Great Lakes5fc*
RESTORATION!
Draft April 19, 2019
GREAT LAKES
RESTORATION INITIATIVE
ACTION PLAN III
September 2019
-------
Great Lakes
RESTORATION
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched in 2010 as a non-regulatory program
to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water in the world to provide additional
resources to make progress toward the most critical long-term goals for this important ecosystem.
The GLRI has been a catalyst for unprecedented federal agency coordination, which has produced unprecedented results.
For example, the Initiative drove the formal delisting of the Deer Lake (Ml) and White Lake (Ml) Areas of Concern, took the
Presque Isle Bay (PA) Area of Concern delisting across the finish line, and has driven the cleanup actions that will lead to the
future delisting of additional Great Lakes Areas of Concerna major change from the 25 years before the Initiative, when
only one Area of Concern was cleaned up and delisted. GLRI resources have also been used for projects that are on track to
prevent over one million pounds of phosphorus from entering the Great Lakes by 2019 and to reduce the phosphorus runoff
contribution to harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. The GLRI also produces economic
benefits - a 2018 University of Michigan study shows that every dollar of federal spending on GLRI projects between 2010
and 2016 will produce $3.35 in additional economic activity in the Great Lakes region through 2036. Restoration under GLRI
includes ecosystem protection, enhancement, rehabilitation, and restoration. Since restoration is generally more costly
than protection, the GLRI agencies recognize the importance of ecological protection (actions taken to prevent stress to
ecosystems).
During the next five years, federal agencies will continue to
use GLRI resources to strategically target the biggest threats
to the Great Lakes ecosystem and associated human health
issues. By adding GLRI resources to federal agency base
budgets and by using these combined resources to work with
nonfederal partners to implement protection and restoration
projects, federal agencies will continue to accelerate progress
toward achieving long-term goals. To guide this work, federal
agencies have developed GLRI Action Plan III.
GLRI Action Plan III outlines the next phase of work on Great
Lakes environmental problems, many of which will take
decades to resolve. GLRI Action Plan III lays out the necessary
next steps to get us closer to the day when we will be able
to achieve our long-term goals for the Great Lakes and our
commitments under the U.S. Canada Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
.Hv-
- 1%
* ซ% ฆ ,
- ป * . /ฆ..
w m ป ** ฆ
o* I- * VT,sn{> 4 **
i- "
ฆr . a v
Through Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, the GLRI federal agencies (see
back cover) have invested over $2.4 billion from the GLRI for over
4,000 projects to improve water quality, protect and restore native
habitat and species, prevent and control invasive species, and
address other Great Lakes environmental problems:
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accelerates Great
Lakes Protection and Restoration in Five Focus Areas
FY2010 - FY2014: FY2015 - FY2019: FY2020 - FY2024:
GLRI Action Plan I GLRI Action Plan II GLRI Action Plan III
Long-Term Goals for the
Great Lakes Ecosystem
All Areas of Concern delisted
Fish safe to eat
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
Water safe for recreation
Safe source of drinking water
Invasive Species
I l
No new self-sustaining invasive
species
Existing invasive species
controlled
Harmful/nuisance algal blooms
eliminated
Habitat protected and restored to
sustain healthy ecosystem function
and native species
Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts on Nearshore Health
Habitats and Species
i I
Foundations for Future Restoration Actions
FY = Fiscal year
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
GLRI ACTION PLAN III
GLRI Action Plan III is responsive to Clean Water Act Section 118 amendments in 2015 and 2016 that codified the GLRI. This
codification includes a mandate to review and revise the Action Plan every five years and to address five priority areas. The
first four of these priority areas correspond directly with the first four Focus Areas listed on the previous page. The fifth priority
area is addressed within the fifth Focus Area - Foundations for Future Restoration Actions - and within the GLRI operating
principles. Regional Working Group agencies will continue to coordinate and collaborate across focus areas in recognition of
the interrelated nature of many Great Lakes issues.
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies will continue to identify and implement the programs and projects that will best
advance progress toward achieving long-term Great Lakes goals in partnership with states and tribes and other nonfederal
stakeholders. The federal agencies will also continue to work collaboratively with partners to effectively and efficiently move
forward to achieve those goals, maintain the progress that has been made, and communicate results.
GLRI Action Plan III continues to specify objectives with related commitments and measures of progress for each Focus Area
that will be used to evaluate the actions implemented under this Action Plan. Recognizing that it will take many years to
document ecological and human health benefits for an ecosystem as large and complex as the Great Lakes, the measures
of progress focus on outputs and/or outcomes that can be measured over the five-year period covered by this Action Plan.
They track progress toward achieving the long-term goals specified below. Agencies will report annually on 14 measures of
progress, identified on page 4, that have annual targets. Agencies will also report on other measures of progress that support
the long-term goals but do not have annual targets.
GLRI Action Plan III includes many ideas developed during the first 10 years of the GLRI that were contributed by the Great
Lakes Advisory Board, the EPA Science Advisory Board, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research
Service, states, tribes, municipalities, and the general public. The federal agencies are grateful for these recommendations
and will continue to actively seek additional input from their many partners to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
These combined efforts will continue to improve the quality of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the health of its residents
and communities.
The following principles guide GLRI planning and implementation.
Accountability - The GLRI agencies will continue to track the progress and results from GLRI projects.
Reporting - The GLRI agencies will continue to report on GLRI progress through an annual report required under the
Clean Water Act. The agencies will also continue to report Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement activities through the
triennial Progress Reports of the Parties, as well as the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the triennial
State of the Great Lakes reports.
Communication and Outreach - The GLRI agencies will continue to update publicly available online information about
GLRI and will seek new ways to communicate about the program and status of ongoing work. The agencies will continue
to communicate scientific findings broadly to help inform and prioritize future work.
Partnerships and Engagement - The GLRI agencies will continue to draw from clearly communicated priorities
and actions identified in Lakewide Action and Management Plans and Biodiversity Conservation Strategies by Lake
Partnerships and other Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement activities to influence development of annual GLRI
priorities. In selecting the best combination of programs and projects for the Great Lakes protection and restoration, GLRI
agencies will continue to consult with the Great Lakes states and tribes and engage with other nonfederal stakeholders.
Further, the GLRI agencies will continue to work with tribal governments in the spirit of self-determination and consistent
with federal Indian trust responsibilities to support tribal priorities that are consistent with GLRI goals and objectives.
Project Sustainability - The GLRI agencies will continue to encourage project plans and designs that are resilient to the
effects of multiple stressors, including ecological change, extreme weather events, invasive species, and other variables.
GLRI agencies will also encourage project stewardship to promote the sustainability and long-term benefits of projects.
Science-Based Adaptive Management - The GLRI agencies will continue to support and enhance the science-based
adaptive management approach developed under Action Plan II. Using that approach within and across each Focus Area,
the GLRI agencies will use a structured management approach for addressing environmental uncertainties by testing
hypotheses, linking science to decision making, and adjusting project implementation, as necessary, to improve the
probability of success. GLRI agencies will use this flexible approach to monitor project effectiveness and inform future
restoration actions using the best available science and traditional ecological knowledge in decision making.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
2
-------
FY2020-FY2024 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan Summary
Focus Areas Objectives Commitments
Focus Area 1:
Toxic
Substances
and Areas of
Concern
1.1. Remediate, restore, and delist Areas of
Concern.
1.2. Share information on the risks and benefits
to humans of consuming Great Lakes fish,
wildlife, and harvested plant resources.
1.3. Increase knowledge about (1) Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Annex 3 chemicals
in the Great Lakes; and (2) other priority
chemicals that have negatively impacted, or
have the potential to negatively impact, the
ecological or public health of the Great Lakes.
Focus Area 2:
Invasive
Species
2.1. Prevent introductions of new invasive
species.
2.2. Control established invasive species.
2.3. Develop invasive species control
technologies and refine management
techniques.
Focus Area 3:
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution
Impacts on
Nearshore
Health
3.1. Reduce nutrient loads from agricultural
watersheds.
3.2. Reduce untreated stormwater runoff.
3.3. Improve effectiveness of nonpoint source
control and refine management efforts.
Focus Area 4:
Habitats and
Species
4.1. Protect and restore communities of native
aquatic and terrestrial species important to the
Great Lakes.
4.2. Increase resiliency of species through
comprehensive approaches that complement
on-the-ground habitat restoration and
protection.
Focus Area 5:
Foundations
5.1. Educate the next generation about the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
for Future
Restoration
Actions
5.2. Conduct comprehensive science programs
and projects.
Implement management actions necessary to remove Beneficial
Use Impairments and delist Areas of Concern.
Increase the availability and accessibility of information to
vulnerable populations that consume Great Lakes fish, wildlife,
and harvested plant resources.
Fill critical data gaps for Annex 3 and other priority chemicals
in the Great Lakes through discrete monitoring and assessment
activities.
Work with Great Lakes states and tribes to conduct rapid
response actions or exercises.
Manage pathways through which invasive species can be
introduced to the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Conduct early detection and surveillance activities.
Implement control projects for GLRI-targeted invasive species.
Develop/enhance technologies and methods to prevent the
introduction and to control the spread of invasive species.
Develop/enhance invasive species-specific collaboratives to
support rapid responses and communicate the latest control and
management techniques.
Implement systems of conservation practices on farms and in
streams to reduce and treat nutrient runoff.
Increase adoption of enhanced nutrient management practices
to reduce risk of nutrient losses from farmland.
Increase implementation of green infrastructure practices to
infiltrate stormwater runoff.
Implement watershed management projects in urban and rural
communities to reduce runoff and erosion.
Assess achievement of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Annex 4 nutrient targets.
Evaluate effectiveness of nonpoint source projects.
Develop new or improved approaches for reducing or preventing
harmful algal blooms.
Identify, restore, and protect habitats and provide habitat
connectivity to support important species and associated
habitats.
Update and implement recovery actions for federal threatened,
endangered, and candidate species.
Support population-level protections, enhancements, and
re-introductions for tribal, state, and Great Lakes native species
of importance.
Promote Great Lakes-based ecosystem education and
stewardship.
Assess overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and identify
the most significant remaining problems.
Identify cross-cutting science priorities and implement projects
to address those priorities.
3
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
Measures of Progress*
1.1.1 .* Areas of Concern where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented.
1.1.2.* Beneficial Use Impairments removed in Areas of Concern.
1.1.3.* Areas of Concern with a complete and approved list of all management actions necessary for delisting.
1.2.1. State and tribal organizations that collect and share information with vulnerable populations regarding the consumption of
Great Lakes fish, wildlife, and harvested plant resources.
1.3.1. Discrete chemical monitoring and assessment activities conducted.
2.1.1 .* Rapid responses or exercises conducted.
2.1.2. Projects that manage pathways through which invasive species can be introduced to the Great Lakes ecosystem.
2.1.3. Early detection and surveillance activities conducted.
2.2.1 .* Aquatic/terrestrial acreage controlled.
2.3.1. Technologies and methods field tested.
2.3.2. Collaboratives developed/enhanced.
3.1.1 .* Estimated pounds of phosphorus reductions from conservation practice implementation throughout Great Lake watersheds.
3.1.2.* Acres receiving technical or financial assistance on nutrient management in priority watersheds.
3.2.1 .* Estimated gallons (in millions) of untreated stormwater runoff captured or treated.
3.2.2.* Miles of Great Lakes shoreline and riparian corridors restored or protected.
3.3.1.* Nutrient monitoring and assessment activities conducted.
3.3.2.* Nutrient or stormwater runoff reduction practices or tools developed or evaluated.
4.1.1 .* Acres of coastal wetland, nearshore, and other habitats restored, protected, or enhanced.
4.1.2.* Miles of connectivity established for aquatic species.
4.2.1 .* Species benefited where actions have been completed to significantly protect or promote recovery
of populations.
5.1.1. Youth impacted through education and stewardship projects.
5.2.1. Annual Great Lakes monitoring conducted and used to prioritize GLRI funding decisions.
5.2.2. Identify and address science priorities to support implementation of GLRI and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Jฑ
Measures track results produced from GLRI-funding, except for measures 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 3.1.2 for which results may also use other funding.
Measures with a * have a numerical target.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
Manistique River
St. Lawrence River
Lower Menominee Rivei
Lower Green Bay/Fox River
Sheboygan Riven
ien Mile Creek
i White Lake Sagin;
Muskegon Lake
Rochestei^Embayment
Niagara Riven
Buffalo River
Milwaukee Estuai
lukegan Harbi
Grasd Calumet Rivferf
laumee
Black Rivi
How do you restore an Area of Concern?
The process for removing Beneficial Use
Impairments and delisting Areas of Concern
starts with a scientific assessment by the state
and federal agencies to determine the extent to
which beneficial uses are impaired and the types
of management actions required to remediate the
Area of Concern. After management actions are
implemented, a monitoring and verification plan
may be implemented by the state agency the
local public advisory council, EPA, and others to
determine whether the Beneficial Use Impairments
removal criteria have been met. An Area of Concern
is eligible to be delisted when all Beneficial Use
Impairments have been removed.
Examples of Beneficial Use Impairments include,
but are not limited to: restrictions on fish and
wildlife consumption; degraded fish and wildlife
populations; degradation of benthos; restrictions
on dredging activities; loss offish and wildlife
habitat; bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems; fish tumors or other deformities; and
beach closings.
Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, federal agencies and their partners have accelerated
cleanup of Areas of Concern - areas designated as the most
contaminated sites on the Great Lakes under the 1987 Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
Cleanup of Areas of Concern is achieved through remediation
and restoration work, which then leads to removing Beneficial
Use Impairments. Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, federal agencies and their partners removed 70 Beneficial
Use Impairments in 23 Areas of Concern - seven times the number
removed in the preceding 22 years. They also delisted three Areas
of Concern: Presque Isle Bay in Pennsylvania and Deer Lake and
White Lake in Michigan. Areas of Concern are delisted when all
the Beneficial Use Impairments have been removed. Additionally,
federal agencies and their partners completed all the management
actions required at eight more Areas of Concern:
River Raisin (Ml) Sheboygan River (Wl)
Lower Menominee (MI/WI) Waukegan Harbor (IL)
St. Clair River (Ml) Ashtabula River (OH)
St. Marys River (Ml) Rochester Embayment (NY)
U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Status
Delisted Areas of Concern (4)
^ Areas of Concern with
Management Actions
Completed (8)
# Remaining Areas of Concern
(19)
ฃ Clinton Riverg^j/ ^
Kalamazoo River r^ -JLjjresqbฃTs|
/ ฃ,iver Raisinj^%ysrtfiver River
'I ' 0
i _^Jฎ
-------
FOCUS AREA 1
Measures of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
1.1.1. Areas of Concern where ail
management actions necessary for delisting
have been implemented.
Baseline: 12
Universe: 31
17
18
19
20
22
1.1.2. Beneficial Use Impairments removed
in Areas of Concern.
Baseline: 80
Universe: 255
93
101
109
118
128
1.1.3. Areas of Concern with a complete and
approved list of all management actions
necessary for delisting.
Baseline: 18
Universe: 31
22
24
26
28
31
Unless otherwise indicated, "Baselines" identify results through FY2018. "Universes" represent the total number possible for applicable measures.
Under GLRI Action Plan III,
federal agencies and their partners
will continue to remediate and
restore Areas of Concern. Federal
agencies working with state and
tribal partners will complete all
management actions required to
delist five of the following 10 Areas
of Concern:
Grand Calumet River
Cuyahoga River
Lower Green Bay/Fox River
St. Louis River
Maumee River
St. Lawrence River
Milwaukee Estuary
Torch Lake
Rouge River
Eighteen Mile Creek
Management actions are on-the-ground actions,
including, but not limited to, remediating
contaminated sediment and restoring habitat
(e.g., improving fish passage, restoring wetlands,
and removing dams), that will lead to the removal
of Beneficial Use Impairments.
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies
and their partners will also complete the lists
of all the management actions for all of the
Areas of Concern. These lists, a compilation of
remediation and restoration projects needed to
remove Beneficial Use Impairments, constitute the
"blueprints" for delisting Areas of Concern.
Path to Delisting
Goal:
Complete management actions
that will lead to
Beneficial Use Impairment
(BUI) Removal and
AOC Delisting.
n
L/C
listing
Monitor
few achievement
pf BUI targets
Remove BUI:
* Aitio^s are complete
Data show that BUI removal
criteria have been met
Execute
Management Actions:
Execute actions with
available funding
r Develop
Management Action*:
Establish projects thai will
lead to removal of each BUI
BUIs Removed
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies
and their tribal, state, and local partners' will
hit the halfway point for removing Beneficial
Use Impairments - 43 additional Beneficial Use
Impairments will be removed for a cumulative total of 128 Beneficial
Use Impairments removed in the remaining Areas of Concern. While
the delisting of Areas of Concern is not a specific measure of progress,
it is the ultimate goal of the Area of Concern program.
* Including local Area of Concern advisory groups.
EE
LRI
an I
*1
o
U a.
o ง
C3
Q.
c
uo
End
Acti
"O
c
-------
FOCUS AREA 1
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND AREAS OF CONCERN
Objective
1.2. Share information on the
risks and benefits to humans
of consuming Great Lakes fish,
wildlife, and harvested plant
resources.
Commitment
Increase the availability and
accessibility of information to
vulnerable populations that
consume Great Lakes fish,
wildlife, and harvested plant
resources.
Measure of Progress
1.2.1. State and tribal organizations
that collect and share information
with vulnerable populations
regarding the consumption of
Great Lakes fish, wildlife, and
harvested plant resources.
Great Lakes Consortium for Fish Consumption Advisories
The Consortium is a collaboration offish advisory program managers from government health,
water quality, and fisheries agencies bordering the Great Lakes. The work of the Consortium
is guided by the following goals: use, share, and advance credible data and science; evaluate
the risks and benefits of consuming Great Lakes fish and incorporate these messages into fish
consumption advice; establish and use best practices for communicating and influencing the
behavior of fish consumers; and develop and disseminate consistent advice.
Since the start of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their
partners have sought to increase the public's knowledge
of the risks and benefits offish consumption. While federal
agencies and their partners worked to address the most
urgent issue in the Great Lakes (cleaning up toxins in
the Areas of Concern), state and tribal partners formed
partnerships, such as the Great Lakes Consortium for Fish
Consumption Advisories, to provide better fish consumption
information in order to influence consumers to make
healthier choices. Federal agencies and their partners tested
fish consumption messaging, designed new materials,
evaluated their effectiveness, revised them as needed, and
disseminated the improved fish consumption guidelines.
Through studies of vulnerable populations, agencies and
their partners gained a better understanding of the presence
and distribution of emerging contaminants, potential
routes of exposure, and potential impacts on fish, wildlife,
and people.
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies and
their state and tribal partners will continue to help the public
make informed decisions about healthy options for safe fish
consumption, including expanding successful pilot programs
into other areas of the basin. This expansion will increase
the availability and accessibility of safe fish consumption
guidelines to vulnerable populations that consume Great
Lakes fish. Agencies and their partners will also include
more emphasis on the safe consumption of other wildlife
and harvested plant resources. These activities will help to
actively address the needs of vulnerable populations and will
provide the opportunity for the states and tribes to develop
more innovative and effective outreach practices. Activities
may include collection of information for use in programs
to inform vulnerable populations and may incorporate
traditional ecological knowledge.
7
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 1
Objective
1.3. Increase knowledge about (1) Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 3
chemicals in the Great Lakes; and (2) other
priority chemicals that have negatively
impacted, or have the potential to
negatively impact, the ecological or publi
health of the Great Lakes.
Commitment
Fill critical data gaps for
Annex 3 and other priority
chemicals in the Great Lakes
through discrete monitoring
and assessment activities.
Measure of Progress
1.3.1. Discrete chemical
monitoring and
assessment activities
conducted.
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners
have characterized and assessed risks
that emerging contaminants may
pose to Great Lakes fish and wildlife,
including completion of an evaluation
of those contaminants with the greatest
potential to adversely impact Great
Lakes fish and wildlife. Agencies and
their partners were able to gain a better
understanding of the presence and
distribution of emerging contaminants,
potential routes of exposure, and
potential impacts on fish and wildlife.
Agencies and their partners completed
laboratory and field studies evaluating
the biological effects of chemical
mixtures and of long-term exposure of
fish and other high-priority wildlife to
contaminants.
Under GLRI Action Plan III,
federal agencies will coordinate with
appropriate state and tribal partners
to fill critical monitoring and data gaps
for priority chemicals in the Great
Lakes. Conducting discrete monitoring
projects will increase knowledge of
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Annex 3 Chemicals of Mutual Concern
(CMCs) and other priority chemicals
that have negatively impacted, or have
the potential to negatively impact, the
health of the Great Lakes. Monitoring
data generated through this process wil
provide information on the magnitude
and extent of these chemicals in the
Great Lakes.
Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement calls for
protection of human health and the
environment through cooperative
and coordinated measures to reduce
the release of Chemicals of Mutual
Concern from human activities
into the Waters of the Great Lakes.
The eight chemicals binationally
designated as Chemicals of Mutual
Concern currently include:
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
Long-Chain Perfluorinated
carboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs)
Mercury
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
(PBDEs)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
(SCCPs)
Process to Identify Chemicals Under Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Identify and target
CMCs and other priority
chemicals for discrete
science and
assessment activities
Implement discrete
science and assessment
activities
Evaluate and report
project results
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
8
-------
FOCUS AREA 2
INVASIVE SPECIES
Commitments
Work with Great Lakes states and tribes to conduct rapid response actions
or exercises.
Manage pathways through which invasive species can be introduced to the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Conduct early detection and surveillance activities.
Objective
2.1. Prevent introductions of
new invasive species.
Asian Carp
Population Observation
1.40
ฃ 1.20
C
.2
<
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
2012 ฆ2015
2013 12016
2014 B2017
Starved Rock
Lock and Dam
Beneficial reductions of Asian carp
occurrence (bar graph) in upstream
portions of Illinois River due to
GLRI-supported contract fishing.
Reductions in Asian carp occurrence
just adjacent to Great Lakes waters
is one of many techniques used to
avoid establishment of this invasive
species within the Great Lakes.
ฉ2018 Google Earth
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners
have continued diligent efforts to
prevent new introductions of invasive
species in the Great Lakes ecosystem
and to control existing invasive species
populations already present. Federal
agencies and their partners conducted
25 early detection field surveillances
since 2015. Federal agencies and their
partners also completed a total of
57 exercises and responses from 2015
to 2017 in response to new invasive
species occurrences or expansion of
the current range of existing invasive
species, more than doubling the target
of eight rapid responses and exercises
per year over this period.
Agencies and their partners continued
extensive efforts to prevent bighead and
silver carp from becoming established in
the Great Lakes ecosystem. GLRLfunded
actions during Action Plan II included
installing and maintaining barriers to
close Asian carp pathways to the Great
Lakes, developing genetic testing tools,
conducting contract fishing to remove
over six million pounds of Asian carp
from Upper Illinois Waterways near
Lake Michigan, and assisting the Asian
Carp Regional Coordinating Committee
(ACRCC) to implement the Asian Carp
Action Plan.
Surveillance programs continue to be
a priority, forming the foundation for a
multi-species early detection network.
These surveillance activities were further
refined and targeted by identifying
11 primary "injurious wildlife" species
that have the potential to become
invasive and highly detrimental to the
Great Lakes. Other key GLRLfunded
projects include the testing of new
technologies for managing ship ballast
waters, and establishing boat-washing
stations in Michigan, Wisconsin, New
York, and tribal lands to reduce the
potential for inadvertent spread of
invasive species by recreational boats.
Public education efforts have also
helped boaters, anglers, and other
resource users prevent the spread of
invasive species.
How Can Invasive Species
Get into the Great Lakes?
Canals and waterways
Recreational boating
Commercial shipping
Illegal trade of banned species
Release of aquarium species
Release of live bait
Spread of plant species purchased
through nurseries, internet sales,
and water garden trade
9
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 2
Measure of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
2.1.1. Rapid responses or exercises
conducted.
Baseline: N/A
Universe: N/A
8
8
8
8
8
Great Lakes Early Detection arid
Surveillance Program
|Keweenaw Waterway
Keweenaw & Huron J3ays
fwo Harbors, MN
Marquette, Ml
Northern Green Bay
Central Green B
Southern Green Bayi
Wisconsin
)inaw
O Oswego, NY
Irondequoit, NY
New York
Lower Niagara River/
Upper Niagara River {
1 , , . Buffalo, NY
Lake St. Clair
Michigan
Milwaukee, Wl
>M aumee Bay
'urns Harbor,
^Clevel
Additional Measures of Progress
2.1.2. Projects that manage pathways through which invasive species can be introduced to the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
2.1.3. Early detection and surveillance activities conducted.
Minnesota
Illinois
Indiana
Upper St. Marys River
Cj Lower St. Marys River
Under GLRI Action
Plan 111, federal agencies
and their partners wili
continue to prevent new
invasive species from
establishing self-sustaining
populations in the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Federal agencies
and their partners will continue
to increase the effectiveness
of existing surveillance
programs by increasing detection abilities
through use of multiple techniques and
technologies. GLRI will continue to support
risk assessments that identify future potential
invaders and their likely pathways of invasion
to strategically allocate resources and attention
to stakeholders who play an important role
in stopping new invaders from entering the
Great Lakes. GLRI partners will be able to use
risk assessments in combination with updated
"least wanted" lists (such as http://www.gsgp.org/
media/2017/ais-least-wanted-announcement.pdf)
to focus prevention activities. Increasing the ability and frequency of Great Lakes states to quickly address new invasions
or range expansion of existing invasive species will be a key GLRI strategy. Because the Great Lakes can be a freshwater
invasion pathway to the 31 states within the Mississippi River watershed and beyond, these prevention efforts will also
benefit the entire nation.
Pennsylvania
Ohio
GLRI will continue to provide support to the ACRCC. This group implements the Asian Carp Action Plan, including
surveillance, response actions, and testing of new control technologies.
Protecting the Great Lakes from Asian Carp
GLRI provides support to the ACRCC,
which has implemented the Asian Carp
Action Plan, including surveillance,
response actions, and testing of new
control technologies. More information
about the ACRCC is available at
http://www.asiancarp.us.
Contract fishing and removal of Asian carp species in the Illinois River is
an example of critical activity identified by the Asian Carp Action Plan
and supported by GLRI.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II!
10
-------
i
' * '
_
*
y
GLRI partners inspecting the effectiveness of terrestrial
invasive species control along Lake Michigan sand dunes.
FOCUS AREA 2
INVASIVE SPECIES
Objective
_ . Commitment
2.2. Control
established * Implement control projects for GLRI-targeted invasive species,
invasive species.
Controlling Invasive Species in the Great Lakes Basin
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners
controlled invasive species, including,
but not limited to: baby's breath;
bighead carp; buckthorn; emerald
ash borer; eurosian watermilfoii;
garlic mustard; grass carp; hydrilla;
japanese knotweed; invasive strains
of phragmites; purple loosetrife; and
sea lamprey.
Since 2010, GLRI partners adapted to
the discovery of new, non-native species
and better mapping of the distribution
of invasive species. The focus of GLRI
invasive species control projects is
expected to continue to adapt and
change to highlight new species of
emerging concern.
Partner agencies responded to
numerous invasive problem areas, with
notable efforts including controlling
Hydrilla infestations in New York,
as well as Phragmites and invasive
mussels across the basin. These control
projects were done with partners
that will continue maintenance and
stewardship beyond the duration of
the federally funded projects. Most
projects will require additional, low-level
maintenance as sites progress toward
full recovery.
11
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 2
Measure of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
2.2.1. Aquatic/terrestrial acreage
controlled.
Baseline: 153,569
Universe: N/A
156,000
162,000
168,000
174,000
180,000
Under GLRI Action Plan III,
federal agencies and their partners will
continue to restore sites degraded by
aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial invasive
species. Agencies will continue to
implement control projects in national
forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and
other federal lands where they have
direct implementation responsibility.
These federal land management
agencies will also continue to partner
with states, tribes, and neighboring
communities to promote larger-scale
protection and restoration through
control programs.
The Great Lakes Sea Lamprey Control
Program will continue to locate and
address strategic barriers to lamprey
expansion while also advancing new
control technologies. Sea lamprey
control will be critical to ensuring that
other GLRI accomplishments, such as
the restoration of native open lake fish
species, are not compromised in future
years. Overall, invasive species control
activities will continue to be strategically
implemented to advance resiliency of
GLRI projects.
Improved detection, prevention,
and control capabilities through
documenting successes.
Established regional networks of
on-the-ground invasive species
control and treatment teams.
Supporting Sustainable Invasive Species Control through
Community Projects
The GLRI is actively building the capability of Great Lakes communities to
manage invasive species through supporting on-the-ground and in-the-water
control projects by increasing local capacity and motivating use of adaptive
management principles.
Local communities have relied on GLRI support to increase capacity to address both aquatic invasive species, including Hydrilla in
New York (left photo) and various terrestrial invasive plant species in northern Wisconsin (right photo).
Empowered the public to
reduce spread of invasive
species.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
12
-------
FOCUS AREA 2
INVASIVE SPECIES
Commitments
Develop/enhance technologies and methods to prevent the introduction and
to control the spread of invasive species.
Develop/enhance invasive species-specific collaboratives to support rapid
responses and communicate the latest control and management techniques.
Objective
2.3. Develop invasive
species control
technologies and
refine management
techniques.
Developing Invasive Species Control Technology for the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Focus of GLRI Support
Develop conceptual designs.
Complete proof-of-concept studies.
Perform lab testing and small-scale field testing.
-
Demonstrate control technology on a larger scale.
^
Deploy technology.
GLRI provides support for invasive species control technologies with proven potential that require additional testing. With that
support, technologies have been deployed for Hydrilla and Phragmites, Additional technology testing and demonstration will
continue to control these and other invasive species.
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners
have worked to develop and enhance
several invasive species control
technologies. Researchers worked to
develop techniques to detect, attract,
and remove Asian carp. Sea lamprey
pheromones were synthesized
and field-tested to assess whether
pheromones can be used to improve
the efficiency of trapping sea lamprey.
New procedures were developed and
refined for testing the efficacy of ballast
water treatment systems in the Great
Lakes. Two innovative technologies
were developed and field-tested as
new controls for Phragmites. New
partnerships and stakeholder networks
were established for monecious
Hydrilla, grass carp, and invasive
mussels. These partnerships, also
known as collaboratives, support rapid
responses and communicate the latest
control and management techniques.
The Importance of Developing Invasive
Species Control Technologies
A number of effective control technologies have been
developed to control invasive species in the Great Lakes.
One of the longest-running and most effective invasive
control technology programs is the sea lamprey control
program. Its success is largely due to a multi-year effort
to test almost 6,000 chemical compounds to identify the
compound that most effectively controls sea lampreys
without harming other species. Federal agencies and
their partners are using GLRI support to further refine
sea lamprey control techniques and to develop targeted
control methods for other invasive species impacting the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
13
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 2
Measures of Progress
2.3.1. Technologies and methods field tested.
2.3.2. Collaboratives developed/enhanced.
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
Treatment E
Under GLRI Action Plan III,
federal agencies and their partners
will continue to develop and enhance
technologies to control Great Lakes
invasive species by moving the latest
technologies for invasive species
detection and control from the testing
phase to actual implementation in the
field. Federal agencies will continue to
enhance invasive species collaboratives
to support rapid responses and to
communicate the latest control and
management techniques. The Hydrilla
collaborative will demonstrate how
small patches of Hydrilla can be
eliminated without the use of large-
scale treatments. Agencies will continue
to further refine sea lamprey control
techniques and will work to develop
targeted control methods for other
invasive species impacting the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
The GLRI will continue to support the
Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative
to facilitate communication across
the region and serve as the resource
center for information on Phragmites
biology, management, and scientific
research. Members of the Great Lakes
Phragmites Collaborative identified
the need for data-driven best
management practices and developed
the Phragmites Adaptive Management
Framework to learn from management
activities basinwide and guide future
management decisions.
GLRI is supporting experiments and data collection as ongoing invasive species projects are implemented so that the effectiveness of
these projects across the Great Lakes is known, Phragmites control including mowing (Treatment A), aerial spraying (Treatment B), backpack
spraying (Treatment C), burning (Treatment D), and flooding (Treatment E) are examples of a variety of approaches that may have varying
success depending on the setting of project. A learning-while-doing approach, or adaptive management, will be applied to Phragmites
control and other invasive species control efforts to increase the success rate and resiliency of future investments.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II!
14
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
IMPACTS ON NEARSHORE HEALTH
Commitments
Implement systems of conservation practices on farms and in streams to
reduce and treat nutrient runoff.
Increase adoption of enhanced nutrient management practices to reduce
risk of nutrient losses from farmland.
Objective
3.1. Reduce nutrient
loads from agricultural
watersheds.
Genesee River, New York
MICHIGAN
Maumee River, Ohio
(Eagle Creek)
Saginaw River, Michigan
(Alger Creek)
Lower Fox River, Wisconsin
(East River)
Saginaw River, Michigan
(Three Mile Creek)
NEW YORi
OHIO
Reducing Nutrient Runoff - Accomplishments to Date
Over one million pounds of
phosphorus runoff reduced
from farmlands
P
Phosphorus
Over 700,000 cropland acres
under conservation in agricultural
priority watersheds
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration initiative,
federal agencies and their partners have
funded multiple activities to reduce
nutrient runoff and prevent nearshore
harmful and nuisance algal blooms.
The largest source of excess nutrients
to Great Lakes nearshore areas is
phosphorus runoff from agricultural
lands. Because implementing measures
to prevent erosion and runoff from
farmlands is often voluntary the bulk of
GLRI efforts to date has been to provide
farmers with financial and technical
resources to adopt conservation
practices. Outreach and funding have
been targeted to where they would
have the greatest impact on improving
water quality.
Federal agencies have used GLRI
support to promote better nutrient
management and more than double
the number of farmland acres enrolled
in agricultural conservation programs
in four priority watersheds. These
programs have helped producers
reduce phosphorus in runoff, preventing
over one million pounds of phosphorus
from washing off agricultural lands to
date. Continued efforts to support
technical assistance and comprehensive
conservation planning will be vital to
enhancing adoption of conservation
systems and further reducing
phosphorus loads.
Agricultural Priority
Watersheds. Federal
agencies and partners
are currently focusing
phosphorus reduction
efforts in four GLRI priority
watersheds: the Lower Fox
River, the Saginaw River,
the Maumee River, and
the Genesee River. These
agriculture-dominated
watersheds are the
watersheds most in need of
phosphorus reductions to
prevent excess algae growth
in the Great Lakes. Federal
agencies and partners will
continue to work in these
watersheds, and others that
need nutrient reduction, as
appropriate.
Maumee River, Indiana
(Black Creek)
INDIANA
15
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
Measures of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
3.1.1. Estimated pounds of phosphorus
reductions from conservation practice
implementation throughout Great Lake
watersheds.
Baseline: 881,467
Universe: N/A
1,370,000
1,670,000
1,970,000
2,270,000
2,570,000
3.1.2. Acres receiving technical or financial
assistance on nutrient management in
priority watersheds.
Baseline: 1,955,867
Universe:
10,000,000
2,080,000
2,250,000
2,400,000
2,570,000
2,705,000
Baseline for Measure 3.1.2 identifies results through FY2017.
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies and their partners will
continue working on farms and in streams to reduce nutrient loads from agricultural
watersheds, emphasizing utilization of watershed management plans and work in
priority watersheds. Federal agencies and their partners will do this by:
Improving effectiveness of existing
voluntary incentive-based, and
regulatory programs.
Encouraging producers and
agribusinesses to adopt innovative
technologies and approaches to
reduce nutrient runoff and soil losses.
Expanding outreach and
demonstration farm networks
to improve on farm nutrient
management practices.
Capturing and treating agricultural
runoff in drainage ditches and streams
before it reaches the Great Lakes.
Annex 4 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls
for coordinating binational actions to manage phosphorus
concentrations and loadings, and other nutrients if
warranted, to control the growth of nuisance and toxic
algae. Under Action Plan III, GLRI partners will continue to
coordinate nutrient control and effectiveness monitoring
efforts in support of Annex 4 goals.
The RIGHT SOURCE
of nutrient to be applied
... in the RIGHT PLACE
subsurface injection and/or
avoiding areas prone to runoff
and erosion
Example conservation practices: no-till
farming (top) and grassed waterway (bottom).
...in the RIGHT AMOUNT
as determined by soil, plant,
and manure testing
and at the RIGHT TIME Rj jap buffers reduce
will maximize crop uptake while runoff and
reducing runoff, leaching, and nutrients
Conservation tillage
Fencing keeps
animal manure
out of the stream
and prevents
streambank erosion
"4R" nutrient
management practices
Subsurface injection of fertilizer
and manure reduces nutrient runoff
Stream
An example of an effective conservation practice system: nutrient management practices coupled with minimal tillage, continuous cover,
and riparian buffers. A holistic management approach is necessary to achieve nutrient load reductions.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
16
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
IMPACTS ON NEARSHORE HEALTH
Objective
3.2. Reduce
untreated
stormwater runoff.
Commitments
Accelerate implementation of green infrastructure practices to
infiltrate stormwater runoff.
Implement watershed management projects in urban and rural
communities to reduce runoff and erosion.
Reducing Stormwater Runoff - Accomplishments to Date
Over 250 million gallons of
untreated urban stormwater
runoff prevented from entering
the Great Lakes
100+
Over 100 local watershed
projects implemented in Great
Lakes communities
Since the start of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their
partners have reduced the loading of sediment, nutrients,
toxic contaminants, and pathogens to Great Lakes
tributaries and neaishore waters by implementing projects
in Great Lakes communities. GLRI funding supported
green infrastructure projects in Great Lakes shoreline cities
to reduce untreated stormwater runoff and to improve
nearshore water quality. These green infrastructure projects
had the added benefit of increasing greenspace in urban
areas and providing habitat for pollinators. Watershed
management projects were also implemented to stabilize
streambanks, increase forest cover, construct wetland
meadows, and improve water quality at beaches.
Examples of green infrastructure above: rain garden (bottom left), constructed stormwater wetland (top right), planting trees in a riparian
corridor (bottom right).
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
Measures of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
3.2.1. Estimated gallons (in millions) of
untreated stormwater runoff captured or
treated.
Baseline: 252
Universe: N/A
350
400
450
500
550
3.2.2. Miles of Great Lakes shoreline and
riparian corridors restored or protected.
Baseline: 23
Universe: N/A
30
37
44
51
58
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies and their partners
will continue to accelerate implementation of green infrastructure projects
to reduce the impacts of polluted runoff on nearshore water quality. These
projects will capture or slow the flow of untreated runoff and filter out
sediment, nutrients, toxic contaminants, pathogens, and other pollutants from
runoff before it enters Great Lakes tributaries, beaches, and nearshore waters.
In addition to supporting green infrastructure, GLRI funding will continue
to support watershed management projects that slow and intercept runoff.
For example, streambank improvement projects identified in watershed plans
can be effective in improving and protecting water quality. Actions such as
re-establishing riparian vegetation and stabilizing streambanks can help
increase a stream's resiliency to stressors such as large storms. Restoration
projects along eroding coastlines can incorporate resilient features to mitigate
effects of more extreme storms, high wave action, interrupted sediment
transport and presence of manmade physical structures. Activities to reduce
stormwater runoff and streambank erosion also complement these restoration
efforts and increase coastal resiliency.
Federal agencies will work with local partners on
stormwater runoff to slow it down, soak it up, and filter
pollutants.
Green Infrastructure Captures and Filters Runoff
r \ V 1 '
wt! */
f j
r
' 1 ' "ฆ11
v
f:
Examples of green infrastructure: rain
garden protecting a high-quality woodland
(top) and pervious pavement preventing
runoff to a beach (bottom).
Bioswale
planter
Pervious parking lane and bike lane with
detention area for up to 2-year storm event
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
18
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
IMPACTS ON NEARSHORE HEALTH
Objective
3.3. Improve effectiveness
of nonpoirit source control
and refine management
efforts.
Commitments
Assess achievement of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 4
nutrient targets.
Evaluate effectiveness of nonpoint source projects.
Develop new or improved approaches for reducing or preventing harmful
algal blooms.
Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
GL.RI agencies and partners have coordinated monitoring and assessments to
improve the effectiveness of their nonpoint source control activities.
Strategically
target and
design
projects
For example, in 2012, GLRI partner
agencies and universities began
evaluating various types and
V combinations of agricultural
practices to determine
which were most effective
Implement
projects to reduce
runoff and improve
water quality
Nonpoint source projects and programs are
continually improved through adaptive management.
at removing soluble
phosphorus that
drives algal blooms.
Participants in
the Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project found that
implementing systems
of conservation
practices (for example,
nutrient management,
cover crops, drainage
management, and
buffers) in specific priority areas will have the
greatest impact on reducing phosphorus
loads to western Lake Erie. GLRI agencies
applied that information to accelerate
phosphorus reduction accomplishments by
20% over the goal that had been planned
under Action Plan 1,1, Over the next five years,
GLRI federal agencies expect to reduce
an additional 1,500,000 lbs of agricultural
phosphorus runoff - a 50% increase over the
goal under Action Plan II.
Similarly, in 2014, GLRI partner agencies
began evaluating performance of various
green infrastructure practices in urban areas.
GLRI agencies will apply the information
learned from these studies to improve
effectiveness of stormwater reduction
projects funded under GLRI. Over the next
five years GLRI federal agencies expect to
more than double the amount of stormwater
runoff reduced through green infrastructure
practices to 550 million gallons.
Decision-support tools improve
nonpoint source management. For
example, under Action Plan II, federal agencies
partnered with states to develop weather-
based forecasts to help farmers avoid nutrient
application when the chance of runoff is high.
Runoff Risk Advisory Forecasts have been
developed for Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota
and Ohio, and are being developed for other
Great Lakes states. Under Action Plan III, federal
agencies and partners will promote adoption of
these tools and assess how effective they are at
reducing phosphorus loads.
Pictured right: The Ohio Applicator Forecast is designed
to help nutrient applicators identify times when the
weather-risk for applying nutrients is low. The risk forecast
is created by the National Weather Service and takes
into account snow accumulation and melt, soil moisture
content, and forecast precipitation and temperatures.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan
r, 2
Lt?gaf*d
jT"^> Western Ba*r
Ohio Runoff Risk f orccป1
I
-------
FOCUS AREA 3
Measures of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
3.3.1. Nutrient monitoring and assessment
activities conducted.
Baseline: 30
Universe: N/A
30
30
30
30
30 \
3.3.2. Nutrient or stormwater runoff
reduction practices or tools developed or
evaluated.
Baseline: 10
Universe: N/A
10
10
10
10
A
Under Action Plan III,
federal agencies and their partners
will continue to apply adaptive
management to maximize nonpoint
source-control efforts using a three-
pronged strategy:
1. Continue the edge-of-field
monitoring studies underway in
agricultural priority watersheds,
and establish new sites to test the
effectiveness of innovative practices
such as bioreactors.
2. Use the tools and lessons learned
under Action Plan II to optimize
outcomes of nutrient and stormwater
reduction projects.
3. Promote development of new
strategies for nonpoint source
control, such as nutrient recovery and
manure transformation technologies.
Effectiveness monitoring of nonpoint source runoff
in urban (top) and agricultural (bottom) settings.
A typical agricultural edge-of-field
study takes at least eight years. Water
quality data is collected downstream of
fields and at the outlet of the watershed
to measure improvements in water
quality associated with agricultural
conservation activities.
Under Action Plan II, six edge-
of-field monitoring sites were
established to evaluate the impact
of nutrient-reduction activities in the
priority agricultural watersheds. In
addition, GLRI partners are monitoring
the effectiveness of stormwater runoff
reduction projects at four sites. The
information learned from these studies
will be used to improve future project
designs so that water quality benefits
can be maximized.
Edge-of-field site:
Control basin
Collects data on runoff from an
individual farm field basin using
traditional farm practices
Edge-of-field site:
Treatment basin
Collects data on runoff from an
individual farm field basin with
installed conservation practice
USGS streamgage
Collects data on the
entire subbasin
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
20
-------
FOCUS AREA 4
HABITATS AND SPECIES
Objective
4.1. Protect and restore
communities of native
aquatic and terrestrial species
important to the Great Lakes.
Commitment
Identify, restore, and protect habitats and provide habitat connectivity
to support important species and associated habitats.
Lake Sturgeon Recovery: Multiple
Great Lakes tributaries have been
selected for rearing and release of
juvenile lake sturgeon to increase the
population size in Lake Michigan and
Lake Erie. The barriers to the successful
return and spawning of lake sturgeon
in Great Lakes tributaries are being
addressed through innovative fish-
passage projects such as those on the
Menominee River in Wisconsin and
the Boardman River in Michigan. A
comprehensive approach was taken to
make sure this long-lived, prehistoric
fish remains in the Great Lakes for
future generations.
Coastal Wetlands Protection: The
GI.RI has provided the resources
necessary to assess, protect, and
restore many of the remaining
coastal wetlands across the Great
Lakes. Partners across the basin have
accelerated protection of remaining
high-quality coastal wetlands and
undertaken efforts to bring back coastal
wetlands lost to human development
and drainage practices. An example
of such a coastal wetland restoration
is the Howard Farms Restoration
Project in Martin, Ohio, which will
restore 568 acres of coastal wetlands,
restore hydrologic exchange with Lake
Erie, provide fish nursery habitat, and
provide stopover habitat for migrating
birds and waterfowl. GLRI investments
since 2015 are expected to protect or
restore approximately 50,000 acres of
coastal wetlands across the Great Lakes.
GLRI will continue to support people and communities to better understand coastal processes under protected settings including those
in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (left photo) and implement the best approaches to restore the interface of the Great Lakes and
shorelines where species and people interact, including the Chicago waterfront (right photo).
Since the start of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners,
including states and tribes, have worked
to protect, restore, and enhance
habitat in the Great Lakes basin. Key
accomplishments include:
Bringing Back the Great Lakes Piping
Plover: Protecting its habitat and
increasing the number of breeding
pairs to 76 over a much wider area of
the Great Lakes, including breeding
pairs identified in Illinois, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, and New York.
21
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 4
Measures of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
4.1.1. Acres of coastal wetland, nearshore,
and other habitats restored, protected, or
enhanced.
Baseline: 370,488
Universe: 1,550,000
394,000
406,000
418,000
430,000
442,000
4.1.2. Miles of connectivity established for
aquatic species.
Baseline: 5,289
Universe: N/A
5,700
5,900
6,100
6,300
6,500
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies and their partners will
build upon and shore-up past GLRi investments while recognizing where new
geographies and emerging issues are important to targeted species. Examples
of such projects include restoring riparian habitat corridors associated with
significant fish barriers already removed and/or bypassed and further connecting
high-quality terrestrial and aquatic habitat areas. Agencies and their partners will
strategically collaborate between the GLRI invasive species and habitat restoration
activities to reduce the possibility of past investments regressing due to invasive
species occurrence.
GLRI partners will continue to support projects that increase coastal communities'
understanding of lake processes important to habitats and species. Collaborative
partnerships will pursue innovation related to the use of natural and nature-based
features that will enhance coastal ecosystem function and, when possible, consider
the beneficial use of dredged material to create new habitats for species important
to Great Lakes stakeholders. Projects will be initiated that use lessons learned from
past efforts and address fragmented habitats by connecting habitats important
to key species and communities to increase their resilience. Sound, cutting-
edge science, and tools will guide future Gl Rl funded efforts to maximize their
conservation value.
Lake trout (above) and native prey fish
species (below) such as cisco and bloater
are important native fish species to the
open lake food web and a focus of GLRI
restoration activities.
Benefits of GLRI dam removal and stream channel restoration on the Ottaway-Boardman River include great recreational opportunities for
paddling and fishing.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 4
HABITATS AND SPECIES
Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners have worked to maintain, restore, and
enhance populations of native fish and wildlife species. This was accomplished
through multi-jurisdictional and stakeholder groups, including the Council of Lake
Committees, the Upper Mississippi and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture, the
Great Lakes Coastal Assembly, the Lakewide Action and Management Plans, and
others. Focus Area 4 will continue to be responsive and direct efforts to advance
science needs, as well as support species reintroductions informed by changing
Great Lakes conditions and management strategies.
GLRI federal agencies responded to needs offish and wildlife management
agencies through activities such as assessments of top-level predators in the
open lakes, including lake trout and other salmonids, and assistance in the re-
introduction of native prey species to support a healthy ecosystem and sustainable
fishery. GLRI federal agencies will continue to be responsive to Great Lakes
states, tribes, and communities and provide needed science, complement other
restoration efforts, and address emerging issues.
Juvenile Lake Sturgeon Catch Rate - Northern Green Bay
Michigan DNR Gill Net Assessment Data
0.40
Objective
4.2. Increase resiliency of
species through comprehensive
approaches that complement
on-the-ground habitat
restoration and protection.
o
ง ฐ-30
0.25
_c
ฃ 0.20
o
*
V 0.15
ฆM
03
CH
-g o.io
re
u
0.05
0.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Establishment of juvenile sturgeon-rearing trailers at strategic locations
and release of reared individuals (top two photos on the right) in future
years is expected to continue to increase population numbers of this
iconic fish species to more resilient levels (bottom photo on the right).
Commitments
Update and implement recovery actions for federal threatened,
endangered, and candidate species.
Support population-level protections, enhancements, and re-introductions
for tribal, state, and Great Lakes native species of importance.
23
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 4
Measure of Progress with Annual Targets
Baseline/
Universe
FY 2020
Target
FY 2021
Target
FY 2022
Target
FY 2023
Target
FY 2024
Target
4.2.1. Species benefited where actions have
been completed to significantly protect or
promote recovery of populations.
Baseline: 0
Universe: N/A
1
2
4
6
8
Examples of species that may
benefit under this measure include,
but are not limited to:
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies arid their partners will
continue to work to maintain, restore, and enhance the habitats of native fish
and wildlife species in order to increase the resiliency and overall health of these
species. Protection and restoration of federally listed species will be rooted
in past successes from across the Great Lakes. GLRI federal agencies have
identified a subset of federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species for
demonstrating how GLRI investments can have the greatest impact in a relatively
short time period. Future projects will support population-level enhancements,
re-introductions, and tracking for tribal, state, and other Great Lakes native species
of importance. Expected outcomes will include avoiding species extinction,
identifying key habitats and limiting factors to species recovery, and increasing or
protecting population levels.
Federal agencies and their partners will target species protection, restoration, and
enhancement projects based on consensus-based Great Lakes restoration and
conservation plans developed by federal agencies, states, and tribes. For example,
native species re-introductions may occur in locations where these agencies are
also creating or restoring habitat.
Federal agencies and their partners will evaluate population dynamics to aid in
successfully maintaining fish and wildlife communities. Results of annual project
evaluations will be used to prioritize locations and species to be targeted
in future projects. Drawing from western science and traditional ecological
knowledge, GLRI agencies and their partners will continue to support protection of
native species that have cultural, subsistence, and economic value.
Protection and restoration of wild rice, such as shown above in the Kakagon Sloughs on the Bad River Reservation in northern Wisconsin,
will continue to be a priority. Wild rice is a plant of significant cultural value to Great Lakes tribal nations.
Lake trout
Native prey fish
Wild rice
Dwarf lake iris
Great Lakes piping plover
Pitcher's thistle
Colonial waterbirds
Lake sturgeon
Brook trout
Native freshwater mussels
Lakeside daisy
American Hart's-tongue fern
Chittenango amber snail
Mitchell's satyr
Poweshiek skipperling
Moose
Rusty patched bumble bee
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II!
24
-------
FOCUS AREA 5
FOUNDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESTORATION ACTIONS
Objective
_ . , Commitment
5.1. Educate the next
generation about the Great Promote Great Lakes-based ecosystem education and stewardship.
Lakes ecosystem.
Removal of an invasive plant species. CGLL Teacher Cruise on the Research Vessel Park visitor being educated on Lake Sturgeon,
Lake Guardian,
Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners promoted Great Lakes ecosystem education
and stewardship - through a focus on training educators and engaging people
through place-based experiential learning. Partners implemented a number
of activities to promote Great Lakes-based environmental education and
stewardship, including:
The Center for Great Lakes Literacy (CGLL), a Great Lakes Sea
Grant Network program, which seeks to develop a community
of Great Lakes-literate educators, students, scientists,
environmental professionals, and citizen volunteers dedicated
to improved Great Lakes stewardship.
1 he GLRI trained educators across the
Great Lakes (fiscal year 2016).
The Great Lakes Bay Watershed Education and Training
Program (B-WET), which provides hands-on environmental
activities that are aligned with academic learning standards.
Educators being trained at a Professional
Development Day.
National Park Service interpretive programs, which offer
hands-on experiences, educational resources, and networking
opportunities to promote Great Lakes literacy among an
engaged community of educators, scientists, and residents.
Collectively, CGLL, B-WET, and other education projects resulted
in the training of approximately 2,200 educators, who in turn have provided
hands-on experiential learning to an estimated 200,000 students.
25
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 5
Measure of Progress
5.1.1. Youth impacted through education and stewardship projects.
Under GLRI Action Plan III, federal agencies and their
partners will continue to promote Great Lakes-based ecosystem
education and stewardship for K-12 school students and other
interested community members (e.g., courses at parks, nature
centers, museums, and zoos).
GLRI agencies and their partners will continue to support
activities centered on providing experience-based learning
opportunities, with an emphasis on youth. GLRI agencies and
their partners will continue to develop Great Lakes-literate
educators using the essential principles and fundamental
concepts included in the Great Lakes Literacy curriculum.
These activities will support the overall goal of impacting
as many youths as possible over time to foster Great Lakes
stewardship, promote conservation, and expose and prepare
under-represented youth for higher education opportunities in
natural resource management.
Park Rangers educate a youth group on ways they can improve
the ecosystem.
The Center for Great Lakes Literacy is a collaborative effort led by Great Lakes Sea Grant network educators throughout
the Great Lakes watershed. The center fosters informed and responsible decisions that advance basinwide stewardship.
Educators use the following principles, developed by education leaders in the Great Lakes Sea Grant network, as a
framework for communicating key scientific concepts and the important connections between humans and the Great Lakes.
Great Lakes Literacy Principles:
The Great Lakes, bodies of fresh water with many features, are connected to each other and to the
world ocean.
O Natural forces formed the Great Lakes; the lakes continue to shape the features of their watershed.
Q The Great Lakes influence local and regional weather and climate.
Water makes Earth habitable; fresh water sustains life on land.
Q The Great Lakes support a broad diversity of life and ecosystems.
The Great Lakes and humans in their watersheds are inextricably interconnected.
IjTjl Much remains to be learned about the Great Lakes.
OThe Great Lakes are socially, economically, and environmentally significant to the reqion, the
nation, and the planet.
Source: Great Lakes Sea Grant Network: https://www.cgll.org/for-educators/great-iakes-literacy-principles/.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan I
-------
FOCUS AREA 5
FOUNDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESTORATION ACTIONS
Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
federal agencies and their partners have worked together using a science-
based adaptive management approach, to investigate complex scientific
issues that affect multiple focus areas. Agencies and their partners used GLRI
resources to monitor and assess the overall health of the Great Lakes. This
work has contributed to the identification of current and emerging challenges
to Great Lakes water quality and ecosystem health, which helps agencies
evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies. Part of this work includes
the use of a suite of nine indicators of ecosystem health, in conjunction
with 45 sub-indicators, to support U.S. commitments under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. More than 200 government and non-government
Great Lakes scientists and other experts worked to assemble available data,
including annual monitoring data from the research vessel Lake Guardian
pictured below, in this international effort. Federal agencies and their partners
have implemented targeted projects such as studying the causes and impacts
of harmful algal blooms and Cladophoratwo environmental issues that are
caused by nutrients, influenced by invasive mussels, and have impacts on fish,
wildlife, and humans.
Objective
5.2. Conduct comprehensive
science programs and projects
Commitments
Assess overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and identify the
most significant remaining problems.
Identify cross-cutting science priorities and implement projects to
address those priorities.
Assess the overall health of the
Great Lakes.
Use indicators to assess status and
trends of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Assess conditions of nearshore and
coastal zones.
Large research vessels allow scientists to test water quality and the health of bottom sediments near the coastline and far
offshore. Cylindrical, multi-chambered "Rosette" samplers are used to collect water. Small metal "Ponar" samplers are used
to scoop up and retrieve sediments.
27
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
-------
FOCUS AREA 5
Measures of Progress
5.2.1. Annual Great Lakes monitoring conducted and used to prioritize GLR! funding decisions.
5.2.2. Identify and address science priorities to support implementation of GLRI and the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
Lake
Huron
Lake
Ontario
2023
Lake
jperior
Lake
Michigan
Under GLRI Action Plan III, agencies
working in this Focus Area will continue to
investigate the most significant ecological
problems in the Great Lakes. Monitoring the
health of the Great Lakes at different scales
will remain a priority, including, but not limited
to, monitoring of: contaminants in Great
Lakes fish, water quality and the lower food
web in the offshore waters, and nutrient and
harmful algal blooms in priority areas. Federal
agencies and their partners will identify
and address science priorities to support
implementation of the GLRI and the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. They will also
continue to develop new tools for monitoring
and forecasting, measure project effectiveness,
prioritize management activities, and consider
environmental and health outcomes.
Federal agencies and their partners are developing
an innovative Selective Fish Passage Project that
matches physical and behavioral attributes offish
with technology and engineering to selectively pass
desirable species and exclude invasive species.
The project reconnects a watershed to the Great
Lakes and will be used to apply lessons learned to
other watersheds.
Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative
The GLRI-enhanced Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative
coordinates scientific work to support Great Lakes management. Enhanced
monitoring and field activities are conducted in one lake each year, tied to
priorities identified by the Lake Partnerships.
Science Highlights
a Federal agencies and their partners have
developed new approaches to detect harmful
algal blooms in real time. One approach uses
an airplane mounted with a hyperspectral
camera to capture images and improve
harmful algal bloom forecasts when satellite
imagery cannot be used due to cloudy
conditions. A complementary approach
includes a network of real-time continuous-
observing buoys that track detailed water quality conditions
(including toxin concentrations) to support modeling, forecasting,
and public warnings of harmful algal bloom conditions throughout
western Lake Erie.
ฆ ฆ i Federal agencies and their partners
Ipt.'Wj are implementing a Great Lakes-wide,
coordinated investigation into the factors
'3 Vi that contribute to nuisance Cladophora
! ' algae growth. The collaborative effort
relies on several research vessels, scuba
divers, and field scientists to better
understand the role of invasive mussels, bottom sediments, water
transparency/sunlight, and nutrient levels.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III
28
-------
Great Lakes
RESTORATION
VRfcStof,
?a R'Uf
GREAT LAKES INTERAGENCY
TASK FORCE
Rev. 04/19/2019
------- |