The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Background and Issues

Summary: The Great Lakes ecosystem is recognized by many as an international natural resource that has been altered by human activities and climate variability. These alterations have led to degraded water quality, diminished habitat, lower native fish and wildlife populations, and an altered ecosystem. In response, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin are implementing several restoration activities. These activities range from mitigating the harmful effects of toxic substances in lake waters to restoring fish habitat.

Summary: Most laws and efforts in the past addressed specific issues in the Great Lakes; a few addressed issues at the ecosystem level. This caused the Government Accountability Office and others to express the need for initiating and implementing a comprehensive approach for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was proposed and implemented by the Obama Administration. The aim of GLRI is to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem under one initiative. Specifically, the GLRI is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by directing activities to address five focus areas: (1) toxic substances and Areas of Concern (these are areas in the Great Lakes that are environmentally degraded); (2) invasive species; (3) nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; (4) habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; and (5) accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships.

Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for implementing and administering GLRI. The EPA has received authority to distribute appropriated funds to several federal agencies, which then undertake restoration activities and projects. The EPA also administers grant programs to fund nonfederal projects and activities related to restoration. An interagency Great Lakes Task Force oversees the implementation of GLRI and created a strategy to guide restoration. The strategy (referred to as the Action Plan) provides a framework for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem under GLRI from 2010 through 2014. For each focus area under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal activities for restoring the ecosystem. Restoration activities are being done under existing federal authorities. The GLRI has received approximately $1.37 billion in appropriated funds since FY2010.

Summary: The scope and scale of this restoration initiative have led some to question its direction and duration. The GLRI does not specify what a restored ecosystem might look like, nor does it estimate how long restoration activities will need to be conducted, and how much restoration might cost. Some other questions surrounding this initiative include how the GLRI is governed and how federal and state restoration efforts are coordinated. Furthermore, GLRI remains an administrative initiative; there is no law that specifically authorizes GLRI, though Congress has appropriated funds to implement the program. Congress might consider these questions in oversight hearings or in legislation during the 113th Congress. Companion bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to address GLRI. S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would establish an administrative and management structure for restoration activities in the Great Lakes, authorize GLRI and appropriations for its implementation, specify the scope and function of GLRI, and authorize the coordinating role of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.

The Great Lakes ecosystem is the largest system of fresh surface water in the world. The watershed covers approximately 300,000 square miles and is shared by eight U.S. states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and one Canadian province (Ontario). (See Figure 1 .) The Great Lakes contain nearly 90% of the surface freshwater of the United States and 20% of the surface freshwater of the world. In the last several decades, agricultural activity throughout the basin, and urban and industrial development concentrated along the shoreline, have degraded water quality in the Great Lakes, posing potential threats to the ecosystem.

Development has also led to changes in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, the introduction of nonnative species, the contamination of sediments, and the listing of more than 50 threatened or endangered species in the ecosystem. In response to deteriorating conditions in the ecosystem, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin have implemented several restoration activities.

An estimated 40 million people rely on the Great Lakes ecosystem for jobs, drinking water, and recreation, among other things. In economic terms, the present-value benefit in 2007 of restoring the Great Lakes was estimated to be $50 billion (in direct and indirect benefits) over the long term. The ultimate cost for restoring the Great Lakes is unclear, but the value of the potential benefits of restoration has caused, in part, several in Congress to regard restoring the Great Lakes a priority. The U.S. Congress has played a role in restoration efforts in the Great Lakes and enacted more than 30 laws over several years focused on restoring aspects of the Great Lakes ecosystem. These laws have authorized activities ranging from mitigating the harmful effects of toxic substances on water quality to mitigating damages caused by invasive species. Most laws address specific issues in the Great Lakes; yet few address the entire ecosystem. Over the years, several stakeholders have expressed the need for initiating and implementing a comprehensive approach for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Restoration efforts in the Great Lakes have been implemented over several decades by the federal government, states, and local stakeholders. Efforts have focused on specific aspects of the ecosystem, but rarely the entire ecosystem. For example, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), initially signed in 1972 and then revised several times afterwards, addresses water quality characteristics in the Great Lakes, but not habitat issues. After several years of restoration, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that progress in restoring the Great Lakes was slow and restoration efforts were too loosely organized. Specific concerns included the slow rate of cleaning up toxic sediments, insufficient governance to provide direction for ecosystem restoration activities, and lack of a comprehensive plan to guide restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In 2004 a federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the Task Force) was created to provide strategic direction for Great Lakes policies on restoration and to form a regional collaboration of stakeholders interested in restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. This collaboration was termed the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. It consisted of over 1,500 stakeholders and released the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy). The Strategy recommended implementing a series of actions and activities to start the restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem over a five-year period from 2006 to 2011. The Strategy encompassed eight issue areas: aquatic invasive species, fish and wildlife habitat (habitat/species), coastal health, contaminated sediments, nonpoint source pollution, toxic pollutants, indicators and information, and sustainable development. The total cost of implementing the Strategy was estimated to be $20 billion over the five-year period. The Strategy (as a whole) is not being implemented, although several restoration programs included in the Strategy are underway or ongoing in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and other federal and state activities.

The GLRI was proposed in 2009 by the Obama Administration, and implemented in 2010. The GLRI is derived from the Strategy and aims to be consistent with the Strategy and GLWQA. The goal of the GLRI is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by directing activities to address five focus areas:

toxic substances and Areas of Concern; invasive species; nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships.

Federal efforts to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem are coordinated by the Task Force. The EPA, serving as chair of the Task Force, is the lead federal agency for implementing and administering the GLRI. In appropriations laws from FY2010 to FY2013, the EPA has been given authority to receive and distribute congressionally appropriated funds to several federal agencies, which then undertake restoration activities and projects in the Great Lakes. EPA also implements restoration activities that are funded by the GLRI through the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). Restoration activities are being done under existing federal authorities that address restoration in the Great Lakes. There is no single law that specifically authorizes the GLRI as a restoration initiative for the Great Lakes.

The implementation of the GLRI is being guided by recommendations from a Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB). The GLAB provides advice on Great Lakes protection and restoration policy, long term goals of protection and restoration, annual priorities to protect and restore the Great Lakes, and issues addressed by the Task Force. GLAB consists of 18 members who represent nonfederal stakeholders (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, state agencies, tribal interests, and universities, among others) in the GLRI. GLAB is also expected to provide advice on the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

The implementation of GLRI is also being guided by a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan (hereinafter referred to as the Action Plan), which was created by the Task Force. The Action Plan provides a framework for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem from 2010 through 2014. The Action Plan was derived from the Strategy, as well as from several other area-specific plans and programs such as the GLWQA and Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy, among others. For each focus area under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal activities for restoring the ecosystem. The principal actions in the Plan are not specific projects; rather, they are broad actions that address the objectives of the focus areas. Each year, federal agencies identify projects they plan to take to implement the Action Plan. Project selection is guided by criteria such as:

ability to achieve measurable outcomes that are linked to high priority issues; ability to advance existing Great Lakes activities or the priorities of existing plans for restoring the Great Lakes, including, but not limited to, Lakewide Management Plans, Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, and the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy; feasibility of prompt implementation and ability to yield near-term tangible results; strong interagency or inter-organizational collaboration and coordination; adherence to the best available science; public support for the project; and low transaction costs and leverage of nonfederal resources.

Projects are geared toward meeting overall and interim goals under each focus area. Overall goals are thematic. For example, Goal 1 under Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area states that "protection and restoration of Great Lakes aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including physical, chemical, and biological processes and ecosystem functions, maintain or improve the conditions of native fish and wildlife." Interim goals have quantifiable measures such as "by 2014, 3,000 miles of Great Lakes rivers and tributaries will be reopened and 500 barriers to fish will be removed or bypassed." Measures of progress are quantifiable indicators that are related to the goals. For example, to evaluate progress in restoring habitat and wildlife protection, some measures used are miles of river reopened for fish passage, and percentage of U.S. coastal Great Lakes wetlands assessed. Measures have a quantified baseline and targets for each year between 2010 and 2014.

Monitoring and oversight mechanisms are also discussed in the Action Plan. An accountability system was created to measure and track progress of projects and the implementation of the Action Plan. Further, an interactive electronic map was created that shows the location and description of each project. Recipients of funding are required to submit status reports on projects and progress towards interim measures and goals of the Action Plan. The EPA collects these reports and compiles an annual report to the President on outcomes and measures. The report also lists funding allocations for participating agencies by fiscal year. (See Table 3 . ) The most recent report discusses progress in FY2011. There are mixed results for meeting goals and targets, and in several cases, the report states that it is too early to evaluate progress and that several indicators cannot be determined.

The estimated cost for implementing GLRI for the first five years is approximately $2.2 billion according to the Action Plan. There is no estimate as to how much it will take for the ecosystem to be fully restored, or how long the restoration effort is expected to take. It its inaugural year (FY2010), the GLRI received $475 million in appropriations provided to the EPA. The EPA also was granted the authority to transfer funds to other federal agencies for restoration activities in the Great Lakes and provide grants to state, nongovernmental, and private stakeholders. Of the funds appropriated, approximately $400 million were new funds that had not been associated with appropriations for existing federal restoration programs. Approximately $75 million was appropriated for existing EPA programs, which addressed Great Lakes restoration. Funding for the next three years remained steady at approximately $300 million, and the Administration's request for FY2014 is $300 million. (See Table 1 .) In these appropriations laws, funds were given to the EPA to carry out the GLRI as well as implement activities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Restoration activities are funded through grants and transfers to other federal agencies. A transfer of funds to an agency is usually done through cooperative or interagency agreements. Funds for other federal agencies are to be considered new funds for restoration. Agencies are expected to maintain their base level of funding for restoration activities and identify new activities to support GLRI. Therefore total annual funding for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem is funding for the GLRI plus funding for base restoration programs. Base funding for Great Lakes ecosystem restoration activities has been reported in the Great Lakes Ecosystem Restoration Crosscut Budget. For example, for FY2011, base funding for Great Lakes restoration was approximately $677.0 million. With GLRI funding, total funding for restoration was reported at $977.0 million.

GLRI has received appropriations from FY2010 to FY2013 and is being implemented according to the Action Plan. There has been over a billion dollars appropriated to implement GLRI via its five focus areas through FY2013. (See Table 2 .)

Most of the appropriations have gone to the EPA, with significant amounts of funding going to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Note that appropriations for EPA are for EPA directed programs and efforts, as well as grant programs for stakeholder research and restoration activities. (See Table 3 .)

Implementation of GLRI is guided, in part, by provisions in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations laws and associated committee and conference reports. In FY2012 appropriations, for example, GLRI was instructed to follow guidelines under H.Rept. 112-151 . This committee report stated that EPA should transfer funds to other agencies more expeditiously. Further, the report states that funds are to supplement and expand existing programs, rather than supplant them. The committee report also directed EPA and other federal agencies to prioritize actions that implement "action-oriented" projects in lieu of additional studies, monitoring, and evaluations. Lastly, the report stated that the committee expects to see measurable results from funding over the last few years.

Since FY2010, the implementation of the GLRI represents a significant increase in funding and activities for Great Lakes restoration and a novel attempt at restoring the ecosystem holistically. Some issues with GLRI that have emerged include clarity about the management structure of GLRI, the potential integration of GLRI with existing federal and state restoration efforts in the Great Lakes, the effectiveness of the Action Plan in laying out a strategy for fully restoring the Great Lakes, the overall direction and duration of restoring the Great Lakes, and the funding needed to implement and complete the GLRI. Some of these issues are addressed, in part, by proposed legislation introduced in the 113 th Congress. S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would establish a governance and management structure for restoration activities in the Great Lakes, authorize GLRI and appropriations for its implementation, specify the scope and function of GLRI, and authorize the coordinating role of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. A summary of how these bills amend current law and analysis of how they might change current practices in GLRI is provided in the text box below. The rest of this section reviews the aforementioned issues that might be of interest to Congress.

Restoration efforts in the Great Lakes have historically been conducted by several federal or state agencies, largely without a central organizing or governing entity. At the federal level, restoration activities have been conducted under various authorities, with several activities being implemented by the EPA through its Great Lakes National Program Office. In the past, the GAO suggested that a lack of centralized leadership in the Great Lakes restoration activities could detract from the effectiveness and prominence of restoration efforts. Questions such as who is in charge, and how are the implementation of restoration activities to be governed, were posed.

In part, GLRI has addressed these questions in program documents, but some questions about the governance of the restoration initiative remain. For example, it is unclear if a central governing structure that oversees all restoration activities (i.e., all federal, state, and local efforts) exists. The GLRI does not define a central governing structure or decision-making process for guiding all restoration efforts, but appears to promote EPA as the lead federal agency for implementing the initiative. For example, EPA received funds from FY2010 to FY2013 to implement the GLRI and was given authority to transfer these funds to other federal agencies to conduct GLRI activities. EPA was directed to provide annual reports that list funds given to each federal agency and describe program accomplishments. EPA created the Action Plan with the Great Lakes Task Force. While EPA appears to be in charge of implementing GLRI, it does not have the authority to direct the entire Great Lakes restoration effort that includes non-GLRI federal activities and activities done by nonfederal stakeholders. The Task Force appears to be responsible for coordinating all restoration activities in the Great Lakes ecosystem and for implementing the Action Plan an integrated manner. These tasks, however, do not appear to constitute decision-making functions; rather it promotes the Task Force as a coordinating entity for all restoration and resource management activities in the Great Lakes.

To temper this issue, the scope of GLRI might not be intended to cover all aspects of Great Lakes restoration. For example, the GLRI is focused on new federal activities and not pre-existing baseline activities, and does not include programs that address infrastructure that affects water quality. However, under this notion, it becomes apparent that GLRI should not be considered a centralized coordinating or management approach to restoring the Great Lakes. This might bring up the earlier question of whether lacking a centralized coordinating or management structure will negatively affect restoration in the Great Lakes.

Lacking a coordinated effort to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem is an issue that has been raised in the past for Great Lakes restoration. The GAO asserted that restoration efforts in the Great Lakes suffered from inadequate coordination. GLRI addresses this assertion by stating that it aims to build on existing federal, state, and local activities and draw upon a series of ongoing restoration efforts outlined in existing plans and programs. Further, the Task Force is expected to coordinate Great Lakes restoration efforts among federal agencies.

It is unclear, however, how state and local restoration efforts in the Great Lakes are to be coordinated with the GLRI efforts. Coordination with nonfederal entities in the Great Lakes might be significant due to the number of entities involved in restoration, including efforts from eight states. Some might contend that absent a formal coordination role for nonfederal entities, restoration projects might overlap. Further, some contend that with greater coordination among federal and nonfederal stakeholders, there might be opportunities to leverage federal resources with state or local resources to accomplish restoration projects. There is no formal role for nonfederal representatives to coordinate with federal actions in a governance entity. The Task Force does not have nonfederal members. Coordination among nonfederal members could be addressed by the GLAB, however their charter does not specify that coordination is a priority. GLAB is to provide advice on the implementation of GLRI. Some have also questioned whether GLRI should have a formal collaboration with Canada and Ontario to coordinate restoration activities.

Some restoration activities conducted by nonfederal entities are done under the GLRI with grants from federal agencies. Grants are awarded for projects in one of the focus areas and grantees are required to input project information (description of work and project outputs) into the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS). This information could be used to facilitate coordinated approaches to restoration and to determine if projects have similar objectives, but non-GLRI projects are not inserted into GLAS making analysis of overlap or potential for collaboration difficult.

Outside of GLRI efforts there have been attempts to organize and report all federal and state activities related to ecosystem restoration in the Great Lakes. For example, in the last few years, the creation of a Great Lakes crosscut budget has been mandated by Congress in annual appropriations laws. The resulting crosscut budget contained information on GLRI funding as well as other base federal funding for Great Lakes restoration. It also reported some state spending for restoration efforts; however, just Wisconsin reported funding for FY2012. Some might view the creation and dissemination of a broad crosscut budget as one tool to organize and potentially coordinate all Great Lakes restoration activities.

Examples from other Restoration Initiatives

There are several approaches for addressing governance and coordination that are exemplified in other large-scale restoration initiatives that could be contemplated for the GLRI. For example, Congress could create a single entity that centrally coordinates restoration activities at all stakeholder levels. This could include all federal activities and state activities. The restoration initiative in the Platte River is guided by a Governance Committee (GC), which is responsible for implementing the Program. The GC is a ten-member body with representatives from Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), water users, and environmental entities. The GC makes programmatic decisions including changes to budgets and changes to restoration activities. The GC justifies these types of changes with new information or recommendations from adaptive management efforts. An Oversight Committee, consisting of the Secretary of the Interior and the Governors of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, is responsible for approving significant modifications to the program.

Several other ecosystem restoration initiatives are governed by hybrid entities with both federal and state partners. In some cases, these governing bodies are limited in their ability to make decisions. Their decision-making authority extends to certain types of decisions such as creating a restoration plan, conducting science, and monitoring restoration projects. However, project implementation might be left to individual state and federal agencies rather than the hybrid entity. Examples of this type of governing entity include the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, Long Island Sound Study Policy Committee, and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.

Bills in the 113 th Congress address governance and coordination under GLRI. S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would authorize the EPA to select programs and projects for Great Lakes protection and restoration. The bill states that the EPA would consult with federal partners, including the Task Force, and consider recommendations of GLAB, when selecting projects to implement. The bill would also authorize the Task Force and direct it to carry out several coordinating activities related to restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem. Some examples include collaborating with Canada and bi-national bodies involved in activities related to the Great Lakes; managing the Great Lakes system, considering recommendations from GLAB; coordinating government actions associated with implementing restoration plans such as the Action Plan, Strategy, and GLWQA; and developing outcome-based goals for the Great Lakes System. Under these bills, EPA would be the lead agency in implementing GLRI, and the Task Force would be the lead entity in coordinating overall federal and nonfederal efforts to address the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In addition, these bills would require the GLRI to prioritize work done by nonfederal partners for priority areas each year and would require that federal projects and nonfederal projects are implemented in coordination with states and other organizations. Further, the bills would direct the Office of Management and Budget to create a Great Lakes crosscut budget to report funding and projects funded by GLRI and potentially other non-GLRI activities. The crosscut budget would also be required to identify all expenditures by federal and state governments on Great Lakes restoration activities since FY2004. If enacted, these bills would create a permanent requirement for creating a crosscut budget.

The lack of a comprehensive plan or strategy to guide restoration efforts in the Great Lakes was a concern in the past for restoration efforts in the Great Lakes. Without a plan, the GAO reported that organizations developed their own strategies for restoration, inadvertently making coordination among them difficult. The GLRI Action Plan was created in part to address this concern. The Action Plan discusses broad themes related to restoration and provides a set of short term goals for measuring progress. The Action Plan specifically states that it does not address water infrastructure programs that include the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program, nor base federal agency restoration activities.

Some could contend that the Action Plan still is not a comprehensive plan for restoration because some restoration themes and projects are not included. For example, the Action Plan lists themes that are to be addressed by restoration activities, but does not provide details on specific restoration projects that are to be implemented or how projects are connected to the restoration of the ecosystem. Further, the Action Plan does not cover all federal restoration activities (e.g., those ongoing restoration activities initiated before GLRI and the Action Plan were created) and does not include or address all state or local restoration activities.

To counter these points some might contend that the scope of the Action Plan is only based on implementing GLRI (i.e., not all federal restoration activities) and that specificity of projects to be funded and implemented depends on annual decisions and recommendations made by the EPA, participating federal agencies, and the Task Force. Therefore, it would not be possible to list all restoration projects upfront. Further, they might contend that broad restoration actions in the Great Lakes ecosystems are also, in part, guided by the Strategy and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Strategy lists thematic areas for restoration and key actions for restoration; and GLWQA contains long term goals for restoration that would encompass all restoration activities related to water quality. Both bills in the 113 th Congress would authorize restoration actions to achieve goals established in the Action Plan, Strategy, and GLWQA. This would create a broader restoration effort that goes beyond just implementing the Action Plan and would include actions and goals in both the Strategy and GLWQA.

Issues related to the implementation of the Action Plan could raise questions about how the Action Plan will integrate GLRI activities with existing federal, state, and local activities. The GLRI does not include all federal and nonfederal actions related to restoring the Great Lakes in the Action Plan. It specifically states that it will guide the implementation of the GLRI, not necessarily all restoration efforts in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Action Plan does state that it will build upon past programs and plans that are now in place. It is unclear if the project selection, oversight, and reporting requirements under GLRI directly cover non-GLRI activities in addition to taking them into consideration.

If GLRI does not cover all new and existing federal activities, some questions might arise, including

Will GLRI reporting and oversight activities include non-GLRI funded efforts? How will GLRI integrate non-GLRI projects in the restoration effort, or how would duplication of efforts be avoided? Are interim goals and overall goals a true indication of GRLI efforts? Will federal agencies maintain non-GLRI activities or eventually integrate them into GLRI?

Some of these questions might be addressed in the pending revision to the Action Plan which addresses restoration activities from 2015 to 2019. Some contend that the revised Action Plan should contain greater emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management and focus on achieving and assessing outcome-oriented results (i.e., results that reflect the condition of the ecosystem) rather than just output-oriented results (i.e., results that are reported from specific projects). Creating a revised Action Plan based on the results and outcomes of projects implemented under the first Action Plan could be difficult if sufficient results have not been reported in time for the revision. This might not allow for the revised Action Plan to incorporate lessons learned and project results from the first phase of restoration.

Vision of a Restored Great Lakes Ecosystem

The GLRI does not present an overall vision for what a restored Great Lakes ecosystem should look like and function. An overall vision is broadly discussed in the Action Plan, but specific goals and targets for restoration are provided for just the first four years of restoration. Furthermore, there is no indication of how long it will take to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Task Force, under GLAB, is currently revising the Action Plan to describe activities and goals from FY2015 to FY2019, yet it is unclear if this represents a stage for restoration or a plan to complete restoration. Some might counter this concern by noting that it is difficult to fully contemplate a restored Great Lakes ecosystem because of its size and complexity. They might also point to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as a guiding document for long-term restoration. The Agreement contains general objectives for restoring the waters of the Great Lakes, including that the waters should be a source of high-quality drinking water, free from pollutants that could be harmful to humans, and support healthy and productive wetlands, among other things. Further, the Agreement contains 10 Annexes that describe long-term objectives for addressing specific issues related to restoration such as diminishing excess nutrient deposition (e.g., phosphorus and nitrogen) and controlling aquatic invasive species, among others. In the GLWQA there is no indication of how long it will take to restore the waters of the Great Lakes, nor estimate of how much it will cost.

The lack of defining what a restored ecosystem might resemble under the GLRI or how long it might take restore the ecosystem could generate questions related to how much restoring and maintaining the Great Lakes ecosystem could ultimately cost. Other questions might include what the long-terms plans are for restoration and if any major restoration projects are being contemplated; and if restoration might involve manipulating water flows into or out of the Great Lakes to enhance habitat for native species or restrict the entry of aquatic nuisance species. Answers to these questions could involve actions that could be potentially controversial.

Long-term issues associated with the Great Lakes ecosystem such as the control and eradication of invasive species or the potential effects of climate change might not be adequately addressed in five-year increments. This and other restoration issues might require a longer planning horizon than five years to address. The potential effects of climate change on the Great Lakes ecosystem should be incorporated into the Action Plan according to some. The Action Plan addresses climate change by noting that it could have implications for focus areas and would be addressed where appropriate. Some contend that addressing the effects of climate change in the selection and implementation of restoration projects is important for the long term viability of restoration. Climate change could potentially alter Great Lakes water levels, which have a significant connection to several ecosystem properties and economic factors in the Great Lakes.

S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 address this issue, in part, by authorizing the Task Force to review the Strategy and Action Plan every five years. The Task Force would be authorized to update and revise the Action Plan. This policy would allow for revisions to reflect changes in the ecosystem, but might not generate a vision for the restored ecosystem or result in providing the estimated duration of restoration.

Progress of Restoring the Great Lakes under the GLRI

Implementation of GLRI began in 2010; however, it is unclear how much more is needed to restore the ecosystem. GLRI aims to track progress of restoration within the timeframe of the Action Plan. GLRI has an accountability system (Great Lakes Accountability System; GLAS) that lists projects and provides a description and their funding. Further, GLAS requests project managers to identify the focus area they are working under and any quantifiable results from the project (e.g., acres of wetlands restored). GLAS documentation does suggest that results from projects could be aggregated and tracked, and that information will allow managers to adjust priorities based on data derived from GLAS. However, based on this description, some might contend that it is unclear how the completion or progress of these projects relates to the overall restoration of the ecosystem or ecosystem processes. For example, one researcher commented that many of the restoration projects are completed in "silos" without a comprehensive assessment of how projects relate to overall restoration. In addition, he questioned whether measuring and reporting indicators will provide an understanding of how the overall ecosystem is improving or increasing its resilience. Others emphasize that outcomes of the restoration initiative are unclear, even though indicators and measurements are reported. In response to these claims, GLRI notes that monitoring and evaluation of progress is conducted on a regular basis. Further, GLAS is expected to release a set of "dashboard indicators" that aim to provide a visual representation of progress toward metrics. To address this point, some have called for broadening monitoring, and reframing the analyses and reporting of the results so that progress toward outcomes can be evaluated. Both proposed bills authorizing GLRI in the 113 th Congress would direct the Task Force to create outcome based goals for the Great Lakes. This could address, in part, the issue of evaluating restoration progress at the regional or ecosystem level, rather than at the project level. However, developing outcome based goals could be perceived as different from developing a strategy for achieving outcomes.

The GLRI accountability approach under GLAS appears only to be applicable to GLRI projects. It is unclear if it will be expanded to include non-GLRI and nonfederal activities. Without taking into account all efforts to restore the ecosystem, it would be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness and progress of GLRI. If GLRI and non-GLRI activities are contributing to restoration, how does one evaluate only GLRI activities? Progress toward meeting goals was reported in annual reports to Congress for FY2010 and FY2011. Progress reported for GLRI is mixed in these reports with several entries stating that indicators have not yet been determined. The reports also do not differentiate between progress made by GLRI projects versus non-GLRI federal and state actions. To counter this sentiment, one could contend that progress toward goals may not be measurable after a few years of implementing restoration activities. For many ecological indicators, progress might not be seen until several years after restoration actions have been implemented.

There do not appear to be any consequences for not progressing or reaching goals set by the GLRI. For example, if restoration targets are not being met, there does not appear to be a policy mechanism to alter the implementation or direction of GLRI efforts. Several other restoration initiatives have had mixed experiences working with quantitative goals and indicators of progress. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades restoration initiatives, some initial goals have not been met on schedule, resulting in criticism of the initiative. Policy mechanisms to address these shortcomings include revising the goals and indicators of progress, or implementing an adaptive management program. Adaptive management can also be a policy tool that would allow changes in projects and goals if new circumstances arise or if progress stalls. The GLRI encourages agencies to incorporate adaptive management in implementing restoration projects, but has not implemented an adaptive management process. A recent draft report, however, proposes an adaptive management framework for restoration activities in the Great Lakes. The objective of this framework would be to address programmatic decisions related to restoration. It would also address priorities for implementing projects and refine decision-making. Adaptive management can also be implemented on the programmatic scale. It could be used to measure and potentially adjust how the program is being implemented and how overall restoration objectives are being met.

The lack of long-term restoration targets and a vision for a restored ecosystem might make measuring the progress of restoration difficult. Indeed, some have noted that GLRI projects and their outputs should be connected to an over-arching plan for restoration. GLRI has a set of defined targets that are intended to be a measure of progress for restoring the Great Lakes. The targets are quantifiable and are listed for each year between 2010 and 2014 under each focus area. However, restoration targets beyond the five-year frame are not discussed in the Action Plan. This brings up the question of how many goals or steps are needed to be met for fully restoring the Great Lakes, and where is the current Great Lakes ecosystem on this scale. Several other large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives have estimated the total duration and cost for restoration, yet most of them have had to alter their funding and time of completion estimates as restoration progressed.

The question of whether an ecosystem restoration initiative is worth funding and whether restoration will ultimately provide an overall net financial benefit to the region has been brought up for several ecosystem restoration initiatives, including the Great Lakes. Answering this question for the Great Lakes is complicated since the total cost of restoration and its duration is unclear. The Brookings Institution has asserted that restoring the Great Lakes will not only help the ecosystem, but will provide an economic benefit to the region. Their 2007 study reported the estimated financial benefits associated with improvements in Great Lakes environmental quality included higher catch rates in recreational fisheries, lower water treatment costs, more and better swimming opportunities, improved bird watching, more hunting opportunities, and benefits from removal of contaminated sediment. The sum of present-value benefits in 2007 from specific improvements in the environment totaled approximately $50 billion for long-term gains and $30-$50 billion for short-term gains. The full cost of restoration, however, was not identified in this study making it impossible to evaluate the net benefit of restoration.

The total cost of funding the complete restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem has not been estimated by the GLRI. GLRI estimates that $2.2 billion in funding is needed for the first five years of the restoration. It is unknown how much funding it will take to restore the ecosystem and what the ultimate benefits of restoration might be. Further, it is unclear where along the restoration timeline GLRI might be because the problem and proposed solution has not been fully defined. Reporting by GLRI does not project how much longer restoration might take. Whether the first phase (2010 through 2014) covers a small or large space along the restoration timeline might influence decisions on how much funding to provide for the initiative.

Questions related to the cost of restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem and whether that cost is justified could be heightened because annual funding for restoring the Great Lakes is larger than that for other prominent ecosystems. Funding for all federal restoration activities in the Great Lakes has ranged from $649 million to $687 million annually from FY2004 to FY2009. With GLRI, the FY2010 federal funding for Great Lakes restoration was approximately $1.2 billion (non-GLRI funding was approximately $720 million). Other ecosystem restoration efforts in areas such as the Everglades and Chesapeake Bay have lower annual federal funding (e.g., approximately $350 million and $400 - $450 million annually, respectively). Some might contend that the expansive size of the Great Lakes ecosystem warrants a higher price tag than other large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives in the United States, and that funding needs for restoration are on par with other ecosystems. Further, they might argue that the Great Lakes ecosystem is one of the largest in the country, and potentially could contribute the greatest value to people. However, some others might contend that federal funding for GLRI is too high because combined with non-GLRI funding it is higher than any other ecosystem.

S. 1232 would authorize $475 million for each fiscal year from FY2014 to FY2018 to carry out GLRI. Further, it would authorize $150 million for each fiscal year during the same period to carry out projects that address remediation of sediment contamination in Areas of Concern, and $25 million for each fiscal year during the same period for the Great Lakes Program Office to administer and conduct restoration activities. H.R. 2773 would authorize the same amount of funding for GLRI and the Program Office, and $100 million for addressing remediation of sediment contamination in Areas of Concern.

The GLRI is a large-scale ecosystem restoration initiative that aims to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem under the framework of an Action Plan. It attempts to address past criticisms of Great Lakes restoration activities that included claims of a loosely coordinated restoration effort, and a restoration effort that lacks a comprehensive plan. The Great Lakes ecosystem is complex and covers a vast geographical area. This inherently leads to scientific uncertainties in implementing restoration projects and unforeseen circumstances in the evolution of the ecosystem. These factors and others may cause restoration efforts under the GLRI to face persistent and new questions by Congress and other stakeholders. Some might question how long restoration in the Great Lakes may take and how much it could ultimately cost. Further, questions related to how the GLRI is implemented and whether it will eventually encompass all federal activities, state activities, and local activities related to Great Lakes restoration could be asked and discussed. The GLRI is not authorized in law, but in the 113 th Congress, two bills were introduced to authorize the initiative. Both bills would address similar issues, including authorizing the EPA as the lead agency for implementing GLRI, and authorizing the Task Force to coordinate among federal and nonfederal stakeholders. They would also authorize $475 million annually from FY2014 to FY2018 to fund GLRI activities.

Question: What is the importanceo of the Great Lakes ecosystem?

Answer: The Great Lakes ecosystem is recognized by many as an international natural resource that has been altered by human activities and climate variability.

Question: To what have these alterations led?

Answer: These alterations have led to degraded water quality, diminished habitat, lower native fish and wildlife populations, and an altered ecosystem.

Question: What restoration activities have been undertaken?

Answer: In response, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin are implementing several restoration activities. These activities range from mitigating the harmful effects of toxic substances in lake waters to restoring fish habitat.

Question: What has characterized most Great Lakes efforts in the past?

Answer: Most laws and efforts in the past addressed specific issues in the Great Lakes; a few addressed issues at the ecosystem level.

Question: What other approaches have been suggested?

Answer: This caused the Government Accountability Office and others to express the need for initiating and implementing a comprehensive approach for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Question: What holistic approaches have been proposed?

Answer: In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was proposed and implemented by the Obama Administration.

Question: What is the aim of the GLRI?

Answer: The aim of GLRI is to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem under one initiative. Specifically, the GLRI is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by directing activities to address five focus areas: (1) toxic substances and Areas of Concern (these are areas in the Great Lakes that are environmentally degraded); (2) invasive species; (3) nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; (4) habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; and (5) accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships.

Question: What agency implements the GLRI?

Answer: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for implementing and administering GLRI.

Question: What authority does the EPA have?

Answer: The EPA has received authority to distribute appropriated funds to several federal agencies, which then undertake restoration activities and projects. The EPA also administers grant programs to fund nonfederal projects and activities related to restoration.

Question: What interagency efforts exist?

Answer: An interagency Great Lakes Task Force oversees the implementation of GLRI and created a strategy to guide restoration.

Question: What is the nature of the strategy?

Answer: The strategy (referred to as the Action Plan) provides a framework for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem under GLRI from 2010 through 2014. For each focus area under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal activities for restoring the ecosystem. Restoration activities are being done under existing federal authorities.

Question: What funding has the GLRI received?

Answer: The GLRI has received approximately $1.37 billion in appropriated funds since FY2010.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
GLRI Action Plan

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Implementation

Question: What criticism of the GLRI exists?

Answer: The scope and scale of this restoration initiative have led some to question its direction and duration. The GLRI does not specify what a restored ecosystem might look like, nor does it estimate how long restoration activities will need to be conducted, and how much restoration might cost.

Question: What governance questions surround the GLRI?

Answer: Some other questions surrounding this initiative include how the GLRI is governed and how federal and state restoration efforts are coordinated. Furthermore, GLRI remains an administrative initiative; there is no law that specifically authorizes GLRI, though Congress has appropriated funds to implement the program.

Question: How has Congress dealt with these critiques?

Answer: Congress might consider these questions in oversight hearings or in legislation during the 113th Congress. Companion bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to address GLRI. S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would establish an administrative and management structure for restoration activities in the Great Lakes, authorize GLRI and appropriations for its implementation, specify the scope and function of GLRI, and authorize the coordinating role of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.

Issues for Congress
Implementation and Management of GLRI
Decision-Making

Issues for Congress
Implementation and Management of GLRI
S. 1232 and H.R. 2773

Vision of a Restored Great Lakes Ecosystem


Ensuring That Traffic Signs Are Visible at Night: Federal Regulations

Summary: Traffic signs provide information to help motorists travel safely. If a sign is useful during daytime, it has equal or greater value to motorists at night, when less of the road environment can be seen. Federal regulations have long required that traffic signs be visible at night, either through the use of retroreflective materials (materials that reflect light, such as from headlights, back in the direction from which it came) or through permanent lighting illuminating the sign. These regulations are part of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a compilation of federal regulations governing traffic control devices. Due to the costs and practical limitations on supplying electricity for lighting, agencies typically rely on retroreflective materials to make most traffic signs visible at night.

Summary: Retroreflective materials lose their reflective properties over time due to weathering and other factors. This reduces the visibility of the signs at night. To promote safety, the MUTCD also requires agencies to monitor their traffic control devices and make sure they comply with the federal requirements. Thus, agencies have been required to make sure that their traffic signs are visible at night, and to replace those which are no longer visible. However, for many years there was no objective standard establishing what level of retroreflectivity was needed for a traffic sign to be visible at night.

Summary: In 1992, Congress directed the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a standard for the minimum level of retroreflectivity that traffic signs (and pavement markings) must maintain. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within DOT had already been doing research on the reflective properties of sign materials. Between 1993 and 2004 FHWA did further research and consulted with state and local transportation agencies regarding the implementation of the congressional directive. Between 2004 and 2007, FHWA completed a rulemaking to add a minimum standard for the retroreflectivity of traffic signs to the MUTCD. The new standard had three elements: it set a minimum measurable value for the retroreflectivity of traffic signs to ensure their visibility at night; it required state and local agencies to adopt a method by which to maintain the nighttime visibility of their traffic signs by 2012; and it required agencies to ensure that their signs were in compliance with the standard by 2018.

Summary: In 2009, the street sign lettering standard in the MUTCD was revised. This standard did not have a compliance deadline. In 2010, several press reports conflated the new nighttime visibility standard with the new street sign lettering standard. These articles made it appear that the federal government was requiring communities to replace traffic signs just to change their lettering style. Communities also complained about the cost of the new nighttime visibility maintenance standard (though the requirement that they replace traffic signs that were no longer visible at night was not new). Thus the nighttime visibility maintenance standard came to the attention of Congress.

Summary: In 2012, FHWA amended the compliance dates for the retroreflectivity standard (and several other MUTCD standards) to alleviate possible financial burdens the deadlines might have created for state and local highway agencies.

Since 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has amended certain national standards for traffic signs. Among the new standards were a measurable standard for the minimum level of nighttime visibility of traffic signs and a change in the lettering of street signs. These new standards were the subject of some confusion and controversy. Some state and local agencies complained that the new standards would be relatively costly to comply with during a period when state and local finances are strained. Some agencies also confused the new nighttime visibility maintenance standard, which originally included deadlines by which agencies had to comply with the new standard, with the new sign-lettering standard, which did not have compliance deadlines. In response to the criticism, FHWA eliminated some of the nighttime visibility maintenance standard compliance deadlines. This report provides background for the nighttime visibility maintenance standard and addresses some of the issues that have been raised about this standard.

There Are Two New Traffic Sign Standards

In 2007, FHWA updated the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standard governing the maintenance of the nighttime visibility (retroreflectivity) of traffic signs (§2A.08). Retroreflectivity refers to the reflection of light back from an object. With respect to traffic signs, this involves reflecting the light from car headlights so that the sign is visible to drivers at night. The 2007 amendment set a minimum level of retroreflectivity for signs and required state agencies to adopt a method to ensure that signs met that minimum. Because of its safety significance, this standard was given a deadline for compliance.

Separately, in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, FHWA updated the standard concerning the sign lettering style for names of places, streets, and highways (§2D.05). Formerly, names on signs could either be in all capital letters or have only the first letter capitalized. The new standard eliminated the option of using only uppercase letters. This standard did not have a deadline for compliance.

The Mixed-Case Street Sign Lettering Standard

The lettering standard applies only to signs with names of places, streets, and highways. This change was made because drivers often have only a brief time to read these signs, and studies indicate that mixed-case lettering is easier to read. State and local transportation agencies are required to implement the new lettering style only as they install new signs or replace existing signs. Some press reports have given the impression that the federal government is requiring communities to immediately begin replacing all street signs just to comply with the new lettering style standard, but this is incorrect.

The Retroreflectivity Maintenance Standard

Earlier versions of the MUTCD had declared that "All traffic signs ... should have adequate retroreflectivity." However, there was no measurable standard for what constituted "adequate retroreflectivity." In 1985, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned FHWA to add a minimum nighttime visibility standard to the MUTCD.

In 1992, Congress directed DOT to develop a minimum standard, with this provision in the FY1993 Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations bill:

SEC. 406. The Secretary of Transportation shall revise the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include—

(a) a standard for a minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for pavement markings and signs, which shall apply to all roads open to public travel ...

The reflective properties of sign materials decrease over time, due to exposure to sunlight and other factors. As the reflective materials degrade, a sign becomes harder to see at night.

For many reasons, including the limited visibility available to drivers after sunset, driving at night is much more dangerous than driving during the daytime. Nighttime crash rates are estimated to be three times higher than daytime rates, and the fatality rate for nighttime driving is also higher than for daytime driving.

At night, when visual cues available to drivers are much more limited, the assistance provided by traffic signs becomes more important. As an earlier version of the MUTCD put it, if a sign is necessary in the daytime, it has equal or greater value to motorists at night.

Nighttime driving becomes more challenging as drivers age, because over time the lens of the eye typically become less transparent. This and other changes result in reduced sensitivity to light and reduced clarity of vision for older persons. With the aging of the U.S. population, the number of older drivers is increasing significantly. Thus, ensuring that traffic signs are easily visible to older drivers at night is becoming a more significant safety issue. But ensuring that traffic signs are easily visible at night benefits not only older drivers, but all drivers.

Development of the Retroreflectivity Maintenance Standard

The process of developing the new standard included FHWA-sponsored research and the development of a proposed standard based on that research by a task force appointed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state and local transportation agencies. FHWA held workshops for representatives of state and local transportation agencies to examine the proposed new standard in the 1990s.

AASHTO requested in 1998 that FHWA let it study the potential impact of the proposed new standard on state and local transportation agencies before issuing the standard. AASHTO adopted a policy resolution in 2000 requesting that agencies be given six years to implement methods to assess the nighttime visibility of signs.

FHWA made further efforts to publicize the proposed standard, and then revised the proposal through the formal federal rulemaking process from 2004 through 2007, with repeated opportunities for public comment. The new standard took effect on January 22, 2008.

The new standard involved two elements. First, it established measurable standards for the minimum acceptable retroreflectivity of signs. Since it is not considered feasible for agencies to regularly measure the retroreflectivity of every sign, the second element of the new standard was a requirement that agencies adopt a method by which to maintain the retroreflectivity of their street signs. To provide flexibility to agencies, the standard listed several methods that can satisfy this requirement, including

visual nighttime inspection from a moving vehicle by a trained sign inspector; measurement of sign retroreflectivity using a retroreflectometer; replacement of signs based on their expected life above the minimum standard for retroreflectivity; replacement of all signs in an area, or of a given type, at specified intervals, based on the expected life above the minimum standard for retroreflectivity of the shortest-life material used on the signs in that area or of that type; replacement based on the performance of sample signs that are monitored for loss of retroreflectivity; or other methods that are developed based on engineering studies.

According to the standard, an agency using a retroreflectivity assessment or management method will be in compliance even if at times individual signs did not meet the minimum retroreflectivity levels.

Finally, this standard required that communities comply with the new standard by certain deadlines. There were three deadlines:

January 22, 2012 (four years after adoption of the new standard)—the deadline for communities to adopt one of the methods to systematically maintain the retroreflectivity of their street signs. January 22, 2015 (seven years after adoption)—the deadline for communities to bring all of their regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide signs (except street name signs and overhead guide signs) into compliance with the new standard. January 22, 2018 (10 years after adoption)—the deadline for communities to bring all street name signs and overhead guide signs into compliance.

The Controversy Surrounding the Standard

Generally, highway safety groups supported the standard, while state and local transportation agencies opposed the establishment of numerical minimum levels of retroreflectivity due to concerns about potential tort liability from failure to maintain a specific minimum level of retroreflectivity. They preferred that the standard be limited to establishing a management process that agencies would follow to maintain adequate nighttime visibility of signs.

FHWA's final retroreflectivity standard tried to satisfy both the congressional directive to set a minimum retroreflectivity standard, by including a table of minimum numerical standards in the MUTCD, and the preferences of the state and local transportation agencies, by saying that not every sign needed to meet the minimum standard so long as agencies had a management process in place to maintain the nighttime visibility of their signs. Regarding tort liability, FHWA noted that having formally implemented a method for maintaining retroreflectivity would appear to put an agency in a better position to defend lawsuits in which inadequate sign retroreflectivity is an issue. Also, the final standard provided that agencies that have adopted an assessment or management method will be in compliance with the standard even if some signs do not meet the minimum retroreflectivity standard.

There appear to be two reasons for the standard's sudden notoriety beginning in the fall of 2010. One was concern on the part of agencies about the cost of compliance. The other was that several press reports conflated the requirement for replacing signs that were no longer clearly visible at night with the entirely unrelated new standard requiring mixed-case lettering on street signs, which was added in the 2009 update of the MUTCD.

Compliance with the Retroreflectivity Maintenance Standard

Generally, federal and state laws require that each state adopt a manual of traffic control devices that meets or exceeds the standards in the federal MUTCD. The reason for these requirements is the belief that uniformity in traffic control devices promotes public safety.

Most MUTCD standards, such as the lettering standard, do not have compliance deadlines. The case of the retroreflectivity maintenance standard is unusual in this respect. It was given a compliance deadline because its safety impact was considered to be significant.

There are two potential enforcement mechanisms for standards in the MUTCD. First, states and local governments that are not in compliance with standards are potentially subject to having a portion of their federal transportation funding withheld. However, there is no formal enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. In fact, one report noted that "It is not uncommon for MUTCD principles to be violated (knowingly or unknowingly) in actual practice."

The more significant potential enforcement mechanism for MUTCD standards is the tort liability that communities may face in the event of a lawsuit involving, in this case, a nighttime car crash in which the visibility of a street sign may be a factor.

A study sponsored by DOT estimated the total additional cost to state and local governments of complying with the new standard to be $37.5 million over a 10-year period. Of this, $27.5 million would be borne by local governments, which are responsible for most traffic signs, and $11.8 million by state governments. The total cost was estimated to represent a 0.5% increase in annual sign maintenance costs for states; data to estimate the incremental impact on local government budgets were not available. The maximum cost in any one year was estimated at $4.5 million. Up to 100% of the cost of replacing traffic signs is eligible for federal funding.

Most larger communities already have sign maintenance and replacement programs; for these communities, the study estimated that the impact of the retroreflectivity maintenance standard is likely to be modest. The impact may be greater in smaller communities that may never have instituted sign maintenance and replacement programs.

Press reports indicate that a number of state and local highway agencies stated they estimated that their costs to comply with the new standard were much higher than the estimate in the DOT study. The methodologies by which these estimates were generated were not reported.

In the controversy over the new standard, the charge was made that the new standard required agencies to replace "perfectly good" traffic signs. In part this may have resulted from the confusion of the two different traffic sign standards. If a traffic sign meets the MUTCD standard for retroreflectivity, it does not have to be replaced. If it does not meet the minimum retroreflectivity standard, then it may create a safety hazard after dark, although it may appear to be perfectly good during daylight hours.

Several comments submitted during the rulemaking process described the rule as an unfunded mandate, as it would impose additional costs on state and local governments for developing sign inventories, training personnel to examine signs, and replacing signs without providing additional resources for this purpose. DOT has observed that the MUTCD already required agencies to maintain the nighttime visibility of traffic signs. The minimum retroreflectivity standard's primary impact was to establish a quantifiable level for what constitutes adequate nighttime visibility.

Up to 100% of the cost of installing and replacing traffic signs can be covered by federal-aid highway funding under several programs. The annual level of federal-aid highway funding provided through the annual DOT appropriations act rose from $33.9 billion in FY2004 (when the rule was formally proposed) to $41.5 billion in FY2012, in addition to $27.5 billion provided to states and localities for highway infrastructure investment in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

DOT amended the compliance deadlines for the retroreflectivity maintenance standard (and numerous other MUTCD standards with compliance deadlines) in a May 2012 Federal Register notice.

DOT extended the deadline for highway agencies to implement an assessment or management method for ensuring that their signs comply with the retroreflectivity standard to May 2014, and limited the scope of that required assessment to regulatory and warning signs, rather than all street signs. DOT also eliminated the compliance deadlines for replacement of signs that are identified as not meeting the minimum retroreflectivity level standards. Communities are still required to replace any signs that do not meet the standards.

DOT said it changed the deadlines to reduce the costs and impacts of the compliance deadlines on state and local highway agencies. It noted that the original deadlines had been based on standard useful-life cycles for signs, but that varying environmental conditions meant that the actual useful life of signs varied in different areas of the country.

Question: Why is night visibility important for traffic signs?

Answer: Traffic signs provide information to help motorists travel safely. If a sign is useful during daytime, it has equal or greater value to motorists at night, when less of the road environment can be seen.

Question: What federal regulations promote visibility at night?

Answer: Federal regulations have long required that traffic signs be visible at night, either through the use of retroreflective materials (materials that reflect light, such as from headlights, back in the direction from which it came) or through permanent lighting illuminating the sign. These regulations are part of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a compilation of federal regulations governing traffic control devices.

Question: What strategy do most agencies use?

Answer: Due to the costs and practical limitations on supplying electricity for lighting, agencies typically rely on retroreflective materials to make most traffic signs visible at night.

Question: What is the downside to using retroreflective materials?

Answer: Retroreflective materials lose their reflective properties over time due to weathering and other factors. This reduces the visibility of the signs at night.

Question: How have regulations addressed this problem?

Answer: Thus, agencies have been required to make sure that their traffic signs are visible at night, and to replace those which are no longer visible.

Question: What gaps exist in this regulation?

Answer: However, for many years there was no objective standard establishing what level of retroreflectivity was needed for a traffic sign to be visible at night.

Question: How has Congress attempted to standardize night visibility for traffic signs?

Answer: In 1992, Congress directed the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a standard for the minimum level of retroreflectivity that traffic signs (and pavement markings) must maintain.

Question: How did the FHWA participate in this effort?

Answer: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within DOT had already been doing research on the reflective properties of sign materials. Between 1993 and 2004 FHWA did further research and consulted with state and local transportation agencies regarding the implementation of the congressional directive. Between 2004 and 2007, FHWA completed a rulemaking to add a minimum standard for the retroreflectivity of traffic signs to the MUTCD.

Question: Of what did the new standard consist?

Answer: The new standard had three elements: it set a minimum measurable value for the retroreflectivity of traffic signs to ensure their visibility at night; it required state and local agencies to adopt a method by which to maintain the nighttime visibility of their traffic signs by 2012; and it required agencies to ensure that their signs were in compliance with the standard by 2018.

Question: How was the MUTCD revised?

Answer: In 2009, the street sign lettering standard in the MUTCD was revised.This standard did not have a compliance deadline.

Question: How did the press respond to this revision?

Answer: In 2010, several press reports conflated the new nighttime visibility standard with the new street sign lettering standard. These articles made it appear that the federal government was requiring communities to replace traffic signs just to change their lettering style.

Question: What other complaints emerged about the revision?

Answer: Communities also complained about the cost of the new nighttime visibility maintenance standard (though the requirement that they replace traffic signs that were no longer visible at night was not new).

Question: What was the effect of these complaints?

Answer: Thus the nighttime visibility maintenance standard came to the attention of Congress.