Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Task Force agencies use the Action Plan to implement the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and use an interagency process to enter into agreements among themselves to identify GLRI projects and with other stakeholders to implement GLRI projects. The Action Plan includes guidance for implementing the GLRI in five focus areas (such as invasive species and habitat and wildlife protection and restoration) that encompass the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes. Each focus area includes, among other things, long-term goals, objectives to be achieved by fiscal year 2014, and 28 measures of progress that have annual targets for fiscal years 2010 to 2014.
EPA uses the Action Plan's measures to assess GLRI progress. However, its methods may not produce comprehensive and useful assessments of GLRI progress for several reasons. Among them, some of the goals and objectives do not link to any measures and, as a result, it is unclear how EPA will be able to assess progress toward them. In addition, some measures track actions that may not lead to the desired GLRI goal. For example, one measure tracks the reduction in concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in fish as part of the goal to lift all restrictions on consumption of Great Lakes fish. However, stakeholders reported that the measure is too narrow and that mercury and other contaminants need to be addressed as well. Consequently, reducing PCB concentrations in fish is not likely to lead to the desired result of lifting all Great Lakes fish consumption restrictions. Without useful measures, EPA may not be able to determine that GLRI efforts are producing the desired results.
In spring 2013, the Task Force agencies issued two reports about GLRI progress in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, which state whether the targets for the Action Plan's 28 measures were being met (e.g., 15 of 28 measures met or exceeded in fiscal year 2011), but the reports include few specific examples of progress. As a result, GAO sought further insights into such progress by surveying nonfederal GLRI stakeholders. Overall, 87 percent of respondents cited at least one example of how one or more of their projects had, or was expected to, benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. GAO and others have reported that quantifying overall Great Lakes restoration progress is difficult, that the environmental conditions of each lake are unique, and, according to a 2006 U.N. report, it is often impossible to attribute specific environmental changes to specific projects or programs.
In response to GAO's survey, among the factors respondents most often cited as potentially limiting GLRI progress are several outside the scope of the Action Plan, such as inadequate infrastructure for wastewater or stormwater and the effects of climate change. These factors could negatively affect GLRI restoration efforts. For example, as a result of climate change, warming water temperatures can lead to increased numbers of aquatic invasive species and a decline in native ones, a GLRI focus area. The Action Plan touches on these factors but does not state how they will be addressed. In 2012, EPA took steps to incorporate climate change considerations into a small number of GLRI projects but has yet to decide if the GLRI will consider climate change impacts on all GLRI projects. Without addressing these factors in the next Action Plan, EPA will not be able to more fully account for their impacts on GLRI restoration efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Great Lakes contain about 84 percent of North America's surface freshwater and provide economic and recreational benefits in the Great Lakes Basin. However, the Great Lakes face significant stresses--such as toxic pollution--that have caused ecological and economic damage to the region.
Approximately $1.3 billion has been appropriated to the GLRI, created in fiscal year 2010, which an interagency Task Force of 11 federal agencies, chaired by the EPA Administrator, oversees. In 2010, the Task Force issued an Action Plan for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 to develop a comprehensive approach to restoring the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. GAO was asked to review the GLRI. This report examines (1) how the GLRI is implemented by the Task Force agencies and other stakeholders, (2) the methods that EPA has in place to assess GLRI progress, (3) the progress identified by the Task Force agencies and nonfederal stakeholders, and (4) the views of nonfederal stakeholders on factors, if any, that may affect or limit GLRI progress. GAO analyzed the Action Plan, surveyed 205 non-federal recipients of GLRI funding, and interviewed Task Force agency officials and nonfederal stakeholders.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that EPA help ensure more comprehensive and useful GLRI progress assessments and account for factors outside of the Action Plan's scope that may affect the GLRI's long-term success. EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should ensure progress toward long-term goals or objectives that are identified in the Action Plan, but which do not have measures that link to them, is assessed. |
The Task Force took actions that addressed this recommendation. It issued a new GLRI Action Plan in 2014 that replaced long-term goals and objectives in the previous plan with objectives and commitments. All of the objectives and commitments in the 2014 plan have one or more associated measures of progress. The Task Force used these measures to report on fiscal year 2015 progress in its June 2016 report to Congress and the President.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should ensure that linkages between long-term goals, objectives, and measures are identified in the Action Plan for 2015 to 2019. |
The Task Force issued an updated Action Plan in September 2014 to guide the GLRI for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. The new Action Plan is slightly different--the plan has eight long-term goals and each focus area now includes two or three objectives, several commitments, and several measures of progress--but it clearly identifies the links between each objective, commitment, and measure of progress.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should ensure that the progress being made by projects that do not have an Action Plan measure assigned to them is captured in assessments of GLRI progress. |
In April 2017, EPA provided GAO with the final guidance and implementation manual for entering data into EAGL, the information system that replaced the Great Lakes Accountability System, as well as a snapshot of the data in EAGL at that time. The guidance requires EAGL users to select a measure for each project and to report on progress for that measure semi-annually. Not all projects in EAGL had measures assigned to them, however the requirement to select a measure for each project means that all future projects should have a measure assigned to them when they are entered into EAGL. In addition, progress being made toward that measure should be captured in EAGL. This action fulfills the intent of the recommendation.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should capture complete information about progress for each of the measures that are addressed by a project. |
In April 2017, EPA provided GAO with the final guidance for entering data into EAGL, the information system that replaced the Great Lakes Accountability System, as well as a snapshot of the data in EAGL at that time. The guidance and snapshot show that EAGL users can select up to three measures for a project if those measures are applicable to the project. As a result, users can capture information about progress for more than the measure that was assigned to the project when the project was funded. GLRI projects can often address more than one measure. Not all projects in EAGL had measures assigned to them, however being able to select up to three measures will allow users to provide more complete information about progress for each of the measures that are addressed by every project. This action fulfills the intent of the recommendation.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should further evaluate the usefulness of the current measures and targets and the need, if any, for the creation of additional measures. |
The Task Force issued an updated Action Plan in September 2014 to guide the GLRI for fiscal years 2015 through 2019 that contains different measures and targets than the previous Action Plan. In August 2016, EPA officials said that in developing the new Action Plan they considered the measures and changed the measures in the new Action Plan. EPA evaluated the measures using comments from GAO, OMB, and its Great Lakes Advisory Board. EPA officials stated that the evaluation found that some of the old measures were tracking non-GLRI funded activities and others did not have sufficient data. They also stated that the measures in the new Action Plan should better focus on and reflect the work accomplished with GLRI funding. Given the actions taken by EPA and the Task Force, we consider this recommendation to be closed.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should establish an adaptive management plan that includes all of the key elements of adaptive management and provides details on how these elements will be implemented. |
In February 2019, EPA provided to GAO the final report from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Adaptive Management Pilot Project. The report documents adaptive management actions EPA and the Task Force agencies have taken and actions the agencies plan to take that include all of the key elements of adaptive management. The report also provides details on how the agencies will carry out those adaptive management elements that the agencies plan to implement.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit GLRI progress, the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, should address how factors outside of the scope of the Action Plan that may limit progress, such as inadequate infrastructure for wastewater or stormwater and the effects of climate change, may affect GLRI efforts to restore the Great Lakes. |
On September 30, 2016, the GLRI agencies issued "GLRI Standardized Climate Resiliency Criteria" to ensure that GLRI-funded projects are resilient to the effects of projected climate change in the Great Lakes. The criteria are four questions that the agencies should consider in the planning and implementation of GLRI projects. According to the criteria document, each GLRI agency will report annually to EPA whether the climate resiliency criteria were factored into project planning and implementation. Each agency is also responsible for storing all records and documentation used to support its report to EPA. EPA is responsible for including in EAGL, the information system that replaced the Great Lakes Accountability System, a count of the number of agencies that have incorporated climate change resiliency criteria into project planning and implementation based on what the agencies report.
|