Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

April 2003 GREAT LAKES

An Overall Strategy 

and Indicators for 

Measuring Progress 

Are Needed to Better 

Achieve Restoration 

Goals 

GAO-03-515 
There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental 

restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs 

involve the localized application of national or state environmental 

initiatives and do not specifically focus on unique basin concerns. However, 

several programs specifically address environmental conditions in the Great 

Lakes. GAO identified 33 federal Great Lakes specific programs, and states 

funded 17 additional unique Great Lakes specific programs. Other 

governmental, binational, and nongovernmental organizations also fund 

restoration activities within the basin. 

GAO identified several Great Lakes environmental strategies being used at 

the binational, federal, and state levels. These strategies are not coordinated 

or unified in a fashion comparable to other large restoration projects such as 

the South Florida Ecosystem. In an effort to improve coordination, federal 

and state officials recently published Great Lakes Strategy 2002, but this 

document is largely a description of existing and planned program activities 

rather than an overarching plan. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office 

has coordination authority over many activities but has not fully exercised it 

to this point. 

With available information, it is not possible to comprehensively assess 

restoration progress in the Great Lakes. Current indicators rely on limited 

quantitative data and subjective judgments to determine whether conditions 

are improving, such as whether fish are safe to eat. The ultimate success of 

an ongoing binational effort to develop a set of overall indicators for the 

Great Lakes is uncertain because it relies on the resources voluntarily 

provided by several organizations. Further, no date for completing a final 

list of indicators has been established. 

Great Lakes: Largest Body of Freshwater in the World 

The five Great Lakes, which 

comprise the largest system of 

freshwater in the world, are 

threatened on many environmental 

fronts. To address the extent of 

progress made in restoring the 

Great Lakes Basin, which includes 

the lakes and surrounding area, 

GAO (1) identified the federal and 

state environmental programs 

operating in the basin and funding 

devoted to them, (2) evaluated the 

restoration strategies used and how 

they are coordinated, and (3) 

assessed overall environmental 

progress made in the basin 

restoration effort. 

GAO recommends that the 

Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency 

• ensure that the Great Lakes 

National Program Office 

fulfills its coordination 

responsibilities and 

develop an overarching 

Great Lakes strategy; and 

• develop environmental 

indicators and a 

monitoring system for the 

Great Lakes Basin that can 

be used to measure overall 

restoration progress. 

EPA generally agreed with GAO’s 

conclusions that better planning, 

coordination, monitoring and the 

development of indicators are 

needed, and stated it would provide 

the Congress, GAO, and the Office 

of Management and Budget with a 

formal response to the report 

recommendations at a later date.

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

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841, or John 

Wanska at (312) 220-7628. 

Highlights of GAO-03-515, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2003

GREAT LAKES 

An Overall Strategy and Indicators for 

Measuring Progress Are Needed To 

Better Achieve Restoration Goals 
Page i GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Letter 1

Executive Summary 3 

Purpose 3

Background 3

Results in Brief 4

Principal Findings 6

Recommendations for Executive Action 9

Agency Comments 9

Chapter 1 Introduction 11 

The Great Lakes Are a Vital Resource 11

EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office Is Responsible for 

Leading U.S. Efforts to Improve the Great Lakes Basin 15

States and Other Organizations Actively Participate in Great Lakes 

Environmental Activities 17

Significant Environmental Challenges Remain to Restore the Great 

Lakes 18

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20

Chapter 2 Numerous Federal and State Environmental 

Programs Operate in the Great Lakes Basin 22 

Most Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Have a Nationwide or 

Statewide Focus 22

Great Lakes Specific Environmental Programs Focus on Certain 

Geographic Areas or Problems 25

Foundations and Other Organizations Fund Great Lakes 

Restoration Activities 31

Chapter 3 Multiple Programs, Different Strategies, and a Lack 

of Coordination Impede Restoration Efforts 35 

An Overarching Strategy and Clear Responsibilities Are Needed for 

Management of Large Watershed Restoration Projects 35

Strategies for the Great Lakes Do Not Provide an Overarching 

Restoration Approach 38

GLNPO Has Not Fully Exercised Its Authority for Coordinating 

Great Lakes Restoration Programs 41

Major Planning Efforts Have Not Yielded Extensive Restoration 

Activity because of a Lack of Funding and Other Barriers 44

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Conclusions 47

Recommendations for Executive Action 47

Agency Comments 48

Chapter 4 Insufficient Data and Measures Make It Difficult to 

Determine Overall Restoration Progress 49 

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Calls for a Monitoring 

System to Ensure Objectives Are Met 49

Current Indicators Do Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Making 

an Overall Assessment of Restoration Progress 51

Conclusions 56

Recommendations for Executive Action 57

Agency Comments 57

Appendix I Federal and State Agencies That Provided Great 

Lakes Program Information 58 

Appendix II Federal and State Non-Great Lakes Specific 

Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 60 

Appendix III Corps of Engineers Special Authorized Projects 

in the Great Lakes Basin, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 77 

Appendix IV Federal and State Great Lakes Specific Programs, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 80 

Appendix V Comments from the Environmental Protection 

Agency 87 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 90 
Page iii GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Tables 

Table 1: Major Agreements between the United States and Canada 

Affecting the Great Lakes 13

Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes 16

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

Restoration Areas 38

Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great Lakes 

Indicators 50

Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 60

Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 72

Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs 80

Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs 84

Figures 

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin 12

Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes 19

Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes 

Specific Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin 22

Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 23

Figure 5: Number of Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal 

Agency 26

Figure 6: Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific 

Programs by Federal Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 28

Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized 

Projects Received by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 

1992 through 2001 29
Page iv GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Abbreviations 

AOCs Areas of concern 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Corps Army Corps of Engineers 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FSA Farm Services Agency 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office 

GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

IADN International Atmospheric Deposition Network 

IJC International Joint Commission 

LaMPs Lakewide Management Plans 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

RAPs Remedial Action Plans 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

USPC United States Policy Committee 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

April 30, 2003 

Congressional Requesters 

As requested, we are reporting to you on the federal and state 

environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin. This report 

contains recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

on the need to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for basin 

restoration, coordinate the multiple restoration activities in the basin, and 

facilitate the expeditious development of environmental indicators for 

measuring restoration progress. 

As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this 

report until 30 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly 

announce its contents earlier. We will then send copies to appropriate 

congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; various other federal 

departments and agencies; and the International Joint Commission. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff need further information, please contact me on 

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

John B. Stephenson 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

List of Congressional Requesters 

The Honorable Evan Bayh 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mike DeWine 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John Dingell 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Vernon Ehlers 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Steven LaTourette 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable James Oberstar 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Louise Slaughter 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bart Stupak 

House of Representatives 
Executive Summary 

Page 3 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The United States and Canada recognize the Great Lakes—the largest 

system of freshwater in the world—as a natural resource that is 

threatened on many environmental fronts. To protect this resource and to 

address common water quality problems, the two countries entered into 

the bilateral Great LakesWater Quality Agreement in 1972 and last revised 

it in 1987. However, three decades after the original agreement, polluted 

beaches are frequently closed to swimmers, fish are unsafe to eat for high 

risk individuals, and raw sewage is still being dumped into the lakes. 

Progress has been made on a number of significant fronts, such as 

controlling the nonnative sea lamprey, reducing the water’s phosphorus 

content, and improving fish populations, but much more remains to be 

accomplished before the overall goals of the agreement can be met. 

Several recently released reports have questioned whether the current 

environmental activities in the Great Lakes being funded by numerous 

organizations and various programs are adequate to fulfill the U.S. 

commitments and whether restoration progress is sufficient in the basin. 

In 2002, GAO reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

needed to take action to improve its oversight for cleaning up 

contaminated areas. 

To address the progress of restoration, 14 members of Congress 

participating on the Great Lakes Task Force asked GAO to (1) identify the 

federal and state environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes 

Basin and the funding being devoted to them, (2) evaluate how the 

restoration strategies are used and coordinated, and (3) assess overall 

environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort thus far. 

Millions of people in the United States and Canada rely on the five Great 

Lakes—Superior, Michigan, Erie, Huron, and Ontario—as a principal 

source of drinking water, recreation, and economic livelihood. Over time, 

industrial, agricultural, and residential development on lands adjacent to 

the lakes has seriously degraded the lakes’ water quality, posing threats to 

human health and the environment, and forcing restrictions on activities, 

such as swimming and fish consumption. 

To protect the Great Lakes Basin, and to address water quality problems, 

the governments of the United States and Canada entered into the bilateral 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. In the agreement, the 

United States and Canada agreed to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin. A new 

agreement with the same name was reached in 1978. The agreement was 

amended in 1983 and 1987, expanding the scope of activities by 

Executive Summary 

Purpose 

Background 
Executive Summary 

Page 4 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

prescribing prevention and cleanup measures to improve environmental 

conditions in the Great Lakes. The agreement obligates the International 

Joint Commission (IJC), an international body, to assist in the 

implementation of the agreement. 

The Clean Water Act directs EPA to lead efforts to meet the goals of the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and establishes the Great Lakes 

National Program Office (GLNPO) within EPA, charging it with, among 

other things, cooperating with federal, state, tribal, and international 

agencies to develop action plans to carry out the U.S. responsibilities 

under the agreement. GLNPO is further responsible for coordinating the 

agency’s actions both in headquarters and in the regions to improve Great 

Lakes’ water quality. In addition to GLNPO, numerous federal, state, 

binational, and nonprofit organizations conduct activities that focus on 

improving the overall Great Lakes Basin environment or some specific 

environmental issue within the basin. 

There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental 

restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs 

involve the localized application of national or state environmental 

initiatives that do not specifically focus on basin concerns. For example, 

EPA’s Superfund program addresses some of the contaminated sites 

located within the basin. Superfund officials, like officials for most 

nationwide, as well as most statewide, programs, do not track or itemize 

their overall funding by region, such as isolating the portion of funding 

going to specific areas (e.g., the basin), making it difficult to determine 

their contribution to total Great Lakes spending. In addition to the 

nationwide federal programs, the Congress has also enacted 33 federal 

programs focused specifically on the Great Lakes Basin, for which about 

$387 million was spent in fiscal years 1992 through 2001, to specifically 

address environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. Additionally, the 

Corps of Engineers expended about $358 million during the same time 

period for legislatively directed projects within the basin, such as $93.8 

million for restoration of Chicago’s shoreline. States funded 17 additional 

Great Lakes specific programs, for which about $956 million was 

expended during the same general time period to address unique state 

needs, such as Ohio’s program to control shoreline erosion along Lake 

Erie. In addition to federal and state programs, county and municipal 

governmental organizations, binational organizations, and 

nongovernmental organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, fund 

restoration activities within the basin. 

Results in Brief 
Executive Summary 

Page 5 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The numerous restoration programs currently underway in the Great 

Lakes Basin employ a variety of environmental strategies at the binational, 

federal, and state levels to address specific environmental problems, but 

there is no overarching plan for coordinating and tying together the 

strategies and program activities into a coherent approach to attain overall 

basin restoration. Experience with other large-scale ecosystem restoration 

efforts, such as the South Florida ecosystem, has demonstrated the 

importance of having a comprehensive strategic plan with clearly 

articulated goals, objectives, and criteria for measuring success and a 

decision-making body for weighing the merits of, and prioritizing funding 

for, proposed cleanup and restoration projects. Without such a plan for the 

basin, it is difficult to determine overall progress and ensure that limited 

resources are being effectively utilized. Although federal and state officials 

recently developed and published a report, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, to 

fill this void, the document, largely a description of existing and planned 

program activities, did not provide a basis or mechanisms to prioritize or 

make funding commitments to implement the various activities. GLNPO, 

the office within EPA charged with fulfilling U.S. responsibilities under the 

agreement and for coordinating federal actions for improving Great Lakes’ 

water quality, has not fully exercised this authority because it has not 

entered into agreements with other agency organizations regarding their 

restoration responsibilities as required by the Clean Water Act. GAO is 

recommending that EPA ensure that GLNPO fulfills its coordination 

responsibilities and, in consultation with the governors of the Great Lakes 

states, federal agencies, and other organizations, develop an overarching 

strategy that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for coordinating 

and prioritizing funding for Great Lakes projects, and submit a proposal to 

the Congress detailing the time-phased funding requirements necessary to 

implement the strategy. 

A comprehensive assessment of restoration progress in the Great Lakes 

Basin cannot be determined with the piecemeal information currently 

available. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement called for the 

development and implementation of a monitoring system, but this 

requirement has not yet been met. The environmental indicators currently 

being used to determine overall progress are inadequate because they rely 

on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments to determine 

whether conditions are improving. An ongoing binational effort initiated in 

1996 has worked to develop a set of overall indicators for the Great Lakes 

through a series of biennial conferences. The ultimate success of this 

effort, which relies on the volunteer contributions of several organizations, 

is uncertain and thus far no completion date for developing a final list of 

indicators has been set. GAO is recommending that EPA, in coordination 
Executive Summary 

Page 6 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

with Canadian officials, develop environmental indicators and a 

monitoring system for the Great Lakes Basin that can be used to measure 

overall restoration progress and require these indicators to be used to 

evaluate, prioritize, and make funding decisions on the merits of 

alternative restoration projects. 

About 200 programs—148 federal and 51 state—fund restoration activities 

within the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve the localized 

application of national or state environmental initiatives and do not 

specifically focus on basin concerns. Officials from 11 agencies identified 

115 of these broadly scoped federal programs, and officials from 7 of the 8 

Great Lakes states identified 34 similar state programs. EPA administers 

the majority of the federal programs that provide a broad range of 

environmental activities involving research, cleanup, restoration, and 

pollution prevention. For example, EPA’s nationwide Superfund program 

funds cleanup activities at contaminated areas throughout the basin. While 

the broad scoped federal and state programs contribute to basin 

restoration, program officials do not track or try to isolate the portion of 

funding going to specific areas like the basin, making it difficult to 

determine their contribution to total Great Lakes spending. However, GAO 

was able to identify basin-specific information on some of these programs. 

Specifically, basin related expenditures for 53 of the 115 broadly scoped 

federal programs totaled about $1.8 billion in fiscal years 1992 through 

2001, and the expenditures for 14 statewide programs totaled $461.3 

million during basically the same time period. 

Several federal and state programs were specifically designed to focus on 

the Great Lakes Basin environmental conditions. Officials from 7 federal 

agencies identified 33 Great Lakes specific programs that had 

expenditures of $387 million in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Most of the 

programs funded a variety of activities, such as research, cleanup, or 

pollution prevention. An additional $358 million was expended for 

legislatively directed Corps of Engineers projects in the basin, such as 

$93.8 million to restore Chicago’s shoreline. Officials from 7 states 

reported 17 Great Lakes specific programs that expended about $956 

million in 1992 through 2001, with Michigan’s programs accounting for 96 

percent of this amount. State programs focused on unique state needs, 

such as Ohio’s program to control shoreline erosion along Lake Erie, and 

Michigan’s program to provide bond funding for environmental activities. 

Principal Findings 

Many Federal and State 

Programs Fund 

Restoration Activities in 

the Great Lakes Basin 
Executive Summary 

Page 7 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Besides federal and state programs, county and municipal organizations, 

binational organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, such as 

nonprofit organizations, fund restoration activities within the basin. 

Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin is a major endeavor involving many 

environmental programs and organizations. The magnitude of this effort 

cannot succeed without a comprehensive strategy or plan similar to those 

developed for other large ecosystem restoration projects, such as the 

South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay. Because of the many 

parties involved in planning, strategizing, and conducting restoration 

activities in the basin, an overarching strategy and a comprehensive plan 

are needed that clearly articulate goals, objectives, and criteria for 

measuring success and that establish a decision-making body to weigh the 

merits of, and prioritize funding for, proposed cleanup and restoration 

projects. 

Several organizations have developed strategies for the basin at the 

binational, federal, and state levels that address either the entire basin or 

the specific problems in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Strategy 2002, 

developed by a committee of federal and state officials, is the most recent 

of these strategies. While this strategy identified restoration objectives and 

planned actions by various federal and state agencies, it is largely a 

description of existing program activity relating to basin restoration. State 

officials involved in developing the strategy told us that states had already 

planned the actions described in it, but that these actions were contingent 

on funding for specific environmental programs. The strategy 

acknowledged that it should not be construed as a commitment for 

additional funding or resources, and it did not provide a basis for 

prioritizing activities. In addition, other strategies addressed particular 

contaminants, restoration of individual lakes, or cleanup of contaminated 

areas. Ad hoc coordination among federal agencies, states, and other 

environmental organizations occurs in developing these strategies or when 

programmatic activity calls for coordination. 

Although there are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing, there 

is no one organization that is coordinating restoration efforts. The Water 

Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to charge GLNPO with 

coordinating actions within EPA for improving the Great Lakes’ water 

quality, but the agency has not fully exercised this authority because it has 

not entered into agreements with other agency organizations regarding 

their Great Lakes activities as required by the Clean Water Act. GLNPO 

officials believe that they fulfilled their responsibilities under the act by 

Different Strategies, Lack 

of Coordination, and 

Limited Funding Impede 

Restoration Efforts 
Executive Summary 

Page 8 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

having federal agencies and state officials agree to the restoration 

activities discussed in the Great Lakes Strategy 2002; however, the 

strategy did not represent formal agreements to conduct specific activities 

with identified resources. Extensive strategizing, planning, and 

coordinating have not resulted in significant restoration. The ecosystem 

remains compromised and contaminated sediments in the lakes produce 

health problems, as reported by the IJC. Federal and state officials have 

cited a lack of funding as the chief barrier to restoration progress, but they 

mentioned that other barriers, such as the absence of an effective 

coordinating agency, also impede restoration progress. 

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended in 1987, calls for 

establishing a monitoring system to measure restoration progress and 

assess the degree that the United States and Canada are complying with 

the goals and objectives of the agreement. Implementation of this 

provision has not progressed to the point that overall restoration progress 

can be measured or determined based on quantitative information. Recent 

assessments of overall progress, which rely on a mix of quantitative data 

and subjective judgments, do not provide an adequate basis for making an 

overall assessment. The current assessment process has emerged from a 

series of biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) 

initiated in 1994 for developing indicators agreed upon by conference 

participants. The number of indicators considered during the SOLEC 

conferences has been pared down from more than 850 indicators in 1998 

to 80 indicators in 2000, although data was available for only 33 of them. 

While this lack of data precluded an overall quantitative-based assessment 

of the Great Lakes Basin, a qualitative assessment based on general 

observations was provided. The ultimate success of the SOLEC process in 

providing an overall quantitative-based assessment of the Great Lakes is 

uncertain because the assessment process relies on the voluntary 

participation of many federal, state, and local agency officials in an 

informal partnership arrangement. In addition, the objectives of the 

SOLEC process are not directly focused on developing a surveillance and 

monitoring program as envisioned in the agreement. Other indicators of 

environmental improvements reported for the numerous federal and state 

programs operating in the basin focus on program activities, often 

describing outputs, such as tons of contaminated sediment removed, 

rather than environmental outcomes, such as improvement of 

environmental conditions as a result of removing contaminated sediment. 

Insufficient Data and 

Measures Prevent 

Determination of Overall 

Restoration Progress 
Executive Summary 

Page 9 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that federal 

dollars are effectively spent, GAO recommends that the Administrator, 

EPA, ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for coordinating 

programs within the Great Lakes Basin; charge GLNPO with developing, in 

consultation with the governors of the Great Lakes states, federal 

agencies, and other organizations, an overarching strategy that, clearly 

defines the roles and responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing 

funding for projects; and submit a time-phased funding requirement 

proposal to the Congress necessary to implement the strategy. 

To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and to 

ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, GAO 

recommends that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian 

officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1) develop 

environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great Lakes 

Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress and (2) 

require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize, and make 

funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration projects. 

GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment. 

The agency generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in 

the report. EPA provided written comments; the full text of which is 

included in appendix V. 

EPA stated that significant accomplishments have improved 

environmental conditions in the Great Lakes and that GAO’s conclusions 

and recommendations can help ensure that more improvements are made. 

While EPA agreed with the overall conclusions, namely that better 

planning, coordination, monitoring, and the development of indicators are 

needed, it did not specifically address GAO’s individual recommendations, 

stating that it would provide the Congress, GAO, and the Office of 

Management and Budget with a formal response to the final report 

recommendations at a later date. 

EPA stated that while it can improve its delivery and coordination of 

restoration programs in the Great Lakes Basin, the complexities of the 

Great Lakes in terms of scope, geographical scale, and other factors 

require long-term, complex solutions implemented at a variety of levels. As 

GAO’s report demonstrates, the complexity of the Great Lakes restoration 

effort provides the basis for the recommendation that EPA develop an 

overarching strategy that guides the multiple restoration efforts. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Executive Summary 

Page 10 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

EPA highlighted two of its recent efforts to demonstrate compliance with 

its coordinating responsibilities under the Clean Water Act: the formation 

of the United States Policy Committee (USPC) and its subsequent release 

of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 and SOLEC for developing 

environmental indicators for the Great Lakes Basin. As GAO noted, these 

coordination efforts are significant but cannot be sustained over the long 

term given the uncertainties surrounding funding sources. Specifically, it 

provides extensive information on ongoing restoration efforts, but the 

Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides no commitment for funding and 

resources to assure its implementation. As such, the strategy remains 

largely a description of ongoing activities that assumes that federal and 

state restoration programs will maintain the status quo in both the extent 

of their efforts and funding. Similarly, the SOLEC process, which has 

successfully engaged a wide range of binational parties, remains a 

volunteer effort dependent on voluntary funding and does not replace the 

need to develop the surveillance and monitoring program envisioned in 

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 11 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The United States and Canada view the Great Lakes as a valuable national 

natural resource that needs to be protected and restored to environmental 

health. The first bilateral agreement between the two countries to protect 

the Great Lakes was reached in 1972. Since that time further agreements 

have strengthened the commitment of the two countries to improve 

environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), as the lead federal agency, is charged with 

ensuring that U.S. responsibilities are fulfilled. EPA’s Great Lakes National 

Program Office (GLNPO) is authorized to implement various Great Lakes 

activities. States and other organizations also play a vital and integral role 

in fulfilling U.S. commitments. Despite early success in improving 

conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges 

remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of 

areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats. 

The five Great Lakes—Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario—are 

a critical resource for the United States and Canada. The lakes form the 

largest freshwater system on Earth, accounting for 20 percent of the 

world’s fresh surface water and over 95 percent of the U.S. fresh surface 

water supply for the contiguous 48 states. The lakes provide a drinking 

water source for over 26 million U.S. residents and water for the region’s 

industry. Together, they form an inland waterway to the Atlantic Ocean 

that facilitates the relatively inexpensive transport of goods both within 

and outside the region. The lakes are also a recreational resource for 

boating, swimming, and sport fishing. 

The Great Lakes Basin is a large area that extends well beyond the five 

lakes proper to include their watersheds, tributaries, connecting channels, 

and a portion of the St. Lawrence River. The basin encompasses nearly all 

of the state of Michigan and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New 

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian province of 

Ontario. (See fig. 1.) 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

The Great Lakes Are a 

Vital Resource 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 12 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin 

Recognizing the importance and mutual interest in the Great Lakes and 

other boundary waters, the United States and Canada signed the Boundary 

Waters Treaty in 1909. The treaty gave both countries equal rights to use 

the waterways that flow along the international border and provided that 

the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary not be 

polluted on either side to the point of injuring human health or the 

property of the other country. The treaty also established the International 

Joint Commission (IJC) as a permanent binational agency organized to 

help resolve and prevent disputes concerning the waters along the border. 

With increased concern over contaminants in the Great Lakes, the 

governments of the United States and Canada signed the first international 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972 to improve the 

environmental conditions in the lakes. The agreement focused on 

controlling phosphorus as a principal means of dealing with 

eutrophication in the lakes. In 1978, the two countries signed a new 

GLWQA, which was revised again in 1983. The 1978 agreement reflected 

an increased understanding of the scope of pollution problems in the 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 13 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Great Lakes and called for (1) controlling all toxic substances that could 

endanger the health of any living species and (2) restoring and enhancing 

water quality throughout the entire basin. The 1983 supplement added the 

requirement to further limit phosphorus discharges and for the two 

countries to prepare and implement plans for reducing phosphorus. In 

1987, the agreement was revised for the last time to commit the two 

countries to cooperate with state and provincial governments to ensure, 

among other things, the development of Lakewide Management Plans 

(LaMP) to address environmental problems in open waters and Remedial 

Action Plans (RAP) for problems in designated “areas of concern” located 

in the basin. (See table 1.) 

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

Great Lakes 

Name of agreement Key provisions 

Boundary Waters Treaty of 

1909 

• Establishes the IJC as a permanent binational 

agency organized to help resolve and prevent 

disputes concerning the waters along the border. 

• Gives both countries equal rights to use the 

waterways that flow along the international border. 

• Provides that the boundary waters and waters 

flowing across the boundary are not to be polluted 

on either side to the point of injuring human health 

or the property of the other country. 

Great Lakes Water Quality 

Agreement of 1972 

• Provides for more effective cooperation to restore 

and enhance the Great Lakes. 

• Emphasizes finding solutions to the more obvious 

water quality problems. 

Great Lakes Water Quality 

Agreement of 1978 

• Establishes both general and specific water quality 

objectives for the Great Lakes. 

• Calls for developing and implementing programs to 

reduce and control phosphorus inputs to the lakes. 

• Requires a coordinated surveillance and monitoring 

program. 

Phosphorus Load Reduction 

Supplement to the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement of 

1978, signed October 16, 1983 

• Further specifies phosphorus inputs and required 

the preparation and implementation of plans for 

reducing phosphorus. 

Protocol to the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement of 

1978, signed November 18, 

1987 

• Adds several annexes for issues to be addressed 

and activities to be conducted by the two 

governments. These included the development of 

RAPs and LaMPs, as well as addressing issues, 

such as airborne toxic substances, contaminated 

sediment, and control of phosphorus. 

• Requires a comprehensive review of the 

agreement’s operation and effectiveness 

approximately every 6 years. 

• Calls for a monitoring system to measure 

restoration progress and assess the degree to 

which the United States and Canada are complying
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 14 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Name of agreement Key provisions 

with the goals and objectives of the agreement. 

• Calls for semi-annual meetings between the United 

States and Canada to coordinate work plans and 

evaluate progress in implementing the agreement. 

Source: GAO. 

In implementing the 1987 revisions to the agreement, officials for the two 

countries released complete LaMPs for four lakes in 2000—Erie, Michigan, 

Ontario, and Superior—and have updated them every 2 years. For Lake 

Huron, an alternative action plan was prepared instead of a LaMP. 

Implementation of RAPs for designated areas of concern (AOC)—namely 

sites that have failed to meet the objectives of the GLWQA and failures 

that have caused, or are likely to cause, impairment of beneficial uses, 

such as swimming or fishing—has not fared as well. The countries 

identified 43 contaminated areas: 26 located entirely within the United 

States, 12 located entirely within Canada, and 5 for which both countries 

share responsibility.1

 In 2002, we reported slow progress in cleaning up the 

contaminated areas and as of April 2002 none of the 26 areas under U.S. 

responsibility had been restored to beneficial use.2

 We also reported that 

the RAP process had either been abandoned or modified for several areas. 

We concluded that EPA was not effectively ensuring RAP implementation 

for contaminated areas. EPA subsequently took several steps to improve 

the RAP process, such as gathering information on the status of the 

contaminated areas and consolidating responsibility for the process within 

GLNPO. 

In addition to two types of plans—LaMPs and RAPs—the agreement 

contains 16 other “annexes” that define issues that the two countries need 

to address and activities that they need to conduct, such as airborne toxic 

substances, contaminated sediment, and control of phosphorus. The 1987 

amendment to the GLWQA included a provision that requires a 

comprehensive review of the agreement about every 6 years, focusing on 

the agreement’s operation and effectiveness. A 1999 binational review of 

the agreement found that certain provisions of the agreement were out of 

date and concluded that certain changes should be considered; however, 

as of March 2003, the two countries had yet to revise the agreement. 

 1

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

2

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to Define Organizational 

Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, 

GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2002). 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 15 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The responsibility for leading the U.S. Great Lakes efforts rests with 

GLNPO. The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to 

require EPA to lead and coordinate efforts with other federal agencies and 

state and local authorities to meet the goals in the agreement. It also 

established GLNPO within EPA to fulfill U.S. responsibilities under the 

agreement and to coordinate EPA’s actions both at headquarters and the 

affected EPA regional offices. Specifically, the act requires GLNPO to 

• cooperate with federal and state agencies in developing and 

implementing plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under the 

agreement, 

• coordinate EPA’s efforts to improve water quality of the Great Lakes, 

• monitor water quality in the Great Lakes, and 

• serve as a liaison with Canada. 

The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water 

Act to further define GLNPO’s role and required that all RAPs be 

submitted to the office and that the office take the lead in developing a 

LaMP for Lake Michigan. The act also assigned additional responsibilities 

to GLNPO in developing water quality standards for the Great Lakes and 

assessing contaminated sediment characteristics and remediation 

technologies. In addition to these responsibilities, GLNPO will help 

implement provisions of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, which 

authorized funds for cleaning up AOCs. Key provisions of these statutes 

are summarized in the following table: 

EPA’s Great Lakes 

National Program 

Office Is Responsible 

for Leading U.S. 

Efforts to Improve the 

Great Lakes Basin 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 16 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Table 2: Major Statutes Affecting the Great Lakes 

Name of statute Key provisions 

Water Quality Act of 1987 • Amends the Clean Water Act to provide that EPA 

should take the lead in coordinating with other 

federal agencies and state and local authorities to 

meet the goals in the agreement. 

• Establishes GLNPO within EPA to fulfill the U.S. 

responsibilities under the agreement and to 

coordinate EPA’s actions at headquarters and the 

affected EPA regional offices. Specifically, it 

requires GLNPO to 

• cooperate with federal and state agencies in 

developing and implementing plans to carry out 

the U.S. responsibilities under the agreement, 

• coordinate EPA’s efforts to improve water quality 

of the Great Lakes, 

• monitor water quality in the Great Lakes, and 

• serve as a liaison with Canada. 

Great Lakes Critical Programs 

Act of 1990 

• Requires that all RAPs be submitted to GLNPO. 

• Directs GLNPO to take the lead in developing a 

LaMP for Lake Michigan. 

• Provides additional responsibility for GLNPO in 

developing water quality standards for the Great 

Lakes and assessing contaminated sediment 

characteristics along with remediation technologies. 

• Requires that GLNPO be a separate line item in 

EPA’s annual budget request. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 

2002 

• Authorizes $50 million per year from fiscal year 

2004 through 2008 for contaminated sediment 

projects in AOCs for which the United States has 

full or partial responsibility. 

• Requires EPA to report to the Congress by 

November 2003 on oversight of RAPs. 

Source: GAO. 

The legislative authorization of GLNPO was preceded by an uneven EPA 

commitment to addressing Great Lakes issues. In 1972, EPA’s Region V 

Office in Chicago established the Office of Great Lakes Coordinator to 

monitor a demonstration program on the water quality in the Great Lakes 

and to conduct research. In 1978, the region established a larger 

coordinating office, also named the Great Lakes National Program Office, 

to direct and oversee fulfillment of the U.S. obligations for the agreement 

and any spending for that purpose. As we reported in 1982, that office had 

difficultly obtaining cooperation from other agency offices to fulfill its 

mission, leading us to recommend that GLNPO be allowed to coordinate 

actions within EPA, other federal agencies, and states in developing 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 17 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

strategies to improve Great Lakes’ water quality.3 In the years immediately 

following our report, however, the administration excluded GLNPO from 

the agency’s budget proposal. The Congress restored the funding each 

time it was excluded from the budget and the region provided staff and 

other support for the office. The Water Quality Act of 1987 required the 

EPA Administrator to include in the agency’s annual budget submission to 

the Congress a separate budget line item for GLNPO. According to GLNPO 

officials, recent GLNPO budgets have been generally funded by the 

Congress at the previous years’ level or somewhat greater. 

GLNPO is a unique entity within EPA. Unlike other EPA entities that have 

responsibility for an overall media, such as EPA’s Office of Air, GLNPO is 

focused on a wide range of environmental issues in a specific geographical 

area of the country. GLNPO and its staff are not physically located with 

other national program offices in EPA headquarters, and its staff of about 

40 professionals is relatively small when compared with EPA’s other 

national programs. The manager is also selected differently than other 

program office heads. The Great Lakes National Program Manager is the 

Regional Administrator for EPA’s Region V, as opposed to an individual 

appointed to specifically head a national program office, such as the Office 

of Water within EPA. 

States, provincial governments, international organizations, local 

organizations, independent commissions, and nonprofit organizations are 

all involved in Great Lakes issues. The eight Great Lake states and the 

provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec in Canada have historically 

played key roles in Great Lakes activities. The GLWQA envisioned that the 

two countries would cooperate with states and provincial governments on 

a variety of matters, including the development of RAPs for contaminated 

areas and monitoring environmental conditions within the basin. State and 

provincial government involvement is necessary for implementing other 

agreements, such as the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the 

Great Lakes Strategy 2002. Similarly, the federal government’s 

partnerships with the states are essential for implementation of EPA’s 

Great Lakes and other environmental initiatives. 

 3

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, A More Comprehensive Approach Is Needed To 

Clean Up The Great Lakes, CED-82-83 (Washington D.C.: May 21, 1982). 

States and Other 

Organizations 

Actively Participate in 

Great Lakes 

Environmental 

Activities 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 18 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The IJC assists in the implementation of the agreement between the two 

countries, reports every 2 years on implementation progress, and offers 

recommendations to the two countries. The GLWQA created three 

binational organizations to assist the IJC in its oversight role: 

• Great Lakes Water Quality Board, which is the principal adviser to the 

IJC and is composed of an equal number of Canadian and U.S. 

members, including representatives from the governments and each 

state and provincial government. 

• Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, which advises the IJC and the 

Water Quality Board on research and scientific matters. The board is 

comprised of managers of Great Lakes research programs and 

recognized experts. 

• Great Lakes Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario, which provides 

administrative and technical support to the boards and operates a 

public information service for the IJC. 

In addition, the IJC has established several other organizations that 

provide advice and assistance, including the Council of Great Lakes 

Research Managers, the International Air Quality Advisory Board, and the 

Health Professionals Task Force. 

Despite early successes in cleaning up the nation’s water, the Great Lakes 

Basin continues to face significant environmental challenges. Specifically, 

41 areas within the Great Lakes, contaminated with toxic substances, need 

cleanup actions to restore beneficial uses, such as swimming and fishing. 

Water polluted with toxic substances still flows into the Great Lakes from 

specific points, such as wastewater treatment plants, and also from 

nonpoint sources, such as sediment runoff from agricultural land and 

urban areas. Nonnative species continue to invade the Great Lakes, 

threatening to interrupt the ecological balance in the region. The number 

of invasive species increased steadily throughout the 1900s, and the basin 

now contains more than 160 nonnative species that threaten native fish 

and plants. Figure 2 illustrates the various sources of pollution to the 

Great Lakes. 

Significant 

Environmental 

Challenges Remain to 

Restore the Great 

Lakes 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 19 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Figure 2: Pollution Sources to the Great Lakes 

One of the initial environmental successes in the Great Lakes has been the 

significant reduction in the amount of phosphorus that municipal waste 

treatment facilities discharged into the lakes. Phosphorus causes 

excessive algae growth, which greatly reduced the quality of fish 

populations in the Great Lakes. With improved waste treatment facilities 

and reduction of phosphates in detergents, phosphorus levels in the Great 

Lakes were reduced and fish populations improved. However, a portion of 

Lake Erie remains a “dead zone” no longer able to support fish 

populations, and this problem appears to be worsening since 1990. 

Another notable success was the control of certain invasive species, such 

as the sea lamprey. The sea lamprey was first found in Lake Ontario and 

quickly spread through out the Great Lakes. Lampreys attached to native 

fish, feeding on the body fluids and leaving them either scarred or dead. 

Federal, provincial, and state governments initiated control measures that 

have reduced the populations significantly. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 20 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Fourteen members of Congress participating on the Great Lakes Task 

Force asked us to (1) identify the federal and state environmental 

programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) evaluate restoration 

strategies used and how they are coordinated, and (3) assess overall 

environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort. 

To identify environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin, 

we used a structured data collection instrument provided to each of the 8 

Great Lakes states—Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New 

York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—-and 13 federal agencies. For each 

program, we requested information about the program’s purpose, the 

restoration strategies being used, the extent of program coordination with 

other federal or state agencies, the amount of funding provided, and the 

overall environmental progress achieved in restoration efforts. A detailed 

listing of federal and state agencies that provided program information is 

included as appendix I. 

Furthermore, we interviewed and gathered program documentation from 

officials representing EPA’s Office of Water, Office of Air and Radiation, 

Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, and Great Lakes National Program Office, along 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). These organizations 

were selected because they have major responsibilities for Great Lakes 

cleanup and restoration efforts and account for the majority of funds 

expended for Great Lakes programs. To obtain additional information on 

state programs, we interviewed state officials from five of the eight Great 

Lakes states—Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin. 

These states were selected because they reported the majority of state 

programs involved in basin restoration. We also gathered and analyzed 

documentation from other governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations involved in restoration activities, including counties, 

townships, conservation districts, and nonprofit organizations. 

To evaluate how restoration strategies were used and how they were 

coordinated, we reviewed and analyzed the data collection instrument 

responses received from federal and state program officials. From these 

responses, we identified various coordination methods and determined 

whether coordination was ongoing or infrequent and whether it was 

informal or formally documented in a written agreement. We obtained and 

analyzed strategies for the basin prepared by various organizations or 

working groups. These strategies were categorized as to whether they 

were basin-wide strategies or whether they addressed specific 

environmental problems, such as controlling mercury pollution, or 

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Page 21 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

geographical areas, such as controlling point source pollution for Lake 

Superior. For the recent basin strategy developed by a committee of 

regional federal and state officials in 2002, we interviewed officials 

representing GLNPO, other federal agencies, and states involved in 

developing the strategy to further understand the strategy’s goals, 

objectives, and resources available to carry out the strategy. We also 

evaluated the agencies’ efforts to coordinate the various strategies. 

To determine overall environmental progress made in basin restoration 

efforts, we obtained and analyzed Great Lakes progress reports prepared 

by representatives of the United States and Canada in response to the 

GLWQA. We interviewed GLNPO officials to understand the process for 

gathering information and reaching conclusions on progress contained in 

the reports. We gathered and analyzed information on the development of 

environmental indicators used as part of the reporting process and 

interviewed GLNPO officials regarding the resources available and 

implementation plan for monitoring agreed-upon indicators. In our effort 

to determine the progress environmental programs operating in the basin 

have achieved, we obtained information on the program accomplishments 

from responses to the data collection instrument and interviews with 

various federal and state program officials. We used these responses and 

studies to identify barriers to developing indicators and overall restoration 

progress in the Great Lakes. 

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. 

EPA’s written comments are presented in appendix V. In addition, we 

received technical comments from EPA that we have incorporated 

throughout the report as appropriate and technical comments from state 

and federal program officials on the information and characterization of 

information they provided. 

We conducted our work from May 2002 through March 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 22 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

About 200 federal and state environmental programs operate within the 

Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs involve the localized 

application of national or state initiatives and do not specifically focus on 

unique basin concerns, but about 50 specifically address environmental 

conditions in the basin. The majority of the programs are administered by 

federal agencies, and for the broad-based programs it is difficult to identify 

program expenditures that apply to the basin. For the Great Lakes specific 

programs, expenditures totaled about $1.4 billion over 10 years, with the 

majority of expenditures coming from state programs. In addition to these 

program expenditures, the Corps of Engineers expended about $358 

million on specifically authorized projects within the basin. 

Most of the federal or state programs that address environmental 

conditions in the Great Lakes Basin operate both within and outside of the 

basin. Of the 148 federal and 51 state programs operating both within and 

outside the basin, 149 federal and state programs were identified by 

agency officials as being designed to address environmental conditions at 

a nationwide or statewide level, while 50 programs provide Great Lakes 

specific restoration efforts. (See fig. 3.) 

Figure 3: Percentage of Non-Great Lakes Specific and Great Lakes Specific 

Programs Operating in the Great Lakes Basin 

Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the 

Great Lakes Basin 

Most Programs 

Operating in the Great 

Lakes Have a 

Nationwide or 

Statewide Focus 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 23 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Of the 149 non-Great Lakes specific programs, 115 are federal programs 

administered by 11 federal agencies and 34 are state programs 

administered by 7 states that provide a wide range of restoration activities 

that either directly restore or support restoration activities. EPA and 

agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administer 

most of the federal programs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the 

Corps); the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Department of Commerce’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the 

Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Coast Guard administer the 

remaining ones. (See fig. 4.) 

Figure 4: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 

Generally, federal and state programs fund a diverse number of activities 

relating to cleanup of contaminated areas, habitat restoration, pollution 

prevention, and research that benefit the basin and other geographical 

areas outside of the basin. For example, EPA’s RCRA Subtitle I 

Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 

program regulates the use of underground petroleum tanks to prevent the 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 24 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

contamination of drinking water nationwide. This program addresses 

associated activities in the basin. Likewise, the Conservation Reserve 

Program administered by the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service 

Agency (FSA) provides payments to agricultural landowners to establish 

long-term, resource conserving vegetative cover on eligible farmland for 

reducing erosion. Some of this funding benefits activities in the basin. The 

National Fish Passage Program administered by FWS helps the basin and 

other areas of the country restore native fish and other aquatic species to 

self-sustaining levels by funding projects to facilitate unimpeded flows and 

fish movements by removing barriers or providing ways for fish to bypass 

barriers. 

Additionally, non-Great Lakes specific research programs provide 

information that helps support restoration activities. For example, EPA’s 

Aquatic Stressors Research Program funds research activities to advance 

scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological 

conditions of the nation’s aquatic resources, including the Great Lakes. 

Another program is the Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal Change and 

Analysis program administered by NOAA, which develops and distributes 

regional landscape data through remote sensing technology. The program 

develops baseline land cover and characterization information for coastal 

areas. 

Officials from 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states reported 34 state programs that 

affect areas both within and outside the basin. Of the 34 programs, 13 are 

in Minnesota, 7 in Ohio, 6 in Wisconsin, 4 in New York, 2 in Pennsylvania, 

and 1 each in Indiana and Michigan. The programs cover a wide range of 

activities directly involved in restoration or supporting restoration 

activities. For example, the Minnesota Mercury Initiative program, which 

was created in 1999 to reduce mercury contamination in fish by curtailing 

air deposition of mercury in state waters, solicits voluntary mercury 

reductions from large companies to achieve its goals. Similarly, Ohio’s 

Ground Water Resources program fosters development of groundwater as 

a viable and sustainable water supply both within and outside the basin 

and involves collecting and distributing information on groundwater 

resources in the Lake Erie and Ohio River Basins. A detailed listing of all 

federal and state non-Great Lakes specific programs is included as 

appendix II. 

The portion of expenditures devoted to activities in the basin for most of 

these general federal and state programs is generally not available. 

However, the following examples provide expenditure information on 

some of the programs: 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 25 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

• EPA’s Superfund program officials calculated that EPA’s Region V, 

which encompasses 6 of the 8 Great Lakes states, expended $745.6 

million on cleanup activities within the basin during fiscal years 1992 

through 2001. 

• NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, which supports 

education programs and research relating to the development of 

marine resources, expended $69.6 million for the basin during fiscal 

years 1995 through 2001. 

• The Corps’ Shore Protection Program, which provides project funding 

for planning and constructing structures for protecting shores against 

waves and currents, expended just over $1 million for these activities in 

the basin during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. 

Expenditure data for activities in the basin was available for 53 of the 115 

federal non-Great Lakes specific programs and totaled about $1.8 billion 

during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Similarly, expenditures for activities 

in the basin for 14 state non-Great Lakes specific programs were about 

$461.3 million in state fiscal years 1992 through 2001. 

We identified 50 federal and state programs that focus specifically on 

addressing environmental conditions within the basin. Of these, 33 are 

Great Lakes specific programs that are funded by federal agencies while 

17 programs are funded by 7 states. FWS and EPA conduct most of the 

federal programs while three agencies identified one program each— 

Interior’s National Park Service (NPS), USDA’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Department of Health and Human 

Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

(See fig. 5.) 

Great Lakes Specific 

Environmental 

Programs Focus on 

Certain Geographic 

Areas or Problems 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 26 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

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

The federal programs support a variety of activities, such as research, 

cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and other activities that directly 

focus on Great Lakes environmental issues. For example: 

• EPA’s Niagara River Toxics Management Plan program focuses on 

reducing toxic chemicals input into the Niagara River, achieving 

ambient water quality, and improving and protecting the water quality 

of Lake Ontario. The program began in 1987, and funding for 

remediation efforts comes from two EPA programs. 

• EPA’s Great Lakes Air Deposition Program funds projects to better 

understand the impacts of atmospheric deposition of pollutants, such 

as mercury and other toxics, which are a major source of 

contamination. The program funds projects in monitoring, modeling, 

and emissions inventory development, which assist in identifying 

pollution sources. 

• The Corps’ Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment 

Remediation program provides technical support to the development 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 27 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

and implementation of remedial action plans to clean up contaminated 

areas in the Great Lakes. Funds are provided for planning and 

administrative implementation activities and may not be used for 

actual construction cleanup. 

• FWS’s Lake Trout Restoration program began in the late 1970s to 

rehabilitate the lake-trout populations in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. 

The goal of the program is to increase the population of native lake 

trout to a level where it is self-sustaining through natural reproduction, 

with a harvestable annual surplus. 

• USDA’s Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment 

Control, administered by NRCS, focuses on improving Great Lakes 

water quality by preventing soil erosion through education programs, 

grants, and technical assistance. Runoff from agricultural land is a 

source of nonpoint pollution to the Great Lakes. 

• FWS’s Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance program, which began in 

1993, provides surveillance activities for the ruffe—a nonnative fish 

that competes with native species, such as walleye and perch. The 

surveillance activities include monitoring, detecting newly established 

populations, tracking existing populations, and evaluating current 

control and management activities. 

EPA, NOAA, and FWS provide most of the funding for Great Lakes specific 

programs. Of the $387.4 million expended by federal agencies for these 

programs during fiscal years 1992 through 2001, 64 percent, or $248.9 

million, was for EPA programs; 17 percent, or $67.2 million, for NOAA 

programs; and 9 percent, or $33.4 million, for FWS programs. (See fig. 6.) 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 28 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Figure 6: Percentage of Expenditures for Great Lakes Specific Programs by Federal 

Agency, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 

While ongoing Great Lakes specific federal programs fund various 

restoration activities, the Corps funds additional activities through 

specifically authorized environmental projects that do not fall under its 

ongoing programs. Most of these projects are authorized under the 

biennial Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and are for project 

studies or construction. Once authorized, these projects can be funded 

through the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Acts. For most 

projects, the Corps can only expend the funds if local partners meet the 

cost-sharing requirements established by the authorization. For example, 

specific local government projects for wastewater facilities or combined 

sewer overflow mitigation identified in WRDA cannot be funded until a 

cost-sharing agreement is reached with the local government. In addition 

to projects authorized in WRDA, projects may be authorized and initial 

funding provided through the annual appropriation process. 

In fiscal years 1992 through 2001, the Corps expended approximately $358 

million on specifically authorized projects. These projects funded a variety 

of activities, such as the $93.8 million restoration of Chicago’s shoreline 

and the $78.7 million for restoring the Little Calumet River in Indiana. 

According to a Corps official, many projects are authorized in this manner 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 29 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

because of the unique nature or scope of the project or because of the 

capabilities of states and local organizations to fund projects. Two states, 

Illinois and Indiana, received the majority of specific project funding 

during fiscal years 1992 through 2001, as shown in figure 7. 

Figure 7: Percentage of Expenditures for Specifically Authorized Projects Received 

by Great Lakes States, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 

Information on the individual Corps projects funded during fiscal years 

1992 through 2001 for the basin is contained in appendix III. 

In addition to the federal programs and specifically authorized Corps 

projects, 17 state Great Lakes Basin specific programs fund a wide range 

of activities that address unique state concerns or problems in the Great 

Lakes. The following examples of some specific state programs show the 

range of activities that states undertake. 

• Ohio’s Shore Structure Permit Program protects the Lake Erie 

shoreline by providing assistance to coastal residents and communities 

in the proper design and construction of structures for controlling 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 30 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

erosion, wave action, and flooding along or near the shoreline. The 

program began in the 1930s, and funding is provided from state lease 

revenues for mining mineral resources from the bed of Lake Erie. 

• The Clean Michigan Initiative provides general obligation bond funding 

for environmental activities in Michigan. These activities include 

Brownfields redevelopment, nonpoint source pollution control, 

cleanup of contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. About 

$255.9 million was expended for projects throughout Michigan, with 

only a small portion of the state’s land area extending outside the 

basin. 

• Pennsylvania established the Office of the Great Lakes, which provides 

administrative oversight and support to other state offices that have 

environmental responsibilities. It funds staff travel, salary, and 

administrative costs of about $100,000 per year for outreach and 

education activities. Restoration of a particular contaminated area in 

Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, is a major focus of the office’s activities. 

The states’ Great Lakes specific programs include those funded through 

the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The Great Lakes Governors created and 

incorporated the fund as a permanent endowment, with each state 

providing a fixed contribution amount based on the average use of Great 

Lakes water from 1976 through 1985.4

 Each participating state receives 

one-third of the fund’s annual income based on its proportional 

endowment contribution. Payments to the states totaled about $31 million 

from years 1990 through 2001, but payments were suspended in 2002 

because of low fund investment performance. States use the funds to 

support a wide range of basin activities. For example, Michigan funds 

research projects undertaken by universities and for-profit groups in areas 

such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species. Minnesota’s dividends from 

the fund are relatively small, and therefore they are combined with statefunded projects, such as a mercury control project and a project 

retrofitting a sampling vessel. Ohio’s program involves the award of grants 

that support research and implementation projects, in alternating years, 

and require 10 percent matching funds by the recipient. New York uses its 

program to fund research, environmental planning, monitoring, and field 

assessment, and the state has mandated that monies cannot be used to 

fund construction or cleanup activities. In addition to paying out state 

dividends, the fund supported 191 grants for regional projects totaling 

 4

 Indiana does not participate in the Great Lakes Protection Fund. 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 31 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

about $40 million. These grants were awarded from the remaining twothirds of the fund’s undistributed income. 

Of the 17 state Great Lakes specific programs, 5 were funded by Michigan, 

4 by Ohio, 3 by Wisconsin, 2 by Pennsylvania, and 1 each by Illinois, 

Minnesota, and New York. Total expenditures for the programs were 

about $956 million during fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Michigan 

programs accounted for 96 percent of the expended amount because of 

major expenditures for three state programs and about 99 percent of the 

state’s border lies within the basin. A detailed listing of all federal and 

state Great Lakes specific programs is included as appendix IV. 

Besides federal and state government agencies, other organizations, such 

as foundations, fund a variety of restoration activities in the Great Lakes 

Basin by providing grants to nonprofit and other organizations, including 

government agencies. Specifically, four foundations and one trust provide 

funds for restoration activities. 

• The Joyce Foundation supports various public policy initiatives, 

including long-term efforts to protect the Great Lakes environment, and 

provides grants to organizations for environmental projects, such as a 

grant to support activities that examine institutional issues facing the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. 

• The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supports efforts to conserve 

freshwater ecosystems in North America, including the Great Lakes. 

Grants are provided to improve capacity building for environmental 

organizations and to protect and restore selected freshwater 

ecosystems through conservation activities. 

• The George Gund Foundation provides support for conservation efforts 

within the Great Lakes Basin and is particularly interested in capacity 

building of nonprofit environmental organizations. Grants are provided 

to organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation, to support 

ongoing efforts to reduce the contamination of waters by airborne 

mercury. 

• The Delta Institute funds activities for the development of policies and 

practices for sustainable development and environmental stewardship 

in the Great Lakes region. Among other things, the Delta Institute 

provides funding for the development of Lakewide Management Plans, 

Foundations and 

Other Organizations 

Fund Great Lakes 

Restoration Activities 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 32 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

the Lake Michigan Regional Air Toxics Strategy, and the Lake Erie Fish 

Consumption Advisory Education Project. 

• The Great Lakes Fishery Trust provides grants to nonprofit and 

governmental organizations to benefit Great Lakes fishery resources, 

such as a grant to FWS to develop a management plan for lake 

sturgeon. The trust was created as part of a court settlement for fish 

losses at a hydroelectric facility in Michigan, and the trust manages the 

assets of the settlement. 

In addition to these organizations, other governmental and 

nongovernmental organizations fund restoration activities. For example, 

individual municipalities, such as the City of Toledo, Ohio, led and funded 

a demonstration project to develop a process for physically stabilizing and 

isolating contaminated sediment under a permeable covering to avoid 

dredging the sediment. Municipalities are also instrumental in funding 

projects to improve wastewater treatment facilities that discharge treated 

water into the Great Lakes. Several municipalities participate in the 

International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors, which 

holds annual conferences to adopt unified positions and make 

recommendations for the protection, promotion, and development of the 

Great Lakes. Counties and township governments also fund environmental 

activities that benefit the Great Lakes. For example, township 

governments may have growth development plans that include 

conservation objectives to help control pollution and preserve open areas 

in the township. Counties in the Great Lakes Basin fund activities and 

projects to control nonpoint source pollution, soil erosion, and wildlife 

areas. Conservation districts within counties provide technical assistance 

and education in areas such as erosion control and agricultural chemical 

control. Within the basin, there are 213 counties and 209 conservation 

districts that support conservation or restoration activities within the 

Great Lakes Basin. 

Numerous nongovernmental organizations also provide coordination 

roles, policy perspectives, or financially support restoration activities, 

including the following: 

• Council of Great Lakes Governors, a partnership of governors from the 

eight Great Lakes States and the Canadian Premiers of Ontario and 

Quebec, encourages and facilitates environmentally responsible 

economic growth throughout the Great Lakes region. 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 33 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

• Great Lakes Commission, an agency promoting the orderly, integrated, 

and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of water and 

related natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin and the St. 

Lawrence River, includes representatives from the eight Great Lakes 

states and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. 

• Great Lakes Fishery Commission, created by the Canadian and U.S. 

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries in 1955, coordinates fisheries 

management and research, and management of sea lamprey. The U.S. 

Department of State and Canada’s Fisheries and Ocean Department 

provide funding for the commission. 

• International Association for Great Lakes Research, a scientific 

organization comprised of researchers studying the Great Lakes and 

other large lakes of the world, hosts annual conferences and publishes 

the Journal of Great Lakes Research. 

• Great Lakes Research Consortium, an organization of 16 colleges and 

universities in New York, with 9 affiliate campuses in Ontario, 

dedicated to collaborative research and education on the Great Lakes, 

focuses its activities on improving and understanding the Great Lakes 

ecosystem, including the physical, biological, and chemical processes 

along with the social and political forces that affect human impact on 

the lakes. 

• Great Lakes United, an international coalition organization focused on 

preserving and restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River 

ecosystem, promotes effective policy initiatives, carries out education 

programs, and promotes citizen action and grassroots leadership for 

Great Lakes environmental activities. The coalition is made up of 

member organizations representing environmentalists, 

conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, communities, and 

citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes. 

• Lake Michigan Federation, which works to restore fish and wildlife 

habitat, conserve land and water, and eliminate toxics in the watershed 

of Lake Michigan. 

• The Nature Conservancy, whose mission is to preserve the plants, 

animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on 

Earth by protecting the lands and waters that need to survive. The 

major initiative of the Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Office is the 

Great Lakes Planning Initiative. The initiative has designated 270 

priority sites for conservation in the Great Lakes and is in the process 
Chapter 2: Numerous Federal and State 

Environmental Programs Operate in the Great 

Lakes Basin 

Page 34 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

of developing a planning document for each of these sites that will 

guide conservation work and coordination with other organizations 

and agencies. 

• The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a private, nonprofit, and nonpartisan 

research organization dedicated to economic vitality, environmental 

quality, and regional equity for Northeast and Midwest states, has a 

major area of emphasis on the Great Lakes and has issued several 

reports on a variety of Great Lakes topics. 

While these organizations are involved in Great Lakes activities, each is 

unique in terms of why it was created, its goals and objectives, scope of 

operations, and funding source. Several of the organizations are 

binational, such as the Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes United, 

and focus only on Great Lakes issues. For other organizations, such as The 

Nature Conservancy and the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Great Lakes 

are one of several issues addressed by the organizations. 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 35 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The magnitude of the area comprising the Great Lakes Basin and the many 

environmental programs operating within the basin require the 

development of one overarching strategy to address and manage the 

complex undertaking of restoring the basin’s environmental health. The 

Great Lakes region cannot hope to successfully receive support as a 

national priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for 

restoring the Great Lakes. In lieu of such a plan, organizations at the 

binational, federal, and state levels have developed their own strategies for 

the Great Lakes, which have inadvertently made the coordination of 

various programs operating in the basin more challenging. Although 

coordination among federal agencies, states, and other environmental 

organizations occurs when strategies are being developed or when 

programmatic activity calls for coordination, the myriad of current 

strategies and coordination efforts makes it difficult to determine which 

organization is in charge. While the Great Lakes National Program Office 

(GLNPO) has authority for coordinating Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and other federal efforts, it has not fully exercised its authority. 

Numerous strategizing, planning, and coordinating efforts have not 

resulted in extensive restoration activity because of a lack of funding and 

other barriers. 

The Great Lakes region cannot be successfully supported as a national 

priority without a publicly accepted, comprehensive plan for restoring the 

Great Lakes. Clearly defined responsibilities for coordination are essential 

for effective management of large watershed restoration projects. An 

overarching strategy and governance process to guide restoration 

activities that transpire over many years have been developed for other 

large ecosystem restoration projects. The Great Lakes Basin lacks an 

overarching strategy and in its absence, numerous strategies have been 

developed to address environmental activities, each with a different 

purpose and scope. Some strategies attempt to address the entire basin 

while others are focused on specific environmental problems or 

geographical areas. 

Because of the complexity of large ecosystem restoration projects and 

multiple stakeholders, restoration efforts for other large ecosystems, such 

as the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay, have developed 

overarching strategies to guide their activities. These strategies were 

deemed essential by the organizations involved in the efforts for guiding 

activities that would occur over extended time periods and with multiple 

stakeholders whose participation may change over time. 

Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

An Overarching 

Strategy and Clear 

Responsibilities Are 

Needed for 

Management of Large 

Watershed 

Restoration Projects 

Overarching Strategies Are 

Essential to Guide 

Restoration Efforts 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 36 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The South Florida ecosystem is a large restoration project initiative with 

an overall strategic plan to guide its restoration activities. This ecosystem 

covers a large geographical area that encompasses a major portion of 

South Florida, including the Everglades wetlands. Numerous changes 

brought on by urbanization, agricultural activities, and federal efforts to 

control flooding have detrimentally affected the ecosystem. In response to 

growing deterioration of the ecosystem, federal agencies established a 

task force in 1993 to coordinate their restoration activities. In 1996, the 

task force was expanded to include state, local, and tribal members and 

was formalized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 

However, as we reported in 1999, a strategic plan had not been developed 

laying out how the restoration initiative would be accomplished, including 

quantifiable goals and performance measures.5

 Without a strategic plan, 

we noted the ability to accomplish the restoration initiative in a timely and 

efficient manner was at risk because of its complexity and a mechanism 

was needed to provide the authority for making management decisions. In 

a subsequent report,6

 we noted that a strategic plan for the ecosystem 

would clearly communicate to the Congress and other participants in the 

restoration effort what it is trying to achieve, the time frames for achieving 

the expected results, and the level of funding that would be needed. Such a 

plan was also needed because of the inevitable personnel turnover in task 

force representation occurring over time and the subsequent need to 

inform new task force members of restoration progress. 

The strategic plan developed for the South Florida ecosystem by the task 

force made substantial progress in guiding the restoration activities. The 

plan, which the task force submitted in July 2000, identifies the resources 

needed to achieve restoration and assigns accountability for specific 

actions for the extensive restoration effort estimated to cost $14.8 billion. 

As we reported in 2001, the plan needed additional elements, including a 

clear picture of how the restoration will occur and linkage between 

strategic goals and outcome-oriented goals for tracking and measuring 

restoration progress. The restoration effort was elevated to nationwide 

recognition with the authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades 

 5

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall 

Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track, 

GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999). 

6

 See U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Substantial 

Progress Made in Developing a Strategic Plan, but Actions Still Needed, GAO-01-361

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2001). 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 37 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Restoration Plan (CERP) in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106-541). This act contained provisions specifying the coordination 

among stakeholders, the funding responsibilities, and the authorization for 

program regulations. 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed is another example of a large restoration 

effort with an overarching strategy. In a 1983 agreement to restore the 

Chesapeake Bay, the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the 

District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and EPA signed an 

agreement to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The 

participants saw the need to establish an executive council to marshal 

public support for the bay effort and be accountable to the public for 

progress made under the agreement. Under the 1983 agreement, the 

executive council must meet at least twice yearly to assess and oversee 

the implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect the water 

quality and living resources of the bay. The council established an 

implementation committee of agency representatives to coordinate 

technical matters and the development and evaluation of management 

plans. In a subsequent agreement, Chesapeake 2000, the partners agreed to 

a new ecosystem approach to the bay. While continuing to focus 

restoration efforts on individual species and habitat, such as the blue crab 

and the oyster reef, the new agreement recognizes the linkage among 

these efforts and addresses their interdependence within the context of a 

single, broad ecosystem approach. Several reports by the council have 

detailed the status of progress toward the goals set forth in the 

agreements. 

The South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay watershed are large 

ecosystems with overarching strategies, but the overall area and 

population affected by these ecosystems are significantly less than the 

Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes influence more people, land, water, 

and states by a substantial margin. The population within the basin is more 

than five times that of the population near the South Florida project and 

more than twice the population near the Chesapeake Bay. The basin 

comprises more than 11 times the area of the South Florida project and 

more than 3 times the area of Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, the basin 

encompasses eight states as opposed to one state for the South Florida 

project and six states and the District of Columbia for the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. (See table 3.) 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 38 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

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

Restoration area 

Area size 

(in square miles) Area population

Number of 

affected states

Great Lakes Basin 201,000 33 million 8

Chesapeake Bay 

watershed 64,000 16 million 6

South Florida 

ecosystem 18,000 6 million 1

Sources: Environment Canada, EPA, and GAO. 

Numerous strategies developed for the Great Lakes Basin address 

environmental restoration activities with different perspectives, purposes, 

and scopes. Several comprehensive strategies attempt to address 

restoration activities for the entire basin. Other strategies address a 

particular concern or geographic area. However, none of the current 

strategies provides an overarching approach that can be used as a 

restoration blueprint to guide overall activities similar to the South Florida 

ecosystem restoration. 

The most recent comprehensive strategy developed for the entire basin—

the Great Lakes Strategy 2002—was developed by the U.S. Policy 

Committee (USPC), a group of mostly federal regional, and state officials 

and coordinated by GLNPO. The group focused on federal, state, and tribal 

government activities as they relate to environmental protection and 

natural resource management and to fulfilling the goals of the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The strategy sets forth goals, 

objectives, and actions in various environmental issues, such as storm 

water discharges, along with goals, objectives, and key actions to achieve 

for these issues. The strategy also recognizes the other strategies that have 

been developed for the Great Lakes. Developing the strategy occurred 

over several months, requiring significant time and efforts by GLNPO and 

USPC members to agree on the various goals, objectives, and actions. 

GLNPO officials plan periodic follow-up with USPC representatives to 

determine the progress made in reaching the objectives. Toward this end, 

GLNPO has prepared a matrix listing over 100 planned actions for 

achieving the objectives and will conduct follow-up inquiries with the 

responsible agency officials to determine progress as an accountability 

mechanism. 

The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 provides extensive information on 

planned activities to achieve the objectives, but it is largely a descriptive 

Strategies for the 

Great Lakes Do Not 

Provide an 

Overarching 

Restoration Approach 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 39 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

compilation of existing program activities that relates to basin restoration. 

For example, the strategy addresses Brownfields redevelopment by 

identifying the number of Brownfields sites within the basin and 

describing ongoing Brownfields activities.7 The key action called for in the 

strategy is to continue support for local Brownfields redevelopment 

efforts through various planned or ongoing activities at the state and 

federal levels. The strategy also promotes clean and healthy beaches by 

noting that EPA will implement the Beaches Environmental Assessment 

and Coastal Health Act of 2000. The act requires all states with coastal 

waters, including the Great Lakes states, to review water quality criteria 

for coastal recreation waters and adopt protective water quality standards. 

To attain the strategy’s objectives, federal and state agencies need to 

provide level funding to avoid modification of the planned actions and 

activities, according to GLNPO officials. The strategy states that “(it) 

should not be construed as a commitment by the U.S. government for 

additional funding and resources for its implementation. Nor does it 

represent a commitment by the U.S. government to adopt new 

regulations.”8

 GLNPO officials agreed that the strategy continues with the 

status quo and is a statement of what they hope to accomplish with better 

coordination. Some state officials involved in developing the strategy 

stated that state actions described in the strategy were already planned 

and that implementation is contingent on states funding the relevant 

environmental programs. 

In 2001, the Great Lakes Commission published another basin strategy, 

The Great Lakes Program to Ensure Environmental and Economic 

Prosperity, which outlines seven major goals for the Great Lakes Basin. 

The goals are 

• cleaning up toxic hot spots, 

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

• controlling nonpoint source pollution, 

• restoring and conserving wetlands and critical coastal habitat, 

• ensuring the sustainable use of our water resources, 

• strengthening decision support capability, and 

• enhancing the commercial and recreational value of our waterways. 

 7

 “Brownfields” are properties with real or perceived environmental contamination that 

hampers redevelopment efforts. 

8

 See U.S. Policy Committee, Great Lakes Strategy 2002, (p.3), (Feb. 22, 2002). 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 40 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

For each goal, the strategy contains recommendations for actions that 

target specific programs, authorizations, and appropriations. For example, 

the commission helped develop and promote the adoption of an action 

plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species. 

The commission’s strategy involves coordinated efforts among the 

commission and its partner agencies and organizations to secure much 

needed federal appropriations and legislative initiatives. This strategy 

emphasizes federal/state and U.S./Canadian partnerships as a means to 

achieving its goals, but it does not provide detailed implementation plans 

or identify funding sources to achieve the goals. GLNPO officials stated 

that they believe this strategy and the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 are 

complimentary rather than competing strategies. 

Two other organizations—Great Lakes United and the Council of Great 

Lakes Governors—are developing basin-wide restoration strategies. Great 

Lakes United, an international coalition of basin stakeholders, has 

developed and circulated several documents addressing Great Lakes 

issues. By 2003, Great Lakes United plans to integrate these draft issue 

documents into an overall agenda for the comprehensive restoration of the 

basin. The Council of Great Lakes Governors’ strategy is being based on 

the priorities of the Great Lakes governors and is to be used as a basis for 

identifying priority restoration efforts for the basin. 

Other Great Lakes specific strategies address unique environmental 

problems or specific geographical areas. A strategy for each lake 

addresses open lake waters through Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP), 

which EPA is responsible for developing. Toward this end, EPA formed 

working groups for each lake to identify and address restoration activities. 

For example, the LaMP for Lake Michigan, issued in 2002, includes a 

summary of the lake’s ecosystem status and addresses progress in 

achieving the goals described in the previous plan, with examples of 

significant activities completed and other relevant topics. 

The Binational Executive Committee for the United States and Canada 

issued its Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997 that established 

a collaborative process by which EPA and Environment Canada, in 

consultation with other federal departments and agencies, states, the 

province of Ontario, and tribes, work toward the goal of the virtual 

elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The strategy 

particularly addresses substances that bioaccumulate in fish or animals 

and pose a human health risk. After establishing various challenges for 

Additional Strategies 

Focus on Specific Issues 

or Geographic Areas 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 41 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

both or either country to meet, the strategy lays out priority activities to 

meet the challenges. The strategy also incorporates the regular assessment 

of progress made. Among the successes in reducing persistent toxic 

substances in the Great Lakes is the cleanup of contaminated sediment 

sites at some Great Lakes harbors; reduced levels of PCBs, dioxins, and 

DDT; and improved sport fisheries. 

Michigan developed a strategy for environmental cleanup called the Clean 

Michigan Initiative. This initiative provides money for a variety of 

environmental, parks, and redevelopment programs. It includes nine 

components, including Brownfields redevelopment and environmental 

cleanups, nonpoint source pollution control, clean water, cleanup of 

contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. The initiative is funded 

by a $675 million general obligation bond and as of early 2003, most of the 

funds had not been distributed. 

Ultimate responsibility for coordinating Great Lakes restoration programs 

rests with GLNPO, which has the statutory authority to coordinate EPA’s 

and other federal agency activities. However, GLNPO has not fully 

exercised this authority, and other organizations or committees have 

formed to assume coordination and strategy development roles. 

The Clean Water Act provides GLNPO with the authority to coordinate the 

actions of EPA’s headquarters and regional offices aimed at improving 

Great Lakes water quality. It also provides GLNPO with the authority to 

coordinate EPA’s actions with the actions of other federal agencies and 

state and local authorities for obtaining input in developing water quality 

strategies and obtaining support in achieving the objectives of the 

GLWQA. Finally, the statute provides that the EPA Administrator shall 

ensure that GLNPO enters into agreements with the various organizational 

elements of the agency engaged in Great Lakes activities and with 

appropriate state agencies. The agreements should specifically delineate 

the duties and responsibilities, time periods for carrying out duties, and 

resources committed to these duties. GLNPO officials stated that they do 

not enter into formal agreements with other EPA offices but rather fulfill 

their responsibilities under the act by having federal agencies and state 

officials agree to the restoration activities contained in the Great Lakes 

Strategy 2002. However, the strategy does not represent formal 

agreements to conduct specific duties and responsibilities with committed 

GLNPO Has Not Fully 

Exercised Its 

Authority for 

Coordinating Great 

Lakes Restoration 

Programs 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 42 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

resources. The absence of these agreements was also reported in a 

September 1999 report by EPA’s Office of Inspector General.9

 The report 

stated that GLNPO did not have agreements as required by the act and 

recommended that such agreements be made to improve working 

relationships and coordination. 

Other organizations or groups have formed to fulfill coordinating roles in 

Great Lakes restoration activities, both at the basin level and on a smaller 

scale for specific issues of concern. For example, the USPC, which was 

formed initially by GLNPO in 1988 to develop a Great Lakes strategy and 

provide a coordinating role, developed a strategy and a coordinating plan, 

“Protecting the Great Lakes,” in 1992 to cover the 5-year period from 1992 

through 1997. Officials from federal agencies not on the USPC never 

approved the plan, and many parties involved in environmental activities 

in the basin felt left out of the strategy development process. The USPC 

was disbanded in 1995, and the strategy was not used as a guide for 

restoration activities. GLNPO officials formed a second U.S. Policy 

Committee in 1999, similar in structure to the first committee, which 

included federal regional and state officials. The USPC recently developed 

the Great Lakes Strategy 2002, and it meets semi-annually to coordinate 

agency actions and commitments associated with the strategy, as well as 

to review progress and ensure accountability. Another group, the Midwest 

Natural Resources Group, established in 1998, contains a Great Lakes 

focus team that conducts coordination meetings for eliminating 

duplication across federal bureaus and agencies. Within this group, 

representatives from EPA and the Corps facilitate activities, such as 

developing monitoring protocols, sharing facilities and vessels across 

agencies, and increasing data sharing. 

With several entities involved in coordinating, planning, and strategizing, it 

appears at times that federal and state officials cannot be sure which 

entity bears ultimate responsibility for and authority over these activities 

and their implementation at any given time and whether the entity is a 

permanent body or an ad hoc organization that may disband if interest 

wanes. State of Minnesota officials, who were asked to provide input for 

several restoration plans, stated that they found the significant overlap of 

the plans inefficient and thought it would be helpful to have a more 

streamlined approach to Great Lakes issues. They stated that it would be 

 9

 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s Great Lakes Program, EPA/OIG Rept. 

99P00212 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 1999). 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 43 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

better to have an overall structure to carry out environmental activities. 

Officials from The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit organization 

conducting environmental activities in the Great Lakes, stated that it is 

difficult to understand the array of public sector entities and their 

involvement in Great Lakes issues. They observed that the Great Lakes 

community is fractionalized with participants, both public and private, 

pushing their own agendas rather than a true vision vetted with all 

stakeholders. They further noted that the heavy bureaucratic framework 

of many groups and processes made them skeptical that actual work 

would be conducted. 

A USGS official stated that the lack of a unified vision among the many 

Great Lakes federal, state, and local agencies impedes progress. He noted 

that individual efforts are not structured or organized in such a way that 

they can be integrated to provide the hierarchical means to assess, 

diagnose, and restore the system. The burden to provide the leadership 

that will bring a Great Lakes program to a level that is consistent with 

other large-scale efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay restoration, rests 

largely with EPA--the only agency under the Clean Water Act and 

associated agreements with Canada--with regulatory authority to do so. 

More money, the official said, would not improve restoration progress 

unless it is combined with a strong, overarching effort of coordination and 

organization. GLNPO officials stated that the success of the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed Restoration Project can be attributed to the buy-in of highlevel officials, such as the governors of the related states, a level of 

influential support that they say GLNPO lacks. 

While several organizations are conducting coordination in developing 

strategies, at the individual program level, most federal and state officials 

reported coordination with their programmatic counterparts in various 

ways while implementing their programs. For example, section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act requires a formal arrangement between EPA and the 

Corps to coordinate management of a dredge and fill permit program each 

year, with the agencies jointly reviewing about 10,000 permit applications 

for the basin. Coordination activities can be formalized in memoranda of 

understanding or agreement, interagency agreements, or letters of 

collaboration. For example, in a 1997 memorandum of agreement among 

NOAA, EPA, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and two 

Wisconsin Indian tribes, the parties agreed to coordinate their efforts in 

removing contaminated sediments from the Lower Fox River in 

Wisconsin. The agreement specifies an organizational structure, including 

what the parties’ duties are, what their responsibilities are, and how 

disputes will be resolved. In addition to such formal coordination, 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 44 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

informal coordination also occurs between federal and state officials 

through meetings or telephone calls. For example, officials from EPA’s 

Region V Water Division coordinated Coastal Environmental Management 

Program activities with eight federal agencies in developing LaMPs. This 

coordination included correspondence, conference calls, and various faceto-face meetings. 

Although major planning efforts aimed at restoring the Great Lakes exist, 

several barriers have prevented these efforts from resulting in extensive 

restoration activity. Great Lakes program officials often cited insufficient 

funding for program activities as a major barrier and a reason for not 

achieving and measuring restoration progress in the Great Lakes. They 

also cited several other factors affecting progress, including the lack of 

local technical expertise for conducting restoration activities, poor 

coordination among groups conducting environmental activity, and a lack 

of leadership. 

After years of planning restoration activities for the Great Lakes Basin, 

significant restoration progress remains to be achieved. Several IJC 

reports have pointed out the slow restoration progress. For example, in 

2002, the IJC reported that after more than 15 years of planning and 

incremental activity, restoration of the Great Lakes through remedial 

actions remains elusive and difficult and more needs to be done quickly.10

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

compromised and that contaminated sediments in the lakes produce 

health problems.11 Restoration challenges remain in several areas, such as 

controlling invasive species. 

The slow restoration progress is illustrated by the 26 contaminated areas 

in the Great Lakes Basin for which the United States is responsible for 

ensuring cleanup under the GLWQA. In April 2002, we reported that none 

of the areas had been restored to beneficial use and only half of the areas 

selected remedial and regulatory measures to address the problems, and 

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

11 International Joint Commission, Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, 

(June 29, 2000). 

Major Planning 

Efforts Have Not 

Yielded Extensive 

Restoration Activity 

because of a Lack of 

Funding and Other 

Barriers 

Limited Restoration 

Progress after Many Years 

of Planning 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 45 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

all areas had defined their respective environmental problems.12 The slow 

progress of cleanup efforts reflects a general departure from the process 

specified in the agreement, and in some cases the process was abandoned. 

Based on these findings, it was clear that EPA was not fulfilling its 

responsibility to ensure that plans for cleaning up the areas were being 

developed or implemented. Citing resource constraints along with the 

need to tend to other Great Lakes priorities, EPA reduced its staff and the 

amount of funding it allocated to states for developing and implementing 

plans for contaminated areas. Subsequent to our report, GLNPO officials 

took actions to improve the implementation of cleanup plans. 

Inadequate funding has also contributed to the failure to restore and 

protect the Great Lakes, according to the IJC biennial report on Great 

Lakes water quality issued in July 2000.13 The IJC restated this conclusion 

in a 2002 report, concluding that any progress to restore the Great Lakes 

would continue at a slow incremental pace without increased funding.14

Lack of funding is consistently mentioned in prior IJC reports as a major 

roadblock to restoration progress. For example, the 1993 biennial report 

concluded that remediation of contaminated areas could not be 

accomplished unless government officials came to grips with the 

magnitude of cleanup costs and started the process of securing the 

necessary resources.15 Despite this warning, however, as we reported in 

2002, EPA reduced the funding available for ensuring the cleanup of 

contaminated areas under the assumption that the states would fill the 

funding void. States, however, did not increase their funding, and 

restoration progress slowed or stopped altogether.16

Officials for 24 of 33 federal programs and for 3 of 17 state programs 

reported insufficient funding for federal and state Great Lakes specific 

programs. They cited specific consequences of funding deficits, including: 

 12 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Great Lakes: EPA Needs to Define Organizational 

Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas, 

GAO-02-563 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2002). 

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

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

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

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

Lack of Funding Is a Key 

Barrier to Achieving 

Restoration Progress 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 46 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

• Funding for GLNPO’s monitoring programs has not kept pace with 

increased operating costs, allowed for infrastructure repairs for its 

research vessel, provided for sufficient atmospheric deposition 

monitoring, or provided for monitoring new or emerging contaminants. 

• Michigan’s Great Lakes Protection Fund receives funding requests 

exceeding the amount of money that is available in any given year. For 

example, in fiscal year 2001, the state received requests for $10.4 

million for project funding and was able to fund projects totaling only 

$700,000. 

States are particularly strapped to provide funding for restoration 

activities within recent budget constraints. For example, an official with 

the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated that the priority 

for funding an unmandated Great Lakes program is secondary to other 

programs specifically mandated by the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts 

and other environmental programs. An official from the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency stated that Minnesota and other states do not 

routinely set aside funds to implement restoration activities for the Great 

Lakes. Restoration projects are funded within the constraints of the states’ 

current budgets, and existing funding requirements take precedent. State 

officials also pointed out the difficulty states face in providing funds to 

meet federal program matching fund requirements for restoration 

activities. Although the matching fund percentage required may be 

relatively low, such as 10 percent, the aggregate amount for several 

programs can be significant. For example, Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality officials informed us that during fiscal years 1992 

through 2001, the state expended over $83 million in matching funds to 

obtain federal funding for programs that contributed to restoration or 

protection in the basin. During this same period, Ohio’s environmental 

programs expended more than $14 million in matching fund amounts. 

Corps and other federal officials stated that some states do not solicit 

federal program funds because they lack the ability to meet the matching 

fund requirements. 

While the lack of funding is the most often cited barrier to restoration 

progress, other factors, such as lack of technical expertise and effective 

coordination, also create barriers to restoration progress. A NOAA official 

stated that while financial resource limitations hinder the restoration 

process, increased funding without better coordination among the various 

agencies would not be effective. In a similar observation, a Minnesota 

state official said that there is no agency at the federal or state level that 

Other Significant Barriers 

Exist for Restoration 

Progress 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 47 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

knows all the programs and funding that exist to address Great Lakes 

problems or the steps one must take to obtain these funds. The official 

further commented that a significant lack of technical knowledge within 

program management for many Great Lakes projects prevents agencies 

from identifying and assessing environmental needs and measuring 

restoration progress. In commenting on efforts to cleanup contaminated 

areas in the Great Lakes, the IJC reported several other problems besides 

the lack of funding for cleanup sites, namely the lack of government 

leadership and accountability, delays caused by disagreements, and 

inadequate planning. 

Although there are several strategies that address restoration of the Great 

Lakes Basin, no one overarching strategy or plan unifies these strategies in 

the pursuit of a common goal, similar to the restoration plan for the South 

Florida ecosystem. The magnitude of the restoration effort and the 

number of parties involved in the basin restoration necessitate that the 

major parties involved develop and agree upon an overarching strategy 

that addresses basin improvements. Without such an overall strategy or 

plan, there is no road map to follow for achieving the restoration goals 

agreed to between the United States and Canada in the GLWQA. An 

overarching strategy for the basin is needed to establish restoration goals, 

outline how restoration will occur, identify the resources needed to 

achieve restoration, assign accountability for restoration, and provide a 

mechanism for measuring progress for achieving goals. While there is a 

general consensus that more funding is needed for the restoration, without 

an overall strategy that prioritizes activities, it is unclear which activities 

should receive additional funding. Furthermore, without a strategy, the 

cycle of preparing numerous plans without significant restoration progress 

will likely continue. Although GLNPO is responsible for coordinating U.S. 

restoration activities within the basin, EPA has not ensured that GLNPO 

fulfills this responsibility by entering into agreements for conducting 

restoration activities. 

To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that federal 

dollars are effectively spent, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, 

• ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for coordinating programs 

within the Great Lakes Basin; 

• charge GLNPO with developing, in consultation with the governors of 

the Great Lakes states, federal agencies, and other organizations, an 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Chapter 3: Multiple Programs, Different 

Strategies, and a Lack of Coordination 

Impede Restoration Efforts 

Page 48 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

overarching strategy that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities 

for coordinating and prioritizing funding for projects; and 

• submit a time-phased funding requirement proposal to the Congress 

necessary to implement the strategy. 

While EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better coordination and 

that our recommendations can help ensure that environmental 

improvements are made, it did not address the specific recommendations 

to improve coordination of Great Lakes activities. Rather, the agency 

stated it would provide to our agency, the Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget a formal response to the final report 

recommendations. The agency stated that it fulfilled its coordination 

responsibilities by convening the USPC and developing the Great Lakes

Strategy 2002. We recognized these efforts in our report, but they do not 

fulfill GLNPO’s responsibility for coordinating programs in the Great 

Lakes Basin, nor does the strategy fulfill the need for an overarching 

strategy for the basin. EPA does acknowledge that its strategy can be used 

as a foundation for any future Great Lakes ecosystem restoration plan. The 

complete text of EPA’s comments is presented in appendix V. 

Agency Comments 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 49 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) calls for a monitoring 

system to measure restoration progress and ensure that its objectives are 

met. To date, the implementation of this provision has been limited. While 

there is recognizable progress in improving some environmental 

conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, current environmental indicators do 

not provide an adequate basis for determining overall progress. Recent 

assessments of overall progress have relied on a mix of quantitative data 

and subjective judgments, and progress reported on federal and state 

programs focuses on program activities, frequently citing outputs rather 

than environmental outcomes. A binational effort to develop a set of 

overall indicators was initiated in 1996, but the completion date for this 

effort and the availability of resources needed to gather baseline 

indicators data are uncertain. 

One of the 17 agreement annexes in the GLWQA, as amended in 1987, 

requires that the United States and Canada undertake a joint surveillance 

and monitoring program to measure restoration progress and assess the 

degree to which the parties are complying with goals and objectives of the 

agreement. The program also provides for an evaluation of water quality 

trends, identification of emerging problems, and support for developing 

remedial action plans for contaminated areas and lakewide management 

plans for critical pollutants. Prior to the 1987 amendments, the 1978 

agreement between the two countries also contained a requirement for 

surveillance and monitoring and for the development of a Great Lakes 

International Surveillance Plan. The IJC Water Quality Board was involved 

in managing and developing the program until the 1987 amendments 

placed this responsibility on the United States and Canada. According to a 

binational review of the agreement in 1999, this change resulted in a 

significant reduction in the two countries’ support for surveillance and 

monitoring. In fact, the organizational structure to implement the 

surveillance plan was abandoned in 1990, leaving only one initiative in 

place—the International Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN). In 

1990, the two countries initiated IADN—a network of 15 air-monitoring 

stations located throughout the basin. 

With the surveillance and monitoring efforts languishing, the IJC 

established the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force in 1993 to identify the 

appropriate framework to evaluate progress in the Great Lakes. As the 

entity responsible for evaluating progress towards meeting the goals and 

objectives of the agreement, the IJC task force, in 1996, proposed that the 

following nine desired measurements and outcomes be used to develop 

indicators for measuring progress (see table 4). 

Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

The Great Lakes 

Water Quality 

Agreement Calls for a 

Monitoring System to 

Ensure Objectives Are 

Met 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 50 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Table 4: Desired Measurements and Outcomes for Great Lakes Indicators 

Measurement Desired outcome 

Fishability No restrictions on the human consumption of fish resulting 

from the input of persistent toxic substances. 

Swimmability No public beaches closed or swimming restrictions 

imposed because of human activities. 

Drinkability Treated drinking water is safe for human consumption, 

and there are no restrictions because of human activities. 

Healthy human populations Human populations in the Great Lakes Basin are healthy 

and free from acute illness because of exposure to high 

levels of contaminants or chronic illness because of 

exposure to low level contaminants. 

Economic viability The regional economy is viable and sustainable and 

provides adequate sustenance and dignity for the basin 

population. 

Biological community 

integrity and diversity 

The ability of biological communities to function normally 

in the absence of environmental stress by maintaining 

ecosystem health, ecological integrity, and the diversity of 

biological communities. 

Virtual elimination of inputs 

of persistent toxic 

substances 

The virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic 

substances into the Great Lakes. 

Absence of excess 

phosphorus 

The absence of excess phosphorus entering the 

watersheds because of human behavior. 

Physical environment 

integrity 

The development, compatible use, and maintenance of 

aquatic habitat in the quantity and quality necessary and 

sufficient to sustain an endemic assemblage of fish and 

wildlife populations. 

Source: IJC. 

Shortly before the task force began its work, the United States and Canada 

had agreed to hold conferences every 2 years to assess the environmental 

conditions in the Great Lakes in order to develop binational reports on the 

environmental conditions to measure progress under the agreement. 

Conference participants included U.S. and Canadian representatives from 

federal, state, provincial, and tribal agencies, as well as other organizations 

with environmental restoration or pollution prevention interests in the 

Great Lakes Basin. The first State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 

(SOLEC)17 was held in 1994 and culminated in a “State of the Great Lakes 

1995” report, which provided an overview of the Great Lakes ecosystem at 

the end of 1994 and concluded that overall the aquatic community health 

was mixed or improving. The same assessment was echoed in the 1997 

state of the lakes report. Meanwhile, the IJC agreed that monitoring the 

 17 SOLEC is co-chaired by representatives from the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada. 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 51 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

nine desired outcome areas recommended by the task force would help 

assess overall progress. It recommended that SOLEC, during the 

conference in 2000, establish environmental indicators that would allow 

the IJC to evaluate what had been accomplished and what needed to be 

done as it relates to the public’s ability to eat the fish, drink the water, and 

swim in the water without any restrictions. The other outcomes would be 

addressed at a later date. 

The indicators developed through the SOLEC process and the 

accomplishments reported by federal and state program managers do not 

provide an adequate basis for making an overall assessment for Great 

Lakes restoration progress. The SOLEC process is ongoing, and the 

indicators that are still being developed are not generally supported by 

sufficient underlying data for making progress assessments. The ultimate 

success of SOLEC is uncertain because of limited resources committed to 

the process, and until indicators are finalized, the accomplishments now 

reported for individual Great Lakes specific programs do not provide an 

adequate basis for assessing overall progress. Program accomplishments 

usually describe program outputs, rather than outcomes, and do not 

adequately portray whether environmental conditions are improving or 

deteriorating. 

SOLEC’s recent assessments of the Great Lakes ecosystem have relied on 

limited quantitative data and subjective judgments in determining the 

status of desired outcomes, such as swimmability, drinkability, and the 

edibility of fish within the Great Lakes. At the 1998 SOLEC conference, 

groups of experts narrowed down a list of more than 850 indicators to 80 

basin ecosystem indicators with the objective of reaching an agreement on 

a list of comprehensive indicators for the basin. The proposed indicators 

were reviewed, discussed, and revised during the conference and placed in 

seven categories, such as open waters, coastal wetlands, land use, and 

human health. Within these categories, the indicators were further 

classified as a current condition (state), such as population of salmon and 

trout, or an adverse impact (pressure), such as sea lamprey diminishing 

fish populations. Conference participants devoted extensive effort to 

commenting on and modifying these indicators. 

The SOLEC 2000 conference focused on assessing the previously 

identified 80 indicators for reporting on the overall condition of the Great 

Lakes. Participants further reduced the number of indicators ultimately 

assessed because data was only readily available for 33 indicators. Subject 

Current Indicators Do 

Not Provide an 

Adequate Basis for 

Making an Overall 

Assessment of 

Restoration Progress 

Recent Assessments of 

Environmental Conditions 

Rely on Limited Data 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 52 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

experts assessed and classified the indicators on a scale with five 

classifications—good; mixed, improving; mixed; mixed, deteriorating; and 

poor. Participants developed these classifications using the following 

definitions: 

• Good. The state of the ecosystem component is presently meeting 

ecosystem objectives or otherwise is an acceptable condition. 

• Mixed, improving. The ecosystem component displays both good and 

degraded features, but overall, conditions are improving toward an 

acceptable state. 

• Mixed. The state of the ecosystem component has some features that 

are in good condition and some features that are degraded, perhaps 

different between lake basins. 

• Mixed, deteriorating. The ecosystem component displays both good 

and degraded features, but overall, conditions are deteriorating from an 

acceptable state. 

• Poor. The ecosystem component is severely negatively impacted and 

does not display even minimally acceptable conditions. 

For example, the level of contaminants in snapping turtle eggs is an 

indicator for coastal wetlands. The indicator was assessed and placed in 

the mixed assessment category because of the high levels of contaminants 

in snapping turtle eggs found at eight locations in Lakes Ontario and Erie, 

and the St. Lawrence River. The classification of indicators into categories 

was based on the SOLEC partners’ best professional judgments and was 

not necessarily supported by sound science-based reliable data. The 33 

indicators became the basis for the “State of the Great Lakes 2001” report, 

which concluded that a detailed quantitative assessment could not be 

made, but that an overall qualitative assessment of “mixed” should be 

applied to the basin ecosystem. The assessment was based on six 

observations. One positive observation was that the Great Lakes surface 

waters remain one of the best drinking water sources in the world; a 

negative observation was that invasive species continue to present a 

significant threat to the biological community. 

After the SOLEC 2000 conference, IJC staff assessed the indicators 

supported by data that measured the desired outcomes of swimmability, 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 53 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

drinkability, and the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes.18 Overall, the IJC 

commended SOLEC’s quick response that brought together information 

regarding the outcomes and SOLEC’s ongoing efforts. The IJC, however, 

recognized that sufficient data were not being collected from around the 

Great Lakes and that the methods of collection, the data collection time 

frames, the lack of uniform protocols, and the incompatible nature of 

some data jeopardized their use as indicators. Specifically, for the desired 

outcome of swimmability, which was assessed as “mixed,” the IJC 

concurred that it was not always safe to swim at certain beaches but noted 

that progress for this desired outcome was limited because beaches were 

sampled by local jurisdictions without uniform sampling or reporting 

methods. At the 2002 SOLEC conference, the number of indicators 

assessed under the 5-tiered scale increased from 33 to 45. The IJC 

expressed concern that there are too many indicators, insufficient 

supporting backup data, and a lack of commitment and funding from EPA 

to implement and make operational the agreed upon SOLEC baseline data 

collection and monitoring techniques. The IJC recommended in its last 

biennial report that any new indicators should be developed only where 

resources are sufficient to access scientifically valid and reliable 

information. 

The ultimate successful development and assessment of indicators for the 

Great Lakes through the SOLEC process are uncertain because insufficient 

resources have been committed to the process, no plan provides 

completion dates for indicator development and implementation, and 

there is a lack of control over the data being collected. While the SOLEC 

process has successfully engaged a wide range of binational parties in 

developing indicators, the resources devoted to this process are largely 

provided on a volunteer basis without firm commitments to continue in 

the future. GLNPO officials described the SOLEC process as a 

professional, collaborative process dependent on the voluntary 

participation of officials from federal and state agencies, academic 

institutions, and other organizations attending SOLEC and developing 

information on specific indicators. The resources provided for the process 

cannot be assured in the future and the financial resources committed by 

GLNPO to the process have primarily consisted of contributing funding for 

hosting the conferences and providing two staff members to manage the 

process. EPA supports the development of environmental indicators as 

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

Successful Development 

and Assessment of 

Indicators Are Difficult to 

Discern 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 54 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

evidenced by the fact that, since 1994, GLNPO has provided about 

$100,000 annually to sponsor the conferences. 

Additionally, GLNPO spends over $4 million per year to collect 

surveillance data for its open-lake water quality monitoring program, 

which also provides supporting data for some of the indicators addressed 

by SOLEC. A significant portion of these funds supports the operation of 

GLNPO’s research vessel, the Lake Guardian, an offshore supply vessel 

converted for use as a research vessel. GLNPO also supports activities that 

are linked or otherwise feed information into the SOLEC process, 

including the following: 

• collecting information on plankton and benthic communities in the 

Great Lakes for open water indicator development; 

• sampling various chemicals in the open-lake waters, such as 

phosphorus for the total phosphorus indicator; 

• monitoring fish contaminants in the open waters, directly supporting 

the indicator for contaminants in whole fish and a separate monitoring 

effort for contaminants in popular sport fish species that supports the 

indicator for chemical contaminants in edible fish tissue; and 

• operating 15 air-monitoring stations with Environment Canada 

comprising the IADN that provides information for establishing trends 

in concentrations of certain chemicals and loadings of chemicals into 

the lakes. EPA uses information from the network to take actions to 

control the chemicals and track progress toward environmental goals. 

Because SOLEC is a voluntary process, the indicator data resides in a 

diverse number of sources with limited control by SOLEC organizers. 

GLNPO officials stated that EPA does not have either the authority or the 

responsibility to direct the data collection activities of federal, state, and 

local agencies as they relate to surveillance and monitoring of technical 

data elements that are needed to develop, implement, and assess Great 

Lakes environmental indicators. They further stated that the current 

SOLEC indicator process is based on unofficial professional relationships 

established between the SOLEC partnerships. Efforts are underway for the 

various federal and state agencies to take ownership for collecting and 

reporting data outputs from their respective areas of responsibility and for 

SOLEC to be sustained and implemented; each indicator must have a 

sponsor. However, any breakdown in submission of this information 

would leave a gap in the SOLEC indicator process. 

SOLEC’s 10-year plan, as presented at the 2000 conference, describes its 

objectives and the planned conference themes through 2006 with the 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 55 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

theme for 2008 and beyond yet to be determined. Its stated objectives are 

to 

• assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted 

indicators, 

• strengthen decision making and management, 

• inform local decision makers of Great Lakes environmental issues, and 

• provide a forum for communication and networking among 

stakeholders. 

Three of the SOLEC objectives do not focus directly on developing 

indicators, nor do the stated objectives align with the surveillance and 

monitoring program envisioned in the GLWQA. Whereas the agreement 

called for a joint surveillance and monitoring program to assess 

compliance with the agreement, evaluating water quality trends, 

identification of emerging problems, and support for the development of 

Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, the 

achievements reported for the SOLEC process, which include the number 

of background papers produced and reports prepared on the state of the 

lakes, do not align with the expected results envisioned by the surveillance 

and monitoring program. 

In November 2001, EPA committed to an agencywide initiative to develop 

environmental indicators for addressing the agency’s nationwide 

environmental conditions, stating that “indicators help measure the state 

of our air, water and land resources and the pressures placed on them, and 

the resulting effects on ecological and human health.” However, this 

initiative does not specifically relate to the Great Lakes. The short-term 

goal for this initiative is to develop information that will indicate current 

nationwide environmental conditions and to help EPA make sound 

decisions on what needs to be done. The long-term goal is to bring 

together national, regional, state, and tribal indicator efforts to describe 

the condition of critical environmental areas and human health concerns. 

Progress reported by officials from individual federal and state programs 

in the basin is generally not presented in a manner that describes how the 

programs have improved environmental conditions within the Great Lakes 

Basin. Program output data are frequently cited as measures of success 

versus actual program accomplishments. As a rule, program output data 

describe activities, such as projects funded, and are of limited value in 

determining environmental progress. For example, accomplishments 

reported for Michigan’s Great Lakes Protection Fund were that it funded 

Federal and State 

Programs Measure 

Progress in Several Ways, 

Often Citing Outputs 

Rather than Outcomes 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 56 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

125 research projects over an 11-year period and publicized its project 

results at an annual forum and on a Web site. Another example is the Lake 

Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program administered by FWS. 

Under its accomplishments, program officials cited the completion of a 

pilot study and technical assistance provided to a Native American tribe. 

For the 50 federal and state programs created specifically to address 

conditions in the basin, 27 reported accomplishments in terms of outputs, 

such as reports or studies prepared or presentations made to groups. 

Because research and capacity building programs largely support other 

activities, it is particularly difficult to relate reported program 

accomplishments to outcomes. For example, the National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory conducts extensive research and environmental modeling that 

helps to improve management of aquatic environments and understanding 

of coastal and estuarine processes. The federal and state environmental 

program officials responding to our evaluation generally provided output 

data or, as reported for 15 programs, the accomplishments had not been 

measured for these Great Lakes specific programs. 

Only eight of the federal or state Great Lakes specific programs reported 

outcome information, much of which generally described how effective 

the programs’ activity or action had been in improving environmental 

conditions. For example, EPA’s Region II program for reducing toxic 

chemical inputs into the Niagara River, which connects Lake Erie to Lake 

Ontario, reported reductions in priority toxics from 1986 through 2002 

from ambient water quality monitoring. Other significant outcomes 

reported as accomplishments for the Great Lakes included (1) reducing 

phosphorus loadings by waste treatment plants and limiting phosphorus 

use in household detergents; (2) prohibiting the release of some toxicants 

into the Great Lakes, and reducing to an acceptable level the amount of 

some other toxicants that could be input; (3) effectively reducing the sea 

lamprey population in several invasive species infested watersheds; and 

(4) restocking the fish-depleted populations in some watersheds. 

Without a monitoring system for the Great Lakes Basin, it is impossible to 

determine overall restoration progress and compliance with goals and 

objectives of the GLWQA. While it is clear that some restoration progress 

has occurred for some environmental conditions, definitive observations 

on overall restoration progress are difficult to make without indicators to 

measure progress, baseline indicator data, and a process for monitoring 

indicators. The current SOLEC process fills an important void, but it 

cannot fulfill the requirements of the surveillance and monitoring program 

Conclusions 
Chapter 4: Insufficient Data and Measures 

Make It Difficult to Determine Overall 

Restoration Progress 

Page 57 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

called for in the agreement. SOLEC serves a useful purpose in creating a 

consensus on which indicators are the most useful and inventorying 

available indicator data. There is no assurance, however, that the SOLEC 

process, which relies heavily on the voluntary participation of interested 

officials, will continue, or if it does continue, whether it will yield 

sufficient information for an overall quantitative assessment of the Great 

Lakes ecosystem. 

To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and to 

ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, we are 

recommending that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with 

Canadian officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1) 

develop environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great 

Lakes Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress and 

(2) require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize, and make 

funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration projects. 

EPA stated that it agreed with the need for better monitoring and generally 

agreed that our recommendations can help ensure improvements. 

However, it did not address the specific recommendations for a 

monitoring system called for in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 

Rather, the agency stated it would provide to our agency, the Congress, 

and the Office of Management and Budget a formal response to the final 

report recommendations. EPA stated that GLNPO has supported the 

SOLEC effort, but it did not comment on the recommendations for 

developing indicators and a monitoring system to measure overall 

restoration progress. The complete text of EPA’s comments is presented 

in appendix V. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That 

Provided Great Lakes Program Information 

Page 58 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Great Lakes National Program Office 

• Office of Research and Development 

• Regions II, III, and V 

Department of Agriculture 

• Agricultural Research Service 

• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

• Farm Services Agency 

• Forest Service 

• Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Department of Commerce 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Department of Defense 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of Health and Human Services 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Department of Homeland Security 

• U.S. Coast Guard 

Department of Interior 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• U.S. Geological Survey 

• National Park Service 

Illinois 

• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That 

Provided Great Lakes Program Information 

Federal agencies 

State agencies 
Appendix I: Federal and State Agencies That 

Provided Great Lakes Program Information 

Page 59 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Indiana 

• Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

Ohio 

• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

• Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Michigan 

• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

• Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Minnesota 

• Minnesota Department of Commerce 

• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

• Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 

• Minnesota State Planning Agency 

New York 

• New York Department of Environmental Conservation 

Pennsylvania 

• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Wisconsin 

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 60 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Table 5 contains a listing of the non-Great Lakes specific programs 

managed by federal agencies. 

Table 5: Federal Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Army Corps of Engineers 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration This restoration program funds the planning, design, and construction of 

projects to restore and enhance aquatic ecosystems. Program activities 

began in 1998. 

$2,243,800a 

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material This program, which was established in 1992, funds the planning, design, 

and construction of projects to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic 

habitats using sediments dredged from federal navigation projects. It is 

classified as a restoration program. 

$384,600c 

Cleaning and Snagging Originally created in 1954, the purpose of this program is to plan, design, 

and construct projects for emergency removal of debris that threatens to 

aggravate damage caused by flooding. 

$4,000

Confined Disposal Facilities This cleanup program was established in 1970. Its purpose is to design, 

construct, and operate confined disposal facilities for the disposal of 

contaminated dredged materials from federal navigation projects. 

$72,696,140

Emergency Stream Bank and 

Shoreline Protection 

This program was created in 1946 and its purpose is to plan, design, and 

construct projects to protect public facilities and services from stream bank 

and shoreline erosion. 

$8,086,400

Environmental Dredging This environmental cleanup program was created in 1990. The program's 

purpose is to assist in the planning, design, and construction of projects to 

remove contaminated sediments from areas outside federal navigation 

channels. 

$670,700b

Environmental Improvements The purpose of this restoration program, which was started in 1986, is to 

plan, design, and construct projects to restore and enhance aquatic 

ecosystems at sites impacted by Corps projects. 

$13,016,400d

Flood Plain Management Services Created in 1960, this program provides flood plain information and technical 

assistance to states and local communities. 

$4,784,500

Planning Assistance to States This program was created in 1974, and its purpose is to provide staff and 

financial assistance to states in planning for the use, development, and 

conservation of water resources. 

$3,123,500

Shore Protection The purpose of this restoration program, created in 1962, is to plan, design, 

and construct projects to restore and protect shores against waves and 

currents. 

$1,038,000

Small Flood Control Projects This program, which was created in 1948, funds activities related to the 

planning, design, and construction of projects to reduce flood damages. 

$11,375,100

Small Navigation Projects Created in 1960, the purpose of this program is to plan, design, and 

construct projects to improve navigation. 

$7,871,000

Tribal Partnership Program This program was started in 2000, and it seeks to provide tribal groups with 

assistance in planning for the use, development, and conservation of water 

resources. 

f

Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

Agricultural Research Service 

Research Units 

This research and pollution prevention program started in 1990 to develop 

agricultural best management practices, including water management 

strategies for corn and soybean production systems, and to assess the 

impact of these practices on field, farm, and watershed scales. 

$2,293,700

Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 61 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) 

Hatch Act Research Program This research program was started in the late 1800s to promote efficient 

production, marketing, distribution, and utilization of crops and livestock 

essential to the food supply and health and welfare of the American people, 

while conserving resources and improving rural living conditions. 

$4,582,000e

Integrated Activities Program This program supports integrated research, education, and extension on 

critical agricultural issues. Program activities began in 2000. 

$11,081,000e

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative 

Forestry Research Program 

The purpose of the program, which began in 1962, is to support research 

essential to the efficient and effective use of the nation's forest resources. 

$140,000e

National Research Initiative 

Program 

This program provides support for research with the greatest potential of 

expanding the knowledge base needed to solve current problems and 

unforeseen issues involving the future agricultural and forestry enterprise. 

The program was created in 1965 and activities began in 1991. 

$433,000e

Small Business Innovation 

Research Program 

The purpose of this program, which began in 1986, is to strengthen the role 

of small, innovative firms in federally funded research and development 

activities. 

$383,000e

Special Research Grants Program This program was created in 1965 to fund research on problems of national, 

regional, and local interest that fall beyond the normal emphasis of the 

formula programs. 

$1,675,000e

Department of Agriculture-Farm Services Agency (FSA) 

Conservation Reserve Program This voluntary restoration and conservation program for agricultural 

landowners was created in 1985. Through this program, landowners 

receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish 

long-term, resource conserving vegetative covers on eligible farmland. 

$540,718,000

Emergency Conservation Program This program provides emergency funding for farmers and ranchers to 

rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other 

natural disasters and for carrying out emergency water conservation 

measures during periods of severe drought. This restoration program began 

in 1978. 

$4,670,000

Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (FS) 

Atmospheric Ecosystem 

Interactions at Multiple Scales 

This research program, which began in 1996, focuses on air quality in the 

western Great Lakes. The program examines factors that impact 

summertime surface ozone pollution patterns and activities, including 

observing smoke trajectories from prescribed and wildland fires. 

f

Cooperative Forestry Originally created in the 1930s, the current program started in 1978 to 

address watershed health and water quality activities on nonfederal forest 

lands. It provides restoration and management assistance activities, 

including cooperative federal, state, and local forest stewardship; 

prevention and control of insects and diseases; and improvement of fish 

and wildlife habitat. 

f

Forest Health Management This program was created in1947, with current program activities having 

begun in 1978 as a coordinated effort among federal, state, and local 

entities for the management of forest health on nonfederal forested lands. 

The program funds activities to sustain healthy forest conditions. 

f

Recreation, Heritage, and 

Wilderness Management 

The purpose of this program, which dates back to the 1930s, is to connect 

people to the land by providing recreational settings and services. 

$36,685,000g

Soil, Water, and Air Management This program funds activities related to the management of water, soil, and 

air resources for public use, including the inventory, assessment, and 

monitoring of these resources. It is classified as a cleanup, restoration, and 

pollution prevention program. 

$8,939,000g
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 62 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Watershed, Lake, Riparian and 

Stream Analysis, and Restoration 

This research and restoration program, which started in 2000, studies 

watershed and stream processes from relatively undisturbed systems to 

highly degraded systems. It develops technologies to restore these 

systems and tests them in rural forested and urban landscapes. 

$165,000h

Wildland Fire Management Originally created in the 1920s, the purpose of the current program is to 

protect state and private lands from wildland fires by providing protection 

and management assistance. 

f

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants 

Resources Management 

This program, which began in the 1930s, funds activities related to 

cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, and habitat improvement. The 

program's goal is to maintain diverse and productive wildlife, fish, and 

sensitive plant habitats as an integral part of managing national forest 

ecosystems. 

$24,486,000g

Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program 

The purpose of this program, created in 1985, is to provide technical, 

educational, and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to 

address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in 

an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. It funds pollution 

prevention, soil and water conservation, and water quality improvement 

activities. 

f

Farmland Protection Program This program, which began in 1996, provides matching funds to help 

purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranch land in 

agricultural uses. The Department of Agriculture provides up to 50 percent 

of the fair market easement value. 

f

National Cooperative Soil Survey 

(NCSS) 

This program is a partnership of federal land management agencies, state 

agricultural experiment stations, and state and local units of government 

that provides soil survey information necessary for understanding, 

managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation's limited soil resources. It 

dates back to 1935. 

f

Plant Materials for 

Conservation/Plant Materials 

The purpose of this program, which began in 1937, is to use native plants to 

solve natural resource problems. Scientists search for plants that meet an 

identified conservation need, such as wetland restoration, and test their 

performance. Once proven, new species are released to the private sector 

for commercial production. 

f

Resource Conservation and 

Development 

This program, which started in 1962, encourages and improves the 

capability of state and local units of government and local nonprofit 

organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs for 

resource conservation and development. Program activities include 

cleanup, restoration, pollution prevention, coordination, and conservation 

technical services. 

f

River Basin Studies, Watershed 

Surveys and Planning, and 

Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention 

This mid-1940s program was created to provide planning assistance to 

federal, state, and local agencies for developing and coordinating water 

and related land resources programs in watershed and river basins. 

Program activities include restoration, pollution prevention, and 

financial and technical assistance for watershed protection and flood 

prevention. 

f

Soil and Water 

Conservation/Conservation 

Technical Assistance 

This program provides voluntary conservation technical assistance to 

land users, communities, units of state and local governments, and other 

federal agencies in planning and implementing conservation systems. It 

began in 1935, and it addresses natural resource issues, such as 

erosion, fish and wildlife habitat, and air quality. Its activities relate to 

cleanup, pollution prevention, restoration, and technical assistance. 

f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 63 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Wetland Reserve Program This voluntary program provides landowners with financial and technical 

assistance to restore and protect wetlands. It began in 1985, and it funds 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention activities. 

f

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program This is a voluntary restoration program for the development and 

improvement of wildlife habitat, primarily on private lands. It provides 

technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to 

establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The program began 

in 1998. 

f

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

Coastal Mapping/Mapping and 

Charting Program 

This program is part of the National Geodetic Survey. The primary mission 

of this program is to define the shoreline for nautical charts. 

f

Coastal Remote Sensing, Coastal 

Change and Analysis Program 

The goal of this program, which started in 2001, is to develop and distribute 

data in the coastal zone through remote sensing technology. The Great 

Lakes are the current focus of this program. 

$458,000i

Coastal Zone Management 

Program 

This program began in 1972. It is a federal-state partnership that provides 

a basis for protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing the nation's 

important and diverse coastal communities and resources. The program 

includes encouraging and assisting states in the wise use of land and 

water, and encouraging the participation and cooperation of all government 

sectors with programs affecting the coast. 

$107,906,394j

Geodesy Program This program, managed by the National Geodetic Survey, monitors crustal 

motion in the Great Lakes by measuring latitudes, longitudes, and 

elevations at 16 water level stations. This information provides better 

knowledge about flooding and drainage scenarios in the region. 

f

Landscape Characterization and 

Restoration Program 

This restoration program, which began in 1997, helps coastal resource 

managers examine the effects of management on coastal habitat through 

habitat restoration planning activities and ecosystem studies. 

f

National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System (NERRS) 

NERRS is a network of protected areas established to promote informed 

management of the nation's coastal and estuarine habitats. This statefederal partnership accomplishes this through linked programs of scientific 

understanding, education, and stewardship. This research program began 

in 1972. 

$2,174,000

National Sea Grant College 

Program 

The purpose of this research program, which began in 1968, is to support 

education and research in the various fields relating to the development of 

marine resources. All Great Lakes states, except Pennsylvania, have a 

Sea Grant College. 

$69,600,000

National Status and Trends Mussel 

Watch Project 

This program is a contaminant-monitoring program for U.S. coastal waters. 

It collects samples from some 300 sites in the conterminous United States, 

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Great Lakes. Samples are analyzed 

for a broad suite of contaminants, including toxic elements, pesticides, 

industrial chemicals, and hydrocarbons. This pollution prevention program 

began nationwide in 1986, with monitoring in the Great Lakes beginning in 

1992. 

$240,000

National Weather Service (NWS) This program, which dates back to the 1890s, provides water, hydrologic, 

and climate warnings for the United States and its adjacent waters. Ten 

NWS Great Lakes forecast offices provide users with continuous real-time 

data and forecasts. NWS also operates the Environmental Modeling 

Center, which produces numerical weather prediction models that are 

transmitted to these forecast offices, and the National Data Buoy Center, 

which manages an observational network. 

f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 64 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Office of Response and Restoration 

- Coastal Protection and 

Restoration Division 

This division has undertaken, in coordination with cleanup and trustee 

agencies, environmental assessment, pollution prevention, cleanup, 

mitigation, and restoration activities to protect and restore coastal habitats 

and resources at hazardous waste sites nationwide since 1985 (in the 

Great Lakes since 1993). 

f

Office of Response and Restoration 

- Damage Assessment Center 

The Damage Assessment Center, which started in 1990, conducts 

natural resources damage assessments to restore coastal resources 

injured by oil and hazardous material releases. The center conducts 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention activities. 

f

Office of Response and Restoration 

- Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) 

This program, which started in 1987, conducts activities to reduce risks to 

coastal habitats and resources from oil and chemical spills by providing 

advice and developing tools to aid in spill response. HAZMAT undertakes 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention activities. 

f

Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Regional 

Coordination and Technical 

Assistance 

This program provides regional aquatic nuisance species coordination and 

technical assistance to the Fisheries Program of FWS's Northeast Region. 

Activities support regional prevention and control of aquatic nuisance 

species introductions and range expansions. 

$808,900

Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Surveillance and Control 

This program was started in 1991 to prevent and control infestations 

in the coastal and inland waters of the United States by the zebra 

mussel and other nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. Its activities 

include research, prevention of species introductions, control of 

introduced species, and mitigation of impacts to native fish and wildlife 

resources. 

$3,659,400

Endangered Species Program This conservation and restoration program was created in 1973 to provide a 

means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and 

threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide for the 

conservation of such endangered and threatened species. 

$4,078,500l

Fish and Wildlife Management 

Assistance - Great Lakes 

Operations 

This program, dating back to 1972, aids in conservation of native fish and 

wildlife species and their habitats. It provides support for the management 

of interjurisdictional fisheries, aids in restoration of depleted fish populations 

to preclude listing as endangered species, and provides technical 

assistance to state and tribal fish and wildlife management agencies to fulfill 

federal trust responsibilities. The program funds research, restoration, and 

technical assistance activities. 

$5,915,000

La Crosse Fish Health Center This center, which began operating in 1962, provides fish health inspection 

services to six national and four tribal fish hatcheries to minimize the risk of 

introducing disease agents into the wild. This program assists state 

research facilities and private fish hatcheries in diagnosing and controlling 

infectious disease agents and provides technical assistance regarding fish 

health and propagation. 

$3,057,545

National Fish Passage Program This program restores native fish and other aquatic species to selfsustaining levels. Generally, this restoration is done by removing barriers to 

fish movement or providing ways for aquatic species to bypass them. The 

program works on a voluntary basis with federal, state, local, and tribal 

agencies, as well as private partners and stakeholders. This restoration 

program's activities began in 1999. 

$268,500n

Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment Program 

This program's goal is to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the 

equivalent of natural resources injured or lost as a result of contamination 

by oil or hazardous substances. This cleanup and restoration program 

began in 1981. 

$2,496,000(m)(o)
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 65 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

New York Aquatic Resource 

Management 

The focus of this program is natural resource assessment and 

management planning on military installations. Specifically, the goal 

of this program is to determine the presence or absence of threatened 

or endangered species of state or national concern and to prepare a 

comprehensive natural resource management plan for the Seneca 

Army Depot and Fort Drum, both of which lie within the Great Lakes 

Basin. 

$197,032p

New York Natural Resource 

Management Program 

The primary focus of this program is natural resource assessment and 

planning on military installations. Activities under this program include 

conducting a natural resource community survey for the Niagara Falls Air 

Reserve Station, conducting additional surveys as needed, and preparing 

and implementing management plans to protect the natural resources. 

Program activities began in 1998. 

$174,204q

Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

(Private Lands Program) 

This is a voluntary habitat restoration program that provides restoration 

expertise and financial assistance to private landowners, tribes, 

and other conservation partners who voluntarily restore fish and 

wildlife habitat on their properties. The program targets restoring 

habitat for migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and threatened or 

endangered species on private land. Program activities began 

in 1987. 

$5,240,000m

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

Biological Information Management 

Delivery 

This research program has two primary areas relevant to the Great Lakes 

Basin: the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the 

Gap Analysis Program (GAP). NBII was created in 1993 and provides 

increased access to data and information on biological resources. The 

GAP provides broad geographic information on biological diversity that 

planners, managers, and policy makers need to make informed decisions. 

In addition, the program provides support for Great Lakes research, 

primarily at the USGS Great Lakes Science Center. 

$1,653,800m

Biological Research and Monitoring This research program, dating back to 1927, funds biological studies to 

develop new methods and techniques to identify, observe, and manage fish 

and wildlife. Studies are designed to identify, understand, and control 

invasive species and their habitats; inventory populations of animals, plants, 

and their habitats; and monitor changes in abundance, distribution, and 

health of biological resources through time and determine the causes of the 

changes. 

$10,078,775d

Coastal and Marine Geology The program provides scientific information needed to evaluate the 

origin and impact of natural coastal processes, especially understanding 

the effect of human-induced changes. This program has been 

providing information and products to guide the preservation and 

sustainable development of the nation's marine and coastal environments 

since 1994. 

f

Cooperative Research Units 

Program 

This program, created in 1935, establishes and maintains cooperative 

partnerships with states and universities to address local, state, 

regional, national and international issues related to fish, wildlife, and 

natural resources of concern. The activities of the program are research, 

technical assistance, and student education. 

$6,250,000r

Cooperative Topographic Mapping 

(CTM) Program 

This research program provides data that locates and describes the 

features of the earth's surface. The program provides support for the 

National Map by continuing to maintain basic data for the United States 

and its territories. 

f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 66 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Cooperative Water Program This is an ongoing partnership between USGS and nonfederal agencies. 

The program jointly funds water resources projects in every state, Puerto 

Rico, and several U.S. Trust territories. Research, data collection, 

assessment, and aerial appraisal activities are conducted through this 

program. 

f

Geographic Analysis and 

Monitoring Program 

This program studies and addresses natural and human-induced changes 

on the landscape. It encompasses global change research, integrates 

natural hazard data layers, delivers landscape information, and provides 

computer support. 

f

Land Remote Sensing Program This program, initiated in the 1930s, promotes the use of remote sensing for 

understanding the earth's land environment through photography and other 

imagery from aircraft, as well as satellites. 

f

Mineral Resources Program This program, created in 1879, provides scientific information for 

resource assessments and research results of mineral potential, 

production, consumption, and environmental behavior. This information 

is used to characterize the life cycles of mineral commodities from 

deposit formation, exploration, and discovery through production, use, 

reuse, and disposal. 

f

National Cooperative Geologic 

Mapping Program 

This program was established in 1992 to implement and coordinate an 

expanded geologic mapping effort by USGS, the state geological surveys, 

and universities. The primary goal of the program is to collect, process, 

analyze, translate, and disseminate earth-science information through 

geologic maps. 

f

National Water Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) Program 

The long-term mission and goals of the NAWQA program, which began in 

1991, are to provide long-term, nationwide information on the quality of 

streams, groundwater, and aquatic ecosystems. NAWQA's goals are to 

assess the status and trends of national water quality and to understand the 

factors that affect it. 

$16,039,000r

National Water Use Information 

Program 

This program was created in 1979 to collect, store, analyze, and 

disseminate water-use information, both nationally and locally, to a wide 

variety of government agencies and private organizations. It is a 

cooperative program that includes state and local government entities. 

f

USGS Ground-Water Resources 

Program 

This program encompasses regional studies of groundwater systems; 

provides multidisciplinary studies of critical groundwater issues; provides 

access to groundwater data, and research and methods development. It 

also provides scientific information and many of the tools that are used by 

federal, state, and local management and regulatory agencies to make 

important decisions about the nation's groundwater resources. It was 

created in 1995. 

$60,000i

USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program 

This program was created in 1982 to provide scientific information and tools 

that explain the occurrence, behavior, and effects of toxic substances in the 

nation's hydrologic environments. Program results support decision making 

by resource managers, regulators, industry, and the public. Work is 

performed by USGS scientists who collaborate with a wide range of federal 

and nonfederal organizations and individuals. 

f

Water Resource Research Act 

Programs 

This program, dating back to 1964, provides an institutional mechanism for 

promoting state, regional, and national coordination of water resources, 

research, and training. It comprises a network of institutes to facilitate 

research and information technology transfer. With its matching 

requirements, it is also a mechanism for promoting state investments in 

research and training. 

f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 67 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Earth Surface Dynamics Program - 

Central Great Lakes Geologic 

Mapping Coalition 

This 1998 initiated research program provides scientific information to 

evaluate natural coastal processes and understand human-induced 

changes. It develops predictive models of natural systems and the effects of 

human activities on them, and the capability to predict future changes. 

Program data is used to guide the preservation and sustainable 

development of the nation's marine and coastal environments. 

$2,977,000p

Department of Homeland Security-Coast Guard 

National Invasive Species 

Act/Ballast Water Program 

Under this program, the Secretary of Transportation issues national 

guidelines to prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. 

waters by ships. 

$8,000,000s

Oil Spill Removal Organization 

Program 

This is a voluntary pollution prevention program created by the Coast Guard 

to assist facility and vessel responders in writing their oil spill response 

plans. 

f

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Air Program The purpose of this program, which began in 1970, is to (1) protect and 

enhance the quality of the nation's air resources, (2) initiate and accelerate 

a national research and development program to achieve the prevention 

and control of air pollution, (3) provide technical and financial assistance to 

state and local governments in connection with the development and 

execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs, and (4) 

encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air 

pollution prevention and control programs. 

f

Aquatic Stressors Research 

Program 

The goal of this research program, which began in 1975, is to advance 

scientifically sound approaches for monitoring trends in ecological 

conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, including the Great Lakes; 

identify impaired watersheds and diagnose causes of degradation; and 

develop risk-based assessments for supporting restoration and remediation 

decisions. 

f

Children's Health Program This program (1) identifies and evaluates children's health issues, (2) 

develops approaches for addressing these issues, and (3) prioritizes and 

implements appropriate actions on children's health issues. This 1997 

program funds pollution prevention activities and is largely a voluntary 

program building state capacity in human health. 

f

Clean Water Act (CWA) Water 

Quality Monitoring and Section 106 

Grants 

Operating since 1972, this program develops and implements 

comprehensive monitoring programs at the state and tribal levels to 

address all water quality management needs under the CWA. Section 106 

Grants awards grants to states and to eligible Indian tribes as base program 

support to maintain their surface water and groundwater programs. 

f

Clean Water State Revolving Fund The purpose of this program is to provide grants to states for long-term 

financing for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and 

implementation of state management plans. This program began in 1972. 

f

Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund 

This program provides grants to states to establish drinking water state 

revolving funds, whose purpose is to support drinking water system 

infrastructure improvements. These grants provide loans and other types of 

financial assistance to eligible public water supply authorities. The program 

started in 1996. 

f

Environmental Justice Small Grants This program, which began in 1994, provides financial assistance to 

grassroots community-based groups to support projects to design, 

demonstrate, or disseminate practices, methods, or techniques related to 

environmental justice. 

$256,047m
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 68 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Environmental Justice Through 

Pollution Prevention Grants 

This pollution prevention program provides low income, minority 

communities with pollution prevention resources to address 

community environmental issues. This program started as a pilot 

program in 1995 through discretionary funds, but the last year of 

funding was 2001. 

f

Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program 

The goal of this program is to advance scientifically sound approaches for 

monitoring trends in ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, 

including the Great Lakes. The program identifies impaired watersheds and 

diagnoses causes of degradation and forecasts risk-based assessments 

and options to support restoration and remediation decisions. This 

research program began in 1989. 

f

Food Quality Protection 

Act/Strategic Agricultural Initiative 

The purpose of this program is to ensure continuing safety of the nation's 

food supply by promoting the transition from potentially hazardous 

conventional pesticides to pesticides with reduced risk to human health and 

the environment. This program started in 1998. 

f

Global Climate Change Research 

Program 

The goal of this program is to advance scientifically sound approaches for 

monitoring trends in ecological conditions of the nation's aquatic resources, 

including the Great Lakes. Program activities identify impaired watersheds 

and diagnose causes of degradation. This research program began in 

1975. 

f

Indian Environmental General 

Assistance Program 

This 1992 program assists federally recognized Indian tribes and nations to 

build their overall capacity to manage environmental programs and conduct 

activities. 

f

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System 

The goal of this program is to assure that U.S. waters remain fishable, 

swimmable, and drinkable, through regulating point source discharges to 

surface water. The program ensures that discharges do not cause or 

contribute to a violation of water quality standards. This program started in 

1972 and is largely delegated to states. 

f

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

restoration and pollution prevention program started in 1987. 

f

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 

Program 

This program was created in 1980 to conduct several activities related to 

PCBs. These activities include reviewing and tracking projects involving 

the remediation, storage, and disposal of PCBs; conducting inspections to 

determine compliance with federal PCB regulations; and conducting 

projects for reducing the use of PCBs. This program includes cleanup and 

pollution prevention. 

f

Pollution Prevention (P2) 

Demonstration Grants 

This program provides grants for capacity building and for innovative 

pollution prevention projects, especially those projects having potential 

for regional impacts. Funded projects include supporting the Great 

Lakes regional P2 roundtable, providing technical assistance, and 

coordinating P2 partnerships. This pollution prevention program began 

in 1993. 

f

Pollution Prevention for States 

Grant Program 

The goal of this grant program is to promote strategies and solutions 

that assist businesses and industries in reducing waste at the source. 

The majority of grants fund state-based projects in areas of technical 

assistance and training, education and outreach, regulatory integration, 

data collection and research, demonstration projects, and recognition 

programs. This pollution prevention program began in 1991. 

f

Public Water Supply Program The purpose of this program is to ensure that clean and safe 

drinking water is provided to the public. This program was created in 

1974. 

f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 69 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) Brownfields 

The goal of the program is to encourage re-use of properties that have 

been stigmatized by the presence of, or perception of, environmental 

contamination. This restoration program began in 1998. 

f

RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement and 

Compliance Program 

This program provides for the on-site evaluation and inspection of 

hazardous waste sites to enforce compliance with regulations designed for 

protecting human health and the environment and conserving valuable 

material and energy resources. This program, started in 1976, involves 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. 

f

RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste 

Management Program Support 

This program assists state governments in the development and 

implementation of an authorized state hazardous waste management 

program for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, 

storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Funding first began in 1978. 

f

RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action 

Program 

The goals of this program are evaluating the potential environmental risk 

impacts from RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities, ensuring 

adequate facility investigation, ensuring cleanup of contaminants, and 

managing facilities’ long-term controls for the protection of human health 

and the environment. This cleanup and restoration program started in 

1980. 

f

RCRA Subtitle C Permitting The purpose of this program is to issue permits that allow for monitoring 

the handling of hazardous waste to ensure better waste management 

and restoration of contaminated waste sites through a regulated 

permitting program. This program started in 1980, and it addresses 

restoration and pollution prevention in accordance with RCRA 

regulations. 

f

RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste 

Management Assistance 

Program/Jobs Through Recycling 

Initiative 

The purpose of this program is to promote use of integrated solid waste 

management systems to solve municipal solid waste generation and 

management problems at the local, regional, and national levels. The 

program provides assistance to state, local, and tribal governments and 

organizations to increase waste diversion from landfills and incinerators. 

This pollution prevention program started in 1976. 

f

RCRA Subtitle D Tribal Solid Waste 

Assistance Grants 

This 1993 program was created to assist tribes to achieve solid waste 

management and promote compliance with the provisions of RCRA Subtitle 

D. This is a cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention program. 

f

RCRA Subtitle I Underground 

Storage Tanks and Leaking 

Underground Storage Tanks 

This program regulates the use of underground storage tanks and requires 

cleanup of releases and spills. This cleanup program started in 1989. 

f

Regional Geographic Initiative 

(RGI)/Environmental Priorities 

Program (EPP) 

The purpose of RGI is to (1) fund projects that are identified as high 

priority, (2) support geographic place-based projects, (3) address 

multimedia problems, and (4) highlight agency priorities and strategies. 

The purpose of EPP is to fund projects or purchases that aid in 

environmental protection. These activities were started in 1994, 

and they include research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution 

prevention. 

$6,753,937t

State and Tribal Environmental 

Justice (EJ) Program 

This program was created to provide capacity building financial assistance 

to states and tribes that are working to address EJ issues. This program 

started in 1998. 

f

Superfund The goal of this program is to protect human health and the environment 

from risks associated with abandoned hazardous waste sites and to 

respond to hazardous substance spill emergencies. The primary focus of 

the program is the assessment and remediation of long-term cleanups. 

This cleanup program was created in 1980. 

$749,149,250u
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 70 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Total Maximum Daily Load Program The purpose of this 1973 program is to identify waters not meeting state 

water quality standards, and for those waters, calculate the maximum 

amount of a pollutant the water can receive and still meet water quality 

standards. This is a restoration program according to EPA officials. 

f

Tribal Solid Waste Assistance 

Grants 

This 1993 program was created to assist tribes in solid waste management 

and promote compliance with the provisions of RCRA Subtitle D. This is a 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention program. 

f

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

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

f

Waste Pesticide Collection Program 

(Agricultural Clean Sweep or Waste 

Pesticide Disposal) 

This pollution prevention program achieves reductions in persistent 

bioaccumulative toxins and prevents contamination of air, soil, and water 

resources by safely disposing of pesticides. This program started in 1988. 

$194,000j

Water Quality Management 

Planning 

The purpose of this program, which began in 1972, is to promote the 

enhancement of water quality through water quality management planning. 

This program involves both restoration and pollution prevention. 

f

Water Quality Standards Program The purpose of this program is to support efforts to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by defining 

the uses to be protected and the water quality conditions needed to protect 

these uses. 

f

Wetlands The goal of this 1972 program is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Wetland 

Program Development Grants are designed to assist state, tribal, and local 

government agencies in building their wetland management programs. 

$129,000v

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

a

Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column represent program federal fiscal year 

expenditures. 

b

Funding represents fiscal years 1998 through 2001. 

c

Funding represents fiscal years 1997 through 2001. 

d

Funding represents fiscal years 1994 through 2001. 

e

Funding is for all Great Lakes states, except for Pennsylvania. Figures were only available for fiscal 

years 1999 and 2000. 

f

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

g

Funding amounts are for the Huron-Manistee, Ottawa, and Hiawatha Forests, all of which are entirely 

within the Great Lakes Basin. There is additional funding within the basin, but the precise amount 

could not be determined. 

h

Funding represents fiscal years 2000 and 2001. 

i

Funding represents fiscal year 2001. 

j

Funding represents fiscal years 1993 through 2001. 

k

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

l

Funding is for fiscal years 1995 to 2001. Support totaling $47.9 million has come in from additional 

sources over the same time frame. All Sea Grant programs and projects are matched to at least the 

50 percent level by nonfederal funds from academia, state agencies, industry, or other sources. 

m

Funding represents fiscal years 1995 through 2001. 

n

Funding represents fiscal years 1999 through 2001. 
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 71 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

o

Funding represents base funding. Department of Interior provides approximately $850,000 more in 

competitive funding annually. 

p

This funding is for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 and it was provided by several different sources, 

including the program’s specific funding authority. 

q

Funding for this program came from the Department of Defense. 

r

Funding amounts are appropriated funds. 

s

Funding is approximate. The agency did not respond to our survey, so the figures were obtained 

from the report entitled The Great Lakes at the Millennium: Priorities for Fiscal 2001, prepared by the 

Northeast-Midwest Institute. 

t

Funding amount is for Region 2 and Region 5. 

u

Funding amount is for Region 3 and Region 5. 

v

Funding amount is for Region 2 only. 
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 72 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Table 6 contains a listing of the non-Great Lakes specific programs 

managed by state agencies. 

Table 6: State Non-Great Lakes Specific Programs 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

Lake and River Enhancement 

Program 

This program started in 1987, and it funds restoration activities by 

providing technical and financial assistance for projects that reduce 

nonpoint source sediment and nutrient pollution in Indiana's and 

adjacent state's surface waters. 

b

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

Michigan State University Forestry 

Department Dendroremediation 

This is a research program administered by Michigan State 

University. The project began in fiscal year 2000 and funds 

activities to determine the existence of woody plants, especially 

native species that would be useful for various approaches to the 

remediation of heavy metals in soil and/or groundwater. The 

program also looked to determine whether plants adapted to 

growing on a site with elevated heavy metals in soils results 

in greater tolerance for, and ability to takeup, heavy metals. 

$594,888

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (MBWSR) 

Comprehensive Local Water 

Planning Challenge Grant Program 

The challenge grant program began in 1989, and it funds priority 

projects identified by local governments in their local water plans. 

It funds restoration activities by providing financial and technical 

assistance to counties for development and implementation of local 

water plans. 

$428,732c

Erosion, Sediment Control, and 

Water Quality Cost-Share Program 

This program was initiated in 1977, and it provides funds to soil 

and water conservation districts for cost-sharing conservation 

projects that protect and improve water quality by controlling 

soil erosion and reducing sedimentation. This restoration 

program provides technical and financial assistance to 

landowners who install permanent nonproduction-oriented 

practices to protect and improve soil and water resources. 

$1,293,298c

Lakeshore Engineering Program This program was created in 1991 to support local governments' 

large erosion control projects on Lake Superior shores by providing 

engineering assistance, education, and best management practices. 

Its activities relate to restoration and research to control erosion from 

private and public shorelines. 

$976,313d

Local Water Planning and Wetland 

Conservation Act 

This block grant program began in 1985 to assist local 

governments in implementing four state-mandated programs. 

Water planning grants are available for restoration activities 

related to implementing comprehensive water plans and the 

local administration of grants. 

$3,205,505e

Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC) 

Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup 

Fund (Petrofund) 

The petrofund program was created in 1987 to fund the 

replacement or upgrade of all underground petroleum storage tanks 

by 1998. The program provides financial assistance to owners and 

operators of petroleum storage tanks to assist in cleaning up 

contamination or replacing leaking tanks. Available program 

funding is capped at $1 million per project. 

$18,514,720f
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 73 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

Conservation Partnership Program This program was started in 1995 to provide grants to private 

organizations and local units of government for activities related to 

restorations of fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats. The program also 

funds research to improve fish and wildlife habitats. 

b 

Environmental Partnership Grant 

Program 

This grant program was initiated in 1997 to provide funding for private 

companies and local governments for research, cleanup, pollution 

prevention, and education projects that deal with environmental 

conservation principles. 

b

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

Basin Planning MPCA created this program in 1995 to coordinate water management 

efforts around the state's 10 major drainage basins by focusing financial 

and staff resources upon key water resource management priorities. The 

program provides support to local and state agencies and citizen groups 

to develop watershed plans for making sound resource management 

decisions. Program activities included research, cleanup, restoration, 

and pollution prevention. 

$175,000g

Clean Water Partnership The program was created in 1987 to fund activities related to runoff 

from agricultural and urban areas. The program provides funds to 

local governments for projects that protect and improve lakes, 

streams, and groundwater resources in Minnesota. Funds can be 

requested for research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention 

projects. 

$2,613,798h

Minnesota Environmental Response 

and Liability Act 

This is Minnesota's Superfund program. It was created in 1983 to fund 

activities related to investigating and cleaning up releases of hazardous 

substances or contaminants. As of 1989, the program's authority 

included funding to investigate and clean up contamination from 

agricultural chemicals. 

$864,410h

Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Program 

(Closed Landfill Program) 

This cleanup program was created in 1994 as an alternative to using the 

federal and state Superfund laws to address the cleanup and long-term 

maintenance of 106 closed municipal sanitary landfills in the state. Eight 

of these landfills are in the Lake Superior watershed. Funds are provided 

for cleanup activities only. 

$485,135i

Minnesota Mercury Initiative The purpose of this program is to help reduce mercury contamination in 

Minnesota fish. Because about 98 percent of mercury in Minnesota 

waters is due to air deposition, the state looked for ways to reduce 

mercury in the air. The program solicits voluntary mercury emission 

reductions from large companies. 

b

Voluntary Petroleum Investigation 

and Cleanup 

This program was created in 1996 to provide technical assistance and 

liability assurance to expedite and facilitate the development, transfer, 

and investigation and/or cleanup of property that is contaminated from 

petroleum products. MPCA provides technical oversight for this cleanup 

program. 

b

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) 

Clean Water and Clean Air Bond Act This program was established in 1996. It consolidates the funding 

application processes of several state agencies and programs with a 

focus on cleanup, restoration, water resource improvement, pollution 

prevention, nonpoint source abatement, aquatic habitat restoration, safe 

drinking water system improvement, solid waste management, and other 

environmental conservation efforts. 

$428,820,724j
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 74 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Environmental Protection Act and 

Fund 

The purpose of this program is to address the cleanup, restoration, 

historic preservation, land and open space conservation, and waterfront 

revitalization of New York watersheds. Proposed projects are reviewed 

under the consolidated bond application process. 

$97,154,829j

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

and Environmental Conservation 

Fund 

This program was created in 1972 to provide the necessary resources to 

support the state’s critical fish and wildlife conservation programs by 

focusing on the care, management, protection, and enlargement of fish 

and wildlife resources through research and restoration. Activities also 

include habitat improvement and enforcement. 

$2,500,000j

New York State Environmental 

Quality Protection Fund (Superfund) 

This program was started in 1980 in response to the federal Superfund. 

The state's Superfund program is focused on the investigation, 

emergency response, and enforcement of cleanups at hazardous waste 

sites. 

k

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) 

Dam Safety Created in 1963, the purpose of this regulatory program is to protect the 

citizens of Ohio from flooding due to dam failure. The program provides 

support to the owners of dams and residents in downstream areas by 

permitting the construction of new dams and dikes, approving repairs to 

existing dams and dikes, and responding to safety emergencies. 

b

Ground Water Resources This program was started in 1959, and it seeks to collect, maintain, 

interpret, and distribute information on the groundwater resources of 

Ohio in both the Lake Erie and Ohio River basins. Its basic purpose is to 

foster the development of groundwater as a viable and sustainable water 

supply for the citizens of the state. 

b

Hydraulic/Canal Operations This program was created during the 1800s to operate and maintain the 

watered portions of the historic Miami/Erie and Ohio/Erie Canals, 

including water supply distribution, storm water control, historic 

preservation and recreation. Residents and properties adjacent and 

downstream from the canal and reservoirs are protected from flooding 

through the operation of hydraulic structures. 

b

Pollution Abatement Cost Share Since 1979, this program has provided funding to landowners to assist in 

the installation of needed best management practices that abate animal 

waste pollution, soil erosion, or degradation of the state's waters by soil 

sediment. 

b

Water Inventory and Stream and 

Water Gauging 

The purpose of this program, created in 1959, is to collect, compile, 

analyze, and disseminate hydrologic and climatological data and 

information concerning all aspects of the hydrologic cycle, operate the 

statewide groundwater observation well network, and administer 

cooperative agreements with USGS for stream gauging and other water 

resource projects. 

b

Water Planning This program was created in 1959 to address the need for water supply 

planning on a regional and statewide basis. It also includes 

administering the Lake Erie and Ohio River basins’ diversion permit and 

consumptive use permit programs, water resource inventory, and the 

Lake Erie Basin Plan. 

b

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 

Clean Ohio Fund This program, which began in 2001, awards grants for cleanup and 

restoration of polluted areas and the preservation and conservation 

of green space and farmland. The first grant was not awarded 

until 2002. 

b
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 75 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) 

Growing Greener Grant Program This program began in 1999 to address critical concerns related to 

education and outreach, as well as wetland restoration, soil erosion and 

sedimentation controls, and creek assessments in Lake Erie tributaries. 

$700,000l

Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Program This program was created in 1980 to support studies of evasive species, 

bluff evaluations, and property preservation activities identified by the 

Office of the Great Lakes. 

$938,000m

Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC) 

Brownfields Grant Program This grant program began in 1998 to provide financial assistance for 

Brownfields redevelopment and related environmental remediation 

projects. It also funds associated environmental remediation activities 

with emphasis on cleanup and restoration. 

b

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

Dry Cleaner Fund This environmental response program was created in 1997 to provide 

financial assistance awards for reimbursement of certain eligible costs to 

investigate and remediate contamination from dry cleaning solvents at 

current and certain former dry cleaning facilities. Program efforts are 

focused on cleanup and restoration. 

b

Runoff Management Program This program began in 1998 and is aimed at abating urban and rural 

polluted runoff. Three components of the program include (1) 

implementation of the voluntary Priority Watershed/Lake Projects, (2) 

point source permitting of storm water and agricultural runoff sources, 

and (3) implementation of state regulatory performance standards. Its 

primary focus is research and cleanup. 

b

Site Assessment Grants This grant program was started in 2000 to provide local governments 

with grants to perform the initial investigation of contaminated properties 

and certain other eligible activities. Its focus is the restoration and 

cleanup of abandoned, idle, or underused industrial or commercial 

facilities and sites. 

b

State Funded Response Program 

(Environmental Repair) 

This is the state's version of the Superfund program, authorized in 1978, 

but not started until 1985. The program focuses on the cleanup and 

restoration of all types of hazardous substance sites, including 

unlicensed or abandoned sites, and can also be used to respond to 

hazardous substance spills. 

b

Sustainable Urban Development 

Zone Program 

This 1999 WDNR pilot program operates in cooperation with other state 

agencies and the cities of Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, 

and Beloit. It seeks to promote the use of financial incentives to clean 

up, restore, and redevelop contaminated properties in the five cities. 

Funds may be used to investigate environmental contamination and 

clean up Brownfields properties in the cities. 

$1,700,000n

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

a

Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column represent program state fiscal year 

expenditures. 

b

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

c

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

d

This amount was provided from 1993 through 2001. It includes total grant funds and 80 percent of 

the administrative salary costs for the engineer. 

e

This program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by local government. 
Appendix II: Federal and State Non-Great 

Lakes Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 

through 2001 

Page 76 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

f

These funds were spent in the Lake Superior watershed to clean up 628 sites. A 2 percent fee on 

bulk petroleum sales generates the funding. 

g

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

h

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

i

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

j

These funds were either expended or committed for Great Lakes Basin projects during the period 

1998 through 2001 (state fiscal year). 

k

Program officials could not identify the Great Lakes funding for this statewide program; however, 

responsible parties have provided more than $400 million for cleanup actions. 

l

Program funding covers state fiscal years1999 through 2001. 

m

This funding figure is for state fiscal year 2001 only. 

n

This amount was identified as the expenditure during state fiscal years 2000 and 2001 by three of 

the cities. It is not total Great Lakes spending. 
Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special 

Authorized Projects in the Great Lakes Basin, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 

Page 77 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

State Project title Program description Amount

Illinois 

 Des Plaines River, Ill. Flood damage reduction - The purpose of this project was to 

develop measures to reduce or prevent damage from flooding 

to areas, such as reservoirs, and levees; make channel 

modifications; remove threatened structures from flood-prone 

areas; and enhance flood plain management. 

$2,496,507

 Kankakee River Basin Flood damage reduction 1,591,856

 Illinois Shore Erosion Stream bank and shoreline protection – This project was 

designed to protect public structures or facilities from damages 

caused by stream bank erosion or flooding caused by waves 

from coastal storms, to include hardened protective structures. 

254,177

 Chicago River North Branch 

1946 

Navigation improvements – These projects may involve new 

channels and structures, such as breakwaters and piers or 

modifications to existing navigation facilities, such as 

deepening or lengthening navigation channel. 

64,100

 Southeast Chicago, Ill. Flood damage reduction 595,800

 Waukegan Harbor, Ill. Flood damage reduction 338,128

 Casino Beach, Ill. Erosion control – The purpose of this project is providing 

erosion control. 

2,111,815

 Illinois Beach State Park Ecosystem restoration – These projects seek to restore, 

protect, or enhance aquatic habitat, such as wetlands and 

spawning areas, and include efforts to restore degraded lakes 

and rivers, remove contamination, and provide natural 

vegetation. 

160,640

 McCook & Thornton Reservoir Flood damage reduction 32,770,600

 Kankakee River Icebreaker Flood damage reduction 9,200

 North Branch Chicago River Flood damage reduction 6,754,844

 O'Hare Reservoir Flood damage reduction 28,088,930

 Chicago Shoreline Streambank and shoreline protection 93,824,976

 Illinois & Michigan Canal Navigation improvements 307,100

 Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Ecosystem restoration 1,778,721

 Des Plaines Wetlands Project Flood damage reduction 183,308

 $171,330,702

Indiana 

Beauty Creek Watershed, Ind. Flood damage reduction $95,900

Deep River Basin, Ind. Flood damage reduction 68,600

Long Lake, Ind. Ecosystem restoration 75,000

Hammond, Ind. Streambank and shoreline protection 42,000

Little Calumet River Basin, 

Dyer, Ind. 

Flood damage reduction 

310,700

Little Calumet River Basin 

Township 

Flood damage reduction 

82,900

Lake George Flood damage reduction 1,117,300

Little Calumet River, Cady 

Marsh Ditch 

Flood damage reduction 1,355,588

Indiana Shore Erosion Erosion control 8,239,944

Little Calumet River Flood damage reduction 78,770,000

Indiana Harbor CDF Navigation improvements 1,297,300

Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special 

Authorized Projects in the Great Lakes Basin, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 
Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special 

Authorized Projects in the Great Lakes Basin, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 

Page 78 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

State Project title Program description Amount

Burns Waterway Harbor, Ind. Navigation improvements 13,384,194

Calumet Region, Ind.a Environmental infrastructure 58,903

Wolf Lake, Ind. Ecosystem restoration 98,700

Fort Wayne Metro Area, Ind. Flood damage reduction 33,944,000

 $138,941,029

Michigan 

Clinton River Spillway, Mich. Flood damage reduction $2,403,300

Cedar River Harbor, Mich. Navigation improvements 193,000

Great Lakes Connecting 

Channels & Harbors, Mich. 

Navigation improvements 300,800

Great Lakes Connecting 

Channels & Harbors 

Replacement Lock, Mich. 

Navigation improvements 2,740,000

 $5,637,100

Minnesota 

Silver Bay Harbor, Minn. Navigation improvements $2,600,100

Knife River Harbor, Minn. Navigation improvements 116,000

Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn. 

& Wisc. 

Navigation improvements 

645,400

 $3,361,500

New York 

New York State Barge Canal Navigation improvements $25,479

Onondaga Lake, N.Y.a

 Environmental infrastructure 4,169,999

Onondaga Lake, N.Y. 

PL 101-596 

Environmental infrastructure 2,864,213

Olcott Harbor, N.Y. Navigation improvements 1,056,243

Buffalo Flood and Water 

Quality 

Environmental infrastructure 435,987

Ellicott Creek, N.Y. Flood damage reduction 131,307

Oneida Lake, N.Y. The purpose of this project is ecosystem restoration and flood 

damage reduction. 

68,881

Hamlin and Lakeside Beach 

State Park 

Stream bank and shoreline protection 47,887

 $8,799,996

Ohio 

Cleveland Harbor Recon 

Study 

Navigation improvements $292,994

Cleveland Harbor Phase I Navigation improvements 4,001,960

Reno Beach, Howard Farms Flood damage reduction 4,357,730

Ottawa River, Ohio Navigation improvements 183,000

Ohio Infrastructurea

 Environmental infrastructure 160,840

Maumee River, Ohio Flood damage reduction 102,037

Western Lake Erie Basin The purpose of this project is flood damage reduction and 

ecosystem restoration. 

67,164

Cayuga Creek Watershed Flood damage reduction 25,868

Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio Flood damage reduction 71,722

 $9,263,315
Appendix III: Corps of Engineers Special 

Authorized Projects in the Great Lakes Basin, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2001 

Page 79 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

State Project title Program description Amount

Pennsylvania 

Presque Isle, Penn. Permanent Stream bank and shoreline protection $15,295,637

Erie Harbor, East Canal Basin, 

Penn. 

Environmental infrastructure 5,480,000

 $20,775,637

Wisconsin 

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

Total $358,109,279

Sources: Corps of Engineers and GAO. 

a

 According to the Corps, this special project was authorized as an open-ended project without a 

stated expiration time frame. Project funding could be appropriated several years into the future. 
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 80 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Table 7 contains a listing of the federal programs that specifically fund 

activities in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Table 7: Federal Great Lakes Specific Programs 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Army Corps of Engineers 

Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem 

Restoration 

The purpose of this fiscal year 2000 program, which began in 2002, 

is to plan, design, and construct projects to restore Great Lakes 

fisheries and their beneficial uses. 

b

 

Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and 

Sediment Remediation 

This program was started in 1990 to plan, design, and construct 

research demonstration projects of promising technologies for 

contaminated sediment remediation. 

c

 

Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and 

Sediment Remediation Support 

This program, which was authorized in 1990, is designed to provide 

technical support focused on the development and implementation 

of remedial action plans to clean up the Great Lakes' areas of 

concern. 

$2,595,600d

Great Lakes Tributary Models This program was created in 1996. Its purpose is to develop 

computer models of sediment loading and transport to Great Lakes 

tributaries to support state and local conservation and pollution 

prevention activities. 

$1,103,424 

Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion 

and Sediment Control 

Originally authorized in 1936, the program, as amended, funds 

pollution prevention projects that improve Great Lakes water quality 

by promoting soil erosion and sediment control through information 

and education programs, grants, technical assistance, and coalition 

building. 

$3,625,000e

Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Episodic Events, Great Lakes Experiment This research program began in 1997 to create a modeling program 

for seasonal sediment resuspension. It assesses the (1) impact on 

transporting and the transformation of chemically important 

materials and (2) effect on Lake Michigan ecology. 

$3,792,000f

Great Lakes Environmental Research 

Laboratory 

This program was established in 1970 and established the Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory to conduct physical, 

chemical, and environmental modeling research and to provide 

scientific expertise and services to manage and protect 

ecosystems. 

$63,401,000g

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

Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research 

Program 

This is a community-based research program that began in 1992, 

with emphasis on public health education and intervention 

strategies. Its goal is to prohibit exposure to toxic chemicals and 

prevent adverse health outcomes in citizens of the Great Lakes. 

$24,400,000h

Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service 

1836 Fisheries Treaty - Implementation of 

the August 7, 2000 Consent Decree 

This program was mandated in 2000 by a Federal District Court 

decree. It requires FWS to increase lake trout stocking for 

restoration programs and to evaluate factors impeding lake trout 

restoration. It also provides technical assistance to five Native 

American tribes in the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority, the 

State of Michigan, and selected federal agencies involved with 

managing sport and commercial fisheries in certain areas of Lakes 

$695,000 

Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 81 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Superior, Huron, and Michigan. 

Blue Pike Activities in the Great Lakes This is a research program that was started in 1993 to establish the 

scientific relationships among the original Lake Erie blue pike, the 

recently caught "blue walleyes," and other closely related species 

using genetic analysis of their DNA. 

i 

Ecosystem Management in the Lower Great 

Lakes 

This program was created in 1990 to develop and adopt aquatic 

community and habitat goals and objectives. It also develops and 

conducts comprehensive and standardized ecological monitoring to 

support ecosystem management. 

i 

Evaluation and Restoration of Great Lakes 

Estuaries and Tributaries 

The purpose of this program, which began in 1992, is to identify, 

inventory, protect, and rehabilitate significant aquatic habitats, 

including those used by fish and wildlife for spawning, breeding, 

nesting, rearing, and feeding. 

i 

Great Lakes Coastal Program This program, which began in 2000, funds projects that seek to 

protect and restore Great Lakes coastal ecosystems for the benefit 

of fish, wildlife, and people. Its goals are to identify and prioritize 

coastal habitats and conduct research to evaluate ecosystem 

health, identify threats, and lend biological focus to the planning 

processes of other agencies. 

$500,000j

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

Act 

Since 1991, this program has developed and implemented 

proposals for restoration of fish and wildlife resources in the Great 

Lakes Basin. It has provided assistance to the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission, states, Indian tribes, and others to encourage 

cooperative conservation, restoration, and management of the fish 

and wildlife resources and their habitats. 

$10,512,000k

Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation 

Program 

This program started in 1993, and it funds projects that seek to 

conserve, rehabilitate, and reestablish self-sustaining populations of 

lake sturgeon to levels that permit delisting from state and federal 

endangered species lists. Objectives include identification and 

restoration of critical habitat and public education. 

$246,650l

Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction 

Program 

This research program was started in 1993 to determine the 

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

Ontario watershed. 

i 

Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River American 

Eel Restoration Program 

This research program, which started in 1997, provides research 

funds to protect and enhance the abundance of American eel 

populations in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River watershed. 

i 

Lower Great Lakes Lake Trout Restoration 

Program 

The purpose of this program is to rehabilitate the lake trout 

population of Lakes Erie and Ontario so the new population can 

become self-sustaining through natural reproduction and produce a 

harvestable annual surplus. Program activities began in the late 

1970s. 

i 

Lower Great Lakes Ruffe Surveillance 

Program 

This 1993 program provides funding for surveillance of invasive 

species to ensure prompt detection of new populations of ruffe and 

monitor or track expansions of already existing populations. 

$241,439m

National Fish Hatchery System - Great 

Lakes Operations 

This program began operation in 1950 to manage, produce, and 

stock native coaster brook trout and lake trout from native Great 

Lakes strains. This program is part of the interagency restoration 

programs coordinated through the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission, and is based on a strategic plan for management of 

Great Lakes Fisheries. 

$18,205,000 
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 82 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

New York State Canal System Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Program 

This is a multifaceted program started in 1998. It includes various 

components to address aquatic invasive species issues within the 

Canal system. It seeks to work with partner agencies to detect, 

monitor, and manage populations of aquatic invasive species 

inhabiting or transiting the Canal and implement prevention 

strategies as appropriate. 

$221,342n

Department of Interior-National Park Service 

Midwest Region - Great Lakes Strategic Plan 

Activities 

The purpose of this 1993-initiated program is to foster research 

cooperation among state and federal agencies involved with natural 

resource issues of mutual interest. These issues include aquatic 

exotic species, such as the sea lamprey, shoreline stabilization and 

monitoring, bald eagle monitoring, near shore fisheries, beach 

nourishment and fecal coliform issues, air quality, and cultural 

resource issues. 

$6,127,000o

Environmental Protection Agency 

Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network This program, initiated in 1990, assesses the health of the Great 

Lakes ecosystem through a series of air-monitoring stations in 

cooperation with Canada. It provides information to measure the 

amounts of chemicals and toxic substances deposited into the 

Great Lakes through air deposition to establish trend analysis and 

cause/effect relationships. 

p

Coastal Environmental Management The purpose of this program, which started in 1991, is to provide 

grants that would assist in the preparation and implementation of 

lakewide management plans and remedial action plans for the 

areas of concern in the Great Lakes. This program addresses 

cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. 

$59,100,000 

Funding Guidance - Competitive Grants This is a grant program in which GLNPO, in concert with Regions 

2,3, and 5, funds a consortium of programs, agencies, and public 

and private institutions for reducing the level of toxic substances in 

the Great Lakes; protecting and restoring vital habitats; protecting 

human health; and restoring and maintaining stable, diverse, and 

self-sustaining populations. This program started in 1993, and it 

funds research, cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention 

activities. 

p

Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant Program The goals of the Great Lakes Air Deposition Grant Program are to 

(1) better understand the impacts of deposition of pollutants to all 

water bodies in the Great Lakes region, (2) ensure continued 

progress in reducing sources and loadings of atmospheric 

deposition to the Great Lakes region, and (3) reduce the 

environmental and public health impacts associated with air 

emissions and subsequent atmospheric deposition. This research 

program began in 1993. 

$11,135,500 

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy The purpose of this program, which started in 1997, is to reduce 

and eliminate persistent toxic substances, especially those that 

bioaccumulate, in the Great Lakes. The strategy uses pollution 

prevention as a preferred approach. Research and cleanup are 

also components of this program. 

p

Lakewide Management Plans The purpose of the program is to protect the Great Lakes from 

beneficial use impairments for the "open waters" of each lake and to 

develop strategies to improve the environmental health of the lake. 

This program, initiated in 1987, is a cleanup, restoration, and 

p
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 83 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

pollution prevention program. 

Monitoring Program The purpose of this research program, which began in 1975, is to 

assess the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes. Information is 

gathered to measure whole lake response to control measures 

using trend analysis and cause/effect relationships. 

p

Niagara River and New York State Areas of 

Concern 

The purpose of this program, started in 1987, is to restore and 

protect the beneficial uses in these areas of concern through a 

remedial action plan. Cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention 

are goals of this program. 

$2,086,250 

Niagara River Toxics Management Plan The purpose of this program is to reduce toxic chemical inputs to 

the Niagara River; achieve ambient water quality that will protect 

human health, aquatic life, and wildlife; and while doing so, improve 

and protect water quality in Lake Ontario. This program started in 

1987 with the goal of cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. 

$11,150,000 

RCRA Subtitle C State Program Support - 

Great Lakes Initiative 

The purpose of this program, started in 1992, is to assist states in 

developing and implementing an authorized state hazardous waste 

management program for the purpose of controlling the generation, 

transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

Cleanup and pollution prevention are the goals of this program. 

$22,009,710 

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference The purpose of this program, started in 1994, is to assess the 

ecosystem health of the Great Lakes and to provide information to 

measure whole lake response to control measures using trend 

analysis and cause/effect relationships. 

p

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

a

Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column represent program federal fiscal year 

expenditures. 

b

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

c

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

d

The program was first funded in 1994. 

e

The Great Lakes funding first began in 1994. 

f

The amount expended is for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. 

g

NOAA provides base funding for the facility, which averaged over $6.3 million during the 10-year 

period, but many other federal and state agencies also provide research funds to the laboratory. 

h

The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research project results would most likely be 

applicable both within and outside the basin. 

i

Funding to support this program comes from a portion of the annual allocation received by the lower 

Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office. The amount received from 1992 through 2001 was 

$2,770,450. 

j

Funding is for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 only. 

k

According to FWS, the authorizing act expires in 2004. 

l

Partial funding for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. 

m

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

n

Funding provided for fiscal years 1998 through 2001. 
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 84 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

o

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

p

This is a GLNPO program. Funding for GLNPO programs was not available individually. Total 

GLNPO funding for 1993-2001 is $143,400,000. 

q

Funding provided for fiscal years 1993-2001. 

Table 8 contains a listing of the state programs that specifically fund 

activities in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Table 8: State Great Lakes Specific Programs 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 

Illinois Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) The governors of the eight Great Lakes states created an 

endowment fund program in 1989. States contributed to the 

fund and received dividends to use for their Great Lakes projects. 

The Illinois GLPF program funds special studies and projects 

related to Great Lakes research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution 

prevention. The projects are selected as part of the states' budget 

process. 

$5,000,000 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

1988 Quality of Life Bond Fund This $660 million general obligation bond program was initiated 

in 1988 to finance environmental programs focused on cleanup 

of toxic and other contamination sites. It provided funds to 

address problems relating to solid waste, sewage treatment 

and water quality, reusing industrial sites, and preserving green 

space. Funded activities included research, cleanup, restoration, 

and pollution prevention. The program was replaced by the 

Clean Michigan Initiative in 1998. 

$492,000,000c

Clean Michigan Initiative Michigan voters approved this $675 million general obligation 

bond program for environmental activities in 1998 to replace the 

Quality of Life Bond Fund. It is used for cleanup, restoration, or 

pollution prevention projects, and a portion of the fund is 

available for parks and monitoring activities. 

$255,900,000d

Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund 

(GLPF) 

By mandate, Michigan's GLPF program only funds research 

projects undertaken by universities and for-profit groups in 

areas such as toxics and aquatic nuisance species. The 

research project agenda is determined each year by a MDEQ 

Technical Advisory Board and may be based on legislative 

direction, recommendations from MDEQ departments, 

or current environmental issues, such as ballast water. 

$5,199,601f

Part 201 Programs This is the state's version of the federal Superfund program 

that started in 1995. Its funding is provided by the state 

Cleanup and Redevelopment Fund, the Revitalization 

Revolving Loan Fund, the State Site Cleanup Fund, and the 

Municipal Landfill Cost-Share Grant Program. It can be used 

to fund research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution prevention. 

$169,000,000 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

Fisheries Research in Great Lakes and 

Inland Waters 

This program funds research projects on fisheries populations, 

habitats, and anglers. The Fisheries Division of MDEQ began 

e
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 85 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

funding this research in the 1930s, and overtime it has grown in 

scope, with Great Lakes fisheries research stations opening in the 

early 1970s. 

Minnesota State Planning Agency (MSPA) 

Minnesota Great Lakes Protection Fund 

(GLPF) 

By state statute, funds from Minnesota's GLPF can only be spent 

to protect water quality in the Great Lakes. Grants are awarded to 

finance projects that advance goals of the binational Toxic 

Substances Control Agreement and Water Quality Agreement. 

Projects involve research, cleanup, restoration, or pollution 

prevention activities. 

$987,000g

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) 

New York Great Lakes Protection Fund 

(GLPF) 

New York's GLPF program provides for overall intra- and interstate 

coordination and planning of the state's Great Lakes programs, 

and is a source of grants for research, data collection, technology 

development, policy analysis, and public outreach. 

$1,494,053h

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) 

Great Lakes Charter Programs This suite of programs was created in response to the charter 

agreement signed by the Great Lakes governors. The purpose of 

this 1985 initiated program is to administer the Lake Erie-Ohio 

River Basin diversion and consumptive use permit programs called 

for under the charter. The program includes a water resource 

inventory and the Lake Erie Basin plans. Program funds support 

restoration, planning, and protection activities. 

$600,000 

Shore Structure Permit Program Created in the 1930s, this program was transferred to ODNR in 

1949 to assist coastal residents and communities in the proper 

design and construction of structures intended to control erosion, 

wave action, and flooding along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie. 

Program officials review construction permits for shore structures 

and provide technical assistance to shoreline property owners as it 

relates to structures involving shoreline erosion, lake access, and 

coastal flooding. 

i 

Submerged Lands Leasing This program, which was established in 1917, reviews lease 

applications for the proposed and existing occupation of 

submerged lands by structures along the coast of Lake Erie. 

Leasing submerged land enables the state to manage the public 

trust and protect the rights of shoreline property owners. It 

provides technical assistance to shoreline property owners 

regarding shoreline erosion and lake access structures as it 

relates to flooding and erosion. 

$2,084,296j

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 

Ohio Lake Erie Commission/Lake Erie 

Protection Fund (Ohio Great Lakes 

Protection Fund - GLPF) 

The Ohio GLPF program provides grants to fund research, support 

cleanup and restoration efforts, and educate nonprofit, 

government, or public entities seeking to protect or enhance Lake 

Erie. 

$6,943,894 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) 

Pennsylvania Great Lakes Protection Fund 

(GLPF) 

The Pennsylvania GLPF provides grants to fund education, 

research, and monitoring activities. 

$253,721 

Pennsylvania's Office of the Great Lakes This program began in 1995 and was created as the focal point for 

research, restoration, cleanup, and pollution prevention activities 

affecting the Great Lakes. This office works with other PDEP 

$700,000k
Appendix IV: Federal and State Great Lakes 

Specific Programs, Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2001 

Page 86 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Program name Purpose 

Program 

expenditures 

(1992-2001)a

offices that provide the projects’ funding. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

Great Lakes Harbors and Bays Restoration 

Funding 

This 1990 initiated program allows DNR to conduct activities to 

cleanup or restore environmental areas that are adjacent to, or a 

tributary of Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, if the activities are 

included in remedial action plans approved by the department. 

$2,316,271 

Wisconsin Great Lakes Protection Fund 

(GLPF) 

The Wisconsin GLPF program provides funds to municipalities and 

other governmental units, groups, nonprofit organizations, 

universities and others for various projects. Funds are used for (1) 

implementing activities included in remedial action plans, (2) 

restoring or protecting fish and wildlife habitats in or adjacent to 

Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, or (3) planning or providing 

information related to cleaning up or protecting the Great Lakes. 

$2,224,914 

Great Lakes Salmon and Trout Stamp 

Program 

This program was created in 1982 to provide funding for projects 

pertaining to Great Lakes fish stocking programs. The stocking 

program activities include evaluation, research, or species 

propagation. 

$11,150,000l

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

a

Unless otherwise noted, the funding figures in this column represent program state fiscal year 

expenditures. 

b

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

c

This represents funds expended between 1992 and 1997. After 1997, projects were funded from the 

Clean Michigan Initiative program. 

d

Clean Michigan Program expenditures were from 1999 through 2001. 

e

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

f

This figure represents the amount expended for research grants from 1997 through 2001. Grant 

expenditure data were not readily available for earlier years. 

g

Project funds were first awarded in 1995. Of the amount shown, $537,000 was provided by the 

GLPF, and the other $450,000 in project costs was provided by other state funding sources. 

h

The program is considered Great Lakes specific, but research project results are primarily applicable 

only within New York’s Great Lakes Basin. 

i

Funds were not available for this program. 

j

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

k

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

provided. 

l

Annual expenditures were estimated, but this figure represents total expenditures during the period 

1992 through 2001. 
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 87 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 88 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 89 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 90 GAO-03-515 Great Lakes 

John Wanska (312) 220-7628 

In addition to the name above, Willie Bailey, Heather Holsinger, Stephanie 

Luehr, Karen Keegan, Jonathan McMurray, and Rosemary Torres Lerma 

made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360170) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs