They also use an interagency process to identify and transfer  funds to GLRI work, and to enter into agreements among themselves and  with nonfederal stakeholders to identify and implement GLRI projects, or  they do the work themselves. Therefore, measures that track conditions that are not directly  Some measures track actions that may not be sufficient to lead to the  desired GLRI goals. Consequently, reducing average concentrations of  PCBs in fish is not likely to lead to lifting all restrictions on the  consumption of Great Lakes fish. Task Force Agencies and Nonfederal Stakeholders Report GLRI Progress, but Overall Great Lakes Restoration Progress Is Difficult to Quantify

The Task Force agencies have issued two GLRI progress reports, but the  reports include few specific examples of progress. To obtain further  insights about GLRI progress, we surveyed nonfederal GLRI stakeholders  and interviewed Task Force agency officials. When asked to  provide examples of how one or more of their organization’s GLRI  projects had benefitted the Great Lakes ecosystem, 87 percent (153) of  the 176 respondents provided at least one example of how one or more  of their GLRI projects had benefited, or was expected to benefit, the  Great Lakes ecosystem in each of the five focus areas. The respondent  reported that this fiscal year 2011 to 2012 GLRI project resulted in an  improvement in water quality. Global Change Research  Program reported in 2009 that warming water temperatures can lead to  increased numbers of aquatic invasive species, which tend to thrive under  a wide range of environmental conditions, and a decline in native species,  which are adapted to a narrower range of conditions. As we noted  previously, invasive species such as the zebra mussel have caused  extensive ecological and economic damage to the Great Lakes. However,  the Action Plan does not state how these effects will be addressed. Without such linkages in  the current Action Plan, it is unclear how EPA will be able to assess  progress in meeting the Action Plan’s long-term goals and objectives. Without useful measures, EPA may  not be able to determine that GLRI efforts are producing the desired  results. Without more clearly expressing that connection in the next Action  Plan, EPA will not be able to help address the effects of these factors,  including climate change, on GLRI restoration efforts. Recommendations for Executive Action

To address challenges the Task Force faces in producing comprehensive  and useful assessments of progress and addressing factors that may limit  GLRI progress, we recommend that the EPA Administrator, in  coordination with the Task Force, as appropriate, take the following seven  actions: 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; ensure that linkages between long-term goals, objectives, and  measures are identified in the Action Plan for 2015 to 2019; 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; capture complete information about progress for each of the  measures that are addressed by a project; further evaluate the usefulness of the current measures and targets  and the need, if any, for the creation of additional measures; 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; and 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. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the  methodology used to examine (1) how the Great Lakes Restoration  Initiative (GLRI) is implemented by the Task Force agencies and other  stakeholders; (2) the methods that the Environmental Protection Agency  (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. Specifically, we analyzed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative  Action Plan Fiscal Years 2010-2014 (Action Plan) to understand its  structure and identify the long-term goals, objectives, measures of  progress and related annual targets, and principal actions in each of the  Action Plan’s five focus areas; EPA GLRI financial reports and the  agency’s fiscal year 2014 budget justification to determine the amount of  GLRI funds that have been allocated for fiscal years 2010 to 2013 to each  Task Force agency and each focus area; and, information from the Great  Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) to identify the number of GLRI  projects in each focus area and to learn more about GLRI projects, such  as location, size, and funding. Appendix VI: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan Long-term Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Progress for Each of the Five Focus Areas

The GLRI Action Plan for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 is organized by five  focus areas that, according to the federal agencies responsible for  implementing the GLRI, encompass 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.
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.

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.