A.2.glri_actionplan.pdf

DRAFT September 2009

White House Council on Environmental Quality

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Department of the Army

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan

FY2010 – FY2014

February 21, 2010

2 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary A National Treasure The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge What is “Restoration”?

Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative The Path Forward: The Action Plan Plan Overview Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs Federal Integration and Coordination

Implementing the Action Plan Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Science Project Selection Funding and Grants Cycle

Focus Areas Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern

Problem Statement Long Term Goals Objectives Measures of Progress Principal Actions to Achieve Progress

Focus Area 2: Invasive Species Problem Statement Long Term Goals Objectives Measures of Progress Principal Actions to Achieve Progress

Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution Problem Statement Long Term Goals Objectives Measures of Progress Principal Actions to Achieve Progress

Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Problem Statement Long Term Goals Objectives Measures of Progress Principal Actions to Achieve Progress

Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships35 Problem Statement Long Term Goals Objectives Measures of Progress Principal Actions to Achieve Progress

Conclusion

3 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Executive Summary

The lands and waters of the Great Lakes are like no other place. In a world where fresh surface water is increasingly in demand, the region contains some 20 percent of it. At a time when people are not looking as much to faraway places for respite, the Great Lakes offer some of the most majestic natural shorescapes on the planet to accommodate them. As a result, people are reconnecting to their beaches, wide-open waters, petroglyphed bluffs, dune ranges and tumbling tributaries like never before. Likewise, these same resources have served as the raw material to build some of the Earth’s most legendary cities, create jobs to support families, and contribute to the largest economy in the history of the world.

Still, our expectation that the Great Lakes will continue to meet these needs has resulted in lost flora, fauna, soil, and air and water quality to the point where the ecosystem is showing signs of severe stress and its ability to keep up with these demands is in doubt.

While in the past we have worked to minimize harm, public demand for a new standard of care is surging. That standard of care is that we must leave the Great Lakes better for the next generation than the condition in which we inherited them. We must continue to go beyond minimizing harm to proactively rehabilitating the Great Lakes.

Only then will they be able to keep providing jobs, recreation and sanctuary.

The Great Lakes states and the Great Lakes Basin boundary.

4 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Understanding this, U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Administrator Lisa Jackson, in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority. Signaling a commitment beyond measure of past promises, in February 2009, President

Obama proposed $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Initiative). This Action Plan describes how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014.

The Initiative is not intended to be another grand statement about the Great Lakes; it is intended to operationalize those statements. It builds on countless hours by elected, agency, business, public interest and other leaders, which resulted in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy provides a framework for the Action Plan, and the Action Plan is just that: an action driver. It articulates the most significant ecosystem problems and efforts to address them in five major focus areas:

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, including pollution prevention and cleanup of the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes (see pages 19-21 for Measures of Progress with specific, quantifiable targets; and

Principal Actions)

• Invasive Species, including efforts to institute a “zero tolerance policy” toward new invasions, including the establishment of self-sustaining populations of invasive species, such as Asian Carp (pages 24-26)

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, including a targeted geographic focus on high priority watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources (pages 29-30)

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration, including bringing wetlands and other habitat back to life, and the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the entire 530,000 acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands for the purpose of strategically targeting restoration and protection efforts in a science-based manner (pages

33-35)

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, including the implementation of goal- and results-based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships (pages 38-39)

The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. The Action Plan will also help advance the

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada.

The Initiative is not the only tool in the toolbox, however. Traditional infrastructure financing under Clean and

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and Superfund cleanup enforcement, for example, represent work outside the Initiative’s scope. This work, however, continues to be essential to Great Lakes protection and restoration and

EPA is working with states and tribes to ensure that these high priority activities are properly targeted whenever possible to help further clean-up of the Great Lakes.

This plan also aims to build upon the significant amount of work already accomplished by states and other partners in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. In addition, it tries to minimize the duplication of effort by focusing on high priority work that has already been identified in the many programs and strategies already in place around the Great Lakes Basin. This includes work under the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, individual states’ Great Lakes restoration plans, and many others.

5 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding individually and with other federal agencies. Funds will be used to implement priority federal projects as well as other programs undertaken by nonfederal entities that support the

Action Plan. Funding will be provided through grants and cooperative agreements or through interagency agreements that allow the transfer of funds to other federal agencies for subsequent use and distribution. Most grants will be issued competitively. Annual reports to the President, beginning in 2011, will describe accomplishments to date, action planned for the upcoming year, and progress toward meeting ecosystem goals and targets. These efforts will underpin the Action Plan’s operating principles:

1) Accountability: The Initiative is an unprecedented opportunity to heal the ecosystem. With this unprecedented opportunity comes unprecedented responsibility, however, for all of us to demonstrate we are achieving the results intended in the Action Plan. We will use transparent means of demonstrating how public dollars are being invested as directed by the best available science.

2) Action: This distinguishes the Initiative from so many other efforts in the past. For the most part, we know the problems facing the Great Lakes. The Initiative supports our resolve to solve them. While there is a place for monitoring, sampling, surveying and planning under the Initiative, these activities must have a bias for action, that is, real on-the-ground and in-the-water project work that will breathe new life into the ecosystem. Projects ready to go with existing plans will receive preference over efforts that require extensive new planning.

3) Urgency: Study after study shows the health of the lakes is in jeopardy. While we have been working heroically to hold the line over the years to prevent their further decline, we have been entrusted with powerful new resources to rehabilitate the lakes: leadership at the highest levels demanding action, policy tools, and the promise of significant financial resources. With these, there are no more reasons for delay.

After all, the Great Lakes have endured some 150 years of abuse. Though it will take time for the ecosystem to respond to our actions today, there is not another minute to lose in restoring these magnificent waterways for tomorrow. To the extent that actions undertaken now increase the resiliency of the ecosystem, they will also help the Great Lakes adapt to climate change.

This Action Plan – including the funding and other policy tools that will be used to leverage its outcomes – is intended to realize our goals: that the fish are safe to eat; the water is safe to drink; the beaches and waters are safe for swimming, surfing, boating and recreating; native species and habitats are protected and thriving; no community suffers disproportionately from the impacts of pollution; and the Great Lakes are a healthy place for people and wildlife to live.

6 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

A National Treasure

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

The Great Lakes – the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth – are true wonders of the world. An important part of the physical landscape and cultural heritage of North America, the Great Lakes hold 95 percent of the

United States’ surface fresh water. Shared with Canada, these “freshwater seas” boast more than 10,000 miles of magnificent coastline and 30,000 islands and provide drinking water, transportation, power and a wide array of recreational opportunities. The region’s four-season climate, uniquely influenced by the Great Lakes, supports boating, fishing, diving, beach enjoyment and other forms of recreation that support the region’s proud outdoor heritage.

The environment of the Great Lakes region is blessed with wide swaths of forest and wilderness areas, rich agricultural land, hundreds of tributaries, thousands of smaller lakes, and extensive mineral deposits. The region’s sand dunes, coastal marshes, rocky shorelines, lakeplain prairies, savannas, forests, fens, wetlands and other landscapes contain features that are globally unique or best represented within the Great Lakes basin. For example, the world’s largest freshwater dunes line the shores of Lake Michigan.

The region’s glacial history and the influence of the lakes themselves create unique conditions that support a wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that are found nowhere else in the world. Rare species making their home in the Great Lakes region include the world’s last known population of the white catspaw pearly mussel, the copper redhorse fish and the Kirtland’s warbler. The Great Lakes environment supports a world-class fishery, with an estimated 180 species of native fish, including small- and large-mouth bass, muskellunge, northern pike, lake herring, whitefish, walleye and lake trout.

If the Great Lakes region were its own nation, it would house the largest economy second only to the United

States itself, providing transportation for raw materials and finished goods; fresh water for our industries; drinking water for our communities; and recreation for the basin’s more than 30 million citizens. The 4.3 million recreational boats registered in the eight Great Lakes states generate nearly $16 billion in spending on boats and boating activities in a single year. That spending directly supports 107,000 jobs, a figure that grows to nearly

250,000 when secondary impacts are taken into consideration.

7 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge

Pigeon River kayaking, Michigan

The Great Lakes impact our way of life, as well as all aspects of the natural environment, from weather and climate to wildlife and habitat. Yet for all their size and power, the Great Lakes are not as resilient as they look. In the past, their fragile nature was not recognized and the lakes were mistreated for economic gain, placing the ecosystem under tremendous stress from our activities. Today, we understand that our health and our children’s future depend on our collective efforts to wisely manage this complex ecosystem.

History has shown us that the Great Lakes are highly sensitive to biological and chemical stresses. While restoration progress has been made through years of concerted effort and expenditures on the part of federal, state, tribal and local governments and other stakeholders, that progress is slowing or even reversing. The Great Lakes face a number of serious challenges. The most significant of these include toxic substances, invasive species, nonpoint source pollution and nearshore impacts, habitat and species loss, and a need for better information to guide decision making.

Although releases of toxic pollutants have been reduced significantly over the last 30 years, there is a legacy of contamination in sediments and continuing inputs through rivers and air. Excessive levels of contaminants are still found in fish throughout the system. As a result, all Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario issue annual fish consumption advisories. Mercury and other pollutants continue to enter the Great Lakes from nearby and global sources through air deposition. Newly recognized chemicals of concern are also being identified as potential threats to the chemical integrity of the Great Lakes. Thirty toxic hotspot “Areas of Concern” (AOCs) in the United States are still in need of cleanup after more than 20 years; only the Oswego River has been removed from the AOC list.

Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species continue to cause ecological and economic damage, and greatly complicate efforts to restore the Great Lakes. New aquatic species of invaders have arrived at the rate of about one every eight months, adding to the more than 180 already established in the basin. In recent years this rate has slowed but the door to new arrivals has not yet been shut. Enhanced prevention and control efforts are necessary to stop new invasive species like Asian Carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes.

Pollution from nonpoint sources contributes to impaired water quality and excess nutrients. Many of our coastal areas also suffer from sewer overflows that contaminate the water and close the beaches.

8 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Habitat destruction and degradation due to development, competition from invasive species, alteration of natural lake level fluctuations and flow regimes, poor coastal development planning and land management, and habitat fragmentation have negatively impacted wildlife. This has led to altered food webs, a loss of biodiversity, and poorly functioning ecosystems. Yet, opportunities for the protection and restoration of critical habitat exist throughout the basin.

While the Great Lakes region has been a leader for innovative science and advances in natural resource management, there are still significant gaps in knowledge about ecological processes and key indicators of ecosystem health. Efforts must be strategically chosen in order to obtain the additional information needed to inform implementation activities, assist tracking and reporting of progress, and to identify adaptive management actions. The Great Lakes also face new and emerging problems such as the effects of climate change, including potentially changing long-term Great Lakes water levels and the timing and duration of ice cover.

Collectively, these problems have seriously compromised the environmental health of the Great Lakes. As a result, there is a new sense of urgency for action to address the highest priorities for restoring and protecting the

Great Lakes. This document outlines a strategic multi-year approach to address those urgent problems.

What is “Restoration”?

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan

Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed. For purposes of this Initiative, restoration includes ecosystem protection, enhancement, rehabilitation and remediation. A restored ecosystem is resilient; its chemical, physical, and biological functions and processes provide the requisite conditions for life. A restored ecosystem contains sustainable populations of native plant and animal species and their habitats. Potential threats or further damage have been eliminated or reduced as much as possible and the restored ecosystem is able to withstand future threats. Restoration is not the attempt to change the ecosystem to pre-European settlement conditions; however, a restored ecosystem does attempt to emulate those conditions to the extent possible under present-day chemical, physical and biological conditions.

Restoration of degraded, damaged or destroyed water and lands is more costly than protection of resources before damage occurs. Therefore, this Initiative recognizes the wisdom of supporting ecological protection. Protection is defined as actions taken to prevent stress to ecosystems. Actions include the establishment of stewardship

9 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 partnerships to manage and monitor habitats and species; construction of physical barriers to prevent damage to sensitive areas; implementing best management practices to protect ecosystems; and, acquisition of land and protection agreements such as easements. The Initiative acknowledges that land acquisitions and protection agreements alone will not protect ecosystems from threats such as invasive species, encroaching development, or airborne toxic pollutants. Acquisition and protection agreements must be accompanied by appropriate stewardship and management actions.

Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Nelson Point State Park, Wisconsin

When running for president, Barack Obama issued a campaign promise to protect and restore the Great Lakes.

The pledge built upon a May 2004 Executive Order that created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to coordinate federal restoration efforts. In 2005, some 1,500 stakeholders created the Great Lakes Regional

Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy) that outlines challenges facing the lakes, a framework for restoration and protection, and a common set of recommended solutions across eight priority issue areas:

• Aquatic Invasive Species

• Habitat/Species

• Coastal Health

• Areas of Concern (AOCs)/Sediments

• Nonpoint Source

• Toxic Pollutants

• Indicators and Information

• Sustainable Development1

Released in May 2009, the President’s FY 2010 budget included $475 million for a new Great Lakes Restoration

Initiative (Initiative), strategically targeting programs and projects to address the most significant problems in the

1 The Initiative collapses these eight focus areas into five. A ninth focus area, concerning water quantity issues, was excluded from the

GLRC Strategy because it was being addressed through a separate process: the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources

Compact. The Sustainable Development area also identified water infrastructure needs in the Basin. Infrastructure needs are not being addressed by GLRI but through increased funding for the State Revolving Funds through EPA’s Regional offices.

10 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Great Lakes ecosystem to demonstrate measurable results. EPA, in concert with its federal partners on the Task

Force and other stakeholders, is leading the development and implementation of this Initiative and will administer the funding. Building upon the extensive planning and collaboration that was done by the Task Force and a wide variety of stakeholders and non-governmental partners in development of the GLRC Strategy, the Task Force developed a plan for FY 2010.2

The Initiative presents an unprecedented opportunity to systematically tackle the environmental challenges that have persisted for decades. In July and August 2009, EPA held a series of public meetings with agencies and stakeholders in the Great Lakes states to get public feedback on the highest priority issues in each focus area, both basinwide and locally, and to get suggestions for how to address these issues to maximize results under the

Initiative. This Action Plan incorporates those basinwide and local priorities into a five year time frame for action.

Federal agencies began implementing that FY 2010 plan following Congressional appropriation of the President’s

$475 million request.3

The Path Forward: The Action Plan

Lake Superior wave

Plan Overview

This Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan (Action Plan) outlines methods and actions to advance implementation of the Initiative through FY 2014 and will help protect and restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.

Five principal focus areas have been identified which encompass the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes (other than water infrastructure) for which urgent action is required. These include4:

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern

• Invasive Species

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships

2 The FY 2010 plan, together with documents describing Agency actions therein and the programs and projects to carry it out, are posted to http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/index.html.

3 Objectives and targets in this plan are premised on an assumption that $300 million will be appropriated in FY 2011, and $475 million in subsequent years.

4 Regional goals for water and sewer infrastructure improvements, which are supported by funding under the Clean or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs, are being addressed through those and other processes and are not part of this Action Plan.

11 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Each focus area in this Action Plan includes a problem statement, goals, objectives, measures of progress and targets, and the principal actions in support of the objectives. On an annual basis, federal agencies are expected to identify the specific actions they will take to implement the Action Plan. Federal agencies also will minimize overhead in carrying out the Action Plan and, to the extent feasible, will use existing staff. EPA will assure that the Action Plan’s goals, objectives, and targets are aligned with those of Great Lakes state, municipal and tribal governments.

Within the five focus areas, the Action Plan will address the highest priority projects. It is the intent of the

Initiative’s federal agencies to target efforts and funds to these projects in a way that maximizes results. Targeted, cooperative efforts are necessary to ensure meaningful progress on many of the complex and costly issues that have plagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issues exist basinwide (e.g., invasive species, nonpoint source pollution,) and require broad, expansive action, while others are more localized (e.g., Areas of Concern, habitat) and will have site-specific remedies.

In each focus area there are efforts which will be given special attention.

• In the focus area of Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, efforts will be targeted to remediate contaminated sediments and to address other major pollution sources in order to restore and delist the most polluted sites in the Great Lakes basin.

• In the focus area of Invasive Species, efforts will be targeted to institute a “zero tolerance policy” as a long term goal toward new invasions, including the development of ballast water technology, an early detection surveillance program, and a rapid response capability to address threats from new invasive species such as Asian Carp.

• In the focus area of Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, efforts will be targeted geographically to focus on watersheds of extreme ecological sensitivity (such as the Green Bay/Fox

River, Genesee River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River, places where environmental problems and their solutions have been clearly identified).

• Efforts will target implementation of lakewide biodiversity conservation blueprints and restoration of important species such as the Lake Sturgeon and the Piping Plover.

• In the focus area of Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, efforts will include implementation priority Lakewide Management Plan projects for restoring the lakes, as well as establishment of quality goals and results-based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships.

Detailed information about these efforts is included in the focus area descriptions which follow in a subsequent section of this Action Plan.

Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs

This Action Plan includes many elements of the Strategy and draws upon the ecological priorities, goals and objectives of numerous pre-existing issue or area-specific plans and programs that have been developed by federal, state, tribal, local and non-governmental stakeholders, such as:

• Plans under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including Lakewide Management Plans and

Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern

• Comprehensive Management Plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair

• Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy

• State Wildlife Action Plans

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Habitat Action Plan

12 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries

• Plans under the U.S. - Canada Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries

• Partners in Flight North American Land Conservation Plans

• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan

• U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

• Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Monitoring Plan

• Great Lakes Fishery Plan

• Endangered Species Recovery Plans

• Coastal Management Plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act

• Plans under the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

• Source Water Protection Plans

• Tribal-Federal Environmental Agreements

Boats along Lake Huron

This Action Plan takes a step toward integrating and aligning these and other plans, including individual states’

Great Lakes restoration plans. Our goal is to minimize the duplication of effort while using the Initiative to do high priority work that has already been identified or that may be incomplete, under other programs. As such, the

Action Plan represents our best attempt to capture the broad consensus of the Great Lakes community’s collective commitment to advance Great Lakes protection and restoration. This broad consensus is the result of years of planning finally capped by 18 meetings in summer 2009 with representatives of states, tribes, cities and other stakeholders. We expect that these representatives and others will be able to continue providing input to federal agencies for implementation of priority Great Lakes actions by participating in these and other ongoing planning efforts. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will also support the National Policy and Implementation Plan being developed in response to the President’s memorandum on a “National Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes.”

In addition to new federal funding through GLRI, the Initiative will rely on partnerships to leverage and harness a wider set of resources for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. In many instances, the most effective solutions to the challenges facing the Great Lakes will require effective use of non-GLRI baseline federal funding, federal regulatory or other policy tools, and the significant regulatory and policy tools and resources of states, tribes, and other non-federal partners. These efforts, summarized below, are complementary to GLRI efforts.

13 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

• Non-GLRI baseline federal funding. For example, construction of water infrastructure for treatment and conveyance of drinking water and wastewater.

• Federal regulatory or other policy tools. For example, national rulemakings and permitting that reduce the risk of future invasions of ANS; permitting activities under the Clean Water Act; or regulatory means to reduce atmospheric mercury deposition to the Great Lakes.

• Tools and resources of non-federal partners. For example, stewardship of properties by a state, tribe or non-governmental organization for the purpose of enhancing habitat protection or connectivity; or implementation of source water protection plans for drinking water treatment facilities with intakes that draw from surface or groundwater within the Great Lakes basin.

Federal Integration and Coordination

The primary means for ensuring that the Action Plan is developed and implemented in an integrated manner is the

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA.

Created by presidential Executive Order in 2004, the Interagency Task Force (Task Force), through the efforts of the Regional Working Group (RWG), coordinates federal Great Lakes efforts, including some 140 federal programs that address Great Lakes issues. The Task Force includes 11 of the agency and cabinet organizations which manage those programs: EPA, State, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Homeland Security, Army, Council on Environmental Quality, and Health and Human Services.

Implementing the Action Plan

Though a national treasure of magnificent grandeur, we know the Great Lakes are still vulnerable to misuse and exploitation. Degradation of the lakes and their supporting ecosystem happened over the course of more than a century. Even with nature’s resiliency, discernable widespread improvements will likely also take time. The goals, objectives, measures of progress and other efforts identified in this Action Plan will help ensure quantifiable annual outputs are in place that will lead to long-term restoration outcomes, even if such outcomes will not be immediately measurable on an ecosystem scale.

Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Science

The Task Force will implement an accountability system to routinely track, measure and report progress pursuant to the Action Plan. Recipients of Initiative funding will be required to provide routine progress reports, at least semi-annually, on their individual projects as well as progress toward the goals, objectives, and measures of the

Initiative. EPA will collect that information and report on overall progress toward attaining the goals and objectives of the Action Plan. EPA will work with the Task Force to identify, adapt and modify activities in future years based on performance and newly identified needs. These will be included in the development of funding plans for subsequent years.

Beginning in March, 2010, EPA will provide annual reports that provide funding allocations by federal agency and that identify any adjustments from annual requests. In addition, starting in 2011, EPA will work with its Task

Force partners to provide an Annual Report to the President on accomplishments in achieving the Action Plan’s outcomes and measures. The report will also compare funding allocations among participating agencies from fiscal year to fiscal year.

Scientific integrity at all levels is critical to the success of Great Lakes restoration. Therefore, the Initiative will use the best available science to prioritize and implement actions, as well as to track progress. To do this, EPA and the Task Force will take all appropriate steps so that the Action Plan and its programs and projects optimize

14 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 the likelihood of successful restoration at relevant scales. This will include engaging an independent scientific review panel to review the scientific credibility of the Action Plan so that the best available science guides efforts to restore the Great Lakes. Some of the distinct programs and projects in this Plan may also require a more specific peer review. These scientific reviews will be scaled as necessary to establish the scientific justification and credibility for the Action Plan’s goals, objectives, and measures and actions The GLRI will also ensure that the rate of progress is scientifically validated, and scientific research will guide any revisions to restoration priorities as well as enable the Initiative to adapt and modify activities when necessary.

Flowing stream near the Chicago River

Project Selection

The following criteria and principles will guide selection of programs5 and projects pursuant to this Action Plan.

All agencies and prospective grant applicants should consult the respective Requests for Proposals (RFPs) issued each year to solicit grant proposals, as project selection criteria and principles may change from year to year.

• Ability to strategically achieve measurable environmental outcomes linked to the highest priority issues

• Ability to advance applicable ecological priorities of existing plans, such as Lakewide Management

Plans, Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, as well as other relevant national and regional coordinated strategic planning efforts, as mentioned above

• Feasibility of prompt implementation, including a bias for projects that are both ready-to-go and will have results soon (however, some funding will be used for planning and design to ensure cost effective implementation and for monitoring, particularly where it is needed to establish baseline conditions and/or to better understand environmental problems to inform implementation actions)

• Observable local impacts, especially for projects at the “field” level

• Strong bias for interagency/inter-organizational coordination and collaboration

• Support new work, or enhance (but do not replace) existing Great Lakes baseline activities

• Public support

• Ability to leverage non-federal resources

• Promotion of long-term societal, economic, and environmental sustainability

• Minimization of transaction costs

5 Note that these funds will not be directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed under the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.

15 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Projects and activities must also meet standards for:

• best available science

• experience, ability, and authority of the funding recipient to properly perform the work;

• reasonableness of project costs; and

• measuring progress and success.

The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force used the criteria above to develop the focus areas of the Initiative, evaluate programs and projects, and create provisional funding allocations.

Work within each focus area will be accomplished through federal interagency cooperation, and by working closely with states, tribes, local government, academia, NGOs, and other stakeholders in the Great Lakes basin, as well as Canadian representatives. As this Action Plan encompasses numerous national and regional coordinated strategic planning efforts and their associated plans, participating agencies must assure that they continue to support their existing base program activities in the Great Lakes and that added Initiative support will not be used to supplant their existing base funding. As a starting point for identifying their base funding, agencies have been asked to use the 2009 Office of Management and Budget’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Crosscut Budget

Report to Congress. Final funding allocations are dependent upon actual appropriations.

Funding and Grants Cycle

Through this Action Plan and collaboration among EPA and the other agencies on the Great Lakes Interagency

Task Force, and with input from Great Lakes stakeholders, the distribution of funds will be directed to maximize

Great Lakes restoration and protection. Resources will be directed to the most significant issues and opportunities.

To be positioned to fund projects through grants6 as soon as possible after an annual appropriation is made, EPA will collaborate with the Interagency Task Force to do as much up-front work as possible, including issuance of a

RFP as soon as possible each fiscal year. The planning process assumes that an appropriation for grant funding for states, tribes, local governments, and other organizations can be available early in each fiscal year.

Most EPA grants will be issued competitively pursuant to RFPs addressing the five focus areas.7 These expressions of needed work are included in numerous issue-based and geographically focused plans as referenced above. Should significant problems and issues need to be addressed outside of the five focus areas, a competitive grant program would be used to fill gaps, cut across or overlap focus areas, address unanticipated areas, or facilitate innovation. Important criteria for grant selection will include a demonstration of the ability to commence work expeditiously to connect the project to Great Lakes priorities.

Following annual appropriations, EPA will act upon expert recommendations and will select proposals and issue grants for EPA programs. Upon routine implementation of the Initiative, EPA believes that if it were to receive an appropriation by October 1 of a given fiscal year, the first grants could be issued early in the new calendar year, with others issued in the course of the year. One or more additional RFPs would be issued as needed throughout the year.

Several other members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to select proposals, issue grants, and provide other assistance with funding from the Initiative. Each agency would provide assistance following its own applicable procedures, but would require special Initiative reporting provisions that will be outlined in the

Interagency Agreement. EPA would be given the opportunity to review other agencies’ Requests for Proposals

The term “grants,” as used in this document, includes both grants and cooperative agreements.

7 As in previous years, some noncompetitive funding will be made available to states and tribes to ensure the capacity to participate in ongoing work to implement Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern.

16 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

(RFPs) and proposed project selections. Likewise, EPA would share its RFPs and proposed project selections to avoid duplication. To assist stakeholders in finding assistance opportunities pursuant to the Initiative in a single location, EPA developed and will periodically update the Task Force’s Funding Guide. Grant issuing agencies will ensure that appropriate results and accountability information is incorporated into public reports and provided to oversight groups.

Focus Areas

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

The following describes the five focus areas around which significant ecological stresses and efforts to address those stresses will be organized:

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern

• Invasive Species

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships

Each focus area includes subsections that provide a problem statement to describe stresses, long-term goals8 for addressing those stresses, objectives, measures of progress to ensure efforts are on track for implementing long-term goals and principal actions to achieve that progress. This section is also helpful to prospective grantees and others who might receive Initiative funds to ensure what they plan to propose is in keeping with overall Initiative efforts.

Some priorities cut across focus areas. For example, the Task Force will “geographically target” activities, such that federal, state and other stakeholders can leverage efforts to restore areas that are highly degraded and of high ecological importance in the Great Lakes. Geographic targeting across the focus areas is expected at places such as the Genesee River, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River watersheds.

Another cross-cutting priority will be environmental justice and work to reduce disproportionate ecological impacts. Environmental justice, as a priority, will be handled under some of the individual focus areas (e.g., 8 Some long-term goals may not be achieved within the time span of this action plan.

17 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010 cleanups in Areas of Concern, which may correspond to areas of potential environmental justice concern). While we do not anticipate creating a separate funding source for work in this area, special consideration will be given to efforts that address these important priorities.

Similarly, projected impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes have implications across all focus areas.

Climate change impacts and the needs of the Great Lakes community to adapt to those impacts will be assessed and addressed by GLRI projects and programs where appropriate. To the extent that actions undertaken as part of this Initiative increase ecosystem resiliency, they will also help the Great Lakes ecosystem adapt to climate change.

Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern

Problem Statement

Although many point sources of pollution

– discharges from discernible, often end-of-pipe conduits – have been reduced, legacy contamination remains. “Legacy contamination” is pollutants largely left over from past practices, but that continue to recirculate through the ecosystem. Such legacy pollutants, often persistent toxic substances (PTS), such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), continue to be present at levels above those considered safe for humans and wildlife, warranting fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes, connecting channels, and Midwestern and New York interior lakes.

Urban communities living in or near these areas and indigenous communities that still live off the land in the basin are particularly at risk from disparate impacts on health from pollution in these areas, and from consuming contaminated fish.

Continuing sources of persistent toxic substances include releases from contaminated sediments; industrial and municipal point sources; nonpoint sources including atmospheric deposition, agricultural and urban runoff, and contaminated groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals within the lakes.

Efforts to restore degraded conditions in the 30 U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) are underway using a variety of funding sources including those under the Great Lakes Legacy Act, Superfund and other tools, but much more needs to be done, including the remediation of an estimated 43 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments, which are the main cause of beneficial use impairments in the majority of the AOCs.

In addition to the well-known toxicants like mercury, PCBs, and banned pesticides, there are chemicals of emerging concern that have been detected in the Great Lakes over the past several years, which may pose threats to the ecosystem. Some such chemicals may include flame retardants, surfactants, pharmaceuticals and personal care product constituents.

Action Illustration:

Electronic Waste and Unwanted Medicines

During the 2008 Earth Week Campaign U.S. EPA held an electronic and unwanted medicines waste collection campaign with the goal of collecting 1 million pounds of e-waste and one million pills of expired and unused medicines in the Great Lakes basin. Approximately $500,000 in grants was awarded to states, tribes, and local governments. Over 100 entities participated in the week-long campaign across the basin. The campaign goals were far exceeded with approximately 5 million pounds of electronic waste and 5 million pills collected. With funding and support from the GLRI, over the next two years, we anticipate broad participation in similar collection events throughout the Great Lakes basin, resulting in at least 20 million pounds of electronic waste and 20 million pills of unwanted medicines collected and kept safely out of the Great Lakes environment. Beyond the collection events, the principal goals in this effort include raising awareness in Great Lakes communities regarding the importance of safe disposal of electronic waste and unwanted medicines, and continuing to cultivate the development of ongoing and sustainable hazardous waste collection programs within the Great Lakes basin, as well as making communities and businesses aware of existing collection programs.

18 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Beyond protecting human and ecosystem health related to fish consumption, activities in this focus area that address current and new pollution threats can also help protect drinking water sources.

Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: Areas of Concern are cleaned up, restoring the areas and removing the beneficial use impairments.

• Goal 2: The release of toxic substances in toxic amounts is prevented and the release of any or all persistent toxic substances (PTS) to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem is virtually eliminated.

• Goal 3: Exposure to toxic substances from historically contaminated sources is significantly reduced through source reduction and other exposure reduction methods.

• Goal 4: Environmental levels of toxic chemicals are reduced to the point that all restrictions on the consumption of Great Lakes fish can be lifted.

• Goal 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.

19 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2/21/2010

Objectives

• By 2014, delist five Areas of Concern.

• By 2014, 46 Beneficial Use

Impairments (BUIs) will be removed in

Areas of Concern.

• 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.

• By 2014, 45 million pounds e-waste, 45 million pills of unwanted medicines, and 4.5 million pounds of household hazardous waste in the Great Lakes basin will have been collected or their release will have been prevented.

• By 2014, 9.4 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be remediated.

• 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.

Measures of Progress

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will significantly accelerate pollution prevention and reduction in the Great

Lakes ecosystem. The measures by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area are:

Measure Baseline/

Universe

Target

Target

Target

Target

Cumulative

Target

1. Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative).

Baseline: 1 AOC

Universe: 31 AOCs

1 AOC (no change)

1AOC 3AOCs 4 AOCs 5 AOCs

2. AOC BUIs removed

(cumulative).10

Baseline: 11 BUIs

Universe: 261BUIs

20 BUIs 26 BUIs 31 BUIs 41 BUIs 46 BUIs

3. BUI delisting project starts at AOCs (cumulative).11

Baseline/Universe:

30 national and bi-national AOCs

Universe: 261BUIs

60 projects 80 projects 110 projects 140 projects 170 projects

9 Baseline represents the starting point for the measure. Universe represents all that is likely possible to protect, restore, enhance, etc.

10 This is an existing measure under the Government Performance Results Act.

11 These projects represent on-the-ground actions that are being implemented in order to remove BUIs. For example, sediment removals, Superfund cleanups, habitat projects and others.

Action Illustration:

Cleaning Up Areas of Concern

Thirty of the originally identified 31 toxic hotspot “Areas of Concern” (AOCs) have been on official lists for cleanup for more than 20 years. In all that time, only the Oswego River AOC has been delisted and only the Presque Isle AOC has attained a “recovery” status. In both cases, local governments implemented pollution control programs and a strong local citizenry developed community-based volunteer programs to assess, monitor and improve environmental conditions.

AOC cleanup is complex for several reasons - due to the nature of jurisdictional issues among multiple levels of government, the complexity of the many environmental programs that are being brought to the task, and the immensity of the environmental issues being faced. For example, prior analyses have placed the costs for sediment clean-up alone across all AOCs in the Great Lakes basin on an order of $1 – 4 billion.