Long Island Sound Restoration: Improved Reporting and Cost Estimates Could Help Guide Future Efforts

Long Island Sound, an estuary bordered by Connecticut and New York, provides numerous economic and recreational benefits. However, development and pollution have resulted in environmental impacts, such as the degradation of water quality. EPA partnered with both states to create the Study to restore and protect the Sound. The Study developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan in 1994 and updated the plan in 2015.

GAO was asked to examine federal efforts to restore the Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) what is known about the progress made toward achieving the 1994 plan, (2) how Study members plan to measure and report on progress toward achieving the 2015 plan, and (3) estimated costs of the restoration. GAO reviewed Study plans, reports, and data. GAO also interviewed 12 Study members—including federal and state agency officials—and representatives of 5 Study work groups about restoration efforts and progress made.

The Long Island Sound Study (the Study) is a federal-state partnership formed in 1985 to restore Long Island Sound. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and officials from Connecticut and New York provide oversight for the Study, which includes federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other groups. GAO found the following:

Progress toward 1994 Plan. The Study established an initial plan for the Sound in 1994 and has collected data on certain indicators of the Sound's health and published progress reports on its website. However, the Study has not comprehensively assessed progress against the 1994 plan. In the absence of such an assessment, GAO interviewed Study members who generally agreed that moderate progress has been made in achieving goals for five of the six problem areas in the 1994 plan. Without a comprehensive assessment, it is not possible to determine the extent these views reflect actual progress.

Reporting Progress for the 2015 Plan. The Study's 2015 management plan identifies 20 long-term targets and associated numerical indicators that will be used to measure future progress. The Study has also updated the format for pages on its website to provide more consistent progress reports for these targets. However, the reports do not yet fully incorporate leading practices for performance reporting that GAO has previously identified. For example, they do not include evaluations of goals that are not met for 15 targets. By ensuring that leading practices are fully incorporated into the Study's performance reporting efforts, EPA can help the Study better assess and report on future progress.

Estimating Costs of Restoration. The Study has estimated that the future costs of restoration will be at least $18.9 billion through 2035. However, the current estimates are understated because they do not include the costs of all activities that will be needed to accomplish the 2015 plan, and they do not reflect the uncertainty associated with some of the costs. By capturing the full costs and uncertainties in cost estimates, the Study can provide decision makers critical information needed to allocate resources effectively.

GAO recommends that EPA work with the Study to ensure that it fully incorporates leading practices into its performance reporting efforts and that its cost estimates include the full range of activities as well as those for which there is uncertainty. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and highlighted steps the agency will take to meet the recommendations.

For centuries, Long Island Sound (the Sound)—an estuary bordered by  Connecticut and New York and surrounded by one of the most densely  populated areas of the United States—has provided numerous public  benefits including fishing, recreation, and a transportation route to the  Atlantic Ocean. Development, deforestation, and industrialization across  the region have resulted in degradation of water quality from pollution,  such as chemicals, sediment, and sewage. Moreover, the degradation of  water quality has resulted in declining fish populations. In 1985,  congressional committees directed the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) to work with the states to research, monitor, and assess estuaries  including Long Island Sound. Further, in 1987, the National Estuary  Program was established under amendments to the Clean Water Act to,  among other things, identify nationally significant estuaries threatened by  pollution, development, or overuse, and promote comprehensive  management of those estuaries. EPA has designated 28 estuaries of  national significance, including Long Island Sound.

In 1985, EPA partnered with Connecticut and New York to form the Long  Island Sound Study (the Study) to restore and protect the Sound.  Dedicated to restoring and protecting the Sound, the Study is a  partnership consisting of federal and state agencies, nonprofit and public  organizations, and individuals. The director of the Study is an EPA  official, and the Study is overseen by EPA and senior officials from the  Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Study  members include other federal and state agencies and an interstate  group. The Study also has a Citizens Advisory Committee and a Science  and Technical Advisory Committee, and representatives of those  committees provide advice for implementing restoration activities or  science and technical issues.

Since it was established in 1985, the Study has developed two  comprehensive conservation and management plans for the Sound that  include recommended actions to restore and maintain the Sound’s  chemical, physical, and biological integrity, including its water quality. The  Study issued the first Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation  and Management Plan in 1994 (1994 plan). In the 1994 plan, it identified  six priority problems and goals for each problem: (1) low dissolved  oxygen, or hypoxia, (2) toxic substances, (3) pathogen contamination, (4)  floatable debris, (5) management and conservation of living resources  and their habitats, and (6) land use and development. The Study issued  a revised plan in 2015 (2015 plan), which is organized around four  themes, each with its own goal: (1) clean water and healthy watersheds,  (2) thriving habitats and wildlife, (3) sustainable and resilient communities,  and (4) sound science and inclusive management.

You asked us to review federal efforts to restore the Sound. This report  examines (1) what is known about the progress made toward achieving  the 1994 plan; (2) the goals of the 2015 plan and factors, if any, that may  hinder progress according to Study members; (3) how Study members  plan to measure and report on progress toward achieving the 2015 plan;  and (4) what Study members expended on restoration activities in fiscal  years 2012 through 2016 and cost estimates for future activities.

To examine what is known about the progress made toward achieving the  1994 plan, we analyzed the plan to gain a better understanding of it and  to identify any goals associated with the six priority problems. We also  reviewed data from the Study’s website in November 2017, the Study’s  most recent progress reports, and the book Long Island Sound:  Prospects for the Urban Sea, a summary of available science and  environmental data for the Sound published in 2014. We reviewed data  that were on the Study’s website in November 2017 because the time  frame coincided with the time frames for our review. These reports, data,  and book included examples of progress but did not assess performance  toward the goals associated with the priority problems in the 1994 plan.  Therefore, we asked Study members for their responses on progress and  the data that supported their responses. To do so, we interviewed  representatives of the 12 Study members who agreed to participate and 5  Study work groups to learn the extent to which they believe progress has  been made toward the goals and to obtain key data that they cited as  evidence for their responses. For some priority problems, Study  members said that they were unable to provide a response about  progress toward the associated goals because they did not have  sufficient knowledge or data, and as a result, the number of respondents  for each problem varied. To examine the goals of the 2015 plan and  factors that may hinder progress according to Study members, we  analyzed the 2015 plan and interviewed Study members to identify the  factors they believe may hinder progress toward achieving the goals of  the 2015 plan.

To examine how Study members plan to measure and report on progress  toward achieving the 2015 plan, we analyzed sections of the plan that  contained goals associated with the four themes and relevant web pages  that the Study issued in March 2018 and analyzed them again in June  2018, and interviewed Study members to learn how they planned to  report on progress. We also interviewed a nonprobability sample of 19  individuals with expertise on Long Island Sound to obtain their views on  these sections of the plan. The 19 experts we interviewed included  primarily members of academia. We identified these experts through  recommendations from Study members and by reviewing the list of  authors in the book Long Island Sound: Prospects for the Urban Sea. We  did not interview experts who represented a Study member or were  involved with the development of the 2015 plan. We asked the experts to  identify which topics of the plan they could discuss based on their  particular expertise. Because we used a nonprobability sample, the  information obtained from these interviews is not generalizable to other  individuals with Long Island Sound-related expertise but provides  illustrative information.

To examine what Study members expended on restoration activities in  fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and cost estimates for future activities, we  obtained and analyzed expenditure data from Study members and  analyzed cost estimate information in the 2015 plan. Of the 12 Study  members described above, 7 provided at least some expenditure data to  us, 4 said that they do not fund restoration activities, and 1 did not reply to  our request for expenditure data. We were unable to compare  expenditure data across Study members because they did not track  expenditures in the same way. To assess the reliability of the expenditure  data, we interviewed officials to explain how the data were collected and  obtained information about the completeness and accuracy of the data  and found the expenditure data to be sufficiently reliable for reporting on  expenditures of restoration activities for the period. We also consulted the  Office of Management and Budget’s general guidance for estimating  costs, and analyzed EPA’s funding guidance for comprehensive  conservation and management plans. Further, we attended two Study  meetings (on April 12, 2017, by telephone, and May 11, 2017, in person)  to obtain information about how Study members make expenditure  decisions. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our  objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to July 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Long Island Sound is an estuary, a body of water where fresh water from  rivers draining from the land mixes with salt water from the ocean, in this  case the Atlantic Ocean. The Sound is 113 miles long and 21 miles  across at its widest point, with an average depth of 63 feet and a deepest  point of 320 feet. The Sound’s coastline is 583 miles and includes more  than 60 bays, with beaches and harbors where people interact most  frequently with the Sound. As shown in figure 1, the Sound is bordered by  Connecticut to the north and New York to the south and west, and its  watershed includes parts of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Nearly all of Connecticut’s waters drain into the  Sound, as do waters from the northern portion of Long Island and the  New York City metropolitan area. New York City is the most populous city  in the United States.

In 1985, congressional committees directed EPA to work with states to  research, monitor, and assess estuaries including the Sound. Around the  same time, Connecticut, New York, and EPA raised concerns about  pollution in the Sound due to the presence of a large population living  near it, as well as 44 wastewater treatment plants and other industries  that discharged into the Sound. In addition, they also raised concerns  about pollution coming from sources that were not easily identified, such  as runoff from land surrounding the Sound.

To restore the health of the Sound, EPA partnered with the two states in  1985 to form the Long Island Sound Study, a partnership consisting of  federal and state agencies, nonprofit and public organizations, and  individuals dedicated to restoring and protecting the Sound. The Study  has several committees and work groups that help to develop and  implement the comprehensive conservation and management plan for the  Sound. These groups include the Science and Technical Advisory  Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee, as well as the Water  Quality Monitoring Work Group and the Habitat Restoration and  Stewardship Work Group, which are responsible for facilitating improved  collection, coordination, management, and interpretation of water quality,  and promoting restoration of the Sound through an improved  understanding of current threats.

In 1987, the National Estuary Program was established under  amendments to the Clean Water Act; the act further required EPA to give  priority consideration to Long Island Sound, among others. According to  EPA, the National Estuary Program is a community-based program  designed to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of estuaries of  national significance. One year after the program was established, EPA  designated the Sound as such an estuary. Under the program, each  estuary of national significance has a management conference that is  required to develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan  to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of  the estuary, including water quality, among other things.

In 1990, the Long Island Sound Improvement Act required EPA to  establish the Office of the Management Conference of the Long Island  Sound Study, to be directed by an EPA official and to assist the Long  Island Sound Study in carrying out its goals. The act required the Long  Island Sound Study Office, as directed by EPA, to provide administrative  and technical support to the management conference, or the Study. The  act also required the Long Island Sound Study Office to report biennially  on progress made in implementing the comprehensive conservation and  management plan starting no more than 2 years after issuing the final  plan. The Study, assisted by the Office, developed two reports—the  Protection and Progress report and Sound Health report—to show  progress toward the 1994 plan and issued the reports about every 2  years from 2001 through 2013. According to the Study, the purpose of  the Protection and Progress report was to highlight regional efforts to  restore and protect Long Island Sound, and the purpose of the Sound  Health report was to provide a snapshot of the environmental health of  Long Island Sound. In addition, the Study collects, tracks, and publishes  information about environmental indicators on its website periodically, and  has produced reports that summarized work done to carry out the 1994  plan.

In its 1994 plan, the Study identified six priority problems and created  associated goals (see table 1).

In the 1994 plan, the Study identified hypoxia as the major water quality  problem in the Sound, defining hypoxia as dissolved oxygen  concentrations of less than 3 milligrams of oxygen per liter of water and  noting that levels less than that are inadequate to support healthy  populations of estuarine organisms. The Study noted that hypoxia caused  significant, adverse ecological effects in the bottom water habitats of the  Sound, such as reducing the abundance and diversity of adult fish and  possibly reducing other species’ resistance to disease.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the  most common cause of hypoxia is nutrient pollution, specifically  discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus. As shown in figure 2, sources of  nutrient pollution include wastewater discharged from wastewater  treatment plant pipes and runoff from agricultural fields, stormwater, and  groundwater.  Excess nutrients can cause algae—which occur naturally  in oceans, lakes, rivers, and other water bodies—to rapidly multiply,  resulting in algal blooms that can discolor the water or accumulate as  thick scums and mats. When the algae die they sink and decompose, and  this decomposition consumes oxygen that is dissolved in water and used  by fish and shellfish to live. Reduced oxygen levels, in turn, can lead to  increased mortality for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic populations, or  can drive some species to relocate to more oxygenated waters. Water in  estuaries is naturally stratified, with less dense fresh warmer water  generally staying on top, and denser salty cool water on the bottom.

In 2000, Connecticut and New York developed a total maximum daily  load (TMDL) to achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in  Long Island Sound. In the TMDL, the states described efforts to manage  hypoxia and identified nitrogen as the key contributor to hypoxia and  identified the sources and amounts of nitrogen contributed to the Sound.  These include wastewater treatment plants in Connecticut and New York;  combined sewer overflows (CSO); nonpoint source pollution, or runoff  from sources such as residences and farms that includes stormwater and  groundwater; and atmospheric deposition. The TMDL set a 15-year  nitrogen reduction goal for Connecticut and New York, from both point  and nonpoint sources of nitrogen, to be achieved by August 2014. The  TMDL also calls for implementing management actions for nitrogen  entering the Sound from other states where feasible. In the TMDL,  Connecticut and New York identified the need for an adaptive  management approach because it would require nitrogen reduction  beyond the limits of technology current at the time. The states also  agreed to reassess the nitrogen reduction goals and revise the TMDL as  necessary.

Although a Comprehensive Assessment of Progress Has Not Been Conducted, Study Members Believe Moderate Progress Has Been Made Since 1994 The Study Collected a Wide Range of Data and Issued Progress Reports, but Did Not Conduct a Comprehensive Assessment of Progress Toward Achieving the 1994 Plan

Although the Study has collected a wide range of data to measure the  health of Long Island Sound and has issued periodic progress reports  since 2001, these progress reports have not contained a comprehensive  assessment of progress toward the goals of the 1994 plan. In the  absence of a comprehensive assessment of progress, Study members  we interviewed said that they believe that moderate progress has been  made toward goals associated with five of the six priority problems  identified in the 1994 plan.

The Study has collected a wide range of data used to measure the health  of Long Island Sound. According to a Study member, the Study began  identifying and collecting these data in 1998 with the purpose of  evaluating progress toward achieving the goals of the 1994 plan. The  data were gathered by federal and state agencies and universities, and  were provided to the Study, which published the data on its website. As of  November 2017, the data on the website were organized into groups of  environmental indicators including water quality, marine and coastal  animals, land use and population, and habitats. We found that many of  the indicators and their data could be linked to goals associated with the  six priority problems in the 1994 plan. Examples of these indicators and  the related data and associated goals are shown in table 2.

As required by the Long Island Sound Improvement Act, since 2001, the  Study has issued periodic progress reports—five Protection and Progress  reports and six Sound Health reports, available on the Study’s website— that have focused on specific examples of the restoration effort. The most  recent of these reports were organized into sections that can be linked to  the priority problems identified in the 1994 plan. For example, the most  recent Protection and Progress report, issued in 2013, included sections  on water quality and habitat restoration efforts that can be linked to the  priority problems “hypoxia” and “management and conservation of living  resources and their habitats.”

The most recent progress reports also included examples of progress  using indicator data that we could link to some of the goals and priority  problems in the 1994 plan, such as the following:

Both reports included examples of progress that could be linked with  the priority problem “hypoxia.” The Protection and Progress report  identified pounds of nitrogen discharged into the Sound from 2001  through 2012 and provided data showing reduced nitrogen discharges  over time, which the Study stated it expected to result in decreased  hypoxic areas and increased dissolved oxygen. The Sound Health  report identified both the area, in square miles, and duration, in days,  of hypoxia in the Sound from 1987 through 2012.

The Protection and Progress report included examples of progress  that could be linked to the goal to increase the abundance and  distribution of harvestable species, which is associated with the  priority problem “management and conservation of living resources  and their habitats.” For example, the Protection and Progress report  included examples of progress in the number of river miles restored  from 1998 through 2012 as well as the number of fish returning to the  rivers.

The Sound Health report included examples of progress that could be  linked to both goals associated with the priority problem “pathogen  contamination.” These goals were to (1) increase the amount of area  certified or approved for shellfish harvesting while adequately  protecting the public health and (2) eliminate public bathing beach  closures while adequately protecting the public health. The Sound  Health report identified the number of beach closure and advisory  days from 1993 through 2011 and the number of acres approved for  shellfish harvesting from 2005 through 2011.

However, the Study’s progress reports did not contain a comprehensive  assessment of the progress toward the goals of the 1994 plan.  Specifically, the progress reports included examples of progress using  indicator data and they did not include a comparison of that progress  against a specific amount to be achieved—a numerical goal. For  example, the Protection and Progress report included an example of  progress on pathogen contamination, but the report did not include a  comparison of the data on acres of shellfish harvesting areas against a  numerical goal for the amount of acres of shellfish approved for  harvesting. In addition, the Sound Health report included examples of  progress on toxic substances, but the report did not include a comparison  of the reduction of toxics discharged into the Sound against a numerical  goal for the reduction of toxic inputs. As we have previously reported,  having a numerical goal permits expected performance to be compared  with actual results. Part of the challenge for the Study to conduct such  an assessment arises from the fact that only one of the goals in the 1994  plan had numerical goals against which the Study could compare  progress. According to a Study member, because the rest of the goals  were not numerical goals, a comprehensive assessment of progress  toward achieving the 1994 plan was not conducted.

Although such an assessment was not conducted, the Study has made  available a comprehensive assessment of available science and data  about the environmental dynamics of the Sound in the 2014 publication  Long Island Sound: Prospects for the Urban Sea. The book—written by  scientists from federal and state agencies and universities—includes  sections on the geology and chemistry of the Sound; development  patterns in the area surrounding the Sound; metals, contaminants, and  nutrients discharged to the Sound; and management options for the  Sound. Prospects for the Urban Sea identified science gaps and research  needs and made several recommendations, including better  characterizing the relationship between smaller bays and inlets and the  Sound, integrating climate change across programs, prioritizing  management of existing pollution sources and impairments, and  improving data management and interpretation. According to Study  members, the book served as a reference for scientists conducting  research in Long Island Sound and as the basis for the 2015 plan.

Study Members Believe Moderate Progress Has Been Made Toward Goals Associated with Five Priority Problems, but Not Toward the Goal Associated with Hypoxia

In the absence of a comprehensive assessment of progress, we asked  study members for their views regarding progress made since 1994.  Nearly all of the Study members we interviewed who provided a response  about progress made toward the goals of the 1994 plan agreed that the  restoration effort has made moderate progress, and they cited various  data to support their views. Specifically, Study members believed that  moderate progress has been made toward achieving goals for five of the  six priority problems: (1) toxic substances, (2) pathogen contamination,  (3) floatable debris, (4) management and conservation of living resources  and their habitats, and (5) land use and development. However, Study  members agreed that they have not made similar progress toward the  goal associated with the priority problem hypoxia because they had not  observed the reductions in hypoxia that they expected; representatives  from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said  that the defined hypoxia goals have been met.

Table 3 shows the number of Study members we interviewed who said  moderate progress has been made toward goals associated with five of  the priority problems in the 1994 plan and the number of Study members  who provided views about progress. Although the Study members we  interviewed cited various data to support their views, without a  comprehensive assessment of that data it is not possible to definitively  determine to what extent their assessment of progress reflects actual  progress made.

The following summarizes Study members’ views about all six of the  priority problems and data they cited.

The goal in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem “toxic  substances” was to protect and restore the Sound from the adverse  effects of toxic substance contamination by reducing toxic inputs,  cleaning up contaminated sites, and effectively managing risk to human  users. Toxic substances include metals, such as mercury and lead, and  chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as the pesticide  dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, commonly known as DDT. These  substances were released from industrial and wastewater treatment  plants into the air and into rivers and streams that flow to the Sound. The  Study reported in a 2012 progress report that bans of toxic substances,  stricter regulation of industrial facilities, and a decline in manufacturing  contributed to the reduction of toxic substances.

All nine Study members who provided a response about progress toward  this goal said that moderate progress has been made. As evidence that  moderate progress has been made, Study members cited data from  EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. For example, two Study members said  that the EPA data showed that toxic releases into the Long Island Sound  watershed have been reduced.

In addition, two Study members identified concerns about new toxic  substances identified in the Sound. Specifically, they said that monitoring  and research is needed to understand how toxic substances found in  pharmaceutical and personal products may affect the Sound. One  program that monitors toxic substances in the Sound is the Mussel Watch  program, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s  National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. The program examines  tissues of shellfish, such as oysters, to measure toxic substances that  were previously unknown or unidentified that may negatively affect the  Sound or human health. The research includes monitoring of substances  found in everyday products including pharmaceuticals, personal care  products, furniture, and plastics.

The two goals in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem  “pathogen contamination” were (1) to increase the amount of area  certified or approved for shellfish harvesting while adequately protecting  the public health and (2) to eliminate public bathing beach closures while  adequately protecting the public health. Pathogens include bacteria or  viruses from animal waste or inadequately treated sewage discharge that  can accumulate in shellfish. Human consumption of contaminated  shellfish can lead to illness and disease. Nine of the 10 Study members  who provided a response about progress toward these goals said that  moderate progress has been made. As evidence that moderate progress  has been made, some Study members cited data on the number of acres  approved for shellfish harvesting and on the number of beach closures  and advisory days. For example, according to one Study member, since  2010 there has been an increase in the number of acres certified for  shellfishing in New York’s portion of Long Island Sound.

Seven of the nine Study members who said that moderate progress has  been made toward this priority problem also said that improvements in  wastewater treatment plants and regulation of sewage discharge from  boats have reduced the amount of pathogens in the Sound, such as by  reducing the amount of waste discharged into the Sound. Several of the  Study members said that these improvements have included  municipalities investing in wastewater treatment plant upgrades to  address combined sewer overflow (CSO) pollution. For example, New  York City officials said that the city spent $2.5 billion on infrastructure  projects, such as improvements in wastewater treatment plants and CSO  retention tanks. As a result, the officials said that New York City’s  wastewater treatment plants can manage more stormwater, leading to  fewer CSOs and reduced pathogen discharges overall.

The two goals in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem  floatable debris were (1) to reduce the flow of litter from its major sources  and (2) to collect and pick it up once it is in the Sound. Floatable debris in  the Sound mostly consists of plastic bags, plastic bottles, and food  wrappers. This debris is washed into the Sound through stormwater and  CSOs. In the 1994 plan, the Study proposed actions to reduce the flow of  floatable debris into the Sound in two ways, engaging volunteers in  cleanup efforts and collecting it from combined sewers before it enters the  Sound. Nine of the 10 Study members who provided a response about  progress toward these goals said that moderate progress has been  made. Three Study members said that recycling or public outreach  programs may have contributed to progress made in part by increasing  public awareness of the problem. As evidence that moderate progress  has been made, Study members cited data from coastal cleanups and  from New York City’s boom and skim program. For example, one Study  member said that beach cleanup data show a reduction in debris  collected from beach cleanups and another Study member stated that  New York City has installed screens at some CSO outflows to capture  debris in runoff released to the waters of Long Island Sound.

Management and Conservation of Living Resources and Their Habitats

The three goals in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem  “management and conservation of living resources and their habitats”  were to (1) assure a healthy ecosystem with balanced and diverse  populations of indigenous plants and animals, (2) increase the abundance  and distribution of harvestable species, and (3) assure that edible species  are suitable for unrestricted human consumption. In the 1994 plan, the  Study reported that it would focus on managing water quality, habitats,  and species to address these goals. In particular, the Study reported in  the 1994 plan that the destruction of coastal habitats has had a major  impact on the diversity and abundance of plants and animals in and along  the Sound.

Eleven of the 12 Study members who provided a response about  progress toward these goals said that moderate progress has been  made. As evidence that moderate progress has been made, Study  members cited data on several indicators, including acres of coast habitat  and acres of eelgrass restored, marine mammal sightings, and the  number of nesting pairs of coastal birds. For example, one Study member  cited an increase in the abundance of eelgrass beds as support for  moderate progress toward that type of habitat. Two other Study members  cited increased sightings of dolphins and whales in the Sound as an  indicator of improved habitat.

The five goals in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem “land  use and development” were to: (1) reduce the impacts from existing  development to improve water quality, (2) minimize the impacts from new  development to prevent further degradation of water quality, (3) expand  information, training, and education for land use decisions to effectively  incorporate water quality and habitat protection, (4) conserve natural resources and open space, and (5) improve public access so that the  public can use and enjoy Long Island Sound. According to EPA,  impervious cover—land cover that does not allow water to infiltrate into  the ground—increases the amount of stormwater that runs off into  streams, rivers, and other water bodies. Stormwater runoff can carry  pollutants such as pathogens, toxic substances, and nutrients to storm  drains, rivers, and streams that flow into the Sound. According to the  1994 plan, one way to reduce impervious cover and control stormwater  runoff is through the use of green infrastructure. Green infrastructure  includes practices and structures to manage stormwater that use or mimic  natural processes to slow stormwater runoff, filter pollutants from the  runoff, and facilitate stormwater storage for future use or to replenish  groundwater. An example of a green infrastructure project implemented  around the Sound is a bioswale, a vegetated area adjacent to a road,  designed to collect and filter stormwater, cleaning the water and  improving water quality by allowing it to seep into the soil. Figure 3 shows  a bioswale developed for use in New Haven, Connecticut, as part of a  Long Island Sound restoration project.

Eleven of the 12 Study members who provided a response about  progress toward these goals said that moderate progress has been  made. As evidence, Study members cited data on changes in impervious  cover. Study members also cited data on open space acquisitions as  showing progress toward the goals related to this problem. According to  Study members, one way that the Study protected open space was by  identifying locations around the Sound that should be acquired and  protected from development. Specifically, in 2006, the Study designated  33 locations, called Stewardship Areas, to protect habitat and wildlife from  encroaching development. Stewardship Areas are locations within the  Long Island Sound region that have significant ecological, educational,  open space, public access, or recreational value and are protected from  development. Figure 4 shows the locations of the 33 Stewardship Areas  in the Long Island Sound region.

The goal in the 1994 plan associated with the priority problem “hypoxia”  was to increase dissolved oxygen levels in the Sound to eliminate  adverse impacts of hypoxia resulting from human activities. All 11 of the  Study members who provided a response about progress toward this goal  agreed that nitrogen has been reduced in the Sound since the 1994 plan,  while 4 said that they have not observed the expected reduction in  hypoxia. According to the 1994 plan, Study members based their  expectation on a water quality model they used at the time. As evidence  for nitrogen reduction in the Sound, Study members said that both  Connecticut and New York met their 15-year TMDL wasteload allocation  target to reduce nitrogen discharged into the Sound by 58.5 percent. To  achieve their nitrogen targets, the Study reported that the states  upgraded wastewater treatment plants. For example, communities in both states upgraded their plants with biological nutrient removal, a  process in which bacteria break down and remove the reactive nitrogen  found in human waste. According to EPA officials, recovery from hypoxia  in coastal waters will not be rapid or predictable and evidence shows that  dissolved oxygen levels in the Sound are recovering because of nitrogen  reductions.

According to Study members, hypoxia is a complex phenomenon affected  by a number of factors that help to explain characteristics of hypoxia in  the Sound. For example, three Study members said that an increase in  water temperature can exacerbate hypoxia; warmer water holds less  oxygen than cold water. As a result, in summer months the combination  of temperature and salinity contributes to the isolation of the bottom layer  of water from the usually well-oxygenated surface layer. Two Study  members said that another factor that affects hypoxia is precipitation. For  example, heavy rainfall could increase the amount of stormwater runoff  that carries nutrients, such as nitrogen, into the Sound, which could lead  to an increase in algal blooms and hypoxia. According to the 2012 Sound  Health report, in 2012, Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge overwhelmed  many wastewater treatment plants, and stormwater runoff entered the  Sound. In addition, four Study members said that there may be a lag  between a reduction in nitrogen and a reduction in levels of hypoxia.

Several Study members said that the water quality model they used in  1994 to predict the relationship between hypoxia and nitrogen may have  incorrectly predicted the effect of reducing nitrogen on hypoxia or could  be improved to better show the relationship between the two. Beginning  in 2005, the Study conducted an evaluation of its water quality model that  identified fundamental weaknesses with how the model captured the  dynamics of hypoxia and mixing of water layers in the Sound.  Subsequently, the Study has funded the development of a new model  that it expects will more accurately reflect the relationship of the various  sources of nitrogen and hypoxia. A Study member said that it was not  possible to predict when the new model would be ready because of the  nature of the work. However, the Study member added that it may be 10  to 20 years before the data show if and how nitrogen reduction efforts  based on the new model reduce hypoxia.

The 2015 Plan Has Four Goals to Improve Water Quality and Ecosystem Functions, but Study Members Identified Various Factors that May Hinder Progress The 2015 Plan Has Four Goals and Associated Themes to Improve Water Quality and Other Ecosystem Functions

The 2015 plan has four goals to improve water quality and restore and  protect ecosystem functions, among others. Each goal is associated with  one of four broad themes: clean water and healthy watersheds, thriving  habitats and wildlife, sustainable and resilient communities, and sound  science and inclusive management. To achieve the goals, the Study  developed specific outcomes, objectives, strategies, and action plans but  stated that factors such as insufficient funding and climate change may  hinder restoration efforts. In addition, most Study members stated that  even if the goals of the 2015 plan are met, new and emerging challenges  will require restoration efforts to continue, at a minimum, to monitor the  Sound.

The 2015 plan has four goals, associated with four themes to improve  water quality and other ecosystem functions in the Sound while creating  sustainable communities and using sound science as a basis for  restoration. According to the 2015 plan, the goals and associated themes  were developed by building upon the progress already made toward the  1994 plan and years of research and monitoring of the Sound. As  previously mentioned, Study members said that the book they published  with many scientists helped to develop the 2015 plan. The book Long  Island Sound: Prospects for the Urban Sea, synthesized the advances in  science made over the past decades in understanding the Sound. Study  members also said that an update of the plan was needed to incorporate  an improved understanding of the Sound and to address new issues that  might affect restoration of the Sound. The four goals and their associated  themes are as follows.

Clean water and healthy watersheds. The goal associated with this  theme addresses improving water quality through reducing  contaminant and nutrient loads from the land and waters impacting  the Sound. According to the 2015 plan, the condition of the Sound  depends on the quality of the water draining from the land around it  and, although progress has been made, the issues affecting water  quality in the 1994 plan remain. These issues include hypoxia,  pathogens, and development.

Eelgrass   Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a rooted  underwater plant with ribbon-like strands that  form beds and meadows in estuaries. These  beds are a haven for crabs, scallops,  numerous species of fish, and other wildlife  because the beds provide for them a habitat,  protection from predators, nursery grounds,  food, and oxygen. Additionally, eelgrass  improves water clarity by filtering pollutants  from runoff and by absorbing nutrients such  as nitrogen and phosphorus. It also protects  shorelines from erosion by absorbing wave  energy. Eelgrass health can be negatively  affected by excessive nutrients, limited  sunlight exposure, and high water  temperatures. For these reasons, the Long  Island Sound Study uses eelgrass growth as  an indicator for good water quality.

Thriving habitats and abundant wildlife. The goal associated with  this theme addresses restoring and protecting the Sound’s ecological  balance, including fish and shellfish populations and ecologically  significant shorelines and habitats along the Sound, to benefit both  people and the environment. According to the 2015 plan, the 1994  plan identified habitats and living resources to manage and protect  and the Study identified 12 types of coastal habitats for restoration,  including beaches and dunes, cliffs and bluffs, estuarine embayments,  coastal and island forests, freshwater wetlands, coastal grasslands,  intertidal flats, rocky intertidal zones, riverine migratory corridors,  submerged aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass, shellfish reefs, and  tidal wetlands. While progress has been made through acquiring  thousands of acres of land, according to the 2015 plan, habitat  connectivity and riverine migratory corridor reconnection can be  improved.

Sustainable and resilient communities. The goal associated with  this theme addresses supporting communities to use, appreciate, and  help protect the Sound. According to the 2015 plan, local government  leadership, private sector engagement, community organizations, and  individual stewardship will be needed to restore the Sound. The  theme focuses efforts on communities, which was not a focus of the  1994 plan.

Sound science and inclusive management. The goal associated  with this theme seeks to ensure the Study is using sound science and  cross-jurisdictional governance that is inclusive, adaptive, innovative,  and accountable throughout its restoration efforts in the Sound.  According to the 2015 plan, the Sound and its watershed covers more  than 16,000 square miles in six states and includes hundreds of local  watersheds. Management of the Sound involves collaboration and  governance among numerous partners and stakeholders who need  thorough understanding of the issues. According to the plan, such  understanding comes from research, monitoring, assessment,  mapping, and modeling programs.

To achieve the goals associated with the plan’s four themes, the Study  also developed outcomes, objectives, strategies, and implementation  actions and published these in the 2015 plan and supplemental  documents. The 2015 plan defines outcomes as “broad results needed to  achieve the goals.” For example, as shown in table 4, an outcome  associated with the “clean water and healthy watersheds” theme is “to  improve research, monitoring, and modeling for water quality.” Each  outcome has multiple associated objectives, which are the  accomplishments needed to achieve each outcome, and each objective  has multiple strategies. To carry out each strategy, the Study has  developed 139 implementation actions, which are specific actions such as  estimating future phosphorus loads or promoting eelgrass management.  The Study also developed four supplemental documents, one for each  theme, that describe the 139 implementation actions and steps to be  taken in 2015 through 2019 and the expected outcomes.

Study Members Cited Numerous Factors, Including Insufficient Funding, Climate Change, and Development and Growth That May Hinder Progress

Study members we interviewed said numerous factors may hinder Long  Island Sound restoration progress, including insufficient funding, climate  change, insufficient scientific understanding or data-related issues,  development and population growth, and insufficient public appreciation  of the Sound. (See app. II for a list of all the factors Study members  identified that may hinder progress.)

Of the 17 Study members we interviewed about factors that may hinder  progress, 14 said that insufficient funding can, for example, hinder their  ability to manage restoration efforts, mitigate the effects of development  and population growth, implement new projects, or effectively conduct  existing projects. One Study member said that development and  population growth can be overcome with mitigation activities, but that  these require funding. Another Study member said that insufficient  funding leads to vacant staff positions and that the Study member’s  organization is strained with small staff numbers. This limits the Study’s  ability to coordinate among the many agencies and programs working on  restoration. Another Study member identified the effects of insufficient  funding on a restoration project. Specifically, a town received a Study  grant for a green infrastructure project near the Sound, but the town  modified the project because the grant was smaller than what the project  needed. The project plan included constructing the building with  permeable parking surfaces and green features, such as rain gardens, to  help improve water quality. According to a town official, the town wanted  to do more green features but because it received a smaller grant, the  number of permeable surfaces and green features the town could build  were limited.

Nine of the 17 Study members we interviewed said that climate change  can hinder restoration progress. Study members discussed different types  of effects that may be possible, such as affecting water temperature,  weather, and sea level. For example, two Study members said that  warmer waters caused by climate change could increase the Sound’s  susceptibility to hypoxia by increasing the risk of potential harmful algal  blooms and the length of time low-dissolved oxygen remained at hypoxic  levels. Another Study member stated that warmer waters can cause  outbreaks of the naturally occurring bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus,  which accumulates in shellfish and affects the shellfishing industry. In  addition, two Study members said that changes in weather caused by  climate change could cause an increase in stormwater and therefore the  amount of pathogens washed into the Sound; another Study member said  that increased storm activity could destroy marshes. According to the  Study, salt marsh vegetation in tidal wetlands helps protect against  erosion and typically manages to accumulate enough sediment and  organic matter to keep up with naturally-occurring, gradual sea level rise.  However, the Study reported that tidal wetlands in the Sound may not be  able to keep up with the rise in sea level projected to result from climate  change. One Study member said that marshes are already being  affected by increased coastal flooding that may be caused by sea level  rise.

As we reported in November 2013, changes in the climate—including  warmer temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, rising sea levels,  and more frequent and intense storms—affect water resources in a  number of ways, such as erosion and inundation in coastal areas. In  particular, we reported that a 2011 federal agency review of the potential  impacts of climate change on water resources identified four interrelated  areas of concern for water resource managers. One of the four is  protecting coastal and ocean resources as rising sea levels and changes  in storm frequency, intensity, and duration impact coastal infrastructure.  Also, in September 2014, we reported that ocean acidification—the  increased absorption of carbon dioxide emitted by humans into the  oceans—is resulting in chemical changes in the oceans that may pose  risks for some marine species and ecosystems, as well as for the human  communities that rely upon them for food and commerce.

Tidal wetlands and salt marshes   Wetlands are areas that are inundated or  saturated by surface or groundwater and that  have a prevalence of vegetation adapted for  life in saturated soil conditions. Tidal wetlands  are specifically linked to estuaries—locations  where sea water mixes with fresh water to  form an environment of varying salinity. Tidal  wetlands are among the most productive  ecosystems in the world, providing food,  shelter, and breeding or nursery grounds for  many species of wildlife. Salt marshes are a  type of tidal wetlands that have been flooded  and drained by salt water brought in by the  tides. Salt marshes help protect the land from  flooding and erosion in stormy weather, and  filter pollutants contained in storm water  runoff. Tidal wetlands are threatened by  changes in the climate causing sea levels to  rise more rapidly, which can cause tidal  wetlands to convert to open water.

In addition, one expert we interviewed said that gains in restoring  marshes and wetlands already made by the Study may be lost due to  rising sea levels. To address this problem, another expert we interviewed  said that techniques such as spraying material dredged from the Sound,  such as sand and silt, across these areas for the purpose of raising  wetlands or marshes are being tested to keep up with sea level rise. One  expert also said that increased water temperatures around the Sound  may make the water uninhabitable for shellfish. EPA officials said that  while increased water temperatures will affect the relative abundance and  distribution of shellfish in the Sound, it cannot be concluded that the  Sound will become uninhabitable for shellfish because of increased water  temperatures. In addition, as we reported in October 2016, unusually high  water temperatures may enhance the growth of harmful algal blooms that  produce toxins causing neurological and other damage in fish  populations. Warming waters will also increase the Sound’s  susceptibility to hypoxia because the solubility of oxygen decreases as  water temperature increases.

Five of the 17 Study members we interviewed said that insufficient  scientific understanding and data related issues would hinder progress  toward restoration of the Sound. For example, one Study member  highlighted the need to better understand the relationship between  nutrients and hypoxia. That Study member also said that incomplete data  on nutrients, particularly from nonpoint sources, may hinder progress.  Another Study member said that obtaining data is difficult, in particular for  areas such as embayments and tributaries that are still affected with  nonpoint source pollution.

Three of the 17 study members we interviewed said that development  and population growth will also hinder the progress of restoration. In  addition, 7 of the 17 Study members said that the Sound cannot be  restored to past conditions, and a key reason why is that development  and increased human population have led to changes in the Sound that  hinder full restoration. For example, one Study member said that  increased population and development can negatively affect water quality  because it resulted in a greater amount of impervious cover such as  highways and roads, which in turn increases the nutrient and sediment  pollution in runoff.

Microbeads   Microbeads are pieces of manufactured  polyethylene plastic 5 millimeters or less in  size that are added as exfoliants to health  and beauty products, such as some  cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny  particles may pass through some water  filtration systems and end up in the oceans  and the Great Lakes, posing a potential threat  to aquatic life. For example, microbeads can  look like food to fish and other marine  organisms. Once ingested, microbeads can  obstruct an animal’s digestive system. In  addition, microbeads can absorb  contaminants that can be hazardous to  animals that eat the microbeads, and, in turn,  can harm the animals and people that  consume them.

Three of the 17 Study members we interviewed said that insufficient  public appreciation of the Sound would hinder progress toward  restoration. In this context, two Study members highlighted that much of  the land along the Sound is privately owned, which makes it difficult for  some to travel to the Sound or to appreciate it.

Nearly all of the Study members who we interviewed said that even if the  goals associated with the four themes of the 2015 plan are achieved,  restoration efforts will need to continue into the future because the Sound  will continue to face new challenges and threats and that the Study will  need to continue monitoring the Sound to understand them. For example,  microbeads are an emerging issue that was not addressed in the 2015  plan. In 2015, after the Study issued the 2015 plan, a Southern  Connecticut State University research team reported that it had found  microbeads in New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. Microbeads are small  pieces of plastic found in common household products that can make  their way into waterbodies and threaten aquatic life. In December 2015,  the federal government enacted the Microbead-Free Water Act of 2015,  which banned the manufacturing, distribution, and offer for sale into  interstate commerce of rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally- added plastic microbeads. In addition, in June 2015, Connecticut had  enacted legislation that phased in bans on the manufacturing, import,  sale, or offer for sale of personal care products and over-the-counter  drugs that contain microbeads in that state. New York had proposed  legislation to address the issue of microbeads in early 2015 but did not  enact it.

Study Members Have Identified Long-Term Targets and Indicators to Measure Progress, but Have Not Yet Fully Incorporated Leading Practices for Performance Reporting

Study members said that they plan to use 20 long-term targets with  associated indicators to measure progress toward the goals associated  with the four themes of the 2015 plan. While 18 of the long-term targets  currently have numerical goals, they do not yet have associated  intermediate targets that can be used to monitor progress; but EPA  officials said that the Study is working to establish them. In March 2018,  the Study issued web pages for each of the 20 targets to report on such  progress, but, as of June 2018, these pages do not yet fully incorporate  leading practices of performance reporting.

Twenty Long-Term Targets and Associated Indicators Will Be Used to Measure Progress and Intermediate Targets Are Being Developed

Study members said that they have identified and plan to use 20 long- term targets with associated indicators to measure progress toward the  goals of the 2015 plan (see app. III for a complete list of the 20 long-term  targets and their associated indicators). The 20 targets are grouped by  the four themes in the 2015 plan. All of the targets include indicators that  describe how the targets will be achieved, and all but two of those  indicators currently have numerical goals, with a value to be achieved by  2035. For example, the indicator for the target “approved shellfish areas”  in the “clean waters and healthy watersheds” theme has a numerical goal  to upgrade the percentage of shellfish acreage restricted or closed for  shellfishing in 2014 in Connecticut and New York by 5 percent by 2035.  According to the 2015 plan, to achieve a 5 percent increase, the states  would need to upgrade 17,400 of the 349,000 acres of closed or  conditionally closed shellfish areas.

Of the 20 targets in the 2015 plan, the 2 that do not yet have indicators  with numerical goals are “habitat connectivity” and “public engagement  and knowledge.” Two of the Study members responsible for updating the  indicators said that the Study is developing numerical goals for each  target. According to these Study members, the main reason that these  targets do not yet have numerical goals is that presently there are  insufficient data that can be analyzed and interpreted to establish them.  Study members are in the process of collecting data that will be used to  finalize a numerical goal. These Study members said that it may take a  year or more to collect the necessary data.

Generally, the 19 experts we interviewed agreed that the indicators used  by the Study were valid, accurate, and reliable ways to measure progress  for the 20 long-term targets, but some experts also suggested  improvements. For 12 of the 20 indicators, all of the experts we  interviewed agreed that they were valid, accurate, and reliable. For  example, one expert pointed out that the indicator for the riparian buffer  extent target is the only practical way to measure progress. Another  expert said that the indicator for the coastal habitat extent target is a good  choice because it can show progress that the public can easily  understand. A few experts suggested improvements to make some of  the indicators more useful for measuring progress. For example, one  expert said that the indicator for the target “extent of hypoxia” would be  better if the focus were on the Western Sound, where hypoxia is a greater  problem. The expert also questioned why the Study is concerned with  hypoxia across the entire Sound when some areas are only slightly  hypoxic and not big enough to have a great impact on the overall level of  hypoxia in the Sound. EPA officials responded that the target “extent of  hypoxia” is focused on the Western Sound. They added that it must be  noted that target applies everywhere in the Study because changes in  water quality could occur anywhere in the Sound.

For the other eight indicators, not all experts we interviewed agreed on  these indicators. For example, for the tidal wetlands indicator—the  acreage of tidal wetlands restored to help restore tidal flow—eight of nine  experts we interviewed said that the indicator was valid, accurate, and  reliable, but one expert said that it was too simplistic. This expert said that  a better indicator would focus on the amount and health of marsh grasses  that are planted to restore the tidal wetlands. This is because marsh  grass health is affected by nitrogen levels and sea level rise, which also  impact tidal wetlands. For the approved shellfish area indicator—the  acreage of approved shellfishing areas—six of eight experts we  interviewed said that the indicator was valid, accurate, and reliable, but  two experts disagreed. One of these experts said that the target is part of  the theme to improve water quality and that shellfishing areas can be  approved for administrative reasons that are not related to water quality  improvement. The other expert added that certain shellfish areas in New  York are closed because budget constraints limit the number of reviews  that can be conducted to reopen shellfishing areas.

The use of numerical goals to monitor progress toward the 20 long-term  targets is consistent with leading practices for performance management  that we have identified in our previous work. We have found that a key  attribute of successful performance measures is that they have  quantifiable numerical goals or other measurable values that permit  expected performance to be compared with actual results. Additionally,  we have reported that intermediate goals and measures can be used to  show progress or contribution to intended results.

During the course of our work, we shared with Study members our  concern that only 2 of the 20 long-term targets have intermediate  targets. In response, in web pages for the 20 targets available in June  2018, the Study had established intermediate targets for an additional 10  of the 18 long-term targets that did not have intermediate targets. For  these 10 targets, the Study identified how much progress would need to  be made each year to achieve each target’s numerical goal by 2035.  For example, for the approved shellfish areas target, the intermediate  target is “to approve more than 850 acres of currently closed shellfish  areas per year to reach the goal of approving 17,400 acres by 2035.” For  the remaining 13 targets without intermediate targets, EPA officials said  that the Study is working to establish intermediate targets using the  indicator data collected by federal and state agencies. By incorporating  intermediate targets into its web pages to report on progress, the Study  can better ensure its members, the public, and Congress have important  information on whether the Study is making progress toward achieving its  long-term targets or whether additional actions need to be taken.

Progress Reports Do Not Yet Fully Incorporate Leading Practices

As previously mentioned, the Long Island Sound Improvement Act of  1990 required the Study to report every 2 years on progress made in  implementing the comprehensive conservation and management plan.  The Study reported through 2013, using the Protection and Progress and  Sound Health reports but did not report again until it issued web pages for  the 20 long-term targets in March 2018. According to an EPA official, the  Study did not report on the evaluation of progress during that 5-year  period because EPA was working with Study members to adapt the  Study’s reports to the 2015 plan indicators and to update the format of its  web pages to report on progress. An EPA official said that the Study  plans to use the web pages the agency issued in March 2018 to report  progress on each of the 20 long-term targets.

Our previous work on performance management states that reporting on  performance should involve leading practices such as (1) evaluating  performance compared to a plan, (2) reviewing performance for a  preceding period of time (for example, 5 years), and (3) evaluating  actions for unmet goals. We have found the following benefits of these  leading practices:

Evaluating performance compared to a plan allows agencies to  describe the performance indicators established in the plan and the  performance achieved to meet them. In addition, evaluating  performance could help agencies understand the relationship  between their activities and the results they hope to achieve.

Reviewing performance for a preceding period of time, including  baseline and trend data, can help agencies ensure that individuals  using the report review the information in context and identify whether  performance targets are realistic given the past performance. In  addition, the data can assist individuals who use the report to draw  more informed conclusions than they would by comparing only a  single year’s performance against a target.

Evaluating actions for unmet goals explains why the goal was not  met, provides plans and schedules to achieve the goal, and, if the  goal is impractical, why it is impractical. Explaining the reasons for  any unmet goals allows agencies to recommend actions that can be  taken to achieve the goals, or needed changes to the goals.

In our review of the Study’s web pages in June 2018, we found that the  Study has not yet fully incorporated the three leading practices for  reporting on performance. The Study used the three practices to varying  extents, as described below.

Evaluating performance compared to the 2015 plan for 19  targets. We believe that the Study fully incorporated this practice by  creating a status bar on the web pages for 19 of the 20 ecosystem  targets to indicate if progress toward a target’s numerical goal was  behind schedule, on track, ahead of schedule, or if the numerical goal  was met. For example, the Study reported that progress for the  target “approved shellfish areas” was behind schedule.

Reviewing performance for a preceding period of time for 11  targets. We believe that the Study partially incorporated this practice  by reporting progress data for 5 or more preceding years for 11  targets but not the remaining 9. For example, on the web page for  the tidal wetlands extent target, the Study reported progress data for  each year from 1998 to 2017.

Evaluating actions for unmet goals for four targets. We believe  that the Study partially incorporated this practice by explaining why  the goal was not met for 4 targets but did not explain why the goal  was not met for 15 targets. For example, for the target “public  access to beaches and waterways,” the Study reported that  increasing the number of public access points may be difficult  because there are many privately owned properties along the Long  Island Sound coast. However, the Study provided plans and  schedules to achieve unmet goals for only two targets. For example,  the Study reported that to achieve the numerical goal for protected  open space, an average of 200 acres of Connecticut land and 150 of  New York land needs to be protected each year.

An EPA official said that the web pages may undergo further  modifications and that the Study plans to update information about the  targets annually or according to how frequently the underlying data are  collected. By working with the Study as it finalizes its reporting format to  incorporate the leading practices of performance reporting, EPA could  help ensure that the Study provides the public and Congress with the  information they need to determine whether the Study is making progress  toward achieving the long-term targets associated with the goals of the  2015 plan, or whether the Study should take additional action to meet the  targets.

Study Members Expended at Least $466 Million on Restoration Activities, but the Study’s Estimate of At Least $18.9 Billion for Future Restoration Is Not Comprehensive

Seven Study members who provided expenditure data to us expended at  least $466 million on restoration activities in the Sound from fiscal years  2012 through 2016, although the total expenditures by all Study members  over this period are unknown. In the 2015 plan, the Study estimated that  future activities will cost at least $18.9 billion over 20 years, but these  estimates may not reflect all future restoration costs because they  address only some of the plan’s long-term targets.

Four Study Members Expended At Least $466 Million to Restore Long Island Sound, and Three Others Funded Activities that Contributed to Restoration

Of the seven Study members who provided expenditure data to us, four  Study members said that they provide funding for restoration activities  specifically for the Sound. Officials from EPA, the states of Connecticut  and New York, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that they  expended at least $466 million on activities to restore Long Island Sound  from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Table 5 shows their reported  expenditures on restoration activities in Long Island Sound from fiscal  years 2012 through 2016.

The states of Connecticut and New York expended the majority of the  $466 million to restore Long Island Sound from fiscal years 2012 through  2016. According to a Connecticut Department of Energy and  Environmental Protection official, Connecticut expended about $106  million on restoration activities from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.  These activities included more than $10 million for habitat restoration,  more than $14 million for land acquisition, and more than $81 million for  nitrogen reduction. According to the official, Connecticut expended more  than $21 million in fiscal year 2012 to upgrade equipment at three  wastewater treatment plants to reduce nitrogen discharged from the  plants into the Sound. New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation officials said that the agency could not provide us with the  total amount the agency expended on Sound restoration activities in fiscal  years 2012 through 2016 because the agency does not track  expenditures specific to Long Island Sound restoration. However, they  provided examples of activities for which they expended about $337  million. The three activities for which officials provided examples of  expenditures were to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.

From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, EPA reported expending about $22  million to operate the Long Island Sound Study, including about $19  million from the agency’s Long Island Sound program and about $3  million from the National Estuary Program. On average, EPA reported  expending about $4.5 million per year on Study operations, such as  public outreach and education, monitoring, modeling, research, and  activities to achieve the 1994 and 2015 plans. Of the $4.5 million per  year, the Study provided an average of $1.3 million per year to the Long  Island Sound Futures Fund. The Long Island Sound Futures Fund is a  grant program that, according to the Study, funds activities in local  communities that aim to protect and restore the Sound. For example,  the Long Island Sound Futures Fund awarded $150,000 to the New York  City Department of Parks and Recreation in 2016 to construct a living  shoreline in Douglaston, New York. The purpose of this project was to  stop the continued loss of urban salt marsh by reestablishing up to one  acre of salt marsh and enhancing nearby forest, upland, and coastal  grassland habitat.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official said that the agency expended  about $1 million in 39 activities from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.  According to Long Island Sound Futures Fund documents, funds provided  to the Long Island Sound Futures Fund are used to pay for restoration  projects. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided  $55,392 in fiscal year 2016 to a project to restore a 12-acre coastal forest  in the Village of Mamaroneck, New York. The focus of the project is to  reverse forest fragmentation and degradation by removing non-native  plants and planting native trees, shrubs, and herbs.

In addition to the funds expended by the four Study members above,  officials from three other Study members—the Natural Resources  Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers—also said that they expended funds for restoration  activities in the region around the Sound but do not isolate expenditures  made specifically for the Sound. For example, officials from these Study  members said that the agencies expended funds for activities in the  region that contributed to restoration but were not intended solely to  restore the Sound. They each provided examples of restoration  expenditures or costs for fiscal years 2012 through 2016: the National  Resource Conservation Service expended $54 million through programs  such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program; the U.S.  Geological Survey expended about $3.8 million on data monitoring and  other activities; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expended $27  million for 13 projects.

The 2015 Plan Estimated that Future Activities May Cost At Least $18.9 Billion, but the Estimates Address Only Some of the Plan’s Long-Term Targets

Study members estimated in the 2015 plan that future restoration  activities would cost at least $18.9 billion over 20 years. Nearly all the  amount was for activities addressing the goal to achieve clean waters and  healthy watersheds. As shown in table 6, Study members estimated that  activities under that goal could cost at least $18.1 billion from 2015  through 2035. The cost estimate included $5.5 billion specifically for work  on wastewater treatment plants in New York, Connecticut, and the upper  watershed states, which may include upgrading the plants with available  technologies for nutrient removal. Study members also estimated that  activities to reduce nitrogen by addressing CSOs and urban stormwater in  Connecticut may cost at least $4.4 billion and $700 million. Finally, the  cost estimate included $12.4 billion to complete ongoing work in New  York and Connecticut to reduce overflows from combined sewer systems  as well as sewer systems that are not combined with stormwater  systems.

The remainder of the $18.9 billion was for activities related to goals to  achieve thriving habitats and other restoration themes. As shown in table  7, Study members estimated that these other activities could cost $778  million from 2015 through 2035. According to the 2015 plan, activities to  address the goals to achieve thriving habitats and abundant wildlife, such  as by protecting open space, may cost $650 million—$500 million in New  York and $150 million in Connecticut. These activities could include  acquiring properties that the Study has identified as high priority for  conservation to minimize coastal development in the future. Study  members also estimated in the 2015 plan that Connecticut and New York  would spend about $4 million each on education activities. These  activities could include volunteer and outreach efforts for the general  public at the 33 Long Island Sound Stewardship Areas, such as how  human disturbance can affect wildlife.

Economic guidance generally states that investment decisions should be  informed by a consideration of both benefits and costs of relevant  alternatives. For example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  has issued guidance on estimating costs and benefits to help federal  agencies efficiently allocate resources through well-informed decision  making about activities. This guidance includes OMB Circular A-94,  which we have previously identified as providing leading practices for  economic analysis. OMB Circular A-94 directs agencies to follow certain  economic guidelines for estimating costs and conducting cost- effectiveness analyses of federal programs or policies to promote efficient  resource allocation through well-informed decision making in certain  circumstances. The guidance applies to federal agencies and programs,  but we have previously found that it provides leading practices for  economic analysis of investment decisions. Under OMB Circular A-94, a  cost estimate is to include a comprehensive assessment of the costs.

By developing its $18.9 billion estimate, the Long Island Sound Study has  taken steps to assess the potential costs of future restoration activities.  However, the 2015 plan includes 20-year cost estimates for activities  related to 10 of the 20 long-term targets that the Study plans to achieve.  These cost estimates focus primarily on activities to achieve clean waters  and healthy watersheds and thriving habitats and abundant wildlife.  These include restoration activities that address wastewater treatment  plants to help achieve the long-term target nitrogen loading, and  restoration activities to conserve open space to achieve the long-term  target protected open spaces. However, the total does not include the  cost of activities to achieve other long-term targets such as river miles  restored for fish passage, tidal wetlands extent, marine debris, and public  access to beaches and waterways.

A Study member said that the Study completed 20-year estimates for  proposed restoration activities where feasible and included them in the  2015 plan. The Study member also said that EPA worked with Study  members to develop cost estimates using costs for past restoration  activities. However, the Study member said that the exact course of  action, and therefore costs, for many of the long-term targets were not  defined and were still uncertain. For example, the Study only recently  invested funds to evaluate nitrogen reduction targets to attain water  quality standards, which can be used to determine the scope of work  needed and costs to inform a cost estimate associated with achieving the  nitrogen loading target. OMB Circular A-94 recognizes that estimates of  costs are typically uncertain because of imprecision in underlying data  and assumptions and states that this uncertainty can and should be part  of the analysis and estimate. According to the circular, because such  uncertainty is basic to many analyses, its effects should be analyzed and  reported. One way to handle such uncertainty in a cost estimate is to  perform a sensitivity analysis, which will result in a range of possible cost  estimates. By working with Study members to develop cost estimates that  include analyses of uncertainties for each of the targets in the plan, EPA  and the Study could better estimate the comprehensive costs for Long  Island Sound restoration and could better allocate resources and make  decisions about their financial investments in the Sound.

In addition to the 20-year cost estimates, the 2015 plan contained four  supplemental documents that described the 139 implementation actions  for carrying out the strategies for the plan’s four themes in greater detail  as well as estimated costs for carrying out those implementation actions  for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. EPA’s funding guidance for  comprehensive conservation and management plans states that agencies  should estimate the range of potential costs of all actions to implement  the plan. For the four 5-year supplemental documents that it developed,  EPA worked with the Study to create four cost ranges: (1) $0 to $25,000;  (2) $25,000 to $150,000; (3) $150,000 to $1 million; and (4) greater than  $1 million. The Study then assigned these ranges to the implementation  actions in the four 5-year implementation plans for each theme. However,  the Study only assigned 75 percent of the 139 implementation actions in  the 2015 plan to these four ranges. Instead of a cost range, the Study  identified the funding needs for more than a third of the remaining 25  percent of the actions as staff time or not applicable. A Study member  said that the Study did not assign a range of costs for staff time and  identified some action costs as not applicable because, for example, the  work required would be intermittent or the associated costs were  accounted for in other implementation actions. According to Circular A-94,  uncertainty, such as staff time, should be included in a cost estimate. In  addition, implementation actions for which costs are accounted for  elsewhere could be assigned to the Study’s first cost range, $0 to  $25,000. According to the Study member, estimates of potential cost  ranges for the implementation actions could be included in future  supplements to the 2015 plan. By working with the Study to estimate the  range of potential costs for all the implementation actions and including  the estimates in future supplements to the 2015 plan, EPA would have  better   assurance that Study members have complete information to  guide resource allocation decisions about activities to achieve the goals  of the 2015 plan.

By identifying six priority problems and associated goals in the 1994 plan  and taking actions to achieve these goals, the Study, with EPA as  director, has provided a long-standing focus on improving the water  quality and other ecosystem functions in the Sound and its surrounding  watershed. In its updated 2015 plan, the Study identifies further actions to  be taken and has identified numerical goals for almost all of the 20 long- term targets in the 2015 plan, which unlike the 1994 plan, will enable the  Study to do a comprehensive assessment of progress toward the  numerical goals of the 2015 plan. As of June 2018, the Study has not yet  fully incorporated leading practices for performance reporting, such as  evaluating actions for unmet goals, in the web pages the Study plans to  use to report progress for the 20 long-term targets. By working with the  Study as it finalizes its reporting format, EPA can ensure that the leading  practices of performance reporting are fully incorporated, which in turn will  help ensure that the Study is providing information to the public and  Congress about its restoration progress.

In addition, the 2015 plan includes 20-year cost estimates for some, but  not all the activities related to the 20 long-term targets that the Study  plans to achieve. By working with Study members to develop cost  estimates that include analyses of uncertainties for each of the targets in  the plan, EPA and the Study could better estimate the comprehensive  costs for Long Island Sound restoration and ensure better resource  allocation decisions for the Sound. In addition, the Study has not  estimated the range of potential costs of all 139 implementation actions in  the 2015 plan. By working with the Study to estimate the range of  potential costs for all the implementation actions and including the  estimates in future supplements to the 2015 plan, EPA would have  reasonable assurance that Study members have considered complete  cost information when making resource allocation decisions about  activities to achieve the goals of the 2015 plan.

We are making the following three recommendations to the  Environmental Protection Agency in its capacity as the Director of the  Long Island Sound Study, in coordination with Study members:

The Director, working with the Study, should ensure that as the Study  finalizes its reporting format, it fully incorporates leading practices of  performance reporting. (Recommendation 1)

The Director, working with the Study, should develop cost estimates  that include analyses of uncertainties for each of the targets in the  2015 plan. (Recommendation 2)

The Director, working with the Study, should estimate the range of  potential costs for all implementation actions and include the  estimates in future supplements to the 2015 plan. (Recommendation  3)

We provided a draft of this report to EPA and the departments of  Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and the Interior for their review and  comment. We also provided a draft of the report to the Connecticut  Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the New York  State Department of Environmental Conservation for their review and  comment. EPA provided written comments, which are reproduced in  appendix V, and stated that it agreed with the conclusions and  recommendations in our report. EPA also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate. The departments of Agriculture,  Defense, and the Interior, and the Connecticut Department of Energy and  Environmental Protection responded by email that they did not have  comments on the draft report. The Department of Commerce and the  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In a letter signed by the Regional Administrators of EPA Region 1 and  Region 2, EPA stated that the report is timely because the Study is  working to transition from the 1994 plan to evaluating and reporting on the  2015 plan and highlighted steps the agency will take to meet our  recommendations. EPA stated that working with the Study the agency:  plans to further evaluate, develop, and apply leading practices of  performance reporting as it finalizes its reporting format, estimating  enhancements to the reporting format will be available on the Study’s  website by the end of 2019; will evaluate the range of costs needed to  attain each of the targets and include cost estimates with uncertainty  bounds in future updates of the plan, expecting the enhanced cost  information will be available on the Study’s website by the end of 2019;  and will ensure that the planned update to implementation actions  includes a range of costs for all implementation actions, estimating  actions will be completed in 2020.

In its written comments, EPA suggested two specific revisions to our  report. First, EPA stated that the Study has established more intermediate  goals than we included in our report. In our report, we said that as of  March 2018, the Study had established intermediate targets for 7 of the  20 long-term ecosystem targets. According to EPA’s comments, applying  the methodology that we used in the report to the 20 ecosystem targets  results in 11 targets having intermediate goals. EPA also stated that the  agency will work with the Study to better communicate these existing  intermediate goals on the web pages reporting ecosystem progress. In  response to this information, we analyzed the Study’s web pages that  were available in June 2018 and agreed that five additional ecosystem  targets had intermediate goals as of that date. We revised the report to  include this information.

Second, EPA stated that the report’s statement that the 2015 plan  estimates that future implementation activities may cost nearly $21.9  billion is a misleading interpretation of the 2015 plan’s implementation  costs because the plan does not present that figure. EPA stated that table  6 in our report appeared to double count Connecticut’s combined sewer  overflow costs in the 2015 plan by including both the $4.4 billion taken  from text and $3 billion taken from a table in the plan. Although we  presented these data to EPA during our review, the error was not caught  until the draft report was reviewed. EPA stated that the 2015 plan is  admittedly unclear in attributing costs to specific categories and that the  agency will work with the Study to clarify the estimated implementation  costs in future updates. In response to EPA’s comments, we reviewed the  2015 plan and removed the $3 billion cost estimate for Connecticut’s  combined sewer overflow from table 6 and revised the total cost estimate  for future restoration activities to $18.9 billion.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, Administrator of EPA, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of  Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Interior, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions  to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the  methodology used to examine (1) what is known about the progress  made toward achieving the 1994 Long Island Sound Comprehensive  Conservation and Management Plan (1994 plan); (2) the goals of the  2015 Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management  Plan (2015 plan) and factors that may hinder progress according to Long  Island Sound Study (the Study) members; (3) how Study members plan  to measure and report on progress toward the goals of the 2015 plan; and  (4) what Study members expended on restoration activities in fiscal years  2012 through 2016 and cost estimates for future activities.

To examine what is known about the progress toward achieving the 1994  plan, we analyzed the plan to gain a better understanding of it and identify  any goals associated with the six priority problems. We also analyzed  data from the Study’s website in November 2017, the Study’s most recent  progress reports, and the book Long Island Sound: Prospects for the  Urban Sea—a summary of available science and environmental data for  the Long Island Sound (the Sound). We analyzed the Study’s most  recent progress reports—Protection and Progress and Sound Health.  We analyzed data that were on the Study’s website in November 2017  because the time frame coincided with the time frames of our review.  These data, reports, and the book included examples of progress but did  not assess performance toward the goals associated with the priority  problems in the 1994 plan. Therefore, we asked Study members for their  responses on progress and the data that supported their responses. To  do so, we interviewed Study members to obtain their views about  progress toward the 1994 plan.

For our interviews with Study members, we contacted all 16 members of  the Study and representatives of the 5 Study work groups that were  active at the time of this review. Of the 16 Study members, 14 agreed to  participate in this review: (1) Department of Agriculture’s Natural  Resources Conservation Service; (2) Department of Commerce’s  National Marine Fisheries Service; (3) Department of Defense’s U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of the Interior’s (4) U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service and (5) U.S. Geological Survey; (6) Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA); (7) Connecticut Sea Grant; (8) Connecticut  Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; (9) New York State  Department of Environmental Conservation; (10) New York Department  of State; (11) New York City Department of Environmental Protection;  (12) the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission;  (13) the Study’s Citizens Advisory Committee; and (14) the Study’s  Science and Technical Advisory Committee.

The 5 Study work groups are (1) Climate Change and Sentinel Monitoring  Work Group, (2) Habitat Restoration and Stewardship Work Group, (3)

Public Involvement and Education Work Group, (4) Water Quality  Monitoring Work Group, and (5) Watersheds and Embayment Work  Group. Representatives from all 5 work group agreed to participate in this  review.

We asked the following question for each priority problem: “Since 1994,  how much progress has been made addressing the priority problem in  Long Island Sound: no progress, little progress, moderate progress, or  goal has been met?” For purposes of reporting responses to this  question, we refer to Study members and work group representatives  collectively as Study members. The New York State Departments of  Environmental Conservation and State provided their responses together,  and therefore we counted the two agencies as one Study member. The  New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission did not  provide a response to this question. As a result, 17 Study members  provided responses to this question.

As part of the interviews, we also asked Study members, “What evidence  are you basing your response on?” We did not independently assess the  reliability of the data they cited for the purpose of evaluating if the data  showed progress toward addressing the priority problems. Instead, we  noted the limitations the Study associated with the data to better interpret  Study members’ views. For some priority problems, Study members said  that they were unable to provide a response because they did not have  sufficient knowledge or data about progress toward the associated goals.  As a result, the total number of Study members who answered these  questions varied by priority problem and, for each priority problem, we  identified the total who provided a response. In addition, we visited two  Long Island Sound restoration projects to observe restoration activities  and learn how these activities may contribute to progress toward the  goals of the 1994 plan.

To examine the goals of the 2015 plan and factors that may hinder  progress according to Study members, we analyzed the 2015 plan to  obtain information about the goals to achieve four themes in the plan. In  the interviews with the 17 Study members described above, we asked  them “What factors, if any, may hinder achievement of the 2015 plan’s  goals.” More than one Study member representative was present in many  of the interviews and each representative in the interviews could identify  as many factors as they thought necessary. As a result, the number of  times a factor was identified—54—was greater than number of Study  members. We narrowed the number of responses to 11 categories by  grouping together factors that were the same or were similar. In those  cases that more than one representative of the same Study member  identified the same factor, we counted that factor only once for that Study  member in order to generate the statements we used in the report. See  appendix II for a complete list of all the factors that were identified, the  number of Study members who identified each factor, and how we  grouped those factors into the 11 categories.

To examine how Study members plan to measure and report on progress  toward achieving the 2015 plan, we analyzed sections of the plan that  contained goals associated with four themes and relevant web pages that  the Study issued in March 2018 and then analyzed them again in June  2018. We also conducted interviews with subject matter experts to obtain  their views on the sections of the 2015 plan that contained the themes  and goals, and with Study members to learn how they planned to report  on progress toward the 2015 plan. As a result of our analysis of the 2015  plan and interviews with Study members, we identified the 20 long-term  targets and associated indicators that Study members plan to use to  measure progress toward the 2015 plan, and determined that the Study  plans to report on progress using the web pages.

For our interviews with subject matter experts, we identified individuals  with expertise on the 20-long term targets and their associated indicators.  We identified 73 experts by asking Study members to recommend  experts and identifying the contributors to Long Island Sound: Prospects  for the Urban Sea. We removed from this list those individuals whom we  had already interviewed, those who represented a Study member, those  who were involved with the development of the 2015 plan, and those  whose contact information we were unable to obtain from the Study  member or an Internet search. We invited by email the remaining 47  experts to participate in interviews to obtain their views about the 20 long- term targets and their associated indicators. We also provided the experts  with a list of the 20 targets and indicators and asked them to review the  targets and to “select those that you would be comfortable speaking  about based on your knowledge and expertise.” Of the 34 experts who  responded, we interviewed 19 about the targets they had expertise in and  could discuss. The remaining 15 experts chose not to participate or said  that they were ineligible because they were either involved with the  development of the 2015 plan or affiliated with a Study member.

We then interviewed the 19 experts about each of the targets and  associated indicators that they said they had identified. The experts we  interviewed included members of academia, as well as one state official  and one county official. Not all of the 19 experts were able to address  each of 20 targets and associated indicators. As a result, the total number  of expert responses varied for each target and associated indicator and  we identified the total number of experts who responded to questions  about each target and associated indicator. Because we used a  nonprobability sample, the information obtained from these interviews is  not generalizable to other individuals with expertise on the 20 long-term  targets and their associated indicators but provides illustrative  information.

For our analysis of the web pages the Study published in March 2018, we  used GAO’s prior work on performance management reporting, which  identified leading practices that have the potential for enhancing the  general usefulness of performance reports as vehicles for providing  decision makers and the public with information to assess progress. We  then analyzed the web pages to determine the extent to which they  incorporated these leading practices.

To examine what Study members expended on restoration activities in  fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and cost estimates for future activities, we  took the following steps: we analyzed EPA’s Justification of Appropriation  Estimates for Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2014 through  2018 to obtain the relevant EPA expenditure data; we obtained and  analyzed expenditure data from other Study members; and we analyzed  the cost estimate information in the 2015 plan. We chose this time period  because it was the most recent period for which expenditure data were  available during the time frames for our review. Of the 12 Study members  described above, 7 provided at least some expenditure data, 4 said that  they do not fund restoration activities, and 1 did not reply to our request  for expenditure data. We were unable to compare expenditure data  across Study members because three Study members said that they  spend funds for restoration activities in the region around Long Island  Sound but do not isolate expenditures made specifically for it. We  assessed the reliability of these data through interviews with Study  members who were familiar with these data. We found these data to be  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this reporting objective with the  limitation that they represent the minimum amount of Study member  expenditures on restoration activities in fiscal years 2012 through 2016.  Further, we attended two Study meetings (on April 12, 2017, by phone,  and May 11, 2017, in person) to obtain information about how Study  members make expenditure decisions for restoration activities.

For our analysis of cost estimate information in the 2015 plan, we  consulted the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, which  provides general guidance for estimating costs, and analyzed EPA’s  funding guidance for comprehensive conservation and management  plans. We then analyzed the cost estimates in the 2015 plan to  determine the extent to which they followed the Office of Management  and Budget and EPA guidance. In our interviews with Study members  and subject matter experts described above, we determined that Study  members had not developed other cost estimates for restoring Long  Island Sound, and experts were unaware of other such estimates. We  also interviewed relevant officials from EPA, the Connecticut Department  of Energy and Environmental Protection, and the New York State  Department of Environmental Conservation to obtain information about  how the cost estimates in the 2015 plan were created.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to July 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Factors Identified by Members of the Long Island Sound Study

In our review of the Long Island Sound restoration efforts, we asked Long  Island Sound Study (the Study) members to identify factors that may  hinder Long Island Sound restoration progress. Specifically, we asked the  following question to all 17 Study members we interviewed: “What factors,  if any, may hinder achievement of the goals of the 2015 Long Island  Sound Comprehensive and Conservation Management Plan.” More than  one Study member representative was present in many of the interviews  and each representative could identify one or more factors. As a result,  the number of factors identified—54—was greater than number of Study  members who identified the factor. Table 8 shows the 11 categories of  factors, the number of times factors in those categories were identified,  and the number of Study members who identified each factor.

We narrowed the number of responses to 11 factor categories by  grouping together factors that were the same or were similar. Table 9  shows each factor category, each of the original factors that Study  members identified, and the number of times the factor was identified by  Study members.

Appendix III: The 20 Long-Term Targets and Associated Indicators

The 2015 Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and  Management Plan has four broad themes—clean water and healthy  watersheds, thriving habitats and abundant wildlife, sustainable and  resilient communities, and sound science and inclusive management— and associated goals. It also has 20 long-term targets with associated  indicators (see table 10).

Appendix IV: Expert Responses on Whether Indicators Are Accurate, Valid, and Reliable

We interviewed a nonprobability sample of 19 individuals with expertise  on Long Island Sound to obtain their views on the 20 long-term targets  and their associated indicators that the Long Island Sound Study said  they plan to use to measure progress toward the goals of the 2015 Long  Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. We  asked each expert to review the targets and associated indicators and to  “select those that you would be comfortable speaking about based on  your knowledge and expertise.” We then conducted interviews with each  expert, and asked “is the indicator a valid, accurate, and reliable way to  measure progress to achieve the target?” Table 11 shows the expert’s  responses for each target.

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Susan Iott (Assistant Director),  Michelle K. Treistman (Analyst-in-Charge), Chuck Bausell, Mark Braza,  Ellen Fried, Benjamin T. Licht, James I. McCully, Katya E. Rodriguez, and  Sara Sullivan made key contributions to this report.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and  Reporting Would Enhance Oversight. GAO-15-526. Washington, D.C.:  July 21, 2015.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More  Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress.  GAO-13-797. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2013.

Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State  Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.:  September 15, 2011.

Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps  Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional  Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.

Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could  Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. GAO-08-130. Washington,  D.C.: December 14, 2007.

South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing  Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising  Costs.GAO-07-520. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007.

Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better  Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.

Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to  Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress. GAO-04-1024.  Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2004.

Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress  Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO-03-515.  Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.

Long Island Sound, an estuary in one of the nation's most densely populated areas, provides many economic and recreational benefits. However, development and pollution have degraded water quality and led to hypoxia, low levels of dissolved oxygen that increase mortality of fish and other species.

A federal-state partnership funded restoration projects and created a plan and cost estimates to restore the Sound. However, current reports and estimates do not provide complete information about how progress will be measured or what restoration will cost.

We recommended steps to improve the partnership's progress reports and cost estimates.