Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Great Lakes
• Funding > Description of Previous Projects > Mining Ideas > The Report

Mining Ideas

Turning a Grant Assistance Program into a Knowledge Base

A Report on the Ecological Protection and Restoration Program in the Great Lakes Basin  -  April 1996

Introduction

From 1992 through 1995, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) awarded $8,519,219 in grants for 87 projects to 36 local, Tribal, State, and Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations who collaborated with some 240 partners to protect and restore ecosystems throughout the Great Lakes basin. By funding demonstration projects, we increased the quality and extent of native ecosystems of the Great Lakes basin and fostered a greater understanding of ecosystem processes and functions, greater participation by partners in on-the-ground protection and restoration activities, and a dawning awareness by the public of the special and valuable nature of Great Lakes systems, communities, and species.

How did we succeed in this collaborative effort? This report documents the development of the Ecological Protection and Restoration program in the Great Lakes basin and details how project activities have contributed to ecological and human health as well as economic well being.

Each project contains a wealth of information that can be mined for new ideas. We will make this information easily accessible to help establish a basinwide knowledge base. We intend this knowledge base to leverage ideas. Leveraged ideas are powerful. It will compel a search for new opportunities to protect and restore one of the world’s greatest resources, the Great Lakes.

The Ecological Protection and Restoration Program

The Scope of the Program
The mission of GLNPO’s Ecological Protection and Restoration Program is: to effectively and efficiently protect, restore, and enhance the habitats needed to sustain a healthy and diverse Great Lakes ecosystem. To carry out this mission, GLNPO established its Ecological Protection and Restoration Team (the E Team), consisting of a staff plus extended team members from EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, other federal and state agencies, and non-governmental organizations.

GLNPO expects the following to result from its work:

• An improvement in the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes basin;
• An improvement in the quality and increase in the size of biologically diverse ecosystems;
• A greater understanding by those involved in managing and protecting ecosystems of ecosystem functions and processes;
• An increase in collaborative partnerships that leverage resources for protection and restoration activities;
• An awareness by the people of the Great Lakes basin of the inter-relatedness of ecosystem health and human health; and,
• An increase in the kinds and numbers of protection and restoration activities involving citizens that produce measurable benefits to ecosystem health.

GLNPO utilizes several approaches in goal implementation. First, we develop and maintain good working relationships with individuals in governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations for the purposes of collaboratively identifying problems and issues, and jointly setting priorities. We strive to find the leaders, individuals not just organizations, in communities who are responsible for and understand the importance of ecosystem protection. Second, we disseminate timely information on protection and restoration terminology, techniques, experts, and activities to many people. A variety of media are used, from an Internet Homepage accessible to the world (the Great Lakes Ecopages can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage.html), to hard copy mailings of conference proceedings, to timely visits and phone calls. Third, we award grants to further demonstrate how on-the-ground protection and restoration lead to measurable environmental benefits. Each funded project contains a communication/outreach component.

The Importance of the Program
Loss of biodiversity is real. Biologists have alerted each other and much of the general public to the contemporary mass extinction of species. Less recognized is loss of biodiversity at the ecosystem level, which occurs when distinct habitats, species assemblages, and natural processes are diminished or degraded in quality.

These opening words from the 1993 report, Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation, by Drs. Reed Noss, Edward LaRoe III, and J. Michael Scott, identify a global problem. Internationally, the Biodiversity Treaty, an agreement to protect the diversity of plant and animal life throughout the planet, signifies recognition of this problem and support for solutions by multi-nation signators. President Clinton signed the Treaty on Earth Day in 1993. A 1996 report by the Council of Foreign Relations for the White House, U.S. National Interests in the Post-Cold War World, cites protection of biological diversity as one of the most important environmental issues today.

Loss of biodiversity threatens the Great Lakes basin as well. The 1994 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), sponsored by GLNPO and Environment Canada, cites a decline in the integrity of Great Lakes ecosystems. A report published as a result of SOLEC, State of the Great Lakes 1995, cites overfishing and the introduction of exotic species as contributors to severe ecosystem degradation. A November 1996, SOLEC Conference will highlight the status of nearshore ecosystems, including the impact of land management practices and policies.

The Great Lakes ecosystem, beset by great biodiversity loss, nevertheless sustains 131 globally rare ecological communities and species. Additional review of aquatic data and the collection of community and species data in geographic areas as yet uninventoried, may increase that figure significantly. The 1994 Nature Conservancy report, The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin: Issues and Opportunities, recommends innovative actions to protect biological diversity.

USEPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment directly embraces the challenges of the global and regional Great Lakes problem of biodiversity loss. Three documents substantiate a need for greater Agency attention to find solutions. The 1990 report by USEPA's Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, points to habitat degradation and loss as one of the highest environmental risk problems facing the country today, along with stratospheric ozone depletion, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, and global climate change. It encourages USEPA to take a new approach to protect human health and the environment.

According to the 1992 Great Lakes Basin Risk Characterization Study, the most significant ecological risks currently impacting the Great Lakes include the introduction of exotic species and habitat losses due to agricultural and urban development. Risks to human health, such as from the consumption of contaminated sport fish, were also identified.

The Great Lakes 5-year strategy, Protecting the Great Lakes: Our Environmental Goals and How We Plan to Achieve Them, recommends that protection and restoration efforts in the Great Lakes basin be carried out cooperatively with other agencies and organizations and focused in three areas:

1. Restoration of the chemical integrity of the Great Lakes by reducing the levels of toxic substances in the Great Lakes and surrounding habitats;
2. Restoration of the physical integrity of the Great Lakes by protecting and restoring habitats vital for the support of healthy and diverse communities of plants, fish, and wildlife (especially threatened and endangered species); and,
3. Restoration of the biological integrity of the Great Lakes by protecting human and non-human health through the restoration and maintenance of stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic organisms, wildlife, and plants.

This strategy led GLNPO to conclude that USEPA could contribute to the accomplishment of our goal to protect or restore ecosystems. Hence the decision to direct dollars to support a habitat protection and restoration demonstration program.

In addition to reports and studies confirming biodiversity loss as a severe global problem and characterizing USEPA’s role in protecting ecosystem health as essential, environmental legislation underlies GLNPO’s decision to undertake ecological protection and restoration as a program component. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, signed into law on January 1, 1970, encourages the protection of the environment and the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 declare as a national goal that all waters of the United States be made clean enough for fishing and swimming. The Clean Water Act of 1977 requires a coordinated use of land use and water cleanup. The main objective is to restore and maintain the "chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." It seeks to secure "water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the water." One of the purposes of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is to "preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value."

Formal agreements and internal USEPA actions provide additional compelling reasons for GLNPO involvement in protection and restoration activities. The purpose of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem." This agreement calls upon the governments of the United States and Canada to attain certain objectives with regard to the beneficial uses and impaired uses as defined in the Agreement. Categories of impaired uses include: loss of fish and wildlife habitat; degradation of fish and wildlife populations; degradation of benthos; and degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations.

A 1978, Joint Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) solidified a working relationship involving USEPA and DOI staff. Staff worked together to determine how water quality issues affect recreation and open space. A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding between USEPA and The Nature Conservancy formalized a collaborative working relationship to deal with ecosystem management issues.

USEPA formed the Habitat Cluster workgroup in 1991 in response to the 1990 Science Advisory Board report. It reviewed and analyzed ecological information and developed strategic options for the agency (Legislation Related to Habitat Protection, draft, February 1992).

USEPA initiated the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program to identify the associations between human-induced stresses and the effects on ecological systems.

On April 1, 1993, in a statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, USEPA Administrator Carol Browner said,”The Environmental Protection Agency, in partnership with our fellow Federal agencies, has a vital role in protecting biological diversity and ecosystems. . . . We will review EPA programs for further opportunities to develop strategic options for protecting species and habitat in the course of carrying out our statutory responsibilities. We will find ways for EPA offices, both here in Washington and out in the regions, to incorporate ecological components into their ongoing programs.”

In March 1994, USEPA’s newly organized Ecosystem Protection Workgroup met in Edgewater, Maryland to develop a strategy to meet a goal of improving the Agency’s ability to protect, maintain, and restore the ecological integrity of the Nation’s lands and waters by moving toward a place-driven focus. Called the Edgewater Consensus, this strategy for ecosystem protection calls for establishing a process to determine the long-term ecological, economic, and social needs for “places” and calls on USEPA to reorient its work to meet those needs.

USEPA Headquarters developed the Inventory of EPA Headquarters Ecosystem Tools and made it available for distribution in February 1995 as a result of the Edgewater Consensus. It presents a limited characterization of ecosystem needs, gaps, and barriers across the United States including the Great Lakes.

On April 26, 1994, President Clinton signed the Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds Executive Order. The Order calls for the heads of Federal agencies to encourage the use of native plants on Federal properties.

Today, USEPA strategizing about environmental protection includes ecosystem concerns. Ecosystem protection stands out as one of the seven Guiding Principles from USEPA’s 1994 5-Year Strategic Plan and one of the ten strategic themes from Strategic Directions for the Midwest Environment, 1995-1999. The December 6, 1995, USEPA Region 5 Community-based Environmental Protection Action Plan states an environmental goal of protecting and sustaining healthy human and ecological communities. The March 1996, draft USEPA Environmental Goals for America currently under internal management review includes milestones for healthy ecosystems. Finally, protecting and restoring critical habitat is one of the six Region 5 priorities for FY 1996 and 1997.

Program Challenges
GLNPO’s primary role has been monitoring and reporting on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the progress in its protection and restoration. This includes tracking the progress of pollution control programs and their effects. (Pollution control is an essential component of the ecosystem approach and has accomplished much in the form of programs to control discharges to and through water, air, and solid waste media.) In addition to monitoring, GLNPO has had a continuing role in serving as a catalyst to facilitate protection and restoration through studies and demonstration grants.

Organizationally, USEPA has placed primary emphasis on pollution control. In addressing its responsibility to facilitate protection and restoration, GLNPO recognizes that the ecosystem must be seen as a whole and that restoration following degradation is not sufficient to protect its integrity. This is particularly the case with genetic diversity and biological communities which, once lost, cannot be restored. (For further information see State of the Great Lakes 1995 and related materials from the 1994 State of the Lakes Conference.) In recognition of the need to facilitate efforts to protect biodiversity and the habitat necessary for its protection, GLNPO has directed much of its demonstration grant resources to support this catalyst role.

Developing a Great Lakes Program to effectively deal with biodiversity loss by implementing protection and restoration measures begets thought-provoking questions. The following three questions piqued the E Team into lengthy discussions, some ongoing.

Although USEPA has a role in Endangered Species Act actions and other legislation supports Agency involvement in ecosystem activities as stated above, what unique value will GLNPO add to work being done by federal natural resource agencies? Protection and restoration of ecosystems does not constitute traditional USEPA business. However, USEPA in general and GLNPO in particular, have a unique charge under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to ensure protection and restoration of Great Lakes habitats. In addition, GLNPO, as authorized in the Clean Water Act, utilizes discretionary funds to demonstrate new and wise methods to bring about and maintain ecosystem health. Its non-regulatory role allows GLNPO to concentrate efforts on disseminating information, operating a demonstration grant program, and establishing partnerships across political boundaries and at basinwide, lakewide, or local scales. No other federal or state program mandate has this flexibility.

Should GLNPO devote funds and effort to protection activities if protection means there is nothing that needs to be fixed? In general, protection of natural areas draws less attention in this Agency than remediating or restoring areas that are degraded. It is assumed if an area is high quality we do not need to allocate dollars to protect it because it does not need fixing. However, there is growing recognition that once lost, biodiversity cannot be fully restored. Natural areas that need protection are subject to increasing pressures from outside of their defined boundaries. Initiating protection measures may be the only way of preserving ecosystem fragments. In terms of cost-effectiveness, protection is always preferable to restoration or remediation. Defining protection to include contact with adjacent property owners, education and outreach to the local community, and the invention of new ecological tools to deal with problems such as invasive exotic species, prompts GLNPO to conclude that dollars for protection assist ecosystem health in both degraded and high quality ecosystems.

How will GLNPO funds for protection and restoration assist the public’s understanding of ecological concepts and issues, and provide examples of activities that will directly benefit ecosystem health?

A 1995 survey conducted by Health Education Research, Inc. for GLNPO, Eight Great Lakes States’ Public Knowledge and Opinions about Great Lakes Issues, concluded that the public does not understand what it can do to help the environment. Demonstration projects provide opportunities for positive contact with the public.

GLNPO encourages grantees to directly involve municipal officials, school groups, and private landowners. GLNPO’s responsibility lies in broadcasting activities which can be replicated basinwide. Although translating ecological information into a common language that reaches a diverse audience remains an unresolved and difficult problem, GLNPO is making an attempt using an informational publication and an Internet page (See project 36, Great Lakes Biodiversity Publication, in Appendix A).

Program Benefits
The Ecological Protection and Restoration Program benefits the environment and assists human communities as well. Focusing on on-the-ground demonstration means results now, not just an exercise in planning to implement at a future time. Because Great Lakes ecosystems are already in jeopardy and biodiversity loss occurs daily, action taken now delays or stops damage and builds the ecological knowledge necessary to encourage good land management decisions.

Protection and restoration activities that lead to sustainable landscapes need community leaders. Grant dollars open doors for leaders to innovatively protect and restore local natural resources.

The program gives creative ideas a chance while supporting well-established techniques in appropriate places. A little seed money goes a long way toward energizing community members to sign on to protect or “save” an important community natural area resource.

Grant dollars allow people a greater opportunity to network with others who have similar challenges. Trading ideas generates additional ideas. Ideas build on each other in unforseen ways.

Small, community-based organizations compete for grant dollars along with well established agencies and organizations. The projects they implement may equal the projects of larger agencies or organizations in impact and ingenuity. Sometimes, local organizations allocate resources in a community to benefit the natural areas they are attempting to protect and restore in ways not possible with a larger organization. This translates to a community ownership of the project and the place that is necessary for long term sustainability.

Contributions of Grant Assistance to Ecosystem Health

A principal tool of GLNPO’s Ecological Protection and Restoration Program is Federal funding through Interagency Agreements, cooperative agreements, and grants. The following report summarizes data contained in Appendix A, which describe 87 protection and restoration projects funded by GLNPO between 1992 and 1995. No attempt has been made in this report to summarize the scientific findings learned from these projects. Further inquiries about particular projects can be made directly to either GLNPO project officers or grantees.

Each year GLNPO makes a basin-wide request for preproposals through a “Guidance” document. (In FY 1996, due to a mid-year budget agreement, this process has been suspended. Guidance for FY 1997 will go out in early summer.) Award criteria vary from year to year based on discussions with partners, results of previously-funded activities, newly emerging issues, and a desire to encourage innovative ideas. In its guidance GLNPO encourages the funding of on-the-ground demonstrations of protection and restoration in specific places.

Since the completion of the projects titled Significant Areas of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin and Strategic Overview of Biodiversity Conservation by The Nature Conservancy in 1993 and 1995 respectively (See projects 75 and 78 in Appendix A), GLNPO has emphasized supporting projects in the most biologically significant areas. Projects that are supported by communities in Areas of Concern, have great partnership potential, are moving the public to participate, or incorporate new tools or technology that are replicable, also receive priority.

Development of project criteria and final selection of projects for funding take time, effort, and coordination. For example, GLNPO solicited input from each of the Great Lakes USEPA Regions, as well as Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners, to develop priorities and criteria for GLNPO’s FY 1995 projects. GLNPO then issued guidance incorporating those priorities and criteria. Project preproposals were reviewed by staff from USEPA and some of our State partners. Taking all rankings and feedback into consideration, the E Team discussed each preproposal and developed a “short list” to present to the GLNPO Director. Upon the approval of the Director, applicants were asked to submit formal applications. The E Team reviewed each project one more time, based on the full proposal, before final funding decisions were made.

Due to GLNPO’s stated bias toward on-the-ground actions, planning and research projects often go unfunded, even though they might be sound projects. In addition, GLNPO strives to work in partnership with other agencies by funding enhancements of specific projects. GLNPO does not duplicate or replace funding for the programs of those agencies.

Each year the number of preproposals and dollar requests far exceeds available funding. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the number of preproposals received and dollars requested compared to projects actually funded and dollars spent for FY1995.

 

Table 3 shows the number of projects and total dollar amounts allocated for each of four years (FY1992-1995) of grant assistance for protection and restoration projects by GLNPO. Through April of 1996, GLNPO suspended its 1996 grants program due to a budget impasse between the President and the Congress.

Appendix A describes 87 projects funded by GLNPO from 1992 through 1995. The projects are in alphabetical order by project title proceeded by a number from 1-87. A project number will be used throughout the following summary to refer to a particular project. Several projects may have the same grant assistance number due to clustering for improved USEPA administrative efficiency. Data from each descriptive category is summarized on the following pages. GLNPO’s grant recipients enthusiastically contributed to the project descriptions.

Grantee
Table 4 lists all agencies and organizations receiving FY1992-1995 grant assistance dollars from GLNPO. Actual work, however, may be done by persons or organizations other than the grantee.

 

Table 5 summarizes the distribution of 87 funded projects among local, Tribal, State, and Federal entities. The numbers reflect both good project proposals from local communities, and a preference by GLNPO staff to get the dollars to local communities. The assumption is that the people who live in a place know the place best. To encourage growth of the relatively new network of people who protect and restore natural areas, GLNPO chose to fund a diversity of projects at different geographic scales and dealing with a wide variety of ecological issues and problems.

Award Amount
Table 6 shows the distribution of dollars among Federal, State, Tribal, and local entities. Award amounts range from $7,000 to $1,250,000 for an average of $97,922.

63% ($5,327,366) of the $8,519,219 awarded contributes directly to local economies. Federal, State and Tribal dollars generally benefit local communities indirectly through contract dollars or as work done at a specific place.

Table 7 shows the distribution of projects and dollar amounts by Great Lake basin.

Dollars Leveraged
Table 8 shows dollars leveraged along with GLNPO dollars. The 5% match required for all GLNPO grant assistance agreements amounts to $428,212, far less than the $9,018,867 leveraged by grantees. If the $1,000,000 Congressional add-on to Ohio for Project 62 is considered an outlier and subtracted from the total, the amount leveraged is 106% of total dollars awarded. It should be noted that dollars leveraged reflect the value of in kind services.

Project Timetable
The average project length, based on grants that are completed and projected timetables of ongoing projects, is two years, two months. Since the grant assistance system does not follow an ecological timetable, reconciling the administrative/financial timetable with a schedule that may revolve around growing seasons is difficult. Restoration takes years, yet the grant assistance project life cycle may be short and success difficult to track.

USEPA asks grantees to conform to a project timetable that often doesn’t fit the ecological restoration timeframe. At the outset, this immediately tests the trust relationship with our partners. At the present time, no mechanism exists, nor have dollars been allocated, to follow up once a project is “complete” in terms of grant assistance.

GLNPO Project Officers
GLNPO project officers for each of the projects are noted in Appendix A. Present project officers are: Robert Beltran, Callie Bolattino, Kent Fuller, Rich Greenwood, Karen Holland, Paul Horvatin, John Schneider, and Phil Strobel.

Project Location
One way to look at project location is to group according to geographic scale. Defined in this way the 87 projects extend through all corners of the Great Lakes basin. The project descriptions in Appendix A identify whether a project’s scope is basinwide, bioregional, or local.

24 projects are basinwide, that is, projects have impact on or work is conducted throughout the entire Great Lakes basin.

27 projects are bioregional, that is, projects have impact on or work is conducted in one Great Lake basin, a watershed or large part of a watershed, an Area of Concern, or a megasite/macrosite as defined by The Nature Conservancy in project 74: Significant Areas of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin.

36 projects are primarily local, that is, projects have impact on or work is conducted at a specific, small site or location.

As a Federal agency, GLNPO brings local projects into the larger ecosystem picture by clustering small projects in an area and among different agencies and organizations. Funding a combination of local projects in a geographic area may have a bioregional impact.

Another way to group some of the 87 projects is by administrative definition. Table 9 groups projects by geographic/state boundaries for areas as defined by USEPA staff. The projects are not necessarily related nor were they funded because of this construct. Projects may be listed under more than one category.

Great Lakes System
Table 10 lists the seven Great Lakes ecological systems, based on definitions stated in The Nature Conservancy report, Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin: Issues and Opportunities, and the project numbers dealing with each system. One project may address one or more systems.

Projects seem to be reasonably balanced among systems. Since the open lake system is the most difficult to protect or restore in terms of garnering public participation, and since the lakes benefit from other actions, we consider seven projects in this area as favorable.

Globally Significant Elements/Communities
In this report globally significant elements/communities refers to rare species and ecological communities as defined in The Nature Conservancy report, Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin: Issues and Opportunities. Listing all of the elements and communities referred to in each of the 87 projects is not useful because classification systems of the grantees differ. Endangered and threatened species, for example, may be Federal or State listed. Community types are not reconciled among agencies.

GLNPO funded the following projects to fill in the gaps of classification information, add to databases, and equalize classification systems where possible:

• 4: Basinwide Survey of Great Lakes Marshes
• 5: Biodiversity of New York’s Great Lakes Shoreline
• 13: Compiling Site-Specific Information for Imperiled Species within the Great Lakes States
• 18-26: Developing Imperiled Species Occurrence Information
• 29: Ecological Targeting in Ohio’s Great Lake Basin
• 78: Strategic Overview of Biodiversity Conservation
• 80: Targeting System for Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
• 82: Upper Midwest Gap Analysis Project

Stressors Impairing System
Table 11 lists stressors to actual places as stated in the Appendix A narratives. Many projects deal with more than one stressor. The details of how development, for example, is stressing a system may not be fully described in the narrative.

Grantees cite development, habitat destruction, agriculture, erosion/sedimentation and exotic species as the major stressors impairing the ecological systems of the Great Lakes basin. What specific human practices contribute the greatest impairments or how stressors interact is not well understood or documented.

Partners
Appendix B lists 243 partners involved with grantees on project work throughout the Great Lakes basin. The range of partners includes:

• 197 local organizations and governments,
• 3 Tribal organizations,
• 25 State agencies,
• 15 Federal agencies, and
• 3 international organizations.

Involvement of local organizations and governments indicates strong community participation in ecological protection and restoration. Partners participate from project development through implementation. One example of a project that is developing exciting partnerships is the Door County Conservation Initiative (Project 27). Property owners are uniting with non- governmental organizations, regional planning commissions, and the State of Wisconsin to inventory the protected and remaining unprotected high quality natural areas on the peninsula. Strengthening the information base will assist the partners in facilitating conservation activities.

Narrative
The project description narratives are brief summaries of goals and activities. Not all inclusive, they are a quick way to share information.

Projects are grouped two ways. First, most projects include one or more of the following categories in their scope of work: assessment, inventory/classification, new tool/technology demonstration, planning/coordination/collaboration, protection, and restoration.

For this report, assessment is defined as the first phase of work to determine local natural and human resources within a defined geographic area. For example, the Strategic Plan for Maintenance and Restoration of Biodiversity in the Pigeon River Ecosystem, Indiana (project 79) includes the identification of biodiversity elements, critical habitats, ecological processes, and factors degrading critical habitat. Once the information is assessed, strategies and timetables for addressing the problems will be developed.

Inventory/classification is defined as intensive data collection on specific species, communities, or historical and sociological information. The scope of the Bad River/Kakagon Watershed Management Project, Wisconsin (project 2), for example, is to conduct biological and hydrological inventories to identify baseline conditions. The result will be data from which to produce biomonitoring plans and an Integrated Resource Management Plan.

New tool/technology demonstration is defined as on-the-ground application of a new technology or tool on a small, local scale and having the potential for use in broad protection or restoration projects. The Lake Erie Accelerated Wetland Restoration, Ohio (project 47),for example, is demonstrating how the construction and management of wetland/reservoirs can be economically profitable to farmers.

Planning/Coordination/Collaboration is defined as partnership building, evaluation of data or project progress, formulation of strategies for protection and restoration activities. For example, the Lake Superior Habitat Coordinator, Minnesota (project 54) is the designated State liaison who works with Canada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the USEPA on Lake Superior habitat issues. The liaison coordinates and negotiates technical work commitments as well as develops criteria to define, identify, and prioritize important habitat sites in order to recommend protection and restoration projects.

Protection is defined as on-the-ground protection, management, and evaluation of progress of ecosystem processes and functions at a specific geographic area. The Protection and Restoration of Sandy Pond Peninsula, New York (project 70) is an example of a project that includes construction of vehicle barriers, dune walkovers, and placement of “symbol fencing” to route recreational traffic as well as employing local dune stewards to provide onsite education and coalesce public support.

Restoration is defined as on-the-ground restoration, enhancement, or remediation and evaluation of progress of ecosystem processes and functions at a specific geographic area. The Establishment of Native Plants/Habitat on Lake Huron, Michigan (project 30), for example, will establish and demonstrate the techniques required to restore native habitat to lakeshore areas which were previously in commercial/industrial use.

Table 12 lists the above categories and the applicable project numbers for all that apply. Decisions to place a project in one category or another were made based on descriptions of work in the narratives. A project may be listed under more than one category.

Projects are also grouped in categories because of their specialized content or focus. These categories are agriculture conversion to wetland, Areas of Concern, children’s environmental education, coastal marsh protection/restoration, conference/workshop planning/implementation, environmental justice considerations, fish and wildlife protection/reintroduction, inland wetland protection/restoration, streambank protection/restoration, urban restoration, and citizen volunteer opportunities.

The Blue Creek Project: An Agricultural Wetland Demonstration Project, Ohio (project 8) is an example of an agriculture conversion to wetland project. The goal is to demonstrate how wetlands in agriculturally dominated landscapes can filter pollutants contained in agricultural runoff and reduce soil erosion resulting in cleaner lakes, rivers, and streams.

The White Lake Area of Concern Habitat Assessment, Michigan (project 86), for example, is a project in an Area of Concern that includes conducting plant and wildlife inventories and educating the public on the importance of the resources to the community.

The Turn-A-Lot-Around, Illinois (project 81) is an example of a project with a children’s environmental education component. City-dwelling children will be provided environmental and business education opportunities while restoring vacant lots to native seed gardens.

The Habitat Restoration of Minnesota’s Grassy Point, Minnesota (project 41) is an example of coastal marsh protection/restoration. The project goals include restoring and enhancing plant and animal habitat by removing industrial woody debris and other waste, and improving wetland hydrology.

The Habitat Conservation and Restoration Strategies (Habcares) Workshop (project 39) is one of three funded conference/workshop planning/implementation projects. This workshop integrated lakewide management plans and fisheries management plans by facilitating development of ecosystem objectives useful to managers of fisheries and water quality.

The Habitat Protection and Restoration at Grand Calumet Nature Preserves, Indiana (project 40) is an example of including environmental justice as an integral component of a project. The restoration sites are located in a heavily industrialized and populated Area of Concern.

The Lake Trout Spawning Reef Feasibility - Clay Banks Refuge, Wisconsin (project 57) is an example of a fish and wildlife protection/reintroduction project. The purpose is to design one or more artificial spawning reefs for lake trout in or near the Clay Refuge.

The Saginaw Bay Watershed Wetland Restoration Project, Michigan (project 74) is an example of inland wetland protection/restoration. The project involves working with private landowners to restore wetlands through drainage ditch filling and/or breaking the tile lines in farm fields.

Whittlesey Creek Stabilization and Rehabilitation Demonstration, Wisconsin (project 87) is an example of a streambank protection/restoration project. It is demonstrating innovative biological, ecological, and engineering concepts to stabilize highly erosive clay stream banks in order to protect and restore fish and plant communities.

The Buffalo River Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Demonstration Project, New York (project 9) is an example of an urban restoration. Restoration of a naturally vegetated shoreline, coupled with implementation of inactive hazardous waste site remediation and reduction of combined sewer point source pollutants will help recapture the biological integrity of the river.

The Hearding Island Native Community Project, Minnesota (project 43) is an example of a project that provides volunteer restoration opportunities. It includes community-based planning and decision-making for public use of the area and desired future conditions.

Table 13 lists the above categories and the project numbers for all that apply. A project may be appropriately listed under one or more categories.

Status
Of the 87 total projects, 74 are ongoing and 13 are completed as of April 1996.

Environmental Results/Products
The project narratives describe a wide range of results and products. Table 14 lists categories of ecological, information collection/dissemination, and partnerships/public participation results.

Although the anticipated results convey a sense that something is happening in a particular locale, specific details or measurements of success are generally not included in the narratives.

The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Riparian Zone Restoration, Ohio (Project 17) exemplifies a statement of measurable results. The expected results are: completion of four restoration projects totaling 3,500 feet of streambank restored, project promotion biennially through a newsletter, and erection of educational signage. All three expected results are measurable.

Table 15 lists categories of products resulting from the projects.

Economic Impacts:
Grantees relied on local expertise to implement workplans by awarding $1,585,650 (GLNPO grant assistance dollars) in contracts for a variety of tasks. This is money that is spent in the community for the improvement of a community resource. Likewise, 21 full time and 38 part time jobs were created as a result of the projects. Table 16 details the economic impacts of the projects in narrative terms.

Although the above list of economic impacts conveys the importance of natural resource protection and restoration activities in a region, only one study confirms the positive impact of restoration on a local economy in dollar terms. The Fond du Lac Tribe hired an economist to determine whether restoring 500 acres of wild rice beds to the St. Louis River would be helpful to the Tribe’s economy. The economist concluded that the Tribe could receive $60,000-80,500 per year for harvestable wild rice from 500 acres (Project 77). .

Acres Impacted
The projects are impacting more than 18.5 million acres, or approximately 15% of the total land area, across the Great Lakes basin. The word “impact” has a range of meanings. In this report it refers to the direct protection or restoration of acreage as well as acreage that will be impacted as a result of information learned from the demonstration.

The number of acres protected or restored tends to be small in part because project managers are unwilling to confirm protection or restoration in the short period of time allowed by grant guidelines. Restoration in particular may take hundreds of years. Damage done to ecosystems may be permanent. We may never have all the pieces to restore any site completely.

At the other end of the spectrum, several projects will impact a great number of acres, perhaps by providing many people with information so that good land use decisions are made by private and public property managers. The Restoration of Michigan Lakeplain Communities (Project 73), for example, will physically restore about 175 acres. However, 730 acres will actually be monitored, and many more acres throughout the State of Michigan will benefit from the lessons learned on a small scale.

Project managers extend words of caution to all who read this report and the narratives. Planting a few plants or removing the last of an invasive species or reintroducing an extirpated species on a site may be only the first in a series of steps to protect or restore that site. Little is known about ecosystem functioning, site requirements in terms of hydrology, soils, spatial needs for individual species, or the matrix of species that existed at a particular site in pre-European settlement times. Success in terms of “acres restored” may be misleading if other requirements are not taken into consideration.

What We've Learned from the Projects
The ingenuity and passion of GLNPO grant recipients for their work surfaces in every conversation with them. Without question they perform life sustaining work that requires creating innovative tools and forming new partnerships. One important contribution of the grantees is their ability to bring hope to a community beset by pollution problems and other difficulties. We at GLNPO salute our grant recipients. We appreciate your good and important work.

The 87 projects are having the following beneficial impacts in the Great Lakes basin:

• We know more about what ecological communities and species exist here and the processes and functions of the Great Lakes ecosystem than five years ago.
• Because of the projects, vast acreages are being impacted.
• New protection and restoration tools are being invented and knowledge accumulated and passed on to others.
• We now have a better idea of what we don’t know - areas begging inventory, problems that need solving, technologies awaiting development.
• Partnerships are integral to the implementation of the 87 projects.
• With GLNPO dollars and as dollars are leveraged, projects are having an impact, directly and indirectly, on the economies of local communities.
• Communities formerly unaware of the natural resources surrounding them are now participating actively in protection and restoration projects.
• Each project harbors a wealth of information available to individuals and organizations.

The 87 projects raise the following issues:

Ecological issues:

• Many ecological gaps exist. We know very little about the seven ecological systems (Table 10) let alone how they interact or the relationships of the subcomponents. Often it is difficult to frame the right questions - we just don’t know enough.
• Are we asking the right ecological questions? Foremost is the question, what do we want to accomplish ecologically? The answer will determine our goals. Once our goals are clear, we can ask, how will we achieve them? The result is a series of measurable benchmarks.
• Tools for measuring ecological progress are in their infancy. Even narrative measurements seem awkward or intangible. Standard “bean counting” does not fit protection and restoration work, especially since both are new disciplines.
• Classification systems for elements and community types are not uniform. This raises difficulties in communication among resource managers and the public. It leads to unequal consideration among agencies as well as confusion.
• Although stressors are stated, little is known about their interaction. Quantifiable effects, with the exception of outright destruction, are often not known. Cumulative effects of stressors on individual species or communities are not known. How much is enough in terms of area needed for ecosystems to maintain their integrity is not known. The effects of stressors on ecosystem processes and functions is not generally known.
• Beyond the grant timetable, how will project progress be monitored? How will we really know if the tools and techniques used are succeeding to track progress?
• We have not asked grantees to share their failures or their problems. Yet, if we are to learn from each other, we must clearly state what works and what doesn’t work.

Partnership issues:

Although communities have a better understanding of their places than would outsiders, a parochial view will narrow opportunities. Knowing a place requires an exchange of ideas with people outside of a place. Getting good ideas from a local site to the broad basinwide network of people and vice versa is difficult. Networks are not well established.

Conveying the idea that what is done locally is important to the health of the entire Great Lakes ecosystem is difficult. Education and outreach efforts must begin with basic concepts demonstrated locally. How to relate the basic concepts in the context of a larger geographic area is not well understood.

Protection and restoration efforts in certain areas of the basin seem to be proliferating whereas in other areas activities seem to be slow or nonexistent. Giving all resource managers access to information and a network of people is a priority.

Little has been done to quantify the effects of protection and restoration efforts on local economies. If communities are to see the importance of this work, it must relate to measurable economic benefits.

Coordination by GLNPO with other agencies and organizations (such as foundations) in the Great Lakes basin that give out grant dollars for protection and restoration work is minimal. To effectively manage our resources, such a system of collaboration is desirable.

Recommendations for Future Efforts in Ecological Protection and Restoration

The 87 project narratives contain a wealth of information. We recommend mining it for ideas. For all of us, this is a beginning network of protection and restoration experts who are beginning to fill in knowledge gaps or continuing to generate creative solutions to problems.

• For local communities, it is the jump start to new ventures in environmental stewardship.
• For ecologists, scientists, and resource managers, new techniques and additional information to help your work wait for your investigations.
• For the international community, we have much to share for the good of a common resource.
• For the grantees, here is a beginning network of people with whom to share your experiences and construct new ideas.
• For USEPA, this is community-based environmental protection at its best: collaborating, enabling, partnering with good people who know their special places well.
• For GLNPO, where do we go from here? How do we proceed from a grant assistance program that helps 1,000 native flowers to bloom to a more strategic allocation of resources? Is it time to change our approach?

GLNPO asks you, the community of those interested in protection and restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem, the following question:

What are your perspectives on this program’s strengths and weaknesses based on this report and your experiences with us?

We need your help to guide us.

 

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us