Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Some Information on Projects and Progress Made Available to Congress and the Public
Published: 2015-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Great Lakes, which contain much of North America's freshwater supply, provide economic and recreational benefits to millions of people. They face significant stresses, however, that have caused ecological and economic damage. Decades of industrial activity in the region, for example, left a legacy of contamination that resulted in the United States and Canada identifying, since 1987, 43 Areas of Concern.
The GLRI was created in 2010 to, according to EPA, accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. It is overseen by a Task Force of 11 federal agencies that is chaired by the EPA. EPA was directed, in a conference report, to develop a restoration action plan, establish a process to ensure monitoring and reporting on progress, and provide detailed yearly accomplishments.
This testimony is based on GAO reports issued in September 2013 and July 2015. It focuses on (1) GLRI funding, action plans, and reports; (2) the process used to identify GLRI work and funding; and (3) information available about GLRI project activities and results. For the 2015 report, GAO reviewed a sample of 19 GLRI projects funded by the five Task Force agencies that received the majority of GLRI funds, among other things.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As GAO reported in July 2015, of the $1.68 billion in federal funds made available for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in fiscal years 2010 through 2014, nearly all had been allocated as of January 2015. Of the $1.66 billion allocated, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the other 10 Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (Task Force) agencies expended $1.15 billion for 2,123 projects (see fig.).
____________________________________________________________________
Status of GLRI Funds, FY 2010-2014
Task Force agencies can either conduct work themselves or enter into financial agreements, such as grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts with others, such as federal entities; state, local, and tribal entities; nongovernmental organizations; and academic institutions. To guide restoration work, EPA and the Task Force have developed two consecutive multiyear restoration action plans. EPA also created a process to ensure monitoring and reporting on the progress of the GLRI, and EPA and the Task Force issued three accomplishment reports.
The process to identify each agency's GLRI work and funding has evolved to emphasize interagency discussion. In fiscal year 2012, the Task Force created subgroups to discuss and identify work on three issues: cleaning up severely degraded locations, called Areas of Concern; preventing and controlling invasive, aquatic species that cause extensive ecological and economic damage; and reducing nutrient runoff from agricultural areas. EPA officials said that the Task Force created additional subgroups to identify all GLRI work and funding in 2015.
In July 2015, GAO found that the Task Force has made some information about GLRI project activities and results available to Congress and the public in three accomplishment reports and on its website. In addition, the individual Task Force agencies collect information on activities and results, although this information is not collected and reported by EPA. Of the 19 projects GAO reviewed, 8 reported results directly linked to restoration, such as improved methods for capturing sea lamprey, an invasive species that can kill up to about 40 pounds of fish in its lifetime. The remaining 11 reported results that can be indirectly linked to restoration; that is, the results may contribute to restoration over time. These included results such as simulations and data for helping decision makers make better restoration decisions in light of climate change, as well as education and outreach tools to increase awareness of invasive species.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommended in 2013 that EPA improve assessments of GLRI progress, among other things. EPA agreed and has taken several actions. GAO is not making any recommendations in this testimony.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today as you consider the Great Lakes  Restoration Initiative  (GLRI) and its role in restoring the health of the  Great Lakes ecosystem. Millions  of people in the United States and  Canada depend  on the Great Lakes—the largest system of freshwater in  the world, containing much of North America’s freshwater supply—as a  source of drinking  water, recreation, and economic livelihood.  Over the  last several decades, the Great Lakes Basin, including the five Great  Lakes—Superior, Michigan,  Huron, Ontario, and Erie—has proven  vulnerable  to the effects of toxic and other pollutants resulting from  industrial and agricultural activities. In addition, more than 180 nonnative  aquatic species have become established in the Great Lakes, some of  which have caused extensive ecological and economic damage. The  discovery of Asian carp near waterways connected to the lakes  threatens  to increase this problem. The GLRI was created in fiscal year 2010, after  the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request included a new  interagency initiative  to accelerate Great Lakes restoration by addressing  regional issues, such as water quality contamination and invasive species  that continue to threaten the health of the Great Lakes  ecosystem. It is  overseen by the Great Lakes  Interagency Task Force (Task Force), which  is chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) and made up of senior officials from EPA, nine federal  departments, and the Council on Environmental Quality. According to the  Task Force, the GLRI was created to accelerate efforts to protect and  restore the Great Lakes.
When Congress made funds available for the GLRI in fiscal year 2010,  the conference report accompanying the appropriations act directed EPA  to take several actions, including to (1) develop a comprehensive,  multiyear restoration action plan for fiscal years 2011-2014, (2) establish  a process that ensures monitoring and reporting on progress of the GLRI,  and (3) provide detailed yearly program accomplishments beginning in  2011. EPA is authorized to transfer GLRI funds to any federal agency to  carry out activities in support of the program. EPA enters into agreements  with the Task Force agencies identifying the funds to be transferred and  describing the work to be done. To use GLRI funds on restoration  activities, Task Force agencies conduct work themselves or enter into  financial agreements, such as grants, cooperative agreements, or  contracts, with other groups to perform specific projects. Recipients of  GLRI funds can include federal entities; state, local, or tribal entities;  nongovernmental organizations; academic institutions; and others such  as agricultural producers.
My statement today focuses on (1) GLRI funding, action plans to guide  the activities of the GLRI, process to ensure monitoring and reporting,  and accomplishment reports; (2) the process used to identify GLRI work  and funding; and (3) information available about GLRI project activities  and results. This testimony is based on reports we issued in September  2013 and July 2015. To conduct our work, we reviewed GLRI  agreements between the Task Force agencies and agencies’ policies and  guidance on financial agreements. We also interviewed officials  representing the Task Force agencies. We focused primarily on the five  Task Force agencies that received the majority—about 85 percent—of  GLRI funds made available in fiscal years 2010 through 2014. These  agencies were EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Natural Resources  Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (Corps). To examine information available about GLRI project activities  and results for the 2015 report, we analyzed GLRI accomplishment  reports, the GLRI website, and project documents for a nonprobability  sample of 19 projects funded by the five Task Force agencies. In most  cases, EPA, FWS, NOAA, and NRCS require their grant recipients to  submit quarterly, semiannual, or annual progress reports, and quarterly or  annual financial reports, consistent with the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) circulars in effect at the time of the agreements. In  addition, the Task Force agencies that used contracts—the Corps and  NOAA—require their contractors to submit progress reports. More details  on the scope and methodology for this work can be found in each of our  issued reports.
The work upon which this statement is based was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Great Lakes Basin covers approximately 300,000 square miles,  encompassing Michigan and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New  York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian province of  Ontario (see fig. 1), as well as lands that are home to more than 40  Native American tribes. It includes the five Great Lakes and a large land  area that extends beyond the Great Lakes, including their watersheds,  tributaries, and connecting channels.
Numerous environmental stressors threaten the health of the Great Lakes  and adjacent land within the Great Lakes Basin. Decades of industrial  activity in the region have left a legacy of contamination, such as from  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), in the sediments that make up the beds  of rivers and harbors in the Great Lakes Basin. In 1987, the United States  and Canada identified a list of 43 severely degraded locations in the  Great Lakes Basin as Areas of Concern—26 of which are located entirely  in the United States; 5, shared by the United States and Canada; and 12,  located entirely in Canada. As of May 2015, 4 of the Areas of Concern  located entirely in the United States had been delisted, or removed, from  the binational list. In addition, the fertile soil in the surrounding states  makes them highly productive agricultural areas, resulting in large  amounts of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen—as well as  sediment, pesticides, and other chemicals—running off into the Great  Lakes. Moreover, large population centers on both sides of the U.S. and  Canadian border use the Great Lakes to discharge wastewater from  treatment plants, which also introduces nutrients into the Great Lakes.  Even with progress in reducing the amount of phosphorus in the lakes in  the 1970s, harmful algal blooms are once again threatening the Great  Lakes Basin.
The United States has long recognized the threats facing the Great Lakes  and has developed agreements and programs to support restoration  actions. For example, in 1972, the United States and Canada signed the  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to restore, protect, and enhance  the water quality of the Great Lakes to promote the ecological health of  the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, in 2002, the Great Lakes Legacy Act  authorized EPA to carry out sediment remediation projects in the 31  Areas of Concern located entirely or partially in the United States, among  other things. In 2004, the Task Force agencies collaborated with  governors, mayors, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations in the  Great Lakes region in an effort referred to as the Great Lakes Regional  Collaboration, which led to the development in 2005 of the Great Lakes  Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great  Lakes. More than 1,500 individuals participated in this effort. In 2009,  the President created the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee  to coordinate efforts to prevent Asian carp from spreading and becoming  established.
Even with these actions, the Great Lakes are environmentally vulnerable.  In 2009, the President proposed $475 million in his fiscal year 2010  budget request for a new interagency initiative to accelerate the  restoration of the Great Lakes. Specifically, the President requested that  EPA and its federal partners coordinate state, tribal, local, and industry  actions to protect, maintain, and restore the integrity of the Great Lakes.  Most recently, in 2015, multiple bills to authorize the GLRI were  introduced in the House and Senate. Some of these bills, if enacted,  would authorize $300 million to be appropriated annually to carry out the  GLRI for fiscal years 2016 through 2020.
section_title: EPA Made Funding Available to a Range of Recipients, Guided Activities through a GLRI Action Plan, Created a Monitoring Process, and Issued Accomplishment Reports
paragraphs: When Congress made funds available for the GLRI in fiscal year 2010,  the conference report accompanying the appropriations act directed EPA  to develop a comprehensive, multiyear restoration action plan for fiscal  years 2011 through 2014, to establish a process to ensure monitoring and  reporting on the progress of the GLRI, and to provide detailed, yearly  program accomplishments beginning in 2011.
subsections: section_title: GLRI Funding
paragraphs: As discussed in our July 2015 report, in fiscal years 2010 through 2014,  $1.68 billion of federal funds was made available for the GLRI, and as of  January 2015, EPA had allocated nearly all of the funds, about $1.66  billion. Also, as of January 2015, Task Force agencies had expended  $1.15 billion for 2,123 projects (see fig. 2). GLRI funds are available for  obligation for the fiscal year the appropriation was made and the  successive fiscal year. After these 2 fiscal years of availability,  GLRI  funds can be used for 7 additional years to expend and adjust those  obligations.
Task Force agencies conduct GLRI work themselves or by awarding  funds to recipients through financial agreements, such as grants,  cooperative agreements, or contracts. Potential recipients of GLRI funds  include federal entities; state, local, or tribal entities; nongovernmental  organizations; academic institutions; and others, such as for-profit  entities, agricultural producers, or private landowners. A single GLRI  project can involve multiple funding recipients. Table 1 shows the number  of projects funded with GLRI funds made available in fiscal years 2010  through 2013 by the five agencies we reviewed in our 2015 report and  type of recipient, as of July 2014. The type of GLRI funding recipients  vary depending on the agency and financial agreements involved. For  example, NOAA has entered into agreements with a variety of recipient  types, with the exception of private landowners and agricultural  producers. Funding recipients are responsible for reporting information to  their funding agencies about the progress of their GLRI projects.
section_title: GLRI Action Plans
paragraphs: As discussed in our September 2013 and July 2015 reports, in response  to the conference report’s direction to develop a multiyear restoration  action plan, in February 2010, the Task Force published the Fiscal Years  2010 to 2014 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan (2010-2014  Action Plan) to guide the activities of the GLRI for those years. The  2010-2014 Action Plan was organized into five focus areas that,  according to the Task Force agencies, encompassed the most significant  environmental problems in the Great Lakes: (1) toxic substances and  Areas of Concern; (2) invasive species; (3) nearshore health and  nonpoint source pollution; (4) habitat and wildlife protection and  restoration; and (5) accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation,  communication, and partnerships.
For each focus area, the 2010-2014 Action Plan included long-term goals,  objectives to be completed within the 5-year period covered by the plan,  and measures of progress—28 in total—that were designed to ensure  that efforts are on track to meet the long-term goals. Each of the 28  measures included annual targets for fiscal years 2010 to 2014. The  Task Force issued an updated Action Plan for 2015 to 2019 (2015-2019  Action Plan) in September 2014 to guide the GLRI for those years. The  updated plan retains four of the focus areas of the 2010-2014 Action  Plan, and the fifth focus area was modified and called “foundations for  future restoration actions.”
As we reported in September 2013, EPA assesses GLRI progress  primarily by evaluating performance toward meeting the annual targets for  the 28 measures of progress in the Action Plan. In our 2013 report, we  found that the 2010-2014 Action Plan did not identify the links between a  focus area’s goals, objectives, and measures of progress. That is, some  of the goals and objectives in the Action Plan were not linked with any  measures. We recommended that the EPA Administrator, in coordination  with the Task Force as appropriate, identify linkages between long-term  goals, objectives, and measures in the Action Plan for 2015 to 2019. In  response to our recommendation, each focus area in the updated Action  Plan is associated with two or three objectives and several measures of  progress, clearly identifying the links between each objective and  measure of progress.
section_title: Monitoring and Reporting on Progress
paragraphs: In response to the conference report’s direction to establish a process to  ensure monitoring and reporting on the progress of the GLRI, EPA  created the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) in 2010 to collect  information for monitoring GLRI projects and progress. In cooperation  with the Task Force, EPA also created a GLRI website, to provide  information to both the public and funding recipients about the GLRI  program and GLRI projects. In September 2013, we found that the  information on GLRI projects in GLAS may not be complete, which may  prevent EPA from producing sufficiently comprehensive or useful  assessments of GLRI progress. For example, GLAS limited users to  submitting information about progress using a single measure of  progress, while GLRI projects may directly address multiple measures.  This prevented EPA from collecting and reporting complete progress  information on each of the measures addressed by GLRI projects. As a  result, we recommended that the EPA Administrator, in coordination with  the Task Force, capture complete information about progress for each of  the measures that are addressed by a project. In response to this  recommendation, EPA modified GLAS to allow GLAS users to report  information in GLAS about more than one measure of progress,  beginning in January 2014.
In July 2015, we found that some GLAS data were inaccurate, in part  because recipients entered information inconsistently due to inconsistent  interpretation of guidance, unclear guidance, or data entry errors. In May  2015, while we were completing our work for that report, EPA stopped  using GLAS and began using the Environmental Accomplishments in the  Great Lakes (EAGL) information system to collect GLRI project  information and issued initial guidance for using EAGL. EPA officials told  us that the agency created EAGL and, after consulting with Task Force  agencies, conducted pilot tests of the system while we were completing  our review of GLAS. After the pilot tests, in May 2015, EPA officials  decided to use EAGL to collect information to monitor and report on GLRI  progress, and they made the system available to Task Force agencies for  an initial period of data entry. In our July 2015 report, we said that this is a  good first step to resolving the data inconsistencies that we identified in  GLAS, which resulted, in part, because of unclear or undocumented  definitions, data requirements, and guidance about entering important  data. However, as of that date, EPA had not yet established data control  activities or other edit checks, although in commenting on a draft of the  report, EPA stated that it planned to establish data control activities, such  as verifications and documented procedures, for ensuring the reliability of  the EAGL information system. Fully implementing the actions needed to  address the reliability of GLRI project data should ensure that EPA and  the Task Force agencies can have confidence that EAGL can provide  complete and accurate information. EPA officials told us that the agency  plans to use the initial data entry period to solicit feedback from the Task  Force agencies in order to make changes to EAGL and the user  guidance. The officials said their goal is to have EAGL ready for data  entry at the beginning of fiscal year 2016.
section_title: Yearly Accomplishments Reports
paragraphs: As we reported in July 2015, in response to the conference report’s  direction to provide detailed, yearly program accomplishments beginning  in 2011, EPA and the Task Force released two accomplishment reports in  2013 and one in 2014 that provided overviews of progress under the  GLRI for fiscal years 2010 through 2012.  These reports included  summary accomplishment statements for each of the five focus areas  from the 2010-2014 Action Plan, as well as specific performance  information for many of the 28 measures of progress in the 2010-2014  Action Plan.
section_title: Task Force’s Process for Identifying GLRI Work and Each Agency’s Share of Funding Has Evolved to Emphasize Interagency Discussion
paragraphs: The process for identifying each agency’s GLRI work and share of GLRI  funding has evolved since fiscal year 2010 to emphasize interagency  discussion. As discussed in our July 2015 report, EPA officials  described four steps that Task Force agencies generally followed to  identify GLRI work and funding, and the five agencies we reviewed  followed these steps. The steps are as follows:
Agency identification of GLRI work. EPA officials said that during  the first step, each agency conducted an internal analysis to identify  GLRI work that they wanted to conduct, either themselves or through  other entities, within a fiscal year.
Task Force agreement on scope and funding for agencies’ work.
In the second step, the five agencies we reviewed held discussions  with the Task Force and agreed on the work that would be done in a  given fiscal year, as well as the amount of GLRI funds that would be  needed to conduct that work. In general, once the agencies made a  final determination of the work they would conduct in a fiscal year, and  the GLRI funds that would be made available, each agency entered  into an interagency agreement with EPA to transfer GLRI funds from  EPA to the agency.
Solicitation of proposals for projects designed to carry out  agencies’ GLRI work. In the third step, agencies solicited project  proposals from potential recipients to conduct the work identified in  the second step. Project proposals were generally solicited through an  announcement, such as a request for applications, posted on an  agency’s website or in other ways, such as by e-mail. Requests for  applications included criteria that the agency would use to rank  applications and select projects, among other things.
Selection of projects. In the fourth step, agency officials evaluated  project proposals and selected the projects they would fund. Officials  from the Task Force agencies we reviewed generally described  similar processes for evaluating project proposals. Specifically, they  said that agency officials with the appropriate expertise reviewed and  ranked proposals against information in the request for applications  and selected the best scoring projects for funding.
The process for identifying each agency’s annual GLRI work and share of  GLRI funding has evolved from one in which project and funding  decisions were made on an agency-by-agency basis to one in which  subgroups formed of multiple agency officials discuss and decide on what  work should be done. According to EPA officials, for fiscal years 2010 and  2011, the Task Force and the five agencies agreed on work that each  agency would do on an agency-by-agency basis. Officials from the  agencies said that they identified work based on existing plans and  worked with the Task Force to determine the work the agencies would do  and the funds the agencies should receive. Beginning with fiscal year  2012, the Task Force began emphasizing interagency discussions as it  created three subgroups made up of federal agency members, one  subgroup for each of three priority issues. The three priority issues, which  aligned with three of the five focus areas in the 2010-2014 Action Plan,  were (1) cleaning up and delisting Areas of Concern located entirely or  partially in the United States, (2) preventing and controlling invasive  species, and (3) reducing phosphorus runoff that contributes to harmful  algal blooms. For example, the Areas of Concern subgroup considered  how close each Area was to being delisted and what cleanup actions  were needed for delisting, as identified by the Area of Concern managers,  among other things.
Overall, the Task Force set aside a total of $180 million of the available  GLRI funds to address the priority issues for fiscal years 2012 through  2014: $52.2 million in fiscal year 2012, $63.4 million in fiscal year 2013,  and $64.7 million in fiscal year 2014. For 2015, EPA officials said that the  Task Force began creating additional subgroups to identify work and  funding for all five of the focus areas in the 2015-2019 Action Plan, not  just the three priority issues.
According to EPA officials, the focus on priority issues for fiscal years  2012 through 2014 accelerated restoration results for one of the three  priority issues. Specifically, two of the Areas of Concern targeted for  accelerated cleanup by the relevant subgroup were delisted in 2014. EPA  announced in October 2014 that the White Lake and Deer Lake Areas of  Concern had been delisted—both had been identified by the Areas of  Concern subgroup for accelerated cleanup with priority issue funds—and  EPA officials told us that they expect cleanup work to be completed at  four other Areas of Concern in fiscal year 2015 as a result of receiving  priority issues funds. In the 25 years before the three priority issues  were identified, only one Area of Concern located entirely in the United  States had been delisted.
In addition, EPA officials said that identifying and funding the three priority  issues for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 also allowed for continued  success in invasive species prevention and resulted in some progress in  reducing phosphorus runoff that contributes to harmful algal blooms.  However, restoration results in those two priority issues are less clear  than in the Areas of Concern priority issue, in large part because the  factors contributing to those priority issues persist and are likely to  continue into the future.
section_title: Information on GLRI Project Activities and Results Is Available from Individual Agencies
paragraphs: In July 2015, we reported that the Task Force, as part of its oversight of  GLRI, makes some information on GLRI projects available for Congress  and the public in two ways: annual accomplishment reports and the GLRI  website. The annual accomplishment reports included information about  some, but not all, project activities and results. Specifically, we found that  the accomplishment report for progress in fiscal year 2011 identified 10  GLRI projects, (2 projects in each of the five focus areas in the 2010-2014  Action Plan) and included some information about project activities and  results for each project. For example, the report noted that the  “Milwaukee River (Wisconsin)—restoring fish passage” project removed a  dam, opening 14 miles of the river and 13.5 miles of tributaries to allow  fish to move more freely, and reconnected the lower reach of the river  with 8,300 acres of wetlands, improving water quality. The report provided  similar information about nine additional projects. The accomplishment  reports about GLRI progress in fiscal years 2010 and 2012 also included  information about project activities and results, although most information  was not associated with individual projects. For example, a statement  from the accomplishment report for fiscal year 2012, “GLRI partners are  implementing strategic invasive species control efforts that establish or  take advantage of partnerships that will continue invasive species  monitoring, maintenance, and stewardship beyond the duration of  individual projects,” does not identify the specific projects where these  efforts are taking place. EPA also made some information available on  GLRI projects on the GLRI website, including a project’s funding agency,  title, funding amount and year, recipient identification, focus area, and  description. This information does not include GLRI project activities and  results because the website is not designed to include it.
Each of the five Task Force agencies we reviewed collected information  on its projects, including activities and results of the projects they funded,  although this information is not collected and reported by EPA. Overall,  for the 19 projects we reviewed, recipients reported a variety of project  activities, including applying herbicide, conducting training and  workshops, and collecting data. In addition, we found that recipients  reported a range of results. For example, funding recipients from 8  projects reported results that can be directly linked to restoration, such as  increasing lake trout production, removing acres of invasive plant species,  and protecting acres of marshland. For one of these projects, the Buffalo  Audubon Society reported results needed to restore critical bird habitat,  such as planting 3,204 plants and removing invasive species, among  other results. For another project, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission  reported results in the form of improved methods for capturing sea  lamprey, an invasive species, which is a parasite that was a major cause  of the collapse of lake trout, whitefish, and chub populations in the Great  Lakes during the 1940s and 1950s. According to a Great Lakes Fishery  Commission official, the results from this project will help to further  suppress sea lamprey production in the Great Lakes, thereby reducing  the damage they cause to native and desirable species. For example, a  single lamprey can kill up to about 40 pounds of fish in its lifetime.
For the 11 remaining projects, recipients reported results that can be  indirectly linked to restoration; that is, the results may contribute to  restoration over time. These included results such as simulations and  data for helping decision makers make better restoration decisions in light  of climate change, as well as education and outreach tools to increase  awareness of invasive species. In addition, a University of Wisconsin- Madison representative told us that the university’s project to improve  applied environmental literacy, outreach, and action in Great Lakes  schools and communities through train-the-trainer professional  development institutes can contribute to restoration. Progress reports for  the university’s project noted that the project resulted in more than 110  school teams that guided students in restoration, service learning, inquiry,  and citizen science monitoring during the 2013-2014 school year, among  other things. The representative said that this contributed to restoration  because participating students have implemented conservation practices,  such as building rain gardens that slow stormwater runoff and remove  contaminants from polluted runoff.
Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony,  please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this testimony. Susan Iott (Assistant Director),  Mark Braza, John Delicath, Carol Henn, Kimberly McGatlin, Jeanette  Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Michelle K. Treistman also made key  contributions to this testimony.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.