Great Lakes
RESTORATION
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Report to Congress and the President
Fiscal Years 2010-2014
July 20, 2015
-------
2 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
CONTENTS
Message from the Chair of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force 3
Section I Executive Summary 4
Section II Program Accomplishments 6
Focus Area 1:Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern 6
Focus Area 2: Invasive Species 8
Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution 10
Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 12
Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships. .14
Section III Planned Activities 15
Section IVFinancial Reporting 16
Appendix A GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress 22
Appendix B GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives 33
Appendix C GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals 42
About This Report
This report presents an overview of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative progress. It includes information
on funding, project accomplishments and performance on Action Plan measures of progress through
Fiscal Year 2014. Data on direct spending are taken from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency financial
systems. Information on Great Lakes Restoration Initiative projects and activities is available at
http://glri.us.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is required by the 2010 Appropriations Conference Report,
111-316, to submit this report to Congress on behalf of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force:
Beginning in 2011 and each year thereafter, the Agency is directed to provide detailed yearly
program accomplishments and compare specific funding levels allocated for participating Federal
agencies from fiscal year to fiscal year.
This report also satisfies the reporting requirements of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan:
Annual reports to the President, beginning in 2011, will describe accomplishments to date, action
planned for the coming year, and progress toward meeting ecosystem goals and targets.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 3
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR OF THE
GREAT LAKES INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE
From Ashtabula to Zeeland, communities in the Great Lakes basin
rely on their proximity to the largest fresh water system on Earth for
recreation, jobs and a remarkable quality of life.
Federal agencies and their state, tribal, municipal, business, civic,
academic and other partners are leading the charge through the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which was launched in 2010 to
revitalize this critical ecosystem after over a century of degradation.
This Report to Congress and the President shows steady progress over
the relatively short five years of this program. This progress takes the
form of measurable results that make a real difference to Great Lakes
communities. For example, in the five years covered by this Report,
federal, state and local partners completed cleanups in several Areas of
Concern, reduced runoff that contributes to harmful algal blooms, and
increased fish and wildlife habitat.These actions produced healthier
Great Lakes and stronger local economies. Simply put, the GLRI program has accelerated the improvement
of Great Lakes health more than any other coordinated interagency effort in U.S. history.
Though this report by its nature looks back at what we have achieved together, it also lays the groundwork
for future results. With continued commitment from all GLRI partners, we can improve the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem and the communities that depend upon that ecosystem for generations to
come.
Gina McCarthy
Chair, Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
4 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
Cleaning up toxics
Combating invasive species
Promoting nearshore health
Restoring wetlands and other
habitats
Tracking progress and working
with strategic partners
Multiple focus areas
Lakes Restoration Initiative Projects Funded
During 2010-2014
Dots on the map show the actual location of the project
and/or the location of the entity managing the project.
SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was launched in 2010 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 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been
a catalyst for unprecedented federal agency
coordination through the Interagency Task
Force and the Regional Working Group, which
are led by EPA.This coordination has produced
unprecedented results. Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative resources have supplemented agency
base budgets to fund over 2,500 projects to
improve water quality, to protect and restore
native habitat and species, to prevent and
control invasive species and to address other
Great Lakes environmental problems.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action
Plan (http://glri.us/pdfs/glri_actionplan.pdf)
identifies the most significant ecosystem
problems, and ways to solve them, in five major
focus areas.
Accelerating Cleanup of Areas of Concern
Designated Under 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
18
16
14
0J
u
c
o
u 12
J5 10
0)
< 8
&
_Q
ฃ
All cleanup actions
completed in AOC
Projected
completions
I
cn h m lo cn
co oo cn en cn CT) en
CJ1 Ch Ol Ol Ol Q CD
m lo r-- cn
h m L/l n oi
o o o o o
oooooooooo
(N(NfM(NfMfM(NlN(N(N
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 5
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
completed all of the cleanup actions required to delist five Great Lakes Areas of Concern and to formally
delist the Presque Isle Bay Area of Concern a major change from the 25 years before the Initiative, during
which only one Area of Concern was cleaned up and delisted.
Invasive Species
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
engaged in an unprecedented level of activity to prevent new introductions of invasive species in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative provides support to the Asian Carp Regional
Coordinating Committee to prevent bighead and silver carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Agencies and their partners also controlled over 84,000 acres of property for invasive species
such as Japanese knotweed, Phragmites and purple loosestrife.
Maumee
Saginaw
Fox
GLRI Funding Increased Acreage Enrolled
in Agricultural Conservation Programs in Priority Watersheds
ฆ Non-GLRI Funding
ฆ GLRI Funding
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
Acres
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
targeted activities to reduce the largest nonpoint source of phosphorus runoffagricultural landswhich
contributes to harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay and Green Bay. Federal agencies
used Great Lakes Restoration Initiative support to increase the number of acres of farmland enrolled in
agricultural conservation programs in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative priority watersheds by more than 70
percent.
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, more than 100,000 acres of wetlands and
48,000 acres of coastal, upland, and island habitat were protected, restored and enhanced. Over 500 barriers
were removed or bypassed in Great Lakes tributaries, enabling access by fish and other aquatic organisms to
over 3,400 additional miles of river.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, over 1,500 educational institutions
incorporated Great Lakes specific material into their broader environmental education curricula. It is
estimated that more than 175,000 students have participated in these classes.
This report provides an overview of progress over the past five years for each focus area. It also includes
detailed information on funding, project accomplishments and performance on Action Plan measures of
progress, objectives and long-term goals for the first five years of the program, including fiscal years 2013
and 2014.
-------
61GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
SECTION II PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
St, Louis River
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Torch Lake_
Deer Lake
Manistique River
St Marys River
Delisted before GLRI
Delisted during GLRI (through FY14)
A Management actions completed
during GLRI Action Plan I
, Management actions targeted for
completion during GLRI Action Plan II
Remaining Areas of Concern
Menominee River
Fox River/
Lower Green Bay
Sheboygan River^k
Milwaukee Estuary^
Waukegan Harbor^
White Lake
A
Saginaw River and Bay
Muskegon Lake St Clair River
I Clinton River i
Kalamazoo River
Grand Calumet River
River Raisin
Maumee River
^ Detroit River
^Rouge River
Eighteen Mile Creel^
Niagara River A
St Lawrence River
^^Oswego River
Rochester Embayment
Buffalo River
"^^esque Isle Bay
Ashtabula River
Black Rwer ^uyaflฐga River
FOCUS AREA 1: TOXICSUBSTANCES AND AREAS OF CONCERN
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
completed all of the management actions required to remove five Areas of Concern from the list of
contaminated Great Lakes areas designated by the United States and Canada pursuant to the 1987 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The Presque Isle Bay Area of Concern was also delisted in 2013 only the second delisting on the U.S.
side of the border since Areas of Concern were designated pursuant to the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
removed 42 Beneficial Use Impairments in 17 Areas of Concern quadrupling the number of Beneficial
Use Impairments removed in the preceding 22 years.These Beneficial Use Impairments benchmarks of
environmental harm include beach closings, restrictions on drinking water consumption, nuisance algal
blooms, restrictions on dredging, fish and wildlife deformities, restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
and loss offish and wildlife habitat.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
implemented projects to protect human health from contaminants in Great Lakes fish while cleanup efforts
continued. Federal agencies and their partners updated fish consumption advisories and provided improved
public information on the health risks and benefits of Great Lakes fish consumption.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 7
GLRI Funding Used to Complete Cleanups at Six Areas of Concern
Michigan
, isie Bay
Pennsylvania
Sheboygan River
Wisconsin
Waukegan Harbor
Illinois
wnite Lake
Michigan
Federal agencies and their partners focused outreach on those populations with the highest risk of
contaminant exposure, including:
women who may become pregnant
children
urban anglers
tribal communities
people who rely heavily on Great Lakes fish in their diets
Federally funded research documented elevated blood mercury levels in some newborns in the western
Lake Superior basin. Additional Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding was provided to train healthcare
professionals to advise patients about safe fish consumption choices (e.g. testing the effectiveness of
fish consumption advisories; working with healthcare providers to "screen" patients for fish consumption
practices and blood contaminant levels).
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
characterized and assessed risks that emerging contaminants may pose to 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.
Beneficial Use Impairments Removed Since 1987 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreem
ent
C
Q_
70 C
/u o
DU <ฃ
*
a
40
30
c
Q-
O
4-*
10
f <
EE
a
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20
102011 2012 2013 2014 20
152016201720182019
-------
8 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
FOCUS AREA 2: INVASIVE SPECIES
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
engaged in an unprecedented level of activity to prevent new introductions of invasive species in the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Efforts by agencies and their partners helped prevent bighead and silver carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Surveillance programs formed the foundation for a
multi-species early detection network. Partner agencies responded to several detections, including red
swamp crayfish in Wisconsin, grass carp in Michigan, Hydrilla in New York and eDNA for silver and bighead
carp in the Chicago Area Waterway System.
Federal agencies and their state partners have reduced the risk of invasive species entering the Great Lakes
from ballast water discharges. No new introductions have been detected through the ballast water pathway
since 2006. Federal agencies and their partners have conducted species risk assessments for organisms
posing threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem. Public education efforts have helped boaters, anglers and
other resource users to prevent the spread of invasive species.
Protecting the Great Lakes from Asian Carp
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative provides support to the Asian Carp Regional
Coordinating Committee, which has implemented the Asian Carp Control Strategy
Framework including surveillance, response actions and testing of new control technologies.
More information about the ACRCC is available at http://www.asiancarp.us.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Invasive Species Control Projects
(FY 2010-2014)
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 9
Controlling Invasive Species in the Great Lakes Basin
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their
partnersthrough their efforts to control and reduce the migration of invasive species have achieved
target levels for controlled populations of invasive species including:
baby's breath
bighead carp
buckthorn
emerald ash borer
Eurasian watermilfoil
garlic mustard
grass carp
Japanese barberry
Japanese knotweed
lyme grass
invasive strains of Phragmites
purple loosestrife
silver carp
sea lamprey
wild parsnip
No new invasive species have been established since 2009.These control projects were implemented with
partners who will continue maintenance and stewardship beyond the duration of the federally funded
projects.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
worked to develop and enhance several invasive species control technologies. Researchers worked to
develop control techniques that target Asian carp while minimizing harm other fish species and worked
to develop techniques to detect, attract and remove Asian carp to improve the effectiveness of control
methods. For example, seismic pressure (aka, "waterguns") and carbon dioxide have been demonstrated
to act as barriers that prevent the movement of Asian carp and may also be used to herd invasive fish to
increase the effectiveness of other control technologies. Sea lamprey pheromones were synthesized and
field-tested to assess whether pheromones can be used to improve trapping efficiency. New procedures
were developed and refined for testing the efficacy of ballast water treatment systems in the Great Lakes
and several promising ballast water management systems were performance tested. Researchers also
investigated the use of a common soil bacterium to limit the spread of zebra mussels in a manner that
has minimal impacts on native mussels and other organisms. Researchers also tested "gene silencing"
technology to control the spread of invasive Phragmites. The timeframe for demonstration and deployment
is unknown.
Developing Invasive Species Control Technology for the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Focus of GLR!
Support
GLRI supports
testing of invasive
species control
technologies with
proven potential.
m
m
m
Develop conceptual designs
Complete proof-of-concept studies
Perform lab testing and small-scale field testing
Demonstrate control technology on a large-scale in
the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Deploy technology
-------
10 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
FOCUS AREA 3: NEARSHORE HEALTH AND N0NP0INTSOURCE POLLUTION
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
targeted activities to reduce the largest human-caused nonpoint source of phosphorus inputs to Great Lakes
nearshore areas: nutrient runoff from agricultural lands. Excess phosphorus loadings threaten the Great
Lakes ecosystem by contributing to harmful algal blooms that can cause human health effects, drinking
water impairments, beach closures, exacerbate dead zones and result in loss of recreational opportunities.
In the summer of 2014, EPA provided almost $12 million to protect public health by targeting harmful
algal blooms in Western Lake Erie. Federal agencies and their partners provided farmers with financial and
technical resources to implement conservation systems to reduce nutrient runoff and to control soil erosion.
Federal agencies and their partners targeted 720,000 acres of agricultural lands, increasing by over 70
percent the number of acres under conservation practices across all three GLRI priority watersheds.
GLRI Funding Increased Acreage Enrolled
in Agricultural Conservation Programs in Priority Watersheds
Maumee
Saginaw
Fox
Non-GLRI Funding
I GLRI Funding
50,000
100,000 150,000
Acres
200,000
250,000
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 111
These programs help producers reduce phosphorus in runoff that impacts Great Lakes nearshore waters,
contributing to nuisance and harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative partners
conducted edge-of-fieid monitoring to evaluate the impact of various agricultural conservation measures
on water quality. Water quality baseline data was collected downstream of fields to be used in later studies
to gauge long-term changes in water quality associated with nutrient reduction activities.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
identified gaps in the capacity of state and federal agencies to assess risks that waterborne contaminants
may pose to the people and animals living, working and recreating on the Great Lakes. Federal agencies
and their partners responded by implementing projects to gain a better understanding of the presence
and distribution of harmful algal blooms, potential routes of exposure to blooms and the health impacts of
harmful algal bloom exposures in order to protect human and animal health while continuing nearshore
health and nonpoint source reduction efforts.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
also implemented projects in urban areas to reduce sediment, nutrient, toxic contaminant and pathogen
loadings to Great Lakes tributaries and nearshore waters.The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funded
green infrastructure projects in Great Lakes shoreline cities to reduce untreated stormwater runoff and to
improve nearshore water quality.These green infrastructure projects reduce flooding, increase green space
in urban areas and return vacant properties to productive use. Watershed management projects were also
implemented to stabilize stream banks, increase forest cover, restore wetlands and improve water quality at
beaches in urban areas.
Green Infrastructure Captures and Filters Urban Runoff
Pervious parking lane and bike lane with detention area
for up to 2 year storm event using recycled content
Image courtesy of Chicago Department of Transportation
-------
12 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
FOCUS AREA 4: HABITAT AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
worked to protect, restore and enhance habitat in the Great Lakes basin. Projects were implemented to
maintain healthy populations of native species in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. More than 875 habitat
protection, restoration and enhancement projects were implemented throughout the Great Lakes basin by
federal agencies and their partners.
More than 100,000 acres of wetlands
and 48,000 acres of coastal, upland,
and island habitat were protected,
restored and enhanced. Over 500
barriers were removed or bypassed
in Great Lakes tributaries, enabling
access by fish and other aquatic
organisms to over 3,400 additional
miles of river. Data were also
collected to document baseline
conditions for fish, amphibians,
invertebrates, birds, plants and
water quality for all coastal wetlands
in order to inform protection and
restoration decisions.
4000
3000
2000
1000
>
*+-ซ
JT3
E
3
V,
tn
0)
u
<
GLRI Reopened Fish Passage in the Great Lakes Basin
ฆ Fish Passage Barriers
removed (cumulative)
D Miles of Rivers
reopened (cumulative)
L
201 1
2012
2013
2014
GLRI Restored Wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin
150000
100000
50000
201 1
2012
2013
2014
Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative
Habitat Restoration and
Species Protection Projects
(2010-2014)
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 113
During the first five years of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their
partners worked to maintain, restore and enhance
populations of native fish and wildlife species. The
following actions were taken to conserve native
species that were once broadly distributed across the
lakes:
assisting with the delisting of the federally
endangered Lake Erie water snake;
improving conditions for the following
endangered and threatened species: bog
turtle, Canada lynx, copperbelly water snake,
Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake, Hines emerald
dragonfly, Kamer blue butterfly, Kirtland's
warbler, lakeside daisy, Mitchell's satyr butterfly,
piping plover, and Pitcher's thistle; and
implementing projects that led to an additional
13 populations of managed native aquatic
non-threatened and non-endangered species
becoming self-sustaining in the wild.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is
supporting projects to protect endangered
populations of piping plover in the Great Lakes
region. At Wilderness State Park in Michigan,
recovery efforts were implemented to support
3-6 pairs of piping plover. At Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore, federal agencies and
their partners are protecting and monitoring the
largest concentration of breeding piping plover in
the Great Lakes region.
Lake sturgeon declined dramatically in the late
1800s due to overfishing, pollution and habitat
loss.Though many populations were wiped out
long ago, lake sturgeon still persist in ten rivers
around Lake Michigan at a small fraction of their
historic abundance. GLRI is supporting stream-
side rearing units around the Lake to reintroduce
or supplement juvenile lake sturgeon in Lake
Michigan rivers.
-------
14 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Trains Educators Across the Great Lakes Region
FOCUS AREA 5:
ACCOUNTABILITY, EDUCATION!, MONITORING, EVALUATION, COMMUNICATION, AND PARTNERSHIPS
In response to the Administration's goals for improved transparency and fiscal stewardship, federal agencies
established accountability mechanisms, management practices, and third-party oversight to effectively
manage the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Section IV includes more information on efforts to ensure
accountability.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding continues to enhance existing programs that assess the physical,
biological and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes. These programs, in coordination with complementary
state and Canadian programs, help to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration efforts and to assess the
overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem using the best available science. The Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative has been able to leverage resources and establish a large community of partners to ensure that
these efforts are efficient and effective.
During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, federal agencies and their partners
implemented a number of efforts to promote Great Lakes-based environmental education and stewardship,
including:
The Center for Great Lakes Literacy was established by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network to develop
a community of Great Lakes-literate educators, students, scientists, environmental professionals and
citizen volunteers dedicated to improved Great Lakes stewardship.
The Great Lakes Bay Watershed Education and Training Program was created to promote hands-on
environmental activities that are aligned with academic learning standards.
Collectively, Center for Great Lakes Literacy, Great Lakes Bay Watershed Education and Training Program
and other education projects have resulted in over 1,500 educational institutions incorporating Great
Lakes specific material into their broader environmental education curricula. It is estimated that more than
175,000 students have participated in these classes.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 115
SECTION III PLANNED ACTIVITIES
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II (www.
glri.us/actionplan/) summarizes the actions federal
agencies plan to implement during Fiscal Years 2015
through 2019 using Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
funding. These actions will build on restoration and
protection work carried out under the first Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Action Plan, with a major focus on:
cleaning up Great Lakes Areas of Concern;
preventing and controlling invasive species;
reducing nutrient runoff that contributes to algal
blooms;
restoring habitat to protect native species; and
supporting Great Lakes resilience, education and
adaptive management (how we make even better
investment decisions over time).
Great Lakes m-
RESTORATION*
?i * t .%3t j
SBr- f -ฆ ฆ*
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
I , s Action Plan II
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II
incorporates a science-based adaptive management
framework that will be used to prioritize ecosystem
problems to be targeted with Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative resources, to select projects to address those
problems and to assess the effectiveness of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
projects. Measures of Progress have been developed to track all actions implemented under Action Plan
September 2014
.. 'i
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II commits agencies to develop and incorporate climate
resiliency criteria in project selection processes. Agencies will develop standard criteria to ensure climate
resiliency of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative-funded projects.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II includes feedback for strengthening the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative that was contributed by the Great Lakes Advisory Board, the U.S. EPA Science Advisory
Board, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, states, tribes,
municipalities and the general public through in-person meetings, webinars and conference calls.The Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force is grateful for these recommendations and will continue to actively seek input
as it implements and continually improves the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Ashtabula River Area of Concern
-------
16 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
SECTION IV FINANCIAL REPORTING
From Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been appropriated
approximately $1.657 billion in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds.The agencies that receive Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative funds use multiple funding mechanisms, including interagency agreements,
fund transfers, competitive grants and capacity-building grants to states and tribes to support effective
project implementation.
Table 1 and Chart 1 provide information on Fiscal Years 2010-2014 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding
by focus area. Tables 2-6 provide information for the same fiscal years by agency.
Table 1 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Years 2010-2014 Focus Area Allocations
(as of October 1,2014)
1 Focus Area
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014 1
Toxic Substances and
Areas of Concern
$146,946,000
$100,400,000
$107,500,000
$111,000,000
$106,000,000
Invasive Species
$60,265,000
$57,500,000
$56,900,000
$45,000,000
$57,000,000
Nearshore Health and
Nonpoint Source Pollution
$97,331,000
$49,250,000
$54,300,000
$45,000,000
$56,000,000
Habitat and Wildlife
Protection and Restoration
$105,262,000
$63,000,000
$57,200,000
$65,500,00
$60,500,000
Accountability, Education,
Monitoring, Evaluation,
Communication and
Partnerships
$65,196,000
$29,250,000
$23,600,000
$17,000,000
$20,500,000
TOTAL $475,000,000 $299,400,000 $299,500,00c1 $283,500,0002 $300,000,000
Chart 1 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Years 2010-2014 Focus Area Allocations
(as of October 1, 2014)
38%
36%
34% B35%
III
19% 19% 19% 20% 1W 19% _ 19% 20%
III III III III *
Toxics Substances and Invasive Species Nearshore Health and Habitat and Wildlife Accountability, Education,
Areas of Concern Nonpoint Source Protection and Monitoring, Evaluation,
Pollution Restoration Communication and
Partnerships
ฆ FY10 ฆ FY11 ฆ FY12 ฆ FY13 ฆ FY14
7. Rounded from the actual FY2012 appropriation of $299,520,000
2. Rounded from the actual FY2013 appropriation of $283,698,000.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 117
Table 2 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Year 2010 Funding by Agency
(as of October 1,2014)
Agency
FY 2010 President's
Budget
FY 2010 Actual
Allocation3
FY 2010 Total
Obligations
DHS-USCG
$6,850,000
$6,350,000
$6,350,000
DOC-NOAA
$32,170,000
$30,536,774
$30,536,774
DOD-USACE
$45,896,000
$49,586,6784
$49,455,0274
DOI-BIA
$3,000,000
$3,416,000
$3,416,000
DOI-NPS
$10,450,000
$10,505,000
$10,479,525
DOI-USFWS
$57,501,000
$69,348,690
$69,348,690
DOI-USGS
$14,980,000
$23,717,195
$23,717,195
DOT-FHWA
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
DOT-MARAD
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
HHS-ATSDR
$5,500,000
$5,500,000
$5,500,000
USDA-APHIS
$3,000,000
$1,884,768
$1,884,727
USDA-NRCS
$33,642,000
$34,092,000
$34,092,000
USDA-USFS
$15,058,000
$15,458,000
$15,458,000
Subtotal
$233,547,000
$256,895,105
$256,737,938
EPA, DOS-GLFC, DOS-IJC, and Misc. IAs
$241,453,000
$218,104,895
$214,577,960s
Fiscal Year 2010 GLRI Total
$475,000,000
$475,000,000
$471,315,898ฎ
3. Federal agencies work collaboratively to ensure that funding is used for the highest priority Great Lakes projects. The "Actual
Allocations" (funding provided to each agency) reflect adjustments made to address emerging priorities (e.g., keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes) and to maximize environmental outcomes.
4. A direct transfer to DOD-USACE for Asian carp is included in the actual allocation ($7,250,000) and total obligations ($7,232,457) for
DOD-USACE.
5. Components are: (i) grants totaling $ 161,844,653 (including grants to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International
Joint Commission, organizations identified in the FY2010 President's Budget); (ii) Great Lakes National Program Office support
costs (payroll, travel, general expenses, and working capital) totaling $13,195,819; and (Hi) contracts and miscellaneous interagency
agreements (each less than $1 million) totaling $39,537,487.
6. The difference between actual allocations and total obligations is $3,684,102, which includes deobligated funds and applicable
reserves. Deobligation generally results from events such as completing a project under budget, contract termination, changes in
project scope or focus, or other unforeseeable circumstances. Reserves may be established to provide for contingencies or to effect
savings under the Antideficiency Act.
-------
18 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
Table 3 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Year 2011 Funding by Agency
(as of October 1,2014)
Agency
FY 2011 President's
Budget
FY 2011 Actual
Allocation7
FY 2011 Total
Obligations
DHS-USCG
$2,216,867
$2,724,700
$2,724,700
DOC-NOAA
$15,426,627
$18,289,090
$18,289,090
DOD-USACE
$23,615,181
$31,424,680
$31,424,680
DOI-BIA
$2,771,084
$6,316,032
$6,316,027
DOI-NPS
$4,659,855
$4,861,269
$4,861,269
DOI-USFWS
$32,488,747
$48,690,188
$48,690,188
DOI-USGS
$10,282,386
$14,531,602
$14,531,602
DOT-FHWA
$1,385,542
$1,218,000
$1,218,000
DOT-MARAD
$2,632,530
$2,694,600
$2,694,600
HHS-ATSDR
$3,048,193
$2,195,661
$2,195,661
USDA-APHIS
$1,662,651
$636,724
$636,724
USDA-NRCS
$18,312,434
$16,787,976
$16,787,976
USDA-USFS
$8,160,843
$8,889,772
$8,889,772
Subtotal:
$126,662,940
$159,260,294
$159,260,289
EPA, DOS-GLFC, and Misc. IAs
$173,337,060
$140,139,706
$137,564,756ฎ
Fiscal Year 2011 GLRI Total
$300,000,000
$299,400,000
$296,825,046ฎ
7. Federal agencies work collaboratively to ensure that funding is used for the highest priority Great Lakes projects. The "Actual
Allocations" (funding provided to each agency) reflect adjustments made to address emerging priorities (e.g., keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes) and to maximize environmental outcomes.
8. Components are: (i) grants totaling $56,105,989 (including funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, an organization
identified in the FY2011 President's Budget); (ii) Great Lakes National Program Office support costs (payroll, travel, general expenses,
and working capital) totaling $14,403,433; and (Hi) contracts and miscellaneous interagency agreements (each less than $1 million)
totaling $67,055,334.
9. The difference between actual allocations and total obligations is $2,574,954, which includes deobligated funds and applicable
reserves. Deobligation generally results from events such as completing a project under budget, contract termination, changes in
project scope or focus, or other unforeseeable circumstances. Reserves may be established to provide for contingencies or to effect
savings under the Antideficiency Act.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 119
Table 4 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Year 2012 Funding by Agency
(as of October 1,2014)
Agency
FY 2012 Initital
Allocation10
FY 2012 Actual
Allocation11
FY 2012 Total
Obligations
DHS-USCG
$2,700,000
$2,710,000
$2,710,000
DOC-NOAA
$13,300,000
$16,242,588
$16,242,588
DOD-USACE
$44,000,000
$35,647,194
$35,614,564
DOI-BIA
$4,200,000
$4,718,840
$4,718,840
DOI-NPS
$3,400,000
$3,527,109
$3,527,109
DOI-USFWS
$44,600,000
$45,699,986
$45,699,986
DOI-USGS
$10,700,000
$13,051,766
$13,051,766
DOT-FHWA
$1,200,000
$1,221,000
$1,221,000
DOT-MARAD
$2,400,000
$2,446,927
$2,446,927
HHS-ATSDR
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
USDA-APHIS
$1,100,000
$1,134,000
$1,134,000
USDA-NRCS
$24,200,000
$27,185,426
$27,185,426
USDA-USFS
$6,700,000
$6,718,080
$6,718,080
Subtotal:
$160,700,000
$162,502,916
$162,470,285
EPA, DOS-GLFC, DOS-IJC, and Misc. IAs
$138,820,000
$137,017,084
$135,998,13912
Fiscal Year 2012 GLRI Total
$299,520,000
$299,520,000
$298,468,42513
10. These figures are from the Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget. The Fiscal Year 2012 President's Budget did not identify proposed
agency funding levels.
11. Federal agencies work collaboratively to ensure that funding is used for the highest priority Great Lakes projects. The "Actual
Allocations" (funding provided to each agency) reflect adjustments made to address emerging priorities (e.g., keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes) and to maximize environmental outcomes.
12. Components are: (i) grants totaling $48,806,105 (including funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International
Joint Commission, organizations identified in the President's Budget); (ii) Great Lakes National Program Office support costs (payroll,
travel, general expenses, and working capital) totaling $14,101,276; and (Hi) contracts and miscellaneous interagency agreements
(each less than $1 million) totaling $73,090,759.
13. The difference between actual allocations and total obligations is $1,051,575, which includes deobligated funds and applicable
reserves. Deobligation generally results from events such as completing a project under budget, contract termination, changes in
project scope or focus, or other unforeseeable circumstances. Reserves may be established to provide for contingencies or to effect
savings under the Antideficiency Act.
-------
20 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
Table 5 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Year 2013 Funding by Agency
(as of October 1,2014)
Agency
FY 2013 Initial
Allocation14
FY 2013 Actual
Allocation15
FY 2013 Total
Obligations
DHS-USCG
$1,872,986
$2,450,986
$2,450,986
DOC-NOAA
$23,542,538
$25,504,538
$25,504,538
DOD-USACE
$31,188,125
$31,621,663
$31,621,663
DOI-BIA
$3,985,077
$3,985,077
$3,985,077
DOI-NPS
$3,012,927
$3,012,927
$3,012,927
DOI-USFWS
$39,500,560
$40,000,560
$40,000,560
DOI-USGS
$11,751,010
$12,661,690
$12,661,690
DOT-FHWA
$973,156
$973,156
$973,156
DOT-MARAD
$2,311,345
$2,311,345
$2,311,345
HHS-ATSDR/CDC
$1,415,500
$1,415,500
$1,415,500
USDA-APHIS
$903,815
$903,815
$903,815
USDA-NRCS
$23,929,452
$20,529,452
$20,529,452
USDA-USFS
$6,028,545
$6,028,545
$6,028,545
Subtotal:
$150,415,036
$151,399,254
$151,399,254
EPA, DOS-GLFC, DOS-IJC, and Misc. IAs
$133,282,964
$132,298,746
$132,152,27116
Fiscal Year 2013 GLRI Total
$283,698,000
$283,698,000
$283,551,52517
14. These figures are the amounts allocated for each agency as of July 1,2013, based on allocations to each agency from the enacted
budget.
15. Federal agencies work collaboratively to ensure that funding is used for the highest priority Great Lakes projects. The "Actual
Allocations" (funding provided to each agency) reflect adjustments made to address emerging priorities (e.g., keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes) and to maximize environmental outcomes.
16. Components are: (i) grants totaling $49,489,933 (including funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, an organization
identified in the President's Budget); (ii) Great Lakes National Program Office support costs (payroll, travel, general expenses, and
working capital) totaling $13,002,760; and (Hi) contracts and miscellaneous interagency agreements (each less than $1 million)
totaling $69,659,578.
17. The difference between actual allocations and total obligations is $146,475, which includes deobligated funds and applicable
reserves. Deobligation generally results from events such as completing a project under budget, contract termination, changes in
project scope or focus, or other unforeseeable circumstances. Reserves may be established to provide for contingencies or to effect
savings under the Antideficiency Act.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 121
Table 6 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fiscal Year 2014 Funding by Agency
(as of October 1,2014)
Agency
FY 2014 Initial
Allocation18
FY 2014 Actual
Allocation19
FY 2014 Total
Obligations
DHS-USCG
$1,856,326
$1,278,326
$1,278,326
DOC-NOAA
$25,407,550
$24,270,162
$24,270,162
DOD-USACE
$21,358,564
$24,069,026
$24,069,026
DOI-BIA
$3,949,629
$3,949,629
$3,949,629
DOI-NPS
$3,142,325
$3,176,525
$3,176,525
DOI-USFWS
$38,527,535
$48,480,576
$48,480,576
DOI-USGS
$9,866,397
$18,037,916
$18,037,916
DOT-FHWA
$964,500
$964,500
$964,500
DOT-MARAD
$2,290,785
$1,790,785
$1,790,785
HHS-ATSDR/CDC
$1,737,837
$1,739,134
$1,739,134
USDA-APHIS
$1,245,775
$1,245,775
$1,245,775
USDA-NRCS
$23,280,233
$23,280,233
$23,280,233
USDA-USFS
$6,289,390
$6,401,390
$6,401,390
Subtotal:
$139,916,846
$158,683,977
$158,683,977
EPA, DOS-GLFC, DOS-IJC, and Misc. IAs
$160,083,154
$141,316,023
$90,275,20920
Fiscal Year 2014 GLRI Total
$300,000,000
$300,000,000
$248,959,186
18. These figures are the amounts allocated for each agency as of April 6,2014, based on allocations to each agency distributed to the
Regional Working Group March 25,2014.
19. Federal agencies work collaboratively to ensure that funding is used for the highest priority Great Lakes projects. The "Actual
Allocations" (funding provided to each agency) reflect adjustments made to address emerging priorities (e.g., keep Asian carp from
becoming established in the Great Lakes) and to maximize environmental outcomes.
20. Components are: (i) grants totaling $28,600,781 (including funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, an organization
identified in the President's Budget); (ii) Great Lakes National Program Office support costs (payroll, travel, general expenses, and
working capital) totaling $ 12,589,101; and (Hi) contracts and miscellaneous interagency agreements (each less than $ 1 million)
totaling $49,085,327.
-------
22 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
APPENDIX A GLRI ACTION PLAN I: MEASURES OF PROGRESS
Overview
The table below provides an overview of the results achieved for each of the 28 measures of progress in
GLRI Action Plan I.Targets for measures of progress were established under assumptions contained in
Action Plan I; in some cases adjustments were made to measures of progress that were also measures under
the Government Performance and Results Act. Results for 17 of the measures were achieved through a
combination of GLRI funding and base funding appropriated to partner agencies. Most of the GLRI Action
Plan I targets were achieved. More detailed information is provided in the following pages.
Focus
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Result/Target
Area
Action Plan 1 Measures of Progress
2011
2012
2013
2014
Toxic and AOCs
1.1 AOC management actions.
1.2 AOC BUIs removed
1.3 BUI delisting project starts
1.4 Contaminated sediment remediated (million)
1.5 Pollution prevention /waste minimization (lbs)
1.6 Fish PCB concentration decline (trend)
2/1
2/3
3/4
7/5
26/26
33/33
41 / 41
52/46
88/80
151 / 110
213/140
274/170
8.4/8
9.7/9.1
11.5 / 10.3
13.3/12
182.5/15
394.9/25
665.7/35
995.9/45
44%/37%
42.8% / 40%
45.9% / 43%
49.5% / 46%
Invasive
Species
2.1 Rate of nonnative detections.
2.2 Acres managed / controlled to a target level
2.3 Plans and response exercises and actions
2.4 Recreation / resource users contacts
.83 /1.0
.77/.80
.71 / .80
.67/.80
13,045/1,500
31,474/15,500
35,924 / 34,000
4,500/38,000
8/4
23/12
30/26
46/35
129.5/1.75
230.5/4.75
256.4/7.25
314.7/9.75
Nearshore Health and
Nonpoint Source Pollution
3.1 Phosphorus loadings from targeted watershed
tributaries
3.2 Beaches meeting bacteria standards > 95% beach
days
3.3 Extent (sq. miles) of harmful algal blooms
3.4. Beaches closed from nuisance algae (days)
3.5 Sediment deposition in harbors (improved)
3.6 Acres with USDA conservation practices
DNA/0%
DNA/.5%
DNA/DNA
DNA/DNA
NA/NA
93.5% / 90%
94%/90%
96.7%/NA
344.3(0%) /
169.3(4%)
85.2(52%) /
164.1(7%)
260.9(0%) /
162.3(8%)
181.5(0%)/
126.8(12%)
DNA/192
DNA/186
DNA/184
DNA/176
11%/1%
15%/1%
3% / 2%
12% / 2.5%
268.1(62%)/168.3
(2%)
279.7 (70%) /
178.2 (8%)
263.4 (60%) / 198
(20%)
277.7 (68%) /
214.5 (30%)
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and
Restoration
4.1 Miles of rivers reopened for fish passage
4.2 Fish passage barriers removed or bypassed
4.3 Species delisted due to recovery
4.4 Recovery actions implemented for priority listed
species
4.5 Non-threatened and endangered species self-
sustaining in the wild
4.6 Wetlands and associated uplands protected,
restored and enhanced (acres)
4.7 Coastal, upland, and island habitats protected,
restored and enhanced (acres)
4.8 % of coastal wetlands assessed
4.9 Habitat-related BUIs removed
315/1,500
890/2,500
1,947/3,500
3,475/4,500
31/150
162/250
258/350
513/450
1 / 0
1 /I
1 / 2
1 / 2
15.7% (65)/
33% (138)
22% (92) /
51% (211)
34% (142)/
67% (277)
45% (187)/
82% (338)
31% (46)/
33% (48)
33% (48) /
33% (48)
34% (50) /
34% (50)
35% (52) /
35% (52)
9,624 / 5,000
65,640/11,000
83,702/68,000
102,349 / 88,000
12,103/15,000
28,030 /15,000
33,250/33,000
48,711 / 38,000
19.6% / 40%
40%/60%
60%/80%
80% / 100%
3/12
3/18
4/24
9/30
AEMECP
5.1 Improvement in Great Lakes 40-point scale
5.2 Priority LaMP projects completed
5.3 Educational institutions incorporating Great Lakes
protection criteria
21.9/23.4
23.9/21.9
24.7/23.4
24.5/23.4
16/12
17/15
26/18
24/20
52/2
351 / 6
578/10
1,597/16
Totals
Met Target
Did Not Meet Target
Not Applicable or Data Not Available
16
20
18
19
9
6
8
6
3
2
2
3
Key: Results are to the left of the / and targets are to the right. For example, the measure 1.1 result in FY 2014 was completion of 7
Management Actions and the target was 5. Green shading indicates that the target was met, red shading indicates that the target
was not met, and gray indicates that the target or result was either not applicable or not available for reasons described in the
following pages.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 23
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress - Detailed Information
Of the 28 Action Plan measures of progress, 15 are also measures under the Government Performance
and Results Act, which has a process to adjust performance targets collaboratively with the Office
of Management and Budget. Any adjustments resulting from this process are indicated in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's annual Performance Plan, Performance Reports, and Congressional
Justification; they are indicated below as updates to the targets in the Action Plan.The remaining 13 Action
Plan measures of progress have not been adjusted and are measured against the original targets in the
Action Plan. Explanations provide further detail about the measures, targets and results. FY 2010 results are
not included because Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding generally only began to affect results in FY
2011 and later years.
Measure
Targets
Results
Explanation/Additional Information
1.1 Number of Areas
FY14: 5
FY14: 7
Cumulative: 7 AOCs in 6 states
of Concern
in the Grest
FY13:4
FY13: 3
FY14:4 AOCs: Ashtabula River AOC (OH), Deer Lake AOC (Ml), White Lake AOC (Ml),
Lakes where all
FY12: 3
FY12: 2
Waukegan Harbor AOC (IL)
management
FY13:1 AOC: Sheboygan River AOC (Wl)
actions necessary
FY11:1
FY11: 2
for delisting
FY10:1
FY11:1 AOC: Presque Isle Bay AOC (PA)
have been
implemented
Baseline: 1
Baseline: 1 AOC: Oswego River AOC (NY) in FY06
(cumulative).12
1 Results from this Action Plan measure are achieved through GLRI funding as well as other non-GLRI federal and/or state funding.
2 This Measure of Progress in the Action Plan is also a measure under the Government Performance and Results Act.
3 This target has been adjusted from the Action Plan.
4 Original baseline from the Action Plan has been updated. An intensive review of this metric conducted during the preparation of
GLRI Action Plan II in FY 2014 determined that the number of beneficial use impairments removed prior to the implementation of
the GLRI was overstated by two. The 2014 review determined that the delisting of the Oswego Area of Concern in 2006 resulted from
the removal of four BUIs, not six. Consequently, the number of "actual" BUIs reported in the table for FY2009-2013 included the six
Bills believed to have been removed at the Oswego Area of Concern. For FY 2014, the number of actual Bills reported as removed
has been corrected to reflect the true number of Bills removed at the Oswego Area of Concern. However, the number of actual Bills
reported in FY 2010 is accurate since the in tensive review also revealed that two Bills had been removed in FY 2010 but had not been
reported until FY2011.
-------
24 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
1.2 Area of Concern
FY14:46
FY14: 52
Beneficial Use
Impairments
FY13:41
FY13: 41
removed
FY12: 333
FY12: 33
(cumulative).12
FY11:26
FY11:26
FY10: 20
Baseline: 124
Cumulative: 52 BUIs at 19 AOCs in 8 states
FY14:13 BUIs:'Restrictions on Dredging'BUI atWaukegan Harbor AOC, IL (7/16/14);
'Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations'BUI at White Lake AOC, Ml (4/2/12), and
Ashtabula River AOC, OH (5/5/14);'Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat'BUI at White
Lake AOC, Ml (4/2/14), Ashtabula River AOC, OH (5/5/14), and Saginaw Bay AOC, Ml
(5/6/14);'Aesthetics'BUI at St. Louis River AOC, MN/WI (8/14/14), St. Marys River AOC,
Ml (1/27/14), and White Lake AOC, Ml (3/11/14) /Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Con-
sumption'BUI at Deer Lake AOC, Ml (2/19/14), and Ashtabula River AOC, OH (5/5/14);
'Restrictions on Drinking Water'BUI at White Lake AOC, Ml (3/11/14);'Bird or Animal
Deformities'BUI at St. Marys River AOC, Ml (3/11/14).
FY13: 8 BUIs:'Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption'BUI at Muskegon Lake
AOC, Ml (2/25/13), and White Lake AOC, Ml (2/25/13);'Restrictions on Drinking Water'
BUI at Muskegon Lake AOC, Ml (2/20/13);'Fish Tumors and Other Deformities'BUI at
Presque Isle Bay AOC, PA (2/8/13);'Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat'BUI atWaukegan
Harbor AOC, IL (8/12/13);'Tainting of Fish and Wildlife'BUI at Detroit River AOC, Ml
(8/22/13);'Beach Closing'BUI at River Raisin AOC, Ml (9/24/13); and'Eutrophication'
BUI at River Raisin AOC, Ml (9/24/13).
FY12: 7 BUIs:'Restrictions on Drinking Water'BUI at Grand Calumet River AOC, IN
(5/5/12);'Aesthetics'BUI at Kalamazoo River AOC, Ml (5/15/12), River Raisin AOC, Ml
(5/15/12), and St. Clair River AOC, Ml (7/2/12);'Eutrophication'BUI at White Lake AOC,
Ml (4/24/12); 'Added Costs to Agriculture or Industry' BUI at St. Clair River AOC, Ml
(6/5/12);'Degradation of Benthos'BUI at White Lake AOC, Ml (6/5/12).
FY11:12 BUIs:'Restrictions on Drinking Water'BUI at Rochester Embayment AOC, NY
(11/3/10), and Detroit River AOC, Ml (7/9/11);'Beach Closing'BUI at Kalamazoo River
AOC, Ml (3/3/11), Lower Menominee AOC, MI/WI (3/3/11), and Waukegan Harbor
AOC, IL (9/28/11);'Restrictions on Dredging'BUI at St. Clair River AOC, Ml (3/3/11),
Muskegon Lake AOC, Ml (9/26/11),and White Lake AOC, Ml (9/30/11);'Added Costs
to Agriculture or Industry' BUI at Rochester Embayment AOC, NY (7/9/11), and Grand
Calumet River AOC, IN (9/30/11);'Eutrophication'BUI at Deer Lake AOC, Ml (9/26/11);
and'Bird or Animal Deformities'BUI at Deer Lake AOC, Ml (9/26/11).
FY10: 2 BUIs:'Tainting of Fish and Wildlife'BUI at St. Clair River AOC, Ml (11/17/09), and
'Beach Closing'BUI at Manistique River AOC, Ml (5/5/10).
Baseline: 10 BUIs:'Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption'BUI at Oswego River
AOC, NY (7/21 /06);'Tainting of Fish and Wildlife'BUI at Saginaw Bay AOC, Ml (6/30/08);
'Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations'BUI at Oswego River, NY (7/21/06);'Eutrophi-
cation'BUI at Oswego River AOC, NY (7/21/06);'Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat'BUI at
Oswego River AOC, NY (7/21/06), and Manistique River AOC, Ml (9/15/08);'Degrada-
tion of Benthos'BUI at Manistique River AOC, Ml (11/6/06);'Restrictions on Dredging'
BUI at Presque Isle Bay AOC, PA (3/16/07);'Fish Tumors and Other Deformities'BUI at
Torch Lake AOC, Ml (4/5/07);'Restrictions on Drinking Water'BUI at Saginaw Bay AOC,
Ml (6/30/08).
1.3 Beneficial Use FY14:170
Impairment
delisting project
FY13:140
starts at Areas
FY12:110
of Concern
(cumulative). FY! 1:80
FY14: 274
FY13: 213
FY12:151
FY11: 88
BUI removal projects have started throughout the Great Lakes basin in every state
with an Area of Concern remaining (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York and Wisconsin).
FY10:60
Baseline: 0
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 25
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
1.4 Cubic yards
FY14:123
FY14:13.3
(in millions) of
contaminated
FY13:10.33
FY13:11.5
sediment
remediated in
FY12: 9.13
FY12: 9.7
the Great Lakes
FY11:8.03
FY11:8.4
(cumulative).12
FY10:6.3
Baseline: 5.5
From 1997 through calendaryear2013, the EPAand its partners have remediated
approximately 13.3 million cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediment from the Great
Lakes basin. In calendaryear2012and 2013 (for FY1314 reporting),approximately
1.7 million cubic yards and 1.8 million cubic yards, respectively, were remediated
through various federal authorities:
Great Lakes Legacy Act (2013)
Buffalo Riverand City Ship Canal; Buffalo River AOC (New York); 102,311 cy
North Slip; Ashtabula River AOC (Ohio); 10,965 cy
East Branch Grand Calumet River; Grand Calumet River AOC (Indiana); 173,216 cy
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2013)
Ashtabula River; Ashtabula River AOC (Ohio); 82,133 cy
White Lake; White Lake AOC (Michigan); 8,629 cy
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (2013)
Tyco/Ansul Site; Menominee River AOC (Wisconsin); 233,046 cy*
Superfund (2013)
Allied Paper/Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River; Kalamazoo River AOC (Michigan);
9,856 cy
WPSC Campmarina; Sheboygan River AOC (Wisconsin); 14,032 cy
Tittabawassee River - Segment 1; non-AOC (Michigan); 15,580 cy
WPSC Marinette Manufactured Gas Plant Site; Menominee River AOC (Wisconsin);
2,475 cy
Outboard Marine Corporation; Waukegan Harbor AOC (Illinois); 114,509
Superfund/Natural Resource Damage Assessment (Federal and State) (2013)
Fox River; Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC (Wisconsin); 628,483 cy
Rivers and Harbors Act (Operations and Maintenance Dredging) (2013)
Indiana Harbor and Canal; Grand Calumet River AOC (Indiana); 399,884 cy*
*Volumes not reported in calendar year 2012 were added to calendar year 2013 total
(913 cy from Tyco/Ansul site and 93,937 cyfrom Indiana Harbor and Canal).
Great Lakes Legacy Act (2012)
Lincoln Park Phase 1; Milwaukee Estuary AOC (Wisconsin); 25,556 cy
River Raisin; River Raisin AOC (Michigan); 72,354 cy
Sheboygan River; Sheboygan River AOC (Wisconsin); 147,822 cy
West Branch Grand Calumet River Phase 2; Grand Calumet River AOC (Indiana);
461,296 cy
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2012)
Ashtabula River; Ashtabula River AOC (Ohio); 43,443 cy
Buffalo River; Buffalo River AOC (New York); 41,632 cy
Sheboygan River; Sheboygan River AOC (Wisconsin); 154,273 cy
RCRA (2012)
Tyco/Ansul Site; Menominee River AOC (Wisconsin); 26,000 cy
Superfund (2012)
Allied Paper/Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River; Kalamazoo River AOC (Michigan);
12,970 cy
Fields Brook; non-AOC (Ohio); 135 cy
Sheboygan River; Sheboygan River AOC (Wisconsin); 43,278 cy
Tittabawassee River - Segment 1; non-AOC (Michigan); 2,840 cy
WPSC Marinette Manufactured Gas Plant Site; Menominee River AOC (Wisconsin);
12,900 cy
Superfund/Natural Resource Damages (2012)
Fox River; Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC (Wisconsin); 693,621 cy
-------
26 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
Explanation/Additional Information
1.5 Pollution (in
FY14:45
FY14: 995.9
All states in the Great Lakes basin (with the exception of Ohio) have now passed e-
million pounds)
FY13: 35
FY13: 665.7
waste recycling laws that require manufacturers to accept used electronic equipment.
collected through
The passage of these laws (after the development of the Action Plan) has resulted
prevention
FY12: 25
FY12: 394.9
in achievements for this measure far exceeding targets. The Action Plan Objectives
and waste
related to this measure have also been met.
minimization
FY11:15
FY11:182.5
projects in the
FY10:10
Great Lakes basin
(cumulative).1
Baseline: 0
1.6 Cumulative
percentage
decline for the
long term trend
in average
concentrations
of PCBs in Great
Lakes fish.1-2
FY14:46%
FY14: 49.5%
The cumulative percentage decline for the long term trend in average concentration
FY13:43%
FY13: 45.9%
of total PCBs in Great Lakes whole fish, using the year 2000 as a baseline for each
Great Lake is:
FY12:40%
FY12: 42.8%
Lake Superior: 58.9%
FY11:37%
FY11:44.0%
Lake Michigan: 51.9%
Lake Huron: 35.9%
FY10: 34%
Lake Erie: 52.5%
Baseline: 0%
Lake Ontario: 53.6%
Percent decline based on an exponential trend. Each Great Lake is a unique environ-
ment with distinct species growth rates, food webs, and chemical integrity. This cre-
ates unique lake trout and walleye communities between and within each Great Lake,
which results in year to year variability in the data. Even/odd year data by lake are not
comparable over a 2 year period.
Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/fish/
species newly
detected in the
Great Lakes
ecosystem
(species/year).12
FY14: 0.83
FY14: 0.67
FY13: 0.83
FY13: 0.71
FY12: 0.83
FY12: 0.77
FY11:1,03
FY11:0.83
FY10:1.3
Baseline: 1.04
No new species have been established in FY13-14. Ten species have been detected
over the 15 year period (2000-2014) resulting in the invasion detection rate of 0.67
species/year.
Note that since the Action Plan was published, NOAA scientists reclassified the detec-
tion dates of 3 species based on a reassessment and categorization of available data.
This alters the pre-GLRI baseline rate of invasion from 1.3 species per year (13 species
from 2000-2009) to 1.0 species per year (10 species from 2000-2009).
2.2 Acres managed FY14:38,0003 FY14: 84,500 The unprecedented level of funding for invasive species work continued to capitalize
for populations of
invasive species
controlled to
a target level
(cumulative).2
FY14: 38,0003
FY14:
84,500
FY13: 34,0003
FY13:
35,924
FY12:15,5003
FY12:
31,474
FY11:1,500
FY11:
13,045
FY10:1,000
Baseline: 0
on a backlog of projects.
Invasive species for which acreage is managed include: Japanese knotweed, lyme
grass, invasive strains of Phragmites, purple loosestrife and spotted knapweed,
among others.
2.3 Number of
multi-agency
plans established,
mock exercises
to practice rapid
responses carried
out under those
plans, and/
or actual rapid
response actions
(cumulative).2
FY14: 353
FY14: 46
FY13: 263
FY13: 30
FY12:123
FY12: 23
FY11:43
FY11: 8
FY10:4
Baseline: 0
By the end of FY14, state plans that included rapid response capabilities had been
completed by all eight Great Lake states and a total of thirty-eight responses or exer-
cises had been completed. Most of the responses and exercises were part of the effort
to keep Asian Carps from becoming established in the Great Lakes (a cumulative total
of eighteen in FY13 and twenty-three in FY14).
In FY13, six state plans had been updated to include rapid response capabilities and a
cumulative total of twenty-four responses or exercises had been conducted.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 27
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
2.4 Number of
recreation and
resource users
(in millions)
contacted on
best practices
that prevent the
introduction
and spread of
invasive species
(cumulative).
Targets Results Explanation/Additional Information
FY14: 9.75
FY13: 7.25
FY12:4.75
FY11:1.75
FY10:1
Baseline: 0
FY14: 314.7
FY13: 256.4
FY12: 230.5
FY11:129.5
This overarching measure was developed to track overall progress toward the innova-
tive work of improving invasive species education/outreach, which is still in the early
stages of development for addressing most invasive species vectors. Many of these
efforts are funded through competitive grant offerings and include a combination of
the best-designed projects that maximize both the breadth of public reached (typi-
cally non-interactive outreach such as billboards, radio,TV, etc.) and also directly tar-
get the more active resource users. The number of contacts is derived from recipient
reports based on industry standards for applicable media. Results for this measure
have greatly exceeded targets because of a number of successful projects that have
employed non-interactive techniques such as billboards, radio and TV, which have
reached wide numbers of potential recreation and resource users.
3.1 Five year
average annual
loadings of
soluble reactive
phosphorus
from tributaries
draining targeted
watersheds
(percent
reduction).12
FY14: N/A3
FY13: N/A3
FY12: 0.5%3
FY11:0%3
FY10: 0%
Baseline: N/A
FY13: 90%3
FY12: 90%3
FY11: N/A3
92%3
3.2 Percent of days of FY14: N/A3
the beach season
that the Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by
state beach
safety programs
are open and safe ^e,"ne:
for swimming.1-2
[Original Action
Plan language:
'Percentage
of beaches
meeting bacteria
standards 95%
or more of beach
days']
Data Not Data do not exist to determine whether targets are being met; however, improved
Available phosphorus data are now being collected in all five targeted watersheds (Fox, Sagi-
naw, Maumee, St. Louis, and Genessee) to better estimate annual average loadings
of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP). Sufficient historical data does not exist to
allow for calculation of 5-year averages through the 2010 water year for the Sagi-
naw, Genessee, and St. Louis Rivers. Assessment of the historical data for the Fox
and Maumee Rivers illustrates the inherent problems with tracking changes to SRP
loadings from tributaries, given the yearly variability of rainfall and other climatic
factors; therefore, results of this measure may not indicate a trend from year to year.
For example, when comparing the 2003-2007 baseline from the Maumee River to the
5-year rolling averages from 2005-2009 and 2006-2010, SRP loadings changed from
a 3.8% increase to a 3.4% reduction. Similarly, when comparing the 2003-2007 base-
line from the Fox River to the 5-year rolling averages from 2004-2008 and 2005-2009,
SRP loadings changed from a 3.6% increase to a 15.8% reduction. Phosphorus reduc-
tion will be reported differently under Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan II.
FY14: 96.7%
FY13: 94%
FY12: 93.5%
FY11: N/A
The measure language, beginning with FY12 reporting, has been updated from the
original Action Plan language to better capture the health of monitored beaches, and
is consistent with the national coastal and Great Lakes beach measure. A target for
FY14 reporting was not established because Beach Act funding (necessary for report-
ing on compatible data) had been proposed for elimination.
FY14
FY13
FY12
FY11
Illinois
95.9%
94.3%
90.2%
87.7%
Indiana
88%
87.0%
85.4%
82.5%
Michigan
99.8%
98.7%
96.8%
96.8%
Minnesota
94.4%
92.4%
96.2%
98.9%
Ohio
66.7%
80.4%
82.4%
82.3%
Wisconsin
96.3%
93.8%
94.4%
92.2%
Pennsylvania
94%
94.9%
98.5%
98.9%
New York
90.5%
93.7%
91.1%
88.5%
Basin-wide
96.7%
94.0%
93.5%
92.0%
To calculate, the number of beach days not under an action (monitored beaches)
is divided by the number of swim season beach days (monitored beaches). Data
is only available and reported in the year after it is collected. The states'data (used
for FY13 and FY14 reporting) can be accessed at: http://water.epa.gov/type/
oceb/beaches/2012_season.cfm and http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/beacon2/
f?p=103:4:3686219353939:::::, respectively.
-------
28 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets Results Explanation/Additional Information
3.3 Extent (sq. miles) FY14:126.8
of Great Lakes
Harmful Algal
Blooms (percent
reduction).1
sq. mi
(12% red.)
FY13:132.6
sq. mi
(8% red.)
FY12:134.0
sq. mi
(7% red.)
FY11:138.3
sq. mi
(4% red.)
FY10:144.1
sq. mi
(0% red.)
Baseline:
144.1 sq. mi.
(2002-2012
mean)
FY14:181.5
(0% red.)
FY13: 337.8
(0% red.)
FY12: 76.4
(47% red.)
FY11:252.9
(0% red.)
FY10:153.7
(0% red.)
The average HAB extent in Western Lake Erie Basin in 2014 was the third largest from
2002-present, with 2013 having the largest average extent and 2011 having the sec-
ond largest. For perspective, however, the average western basin extent declined 46%
during 2014 from 2013 levels, attributed to reduced water temperatures. Maumee
River discharge and dissolved phosphorus loads for March-June 2014 were slightly
higherthan March-June 2013 values, likely due to increased runoff from rainfall.
The average total HAB extent in 2013 was the largest average documented from
2002-present, with 2011 having the second largest average extent. Maumee River
discharge and phosphorus loads for March-June 2013 were slightly above average
compared to the previous 10 year average (2003-2012). Spring phosphorus loads in
2013 were lower than spring 2011 loads and substantially higherthan spring 2012
loads (Heidelberg University data).
The reason for the reduced HAB extent in 2012: The area experienced a severe
drought; there was reduced spring discharge that resulted in drastically reduced
amount of phosphorus loads to the Western Basin as compared to 2011 (GLC Phos-
phorus Reduction Task Force Report 2012).
A long-term, decreasing trend in harmful algal bloom extent does not yet exist.
Biological responses to nutrient loadings are dependent on many other factors such
as water temperature, timing and intensity of precipitation, and in-lake hydrodynamic
features such as surface currents and waves. Year-to-year variability in these fac-
tors may mask the nutrient reduction benefits occurring in the watershed via local
improvements in nutrient management. GLRI funding is being used to increase the
availability of contracts for agricultural conservation practices to reduce phosphorus
runoff on thousands of acres. Overthe long term, these management actions will
lead to lower phosphorus levels being discharged into the lakes, which will limit the
extent of such algal blooms.
These results indicate the total extent (including surface mats and subsurface
blooms) of harmful algal blooms in the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Data for other
Great Lakes locations (Fox, Green Bay) and data that quantiFYthe extent of algal
surface mats exist; however we believe examining trends in total extent (including
surface mats and subsurface blooms) of harmful algal blooms in the Western Lake
Erie Basin (the area of the Great lakes most severely impacted) offers robust, ecologi-
cally meaningful information for this metric.
3.4 Annual number
of days U.S. Great
Lakes beaches
are closed or
posted due to
nuisance algae.1
FY14:176
(12% imp.)
FY13:184
(8% imp.)
FY12:186
(7% imp.)
Data Not At the time this metric was developed, there was no formal mechanism in place for
Available reporting beach closures or advisories issued due to the presence of nuisance algae.
Efforts to develop a formal mechanism resulted in a voluntary reporting field in the
national monitoring database which has not resulted in sufficient data. Because
Beach Act requirements only specify monitoring and reporting on bacterial levels, it
has not been possible to include a mandatory field concerning nuisance algae in the
national monitoring database.
FY11:192
(4% imp.)
FY10:200
(0% imp.)
Baseline: 200
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 29
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
3.5 Annual volume
of sediment
deposition
in defined
harbor areas
(Toledo Harbor)
in targeted
watersheds
(millions of cubic
yards).1
Targets Results Explanation/Additional Information
FY14: 2.5%
imp.
FY13:2%imp.
FY12:1%imp.
FY11:1%imp.
FY10:0%imp.
Baseline: N/A
FY14:12%
imp.
FY13: 3% imp.
FY12:
imp.
15%
FY11:11%
imp.
Modeling issues have been resolved, allowing results for this measure to be reported
for all years for the first time.
Because sediment delivery by the Maumee River into Toledo Harbor is dependent on
rainfall and other highly variable climatic factors, the results of this modeled measure
may not indicate a trend from year to year. In addition, results are not solely caused
by Maumee River sediment delivery. Maumee Bay has a large surface area and a
relatively shallow mean depth that causes wind-driven sediment re-suspension,
re-distribution, and re-deposition of existing Maumee Bay sediments. For example,
model results show that Maumee River sediment delivery for the 2009-2012 period is
responsible for roughly half of the total deposition in Maumee Bay, with the remain-
ing deposition attributable to other sources such as sediment re-suspension and
re-deposition.
The modeled result is for the previous calendar year, thus the modeled "Result" desig-
nated as "FY14"is for calendar year 2013. Modeling outputs can be directly compared
to the percentage improvement targets in the Action Plan, but are not readily compa-
rable to the targeted volume estimates due to model methodology.
3.6 Acres (in
thousands) in
Great Lakes
watershed
with USDA
conservation
practices
implemented to
reduce erosion,
nutrients and/or
pesticide loading
under Farm Bill
Programs.1-2
FY14: 214.5
FY14: 277.7
(30% imp.)3
(68% imp.)
FY13:198
FY13: 263.4
(20% imp.)3
(60% imp.)
FY12:178.2
FY12: 279.7
(8% imp.)3
(70% imp.)
FY11:168.3
FY11:268.1
(2% imp.)3
(62% imp.)
FY10:168.3
(2% imp.)
Baseline: 165
The results column identifies acres in the Great Lakes watershed that were put into
USDA conservation practices each year to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide
loadings under Farm Bill programs. The percentage indicates the increase for each
year over the baseline of 165,000 acres (based on FY08 data). The increases are a
combined result of greater funding (base USDA programs and GLRI) and increased
participation in NRCS programs. It is important to note that the acres tracked in this
measure are not cumulative, rather, this measure tracks new conservation practices
implemented in a given fiscal year.Therefore, the percent increase will vary consider-
ably from year to year due to funding, total acres available for conservation and the
difficulty of implementing conservation practices.
4.1 Miles of rivers
reopened for
fish passage
(cumulative).
FY14:4,500
FY14:
3,475
FY13: 3,500
FY13:
1,947
FY12: 2,500
FY12:
890
FY11:1,500
FY11:
315
FY10:1,000
Baseline: 0
GLRI federal partners (APHIS, BIA, EPA, FHWA, FS, FWS, GLFC, NOAA, NPS, USACE, and
USGS) funded 138"miles of rivers reopened for fish passage"and"fish passage barrier"
projects across the Great Lakes basin over the last five years to improve aquatic con-
nectivity. Projects have thus far resulted in 3,475 miles of rivers reopened. Over the
next couple of years, as the last of these projects are completed, an additional 4,128
miles of rivers are expected to be reopened for fish passage.
The delay in achieving targets can be attributed to not fully factoring a pre-imple-
mentation design phase into initial development of targets for this measure. For
example, a dam removal project will not claim river miles reopened until deconstruc-
tion of the dam is fully complete, which will often not occur in the first phase of the
project.
4.2 Number of FY14:450 FY14: 513
fish passage
barriers removed FY13:350 FY13:258
or bypassed FY12:250 FY12:162
(cumulative).
FY11:150 FY11: 31
FY10:100
Baseline: 0
GLRI federal partners (APHIS, BIA, EPA, FHWA, FS, FWS, GLFC, NOAA, NPS, USACE, and
USGS) funded 138"miles of rivers reopened for fish passage"and"fish passage bar-
rier" projects across the Great Lakes basin over the last five years to improve aquatic
connectivity. Projects have thus far resulted in 513 fish passage barriers removed or
bypassed. Over the next couple of years, as the last of these projects are completed,
an additional 66 fish passage barriers are expected to be removed or bypassed.
The delay in achieving targets can be attributed to not fully factoring a pre-imple-
mentation design phase into initial development of targets for this measure. For
example, a dam removal project will not claim river miles reopened until deconstruc-
tion of the dam is fully complete, which will often not occur in the first phase of the
project.
-------
30 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
4.3 Number of
FY14: 23
FY14:1
species delisted
due to recovery
FY13: 23
FY13:1
(cumulative).12
FY12:1
FY12:1
FY11:03
FY11:1
FY10: 0
Baseline: 0
In 2011, the Lake Erie Water Snake was removed from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. The GLRI accelerated the species'recovery and has assured
that conservation partners can keep the snake population healthy. The species is no
longer endangered or threatened with extinction or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
Achieving the FY14 target was dependent on recovery of the federally threatened
Pitcher's Thistle in the Great Lakes (targeted for delisting in the GLRI Action Plan).
Pitcher's Thistle recovery is dependent on controlling a recently discovered pest (a
weevil, Larinus planus) which feeds on the seeds of the Pitcher's Thistle. Research is
ongoing to assess the ecological impacts of the weevil on Pitcher's thistle populations
and will provide valuable information for the plant's management and recovery.
FY14: 82%
FY14: 45%
(338/414)
(187/414)
FY13:67%
FY13: 34%
(277/414)
(142/414)
FY12: 51%
FY12: 22%
(211/414)
(92/414)
FY11:33%
FY11:15.7%
(138/414)
(65/414)
FY10:16%
(68/414)
Baseline: 0
FY14: 35%
FY14: 35%
(52/147)3
(52/147)
FY13: 34%
FY13: 34%
(50/147)3
(50/147)
FY12: 33%
FY12: 33%
(48/147)3
(48/147)
FY11:33%
FY11: 31%
(48/147)3
(46/147)
4.4 Percent of
recovery actions
implemented
for priority
listed species
(cumulative).1
To protect threatened, endangered and candidate species, the USFWS, in collabo-
ration with partners, implements recovery actions identified in species-specific
recovery plans. Recovery actions include a range of conservation tools, including
habitat protection and acquisition, removing introduced animal predators or invasive
plants, conducting surveys, monitoring individual populations, and breeding species
in captivity and releasing them into their historic range.
Nearly 200 recovery actions have been completed to date through the GLRI and ad-
ditional actions, already funded, will be completed in the next few years, including
some 50 actions expected to be completed in FY15. Efforts focused on accelerating
recovery of the Piping plover and Pitcher's thistle while also implementing actions
for species such as the Mitchell's satyr butterfly, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake
and the Hine's emerald dragonfly. A principal reason for the shortfall in achieving the
targeted 414 recovery actions by the end of FY14 was a delay in completing recovery
actions for the Pitcher's Thistle. Funds originally targeted to support the execution of
numerous landowner agreements for Pitcher's thistle were applied to addressing new
threats to the species which required an investment in multi-year research efforts.
4.5 Percent of
populations of
native aquatic
non-threatened
and endangered
species self-
sustaining
in the wild
(cumulative).1-2
Two populations of Lake Whitefish in Lake Huron have reached self-sustaining levels.
Enhanced fisheries assessments supported through the GLRI have provided addi-
tional biological data to determine that these Lake Huron whitefish populations are
self-sustaining.
Actions have been taken which we believe will increase the percentage of popula-
tions self-sustaining in the wild; however, this environmental indicator will require
additional time for the impacts to affect some species populations. Populations
are making significant progress, but the full impacts of our efforts may not be fully
known for several years.
FY10: 33%
(48/147)
Baseline: 27%
(39/147)
4.6 Number of acres
of wetlands
and wetland-
associated
uplands
protected,
restored and
enhanced
(cumulative).2
FY14: 88,0003
FY13:68,0003
FY12:11,0003
FY11:5,0003
FY10:5,000
Baseline: 0
FY14: 102,349
FY13: 83,702
FY12: 65,640
FY11:9,624
GLRI federal partners (APHIS, BIA, EPA, FHWA, FS, FWS, GLFC, NOAA, NPS, USACE,
and USGS) funded 182"wetland and wetland-associated upland habitat protection,
restoration and enhancement" projects across the Great Lakes basin over the last five
years. Projects have thus far resulted in 102,349 acres of wetlands and wetland-asso-
ciated uplands protected, restored and enhanced. Over the next couple of years, as
the last of these projects are completed, an additional 17,877 acres of wetlands and
wetland-associated uplands are expected to be protected, restored and enhanced.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 131
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
4.7 Number of
FY14: 38,0003
FY14: 48,711
acres of coastal.
upland,and
FY13: 33,0003
FY13: 33,250
island habitats
FY12:15,0003
FY12: 28,030
protected.
restored and
FY11:15,0003
FY11:12,103
enhanced
(cumulative).2
FY10:15,000
Baseline: 0
GLRI federal partners (APHIS, BIA, EPA, FHWA, FS, FWS, GLFC, NOAA, NPS, USACE, and
USGS) funded 172"coastal, upland and island habitat protection, restoration and
enhancement" projects across the Great Lakes basin over the last five years. Projects
have thus far resulted in 48,711 acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protect-
ed, restored and enhanced. Over the next couple of years, as the last of these projects
are completed, an additional 114,468 acres of coastal, upland and island habitats are
expected to be protected, restored and enhanced.
4.8 Percent of U.S.
coastal Great
Lakes wetlands
assessed
(cumulative).
FY14:100%
FY13: 80%
FY12:60%
FY11:40%
FY10: 20%
Baseline: 0%
FY14: 80%
FY13: 60%
FY12: 40%
FY11:19.6%
Through FY14,80% of U.S. Great Lakes coastal wetlands have been assessed. In FY11 -
FY13, approximately 380/628 (60.5%) had been assessed. A delay in receiving FY10
funds resulted in a corresponding delay in achieving the targets for this measure.
100% of U.S. Great Lakes coastal wetlands are expected to have been assessed by
FY15 rather than FY14.
4.9 Number of
habitat-related
Beneficial Use
Impairments
removed from
the 27 U.S. Areas
Of Concern
so impaired
(cumulative).1
FY14: 30
FY13: 24
FY12: If
FY11:12
FY10:
Baseline: 34
FY14: 9
FY13: 4
FY12: 3
FY11: 3
FY14: 5 BUIs:'Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations'BUI atWhite Lake AOC, Ml
(4/2/12), and Ashtabula River AOC, OH (5/5/14);'Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat'BUI
atWhite Lake AOC, Ml (4/2/14), Ashtabula River AOC, OH (5/5/14), and Saginaw Bay
AOC, Ml (5/6/14)
FY13:1 BUI:'Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat'BUI atWaukegan Harbor AOC (8/12/13)
The baseline for this measure has been adjusted to three habitat-related BUIs re-
moved at two AOCs.
Significant actions and improvements are underway in removing habitat-related BUIs
from AOCs across the basin. In setting the targets for this measure, the following fac-
tors were not sufficiently considered: i) the assessments required to verify improved
conditions can take years to complete before BUIs can be removed and ii) sediment
remediation may need to occur on some sites before habitat restoration work begins.
Improvement
FY14: 23.43
FY14:
24.5
in the overall
aquatic
FY13: 23.43
FY13:
24.7
ecosystem health
FY12: 21.93
FY12:
23.9
of the Great Lakes
using the Great
FY11:23.4
FY11:
21.9
Lakes 40-point
scale.1-2
FY10: 23
Baseline: 20
The Great Lakes Index score of 24.5 in FY14 is an improvement over the target of
23.4. A slight year-to-year decrease (from 24.7 in FY13) is a result of increasing scores
for 3 index components (coastal wetlands, beach closures, and air toxics deposition)
and declining scores for two components (drinking water quality and phosphorus
concentrations).
The increase in the Great Lakes Index score to 24.7 in FY13 results primarily from an
increased score for one of the eight index components beach closures. For FY12
reporting (using 2011 beach season data). Great Lakes beaches monitored by state
beach safety programs were open and safe for swimming 93.5% of the beach season.
For FY13 reporting (using 2012 beach season data), the higher result of 94% (see
measure 3.2, above) triggered an increase to the overall Great Lakes Index score.
5.2 Number of
priority LaMP
projects that
are completed
(cumulative).
FY14: 20
FY14:
24
FY13:18
FY13:
26
FY12:15
FY12:
17
FY11:12
FY11:
16
FY10:10
Baseline: 0
Lakewide Management Plans continue to serve a critical role in protecting and restor-
ing the Great Lakes ecosystem.
FY14 projects include priorities related to the Coordinated Science and Monitoring
Initiative, the development of climate change and AIS Prevention Strategies, the
implementation of key recommendations and projects from the biodiversity strate-
gies and the completion of the Lake Erie Nutrients Strategy.
FY13 projects include priorities related to the Coordinated Science and Monitoring
Initiative, the development of nearshore ecosystem objectives, the completion of
biodiversity strategies and the concentrated efforts toward phosphorus reduction in
Green Bay, the Maumee River and Saginaw Bay.
-------
32 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Measures of Progress (cont.)
Measure
Targets
Results
Explanation/Additional Information
5.3 Number of
FY14:16
FY14:1,597
Progress has greatly exceeded targets for this measure. This success is attributed to a
educational
relatively small number of very successful projects.
institutions
FY13:10
FY13: 578
incorporating
FY12:6
FY12: 351
new or existing
Great Lakes
FY11:2
FY11: 52
protection and
FY10: 0
stewardship
criteria into
Baseline: 0
their broader
environment
education
curricula
(cumulative).
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 33
APPENDIX B GLRI ACTION PLAN I: OBJECTIVES
Action Plan Objective Status Explanation/Status Summary
1.1 By 2014, delist five Areas of Not Achieved All management actions necessary for delisting at seven AOCs have been
Concern. implemented, but the monitoring required to verify these improved condi-
tions, remove all BUIs, and formally delist the AOCS will generally take addi-
tional years to complete. As of September 2014, two AOCs have been formally
delisted.
1.2 By 2014,46 Beneficial Use Achieved
Impairments (BUIs) will be removed
in Areas of Concern.
As of September 2014,52 BUIs have been removed, quadrupling the total
number of BUIs removed in the 22 years preceding GLRI.
1.3 By 2011,15 million pounds of
electronic waste and 15 million
pills of unwanted medicines will be
collected or their release will have
been prevented.
Achieved
By 2011, over 180 million pounds of electronic waste and over 60 million pills
of unwanted medicines were collected. All states in the Great Lakes basin
(with the exception of Ohio) passed e-waste recycling laws that require manu-
facturers to accept used electronic equipment. The passage of these laws
(after the development of the Action Plan) resulted in achievements for this
objective far exceeding targets.
1.4 By 2014,45 million pounds
e-waste [Clause 1 ],45 million
pills of unwanted medicines
[Clause 2], and 4.5 million pounds
of household hazardous waste
[Clause 3] in the Great Lakes basin
will have been collected or their
release will have been prevented.
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: Achieved
Clause 3: Achieved
All states in the Great Lakes basin (with the exception of Ohio) have now
passed e-waste recycling laws that require manufacturers to accept used
electronic equipment. The passage of these laws (afterthe development of
the Action Plan) has resulted in achievements far exceeding the targets es-
tablished in this objective. Through FY13, over 330 million pounds of e-waste
and over 80 million pills of unwanted medicine were collected. Household
hazardous waste has not been separately tracked by the states; however the
target has presumably been met, given the tremendous success of e-waste
and unwanted medicine collections.
1.5 By 2014,9.4 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments will be
remediated.
Achieved
Through FY14 reporting (through calendar year 2013), the EPA and its part-
ners have remediated approximately 13.3 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediment from the Great Lakes basin.
1.6 Through 2014, an annual average
of up to 5% annual decline will be
maintained or improved for the
trend (year 2000 and on) in average
concentrations of PCBs in whole
lake trout and walleye samples.
Achieved
Through FY14 reporting (2000-2012 data), the annual average decline in con-
centrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples has been 5.5%.
All eight state ANS management plans were established or revised to include
rapid response capabilities by 2014. Through 2013, six states plans (Min-
nesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) had been
established or revised to include rapid response capabilities.
Results include 20 mock exercises and 18 actual rapid response actions.
By 2014, eight state-based, multi-
agency rapid response plans will
be implemented and 22 mock
exercises to practice responses
carried out under those plans and/
or actual response actions will be
completed [Clause 2].
2.1 By 2011, eight state ANS Clause 1: Achieved
management plans will be (delayed)
established or revised to include
rapid response capabilities [Clause clause 2: Achieved
1].
-------
34 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective
Explanation / Status Summary
2.2 Six technologies that prevent the
introduction of invasive species
and four technologies that either
contain or control invasive species
will be developed or refined and
piloted by 2011 [Clause 1].
Ten technologies that prevent the
introduction of invasive species
and five technologies that either
contain or control invasive species
will be developed or refined and
piloted by 2014 [Clause 2].
Clause 1: Achieved
(delayed)
Clause 2: Achieved
By 2011, over ten technologies that prevent the introduction of invasive spe-
cies were developed, refined, or piloted and one technology that contains or
controls invasive species was developed, refined, or piloted.
As of 2013, over 30 prevention technologies had been developed, refined,
or piloted. Advances in ballast water treatment technologies and innova-
tive technologies resulting from Asian carp prevention activities resulted
in achievements exceeding the original targets. As of 2013, five contain/
control technologies had been developed, refined, or piloted as a product of
enhanced sea lamprey control efforts.
As of 2014,49 prevention technologies had been developed, refined, or pilot-
ed. Advances in ballast water treatment technologies and innovative technol-
ogies resulting from Asian carp prevention activities resulted in achievements
exceeding the original targets. As of 2014, six contain/control technologies
had been developed, refined, or piloted as a product of enhanced sea lamprey
control and an innovative control technology for zebra mussels.
2.3 By 2011, methodology and
protocols will be piloted for
the coordinated monitoring
methodology and shared protocols
for basinwide invasive species
surveillance [Clause 1], By 2014, a
basinwide surveillance program
with shared sampling protocols
and methodologies to provide
early detection of non-native
species will be operational [Clause
2].
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: Not
Achieved
Clause 1: Early GLRI funding supported several pilot monitoring and protocol
development efforts in order to inform the development of a basinwide sur-
veillance program.These efforts include: coordinated multi-agency monitor-
ing for Asian Carp as described in the Asian Carp Framework, an EPA-ORD
pilot study at Isle Royale in Lake Superior, FWS pilot projects atWhitefish Bay
and the St. Louis river in Lake Superior, an EPA-ORD research project for the
use molecular/genetic tools for early detection, an EPA-funded grant forWest-
ern Lake Erie/Maumee River, and an International Joint Commission workshop
on binational rapid response targeting the Detroit River corridor. Findings
from these cutting-edge initiatives were presented at the 18th International
Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species held in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada,
on April 21 -25,2013, and at the 56th Annual Conference on Great Lakes
Research held in West Lafayette, Ind., on June 2-6,2013.
Clause 2: This ambitious objective was developed at a time when the extent
of the Asian Carp invasion was still unknown. Responding to the immediate
threat of Asian carp, including the detection of Asian Carp eDNA in Lake Erie
in 2012, has been the highest priority. However, as noted in Clause 1 above,
significant progress has been made. By leveraging the GLRI's precedent-set-
ting efforts, the U.S. government was able to negotiate the development of a
binational basinwide surveillance program with Canada, as part of the amend-
ments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The shared deadline for
developing this binational program is "within two years of entry into force of
this Agreement."The Agreement entered into force on Feb. 12,2013, following
an exchange of diplomatic notes between the two governments.
2.4 By 2014, a 40 percent reduction in Achieved
the yearly average rate of invasive
species newly detected in the
Great Lakes ecosystem will be
achieved, compared to the period
2000-2009.
As of 2014, no new species have been detected since 2009, reducing the rate
by 33% from 1.0 species per year (10 species from 2000-2009) to .67 spe-
cies per year (10 species from 2000-2014). This objective is considered to
be achieved since, based on no new introductions, it is the best that could
possibly be achieved (even if it is less than 40 percent). The target should have
been stated as a 33% reduction, reflecting the objective of no new introduc-
tions through 2014.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 35
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective
2.5 By 2014, invasive species
populations within the Great
Lakes Ecosystem will have
been controlled and reduced,
as measured in populations
controlled to a target level in 6,500
acres of managed area [Clause 1]
and by removing 5,000 pounds of
invasive species [Clause 2] from the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: Achieved
Explanation / Status Summary
Through 2014, over 35,000 acres have been managed for populations of
invasive species controlled to a target level within the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This result is higherthan anticipated. The unprecedented level of funding for
invasive species work capitalized on a backlog of projects and appears to have
achieved economies of scale due to significantly larger projects becoming
fully operational. Additionally, management efforts involving comprehensive
surveillance of large acreages with targeted treatment follow-up have come
to fruition.
Through 2014, the GLRI has removed well over 5,000 pounds of invasive
species from the Great Lakes ecosystem.The Great Lakes Fishery Commission
alone reported 3,000 pounds of sea lamprey from the Great Lakes ecosystem
in a large-scale experimental phase of a sea lamprey pheromone project.
GLRI funding has been used to remove hundreds of thousands of pounds of
other invasive species, such as phragmites and over 300,000 pounds of water
chestnuts.
2.6 By 2014, approximately 10 million Achieved
recreation and resource users will
be educated on best practices
that prevent the introduction and
spread of invasive species.
Through 2014, the GLRI has provided over 314 million opportunities to
view or hear important information about steps to prevent the introduction
and spread of invasive species in the Great Lakes basin. This objective was
developed to track overall progress toward the innovative work of improving
invasive species education/outreach, which is still in the early stages of devel-
opment for addressing most invasive species vectors. Many of these efforts
are funded through competitive grant offerings and include a combination of
the best-designed projects that maximize both the breadth of public reached
(typically non-interactive outreach such as billboards, radio,TV, etc.) and also
directly target the more active resource users. The number of contacts is de-
rived from recipient reports based on industry standards for applicable media.
Results for this measure have greatly exceeded targets because of a number
of successful projects that have employed non-interactive techniques such
as billboards, radio, and TV, which have reached wide numbers of potential
recreation and resource users.
3.1 By 2010, EPA will compile and map
the highest priority watersheds
for implementation of targeted
nonpoint source pollution control
measures.
Achieved
The following watersheds where long-term environmental problems have
been clearly identified were targeted for non-point source pollution control
measures: Genesee River, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee River, St. Louis River,
and Saginaw.
In FY12, the GLRI Interagency Task Force announced that reducing phospho-
rus runoff, which contributes to harmful algal blooms, in the following three
key watersheds would be a top priority:
Lower Fox River (Wisconsin)
Saginaw River (Michigan)
Maumee River (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana)
3.2 By 2014, remediation, restoration Achieved
and conservation actions in at
least one targeted watershed in
each Great Lake basin will control
erosion, reduce nutrient runoff
from urban and agricultural
sources, and improve habitat
to protect nearshore aquatic
resources.
Remediation, restoration, and conservation actions have occurred in multiple
subwatersheds in each targeted watershed identified in Objective 3.1 to con-
trol erosion, reduce nutrient runoff from urban and agricultural sources, and
improve habitat to protect nearshore aquatic resources.
-------
36 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective Status Explanation/Status Summary
3.3 By 2014, a baseline will be Not Achieved EPA and USGS are establishing a baseline for suspended sediment loads to
established for total suspended the lakes, rather than for total suspended solids (TSS), under this objective in
solids loadings from targeted order to obtain more accurate and reproducible results. The data collection
tributaries. and analyses result in suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) which are
coupled with streamflow to obtain suspended sediment loads. The suspend-
ed sediment loads, like those for TSS, aid in understanding the effects of fu-
ture land use/land cover on water quality and help evaluate the effectiveness
and efficiency of best management practices at the watershed scale. Using
GLRI funds, USGS has installed automated samplers, water quality multi-
sensor probes, and gage house and stage equipment at 30 of the Great Lakes
National Monitoring Network sites (which include the St. Louis River, Maumee
River, Fox River, Genesee River and Saginaw River). These sites, located near
river mouths, are being monitored to:
provide baseline information
measure restoration progress
demonstrate the ability to reduce monitoring costs through the use of
real-time sensors
Water samples collected at the 30 tributary monitoring sites are analyzed for a
suite of parameters including suspended sediment. Monthly samples, samples
during baseflow, and multiple samples for up to 6 storms are collected at each
site (total of approximately 48 samples collected annually per site) represent-
ing a number of different flow conditions.
USGS has collected 3.5 years of data for these 30 tributaries. These data are
adequate to describe the water quality concentrations and to compute loads
for those tributaries for those years. USGS plans on calculating suspended
sediment loads forthese tributaries using 2011-2013 data and publishing the
results in a USGS Scientific Investigations report before the end of 2015.
3.4 By 2014, a measurable decrease Data Not Available
will be achieved in soluble
phosphorus loading from 2008
levels in targeted tributaries.
Only limited data presently exist, but more detailed data are being collected
in 24-30 tributaries to the Great Lakes to determine whether targets are
being met. Detailed phosphorus data are being collected in all five targeted
watersheds (Fox, Saginaw, Maumee, St. Louis, and Genesee) to better estimate
annual average loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP). Sufficient
historical data do not currently exist to calculate changes in the five-year aver-
age annual loadings of SRP for the Saginaw, Genesee, and St. Louis Rivers. The
historical data for the Fox and Maumee Rivers may not represent the entire
year. Calculation for this measure would be affected by yearly variability in
rainfall and other climatic factors such that results may not directly indicate
the true trend from year to year.
3.5 By 2014, the causes of nutrient-
related nearshore biological
impairments will be better
understood [Clause 1 ], and
following local or watershed
remedial actions, the number
and severity of incidences of
harmful algal blooms (HABs),
avian botulism, and/or excessive
Cladophora growth will be
significantly reduced from 2008
levels [Clause 2].
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: Not
Achieved
GLRI supported numerous activities that increased the understanding of the
causes of nutrient-related nearshore biological impairments, including devel-
opment of detailed harmful algal bloom measurements via remote sensing,
which allowed the first quantification of the within-year harmful algal bloom
(HAB) variability, identification of specific lake locations where HABs persist
the longest, and highlighted important environmental factors responsible
for HAB severity such as extreme spring rainfall events and particular climatic
settings.
The number and severity of incidences of harmful algal blooms (HABs), avian
botulism, and/or excessive Cladophora growth have not been significantly
reduced from 2008 levels. GLRI-funded projects in targeted geographic water-
sheds are being implemented to reduce the nutrient inputs that are ultimately
causing nearshore biological impairments attributed to excessive algae; how-
ever, data for Lake Erie and other lakes suggest that there could be a delay
(several years or more) in the response of nearshore ecosystems to external
phosphorus load reductions. Rainfall and other climatic also factors contribute
to nearshore impairments attributed to algal growths. For example, intense
spring rainstorms were a major contributing factor in the record-breaking
2011 HAB in Lake Erie, and such storms are part of a long-term trend for this
region that is projected to get worse in the future due to climate change.
Warmer water temperatures also favor growth of cya no bacteria.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 37
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective
Explanation / Status Summary
3.6 By 2014, a comprehensive
nearshore monitoring program
will have been established and
implemented, including a publicly
accessible reporting system,
based on a suite of environmental
indicators.
Achieved
A comprehensive nearshore monitoring program to assess the over 10,000
miles of highly varied Great Lakes shoreline has been established. Federal
agencies, state agencies, and universities are performing comprehensive
nearshore monitoring. One example is the U.S. EPA National Coastal Condition
Assessment, which for the first time in 2010 incorporated Great Lakes assess-
ment into the program.The NCCA utilizes a probabilistic survey design and
standardized indicators to report on the condition of estuaries and coastal
waters at national and regional scales. GLRI funds were used to enhance the
Great Lakes NCCA by enabling 150 additional samples to be collected in em-
bayments, at sites along National Park boundaries, and at 30 sites to test for
pharmaceuticals and flame retardants in commonly consumed fish species.
In addition, Ohio EPA used GLRI finds to establish an annual Ohio Lake Erie
Comprehensive Nearshore Monitoring Program. Draft 2010 NCCA data were
made available to state agencies in 2013. A draft 2010 National Coastal Condi-
tion report underwent U.S. EPA review in 2014 and will be made available to
the public in 2015 at: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/
index.cfm.
3.7 By 2014,50 percent of high priority
Great Lakes beaches will have been
assessed using a standardized
sanitary survey tool to identify
sources of contamination.
Achieved
As of 2014,338 Tier 1 (high priority) Great Lakes beaches out of a total of 356
Tier 1 monitored Great Lakes beaches (94.6%) have been assessed using a
standardized sanitary survey tool to identify sources of contamination.
Out of a total of 572 monitored GL beaches, 490 beaches were assessed using
a standardized sanitary survey tool to identify sources of contamination.
3.8 By 2014,20 percent of high priority Not Achieved
Great Lakes beaches will have
begun to implement measures
to control, manage or remediate
pollution sources identified
through the use of sanitary surveys.
As of 2014,59Tier 1 (high priority) Great Lakes beaches out of a total of 356
Tier 1 monitored Great Lakes beaches have begun to implement measures to
control, manage or mitigate pollution sources identified with beach sanitary
surveys (16.5%).
Out of a total of 572 monitored Great Lakes beaches, 79 beaches have begun
(or will begin) to implement measures to control, manage or mitigate pollu-
tion sources identified with beach sanitary surveys (13.8%).
3.9 By 2014, rapid testing or predictive
modeling methods (to improve
the accuracy of decisions on beach
postings to better protect public
health) will be employed at 33
percent of high priority beaches.
Further progress on this objective depends upon a maintained level of state
monitoring efforts. Rapid testing methods can increase costs for equipment,
samples, and staff. Predictive modeling methods require a minimum of three
years of beach monitoring data to develop a model and periodic monitoring
to validate the model to ensure its effectiveness.
Not Achieved As of 2014, rapid testing or predictive modeling methods are being employed
at 92 Tier 1 (high priority) Great Lakes beaches out of a total of 356 Tier 1
monitored Great Lakes beaches (25.8%).
Out of a total of 572 monitored Great Lakes beaches, rapid testing or predic-
tive modeling methods are being employed at 137 beaches (23.9%).
3.10 By 2014, the area of agricultural Achieved
lands in conservation and/or
utilizing conservation tillage
practices will increase by 50
percent over 2008 levels.
In FY14,277,700 acres in the Great Lakes watershed were put into USDA
conservation practices to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide load-
ing under Farm Bill Programs, which is an increase of 68% over 2008 levels
(165,000 acre baseline).
4.1 By 2014,4,500 miles of Great
Lakes rivers and tributaries will
be reopened [Clause 1 ] and 450
barriers to fish passage will be
removed or bypassed [Clause 2].
Clause 1: Not
Achieved
Clause 2: Achieved
See comments for measures 4.1 and 4.2.
4.2 By 2014,82% of recovery actions
for federally listed priority species
will be implemented.
Data Not Available See comments for measure 4.4.
-------
38 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan 1: Objectives (cont.)
1 Action Plan Objective
Status
Explanation/Status Summary 1
4.3 By 2014,53 percent of populations
of native aquatic non-threatened
and endangered species are self
sustaining.
Achieved the
revised FY14 target
for corresponding
measure
Actions have been taken which we believe will increase the percentage of
populations self-sustaining in the wild (35% through FY14); however, this
environmental indicator will require additional time for the impacts to affect
species populations. Populations are making significant progress, but the
full impacts of GLRI efforts will not be fully known for several more years. In
recognition of the complexity of this issue and the time required for the ef-
fects of restoration to be realized, the target for the corresponding measure
had been changed to 35% in the federal GPRA process.That revised target has
been achieved.
4.4 By 2014, 97,500 acres of wetlands,
wetland-associated uplands, and
high priority coastal, upland,
urban, and island habitats will be
protected, restored or enhanced.
Achieved
See comments for measure 4.7.
4.5 By 2014,100 percent of U.S. coastal
wetlands in the Great Lakes basin
will be assessed.
Not Achieved
See comments for measure 4.8.
4.6 By 2014,30 habitat-related
beneficial use impairments will
be delisted across the Areas of
Concern.
Not Achieved
See comments for measure 4.9.
5.1 By 2011, opportunities for
collaboration, planning, data
accessibility and accountability
will be increased through the
expanded use of internet-based
Achieved
By 2011, EPA had developed and piloted an initial version of the Great Lakes
Accountability System (see following objective for more detail). EPA also had
developed internet-based mechanisms to facilitate GLRI application and
review processes and facilitate planning and collaboration for interagency
projects.
technology.
EPA also continues to improve the Great Lakes Environmental Database
(GLENDA). GLENDA is the data management tool for many of the EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office long-term monitoring programs including
water chemistry, plankton, benthos, fish, and sediment. It provides data entry,
storage, and public access. In support of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
the USGS is working with the Great Lakes Observing System and other data-
exchange efforts to make water-resources and biological information more
readily accessible as a Great Lakes Basin dataset.This information includes
streamflow, groundwater, and water-quality data, as well as online access to
USGS reports written for part or all of the Great Lakes Basin. The database
model has been developed and is being populated with USGS GLRI data,
focusing on priority watersheds and Areas of Concern.
5.2 By 2011, an Accountability
System will be developed and
implemented for the Initiative. The
system will integrate and make
transparent strategic planning,
budgeting and results monitoring.
Achieved
By 2011, EPA had developed and piloted an initial version of the Great Lakes
Accountability System.This system remains a work in progress and EPA
plans to continually evaluate and initiate options for improving our ability to
integrate and make transparent strategic planning, budgeting, and results
monitoring.
5.3 By 2011, a satellite remote sensing
program will be implemented to
assess Great Lakes productivity
and biological (e.g., algal bloom)
events.
Achieved
In 2011, GLNPO started using satellite images to complement the collec-
tion and analysis of chlorophyll under its long-term Great Lakes biological
monitoring program. Chlorophyll concentrations are estimated by detecting
very small changes in water color of the satellite images as a result of the
wavelengths of light that are absorbed or reflected by phytoplankton.The
satellite measurements provide a look at a very large part of the Lakes at the
same time and allow an assessment of temporal trends throughout the year
and overyears. The satellite-derived estimates of chlorophyll can also help
identify areas rich in nutrients. Shipboard measurements are used to validate
the satellite-derived observations
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress | 39
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective Status
Explanation / Status Summary
5.4 By 2011, outreach and education Achieved
See comments for measure 5.3.
efforts are increased, including
identifying and revising existing
curricula to incorporate sustainable
education needs for the Great
Lakes that meet state and other
relevant learning standards.
5.5 By 2011, a refined suite of science-
based indicators for development
of a comprehensive assessment of
Great Lakes ecosystem health will
be identified, monitoring programs
for those indicators will begin to
be implemented, and restoration
and protection actions tied to
those assessments and programs
assured.
Achieved
The 9th State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) was held in Erie,
Pa., on October 26-27,2011. The conference was the culmination of scientific
information gathered from governments, academia and non-governmental
organizations using a suite of indicators that were refined based on an inde-
pendent scientific review completed in 2010.
GLRI has supported coordinated ecosystem-level monitoring to document
overall ecosystem conditions and report on indicators. Long-term ecosystem
monitoring programs were enhanced to better assess conditions and trends
of nutrient concentrations, phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, and
benthic communities in the nearshore and open waters of the Great Lakes.
5.6 By 2011, social media access Achieved
opportunities for basinwide public
involvement in the Initiative will be
in place.
By 2011, EPA had created an interagency GLRI website (glri.us). By 2011, the
GLRI also had a presence on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube through content
produced by each agency. EPA continues to host a GLRI twitter account (@
EPAGreatLakes) and both the Great Lakes Advisor and Great Lakes National
Program Manager tweet on behalf of GLRI. EPA uses the agency blog "It's Our
Environment" to continue the conversation on Great Lakes Issues and encour-
ages other agencies to use the hashtag #GLRI. The Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force has interacted with questions from the public by Twitter and Face-
book since the first Great Lakes Week in 2011. Other agencies, such as USGS
and USFWS, produce videos related to GLRI on their Midwest regional social
media sites.
5.7 By 2012, education efforts under
existing curricula that meet
state and other relevant learning
standards will be coordinated
across states,and a system for
tracking student and teacher
outreach (quantitatively and
qualitatively) for their use.
Achieved
In 2012, education specialists with the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network estab-
lished the Center for Great Lakes Literacy (CGLL) with funding support from
GLRI. The creation of CGLL improved coordination on educational efforts
across all eight Great Lakes states. The goal of CGLL is to improve Great Lakes
literacy and increase environmental stewardship by developing standards-
based curricula, providing professional development training, building a
community-of-practice network and facilitating stewardship opportunities.
The Center for Great Lakes Literacy performs follow-up evaluations on each
teacher that participates in their multi-day workshops to determine the extent
to which Great Lakes protection and stewardship principles have been incor-
porated into their broader environmental education curricula. These numbers
are reported and tracked in the Great Lakes Accountability System.
GLRI also supported the Bay Watershed and Education Program (B-WET), an
environmental education program that promotes locally relevant, experiential
learning for K-12 school students and teachers. Projects funded through B-
WET are aimed at promoting "Meaningful Watershed Education Experiences"
(MWEEs): sustained, hands-on, environmental activities that are aligned
with academic learning standards. The B-WET program also has an extensive
evaluation program to demonstrate its effectiveness. Rigorous evaluation has
shown that B-WET activities increase teachers'confidence, ability and inten-
tion to employ MWEE techniques with their students. Student experiences in
turn have been shown to increase intention to take action to improve the wa-
tershed and have the potential to increase academic achievement in science.
-------
40 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective
Explanation / Status Summary
5.8 By 2012, improved coordination
with Canada will take place
for programs under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
particularly under the LaMPs
[Clause 1 ], which will result in the
achievement of 5-10 priority LaMP
goals and actions [Clause 2].
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: Achieved
On Sept. 7,2012, Canada and the United States amended the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (Agreement). The updated Agreement facilitates
United States and Canadian action on threats to Great Lakes water quality and
includes measures to prevent ecological harm. New provisions address the
nearshore environment, aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation and the
effects of climate change. It also supports continued work on existing threats
to public health and the environment in the Great Lakes basin such as harmful
algae, toxic chemicals and discharges from vessels. Both governments sought
extensive input from stakeholders before and throughout the negotiation
process, which started in 2009. Additionally, the revised Agreement expands
opportunities for public participation in Great Lakes issues.
Lakewide Action and Management Plans (LAMPs) continue to serve a critical
role in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. Seventeen prior-
ity LAMP projects were completed in FY12. Some of these projects included
completion of the Lake Superior Chemical Milestones Report (documenting
the reduction of releases of toxic chemicals to Lake Superior), development
of a Lake Erie LAMP Forum website,"Green Marina" projects in Lake Michigan
which reduce and eliminate toxic substances released from boats and marinas
into Lake Michigan, and a plankton assessment of the St. Lawrence River.
5.9 By 2014, a statistically valid and
comprehensive assessment, using
a probability-based design, of
Great Lakes water resources, will
be established.The system will
integrate shipboard monitoring,
remote sensing, automated
sampling, and other monitoring or
observing efforts [Clause 1].
By 2016, the system will be in
place for all of the Great Lakes and
capable of providing a scientifically
justifiable assessment of Great
Lakes water resources [Clause 2].
Clause 1: Achieved
Clause 2: On Track
GLRI has helped to establish a statistically valid and comprehensive assess-
ment, using a probability-based design, of Great Lakes water resources. GLRI
has enhanced previously existing monitoring efforts including GLNPO's long-
term open lake water quality and biological monitoring programs and EPA's
National Coastal Condition Assessment (see objective 3.6 explanation). These
programs use a probability-based design to assess water quality and the bio-
logical health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. As part of a more comprehensive
assessment, GLRI has also enhanced remote sensing, tributary monitoring,
coastal wetland monitoring, and invasive species surveillance.
The comprehensive monitoring and assessment efforts are currently being
performed by federal agencies, state agencies and academia. Science-based
ecosystem indicators continue to be a primary reporting mechanism. These
efforts will continue to be improved and refined over time as the Science An-
nex of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is implemented. For example,
the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative is a binational effort coordi-
nated under the Agreement for an enhanced science program that addresses
informational needs of environmental managers of each Great Lake, their
connecting channels, and the international portion of the St. Lawrence River.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 141
GLRI Action Plan I: Objectives (cont.)
Action Plan Objective
Explanation / Status Summary
5.10 By 2014, timely data and
information will be provided to
decision makers at multiple scales
within a framework of established
baselines, targets, indicators of
progress, and monitoring.
Achieved
To improve decision-making at multiple scales, the United States and Canada
assess and report on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem on a three year
cycle using accepted science-based indicators to assess ecosystem status
and trends against established baselines.The cycle is initiated by the two
governments reporting on the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem
and announcing draft priorities for scientific investigations and manage-
ment actions. This occurs at the Great Lakes Public Forum, an open meeting
that provides an opportunity for any organization or stakeholder to provide
comment and recommendations. Advice from the International Joint Com-
mission, an impartial binational oversight organization, is also considered
during this time. Using this feedback, the two governments finalize and begin
implementing priorities for scientific investigations and management actions.
After two years of implementation, the two governments publicly report on
the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem, progress toward accomplish-
ing the established science and action priorities, and proposed updated draft
priorities, thus beginning the three-year cycle anew.
A more detailed Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) is
implemented on a five year cycle for each individual Great Lake. CSMI is a
binational, multi-agency undertaking to investigate the health of each lake
during an intensive year of cooperative science and monitoring, rotating an-
nually through each lake. Data collected result in an updated scientific under-
standing of the health of each Great Lake, determination of impairments and
potential threats.and the identification of appropriate management actions.
CSMI monitors pollutant presence, sources, loadings, impacts and trends in
various media, as well as providing necessary data to assess compliance with
specific environmental targets and objectives. The monitoring under CSMI
is also necessary to support modeling and predictive techniques, and to as-
sess the success of remedial or restorative measures. The results of CSMI are
reported in binational Lakewide Action and Management Plans for each Great
Lake. Implementation progress and ecosystem response is assessed again in
five years, which restarts the five-year cycle.
-------
42 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
APPENDIX C GLRI ACTION PLAN I: LONG TERM GOALS
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
1.1 Areas of Concern are cleaned
up, restoring the areas and
removing the beneficial use
impairments.
During the first five years of the GLRI, federal agencies and their partners completed all of the management
actions required to remove five Areas of Concern from the list of areas designated as the most contami-
nated sites on the Great Lakes by the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Presque Isle Bay Area
of Concern was also delisted in 2013 only the second delisting on the U.S. side of the border since Areas
of Concern were designated pursuant to the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
1.2 The release of toxic
substances in toxic amounts
is prevented and the release
of any orall persistent toxic
substances (PTS) to the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem is
virtually eliminated.
GLRI toxics activities are achieving substantial reductions in persistent toxic substances entering the Great
Lakes. Activities include Illinois Indiana Sea Grant's work with local communities and lawn care profession-
als to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's work with local
businesses and communities to reduce the use of PAH containing coal tar sealants; and Great Lakes States'
implementation of mercury phase down projects, both in emissions as well as in products. Starting in 2013
the GLRI increased its focus on pollution reduction and has left pollution prevention activities to base EPA
programs.
1.3 Exposure to toxic Since the start of GLRI, over 7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes (15% of the
substances from historically total) have been remediated. The contaminants in those sediments are no longer available to the environ-
contaminated sources ment, thus reducing exposure to toxic substances from this historically contaminated source,
is significantly reduced
through source reduction
and other exposure
reduction methods.
1.4 Environmental levels of toxic
chemicals are reduced to the
point that all restrictions on
the consumption of Great
Lakes fish can be lifted.
GLRI funding is supporting EPA's work with the Great Lake States, Universities and the Great Lakes Sport
Fish Consortium to protect the public, especially sensitive populations, from the exposure of potentially
harmful contaminants in fish. GLRI-funded activities include: improvements to the quality offish consump-
tion guidelines; advancements to fish consumption messaging and outreach, specifically directing effort to
high risk fish consuming populations; engagement of healthcare providers to facilitate dialogue with their
patients regarding the risk and benefit offish consumption; and utilization of contaminant biomonitoring
in humans as a tool for influencing positive fish consumption behavior changes.
1.5 The health and integrity
of wildlife populations
and habitat are protected
from adverse chemical and
biological effects associated
with the presence of toxic
substances in the Great Lake
Basin.
GLRI funding is supporting EPA, USGS, NOAA, USFWS and USACE in developing an early warning system
to guard against threats to fish and wildlife from new and emerging chemical toxicants. A combination of
chemical monitoring in various media and biota along with advanced biological measurements are making
it possible to provide more sensitive indications of toxicant stress in the basin and to devise interventions
in a timely fashion.
2.1 The introduction of new
invasive species to the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem is
eliminated, reflecting a "zero
tolerance policy"toward
invasives.
GLRI-supported activities by federal Agencies and their partners have established and enhanced preven-
tion, early detection, rapid response, and control activities in the Great Lakes ecosystem. While risks do
remain, the extent of work is unprecedented in the history of Great Lakes invasive species management.
Partner agencies responded to several detections, including red swamp crayfish in Wisconsin, grass carp in
Michigan, Hydrilla in New York and eDNA for silver and bighead carp in the Chicago Area Waterway System.
In the first five years of GLRI, there were no new invasive species formally established in the Great Lakes;
however. Federal Agencies and their partners are concerned about evidence of Grass Carp reproduction
in the Sandusky River basin in Ohio. Ongoing work continues to reflect a "zero tolerance policy" toward
2.2 The risk of introduction of
species, which are imported
for various uses, into the
Great Lakes is minimized.
GLRI-supported activities by federal Agencies and their partners have significantly reduced the risk of both
intentional and accidental introductions. Federal Agencies and their partners established the scientific
tools for assessing risks of organisms in trade and screened over 2,000 species and identified species of
high risk to the Great Lakes. In addition, partner agencies conducted multiple investigations of aquarium
trade, bait trade, sales through internet commerce, as well as illegal possession and sale of invasive species.
The information generated by this work supported the formal identification by the leadership of the Great
Lakes Governors and the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec of sixteen "least wanted"aquatic invasive species
and an announcement of joint action to block these species.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 143
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
2.3 The spread of invasive
species, by means of
recreational activities,
connecting waterways, and
other vectors, beyond their
current range is prevented.
2.4 A comprehensive program
for detection and tracking
newly identified invasive
species in the Great Lakes is
developed and provides up-
to-date critical information
needed by decision makers
for evaluating potential
rapid response actions.
GLRI-supported activities by federal agencies and their partners have reduce the spread of invasive species
expanded outreach to resource users. The "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" outreach campaign, with its key mes-
sage of "Clean, Drain, Dry," is now well-known among the recreational boating community. Partner agen-
cies working together on the"Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study"have identified potential
connections between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins and have mobilized to reduce the risk of
interbasin transfers. Federal Agencies and their partners have worked with the Great Lakes community to
reduce behaviors and pathways that can move invasive species beyond their current range.
Supported by GLRI, federal agencies and their partners have initiated early detection programs in a
number of regions of the Great Lakes and in 2014 conducted the first basinwide survey for Asian Carp. In
addition, partner agencies have piloted several innovative techniques to detect organisms at low popula-
tion levels, including statistical approaches and the development of eDNA monitoring tools.This work
supported the U.S. government's successful negotiations with Canada for the development of a binational
early detection network by 2015. In the first five years of GLRI, Federal Agencies and their partners have
worked with expanded surveillance programs and are working to increase the effectiveness of surveillance
methodologies.
2.5 An effective, efficient and
environmentally sound
program of integrated pest
management for invasive
species is developed and
implemented, including
program functions of
containment, eradication,
control and mitigation.
Federal agencies and their partners have begun the development of integrated management programs
for invasive species, with a special focus on Asian Carps.The Asian Carp integrated program includes all
aspects of containment, eradication, control, and mitigation. In addition, a "Great Lakes Phragmites Collab-
orative" was develop to improve professional communications on best management practices of invasive
Phragmites. Development of containment and control techniques continues for other high-risk species. In
the first five years of GLRI, Federal Agencies and their partners have expanded capabilities to mitigate the
effects of invasive species through integrated management programs.
3.1 Nearshore aquatic
communities consist of
healthy, self-sustaining plant
and animal populations
dominated by native and
naturalized species.
Since 2010, GLRI funds were used to improve nearshore water quality in many areas throughout the Great
Lakes basin in order to support healthy, self-sustaining plant and animal populations dominated by native
and naturalized species. The GLRI jump-started efforts to better understand and address nearshore eutro-
phication and contamination problems resulting from contaminant concentrations in the nearshore. GLRI
agencies made progress through the following activities:
GLRI agencies invested in agricultural conservation practices in targeted agricultural watersheds that
drain into areas of the Great Lakes experiencing the worst harmful algal bloom problems. Enhanced
monitoring in these locations is validating the effectiveness of a targeted conservation approach, which
can then be applied at larger scales to affect harmful algal bloom development over the long term.
GLRI agencies implemented watershed management activities, including green infrastructure, in urban
and suburban areas that reduced contamination that forces the closure of Great Lakes beaches.
GLRI agencies supported improved determination of effective remedial actions by furthering the under-
standing of how nutrients and pollutants move through the watershed and interact with other stressors
such as invasive species and climate change to exacerbate nearshore problems.
The GLRI also advanced invasive species prevention and control, which will help ensure that nearshore
aquatic communities are dominated by native and naturalized species, and reduced sources of pollution at
Great Lakes beaches, including provision of critical habitat for wildlife (see also beach related goal state-
ment 3.4).
-------
44 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
3.2 Land use, recreation and
economic activities are
managed to ensure that
nearshore aquatic, wetland
and upland habitats
will sustain the health
and function of natural
communities.
GLRI funds were used to develop tools and approaches to guide sustainable management of land use,
recreation and economic activities. Example activities include:
The GLRI responded to a large unmet need for nonpoint source control in the major agricultural land-
scapes across the Great Lakes basin and demonstrated the significant acceleration of activities that oc-
curs following increased financial investment and landowner outreach. Funding supported more than
a doubling of contracted acreage enrolled in agricultural conservation practices to reduce phosphorus
runoff from select watersheds with receiving waters impacted by nuisance or harmful algal blooms. In
2012, GLRI agencies began prioritizing subwatersheds in the Lower Fox, Saginaw, and Maumee Rivers
to accelerate conservation practices that reduce phosphorus losses, with enhanced monitoring to track
progress. This approach increased cost efficiency of GLRI investments, accumulated lessons learned, and
multiplied benefits to neighboring watersheds through education and communication.
GLRI partners encouraged innovative approaches to nutrient reduction. For example, GLRI partners en-
gaged fertilizer application businesses in the Lake Erie Basin to better target nutrient application, which
led to an average phosphorus application reduction of 21 pounds per acre while saving farmers $13-16
per acre in fertilizer costs. With GLRI support, the Great Lakes Com mission, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service initiated an innovative water quality
trading framework in the Lower Fox River watershed. Stakeholders will use this framework to investigate
options for providing greater financial incentives for phosphorus reduction.
In order to measure phosphorus reductions achieved through implementation of conservation practic-
es, the U.S. Geological Survey used GLRI funding to install eight new monitoring devices at the edge of
farm fields to quantify phosphorus losses before and after implementation of agricultural conservation
practices. The GLRI also initiated projects to synthesize available science and generate new information
on the complex interaction that farm practices, nutrient loads, extreme weather events, hydrology, and
federal/state regulatory policies have on Great Lakes water quality and harmful algal bloom develop-
ment.
3.3 The presence of bacteria,
viruses, pathogens, nuisance
growths of plants or animals,
objectionable taste or
odors, or other risks to
human health are reduced
to levels in which water
quality standards are met
and beneficial uses attained
to protect human use and
enjoyment of the nearshore
areas.
Since 2010, GLRI funded projects to reduce risks to human and ecological health by implementing projects
to reduce runoff and associated inputs of nutrient, sediment, pathogen, and other pollutants to improve
water quality in streams, embayments, and the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes. GLRI funding was used
to implement watershed management practices that addressed nonpoint source pollution: restoration of
river mouths and wetlands; re-vegetation and forestation; green infrastructure; development and imple-
mentation ofTotal Maximum Daily Loads for nutrients, sediments, and pathogens; integrated wildlife
management along shorelines and other innovative actions and approaches. These practices typically
involve efforts to retain water on the landscape, slow the flow of runoff, and filter out sediments, nutrients,
pathogens, and other pollutants prior to reaching receiving waters.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 145
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
3.4 High quality bathing
beach opportunities are
maintained by eliminating
impairments from bacterial,
algal and chemical
contamination; effective
monitoring for pathogens;
effective modeling of
environmental conditions,
where appropriate; and
timely communications
to the public about beach
health and daily swimming
conditions.
GLRI activities have helped maintain high quality bathing beach opportunities in the Great Lakes. GLRI
agencies found sources of pollution and environmental factors that could contribute to increased un-
healthy bacteria or viruses threats to public health. Actions included:
356 out of 377 (94.6%) high priority Great Lakes beaches were assessed using a standardized sanitary
survey tool to identify sources of contamination, beach characteristics, and possible management ac-
tions to improve beach health. At 59 of these beaches, measures have been implemented to control,
manage or mitigate pollution sources using the sanitary survey tool, resulting in improved water quality
and reduced beach closures.
GLRI partner agencies are developing rapid water quality assessment approaches and decision-making
tools that provide timely and accurate information to beach managers and the public on daily swim-
ming conditions and beach health.
- Rapid testing or predictive modeling methods developed with GLRI funding are currently being em-
ployed at 92 high priority Great Lakes beaches.
- The EPA Virtual Beach model was improved and widely distributed through training and agency sup-
port, allowing beach managers to create specific beach predictive models at multiple locations.
- Web tools were created that allow beach managers easy access to relevant beach-related data from
numerous agencies across the Great Lakes region (http://cida.usgs.gov/enddat/).The Great Lakes
Beach Health Database was constructed to provide a common and flexible system to input, store and
export beach water-quality and sanitary survey monitoring information.
- GLRI partner agencies are evaluating and improving models to accurately and rapidly forecast E. coli
levels in nearshore waters ensuring that decision makers have appropriate information to protect
beach goers when bacteria levels are elevated and avoid closing beaches unnecessarily.
- Real-time information on beach water quality advisories, weather and water conditions are available
on mobile phones for beaches in the eight Great Lake states via a free smartphone application (my-
BeachCast app http://glin.net/beachcast/) that provides convenient, public access to swim advisories
and other environmental conditions information for 1,900 beaches in the Great Lakes region.
- EPA and partner agencies provided numerous training opportunities for beach managers in the use of
rapid methods and predictive modeling.
GLRI partner agencies improved the understanding of the factors influencing Great Lakes beach water
quality. Agencies:
- Initiated use of an experimental harmful algal bloom (HAB) bulletin (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/
projects/lake_erie_hab/lake_erie_hab.html) that provides a weekly forecast for Microcystis blooms in
western Lake Erie.
- Developed new sampling methods and analysis tools to understand pathogen sources and distribu-
tion at Great Lakes beaches and the relationship between fecal indicator bacteria and pathogens.
- Enhanced microbial source tracking methods to support the identification of pollution sources and
provide beach mangers with information to prioritize pollution mitigation.
- Studied the effects of wave height and resuspension of sediments in the near shore to improve model
predictions of beach water quality.
- Increased public health capacity to monitor, coordinate resources, conduct outreach, and respond to
waterborne diseases and HAB events in seven Great Lakes states.
3.5 A significant reduction in
soil erosion and the loading
of sediments, nutrients and
pollutants into tributaries
is achieved through greater
implementation of practices
that conserve soil and slow
overland flow in agriculture,
forestry and urban areas.
Since 2010, federal state, local, academic, and non-governmental partners implemented on-the-ground
GLRI-funded projects to significantly reduce sediment, nutrient and pollutant runoff throughout the Great
Lakes basin. Example successes from GLRI funding include:
A cumulative total of 1.36 million acres in the Great Lakes watershed were put into USDA conservation
practices to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide loadings under Farm Bill programs.
GLRI Watershed Implementation grant projects accelerated nonpoint source pollution control and
prevented more than 468,000 lbs of total phosphorous, 920,000 lbs of nitrogen, and 14,700 tons of sedi-
ment from entering the Great Lakes.
Soil erosion and sedimentation was prevented on over 30,000 acres through supplementing Great
Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control funding.
Shoreline Cities grants were issued to 16 cities to install rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, porous
pavement, greenways, constructed wetlands, stormwater tree trenches and other green infrastructure
on public property.
Through the Restoration of Urban and Community Forests program, communities planted and main-
tained tree canopy cover (that will reduce storm water runoff and improve water quality) and plant
vegetation (that sequesters toxic substances and restores green infrastructure to reduce storm-water
runoff). Since 2010,67 projects have been awarded to plant more than 71,247 trees. These trees are
estimated to intercept more than 4.2 million gallons of stormwater annually for their first five years.
-------
46 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
3.6 High quality, timely and
relevant information about
the nearshore areas is readily
available to assess progress
and to inform enlightened
decision making.
Because of the GLRI and other programs, more, high quality, timely and relevant information about the
nearshore areas is readily available to assess progress and to inform enlightened decision making is
available in 2014 than was available before GLRI. GLRI supported an enhancement, reporting on shallow
embayments and harbors every 5 years, to the EPA Office of Water National Coastal Conditions Assess-
ment. The enhancement supported the capacity of States to report comprehensively on their coastal water
resources.The GLRI funded additional sampling, along National Park boundaries and 30 additional sites, for
commonly consumed fish to be tested for pharmaceuticals and flame retardants. GLRI funding supported
the development of additional nearshore Great Lakes information to assess the effectiveness of restoration
activities. To inform enlightened decision-making, GLRI funding also supported the development new tools
and information, on-line and in some cases via cell phone app, that provide timely and accurate informa-
tion to coastal managers and the public on nearshore conditions.
4.1 Protection and restoration
of Great Lakes aquatic
and terrestrial habitats,
including physical, chemical,
and biological processes
and ecosystem functions,
maintain or improve the
conditions of native fish and
wildlife.
Since 2010, more than 875 habitat protection, restoration and enhancement projects throughout the Great
Lakes basin have been initiated by GLRI agencies and implemented by federal state, local, academic, and
non-governmental partners.These projects have protected, restored or enhanced more than 102,000 acres
of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands and 48,000 acres of coastal, upland and island habitats. In ad-
dition, 513 barriers have been removed or bypassed in Great Lakes tributaries, enabling access by fish and
other aquatic organisms to over 3,400 additional miles of river. In the selection and completion of these
habitat restoration efforts, GLRI partners have emphasized restoring ecosystem resiliency by: reconnecting
habitats through corridors to enhance biological diversity, reducing sediment and nutrient inputs, restor-
ing natural hydrological processes, and improving water quality. Examples of projects include:
A project in the Watertown and Alexandria Bay, New York area of the St. Lawrence River has restored the
hydrology and reconnected 110 acres of marsh ecosystem and fish spawning habitat to the benefit of a
diversity offish and wildlife species.
At the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Northwest Indiana, more than 450 wetland acres including
rare intradunal wetlands and the Great Marsh, the largest wetland complex associated with southern
Lake Michigan, have been restored.
The 1,493-acre Bete Grise wetland complex, one of the highest quality dune and swale wetland systems
remaining in the Upper Great Lakes located on Lake Superior's Keewenaw Peninsula, is now perma-
nently protected and open to the public year round for non-invasive outdoor recreation, education, and
scientific research.
In Milwaukee and Cleveland, aging traditional breakwall structures were replaced by irregular rocky
structures that are providing habitat for walleyes, smallmouth bass, yellow perch and other wildlife.
A Riverwatch Academy was established in the Niagara River Watershed to train residents, teachers,
students, professionals and community leaders in watershed management and restoration. Academy
volunteers participated in restoring 3.5 miles of streambankand 35 acres along three degraded Niagara
River tributaries: Buffalo River, Scajaquada Creek and Cayuga Creek.
More than 700 acres of important coastal and island habitats have been acquired through public-
private collaboration, thus protecting Great Lakes ecologically unique habitats into perpetuity. An
acquisition of 286 acres of privately owned property along the Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania now
connects to more than 3,600 acres of protected land that includes 136 acres of wetlands and 780 feet
of shoreline. Land purchases such as this one will protect critically important habitat for migratory birds
and other wildlife, including rare or endangered species. These areas are safeguarded from residential
and commercial development, and many will provide public access for fishing and recreational oppor-
tunities.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 147
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
4.2 Critical management
activities (such as stocking
native fish and other aquatic
species, restoring access
of migratory fish species at
fish passage barriers,and
identifying and addressing
diseases) protect and
conserve important fish and
wildlife populations.
In 2011, the Lake Erie Water Snake was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. The GLRI accelerated the species'recovery and hasassured that conservation partners can keep
the snake population healthy. The species is no longer endangered or threatened with extinction or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future.
Populations of native aquatic non-threatened and non-endangered species are showing progress as well.
For example, fish passage and habitat improvement projects in the Saginaw River watershed have contrib-
uted significantly to the now self-sustaining walleye populations in Saginaw Bay, Michigan.
GLRI partners installed a fish bypass structure to convey Lake Sturgeon downstream and around the lower
dam nearthe mouth of the Menominee Riverin Marinette, Wisconsin and Menominee, Michigan.The
long-term outcome of this project is the reconnection of 21 river miles for Lake Sturgeon passage between
Lake Michigan and historic spawning and rearing habitats upstream. This restoration of connectivity for
sturgeon is expected to increase the Lake Michigan lake sturgeon population from 3,000 adults to as many
as 20,000 adults within 50 to 100 years.
A water-control structure (opened in March 2011) restored hydrologic connection for the first time in near-
ly 40 years between a 99-acre diked coastal wetland and Crane Creek, a tributary to Lake Erie.This control
structure allows exchange of water, fish, mussels, and other wildlife and provides a unique opportunity to
quantify the response of reconnected wetlands through field sampling offish, birds, invertebrates, plants,
water quality, and water levels. Intense data collection by GLRI partners has led to an unprecedented look
at the wetland ecosystem response to a large restoration action, implementation of adaptive management
practices, and recognition of water-quality improvements associated with habitat restoration in the Mau-
mee River Area of Concern. The reconnection has improved fish diversity and abundance in the restored
wetland has increased dramatically since reconnection. Sixteen new fish species were found to be using
the restored wetland.
-------
48 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
4.3 Sound decision making is
facilitated by accessible, site
specific and landscape-scale
baseline status and trend
information about fish and
wildlife resources and their
habitats.
Several examples illustrate how establishing baseline ecosystem status and trend data for Great Lakes
habitats and species leads to sound decision making.
GLRI partners initiated a comprehensive assessment of the quality and characteristics (invertebrates,
plants, birds, amphibians, fish and water quality) of all 217,000 hectares of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
In addition to establishing baseline data, this project is evaluating wetlands before, during, and after res-
toration to establish trends and to help identify and refine best management practices to improve future
restoration projects.
GLRI partners have been conducting interdisciplinary studies of the St. Clair-Detroit River System fish popu-
lations and habitat to help resource managers determine where to add new reef and shoreline habitats as
well as develop implementation priorities. The river system once provided spawning habitat for numerous
sportand commercial fishes including Lake Whitefish, Lake Sturgeon, Walleye, and White Bass.The effects
of invasive species and over-fishing have impaired the ability of the system to produce and support sus-
tainable fish populations. Based on the studies, new reefs have been built and Lake Sturgeon immediately
began to utilize them as spawning habitat.
Scientists have learned that avian botulism is the main cause of bird mortality in northern Lake Michigan.
Links between type-E botulism outbreaks, lake levels, and surface-water temperatures in Lake Michigan in-
dicate that avian botulism outbreaks occur most frequently in years with low water levels and high surface-
water temperatures. GLRI partners have developed a new method to detect the botulinum toxin which is
faster and cheaper than the traditional method and is a major step forward in the study of botulism.
Scientists are creating a food web"roadmap"for each Great Lake that details the feeding linkages between
species. These maps are decision support tools that allow scientists to explore how impacts of environmen-
tal threats spread through each lake's ecosystem by way of connections between species. For example,
USGS scientists are using food web maps to understand how spiny water fleas an invasive zooplankton
found in all the Great Lakesand other invasive species affect native fish. Scientists are currently using the
Lake Michigan map to study how native predators such as lake trout and prey fishes such as bloater are
affected by invasions of species lower in the food web, such as zebra mussels, quagga mussels, spiny water
fleas, and round gobies. In addition, this project is generating a geographically and seasonally extensive
database of Great Lakes species and feeding relationships for all of the lakes. This information allows sci-
entists to assess the current health of the Great Lakes, and it also serves as a valuable baseline from which
future ecosystem changes can be monitored.
Through the coordinated efforts of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Coop-
erative (LCC), federal, state and academic partners are working side-by-side to determine how projected
warmer air temperatures and changes in precipitation in the coming century may impact fish habitat. Great
Lakes aquatic resource managers are applying baseline data to various climate models to help prioritize
on-the-ground conservation and restoration efforts while considering the potential impacts to fish and
wildlife across the broader Great Lakes landscape. These analyses have helped target restoration actions
and protection measures for aquatic resources.
-------
GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress 149
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
4.4 High priority actions
identified in strategic plans
(such as state and federal
species management,
restoration and recovery
plans, Lakewide
Management Plans,
Remedial Action Plans, and
others) are implemented,
lead to the achievement of
plan goals, and reduce the
loss offish and wildlife and
their habitats.
4.5 Development activities are
planned and implemented
in ways that are sensitive
to environmental
considerations and
compatible with fish and
wildlife and their habitats.
5.1 A cooperative monitoring
and observing system
provides a comprehensive
assessment of the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
At the federal, state/tribal, and local levels, plans provide roadmaps for reducing the loss offish and wildlife
and their habitats. GLRI has enabled implementation of plans and produced new plans as shown in the
examples below.
For the third year in a row (2012-2014), the federally endangered Great Lakes piping plover population has
increased. The recovery plan calls for monitoring and research of populations to inform recovery efforts
that include a captive rearing program, locating and protecting nests, putting up nest exclosures, and vol-
unteer monitors alerting biologists of potential issues at nesting sites along Great Lakes beaches. Seventy
breeding pairs produced over 1.5 chicks per pair in 2014 thereby meeting one of the most important recov-
ery goals that should keep the plover population headed in the right direction. In addition, abandoned
eggs and chicks were taken into captivity, reared by volunteer zookeepers from around the country, and
released into the wild once able to fly. Many banded plovers are being sighted at their wintering grounds
on the southern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States.
In accordance with Annex 7 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Biodiversity Conservation Strate-
gies have been developed for each Great Lake by Lakewide Management and Action Plan binational
teams. These Strategies define a vision of biodiversity conservation for each lake, outline shared strategies
for protecting and restoring critical biodiversity areas, describe the ways in which conservation strategies
can benefit people by protecting and restoring important ecosystem services, and promote coordination
of biodiversity conservation in the basin.
Area of Concern remedial action plans contain numerous proposed actions to address habitat-related
beneficial use impairments.The GLRI federal partners worked with states and local RAP groups to deter-
mine actions needed to remove habitat-related BUIs. Projects were then implemented. In the Sheboygan
River AOC, for example, riparian restoration followed sediment remediation resulting in habitat-related BUI
removal.
Resource management actions regarding fish and wildlife and their habitats have been implemented using
an adaptive management approach. This structured approach emphasizes what management options are
available to decision makers, what outcomes are desired, how much risk can be tolerated, and how best to
choose among a set of alternative actions.
As an example, federal partners have deployed mobile radar units across the basin to collect better infor-
mation regarding shoreline migration corridors and stopover habitat utilization for birds and bats.This
information has identified areas where renewable energy projects may be developed safely in a manner
that is protective of aerial migrants in the Great Lakes.
A series of maps have also been developed showing present and projected urban area growth for the year
2040. The "Projected 2040" map shows increases in urban and suburban growth. Lower Michigan, North-
west Indiana, Southeast Wisconsin and Northwest Ohio are prominent areas of change; however, northern
rural parts of the Great Lakes basin show signs of growth as well. These northern rural areas are primarily
forest, oak savanna, tallgrass prairie, and inland wetland habitats that provide important ecosystem ser-
vices such as storing and exchanging nutrients and controlling erosion.The maps are providing important
information to community planners. Information includes:
Baseline distributions and status of relevant physical, chemical and biological processes;
Habitats and populations at local, regional and basinwide scales;
Gap analyses that identify priority protection and restoration project needs;
Inventories and monitoring of project-level effectiveness; and
Monitoring of systems-level effectiveness that measures the collective project beneficial impacts.
GLRI enhancements to previously existing monitoring programs (including GLNPO's long-term open lake
water quality and biological monitoring programs) are supporting a more comprehensive assessment of
the Great Lakes ecosystem. These programs use a probability-based design to assess water quality and
the biological health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. GLRI has provided enhancements to activities such as
remote sensing, tributary monitoring, coastal wetland monitoring, and invasive species surveillance.
Federal agencies, state and tribal agencies, and academia contribute to the comprehensive Great Lakes
monitoring and assessment, using science-based ecosystem indicators as a primary reporting mecha-
nism. Additional improvements will result from implementation of the Science Annex of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement through mechanisms such as the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative
(a binational effort coordinated under the Agreement for an enhanced science program that addresses
informational needs of environmental managers of each Great Lake, their connecting channels, and the
international portion of the St. Lawrence River).
-------
50 | GLRI FY 2010-2014 Report to Congress
GLRI Action Plan I: Long Term Goals (cont.)
Action Plan Long Term Goal Statement of Progress
5.2 The necessary technology
and programmatic
infrastructure supports
monitoring and reporting,
including Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative
project deliverables by all
agencies and participating
stakeholders. Data and
information are provided
in reports that are public
friendly, timely and available
on the Internet. Reports
present integrated and
scaled data from watersheds
to lakes to Great Lakes
basinwide.
GLRI has established and enhanced technology and programmatic infrastructure to support monitoring
and reporting. EPA's Great Lakes Accountability System supplements EPA systems to collect key information
regarding individual GLRI projects. EPA developed internet-based mechanisms to facilitate GLRI application
and review processes and facilitate planning and collaboration for interagency projects. EPA also continues
to improve the Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA). GLENDA is the data management tool for
many of the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office long-term monitoring programs including water
chemistry, plankton, benthos, fish, and sediment. It provides data entry, storage, and public access. The
USGS is working with the Great Lakes Observing System and other data-exchange efforts to make water-re-
sources and biological information more readily accessible as a Great Lakes Basin dataset.This information
includes streamflow, groundwater, and water-quality data, as well as online access to USGS reports written
for part or all of the Great Lakes Basin.
To improve decision-making at multiple scales, the United States and Canada assess and report on the
state of the Great Lakes ecosystem on a three year cycle using accepted science-based indicators to assess
ecosystem status and trends against established baselines. Examples include the State of the Great Lakes
Reports at http://binational.net/2011/10/16/sogl-edgl-2011/
5.3 Increase outreach and
education for the Great
Lakes,and provide ongoing
K-12 education for students
to understand the benefits
and ecosystem functions
of the Great Lakes so they
are able to make decisions
to ensure that restoration
investments are enhanced
overtime.
GLRI supported efforts are promoting Great Lakes-based environmental education and stewardship. Under
the GLRI Action Plan I, more than 1,500 educational institutions incorporated new or existing Great Lakes
protection and stewardship criteria into their broader environment education curricula. The Center for
Great Lakes Literacy (CGLL) was established by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network to develop a community
of Great Lakes-literate educators, students, scientists, environmental professionals and citizen volunteers
dedicated to improved Great Lakes stewardship. See statement of progress under Objective 5.7 for more
details.
5.4 Expand the range of
opportunities for Great Lakes
stakeholders and citizens
to provide input to the
governments and participate
in Great Lakes issues and
concerns.
EPA established the Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB). The GLAB provides advice and recommendations
to the EPA Administrator, who serves as chair of the federal Interagency Task Force. The federal agencies
considered candidates from a broad range of interests including business, agriculture, foundations, envi-
ronmental justice groups, education organizations, environmental groups, academia and state, local and
tribal representatives.
EPA hosts an interagency GLRI website (glri.us) to provide information to the public on GLRI. The GLRI also
had a presence on Twitter, Facebookand Youtube through content produced by each agency to continue
the conversation on Great Lakes Issues and encourages the use of hashtag #GLRI.The Great Lakes Inter-
agency Task Force has interacted with questions from the public by Twitter and Facebook since the first
Great Lakes Week in 2011. Other agencies, such as USGS and USFWS, produce videos related to GLRI on
their Midwest regional social media sites.
Opportunities for Great Lakes stakeholders and citizens to provide input to the governments and partici-
pate in Great Lakes issues and concerns has also been enhanced through the updated Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (see goal 5.5), including the Annex Subcommittees, the Great Lakes Public Forum, and
International Joint Commission input.
5.5 Workunderthegoalsand
objectives of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement is
coordinated between the
U.S. and Canada through
Lakewide Management
Plans (LaMP) and other
binational processes,
programs,and plans.
On Sept. 7,2012, Canada and the United States amended the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Agree-
ment). The updated Agreement facilitates United States and Canadian action on threats to Great Lakes
water quality and includes measures to prevent ecological harm. New provisions address the nearshore en-
vironment, aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation and the effects of climate change. It also supports
continued work on existing threats to people's health and the environment in the Great Lakes basin such
as harmful algae, toxic chemicals and discharges from vessels. Both governments sought extensive input
from stakeholders before and throughout the negotiation process, which started in 2009. Additionally, the
revised Agreement expands opportunities for public participation in Great Lakes issues. Lakewide Action
and Management Plans (LAMPs) continue to serve a critical role in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
------- |