive of**  **these, including the well known zebra mussel, repro duce and**  **spread, ultimately degrading habitat, out-competing native species,**  **and short-circuiting food webs.**

**Prevention is the most cost-effective approach to d ealing with**  **organisms that have not yet arrived and could poten tially threaten**  **the lakes. New invasive species can be introduced i nto the Great**  **Lakes region through various pathways, including co mmercial**  **shipping, canals and waterways, trade of live organ isms, and**  **activities of recreational and resource users. Once invasive species**  **establish a foothold in the Great Lakes, they are v irtually**  **impossible to eradicate; however, invasive species still need to be**  **controlled to maintain the health of the Great Lake s ecosystem.**  **Given that commercial shipping is a proven vector f or invasive**  **species transfer, advancing the development and use of ballast**  **water treatment systems that are protective of fres h water is a**  **high priority. Promising technology and innovative management**  **practices that can significantly reduce the cost of control are**  **under development. Control efforts will be accelera ted in order to**  **prevent the further spread of the organisms to inla nd lakes, the**  **Mississippi River watershed, and beyond.**



### Long Term Goals

• **Goal 1: The introduction of new invasive species to the Great**  **Lakes basin ecosystem is eliminated, reflecting a “ zero**  **tolerance policy” toward invasives.**

• **Goal 2: The risk of introduction of species, which are**  **imported for various uses, into the Great Lakes is minimized.** 

• **Goal 3: The spread of invasive species, by means of recreational activities, connecting waterways, and**  **other vectors, beyond their current range is prevented.** 

• **Goal 4: A comprehensive program for detection and t racking**  **newly identified invasive species in the Great Lake s is**  **developed and provides up-to-date critical informat ion**  **needed by decision makers for evaluating potential rapid**  **response actions.**



### • **Goal 5: An effective, efficient and environmentally sound program of integrated pest management for**  **invasive species is developed and implemented, incl uding program functions of containment, eradication** 

**, control and mitigation.**  Action Illustration: Managing ANS already in the Great Lakes

While efforts to date have been unable to eradicate the sea lamprey from the Great Lakes, an ongoing program coordinated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has been able to control their populations. In 2007, the Sea Lamprey Control Program focused on nearly 50 streams in the basin, using a lampricide to eliminate over 5.5 million larval sea lampreys. Each parasitic phase sea lamprey has the capability of killing upwards of 40 pounds of lake trout during its year in the lakes. The successful control program continues to ensure sport fish rehabilitation and protects a fishery valued at over $7 billion in annual direct and indirect benefits.23 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010



### Objectives

• **By 2011, eight state ANS management plans will be e stablished or revised to include rapid response**  **capabilities. By 2014, eight state-based, multi-age ncy rapid response plans will be implemented and 22**  **mock exercises to practice responses carried out under t**  **hose plans and/or actual response actions will be c ompleted.** 

• **Six technologies that prevent the introduction of i nvasive species and four technologies that either c**  **ontain or control invasive species will be developed or refin**  **ed and piloted by 2011. Ten technologies that preve nt the**  **introduction of invasive species and five technologies that either contain or control**  **invasive species will be developed or refined and piloted by 2014.** 

• **By 2011, methodology and protocols will be piloted for the coordinated monitoring**  **methodology and shared protocols for basinwide invasive species surveillance. By 2014, a**  **basinwide surveillance program with shared sampling protocols and methodologies to provide**  **early detection of non-native species will be operational.** 

• **By 2014, a 40 percent reduction in the yearly average rate of invasive species newly detected in**  **the Great Lakes ecosystem will be achieved, compared to the period 2000-2009.** 

• **By 2014, invasive species populations within the Great Lakes Ecosystem will have been controlled and**  **reduced, as measured in populations controlled to a**  **target level in 6,500 acres of managed area and by removing 5,000 pounds of invasive species from the**  **Great Lakes ecosystem.**  Action Illustration: Early Detection and Rapid Response

In summer 2008, a mock rapid response exercise for aquatic invasive species was conducted in the Pennsylvania waters of Lake Erie. Local, state and federal partners responded to a simulated report of a Snakehead fish by a member of a local fishing club. This mock exercise allowed agencies to testthe effectiveness and further refine their multijurisdictional rapid response plan. This work will be greatly expanded to all the Great Lakes to enhance coordination between management agencies. A basinwide surveillance program will also be established by natural resource management and environmental protection agencies.24 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• **By 2014, approximately 10 million recreation and re source users will be educated on best practices tha**  **t prevent the introduction and spread of invasive spe**  **cies.**



### Measures of Progress **The Initiative will significantly advance efforts t o prevent new introductions of invasive species in**  **the Great Lakes basin and to stop the further spread of invas**  **ive species in the Great Lakes basin. 15**  **Great Lakes Interagency Task Force agencies will work to further develop th**  **e initial set of measures by which progress will be evaluated**  **in this focus area. While the Great Lakes community has pioneered many approaches to address invasive**  **species, governmental programs and local efforts are still e**  **volving to meet this threat. The GLRI will build up on and**  **expand these programs, adapting our management appr oaches as we learn from our efforts. The measures b**  **y which progress will be evaluated in this focus area**  **are:**

Measure Baseline/

Universe 2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 201 4 Target

**1. Rate of nonnative species newly detected** 
**in the Great Lakes ecosystem.**  **Baseline: 1.3 species per year** 
**Universe: 181 species**  **1.3 species per**

**year 1.1 species per** 

**year 1.0 species per** 

**year 1.0 species per** 

**year 0.9 species per** 

**year**

**2. Acres managed for populations of invasive**  **species controlled to a target level.**  **(cumulative) Baseline: 0 acres**  **1,000 acres 1,500 acres 3,000 acres 4.500 acres 6,5 00 acres** 

**3. Number multi agency plans**  **established, mock exercises to practice**  **rapid responses carried out under those plans,**  **and/or actual rapid response actions**  **(cumulative). Baseline: 0 rapid** 

**response exercises/actions**  **4 rapid**

**response exercises/**  **actions; and 8 plans** 
**established 7 rapid** 

**response exercises/** 
**actions 12 rapid** 

**response exercises/** 
**actions 17 rapid** 

**response exercises/** 
**actions 22 rapid** 

**response exercises/** 
**actions**

**4. Number of recreation and resource**  **users contacted on best practices that prevent**  **the introduction and spread of invasive**  **species. (cumulative) Baseline: 0 users**  **1,000,000**

**users 1,750,000** 

**users 4,750,000** 

**users 7,250,000** 

**users 9,750,000 users** 



### Principal Actions to Achieve Progress **Principal actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to prevent ne w introductions of ANS in the Great Lakes basin and**  **stop the further spread of ANS include:** 

• Develop Ballast Water Treatment that Protects Fresh water Ecosystems **– Develop a coordinated approach to the development of ballast water treatment suitable**  **for freshwater ecosystems, though the use of labor atory,**  **land-based and/or ship-board testing, and verificat ion of treatment technologies in coordination with**  **the maritime industry. Support work to reduce ship-medi**  **ated introductions through hull and anchor chain fo uling.** 

**15 While the regulatory tools of various agencies wil**  **l also help advance these efforts, they are not cur rently a focus of this**  **plan.**25 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 Silver Carp on the Illinois River. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • Implement Early Actions to Address Water Pathways
Vectors – **Identify key waterways that could introduce ANS to the Great Lakes and implement actions such a**  **s ecological separation to reduce this risk. Existing**  **canals and extreme storm events can form hydrological**  **connections that may introduce invasive species int o the**  **Great Lakes. Models and analysis of hydrological connections under different weather conditions are**  **needed to identify and minimize risks of these connections.** 

• Prevention by Broad Stakeholder Outreach and Education **– Promote actions, including coordinated education and outreach, which will prevent the**  **introduction and spread of invasive species through recreational uses such as hunting, fishing and recr**  **eational boating.** 

• Develop and Demonstrate Innovative Control Technolo gy **– Promote the development and use of new control technologies, including biological control methods,**  **which will significantly reduce the cost and/or in crease**  **the effectiveness of invasive species control measu res.** 

• Support States’ Role in Invasive Species Prevention and Control

**– Support the development and on-the**  **ground implementation of ANS Management Plans for e ach of the Great Lakes states.** 

• Control Key Invasive Species and Investigate Causal Mechanisms by which ANS impact Native Species **– Develop a better understanding and models of ecosys**  **tem interactions and management options for minimizing the impact of ANS, including new treatme**  **nt or control methods.** Action Illustration: Asian Carp: Using the GLRI to respond to ecological threats

The innovative use of environmental DNA (eDNA) samp ling has revealed that Asian carp are likely within the Chicago Area Waterway System but at levels lowe r than may be detected using traditional sampling methods. This recent discovery mobilized government al agencies to undertake a rapid response action in December 2009 to prevent the further migration of A sian Carp while repairs were made to an Electrical Barrier in the waterway. Subsequent eDNA analyses r evealed that carp may be near the O’Brian Lock, Wilmette Lock, and Calumet Harbor, within the Great Lakes basin.

Great Lakes environmental protection and natural re source agencies have formed an Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee to respond to infor mation as it becomes available. Their coordinated approach is described in the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework. GLRI funding is helping to implement actions described in that Framework, incl uding:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installation of struc tures at the electric barrier site to reduce the ri sk of bypass during high water events,

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Illinois Depart ment of Natural Resource efforts to detect and remove Asian Carp from the system, and

• U.S. Geological Survey efforts to develop innovati ve control technologies.

Agencies will continue to adapt their management st rategies as new information becomes available. GLRI funding will continue to support these adaptiv e management efforts.26 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• Establish Early Detection and Rapid Response Capabi lity **– Work with government agencies to initiate surveillance activities to detect new ANS and estab**  **lish the capacity, methods and contingency plans fo r a**  **rapid response. Joint planning will allow the mobil ization of shared resources to create the best oppo**  **rtunity for eradicating species before they become establis**  **hed.**

**No effort to pursue these goals in the Great Lakes can ignore the rapidly changing situation involving**  **Asian Carp. The migration of Asian Carp through the Chicago Are**  **a Waterway System is the most recent and most acute ANS**  **threat facing the Great Lakes today. This species h as wreaked permanent havoc on the Mississippi River**  **Basin, where the fish’s rapid expansion of population and**  **range has overwhelmed the river ecosystem by consum ing**  **plankton, a vital part of the food chain. As large populations of Asian carp have become established,**  **the cumulative effects of these species have reduced fo**  **od for native fishes, caused risks to human safety, and created**  **impacts to regional economies that rely on fishing and boating.** 

**The fish is now threatening similar damage to the e cosystem of the Great Lakes, as well as significant**  **economic damage to the Great Lakes sport fishing industry. T**  **he Great Lakes community faces an urgency to preven t this**  **threat from materializing.**

**An inter-governmental Regional Coordinating Committ ee has been established to oversee the implementati**  **on of an Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, which is**  **a cooperative effort by local, state, provincial, f ederal and**  **even binational entities. The Framework is intended to provide direction for implementation efforts to**  **prevent the establishment of ANS from migrating through artific**  **ially-connecting waterways that exist in the Chicag o area, as**  **well as other parts of the Great Lakes watershed, a nd if already in the basin, to work to implement ef**  **forts that might prevent further migration into the system.** 

**The federal partners are working quickly to incorpo rate Carp and other ANS control efforts into the In**  **itiative. This work pursues the objectives and measures of pr**  **ogress described in this section.**



## Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Problem Statement **Nearshore and open waters provide drinking water for municipalities and habitat for numerous species**  **of birds, fish and other aquatic life. This is the area in**  **which most residents and visitors experience the Great Lakes through swimming, boating and other**  **forms of recreation. Nearshore water quality has become degraded, as evidenced by eutrophication.**  **16 The environmental stressors causing these problems**  **include excessive nutrient loadings from both point and nonpoint sources; bacteria and other pathogens**  **responsible for outbreaks of botulism and beach closures; development and shoreline hardening that**  **disrupt habitat and alter nutrient and contaminant runoff; and agricultural practices, which increase**  **nutrient and sediment loadings. Additional shorelin e** 

**16 The process by which a water body is enriched by nu**  **trients such as phosphorus, resulting in excessive growth of algae, depletion of**  **dissolved oxygen, and other impacts, including beac h closings. In the nearshore zones of the Great Lak**  **es, eutrophication has sometimes been manifested by harmful algal blooms; the green**  **algae** Cladophora **washing ashore to make unsightly, odiferous rottin g mats on**  **beaches; and avian botulism.** Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore along Lake Michiga n. Photo: Tom Gill.27 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**stresses can be traced to failing septic systems, g rey water pipes (pipes containing non-hazardous hou**  **sehold substances like soap), inadequate pump-out stations**  **for recreational boats, and even invasive species.**

**Nonpoint sources are now the primary contributors of many**  **pollutants to the lakes and their tributaries. Although some nonpoint**  **sources act on a whole-basin scale (e.g., atmospheric deposition of toxic**  **substances), many smaller scale sources contribute to degraded water**  **quality in Great Lakes tributaries and nearshore waters. Sediment is a**  **significant nonpoint pollution problem facing our lakes, rivers and**  **streams. When soil gets washed into our waterways, it can smother fish**  **habitats and also can carry pollutants that threaten water quality. The**  **complexity of pollutants and their presence in soil, water and air make**  **pollution abatement for nonpoint sources particularly difficult to**  **address. Control strategies to date have been inadequate to deliver the degree of strea**  **m and lake restoration necessary for the protection and**  **maintenance of the Great Lakes. However, implementa tion of agricultural, urban stormwater and other wa**  **tershed best management practices can have multiple benefit**  **s, including simultaneous reductions in runoff of s oils,**  **nutrients and pesticides, as well as protection of drinking water sources.** 



### Long Term Goals

• **Goal 1: Nearshore aquatic communities consist of he althy, self-sustaining plant and animal populations**  **dominated by native and naturalized species.**

• **Goal 2: Land use, recreation and economic activitie s are managed to ensure that nearshore aquatic, wet**  **land and upland habitats will sustain the health and fun**  **ction of natural communities.**

• **Goal 3: The presence of bacteria, viruses, pathogen s, nuisance growths of plants or animals, objection**  **able taste or odors, or other risks to human health are**  **reduced to levels in which water quality standards are met**  **and beneficial uses attained to protect human use a nd enjoyment of the nearshore areas.** 

• **Goal 4: High quality bathing beach opportunities ar e maintained by eliminating impairments from bacter**  **ial, algal and chemical contamination; effective monitor**  **ing for pathogens; effective modeling of environmen tal**  **conditions, where appropriate; and timely communica tions to the public about beach health and daily**  **swimming conditions.**

• **Goal 5: A significant reduction in soil erosion and the loading of sediments, nutrients and pollutants**  **into tributaries is achieved through greater implementat**  **ion of practices that conserve soil and slow overla nd flow**  **in agriculture, forestry and urban areas.**

• **Goal 6: High quality, timely and relevant informati on about the nearshore areas is readily available t**  **o assess progress and to inform enlightened decision making.**  What is the “Nearshore”? The aquatic nearshore can be considered to begin at the shoreline and extend offshore to the depth at which the warm surface wat ers typically reach the bottom in early fall, generally 20m - 30m deep, and terrestrial nearshore areas range from narrow beaches to inland features influe nced by Great Lakes
processes.28 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

### Objectives

• **By 2010, EPA will compile and map the highest priority**  **watersheds for implementation of targeted**  **nonpoint source pollution control measures.** 

• **By 2014, remediation, restoration and conservation**  **actions in at least one targeted watershed in each Great Lake**  **basin will control erosion, reduce nutrient runoff from**  **urban and agricultural sources, and improve habitat**  **to protect nearshore aquatic**

**resources.**

• **By 2014, a baseline will be established for total**  **suspended solids loadings from targeted tributaries.** 

• **By 2014, a measurable decrease will be achieved in soluble phosphorus loading from 2008 levels in targ**  **eted tributaries.** 

• **By 2014, the causes of nutrient-related nearshore b iological impairments will be better understood, an**  **d following local or watershed remedial actions, the**  **number and severity of incidences of harmful algal blooms**  **(HABs), avian botulism, and/or excessive** Cladophora **growth will be significantly reduced from 2008 levels.** 

• **By 2014, a comprehensive nearshore monitoring program will have been**  **established and implemented, including a publicly accessible reporting system, based**  **on a suite of environmental indicators.**

• **By 2014, 50 percent of high priority 17**  **Great Lakes beaches will have been assessed using**  **a standardized sanitary survey tool to identify sources of contamination.** 

• **By 2014, 20 percent of high priority Great Lakes beaches will have begun to implement**  **measures to control, manage or remediate pollution sources identified through the use**  **of sanitary surveys.**

• **By 2014, rapid testing or predictive modeling metho ds (to improve the accuracy of decisions on beach**  **postings to better protect public health) will be e mployed at 33 percent of high priority beaches.** 

**17 Beaches that the states identify as most frequentl**  **y used and/or that have the highest risk. In 2008, there were 356 high**  **priority beaches out of a total of 1,411 total beac hes in the U.S. Great Lakes.**  Action Illustration: Targeted Geographic Initiatives

Because some Great Lakes subwatersheds show severe signs of stress, targeted geographical areas will r eceive focused efforts toward restoration activities, e.g.

, agricultural best management practices. Watersheds for the Genesee River, Grand Calumet River and Harbor, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River, for example, are places where long t erm environmental problems have been clearly identified , and they are expected to be among those targeted for In itiative efforts. Watersheds associated with other AOCs may also be targeted to demonstrate more immediate results o f actions to restore beneficial use impairments.29 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• **By 2014, the area of agricultural lands in conserva tion and/or utilizing conservation tillage practice**  **s will increase by 50 percent over 2008 levels.** 



### Measures of Progress **The Initiative will significantly improve the healt h of Great Lakes nearshore areas and will advance t**  **he reduction of nonpoint source pollution to levels that do not**  **impair nearshore waters. The measures by which prog ress will**  **be evaluated in this focus area are:**

**18 M**  **etric tons per year. Total phosphorus will also be measured. Targeted watersheds will receive focused**  **efforts toward restoration activities, e.g., agricultural best management prac**  **tices.**
**19**  Calculations in progress, to be delivered 2010.** 
**20 Data for Genesee River are from 2006 and 2007 only.** 

**21 Biological responses to nutrients loadings are also**  **dependent on other factors such as water temperatu re, timing and intensity of**  **precipitation, and hydrologic features. Year-to-yea r variability in these features may mask local impr**  **ovements in nutrients management. Satellite imagery may provide data for days during**  **which HABs are reported by shoreline observers or b oaters.** 
**22 This metric will be added to national surveys for b**  **each managers for 2010. Nuisance algae can include** Cladophora **, HABs or other species, all of which are believed to be aggravated**  **by elevated levels of phosphorus in the water**

**. 23**  **USACE dredges the federal shipping channel at Toled o Harbor each year. This area receives the highest**  **rate of sedimentation in the Great Lakes, coming from the Maumee River watershed. Even**  **small improvements in the rate of sedimentation he re would reflect considerable**  **efforts in the watershed to reduce erosion and farm runoff. Alternately, USACE conducts bathymetric su**  **rveys of commercial harbors each year, from which the volume of new fluvial sediment**  **can be calculated for targeted watersheds. Because USACE does not dredge every**  **location of every harbor each year, the estimated a ccumulation from a designated area over time will r**  **eflect the relative amount of sediments deposited from the tributary. This approach is curr**  **ently in development.**

Measure Baseline/

Universe 2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 201 4 Target

**1. Five year average annual loadings of soluble reactive**  **phosphorus 18**  **from tributaries draining targeted** 
**watersheds. Baseline: 2003-7** 
**Fox River: 212 Saginaw R: 133** 
**Maumee R: 623**
**St. Louis R:   ** 19**

**Genesee R:85 20**  **0% reduction**

**Fox: 212 Saginaw: 133**  **Maumee: 623**
**St. Louis:  
** Genesee: 85** **0.5%**

**Fox: 211 Saginaw: 131**  **Maumee: 617**
**St. Louis:  
** Genesee: 85** **1.5%**

**Fox: 209 Saginaw: 130**  **Maumee: 611**
**St. Louis:  

** Genesee: 84** **2.5%**

**Fox: 207 Saginaw: 129**  **Maumee: 604**
**St. Louis:  

** Genesee: 83** **4.5%**

**Fox: 202 Saginaw: 126**  **Maumee: 592**
**St. Louis:  
** Genesee: 81**

**2. Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards**  **95% or more of beach days. Baseline: 86%**  **(2006)**

**Universe: 100% 86% 87% 87% 88% 89%** 

**3. Extent (sq. miles) of Great Lakes Harmful Algal** 
**Blooms.*** **21 Baseline: 2008** 
**estimate TBD 0% reduction 4% reduction 7% reduction 8% reduction**  **12% reduction**

**4. Annual number of days**
**U.S. Great Lakes beaches are closed or posted due to**  **nuisance algae. 22**  **Baseline: 200 beach days**  **(estimate) 0%** 

**improvement: 200 days**  **4%**

**improvement: 192 days**  **7%**

**improvement: 186 days**  **8%**

**improvement: 184 days**  **12%**

**improvement: 176 days** 

**5. Annual volume of sediment deposition in** 
**defined harbor areas in targeted watersheds (cu**  **yards). 23**  **Baseline: 2008**
**Toledo Harbor: 1**
**million cubic yards**  **0%**

**improvement:**
**1 million cubic yards**  **1%**

**improvement:**
**0.99 million cubic yards**  **1%**

**improvement:**
**0.99 million cubic yards**  **2%**

**improvement:**
**0.98 million cubic yards**  **2.5%**

**improvement:**
**0.975 million cubic yards** 30 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010



### Principal Actions to Achieve Progress **The principal actions to improve the health of near shore areas and reduce nonpoint source pollution to**  **levels that do not impair nearshore Great Lakes waters include:** 

• Targeting Watershed Plan Implementation - **Significant progress has been made nationally and i n the Great**  **Lakes basin in addressing soil erosion and in reduc ing nutrient or other contaminant loads to tributar**  **ies to the Great Lakes through the existing state and federal**  **programs. Water quality problems still exist, howev er, with**  **loadings of sediment and nutrients still unacceptab ly high in a number of areas and degraded watershed**  **conditions linked to impaired nearshore biological communities. This results in increased costs for na**  **vigation dredging of harbors, and in localized environmental**  **problems such as mats of rotting algae on swimming beaches and along the shore. Initiative efforts in**  **this area will address high priority watersheds, pe rforming**  **scientific analyses to strategically target where o n-the-ground actions can be most effective, and pro**  **viding supplemental funding to implement those actions. In**  **novative actions may include green infrastructure, low**  **impact development solutions, and containment of wa stes from confined animal feedlot operations. This**  **will involve close collaboration between state programs,**  **Great Lakes tribal governments, the U.S. Departmen t of**  **Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Servic e and U.S. Forest Service; the U.S. Army Corps of**  **Engineers; Department of Interior’s U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey; and EPA** 

**.**

• Identify sources and reduce loadings of nutrients a nd soil erosion - **These activities will contribute to the reduction or elimination of the number and severity**  **of incidences of ecosystem disruptions, including** Cladophora **, HABs, botulism and other issues associated with e utrophication. Activities will include:**  **applying research and modeling to identify the most effective actions to prevent incidences of**  Cladophora

**, HABs and botulism; enhancing or implementing waters**  **hed practices to reduce export of nutrients and soi ls to**  **the nearshore waters; and establishing and implemen ting total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for**  **phosphorus, scaled from river reaches to watersheds**

**.**

• Improve Public Health Protection at Beaches - **Humans are put at risk when exposed to pathogenic bacteria.**  **These activities will reduce risk to human health a t swimming beaches by reducing the abundance of**  **pathogenic organisms to levels below established cr iteria, increasing the effectiveness of monitoring**  **for pathogens, modeling environmental conditions likely**  **to result in elevated levels of bacteria, or enhan cing**  **communications to the public about daily swimming c onditions.** 

• Generate Critical Information for Protecting Nearsh ore Health - **The nearshore environment of the Great Lakes is highly varied, including relatively unspoi**  **led shorelines, highly urbanized reaches, tributary mouths,**  **bays, wetlands and other environmental features. Th ese activities will promote the collection of data**  **about nearshore conditions and stresses, the assessment o**  **f information and management implications, or the dissemination of information to all potential users**  **in the Great Lakes community.**

**24 This measure reflects annual (not cumulative) imple**  **mentation of conservation practices (from the Envir onmental Quality Incentives**  **Program and Conservation Technical Assistance progr am) that will contribute to long term improvements**  **of the listed outcomes.** Measure Baseline/
Universe 2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 2014 Target

**6. Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA**  **conservation practices implemented to reduce**  **erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide loading under**  **Farm Bill Programs. 24**  **Baseline: 165,000 acres**  **2% increase**

**168,300 acres 10% increase** 

**181,500 acres 25% increase** 

**206,250 acres 40% increase** 

**231,000 acres 50% increase** 

**247,500 acres**31 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and R estoration

Problem Statement **The health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife dep ends upon the protection and restoration of ecosyst**  **ems: the Great Lakes, the coastline, wetlands, rivers, conne**  **cting channels and watersheds. Humans benefit from healthy**  **ecosystems. Healthy Great Lakes, for example, provi de us with clean drinking water; rare wildlife popu**  **late a variety of unique coastal habitats; wetlands help c**  **ontrol floodwaters; rivers transport sediments, nut rients and**  **organic materials throughout the watershed; forests provide oxygen while reducing erosion and sediment**  **ation; and, upland habitats produce topsoil and habitats f**  **or pollinators and bio-control agents. Fully resili ent ecosystems**  **buffer the impacts of potential problems such as cl imate change.** 

**A multitude of threats affect the health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife. Habitat**  **destruction and degradation due to development; competition from invasive**  **species; the alteration of natural lake level fluctuations due to artificial lake level**  **management and flow regimes from dams, drain tiles, ditches, and other control**  **structures; toxic compounds from urban development, poor land management practices**  **and non-point sources; and, habitat fragmentation have impacted habitat and**  **wildlife. This has led to an altered food web, a loss of biodiversity, and poorly functioning**  **ecosystems. Many opportunities exist to protect and restore critical elements of the Great Lakes ecosy**  **stem even as we strive to improve our understanding of emergi**  **ng issues and their impacts**



### .

Long Term Goals

• **Goal 1: Protection and restoration of Great Lakes a quatic and terrestrial habitats, including physical** 

**, chemical, and biological processes and ecosystem fu**  **nctions, maintain or improve the conditions of nati ve fish**  **and wildlife.**

• **Goal 2: Critical management activities (such as sto cking native fish and other aquatic species, restor**  **ing access of migratory fish species at fish passage barriers,**  **and identifying and addressing diseases) protect a nd**  **conserve important fish and wildlife populations.**

• **Goal 3: Sound decision making is facilitated by acc essible, site specific and landscape-scale baseline**  **status and trend information about fish and wildlife resou**  **rces and their habitats.**

• **Goal 4: High priority actions identified in strateg ic plans (such as state and federal species managem**  **ent, restoration and recovery plans, Lakewide Management**  **Plans, Remedial Action Plans, and others) are implemented, lead to the achievement of plan goals,**  **and reduce the loss of fish and wildlife and their habitats.** 

• **Goal 5: Development activities are planned and impl emented in ways that are sensitive to environmental**  **considerations and compatible with fish and wildlif e and their habitats.** 



### Objectives

• **By 2014, 4,500 miles of Great Lakes rivers and trib utaries will be reopened and 450 barriers to fish p**  **assage will be removed or bypassed.**  Menominee River lake sturgeon, Wisconsin. Photo: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay.32 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• **By 2014, 82% of recovery actions for federally list ed priority species will be implemented.** 

• **By 2014, 53 percent of populations of native aquati c non-threatened and endangered species are self**  **sustaining.**

• **By 2014, 97,500 acres of wetlands, wetland-associat ed uplands, and high priority coastal, upland, urba**  **n, and island habitats will be protected, restored or enha**  **nced.**

• **By 2014, 100 percent of U.S. coastal wetlands in th e Great Lakes basin will be assessed.** 

• **By 2014, 30 habitat-related beneficial use impairme nts will be delisted across the Areas of Concern.** 



### Measures of Progress **The Initiative will significantly accelerate Great Lakes habitat and wildlife protection. The measures**  **by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area are:**  Action Illustration: Lake Sturgeon Recovery

A resident of the Great Lakes for 10,000 years, the prehistoric lake sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) is more than a holdover from the distant past—it is a barometer of the health and diversity of the entire Great Lak es ecosystem. The largest fish in the Great Lakes, stu rgeon can grow to be eight feet long and weigh more than 200 pounds. Remaining populations represent only a frac tion of their former numbers and are now protected in most waters of the Great Lakes. Only 5 rivers basin-wide have an annual spawning run of 200 or more adults and only one river exceeds the minimal viable population spa wning run target of 350 adults. Major contributors to the sturgeon’s decline are historical over-harvesting a nd habitat loss resulting from the damming of tribu tary waters, siltation resulting from deforestation, poor agricu ltural practices and dredging. Pollution from nutri ents and contaminants have also reduced water quality and hi ndered reproductive success. The sturgeon's late ma turity and infrequent spawning has also contributed to its limited recovery.

Over 40 partnerships have been operating throughout the Great Lakes to conserve, protect, and enhance lake sturgeon populations through numerous cooperative e fforts. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding will now accelerate sturgeon rehabilitation in the basin thr ough on-the-ground habitat enhancement and restorat ion projects, such as restoring fish passage to histori cal spawning areas, as well as supporting the reari ng, stocking, and assessment of sturgeon populations. Initiative funding will also support a coordinated, multi-agen cy investigation of environmental contaminants in stur geon and will improve evaluation and prioritization of habitat restoration projects.

Of the 26 tributaries that support sturgeon in the Great Lakes, 16 of these will benefit from either i nitiation of stream-side rearing facilities to enhance recruitme nt or habitat enhancement through the GLRI. As a re sult of enhanced sturgeon management and rehabilitation eff orts through the GLRI, a basin-wide total of 25,000 fingerling lake sturgeon will be stocked to enhance existing small but remnant populations. A boosted stocking effort through FY2014 is expected to promote lake s turgeon spawning success and will promote populatio ns toward self-sustaining levels. Habitat assessment a nd enhancement projects will be implemented on 20 e xisting sturgeon streams, and fish passage will be provided on 2 barriers that limit sturgeon access to upstre am habitat. Improvements to the health of lake sturgeon will be captured in the fifth measure of progress below: “ Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and en dangered species self sustaining in the wild.”33 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Measure 25 Baseline/ Universe 2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013

Target 2014 Target

**1. Miles of rivers reopened for fish** 

**passage. Baseline: 0** 

**Universe: 20,000 miles 1,000 miles 1,500 miles 2,500 miles 3,500 miles 4,5**  **00 miles**

**2. Number of fish passage barriers**  **removed or bypassed.**  **Baseline: 0**

**Universe: 5,000 barriers 100 barriers 150 barriers 250 barriers 350 barriers**  **450 barriers**

**3. Number of species delisted due**  **to recovery Baseline (2009): 0** 

**species Universe: 28 listed**  **species-Great Lakes 0 1**  **26 1 1 2** 

**4. Percent of recovery actions**  **implemented for priority listed species**  **Baseline (2009): 0**

**Universe: 414 recovery**
**actions 27**  **16%**
**68/414 33%** 

**138/414 51%** 

**211/414 67%** 

**277/414 82%** 

**338/414**

**5. % of populations of native aquatic**  **non-threatened and endangered species**  **self-sustaining in the wild.**  **Baseline (2009): 27%**

**39/147 populations 28** 

**Universe: 147 populations**  **33%**
**48/147 populations**  **35%**

**52/147 populations**  **41%**

**60/147 populations**  **47%**

**69/147 populations**  **53%**

**78/147 populations** 

**6. Number of acres of wetlands and**  **wetland-associated uplands protected,**  **restored and enhanced.**  **Baseline: 0**

**Universe: 550,000 acres 5,000 acres 7,500 acres 12,500 acres 17,500 acres 2**  **2,500 acres**

**7. Number of acres of coastal, upland,**  **and island habitats protected, restored**  **and enhanced. Baseline: 0** 

**Universe: 1,000,000**

**acres 15,000 acres 20,000 acres 35,000 acres 50,000 acre**  **s 75,000 acres**

**8. % of U.S. coastal Great Lakes**  **wetlands assessed. Baseline: 0** 

**Universe: 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%** 

**9. Number of habitat related BUIs**  **removed from the 27 U.S. AOCs so**  **impaired 29** 

**. Baseline: 4** 

**Universe: 75 so impaired**  **9 BUIs**
**removed 12 BUIs** 

**removed 18 BUIs** 

**removed 24 BUIs** 

**removed 30 BUIs** 

**removed**



### Principal Actions to Achieve Progress **The principal FY 2010-2014 actions to protect and r estore habitat and wildlife include the following.**  **Agencies will work together with states, tribes, municipalit**  **ies, non-governmental organizations and industry to :** 

**25 Out year targets for these measures are cumulative.**  **The Universe represents all that is likely possibl e to protect, restore, enhance;**  **baseline represents the number of acres etc. that a re already protected, restored, enhanced. All measu**  **res of progress included here are interim figures until final baselines are establish**  **ed.**
**26 Lake Erie Watersnake 2011, Pitcher’s thistle 2014.** 
**27 Numerator: # recovery actions implemented for Great**  **Lakes priority listed species. Denominator: Total recovery actions for Great Lakes**  **priority listed species, as defined in species reco very plans. Note that many recovery actions are imp**  **lemented annually (i.e., update landowner records, monitor current populations, eva**  **luate threats, etc.). Recovery actions are implemen ted until the threshold for action**  **“completion” is met, as defined in each species rec overy plan.** 
**28 Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T**  **&E and non-candidate species that are self-sustaini ng in the wild. Denominator:**  **total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations.** 
**29 Also captured under Measure 2, Focus Area 1.** 34 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• Improve Aquatic Ecosystem Resiliency **– Protect and restore aquatic habitats for fish an d wildlife populations**  **by reconnecting habitats through corridors to enhan ce biological diversity, reducing sediment and nutr**  **ient inputs, restoring natural hydrological processes, i**  **mproving water quality, restoring ecosystem service s, and**  **increasing populations of native fish and wildlife through coordinated management actions.** 

• Maintain, Improve or Enhance the Populations of Native Species - **Implement restoration actions identified in species recovery and**  **management plans; quantify habitat needs for depleted migratory bird**  **species; propagate lake trout, coaster brook trout, lake sturgeon and other**  **similar fingerlings for suppressed fish populations, assessing fish**  **populations; and protect and restore culturally significant species.** 

• Enhance Wetlands, WetlandAssociated Uplands, and High Priority Coastal, Upland and Island Habitats **– Protect, restore, or enhance**  **habitats by acquiring properties that are**  **important to sustain fish and wildlife populations,**  **restoring natural hydrological regimes,**  **improving water quality, and restoring the**  **chemical, physical, and biological integrity of**  **ecosystems in each Great Lake basin.** 

• Identify, Inventory, and Track Progress on Great Lakes Habitats, Including Coastal Wetlands Restoration **– Assess progress toward**  **restoring Great Lakes habitats by establishing**  **baseline conditions and tracking trends; highlight**  **the importance of coastal wetland conservation**  **and restoration by implementing a long**  **term coastal wetland monitoring program and**  **enhancing the National** Action Illustration: Great Lakes Piping Plover Recovery

The Great Lakes population of piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ) is one of the region’s most critically endangered species. As a r esult of long-term management and protection activities, reproductive success has improved, total population numbers have increased, and breedi ng pairs have increased from 17 in 1986 to 71 in 2009. However, the piping plover remains extremely vulnerable to extinction from threats including bre eding site disturbances, habitat loss due to shoreline development and recre ational use, adult mortality from predation and disease, and environmental event s such as severe weather and oil spills. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently leads a multistate, binational recovery program that includes partners from other federal and state resource agencies, non-profit organizations, univer sities, zoos and volunteers. Funding through the GLRI will effectively boost par tner participation with recovery efforts, as well as support the following goals over the next five years: • Identify, protect and monitor each breeding area w ith a goal of increasing population levels approximately 15 percent, while s ustaining wild reproductive success levels at 1.5 or more fledged chicks per adult pair. • Implement population augmentation strategies inclu ding a salvage captive rearing program for abandoned eggs and chicks to in crease overall reproductive success to greater than 1.7 fledged ch icks per adult pair. • Develop and implement an adaptive approach to pred ator management in an effort to sustain adult survival rates of 75 per cent or greater. • Conduct invasive species control efforts at 8-10 s ites over a five year period to improve/preserve piping plover breeding habitat. • Work with other agencies and non-profit organizati ons to secure conservation easements on three to four important p iping plover breeding sites on private land. • Support scientific research on plover ecology, pop ulation demographics and genetics.
Improvements to the health of piping plover populat ions will be tracked through recovery actions implemented (see measure four).The se efforts will significantly improve the chances for long-term rec overy of the piping plover in the Great Lakes. Piping plover. Photo: Alice Van Zoeren.35 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Wetlands Inventory.**

• Restore Habitat Functioning in Areas of Concern **– Improve habitats in degraded urban environments a nd**  **Areas of Concern where beneficial use impairments l imit ecosystem functioning by restoring habitats fo**  **r native species populations and removing or isolatin**  **g contaminants.**



## Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring , Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships

Problem Statement **The Action Plan requires additional oversight,**  **monitoring, assessment, and coordination to succeed.**  **Although the initiative benefits greatly from the years of**  **scientific effort in the Great Lakes, there are still gaps in**  **efforts to measure and monitor key indicators of overall**  **ecosystem function, to evaluate restoration progress, and to**  **provide the information decision makers need.** 

**This information needs to be based on best available science,**  **and compiled and communicated consistently to**  **decision makers to allow them to assess ecosystem conditions and to**  **track restoration progress. Efforts under the Initi ative will establish the foundation for routine and**  **consistent comprehensive ecosystem assessments. A comprehensiv**  **e and efficient accountability system and well-defi ned**  **metrics must be established to track progress under this Action Plan. This system needs to track progr**  **ess of individual grant recipients and partner-led initiat**  **ives, as well as overall progress in meeting the sh ort- and long**  **term goals and objectives of the Initiative as a wh ole.** 

**This focus area is the necessary backbone for succe ss in the others. There are gaps in knowledge and a**  **n inadequate understanding of complex and emerging is**  **sues such as nearshore dynamics and climate change impacts. This means new investment is needed, parti**  **cularly in the first year of the GLRI, to set up th e systems and**  **tools necessary to understand, coordinate, teach, d irect progress and capture results. Once these syst**  **ems and tools are developed and in use, we anticipate that this f**  **ocus area will decrease in significance as implemen tation**  **increases in the other focus areas.**

**Outreach and education are also crucial in the effo rt to restore the Great Lakes. If the change we see**  **k is to leave the Great Lakes better for the next generation than**  **the condition in which we inherited them, then we must**  **educate upcoming decision makers so tomorrow they a re capable of learning from and extending today’s**  **restoration efforts. The growth of service learning programs is an encouraging sign that school system**  **s are placing an increasing value on stewardship of and h**  **ands-on learning about the Great Lakes. A handful o f Great**  **Lakes curricula exist that satisfy state and other relevant learning standards, yet these rarely find**  **their way into core education objectives for Great Lakes schools.**  **We must continue to reach traditional classroom tea chers and**  The R/V Lake Guardian . Photo: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Offi ce.36 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**nature centers, but also reach non-traditional educ ation outlets such as homeschoolers, national lakes**  **hore and state park visitor centers, zoos, aquariums, and mu**  **seums. Moreover, while there will always be some de mand for**  **the development of new curricula, alarmingly few re sources are available today by the funding communit**  **y for executing existing high-quality education specifica**  **lly centered on the concept and practice of Great L akes**  **“restoration” that can show demonstrable results. Additionally, current education efforts often lack**  **coordination, duplicate efforts and fail to move th e**  **Great Lakes education community toward collaborative best practices supportive of Great**  **Lakes restoration. Support is especially lacking fo r** **the sustained implementation of existing high quality standardized curricula through, for example** 

**, teacher training, funding for field trips, support**  **for teachers’ professional development opportunities**  **and efforts focused on underserved communities, among other activities.** 

**The Great Lakes span many different government jurisdictions along with their regulatory agencies**  **and authorities: two countries, eight U.S. states, two**  **Canadian provinces, 83 U.S. counties, thousands of cities and towns, 33 U.S. tribal governments and**  **more than 60 recognized First Nations in Canada. Through the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty with**  **Canada, the related Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and a host of other institutional**  **arrangements, this region has a long history of governments at all levels working in partnership to**  **protect and restore the Great Lakes. Federal coordination efforts have been greatly improved**  **through efforts of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and its Regional Working Group. Binational**  **efforts continue with help from the International Joint Commission, and through the Binational**  **Executive Committee, which coordinates binational implementation of the provisions of the Great Lakes**  **Water Quality Agreement. These partnerships must continue and be further strengthened to address the**  **complex issues faced by the Great Lakes.**



### Long Term Goals

• **Goal 1: A cooperative monitoring and observing system provides a comprehensive assessment of**  **the Great Lakes ecosystem.**

• **Goal 2: The necessary technology and programmatic infrastructure supports**  **monitoring and reporting, including Great Lakes Restoration Initiative project deliverables by all**  **agencies and participating stakeholders. Data and information are provided in reports that are**  Action Illustration: Comprehensive Great Lakes Coastal Assessment

The nearshore environment of the Great Lakes is highly varied, including relatively unspoiled shorelines, highly urbanized reaches, tributary mouths, embayments, wetlands and other environmental features. Regular, comprehensive monitoring has been difficult because there are ove r 10,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and effective technologies have only recently been developed. This complexity has inhibited the ability to track issues impacting human and ecological health and requires new approaches to monitoring that can take advantage of new technological tools. In keeping with national efforts to provide statistica lly valid assessments of water resources, a nearshore monitoring program in the Great Lakes will be implemented, which builds on ongoing long-term efforts and initiates new efforts focused on poorly characterized areas or elements. The nearshore monitoring program will provide the necessary scientific basis to assess the physical, chemical a nd biological integrity of the nearshore environment a nd to target restoration and protection efforts. The assessment will establish baseline conditions of environmental quality and variability of the nearshore waters, bottom substrate and biota.

The nearshore monitoring program will utilize a probability-based design for site selection, as wel l as for shipboard surveys targeted for specific purposes. It will also utilize remote sensing and other observing tools to help monitor the coastal areas. The program will include rivers that flow directly into the Great Lakes and drain watersheds greater than 250 square miles. River monitoring wil l allow calculation of seasonal and annual loadings from the watersheds to the Great Lakes.

EPA’s National Coastal Condition Assessment will provide the basis for the initial effort by supplyi ng a framework to which additional monitoring can be added. The additional monitoring will be an expansion of sites in the open waters, nearshore areas, and rivers using a probabilistic sampling design which allows statements on the overall quality of the Great Lakes coasts and also of the nearshore areas of individual lakes.37 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**public friendly, timely and available on the Intern et. Reports present integrated and scaled data from**  **watersheds to lakes to Great Lakes basinwide.**

• **Goal 3: Increase outreach and education for the Gre at Lakes, and provide ongoing K-12 education for**  **students to understand the benefits and ecosystem f unctions of the Great Lakes so they are able to mak**  **e decisions to ensure that restoration investments ar**  **e enhanced over time.**

• **Goal 4: Expand the range of opportunities for Great Lakes stakeholders and citizens to provide input t**  **o the governments and participate in Great Lakes issues a**  **nd concerns.**

• **Goal 5: Work under the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is coordinated**  **between the U.S. and Canada through Lakewide Manage ment Plans (LaMP) and other binational processes,**  **programs, and plans.**



### Objectives

• **By 2011, opportunities for collaboration, planning, data accessibility and accountability will be incr**  **eased through the expanded use of internet-based technolo**  **gy.**

• **By 2011, an Accountability System will be developed and implemented for the Initiative. The system wil**  **l integrate and make transparent strategic planning,**  **budgeting and results monitoring.**

• **By 2011, a satellite remote sensing program will be implemented to assess Great Lakes productivity and**  **biological (e.g., algal bloom) events.**

• **By 2011, outreach and education efforts are increas ed, including identifying and revising existing cur**  **ricula to incorporate sustainable education needs for the Gre**  **at Lakes that meet state and other relevant learnin g**  **standards.**

• **By 2011, a refined suite of science-based indicator s**  **for development of a comprehensive assessment of Great Lakes ecosystem health will be identified,**  **monitoring programs for those indicators will begin to be implemented, and restoration and protection**  **actions tied to those assessments and programs assured.** 

• **By 2011, social media access opportunities for basinwide public involvement in the Initiative will**  **be in place.**

• **By 2012, education efforts under existing curricula that meet state and other relevant learning standar**  **ds will be coordinated across states, and a system for**  **tracking student and teacher outreach (quantitative ly**  **and qualitatively) for their use.**

• **By 2012, improved coordination with Canada will take place for programs under the Great Lakes**  **Water Quality Agreement, particularly under the LaM Ps, which will result in the achievement of 5-10 pr**  **iority LaMP goals and actions.** 

• **By 2014, a statistically valid and comprehensive as sessment, using a probability-based design, of Grea**  **t Lakes water resources, will be established. The system wi**  **ll integrate shipboard monitoring, remote sensing, automated sampling, and other monitoring or observi**  **ng efforts. By 2016, the system will be in place fo r all of**  **the Great Lakes and capable of providing a scientif ically justifiable assessment of Great Lakes water** 

**resources.** Action Illustration: What is a LaMP?

A Lakewide Management Plan, or “LaMP,” is a plan of action to assess, restore, protect and monitor the ecosystem health of a Great Lake. It is used to coordinate the work of all the governmental and non-government partners working to improve a Lake’s ecosystem. A public consultation process helps include attention to public concerns. Priority projects, such as sampling tributaries for chemicals, developing watershed plans, restoring habitats, conducting hazardous waste collections, and many others, are implemented in pursuit of LaMP goals and objectives. Many such projects are complex and time consuming, involving many partners and logistical concerns.38 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 Deployment of towed sensor array on U.S. EPA resear ch vessel. Photo: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. • **By 2014, timely data and information will be provid ed to decision makers at multiple scales within a**  **framework of established baselines, targets, indica tors of progress, and monitoring.** 



### Measures of Progress **The Initiative will significantly improve collabora tive Great Lakes decision making, transparency, and**  **accountability for Great Lakes information. Represe ntatives of the federal agencies below will work to**  **gether to determine which existing agency inventory and monit**  **oring data can be used to establish baselines for t he various**  **performance goals and to identify needed additional research and monitoring, outreach, and implementat**  **ion. The measures by which progress will be evaluated in thi**  **s focus area are:**

Measure Baseline/
Universe 2010

Target 2011

Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 2014 Target

**1. Improvement in the overall aquatic ecosystem health of the Great Lakes**  **using the Great Lakes 40-point scale.**  **30 Baseline:**  **20 points**
**Universe: 40 points**  **23 points 23.4 points 23.9 points 24.3 points 24.7 points** 

**2. Number of priority LaMP projects that are completed.**  **Baseline: 0 projects**  **10 projects 12 projects 15 projects 18 projects 20 projects** 

**3. Number of educational institutions incorporating new or existing Great**  **Lakes protection and stewardship criteria into their broader environment**  **education curricula. 31**  **Baseline: 0 0 institutions 2 institutions 6 institu tions 10 institutions 16 institutions** 



### Principal Actions to Achieve Progress **The principal actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to achieve significant, measurable objectives**  **include:**



### • Develop Great Lakes Restoration Accountability System **– Develop and implement a transparent accountability**  **system for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, including easy access to**  **information and linkages to planning, budgeting, and results. With our new**  **accountability system, partner agencies will report quality controlled information**  **regularly on Initiative progress in meeting the objectives and targets of this Action Plan.** 

**30 This is an existing measure under the Government Pe**  **rformance and Results Act. The Great Lakes Index us es select Great Lakes**  **ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosp horus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, b**  **enthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quali**  **ty, and air toxics deposition) and is based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator,**  **where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Improvements in the index and measures would indicate that fewer toxics**  **are entering the food chain; ecosystem and human health is better protected; fis**  **h are safer to eat; water is safer to drink; and be aches are safer for swimming.** 
**31 Educational institutions include: state department**  **s of education, primary and secondary school distri cts, colleges, universities, zoos,**  **aquaria, museums, and nature/resource centers. Curr icula will meet relevant official standards.** 39 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

**Progress will also be reported with and through the LaMPs on the Great Lakes as a whole, as well as on**  **each of the Lakes and Connecting Channels, and public fo**  **rums will be harnessed to assist with the transfer and**  **dissemination of information to the public.**

• Measure and Evaluate the Health of the Great Lakes Ecosystem using the best available science **– Enhance existing programs that measure and assess the physi**  **cal, biological, and chemical integrity of the Grea t Lakes,**  **including the Connecting Channels. Develop and impl ement a statistically valid assessment, using a**  **probability-based design, of Great Lakes water reso urces, coinciding with intensive cooperative scienc**  **e and monitoring efforts for the Lakes. Implement strateg**  **ic components relevant for Great Lakes decision mak ing**  **of the U.S. contribution to the Integrated Earth Ob servation System and the Integrated Ocean Observing**  **System as part of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems. Develop a coordinated federal approach**  **to address on the key scientific priorities needed to**  **fully assess the impacts climate change may have on the**  **health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and better mana ge those impacts. Promote the development and**  **implementation of science-based indicators that wil l better assess and provide a better measure of**  **accountability of actions to improve the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.** 

• Support Great Lakes restoration education **– Develop coordination mechanism(s) for Great Lake s restoration**  **education efforts that meet state and other relevan t learning standards. Identify the suite of partici**  **pating educators and facilities (e.g., formal classroom te**  **achers, homeschoolers, public and private community service learning programs, non-traditional educatio**  **n outlets such as nature centers, national lakeshor e visitor**  **centers, zoos, aquariums, museums, and urban commun ity centers, etc.). The number of educators who**  **participate in teacher trainings and, as a result t he number of participating students, is increasing.**  **These trends should be made to translate into more institutions**  **incorporating Great Lakes lessons into their curric ula.**  **Ensure metrics are included the Great Lakes Restora tion Accountability System.** 

• Enhance Partnerships – **Enhance coordination and collaboration among Great Lakes partners to help ensure**  **that actions, projects and programs under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are efficient, effect**  **ive and in furtherance of the U.S. - Canada Great Lakes Water**  **Quality Agreement. Partnerships will be advanced an d**  **resources and capabilities leveraged through existi ng collaborative efforts such as the U.S. - Canada**  **Binational Executive Committee, the State of the La kes Ecosystem Conference, the U.S. - Canada Great**  **Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Lakewide Manageme nt Plans, Four Agency Agreements, the Coordinated**  **Science Monitoring Initiative, and Great Lakes Fish eries management. This principal action will also s**  **tress building ownership and a sense of joint responsibil**  **ity among agencies, institutions and the public acr oss the**  **Great Lakes basin. Partners and stakeholders will b e encouraged to suggest refinements to the Initiati**  **ve, to monitor and judge progress, and to help adjust obje**  **ctives and actions as progress is made. Existing mechanisms, such as the U.S. Policy Committee, will**  **be used and new ones developed, if needed, to enab le**  **that participation.**40 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 

## Conclusion

**If we care for the Great Lakes, they will continue to care for us – economically, ecologically and soc**  **ially. Study after study, however, shows a Great Lakes in peril.**  **These studies point the way to how we can work to make the**  **ecosystem more resilient over time by reducing toxi c pollution and cleaning up Areas of Concern, insti**  **tuting a zero tolerance policy toward aquatic nuisance speci**  **es, rehabilitating fish and wildlife habitat, shiel ding nearshore**  **health from polluted “nonpoint source” runoff, and enhancing these efforts through proper accountabili**  **ty mechanisms, education and other measures. By declar**  **ing Great Lakes restoration a national priority wit h the**  **proposal for significant new resources to address t hese issues, President Barack Obama is encouraging**  **federal, state, municipal, tribal and civic representatives**  **– all of us – to unify for leaving the Great Lakes better for the**  **next generation.**

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan41 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010



### Acronyms

**ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species** 

**AOC Area of Concern** 

**BUI Beneficial Use Impairment** 

**EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency** 

**GLRC Great Lakes Regional Collaboration** 

**GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative** 

**GPRA Government Performance and Results Act** 

**HAB Harmful Algal Bloom** 

**LaMP Lakewide Management Plan** 

**RFP Request for Proposals** 

**SRF State Revolving Fund** 



### Photo Credits

**Cover/Page 1:** Satellite imagery of the Great Lakes, **© National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA).**  **Page 6:** Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, **© Tom Gill. Page 7:**  Pigeon River kayaking, Gaylord, Michigan, **© Rich Evenhouse. Page 8:**  Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Empire, Mic higan, **© dailyinvention/flickr. Page 9:**  Nelson Point State Park, Door County, Wisconsin, **© James Jordan. Page 10:**  Lake Superior wave, **© Jerry Bielicki. Page 12:**  Boats along Lake Huron, **© John Menard. Page 14:**  Flowing stream near the Chicago River, Illinois, **© James Jordan. Page 16:**  Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, **© Tom Gill. Page 22:**  Sea lamprey, **© Dave Brenner, courtesy of Michigan Sea Grant. Page 25:**  Silver Carp - Illinois River **, © U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 26:**  Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, **© Tom Gill. Page 31:**  Menominee River lake sturgeon, Wisconsin, **© U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay. Page 34:**  Piping plover, **© Alice Van Zoeren. Page 35:**  The R/V Lake Guardian, **© U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Page 38:**  Deployment of towed sensor array on U.S. EPA resear ch vessel. **© U.S. EPA Great Lakes National**

**Program Office. Page 40:**  Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Munising, Michig an, **© mtsn/flickr.**