Great Lakes: A Coordinated Strategic Plan and Monitoring System Are Needed to Achieve Restoration Goals
Published: 2003-07-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The five Great Lakes, which comprise the largest system of freshwater in the world, are threatened on many environmental fronts. To address the extent of progress made in restoring the Great Lakes Basin, which includes the lakes and surrounding area, GAO (1) identified the federal and state environmental programs operating in the basin and the funding devoted to them, (2) evaluated the restoration strategies used and how they are coordinated, and (3) assessed overall environmental progress made in the basin restoration effort.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs are nationwide or statewide programs that do not specifically focus on the Great Lakes. However, several programs specifically address environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. GAO identified 33 federal Great Lakes specific programs, and states funded 17 additional unique Great Lakes specific programs. Although Great Lakes funding is not routinely tracked for many of these programs, we identified a total of about $3.7 billion in basin-specific projects for fiscal years 1992 through 2001. GAO identified several Great Lakes environmental strategies being used at the binational, federal, and state levels. These strategies are not coordinated or unified in a fashion comparable to other large restoration projects, such as the South Florida ecosystem. Without an overarching plan for these strategies, it is difficult to determine overall progress. The Water Quality Act of 1987 charged EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office with the responsibility for coordinating federal actions for improving the Great Lakes' water quality, however, it has not fully exercised this authority to this point. With available information, it is not possible to comprehensively assess restoration progress in the Great Lakes. Current indicators rely on limited quantitative data and subjective judgments to determine whether conditions are improving, such as whether fish are safe to eat. The ultimate success of an ongoing binational effort to develop a set of overall indicators for the Great Lakes is uncertain because it relies on the resources voluntarily provided by several organizations. Further, no date for completing a final list of indicators has been established.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to discuss our work on environmental  restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. As you know, the Great  Lakes represent the largest system of freshwater in the world and a natural  resource that is threatened on many environmental fronts. To protect this  resource and to address common water quality problems, the United  States and Canada entered into the bilateral Great Lakes Water Quality  Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972. However, today, more than three decades  after the original agreement was signed, beaches are frequently closed to  swimmers due to pollution, fish are unsafe for high risk individuals to eat,  and raw sewage is still being dumped into the lakes.
Progress has been made on a number of significant fronts, including  controlling the nonnative sea lamprey, reducing the water’s phosphorus  content, and improving fish populations, but much more remains to be  accomplished before the overall goals of the agreement can be met.  Several recently released reports, including ours, have questioned whether  the current environmental activities in the Great Lakes being funded by  numerous organizations and various programs have resulted in significant  restoration progress in the basin, or even whether they are adequate to  fulfill the United States commitments under the agreement. In 2002, we  reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to take  action to improve its oversight for cleaning up specifically designated  contaminated areas.
My testimony today is based on our April 2003 report, which was prepared  at the request of 14 members of Congress’ Great Lakes Task Force.  Specifically, GAO was asked to (1) identify the federal and state  environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin and the  funding being devoted to them, (2) evaluate how the restoration strategies  are used and coordinated, and (3) assess overall environmental progress  made in the basin restoration efforts thus far.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we found the following:    There are 148 federal and 51 state programs funding environmental  restoration activities in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these are  nationwide or statewide programs that do not specifically focus on the  Great Lakes, but do fund projects that help clean up the basin. We could  not determine the total Great Lakes specific funding contributions from  these programs, because funds are not typically tracked for specific areas  such as the basin. However, based on partial information available from 11  federal agencies and 7 of the 8 Great Lakes states, we determined that at  least $1.8 billion in federal funding and $461.3 million in state funding went  to basin-related projects in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. In addition,  there were 33 federal programs focused specifically on the Great Lakes  Basin, for which about $387 million was spent in fiscal years 1992 through  2001, and the states funded 17 additional Great Lakes specific programs,  for which about $956 million was expended during the same general time  period.
The numerous restoration programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin  employ a variety of environmental strategies at the binational, federal, and  state levels to address specific environmental problems, but there is no  overarching plan for coordinating these disparate strategies and program  activities into a coherent approach for attaining overall basin restoration  goals. Without such a plan for the basin, it is difficult to determine overall  progress and ensure that limited resources are being used effectively.  Other large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts, such as those for the  Chesapeake Bay and the South Florida ecosystem, have demonstrated the  importance of having a comprehensive strategic plan with clearly  articulated goals, objectives, and criteria for measuring success and a  decision-making body for weighing the merits of, and prioritizing funding  for, proposed cleanup and restoration projects.
The absence of a unified Great Lakes restoration effort stems, in part, from  the lack of an effective, authoritative organizational entity for planning,  monitoring, and establishing funding priorities. The Clean Water Quality  Act of 1987 charged EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)  with the responsibility for coordinating federal actions for improving the  Great Lakes’ water quality. However, GLNPO has not fully exercised this  authority. For example, it has not entered into agreements with other  agency organizations regarding their restoration responsibilities, as  required by the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the lack of consistent, reliable information and measurement  indicators makes it impossible to comprehensively assess restoration  progress in the Great Lakes Basin. While the Great Lakes Water Quality  Agreement long ago called for the development and implementation of a  monitoring system, this requirement has not yet been met. Furthermore,  any effort to develop indicators must rely on limited quantitative data and  subjective judgments to determine whether conditions are improving. In  1996, a binational effort was initiated to develop a set of overall indicators  for the Great Lakes through a series of biennial conferences, but the  ultimate success of this effort, which relies on the volunteer contributions  of several organizations, is uncertain at best.
To improve coordination and help ensure that funds are spent effectively,  we recommended that the Administrator, Environmental Protection  Agency, (1) charge GLNPO with the responsibility for developing an  overarching Great Lakes strategy with specific goals and priorities for  evaluating and funding alternative projects, (2) submit a proposal to  Congress for funding the plan, and (3) develop environmental indicators  and a monitoring system that can be used to measure overall restoration  progress. EPA generally agreed with our conclusions but stated that it  would provide a formal response to our recommendations at a later date.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Great Lakes Basin is a large area that extends well beyond the five  lakes proper to include their watersheds, tributaries, connecting channels,  and a portion of the St. Lawrence River. The basin encompasses nearly all  of the state of Michigan and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New  York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian province of  Ontario. The lakes form the largest freshwater system on earth, accounting  for 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water and over 95 percent of the  U.S. fresh surface water supply for the contiguous 48 states.
Millions of people in the United States and Canada rely on the five Great  Lakes—Superior, Michigan, Erie, Huron, and Ontario—as a principal  source of their drinking water, recreation, and economic livelihood. Over  time, industrial, agricultural, and residential development on lands  adjacent to the lakes has seriously degraded the lakes’ water quality,  posing threats to human health and the environment, and forcing  restrictions on activities such as swimming and fish consumption.
To protect the Great Lakes Basin and to address water quality problems,  the governments of the United States and Canada entered into the bilateral  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. In the agreement, the  United States and Canada agreed to restore and maintain the chemical,  physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin. A new  agreement with the same name was reached in 1978 and amended in 1983  and 1987. The agreement prescribes prevention and cleanup measures to  improve environmental conditions in the Great Lakes. The agreement  obligates the International Joint Commission (IJC), an international body,  to assist in and report on the implementation of the agreement.
The Clean Water Act directs EPA to lead efforts to meet the goals of the  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and establishes GLNPO within EPA,  charging it with, among other things, cooperating with federal, state, tribal,  and international agencies to develop action plans to carry out the  responsibilities of the U.S. under the agreement. GLNPO is further  responsible for coordinating the agency’s actions both in headquarters and  in the regions to improve Great Lakes’ water quality. In addition to  GLNPO, numerous federal, state, binational, and nonprofit organizations  conduct activities that focus on improving the overall Great Lakes Basin  environment or some specific environmental issue within the basin.
section_title: Many Federal and State Programs Fund Restoration Activities in the Great Lakes Basin
paragraphs: About 200 programs—148 federal and 51 state—fund restoration activities  within the Great Lakes Basin. Most of these programs, however, involve  the localized application of national or state environmental initiatives and  do not specifically focus on basin concerns. Officials from 11 federal  agencies identified 115 of these broadly scoped federal programs, and  officials from seven of the eight Great Lakes states identified 34 similar  state programs. EPA administers the majority of the federal programs that  provide a broad range of environmental activities involving research,  cleanup, restoration, and pollution prevention. For example, EPA’s  nationwide Superfund program funds cleanup activities at contaminated  areas throughout the basin. While these broadly scoped federal and state  programs contribute to basin restoration, program officials do not track or  try to isolate the portion of funding directed toward specific areas, such as  the basin, which makes it difficult to determine their contributions to total  Great Lakes spending. However, basin-specific information was available  on some of these programs. Specifically, basin-related expenditures for 53  of the 115 broadly scoped federal programs totaled about $1.8 billion in  fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Expenditures for 14 broadly scoped state- funded programs totaled $461.3 million during approximately the same  time period.
Several federal and state programs were specifically designed to focus on  environmental conditions across the Great Lakes Basin. Officials from  seven federal agencies identified 33 Great Lakes specific programs that  had expenditures of $387 million in fiscal years 1992 through 2001. Most of  these programs funded a variety of activities, such as research, cleanup, or  pollution prevention. An additional $358 million was expended for  legislatively directed Corps of Engineers projects in the basin, such as a  $93.8 million project to restore Chicago’s shoreline. Officials from seven  states reported 17 Great Lakes specific programs that expended about  $956 million in 1992 through 2001, with Michigan’s programs accounting  for 96 percent of this amount. State programs focused on unique state  needs, such as Ohio’s program to control shoreline erosion along Lake  Erie and Michigan’s program to provide bond funding for environmental  activities.
Besides federal and state government agencies, other organizations, such  as foundations, fund a variety of restoration activities in the Great Lakes  Basin by approving grants to nonprofit and other organizations. Other  governmental and nongovernmental organizations fund restoration  activities. For example, individual municipalities, township governments,  counties, and conservation districts are involved in various restoration  activities.
section_title: The Lack of a Coordinated, Overarching Strategic Plan Has Impeded Restoration Efforts
paragraphs: Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin is a major endeavor involving many  environmental programs and organizations. The magnitude of the area  comprising the basin and the numerous environmental programs operating  within it require the development of one overarching strategy to address  and manage the complexities of restoring the basin’s environmental  health. The Great Lakes region cannot hope to successfully receive  support as a national priority without a comprehensive plan for restoring  the Great Lakes. In lieu of such a plan, organizations at the binational,  federal, and state levels have developed their own strategies for the Great  Lakes, which have inadvertently made the coordination of the various  programs operating in the basin more challenging.
The Great Lakes Basin needs a comprehensive strategy or plan similar to  the plans developed for other large ecosystem restoration efforts, such as  those for the South Florida ecosystem and the Chesapeake Bay. In South  Florida, federal, state, local and tribal organizations joined forces to  participate on a centralized task force formalized in the Water Resource  Development Act of 1996. The strategic plan developed for the South  Florida ecosystem by the task force made substantial progress in guiding  the restoration activities. The plan identifies the resources needed to  achieve restoration and assigns accountability for specific actions for the  extensive restoration effort, estimated to cost $14.8 billion. The  Chesapeake Bay watershed also has an overarching restoration strategy  stemming from a 1983 agreement signed by Maryland, Virginia, and  Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission;  and EPA. The implementation of this strategy has resulted in  improvements in habitat restoration and aquatic life, such as increases in  bay grasses and in the shad population.
Several organizations have developed strategies for the basin at the  binational, federal, or state levels that address either the entire basin or  the specific problems in the Great Lakes. EPA’s Great Lakes Strategy 2002,  developed by a committee of federal and state officials, is the most recent  of these strategies. While this strategy identified restoration objectives and  planned actions by various federal and state agencies, it is largely a  description of existing program activity relating to basin restoration. State  officials told us that the states had already planned the actions described  in it, but that these actions were contingent on funding for specific  environmental programs. The strategy included a statement that it should  not be construed as a commitment for additional funding or resources,  and it did not provide a basis for prioritizing activities. In addition, we  identified other strategies that addressed particular contaminants, the  restoration of individual lakes, or the cleanup of contaminated areas. Ad  hoc coordination takes place among federal agencies, states, and other  environmental organizations in developing these strategies or when  programmatic activity calls for coordination.
Other Great Lakes strategies address unique environmental problems or  specific geographical areas. For example, a strategy for each lake  addresses the open lake waters through Lakewide Management Plans  (LaMP), which EPA is responsible for developing. Toward this end, EPA  formed working groups for each lake to identify and address restoration  activities. For example, the LaMP for Lake Michigan, issued in 2002,  includes a summary of the lake’s ecosystem status and addresses progress  in achieving the goals described in the previous plan, with examples of  significant activities completed and other relevant topics. However, EPA  has not used the LaMPs to assess the overall health of the ecosystem.
The Binational Executive Committee for the United States and Canada  issued its Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997 that established a  collaborative process by which EPA and Environment Canada, in  consultation with other federal departments and agencies, states, tribes  and the province of Ontario work toward the virtual elimination of  persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The strategy was designed  to address particular substances that bioaccumulate in fish or animals and  pose a human health risk.
Michigan developed a strategy for environmental cleanup called the Clean  Michigan Initiative. This initiative provides funding for a variety of  environmental, parks, and redevelopment programs. It includes nine  components, including Brownfields redevelopment and environmental  cleanups, nonpoint source pollution control, clean water, cleanup of  contaminated sediments, and pollution prevention. The initiative is funded  by a $675 million general obligation bond and, as of early 2003, most of the  funds had not been distributed.
Although there are many strategies and coordination efforts ongoing, no  one organization coordinates restoration efforts. We found that extensive  strategizing, planning, and coordinating have not resulted in significant  restoration. Thus, the ecosystem remains compromised and contaminated  sediments in the lakes produce health problems, as reported by the IJC.
In addition to the absence of a coordinating agency, federal and state  officials cited a lack of funding commitments as a principal barrier that  impedes restoration progress. Inadequate funding has also contributed to  the failure to restore and protect the Great Lakes, according to the IJC  biennial report on Great Lakes water quality issued in July 2000. The IJC  restated this position in a 2002 report, concluding that any progress to  restore the Great Lakes would continue at a slow incremental pace  without increased funding. In its 1993 biennial report, the IJC concluded  that remediation of contaminated areas could not be accomplished unless  government officials came to grips with the magnitude of cleanup costs  and started the process of securing the necessary resources. 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. 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.
The ultimate responsibility for coordinating Great Lakes restoration  programs rests with GLNPO; however, GLNPO has not fully exercised this  authority. Other organizations or committees have been formed to assume  coordination and strategy development roles. The Clean Water Act  provides GLNPO with the authority to fulfill the responsibilities of the U.S.  under the GLWQA. Specifically, the act directs EPA to coordinate the  actions of EPA’s headquarters and regional offices aimed at improving  Great Lakes water quality. It also provides GLNPO authority to coordinate  EPA’s actions with the actions of other federal agencies and state and  local authorities for obtaining input in developing water quality strategies  and obtaining support in achieving the objectives of the GLWQA. The act  also provides that the EPA Administrator shall ensure that GLNPO enters  into agreements with the various organizational elements of the agency  engaged in Great Lakes activities and with appropriate state agencies. The  agreements should specifically delineate the duties and responsibilities,  time periods for carrying out duties, and resources committed to these  duties. GLNPO officials stated that they do not enter into formal  agreements with other EPA offices but rather fulfill their responsibilities  under the act by having federal agencies and state officials agree to the  restoration activities contained in the Great Lakes Strategy 2002. However,  the strategy does not represent formal agreements to conduct specific  duties and responsibilities with committed resources. EPA’s Office of  Inspector General reported the absence of these agreements in September  1999. The report stated that GLNPO did not have agreements as required  by the act and recommended that such agreements be made to improve  working relationships and coordination.
To improve coordination of Great Lakes activities and ensure that federal  dollars are effectively spent, we recommended that the Administrator,  EPA, ensure that GLNPO fulfills its responsibility for coordinating  programs within the Great Lakes Basin; charge GLNPO with developing, in  consultation with the governors of the Great Lakes states, federal  agencies, and other organizations, an overarching strategy that clearly  defines the roles and responsibilities for coordinating and prioritizing  funding for projects; and submit a time-phased funding requirement  proposal to the Congress necessary to implement the strategy.
section_title: The Lack of an Effective Monitoring System Makes it Impossible to Assess Overall Restoration Progress
paragraphs: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended in 1987, calls for  establishing a monitoring system to measure restoration progress and  assess the degree to which the United States and Canada are complying  with the goals and objectives of the agreement. However, implementation  of this provision has not progressed to the point that overall restoration  progress can be measured or determined based on quantitative  information. Recent assessments of overall progress, which rely on a mix  of quantitative data and subjective judgments, do not provide an adequate  basis for making an overall assessment. The current assessment process  has emerged from a series of biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem  Conferences (SOLEC) initiated in 1994 for developing indicators agreed  upon by conference participants.
Prior to the 1987 amendments to the GLWQA, the 1978 agreement between  the two countries also contained a requirement for surveillance and  monitoring and for the development of a Great Lakes International  Surveillance Plan. The IJC Water Quality Board was involved in managing  and developing the program until the 1987 amendments gave this  responsibility to the United States and Canada. This change resulted in a  significant reduction in the two countries’ support for surveillance and  monitoring. In fact, the organizational structure to implement the  surveillance plan was abandoned in 1990, leaving only one initiative in  place—the International Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), which  involved a network of 15 air-monitoring stations located throughout the  basin.
With the surveillance and monitoring efforts languishing, IJC established  the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force in 1993 to identify the  appropriate framework to evaluate progress in the Great Lakes. In 1996,  the task force proposed that nine desired measurements and outcomes be  used to develop indicators for measuring progress in the Great Lakes.
Shortly before the task force began its work, the United States and Canada  had agreed to hold conferences every 2 years to assess the environmental  conditions in the Great Lakes in order to develop binational reports on  environmental conditions to measure progress under the agreement.  Besides assessing environmental conditions, the conferences were  focused on achieving three other objectives, including providing a forum  for communication and networking among stakeholders. Conference  participants included U.S. and Canadian representatives from federal,  state, provincial, and tribal agencies, as well as from other organizations  with environmental restoration or pollution prevention interests in the  Great Lakes Basin. The 1994 SOLEC conference culminated in a “State of  the Great Lakes 1995” report, which provided an overview of the Great  Lakes ecosystem at the end of 1994 and concluded that overall the aquatic  community health was mixed or improving. This same assessment was  echoed in the 1997 state of the lakes report. Meanwhile the IJC agreed that  the nine desired outcome areas recommended by the task force would  help assess overall progress. It recommended that SOLEC, during the  conference in 2000, establish environmental indicators that would allow  the IJC to evaluate what had been accomplished and what needed to be  done for three of the nine indicators—the public’s ability to eat the fish,  drink the water, and swim in the water without any restrictions.
However, the indicators developed through the SOLEC process and the  accomplishments reported by federal and state program managers do not  provide an adequate basis for making an overall assessment for Great  Lakes restoration progress. The SOLEC process is ongoing, and the  indicators that are still being developed are not generally supported by  sufficient underlying data for making progress assessments. The number  of indicators considered during the SOLEC conferences has been pared  down from more than 850 indicators in 1998 to 80 indicators in 2000,  although data was available for only 33 of them.
After the SOLEC 2000 conference, IJC staff assessed the indicators  supported by data that measured the desired outcomes of swimmability,  drinkability, and the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes. Overall, the IJC  commended SOLEC’s quick response that brought together information  regarding the outcomes and SOLEC’s ongoing efforts. The IJC, however,  recognized that sufficient data were not being collected throughout the  Great Lakes Basin and that the methods of collection, the data collection  time frames, the lack of uniform protocols, and the incompatible nature of  some data jeopardized their use as indicators. Specifically, for the desired  outcome of swimmability, the IJC concurred that it was not always safe to  swim at certain beaches but noted that progress for this desired outcome  was limited because beaches were sampled by local jurisdictions without  uniform sampling or reporting methods. At the 2002 SOLEC conference,  the number of indicators assessed by conference participants increased  from 33 to 45. The IJC expressed concern that there are too many  indicators, insufficient supporting backup data, and a lack of commitment  and funding from EPA to implement and make operational the agreed  upon SOLEC baseline data collection and monitoring techniques. The IJC  recommended in its last biennial report that any new indicators should be  developed only where resources are sufficient to access scientifically valid  and reliable information.
The ultimate successful development and assessment of indicators for the  Great Lakes through the SOLEC process are uncertain because insufficient  resources have been committed to the process, no plan provides  completion dates for indicator development and implementation, and no  entity is coordinating the data collection. Even though the SOLEC process  has successfully engaged a wide range of binational parties in developing  indicators, the resources devoted to this process are largely provided on a  voluntary basis without firm commitments to continue in the future.  GLNPO officials described the SOLEC process as a professional,  collaborative process dependent on the voluntary participation of officials  from federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and other  organizations attending SOLEC and developing information on specific  indicators. Because SOLEC is a voluntary process, the indicator data  resides in a diverse number of sources with limited control by SOLEC  organizers. GLNPO officials stated that EPA has neither the authority nor  the responsibility to direct the data collection activities of federal, state,  and local agencies as they relate to the surveillance and monitoring of  technical data elements that are needed to develop, implement, and assess  Great Lakes environmental indicators. Efforts are underway for the  various federal and state agencies to take ownership for collecting and  reporting data outputs from their respective areas of responsibility and for  SOLEC to be sustained and implemented; each indicator must have a  sponsor. However, any breakdown in submitting this information would  leave a gap in the SOLEC indicator process.
EPA supports the development of environmental indicators as evidenced  by the fact that, since 1994, GLNPO has provided about $100,000 annually  to sponsor the SOLEC conferences. Additionally, GLNPO spends over $4  million per year to collect surveillance data for its open-lake water quality  monitoring program, which also provides supporting data for some of the  indicators addressed by SOLEC. A significant portion of these funds,  however, supports the operation of GLNPO’s research vessel, the Lake  Guardian, an offshore supply vessel converted for use as a research vessel.  GLNPO also supports activities that are linked or otherwise feed  information into the SOLEC process, including the following:    collecting information on plankton and benthic communities in the Great  Lakes for open water indicator development;   sampling various chemicals in the open-lake waters, such as phosphorus  for the total phosphorus indicator;   monitoring fish contaminants in the open waters, directly supporting the  indicator for contaminants in whole fish and a separate monitoring effort  for contaminants in popular sport fish species that supports the indicator  for chemical contaminants in edible fish tissue; and   operating 15 air-monitoring stations with Environment Canada comprising  the IADN that provides information for establishing trends in  concentrations of certain chemicals and loadings of chemicals into the  lakes. EPA uses information from the network to take actions to control  the chemicals and track progress toward environmental goals.
In November 2001, EPA committed to an agencywide initiative to develop  environmental indicators for addressing the agency’s nationwide  environmental conditions, stating that “indicators help measure the state  of our air, water and land resources and the pressures placed on them, and  the resulting effects on ecological and human health.” However, this  initiative does not specifically relate to the Great Lakes. The short-term  goal for this initiative is to develop information that will indicate current  nationwide environmental conditions and to help EPA make sound  decisions on what needs to be done. The long-term goal is to bring  together national, regional, state, and tribal indicator efforts to describe  the condition of critical environmental areas and human health concerns.
Program officials frequently cite output data as measures of success rather  than actual program accomplishments in improving environmental  conditions in the basin. As a rule, program output data describe activities,  such as projects funded, and are of limited value in determining  environmental progress. For example, in reporting the accomplishments  for Michigan’s Great Lakes Protection Fund, officials noted that the  program had funded 125 research projects over an 11-year period and  publicized its project results at an annual forum and on a Web site.  Similarly, the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Reintroduction Program  administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife  Service listed under its accomplishments the completion of a pilot study  and technical assistance provided to a Native American tribe.
Of the 50 federal and state programs created specifically to address  conditions in the basin, 27 reported accomplishments in terms of outputs,  such as reports or studies prepared or presentations made to groups.  Because research and capacity building programs largely support other  activities, it is particularly difficult to relate reported program  accomplishments to outcomes. The federal and state environmental  program officials who responded to our evaluation generally provided  output data or, as reported for 15 programs, reported that the  accomplishments had not been measured for the programs.
Only eight of the federal or state Great Lakes specific programs reported  outcome information, much of which generally described how effective  the programs’ activities or actions had been in improving environmental  conditions. For example, EPA’s Region II program for reducing toxic  chemical inputs into the Niagara River, which connects Lake Erie to Lake  Ontario, reported reductions in priority toxics from 1986 through 2002  from ambient water quality monitoring. Other significant outcomes  reported as accomplishments for the Great Lakes included (1) reducing  phosphorus loadings by waste treatment plants and limiting phosphorus  use in household detergents; (2) prohibiting the release of some toxicants  into the Great Lakes, and reducing to an acceptable level the amount of  some other toxicants that could be input; (3) effectively reducing the sea  lamprey population in several invasive species-infested watersheds; and  (4) restocking the fish-depleted populations in some watersheds.
To fulfill the need for a monitoring system called for in the GLWQA and to  ensure that the limited funds available are optimally spent, we  recommended that the Administrator, EPA, in coordination with Canadian  officials and as part of an overarching Great Lakes strategy, (1) develop  environmental indicators and a monitoring system for the Great Lakes  Basin that can be used to measure overall restoration progress and (2)  require that these indicators be used to evaluate, prioritize, and make  funding decisions on the merits of alternative restoration projects.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at   (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  were Willie Bailey, Karen Keegan, Rosemary Torres-Lerma, Jonathan  McMurray, Margaret Reese, and John Wanska.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.