Restoration and Conservation of Habitat/Species within the Great Lakes Basin

8/9/2019 Restoration and Conservation of Habitat/Species within the Great Lakes Basin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/restoration-and-conservation-of-habitatspecies-within-the-great-lakes-basin 1/60

SS T TR R A A T TEEGGIICC PPLL A A NNNNIINNGG FFOOR R T THHEE R R EESS T TOOR R A A T TIIOONN A A NNDD CCOONNSSEER R V V A A T TIIOONN OOFF HH A A BBII T T A A T T A A NNDD SSPPEECCIIEESS W WII T THHIINN T THHEE GGR R EE A A T T LL A A K K EESS BB A A SSIINN

Submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers

May 15th, 2010

Submitted by:

12801 Auburn StreetDetroit, Michigan 48223Phone: 313-544-7117Fax: 313-544-7111

2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Phone: 734-769-3004Fax: 734-769-3164

This project was funded by financial support from the United States Army Corps of Engineers under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009



A A CCK K NNOO W WLLEEDDGGMMEENN T TSS

We would like to acknowledge the Buffalo and Chicago Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for funding this important initiative. Specifically, thanks are due to Mr.Michael Greer of USACE-Buffalo district and Mr. Jan Miller of USACE-Chicago district, for

leading all components of this project.

Many experts contributed their time, efforts, and talent toward the preparation of this report. The Project Team acknowledges the contributions of each of the following members of theHabitat & Species Work Group of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, and thanks them fortheir efforts:

• Mr. David Brakhage, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

• Mr. Reggie Cadotte, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

• Mr. Leon M. Carl, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center

• Ms. Rita Cestaric, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes NationalProgram Office (GLNPO)

• Mr. Craig Czarnecki, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• LTC James Davis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Detroit District

• Mr. Tim Eder, Great Lakes Commission

• Dr. Marc Gaden, Great Lakes Fishery Commission

• Mr. Steve Galarneau, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• Dr. Chris Goddard, Great Lakes Fishery Commission

• Mr. Gary Gulezian, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - GLNPO

• Ms. Jennifer Heller, National Wildlife Federation

• Mr. Peter Johnson, Council of Great Lakes Governors

• Mr. Robert Krska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Mr. Chad W. Lord, Healing our Waters Coalition

• Ms. Joy Mulinex, Great Lakes Task Force

•

Mr. Dave Naftzger, Council of Great Lakes Governors• Ms. Erin O’Brien, Wisconsin Wetlands Association

• Ms. Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission

• Col. Vincent Quarles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Chicago



Great Lakes Habitat and Species Strategic Planning Project

• Ms. Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - GLNPO

• LTC Daniel Snead, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo

• Ms. Melissa Soline, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

• Ms. Heather Stirratt, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Mr. Jan Surface, Natural Resources Conservation Service

• Mr. Gildo Tori, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

• Mr. David Ullrich, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

• Mr. James E. Zorn, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Finally, for brevity reasons, raw survey data has not been incorporated in this document. Copiesof raw survey data used to develop conclusions in this document can be obtained via an email to

Ms. Lisa Huntington at [email protected].

Project Team:

Mr. Henry Shah, FutureNet Group, Inc.

Ms. Mariah Hope, FutureNet Group, Inc.

Mr. Jeff Edstrom, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.

Mr. Roy Schrameck, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.

Ms. Lisa Huntington, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (Project Manager)

Dr. Sanjiv Sinha, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (Project Director)



T T A A BBLLEE OOFF CCOONN T TEENN T TSS

1.0 Executive Summary 1

2.0 Project Introduction and Rationale 6

3.0 Restoration of the Great Lakes Basin: Background 83.1 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) 83.2 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and its Action Plan 83.3 GLRI Action Plan Measures of Progress 93.4 Great Lakes Habitat Initiative (GLHI) and Habitat/Species Work Group 11

4.0 Project Methodology 124.1 Data Collection 124.2 Data Analysis 13

5.0 Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Implementation 145.1 An Analysis of Non-federal/state Respondents: Their Organizations,

Planning and Funding Needs 145.2 Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles to Restoration Implementation 16

6.0 References 22

LLIISS T T OOFF T T A A BBLLEESS

3.1. Measure of Progress for Habitat and Wildlife Protection Outlined in GLRI’s Action Plan (December 3, 2009)

LLIISS T T OOFF FFIIGGUUR R EESS

A-1: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the physical location of arespondent’s organization A-1

A-2: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization represents an AOC A-2

A-3: Number of non-federal/state responses (y-axis) indicating which AOC(s) therespondent represents A-2

A-4: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating their organization type A-3 A-5: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating a respondent’s role in

their organization A-3 A-6: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating a respondent’s years of

experience in the Great Lakes basin A-4 A-7: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they have been

directly involved in restoration activities A-4 A-8: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the number of restoration




projects in which a respondent has been involved A-5 A-9: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the number of staff in

respondent’s organization A-6 A-10: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating their organizational budget size A-6

A-11: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether their organizationsengage in significant volunteer effort A-7

A-12: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization’s budget has decreased in the last twelve months A-8

A-13: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the impact of reduced budgeton their specific efforts A-8

A-14: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether their organization hasthe capability to implement restoration projects A-9

A-15: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they wereinvolved in the development of GLRC goals for habitat/species focus area A-10

A-16: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating familiarity with GLRC’s

habitat/species goals in each of the four focus areas A-10 A-17: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether GLRC goals areimportant to their day-to-day planning/operations activities A-11

A-18: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether their organization hasdifficulty identifying high priority areas for restoration A-11

A-19: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization has identified specific projects A-12

A-20: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the average budget of theidentified restoration projects A-13

A-21: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not the identifiedprojects can be completed without additional funding A-13

A-22: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not the projects

identified by an organization are listed in the GLHI database A-14 A-23: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they are familiar

with GLRI opportunities A-24: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the current sources of

project funding A-15 A-25: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the agencies that have funded

their organization in the past A-15 A-26: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the capacity to which an

organization meets the match requirements A-16 A-27: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the types of match provided

by their organization A-17

A-28: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization partner with other organizations A-17

A-29: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the types of partners with which their organization has worked A-

A-30: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the frequency of partnerships A-18 A-31: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the ability to provide cash

match for potential partnerships A-19




A-32: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the ability to provide in-kindservices for potential partnerships A-19

A-33: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the ability to provide orcoordinate volunteer activities for potential partnerships A-20

A-34: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the ability to provide property for potential partnerships 20

A-35: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the ability to obtain permitsfrom partnerships A-21

A-36: Respondents’ ranking of “poor coordination and timing of multiple funding RFPs” as a barrier to project implementation A-22

A-37: Respondents’ ranking of “funding opportunities do not focus on holisticrestoration strategies” as a barrier to project implementation A-23

A-38: Respondents’ ranking of “project identification” as an unmet need for projectImplementation A-24

A-39: Respondents’ ranking of “project implementation funding” as an unmet need for

project implementation A-24 A-40: Percent of respondents indicating which federal regulations have beenapplicable to restoration efforts A-25

A-41: Respondents’ ranking of “project length restrictions” as a barrier toproject implementation A-26

A-42: Respondents’ ranking of “delayed payments from funding sources” as abarrier to project implementation A-26

A-43: Respondents’ ranking of “inability to obtain long term maintenancefunding for projects” as a barrier to project implementation A-27

A-44: Respondents’ ranking of “more internal staff” as an unmet need of theirorganization for implementation of restoration projects A-28

A-45: Respondents’ ranking of “more technical expertise/training of internal staff”

as an unmet need of their organization for implementation of restoration projects A-28 A-46: Respondents’ ranking of “planning/design assistance” as an unmet need of their

organization for implementation of restoration projects A-29 A-47: Respondents’ ranking of “more or improved internal institutional support” as

an unmet need of their organization for implementation of restoration projects A-29 A-48: Respondents’ ranking of “cannot meet matching requirements” as a barrier to

project implementation A-30 A-49: Respondents’ ranking of “monetary match” as an unmet need for project

implementation A-30

LLIISS T T OOFF A A PPPPEENNDDIICCEESS

Appendix A: Survey Analyses & Discussion




2222

• Inability or difficulty in providing required matching funds; and

• Lack of planning and design assistance.

Furthermore, the perception of level of difficulty in many (but not all) of the above barriers,

varies widely between Non-federal/state respondents and Federal/state respondents, and thereis definitely a need to educate both sets of resource managers for more effective management.

Overall, the survey results provided quantitative insight into what is occurring within the GreatLakes basin that is “right” and what could be improved relative to restoring the basin. Thingsbeing done “right” include, but are not limited to:

• The non-governmental organizations and governmental agencies are developing andsustaining workable partnerships among themselves;

• There is significant depth of knowledge and experience among the various organizations working on Great Lakes restoration;

• Federal and state agencies have done an excellent job articulating GLRI opportunitiesacross the basin;

• While not all non-federal/state respondent’s organizations utilize the GLRC goals as aguidance for their day-to-day operations and many of the groups did not work ondeveloping the GLRC goals, they are at least familiar with the GLRC; and

• Generally speaking, non-federal/state respondents and Federal/state respondents are onthe same page on many barriers to implementation.

Recommended, strategic actions to overcome obstacles can be categorized under six themes:

I. Emphasis on Restoration Goals and Regional Focus:

1. Initiate basin-wide GLRC goals related educational presentation for stakeholdereducation: It appears that most non-federal/state respondents were not involved insetting the GLRC goals and, that, although they supposedly use the goals in their day-to-day planning and operations, they tend to not know if the projects they have advocatedactually meet those goals or not and do not know if the projects reflect the goals. TheProject Team recommends hosting an hour-long session, that simply articulates theimmediate-term and long-term goals of GLRC’s Action Plan, in all future GLRI relatedmeetings in 2010-2011.

In addition, all agencies involved in the process need to use their websites as well as

GLRI website (and other venues) to broadcast GLRC goals and objectives succinctly and clearly.

2. Host a workshop that focuses solely on the projects that are construction ready forfederal/state agency personnel: There is significant disconnect among federal/staterespondents and non-federal/state respondents with regards to the basin’s readiness sofar as projects in-the-pipeline. Future AOC and other workshops need to host sessionsor workshops that bring non-federal/state personnel to the podium with Federal/state




3333

personnel in the audience, and address their prioritization process, project lists, etc.

3. Continue to emphasize high priority on meeting GLRC’s implementation goals: Thesurvey suggests that future RFPs should give extra “points” for advancement of the

GLRC Strategy goals. This appears to be occurring based on some recent RFPs, but thatpractice should continue, expand, and be consistent among RFPs.

II. Priority Setting:

1. Develop a list of priority areas or watersheds for better focus: Obviously, there is a needfor quantifiable success on a basin-scale to continue to justify federal funding to theregion. Quantifiable success may be easier to achieve if a list of priority areas or watersheds is ascertained for GLRI funding and then targeted. There are significantplanning efforts already in place that would assist with such an exercise. These includeState Wildlife Action Plans, Delisting Targets and Restoration Blueprints for various

Areas of Concern, All Bird Joint Venture Plan, etc. The Project Team believes that this would assist in bringing focus to the varying, different mandates that federal agenciestend to operate under.

2. Maintain a regional database of all projects: The availability of all restoration projects within a centralized setup for the entire basin facilitates planning and priority setting,enhances the basin’s ability so far as future requests to the federal government, andfurther emphasizes to the stakeholders that they are part of a single basin. Project Teamrecommends that all future funding requests under various GLRI related RFPs beassembled in a single database like the GLHI.

III. Project Eligibility and Implementation:

1. Set-aside more GLRI funding towards land trusts: One barrier identified was that thereare too many restrictions on the purchase of property as a grant fundable activity. Asfew federal programs allow land purchases, U.S. EPA may want to set aside largerproportions of funding allocations to federal agencies that already do this (e.g., NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation andEnhancement Program or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). It is better to fund agenciesthat already engage in these activities as opposed to creating new funding structures inagencies that have no such past experience.

2. Fund long-term maintenance of the projects: Lack of maintenance endangers the long-

term viability of the investment made in restoration. Consideration should be given toallowing for long-term maintenance seed funding for the completed projects that can beused to leverage other maintenance match funding. New grant applications shouldinclude a provision for long-term maintenance funding as part of the initial projectapplication.

3. Streamline wetland restoration permitting: Several respondents indicated that Section404 permits to restore wetlands often leads to significant delays and increased project




4444

costs, and sometimes requires mitigation for wetland impacts even when wetlands arebeing restored through the project. Noting the sizeable goal of wetland restoration inGLRI’s Action Plan, it would be very useful to further streamline the permitting processby responsible agencies.

IV. Improve Funding Disbursement and Requests for Proposals:

1. Utilize project-directed and/or geographically-directed RFPs: RFPs that are directed tospecific projects would be a positive direction for the grant program. The currentpractice of broad-based RFPs that “cast a wide net” for projects may not be the bestapproach. Instead, another possibility that needs to be considered is to make the RFPsproject directed. Having “priority watershed” areas for directed grant applications is amove in this direction.

2. Improve timing of an RFP release and resources needed to develop responses: There are

several barriers related to timing and resources reflected in the survey responses by thenon-federal/state respondents that could be addressed by allowing for a preview of theRFP prior to its formal release, and consider reimbursing for proposal developmentcosts.

3. Minimize effort needed to develop submittals: Grant applications require significanteffort to complete often with little guarantee of success. Consideration should be givento decreasing the proposal length requirements, standardized proposal formats among various agencies, and adopting a two-step process for proposal submittal.

4. Drive the desired type of partnerships among non-federal/state organizations: The factthat 90% of the non-federal/state respondents seek partnerships with other

organizations that are typically local or regional in nature, is a unique aspect that needs tobe further explored, and leveraged.

V. Limitations of Local Match:

1. Continue to seek federal funding: The results of the survey reinforce the concept that thefederal/state funding is extremely important if the habitat restoration goals are evergoing to be met and the restoration projects actually implemented.

2. Consider other options to federal funding, such as private sector interest in GreenInfrastructure investments: The Project Team believes that there is significant and

emerging interest among the private sector in green infrastructure and renewable energy sectors, and the basin managers need to consider hosting workshops and conferencesthat highlight that nexus.

3. Further reduce or eliminate the use of local match as mandatory requirement for funding or as a criteria in the selection of proposals: Local match funding is difficult to achievefor nearly 75% of the basin’s non-federal/state respondents, and needs to either beeliminated altogether or reduced drastically.




5555

VI: Skill-sets and Staffing:

1. Increase engineering expertise in federal and state organizations or find ways to facilitate

interaction with engineering firms or NGOs with engineering expertise: The need forengineering support is critical to successful projects as they require an approvable,biddable plans and specs that are prepared by engineers. Noting so, the federal/stateagencies need to find ways to facilitate interaction between non-federal/stateorganizations and consulting firms (or NGOs etc that have engineering expertise), orconsider putting an emphasis on hiring engineers within their organizations.

2. Hire more staff when possible: The federal/state respondents indicate a dire need to hiremore staff for program administration, and the Project Team believes this is a seriousneed that needs to be met via more hiring and perhaps innovative teaming agreements with partner agencies in the basin.




6666

22..00 PPR R OO J JEECC T T IINN T TR R OODDUUCC T TIIOONN A A NNDD R R A A T TIIOONN A A LLEE

There are many challenges to protecting and restoring habitat in the Great Lakes basin. Among them are the large number of agencies and stakeholder groups and the inherent differences

among these entities with regard to philosophies, priorities, parochial interests, and local needs.Overcoming these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach based on:

• Understanding the demographics of the stakeholders across the basin including thosethat engage in the basin’s restoration, their capabilities, capacities, and past work;

• Formulating a core set of principles that guide the restoration process across the basin,and conveying it to the stakeholder organizations so everyone understands the needs andtheir organizational and project “place” within a regional fabric;

• Understanding what is needed to carry out implementation successfully, including pastplanning efforts and project funding and local match needs;

• Understanding various barriers to implementation including different objectives andprocedures of various agencies, and developing a coordinating mechanism; and

• Designing a process for attaining multi-jurisdictional consensus on restoration priorities,their geographic distribution and implementation strategies to reach ecological goals.

This project focused on identifying solutions for some of the above challenges using an onlinesurvey. This project did not attempt to prioritize projects across the basin, nor did it seek todevelop a set of core principles/goals to achieve restoration. The Project Team believes theseprinciples/goals are already in place (see Section 3.3) although as discussed later, there needs tobe continued stakeholder education to improve awareness of them.

An additional focus of the project was to more broadly identify key challenges to restoring the

Great Lakes basin. Consequently, the project sought information from a large group of stakeholders across the Great Lakes basin, including, but not limited to, federal and state agency resource managers at senior and mid-level positions, tribal resource managers, and leading non-governmental organizations in the fields of restoration and conservation. Rather than conductmultiple meetings, it was determined that the desired information could be more efficiently obtained through the use of an on-line survey. Additionally, providing a forum for individualresponses (with the option to remain anonymous) potentially allowed for a larger and morediverse response set.

The project was carried out on behalf of the Habitat-Species Workgroup (HSWG). The HSWG was initially formed as the Steering Committee for the Great Lake Habitat Initiative (GLHI).

The GLHI developed a set of tools to advance the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s(GLRC) Habitat-Species goals. These tools included:

• A database of potential habitat restoration projects;

• An inventory of federal and non-federal funding programs;

• A lexicon of the project characterization criteria that could be used to objectively evaluate and compare project outputs, and;




7777

• Narrative descriptions of the ways partner agencies and organizations planned to usethese tools.

The goal of the current project was multifaceted. It was designed to solicit diverse information

needed by the HSWG in furthering the implementation of habitat and species restoration andconservation projects throughout the Great Lakes basin. While the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) directed this work, which was funded through the American Reinvestment& Recovery Act, this project was developed for and overseen by the HSWG.

A secondary project goal was to assess the ways the GLHI project or any other funding databases could be of further assistance to the inter-agency effort to restore the basin. Althoughfunctioning as a snap shot in time unless it is periodically updated, the information assembled by the GLHI can be used as a starting point for planning and decision making for Great Lakeshabitat restoration by agencies, organizations, and project proponents individually or collectively.

The project scope was further designed to support the execution of the GLRC's HSWG work plan ( http://www.glrc.us/documents/H-SWorkGroupCharterandWorkPlan01-09.pdf ), whilethe strategic information developed by the project supports the integration of federal programsfor habitat conservation and restoration in concert with the Administration's Great LakesRestoration Initiative (GLRI). The strategic information provided through this effort may alsobe used by the HSWG to formulate recommendations to the GLRC on solutions to overcomethe key obstacles. This information may also be useful to federal agencies as they work tointegrate their funding programs for the GLRI.




8888

33..00 R R EESS T TOOR R A A T TIIOONN OOFF T THHEE GGR R EE A A T T LL A A K K EESS BB A A SSIINN:: BB A A CCK K GGR R OOUUNNDD

33..11 GGrreeaatt LLaak k eess R R eeg g iioonnaall CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn ( ( GGLLR R CC ) )

The GLRC is a partnership of federal, state, city, and tribal governments developed in May 2004under Executive Order (EO) 13340, which established a national priority for the protection andrestoration of the Great Lakes. In 2003, at the request of a Great Lakes congressional delegationand as a first step in providing needed leadership and coordination, the Great Lakes governorsidentified nine priorities for Great Lakes restoration and protection. Since their release, thesepriorities have been adopted by the Great Lakes mayors, the Great Lakes Commission and otherGreat Lakes leaders. Eight of these priorities form the organizing principles for the GLRCStrategy. The ninth priority related to “water use and diversion” is being addressed through on-going State-Provincial efforts to implement the “Great Lakes Compact” and its companion Agreement, and thus is not dealt with by the GLRC Strategy.

The EO recognized the Great Lakes as a "national treasure" and created a federal Great LakesInteragency Task Force (IATF) to improve federal coordination on the Great Lakes. The EOalso directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to convene a"regional collaboration of national significance for the Great Lakes.” This collaboration process was utilized to develop, by consensus, the national restoration and protection action plan for theGreat Lakes.

After extensive discussions, the Administration, Governors, Mayors, Tribal leaders andMembers of Congress signed a Declaration and agreed to a Framework Document that signifiedthe convening of the Collaboration in December 2004. The framework was developed to guidethe collaboration process. After a year of work, the GLRC released its Strategy to Restore andProtect the Great Lakes on December 12, 2005. In March 2006, the Great Lakes RegionalCollaboration issued the GLRC Implementation Framework describing the structure moving forward. The shared goal is to ensure the commitment to use the GLRC Strategy to guidefuture efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes in an ongoing manner.

33..22 GGrreeaatt LLaak k eess R R eessttoorraattiioonn IInniittiiaattii v v ee ( ( GGLLR R II ) ) aanndd iittss A Accttiioonn PPllaann

President Obama's 2010 Budget provided $475 million in EPA's budget for a new EPA-led,interagency Great Lakes restoration initiative, to target the most significant problems in theregion. This initiative uses outcome-oriented performance goals and measures to target some of the most significant problems and track progress in addressing them. EPA and its Federalpartners are supporting State, tribal, local, and non-governmental actions to protect, maintain,

and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes.

The Initiative builds upon five years of work of the IATF and stakeholders, guided by theGLRC Strategy. The IATF includes 16 cabinet and agency organizations, including: EPA, U.S.Department of State, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.Department of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Army, White House’sCenter for Environmental Quality, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.




9999

To jump-start the Initiative, the IATF developed a Plan for the proposed $475 million budget,including over $250 million in grants and project agreements. These grants and agreements weredesigned to make progress towards the long term goals: safely eating the fish and swimming at

the basin’s beaches, assuring safe drinking water, and providing a healthy ecosystem for fish and wildlife. In the summer of 2009, agencies initiated processes to issue Requests for Proposals forcompetitive grants advancing the Initiative.

In July and August of 2009, EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) held aseries of public meetings with agencies and stakeholders in the Great Lakes states to get publicfeedback on the highest priority issues in each focus area, both basin-wide and locally, and to getsuggestions to maximize results under the Initiative. The approved Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan (Action Plan) sought to incorporate those basin-wide and local priorities into a fiveyear time frame for action through FY 2014. Federal agencies have begun implementing the FY 2010 plan.

Under the Action Plan, five principal focus areas have been identified encompassing some of themost significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes (other than water infrastructure) for which urgent action is required. These include:

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern;

• Invasive Species;

• Near-shore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution;

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration; and

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

Within the five focus areas, the Action Plan addresses priority projects. The IATF intends totarget efforts and funds to priority projects that maximize results. Targeted, cooperative effortsare necessary to ensure meaningful progress on many of the complex and costly issues that haveplagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issues exist basin-wide (e.g., invasive species,nonpoint source pollution,) and require broad, expansive action, while others are more localized(e.g., Areas of Concern, habitat restoration) and will have site-specific remedies.

Additional details of the federal funding disbursement to the basin can be found athttp://greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/InteragencyFundingGuide125510.pdf , that outlines available informationabout funding, match requirements, how and when to apply, and sources for additional

information. This guide identifies Initiative assistance opportunities from ten federalorganizations; however, it does not include funding which would be directed to specific existing grantees. This guide is to be continuously updated and/or clarified when additional informationor funding opportunities are identified.

33..33 GGLLR R II A Accttiioonn PPllaann MMeeaassuurreess oof f PPrroog g rreessss

The GLRI is intended to significantly accelerate pollution prevention and reduction in the GreatLakes ecosystem. The measures by which progress is to be evaluated in these focus areas, as




10101010

required under the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidelines, areoutlined below:

Table 3.1 Measure of Progress for Habitat & Wildlife Protection Outlined in GLRI’s

Action Plan (December 3, 2009)

MeasureBaseline/Universe

2010target

2011target

2012target

2013target

2014target

1. Miles of riversreopened for fishpassage.

Baseline: 0Universe:20,000 miles

1,000 miles 2,000 miles 3,000 miles 4,000 miles 5,000 miles

2. Number of fishpassage barriersremoved orbypassed.

Baseline: 0Universe: 5,000barriers

100 barriers 200 barriers 300 barriers 400 barriers 500 barriers

3. % of federally

listed threatened orendangered speciesstabilized orimproved

**Baseline(2009): 79%

22/28***speciesUniverse: 28listed species

79% 22/28listedspecies

78% 21/27listedspecies19

tbd tbd 80% 20/25listedspecies20

4. % of populations of native aquatic non-threatened andendangered speciesself-sustaining inthe wild.

**Baseline(2009): 27%39/147****populationsUniverse: 147populations

33%48/147populations





5. Number of acres of wetlands

and wetland-associated uplandsprotected, restoredand enhanced.

Baseline: 0

Universe:550,000 acres

5,000 acres 10,000acres 15,000acres 20,000acres 25,000acres

6. Number of acres of coastal,upland and islandhabitats protected,restored andenhanced.

Baseline: 0Universe:1,000,000 acres

15,000acres

30,000acres

50,000acres

75,000acres

100,000acres

7. % of U.S.coastal GreatLakes wetlandsassessed.

Baseline: 0Universe:100%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8. Number of habitat-relatedBUIs removedfrom 27 U.S. AOCs so impaired.

Baseline: 4Universe: 75 orso impaired

9 BUIsremoved

14 BUIsremoved

20 BUIsremoved

28 BUIsremoved

34 BUIsremoved

* Out year target for these measures are cumulative. The Universe represents all that is likely possible to protect,restore, enhance; baseline represents the number of acres etc. that are already protected, restored, enhanced. Allmeasures of progress included here are interim figures until final baselines are established.** Baseline and target performance information represents regional species and population data from the greater




11111111

Midwest geographic area, including the Upper Mississippi River.*** Numerator: # of species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are stabilized or improving.Denominator: # of species (U.S. listings only).**** Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate species that are self sustaining inthe wild. Denominator: total # of aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations.

33..44 GGrreeaatt LLaak k eess HHaabbiittaatt IInniittiiaattii v v ee ( ( GGLLHHII ) ) aanndd HHaabbiittaatt//SSppeecciieess W W oorrk k GGrroouupp

In March 2006, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW) selected theGLHI as the largest of six projects across the United States to analyze complex water resourcesissues within large, multijurisdictional watersheds. The initial GLHI proposal was coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations, and letters of support for theproject were provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great Lakes Commission, GreatLakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and the co-chairs of the Habitat/Species Team of the GLRC. The GLHI was a two-year project designedto develop an implementation plan to protect and restore wetlands and aquatic habitat. This

builds upon the recommendations of the December 2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes ( GLRC Strategy ). The GLHI sought to help bridge thegap between the regional needs identified in the GLRC Strategy and the programs that providefunding for “on-the-ground” actions.




12121212

44..00 PPR R OO J JEECC T T MMEE T THHOODDOOLLOOGG Y Y

44..11 DDaattaa CCoolllleeccttiioonn

A key component of the project was soliciting information from a large group of parties acrossthe Great Lakes basin, including, but not limited to, federal resource managers; state agency resource managers at senior and mid-level positions; tribal resource managers and leading non-governmental organizations in the fields of restoration and conservation. Rather than conductmultiple meetings, it was determined that the desired information could be more efficiently obtained through the use of an on-line survey. Additionally, providing a forum for individualresponses (with the option to remain anonymous) allowed for a larger and more diverseresponse set.

The survey was comprised of 56 mostly multiple-choice and yes/no questions, within thefollowing categories:

• Respondent Demographic Information: The questions in this section sought to bettercharacterize the individual respondent based on a number of factors including years of experience working in the basin, professional background, current job function, etc.

• Overview of the Respondent’s Organization: The information collected fromrespondents in this section allowed for data to be broken down and analyzed for variousgroups, including states, organization type and size, regions they represented, etc.

• Familiarity with GLRC Goals and Strategy: This section was intended to gauge therespondent’s familiarity with the GLRC Strategy and identify if the published goals hadbeen incorporated into the organization’s operation.

• Planning for Restoration Projects: One of the more critical sections of the survey,

questions in this section were designed to understand the current activities and needs of the organizations with respect to planning and implementing restoration within thebasin.

• Past Funding of Projects: This section included questions intended to better understand what funding mechanisms were being utilized to fund projects and what problems, if any were encountered.

• Barriers to Project Implementation: Also critical to the project, this section sought tobetter understand the needs (type and quantity) of organizations with respect toimplementation of restoration projects in the basin.

• Comments/Suggestions: This section allowed respondents to provide additionalcomments and suggestions. Additionally, if the respondent desired, they could provide

contact information to allow for follow up questions by the Project Team. Otherwise,the survey remained anonymous.

Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to a total of 685 people across the basin. Thedistribution list included individuals from a diverse array of organization of varying sizes, typesand locations. A number of resources were used to develop the list. In 2009, led by the U.S.EPA’s GLNPO leadership, the Great Lakes Commission hosted a series of meetings to discussthe Great Lakes Restoration Strategy. Invitees and attendees of these meetings were included in




13131313

the initial list. The project team augmented the list by including one representative from each Area of Concern (as identified on the USEPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office website)and representatives from Native American Tribes within the basin. Private-sector consultants were eliminated from the list.

The website, Constant Comment, was used to host the online survey. A web-link to access thesurvey was included in an email which provided a brief project background and explained theprimary goals of the survey in addition to expressing the importance of participation. Potentialrespondents were allowed one month to access and complete the survey. Follow-up, reminderemails were sent approximately two weeks after the initial invitation.

Survey responses were tracked on a daily basis to identify any potential problems with responses. A cookie was used to identify IP addresses to ensure that each respondent completed the survey only once.

44..22 DDaattaa A Annaally y ssiiss

As described in section 4.1, on January 22, 2010, a total of 685 potential survey participants werecontacted by emails from the Project Team that included an invite and a web link to the OnlineSurvey. The Survey was kept “live” until February 19, 2010. During that period, one personalreminder was sent to each of the survey recipients. At the end of the period, a total of 158responses were received which was nearly 23% percent of the invited participants. Out of these158 respondents, 67 respondents worked for state government and 15 worked for the federalgovernment. These respondents are grouped together and referred to as “Federal/state Respondents”. The remaining 76 respondents are called “ Non-federal/state Respondents ” for theremainder of this document.

As one goal of this project was to glean information that may enhance the effectiveness of restoration within the basin from a local organization perspective, a summary of data responsesobtained from non-federal/state respondents that neither worked for a state governmentnor the federal government is presented in Appendix A. In addition, responses fromfederal/state respondents and non-federal/state respondents are contrasted against each otherand also presented in Appendix A.

Lastly, we highly recommend the reader to review that Appendix A carefully before proceeding further in this report.




14141414

55..00 UUNNDDEER R SS T T A A NNDDIINNGG A A NNDD OO V V EER R CCOOMMIINNGG BB A A R R R R IIEER R SS T TOO IIMMPPLLEEMMEENN T T A A T TIIOONN

55..11 A Ann A Annaally y ssiiss oof f NNoonn--f f eeddeerraall//ssttaattee R R eessppoonnddeennttss::,, T Thheeiirr OOrrg g aanniizzaattiioonnss,, PPllaannnniinng g aanndd

FFuunnddiinng g NNeeeeddss,, aanndd UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinng g BBaarrrriieerrss ttoo IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn

Based upon the responses from non-federal/state respondents (which, as pointed out in Section4.3, did not include state or federal regulatory agency respondents) presented in Appendix A, asummary of conclusions is presented below:

Demographics of the non-federal/state respondents:

• All states were well represented in the survey;

• All U.S. and binational AOCs were represented in the survey;

• Nearly 60% of the non-federal/state respondents represented one or more AOC,

indicating the planning process currently in place within the AOCs seems to be working well;

• Non-federal/state respondents came from all types of organizations; and

• Non-federal/state respondents held policy, management, or communication roles, andrelatively few responses from engineers were recorded indicating, perhaps, anunderrepresented expertise in restoration planning and implementation.

Understanding Great Lakes basin organizations engaged in various aspects of restoration:

• Nearly half of Great Lakes basin non-federal/state respondents work for organizationsthat have less than ten full time employees and less than half-a-million dollars annualoperating budget; and

• Nearly 60% of non-federal/state respondents’ organizations have been adversely impacted by the economic downturn of 2008-2009, their budget impact has been acrossthe board on most functional levels, but a majority indicated their organizations arecapable of implementing restoration projects.

Familiarity with GLRC goals and objectives:

• Although most of the non-federal/state respondents did not participate in developing the GLRC goals and objectives nearly 90% indicated that they use these goals in theirday-to-day operations.

Planning for restoration projects:

• A majority of the non-federal/state respondents are very well prepared to undertakerestoration projects as they have substantial experience implementing restorationprojects within the Basin;

• Nearly 70% of non-federal/state respondents’ organizations have a list of specifichabitat/species restoration projects;




15151515

• A majority of projects currently being planned have a funding need of less than $500K each;

• There is definitely a need for federal and/or other funding to complete these projects;

• Only a very small fraction of these projects are listed in the GLHI database; and

• Federal and state agencies have done an excellent job with marketing various GLRIfunding opportunities.

Implications of local match:

• Only a small fraction of the non-federal/state respondents can secure 25% local matchfor a project and a match’s existence or its use as a possible “priority” designator for anRFP is not as relevant as one would think;

• In-kind services, partnering, and volunteer services are the three most common types of local matches used and available to non-federal/state respondents;

• There is a need for basin-wide education on the use of real estate as a form of localmatch.

Partnerships

• Nearly 90% of non-federal/state respondents seek partnerships which tend to be local orregional in nature; and

• Top three key attractors in these partnerships are the following;o Availability of in-kind match;o Ability to provide in-kind services; ando Volunteer coordination.

Barriers to Implementation: Contrasting Non-federal/state respondents and Federal/stateRespondents

• Although there is a disconnect between Great Lakes basin non-federal/state respondentsand federal/state respondents on many topics, for most categories, it can becharacterized as a of degree of awareness or different priorities rather than opposite viewpoints;

• Based on responses rated 4 or 5 (5 = significant barrier), non-federal/state respondentsconsider the following as more of a barrier than federal/state respondents:

o Funding opportunities do not focus on holistic restoration strategieso Project length restrictions and delayed payments from funding sourceso Can not meet matching requirements

• Based on responses rated 4 or 5 (5 = significant barrier), on the other hand, federal/statepersonnel consider the following as more of a barrier than the non-federal/staterespondents:

o The need for project identificationo Inability to obtain long-term maintenance funding o The need for more internal staff/training o The need for more or improved internal communication support




16161616

• Lastly, both sets of respondents believe all of the following are barriers toimplementation:

o Poor coordination and timing of the proposalo The need for project funding

o The need for planning and design assistanceo The need for monetary match

55..22 R R eeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss ttoo OO v v eerrccoommiinng g OObbssttaacclleess ttoo IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn A Accrroossss tthhee BBaassiinn

The survey results provide insight into what is occurring within the Great Lakes basin that is“right” and what could be improved relative to restoring the basin. Things being done “right”include, but are not limited to:

• The non-federal/state respondents and federal/state respondents are developing andsustaining workable partnerships among themselves;

• The various organizations within the basin are finding ways to leverage their strengths toperform restoration activities;

• There is significant depth of knowledge and experience among the various organizations working on Great Lakes restoration;

• There have been many successes historically within the basin which contributes to theability of the organizations to continue to plan implementation activities based oncompleted planning and local knowledge;

• Federal and state agencies have done an excellent job articulating GLRI funding opportunities across the basin;

• While not all non-federal/state respondent organizations utilize the GLRC goals as aguidance for their day-to-day operations and many of the groups did not work on

developing the GLRC goals, they are at least familiar with the GLRC; and• Generally speaking, non-federal/state respondents and federal/state respondents are on

the same page on many barriers to implementation.

Suggested actions indicated by the survey responses include:

I. Continued Emphasis on Restoration Goals and Region Focus:

1. Initiate basin-wide GLRC goals related educational talks for stakeholder education: Itappears that most non-federal/state respondents were not involved in setting the GLRCgoals and, that, although they supposedly use the goals in their day-to-day planning and

operations, they tend to not know if the projects they have advocated actually meet thosegoals or not and do not know if the projects reflect the goals. It is also clear that thefederal and state agencies have done an excellent job in marketing the GLRIopportunities. The Project Team recommends hosting an hour-long session, that simply articulates the immediate-term and long-term goals of GLRC’s Action Plan, in all futureGLRI related meetings in 2010-2011. The Project Team also believes this may help thenon-federal/state respondents and federal/state agencies to come closer in theirdisconnect regarding whether or not the GLRI RFPs have a holistic focus.




17171717

In addition, all agencies involved in the process need to use their websites as well asGLRI website (and other venues) to broadcast GLRC goals and objectives, succinctly and clearly.

2. Host a workshop that focuses solely on the projects that are construction ready forfederal/state agency personnel: There is significant disconnect among federal/statepersonnel and non-federal/state respondents with regards to the basin’s readiness so faras projects in-the-pipeline. Future AOC and other workshops need to host sessions or workshops that bring non-federal/state to the podium with federal/state personnel inthe audience, and address their prioritization process, project lists, etc.

3. Continue to emphasize high priority on meeting GLRC goals: The survey suggests thatfuture RFPs should give extra “points” for advancement of the GLRC Strategy goals. This appears to be occurring based on some recent RFPs, but that practice should

continue, expand, and be consistent among RFPs.

II. Priority Setting:

1. Develop a list of priority areas or watersheds for better focus: Obviously, there is a needfor quantifiable success on a basin-scale to continue to justify federal funding to theregion. Quantifiable success may be easier to achieve if a list of priority areas or watersheds is ascertained for GLRI funding and then targeted. There are significantplanning efforts already in place that would assist with such an exercise. These includeState Wildlife Action Plans, Delisting Targets and Restoration Blueprints for various Areas of Concern, All Bird Joint Venture Plan, etc. The Project Team believes that this would assist in bringing focus to the varying, different mandates that federal agencies

tend to operate under.

Development of such a list would accomplish the following, as a minimum:

• Facilitate more directed RFPs;

• Make review by agency decision makers less onerous;

• Allow for more meaningful and directed responses from potential grantees to RFPs;

• Provide a directed implementation program that would more quickly accomplish therestoration goals; and

• Generate a sense of “community” among the diverse organizations moving toward

the common goal of restoration within the Great Lakes basin.

2. Maintain a Regional Database of All Projects: The availability of all restoration projects within a centralized setup for the entire basin has many positive aspects to it. Itfacilitates planning and priority setting, enhances the basin’s ability so far as futurerequests to the federal government, and further emphasizes to the non-federal/staterespondents that they are part of a single basin. Project Team recommends that allfuture funding requests under various GLRI related RFPs be assembled in a singledatabase like the GLHI.




18181818

III. Changes to Project Eligibility and Implementation:

1. Set-aside more GLRI funding towards land trusts: One barrier identified was that there

are too many restrictions on the purchase of property as a grant fundable activity. Asfew federal programs allow land purchases, U.S. EPA may want to set aside largerproportions of funding allocations to federal agencies that already do this (e.g., NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation andEnhancement Program or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). It is better to fund agenciesthat already engage in these activities as opposed to creating new structures in agenciesthat have no such past experience.

2. Fund long-term maintenance of the projects: Lack of maintenance endangers the long-term viability of the investment made in restoration. Consideration should be given toallowing for long-term maintenance seed funding for the completed projects that can be

used to leverage other maintenance match funding. New grant applications shouldinclude a provision for long-term maintenance funding as part of the initial projectapplication.

3. Streamline wetland restoration permitting: Several respondents indicated that Section404 permits to restore wetlands often leads to significant delays and increased projectcosts, and sometimes requires mitigation for wetland impacts even when wetlands arebeing restored through the project. Noting the sizeable goal of wetland restoration inGLRI’s Action Plan, it would be very useful to further streamline the permitting processby responsible agencies.

IV. Improve Funding Disbursement and Requests for Proposals:

1. Utilize project directed and/or geographically directed RFPs: RFPs that are directed tospecific projects would be a positive direction for the grant program. The currentpractice of broad-based RFPs that “cast a wide net” for projects may not be the bestapproach. Instead, another possibility that needs to be considered is to make the RFPsproject directed. Having “priority watershed” areas for directed grant applications is amove in this direction. While there was a previous attempt(s) at developing a commonlist of projects/priorities among federal/state agencies and non-federal/staterespondents that failed, it is imperative to continued successful project implementation within the Great Lakes basin that the groups meet in a facilitated workshop environmentand develop a common list that can be used for targeted RFPs that would be beneficial

to both the grantee and the grantor organizations.

2. Improve timing of an RFP release and resources needed to develop responses: There areseveral barriers related to timing and resources reflected in the survey responses by thenon-federal/state respondents that could be addressed by the following:

• Allow for a preview of the RFP prior to its formal release: Insufficient time tocomplete an application was identified as a barrier; however, it is often the case that




20202020

perhaps leveraged to promote regional scale thinking in local projects across the basin via inducements through additional points in proposal review process.

V. Limitations of Local Match:

1. Continue to seek federal funding: The results of the survey reinforce the concept that thefederal/state funding is extremely important if the habitat restoration goals are evergoing to be met and the restoration projects actually implemented.

2. Consider other options to federal funding, such as private sector interest in GreenInfrastructure investments: The Project Team believes that there is significant andemerging interest among the private sector in green infrastructure and renewable energy sectors. The Team also believes that there is a complete lack of emphasis on trying toalign the interests of these private sector players to those of the basin’s. A good way tostart this process would be to consider hosting workshops and conferences that highlight

that nexus.

3. Further reduce or eliminate the use of local match as mandatory or a criterion in theselection of proposals: Local match funding is viewed as a barrier by a large number of organizations as it can be difficult to achieve for nearly 75% of the basin’s non-federal/state respondents. Cash match is little used, and in-kind services more oftenutilized. Local match is often viewed as critical to achieving buy-in by localorganizations that can make sustaining restorations more likely. However, many projectshave not been implemented due to lack of ability to raise local match even where therehas been a high level of philosophical “buy in”. There are two options to making non-federal match easier to achieve: reduce or eliminate match requirements or increase the value of in-kind services. Reducing the requirement to between 10% and 25% (the levels

where a large number of organizations indicated were less difficult to achieve) oreliminating the match would allow these organizations to focus on the business of restoration without the accounting difficulties historically associated with in-kind match.

VI: Skill-sets and Staffing:

1. Increase engineering expertise in federal and state organizations or find ways to facilitateinteraction with engineering firms or NGOs with that expertise: Prior to addressing thistopic, Project Team would like to indicate that almost all consultants engaged indeveloping this report are professional engineers.

The survey responses seem to indicate that there are some engineers in managerial orpolicy roles within the responding organizations. However, these organizations alsoindicate that additional engineering support is a significant need, and that most of theirengineers are in managerial/administrative roles. The need for engineering support iscritical to successful projects as they require an approvable, biddable plans and specs thatare prepared by engineers. Noting so, the federal/state agencies need to find ways tofacilitate interaction between non-federal/state organizations and consulting firms (or




21212121

NGOs with that expertise), or consider putting an emphasis on hiring engineers to theirorganizations.

2. Hire more federal/state staff when possible: It is significant that the state/federal

response indicates that they need more internal staff and that this has become a barrierto success. This may be due to budgetary issues over the last several years that havereduced staff in key areas. Given the large amount of funding that is available for GreatLakes restoration, it is likely that there is insufficient staff to coordinate efforts fundedthrough the GLRI as well as develop state responses to the federal RFPs. Coupling thisresponse with the indicated lack of staff to pursue grant opportunities suggests that thefederal/state community needs to take advantage of the restoration opportunities andmodify the guidance/regulations where the opportunity does not currently exist. Thisincludes engaging external experts for short periods, or hire more federal/state staff when funding allows it.




22222222

66..00 R R EEFFEER R EENNCCEESS

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Report to the President on the Implementation of the Great Lakes Executive Order. October 28, 2005.

http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/iatf/rttp_implementation.pdf .

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Proposed 2010 Funding Plan.May 5, 2009.http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/GLRIProposed2010FundingPlan050509.pdf

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration of National Significance. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. December 2005.http://www.glrc.us/strategy.html.

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. Framework for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. http://www.glrc.us/documents/Framework12032004.pdf

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. GLRC Habitat/Species Work Group Charter and Work Plan. January 9, 2009.http://www.glrc.us/documents/H-SWorkGroupCharterandWorkPlan01-09.pdf

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Resolution .http://www.glrc.us/documents/Resolution.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Great Lakes Habitat Initiative Final Report and Implementation Plan. August 2008.http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/PlanningCOP/Documents/news/wshed/great_lakes.pdf



A A PPPPEENNDDIIXX A A :: SSUUR R V V EE Y Y A A NN A A LL Y Y SSEESS && DDIISSCCUUSSSSIIOONN




A AA A----1111

A A..11 R R eessppoonnddeenntt DDeemmoog g rraapphhiicc IInnf f oorrmmaattiioonn

These questions were asked to better characterize the individual respondents based on a numberof factors such as employer, past work related to restoration, years of experience, technical

background, etc. In addition, in order to ensure that responses were not entered as the result of forwarding the link by way of such mechanisms as listservs, a key question was added at thebeginning of the survey that inquired from who the respondent received the survey. A summary of the data is presented below.

The 76 non-federal/state respondents represented every state within the Great Lakes basin withthe largest number of responses from Wisconsin and the smallest number from the state of Illinois.

Figure A-1: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the physical location of arespondent’s organization

Nearly sixty percent of non-federal/state respondents represented an Area of Concern (AOC). This may indicate that the stakeholders within various AOCs are far better organized andproactively engaged in their respective regions than stakeholders in non-AOC watersheds. If this is correct, there may be a need to cross-pollinate many of the AOC related activities to watersheds that are not part of or near AOCs.

NY

11%

IN

8%

MI

15%

WI22%

PA

12%

OH

15%

MN

11%

IL6%




A AA A----2222

Figure A-2: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not their

organization represents an AOC

Equally interestingly, the non-federal/state respondents were spread out in ALL U.S. andbinational AOCs. The largest numbers of the respondents came from Presque Isle Bay, GreenBay and Fox River, Milwaukee River, and St. Louis River AOCs. Only two responses each wererecorded from Waukegan Harbor, Deer Lake, Manistique River, Sheboygan River, and TorchLake AOCs.

Figure A-3: Number of non-federal/state responses (y-axis) indicating which AOC(s)the respondent represents

Non-federal/state respondents represented a wide range of types of organizations. Localmunicipalities or nonprofits made up 51% of those taking the survey. In addition, there were a

No

31%

Yes

58%

No

Response

11%




A AA A----3333

significant number of representatives from tribes, regional nonprofits and universities. Regionalplanning commissions were somewhat underrepresented, with responders from theseorganizations representing only 2% of the total.

Figure A-4: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating their organization type

Most taking the survey were in science or policy/management roles within their organizations.Responses from relatively few engineers and communications staff were recorded.

Figure A-5: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating a respondent’s role in theirorganization

State-wide

Nonprofit

7%

Other

6%

Regional

Nonprofit

23%

Local Govt

28%

Tribal

13%

Local

Nonprofit13%

Univ

9%

Regional

Planning

2%

Engineer1%

Scientist

31%

Policy/Mgm

t

33%

Comm

11%

Other

17%

Education

7%




A AA A----4444

There was a good distribution of Great Lakes experience in the pool of respondents with amajority indicating over a decade of experience. This indicates that a majority of the non-federal/state respondents are well versed in their subject areas, and likely have a goodunderstanding of local restoration needs.

Figure A-6: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating a respondent’s years of experience in the Great Lakes basin

Not surprisingly, over three-quarters of non-federal/state respondents indicated that they hadprior experience with restoration activities.

Figure A-7: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they havebeen directly involved in restoration activities

6-10 Yr

22%

< 5 Yr

21%> 20 Yr

26%

11-20 Yr

31%

No

22%

Yes

78%




A AA A----7777

Consistent with having small budgets and few staff members, almost half of the organizationsuse significant volunteer support. The Project Team believes that this data has two implications:a) in federal funding RFPs, a continued emphasis on volunteer as a match is a key enabler; andb) the Great Lakes non-federal/state respondents are engaged in a truly grass-roots effort if they

are able to engage significant volunteer effort.

Figure A-11: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether theirorganizations engage in significant volunteer effort

To better assess an organization’s recent emphasis on restoration efforts, the next survey question targeted whether or not the recession has had any impact on these organization. It wasfound that close to 60% of organizations have seen decreased budgets over the last year.

No

54%

Yes

46%




A AA A----8888

Figure A-12: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization’s budget has decreased in the last twelve months

In more than 60 out of 76 non-federal/state responses, reduced organizational budget hasaffected that organization’s planning, engineering, construction, and management aspects of restoration. More respondents indicated planning and management as being more affected thanengineering and construction.

Figure A-13: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the impact of reducedbudget on their specific efforts

Despite the economic conditions and reduced organizational budgets, 84% of the respondentsindicated that their organization has the capability to implement restoration projects.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Management No impact Planning Construction Engineering Other

P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n

t s

Category

No

41%

Yes

59%




A AA A----9999

Figure A-14: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether theirorganization has the capability to implement restoration projects

Summarizing the survey data on the Great Lakes basin organizations, the following twoconclusions can be made:

• Nearly half of Great Lakes basin non-federal/state respondents work for organizationsthat have less than ten full time employees and less than half-a-million dollars annualoperating budget; and

• Nearly 60% have been adversely impacted by the economic downturn of 2008-2009,their budget impact has been across the board on most functional levels, but a majority indicated they are capable of implementing restoration projects.

A A..33 FFaammiilliiaarriitty y w w iitthh GGrreeaatt LLaak k eess R R eeg g iioonnaall CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn GGooaallss aanndd SSttrraatteeg g y y

The next set of questions targeted a respondent’s familiarity with GLRC’s goals and strategy.Questions were asked to assess the level of familiarity of a respondent with the GLRC goalsetting process, the importance of these goals to their organization’s business operations, thelevel of specificity of their project choices, etc. Note that consistent with the rest of the survey,these questions are specific to the habitat/species focus area of the GLRC process.

Only 28% of non-federal/state respondents participated in the GLRC goal setting process. Akey item to keep in mind that GLRC goal setting process had seven different tracks, and someof these non-federal/state respondents may simply have participated in other tracks.

No

16%

Yes

84%




A AA A----10101010

Figure A-15: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they wereinvolved in the development of GLRC goals for habitat/species focus area

Interesting, nearly 60% of the non-federal/state respondents indicated that they now have thefamiliarity with GLRC’s habitat/species goals for each of its four habitat types.

Figure A-16: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating familiarity with GLRC’shabitat/species goals in each of the four habitat types

Not surprisingly, almost 90% of non-federal/state respondents stated that the GLRC goals weresomewhat important or very important to their day-to-day operations. This seems to indicate

No

72%

Yes

28%

No

39%

Yes

61%




A AA A----11111111

that the group responding is invested in restoration activities that are consistent with the goals of governing and advising agencies.

Figure A-17: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether GLRC goals areimportant to their day-to-day planning/operations activities

A vast majority (81%) of non-federal/state respondents indicated that they have no difficultiesidentifying high priority areas for restoration. This suggests that that these organizations have agood understanding of their local area, and much of the federal planning activities (especially in AOCs, noting much of the respondents represent them) have added value.

Figure A-18: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether theirorganization has difficulty identifying high priority areas for restoration

Somewhat

important

68%

Very

important

22%

Notimportant

10%

No

81%

Yes

19%




A AA A----12121212

Finally, a slightly lower percentage has already identified specific habitat/species restorationprojects.

Figure A-19: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization has identified specific projects

Summarizing the survey data on the level of familiarity with GLRC goals, the following conclusions can be made:

• Although a majority of the non-federal/state respondents were not engaged with thedevelopment of GLRC goals for habitat/species track, they now have the familiarity with its four focus areas;

• Nearly 90% of the non-federal/state respondents indicated that they use these goals intheir day-to-day operations; and

• Nearly 70% already have a list of specific habitat/species restoration projects.

A A..44 PPllaannnniinng g f f oorr R R eessttoorraattiioonn PPrroojjeeccttss

The next set of survey questions consisted of a series of queries designed to develop anunderstanding of current activities and needs of an organization with respect to the planning and

implementation of projects across the basin. These questions looked to assess where theprojects are located, the average budget of these projects, whether or not the projects could becompleted without additional funding, familiarity with GLRI opportunities, their organizationspast funding history, etc.

On being asked how many projects the non-federal/state respondents identified within each of the four habitat categories of the GLRC Strategy, it was found that a majority of respondentshad identified less than five projects. It was also found that open/nearshore waters, and

No

30%

Yes

70%




A AA A----13131313

wetlands project categories were the most populated project categories. In addition, Lake Eriebasin respondents had the most number of identified projects, followed by Lake Michigan, andthen Lake Huron. The budgets for a vast majority of these identified restoration projectsappeared to be less than $500,000, with the largest number of restoration projects being under

$250,000.

Figure A-20: Number of non-federal/state responses indicating the average budget of the identified restoration projects

Despite the relatively small size of these projects, nearly 40% of the non-federal/staterespondents indicated that they will not be able to complete these projects without additional

funding.

Figure A-21: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theidentified projects can be completed without additional funding

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

< $250K $250K-$500K $500K-$1M $1M-5M > $5 M

N u m b e r o f P r o j e c t s

Category

Some

55%

All

4%

None

41%




A AA A----14141414

No

6%

Yes

94%

Less than 15% of the non-federal/state respondents indicated that their projects are in theGLHI database. If this is an accurate representation of organizations basin wide, GLHI’smarketing among the Great Lakes basin needs to be more effective so more people are aware of its utility and purpose.

Figure A-22: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not the projects identified by an organization are listed in the GLHI database

Interestingly, unlike a lack of familiarity with the GLHI database, 94% of the non-federal/staterespondents were familiar with the GLRI funding mechanisms, which indicate that thefederal/state agencies have done a very good job reaching out to the stakeholders to

communicate funding opportunities.

Figure A-23: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not they arefamiliar with GLRI opportunities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes No Some Not sure

P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s

Category




A AA A----15151515

On being asked which sources have funded their organization in the past, federal and stateagencies were the top two categories, followed closely by local government and privatefoundations.

Figure A-24 Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the current sources of project funding

Lastly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service came upas the top two agencies most likely to provide funding for restoration projects.

Figure A-25: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the agencies that havefunded their organization in the past

Interestingly, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were ranked ahead of U.S.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Federal State Private

Foundation

Local Gov t Indiv idual Donors Coroporate Loca l Foundation Pr ivate

Landowner


Category

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

USEPA USFWS NOAA Other USACE N/A


Category




A AA A----17171717

Figure A-27: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the types of match provided by their organization

Nearly 90% of the non-federal/state respondents’ organizations seek partnerships with otherorganizations when they seek funding. If soothe survey results are indicative of conditionsacross the basin, a key strategy may be to assign points in an RFP to the types of partnershipssought by these agencies to seek better results.

Figure A-28: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating whether or not theirorganization partner with other organizations

The nature of these partnerships tend to be very local or, at best, regional in nature.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

in -kind serv ices Par tner w ith o ther

organizations

Volunteer services Cash Property No match is available

P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n

d e n t s

Category

No1%

Yes

91%

N/A8%




A AA A----18181818

Figure A-29: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the types of partners with which their organization has worked

Lastly, further underscoring their importance, partnerships are sought in nearly three-fourths of all projects implemented across the Great Lakes basin.

Figure A-30: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the frequency of partnerships

The next five questions sought to understand the key attractor when non-federal/staterespondents seek these partnerships. The Project Team found that nearly 80% of theorganizations think the ability to provide cash match is important to them when they seek partners.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

State

governments

Local

governments

Local nonprof its Regional

nonprof its

Loca l land tr ust s Pri va te

companies

Regional/national

land trusts

National

nonprofits

P e r c e n t o f T h o s e R e s p o n d i n g

Category

0-25% of

projects =19%

0% of

projects =

2%

50-75% of

projects =

8%

25-50% of

projects =

10%

75-100% of

projects =

61%




A AA A----19191919

Figure A-31: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the importance of theability to provide cash match for potential partnerships

The Project Team also found that nearly 80% of the organizations think the ability to providein-kind services as a local match is important to them when they seek partners.

Figure A-32: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the importance of theability to provide in-kind services for potential partnerships

Interestingly, a smaller emphasis was found to be placed on volunteer activity coordination,emphasizing that many of the non-federal/state organizations have access to volunteers on theirown.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 = Very

important

4 = More

important

3 = Important 2 = Less

important

1 = Not

important

Total

Percent ofResponses

Ranking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 = Very

important

4 = More

important


important

1 = Not

important

Total

Percent ofResponses

Ranking




A AA A----20202020

Figure A-33: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the importance of theability to provide or coordinate volunteer activities for potential partnerships

The Project Team found that nearly 50% of the non-federal/state respondents indicated theability to provide property or obtain permits is a key attractor when seeking partnerships. The Team believes that there needs to be an education of the non-federal/state respondents onmodes of leveraging property as a significant form of match.

Figure A-34: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the importance of theability to provide property for potential partnerships

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 = Veryimportant 4 = Moreimportant 3 = Important 2 = Lessimportant 1 = Notimportant Total

Percent ofResponses

Ranking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 = Very

important

4 = More

important


important

1 = Not

important

Total

Percent ofResponses

Ranking




A AA A----21212121

Figure A-35: Percent of non-federal/state responses indicating the importance of abilityto obtain permits from partnerships

Summarizing the survey data on the use of local match across the Great Lakes basin, thefollowing conclusions can be made:

• Only a small fraction of the non-federal/state respondents can come up with 25% match

for a project and a requirement of match or use of match as a possible “priority”designator for an RFP may exclude priority projects from funding opportunities;

• In-kind services, partnering, and volunteer services are the three most common types of local matches offered;

• Nearly 90% of non-federal/state respondents seek partnerships which tend to be local orregional in nature;

• Top three key attractors in these partnerships are the following;o Available of in-kind match;o Ability to provide in-kind services; ando Volunteer coordination.

• There is a need for basin-wide education on the use of real estate as a key form of local

match.

A A..66 BBaarrrriieerrss ttoo IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn:: CCoonnttrraassttiinng g R R eessppoonnsseess f f rroomm NNoonn--f f eeddeerraall//ssttaattee rreessppoonnddeennttss w w iitthh FFeeddeerraall//ssttaattee R R eessppoonnddeennttss

Critical to the success of this project, the largest set of questions targeted barriers toimplementation of restoration projects. A wide variety of questions were asked under thiscategory, such as who does an organization rely on to develop proposals, what types of federal

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5 = Veryimportant 4 = Moreimportant 3 = Important 2 = Lessimportant 1 = Notimportant Total

Percent ofResponses

Ranking




A AA A----22222222

regulations do they deal with, the organization’s unmet needs, barriers to project partnering, andbarriers to implementing a design/build project.

Request for Proposals

When asked if communication and multiple RFPs simultaneously was a barrier toimplementation, both non-federal/state respondents as well as federal/state respondentscharacterized it as a serious barrier. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being significant barrier and 1 being not a barrier, over 60% of respondents in both categories felt it deserved a rating of at least 4.

Figure A-36: Respondents’ ranking of “poor coordination and timing of multiple

funding RFPs” as a barrier to project implementation

Interestingly, a significant disconnect between the two sets of respondents was found whenasked if the funding opportunities focused on holistic strategies. Nearly 65% of the non-federal/state respondents felt it deserved at least a 4 rating, while only 45% of the federal/staterespondents thought the same.

25%

30%

38%

27%

20%

30%

10%

9%

8%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state

5 = Significant Barrier

4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o n d e n t s

w i t h f e d e r a l / s t a

t e r e s p o n d e n t s

Percent of Responses in That Category




A AA A----23232323

Figure A-37: Respondents’ ranking of “funding opportunities do not focus on holisticrestoration strategies” as a barrier to project implementation

Project Identification and Implementation Another key topic of disconnect between the two sets of respondents was on the topic of whether or not “project identification” is an unmet need. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being asignificant unmet need and 1 being not a need, only 21% of the non-federal/state respondentsconsider it to be an unmet need deserving a rating of 4 or 5. On the other hand, almost twice as

many federal/state respondents thought the same.

This is not a surprising conclusion with respect to the non-federal/state respondents (see Figure A-18 and A-19 in Appendix A), nearly 70% of whom indicated their organization has a list of restoration projects already identified. This further indicates that those closer to on-the-groundprojects may better understand the specific restoration needs in their area and may be in a betterposition to make those determinations.

Two additional items are worth mentioning here: a) a majority of the non-federal/staterespondents are from AOCs which means the processes adopted in AOCs to promote removalof BUIs and restoration of the AOCs is going well, and b) very few non-federal/state

respondents have input projects into the GLHI database which could indicate either a lack of knowledge and/or a lack of appreciation for the fact that the organizations and projects withinthe Great Lakes basin are all part of one regional framework.

Noting these two conclusions, it appears important that both sets of respondents continue to beengaged in information exchange. The non-federal/state respondents need to be educated onregional needs, and federal/state personnel need to understand that organizations throughoutmuch of the basin have a list of restoration projects readily available. It is also important thatboth groups work toward a common project list that can be moved toward implementation.

30%

20%

35%

25%

20%

29%

10%

12%

5%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s

p o n d e n t s

w i t h f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o n d e n t s




A AA A----24242424

Figure A-38: Respondents’ ranking of “project identification” as an unmet need for project implementation

Both sets of respondents were in complete agreement (roughly 90% in each category) so far asproject implementation funding being a significant unmet need.

Figure A-39: Respondents’ ranking of “project implementation funding” as an unmetneed for project implementation

Another topic of disconnect between the two sets of respondents is reflected in theirunderstanding of the complexities of various federal/state compliance regulations. It appears

13%

12%

8%

30%

15%

25%

25%

14%

39%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p

o n d e n t s


72%

74%

11%

6%

7%

12%

5%

5%

5%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o

n d e n t s





A AA A----25252525

the federal/state respondents are far more in tune with various regulations than the non-federal/state respondents.

Figure A-40: Percent of respondents indicating which federal regulations have beenapplicable to restoration efforts

Other topics of disconnect included the considered severity of impacts associated with projectlength restrictions (for a rating of 4 or 5, 40% of non-federal/state respondents versus 26% of federal/state respondents), and delayed payments from funding sources (for a rating of 4 or 5,36% of non-federal/state respondents versus 19% of federal/state respondents). At least on thepart of non-federal/state respondents, this reflects a need for greater flexibility forimplementation time frames that can be suggested by the grantee rather than dictated by theRFP, internal agency guidance, or grant regulations, and the ability to secure money in time.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

NPDES Other RCRA TSCA N/A

Non-fede ral/state Federal-state


I n t h a t C a t e g o r y




A AA A----26262626

Figure A-41: Respondents’ ranking of “project length restrictions” as a barrier to projectimplementation

Figure A-42: Respondents’ ranking of “delayed payments from funding sources” as abarrier to project implementation

On the other hand, a majority of both sets of respondents seem to equally value the inability toobtain long-term maintenance funding as a key barrier to implementation.

17%

5%

23%

21%

28%

30%

17%

25%

15%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o n d e n t s


8%

7%

28%

12%

15%

27%

27%

36%

22%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier







A AA A----27272727

Figure A-43: Respondents’ ranking of “inability to obtain long term maintenancefunding for projects” as a barrier to project implementation

Organizational Needs Both groups identified the need for additional engineering expertise, but there was greaterdifference between the two groups when examining the responses related to the need fortechnical staff, more technical experience, planning/design assistance, and internal institutionalsupport. In all four cases, there was a disconnect between the two groups of respondents, in thefollowing manner (for a rating of 4 or 5):

• When rating “more internal staff” as an unmet need, nearly 74% of federal/staterespondents versus 51% of non-federal/state respondents

• When rating “more technical expertise/training of internal staff” as an unmet need,nearly 53% of federal/state respondents versus 36% of non-federal/state respondents

• When rating “planning/assistance design” as an unmet need, nearly 55% of federal/staterespondents versus 42% of non-federal/state respondents

• When rating “more or improved internal institutional support” as an unmet need, nearly 51% of federal/state respondents versus 31% of non-federal/state respondents

The far greater unmet needs on the part of federal/state personnel may be due to recent budgetcuts as well as understanding the need for sufficient oversight for the range of projects that willbe funded under the GLRI. Furthermore, the Project Team believes that since the non-federal/state respondent organizations are mostly small organizations of staff of less than tenand tend to partner in a vast majority of their projects, they are far more resilient to the impactof economic downturn.

30%

38%

30%

32%

20%

21%

13%

5%

7%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e

s p o n d e n t s





A AA A----28282828

Figure A-44: Respondents’ ranking of “more internal staff” as an unmet need of theirorganization for implementation of restoration projects

Figure A-45: Respondents’ ranking of “more technical expertise/training of internalstaff” as an unmet need of their organization for implementation of restoration projects

23%

46%

28%

28%

20%

18%

13%

5%

16%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier




16%

25%

20%

28%

24%

21%

20%

19%

20%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l /

s t a t e r e s p o n d e n t s

w i t h f e d e r a l / s t a t e

r e s p o n d e n t s




A AA A----29292929

Figure A-46: Respondents’ ranking of “planning/design assistance” as an unmet needof their organization for implementation of restoration projects

Figure A-47: Respondents’ ranking of “more or improved internal institutional support”as an unmet need of their organization for implementation of restoration projects

Match Funding When asked if “can not meet matching requirements” is a barrier to implementation, both setsof respondents were in agreement that it is a barrier (57% of non-federal/state respondents versus 46% of federal/state respondents giving a rating of 4 or 5).

21%

33%

21%

12%

21%

32%

15%

12%

21%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier




16%

32%

15%

19%

26%

19%

21%

25%

21%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier



w i t h f e d e r a l / s t a t e

r e s p o n d e n t s




A AA A----30303030

Figure A-48: Respondents’ ranking of “cannot meet matching requirements” as a barrierto project implementation

Lastly, when asked if monetary match was an unmet need for project implementation, both setsof respondents agree that it is a serious barrier (63% of non-federal/state respondents versus56% of federal/state respondents giving a rating of 4 or 5).

Figure A-49: Respondents’ ranking of “monetary match” as an unmet need barrier for project implementation

Summarizing the data presented so far on barriers to implementing projects across the GreatLakes basin, the following conclusions can be made:

20%

23%

37%

23%

20%

21%

17%

21%

6%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a

Barrier




38%

23%

25%

33%

18%

14%

11%

11%

8%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-federal/state

Federal-state


4

3

2

1 = Not a Barrier


C o n t r a s t i n g n o n - f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o

n d e n t s

w i t h f e d e r a l / s t a t e r e s p o n d e n t

s



A AA A----31313131

• Although there is a disconnect between Great Lakes basin non-federal/state respondentsand federal/state respondents on many topics, for most categories, it can becharacterized as a of degree of awareness or different priorities rather than opposite

viewpoints;• Based on responses rated 4 or 5 (5 = significant barrier), non-federal/state respondents

consider the following as more of a barrier than federal/state respondents:o Funding opportunities do not focus on holistic restoration strategieso Project length restrictions and delayed payments from funding sourceso Can not meet matching requirements

• Based on responses rated 4 or 5 (5 = significant barrier), on the other hand, federal/statepersonnel consider the following as more of a barrier than the non-federal/staterespondents:

o The need for project identificationo Inability to obtain long-term maintenance funding

o The need for more internal staff/training o The need for more or improved internal communication support

• Lastly, both sets of respondents believe all of the following are barriers toimplementation:

o Poor coordination and timing of the proposalo The need for project funding o The need for planning and design assistanceo The need for monetary match

Restoration and Conservation of Habitat/Species within the Great Lakes Basin

Documents

Transcript of Restoration and Conservation of Habitat/Species within the Great Lakes Basin