United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
                 Office of
                 Administration
                 and Resources
                 Management
Office of
Administration
Management and
Organization Division
                                                 February 1986

                                     OCLC19043701
c/EPA
Management and Organization
Review of the
Great Lakes National
Program Office
                                          Management Report

-------
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION
                  REVIEW
                    of the
       GREAT LAKES NATIONAL
           PROGRAM OFFICE

                 February 1986
                          \
                          ul
                          O
                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                  Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                                  77 West Jackson boulevard, 12tti Floor
                                  Chicago, !L  60604-3590
             A Management Review
                  Prepared by:
    Management and Organization Division
       Office of Administration, OARM
                  Prepared for:
     Great Lakes National Program Office
               Chicago, Illinois
        Additional copies of this report may be obtained by
       contacting the Program Management Analysis Branch
                   (202) 382-5000

-------
                       TABLE OF  CONTENTS



Summary of Recommendations  	 i

I.    INTRODUCTION  	 1

11.   METHODOLOGY 	 1

III.  PRESENT ORGANIZATION  OF THE  GREAT LAKES
      NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE	 3

IV.   FINDINGS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 	 5

V.    M&O FOLLOW-UP ASSISTANCE  	 17

Appendix — INTERVIEW LIST  	 A-l

-------
                   SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

     Recent efforts by the Director of the Great Lakes National
Program Office to improve the Office's management systems/
technical approach, and visibility have been effective.  There
are areas of opportunity, however, in which further improvement
would strengthen the Office.

1.  Resources.  The Agency should continue to support GLNPO at
current and proposed levels, and should give it a high level
of visibility.

2.  Staffing.  GLNPO should continue to utilize its innovative
staffing techniques to maintain its high quality staff at
current levels.

3.  Organization and Functions.  The current organization and
functional split should be maintained.

4.  Independence.  GLNPO should be maintained as a separate
office reporting to the Region V Administrator.

5.  Cooperation with the Water Division.  GLNPO and the Water
Division should strive to live up to their new MOU.  They should
better align their planning cycles and explore rotational
assignments.  GLNPO staff should communicate International Joint
Commission commitments to the Water Division more quickly.

6.  Cooperation with the Environmental Services Division.  GLNPO
should maintain this strong, cooperative relationship.

7.  Involvement in Regional Planning Committees.  GLNPO should
continue to utilize the Region V planning committees to the
fullest extent possible.

8.  Relationships with Region III and the State of Michigan.
These good relationships should be maintained and strengthened.

9.  Relationships with the Duluth Environmental Research
Laboratory and the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research Station.
These strong relationships should be maintained.GLNPO should
establish a system for coordinating the technical assistance
requests that go to Grosse lie.

10.  Relationship with Region II.  GLNPO should take strong steps
to reopen lines of communication with Region II and establish a
better working relationship.  The two organizations should explore
establishing an MOU or MOU's.

-------
                              -  ii  -
   .   Cross-Regional  Efforts  in  the  Great  Lakes.   Regions V,  II, and
 III  should work  with the  Office ofthe  Comptroller  to  set  up a
 workload model that  would accur^tely_rjgj£le_st  the  division  of work
 and  fairly allocate  Agency resources  to adequately  support the
 various Great Lakes  efforts.                ~"=-=--_— ,-

 12.   Relationship with  the Office of  Water.   GLNPO  should  maintain
 its  good relations with the  Office  of Marine  and  Estuarine
 Protection in OW, including  resuming  discussions  on establishing
 an MOU between the two  Offices.  GLNPO  and OMEP should explore it
 ways to transfer GLNPO  lessons  learned  to other parts  of the  |
 country.

 13.   Management  of Grants and Contracts.  GLNPO needs  to put
 much more effort into effective  grants  and contracts management
 and  tracking.  All Project Officers should be  certified.
 Individual-professional and  office-wide grants and  contracts
 tracking systems should be established  on the  personal computer.

 14.   Travel Funds.   GLNPO should utilize  its  PC to  establish  a
 travel funds planning and tracking  system.

 15.   Management  Planning  and Project  Tracking.  GLNPO should
 automate its senior  staff assignment  tracking  system on its  PC
 and  should explore establishing  a tracking system for all
 professionals.

 16.   Administrative  Officer.  GLNPO should divide up its
 administrativeduties among  the  various professionals in the
 office.

 17.   Administrative  Systems.  GLNPO should acquire  additional
 Lexitrons for use by the  professional staff, and should put
 stay-in-school students to work  bringing  the files  and library
 back  up to an adequate  level.

 18.   Staff Chief Vacancy.   GLNPO should hire a strong manager
who can serve as a back-up to the Director.

-------
           MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION REVIEW OF THE
              GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFFICE
I.  INTRODUCTION

     In June 1985, the Director of the Great Lakes National
Program Office  (GLNPO) requested assistance from the Management
and Organization Division  (M&O).  M&O was asked to conduct a
comprehensive management and organization review.  The objectives
of the review were to:

     A.  Analyze the allocation of resources to GLNPO;

     B.  Determine the most efficient and effective organizational
structure for GLNPO;

     C.  Determine how effectively the relationships of GLNPO
with Regional and Headquarters units and State governments support
the Office's mission; and

     D.  Analyze the efficiency of GLNPO1s programmatic processes
and supporting administrative management systems.

II.  METHODOLOGY

     The review consisted of the following steps:

     A.  Telephone and in-person interviews with the Director of
GLNPO and Headquarters staff to gather and review historical and
current data in the following areas (see Appendix for the total
list of twenty-seven EPA and State officials interviewed during
the course of the study):

         1.  Functions, organizational structure, budget allocations
for past, current, and future fiscal years,  staffing assignments,
and workload distribution;

         2.  Management and information systems and processes;
and
         3.  Programmatic trends and levels, and associated
workload changes;

     B.  Performance of a three-day on-site visit to GLNPO to:

         1.  Interview, in depth,  the Director of GLNPO and
five of the Office's senior staff members;

         2.  Interview the Regional Administrator and the Assistant
Regional Administrator, Planning and Management Division;

-------
                             - 2 -
         3.  Interview the Director of the Water Division and a
senior staff member;

         4.  Interview the Director of the Environmental Services
Division and two of his senior staff members; and

         5.  Gather and review locally-provided data for use in
meeting the objectives of the study (including GLNPO's five-year
strategy document);

     C.  Follow-up telephone and in-person interviews with:

         1.  The Region V Deputy Regional Administrator;

         2.  Additional Headquarters staff;

         3.  Staff from Regions II and III;

         4.  The Directors of the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research
Station and Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory; and

         5.  An official for the State of Michigan; and

     D.  Analysis of the data gathered, identification of areas
of opportunity for management improvements, and preparation of
this report.

-------
                             - 3 -
III.  PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM
OFFICE""             "  ~~~

     GLNPO is organized as outlined below:
                            TABLE 1

                       GLNPO ORGANIZATION
                     REGION V ADMINISTRATOR
  GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
        OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
  SURVEILLANCE AND
   RESEARCH STAFF
REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
      STAFF
                       OTHER REGION V
                          PROGRAMS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING STAFF
     The major functions of each unit of GLNPO are listed below:

     A,  Director's Office;

          1.  Manage the Great Lakes National Program;

          2.  Serve as principal staff advisor in support of
the Regional Administrator's participation in International
Joint Commission  (IJC) Water Quality Board activities;
and
          3.  Represent EPA in Water Quality Board activities;
          4.  Carry out public awareness activities for GLNPO
throughout the Great Lakes area and in Washington;

-------
                             - 4 -
     B.  Surveillance and Research Staff;

          1.  Manage and implement EPA's monitoring and
surveillance of environmental contaminants in the Great Lakes
(for water, fish, and acid deposition) in order to assess how
well the U.S. is doing in meeting the requirements of the IJC
Water Quality Agreement;

          2.  Evaluate and present the data obtained in monitoring
and surveillance activities;

          3.  Manage the research and development activities of
Region V as they relate to the Great Lakes; and

          4.  Represent EPA in IJC surveillance activities;

     *-•  Remedial Programs Staff:

          1.  Assure coordination of EPA's statutory and
regulatory programs that relate to the Great Lakes so that they
contribute to U.S. compliance with the terms of the Water Quality
Agreement;

          2.  Coordinate remedial programs needed to fulfill U.S.
treaty obligations under the Water Quality Agreement;

          3.  Serve as the IJC U.S. point source coordinator;

          4.  Conduct large, special geographic studies of
Great Lakes environmental issues; and

          5.  Represent EPA in IJC remedial programs activities;

     D.  Environmental Planning Staff;

          1.  Manage EPA's Great Lakes planning interactions with
other agencies;

          2.  Coordinate EPA/State interactions dealing with
non-point source control strategies for the Great Lakes;

          3.  Serve as IJC U.S.  non-point source coordinator;

          4.  Manage the Clean Water Act Section 108(a) grant
program to demonstrate new or innovative techniques;

          5.  Represent EPA in IJC planning activities; and

          6.  Provide management staff support to the Director
of GLNPO.

-------
                             - 5 -
IV.  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     Recent efforts by the Director of the Great Lakes National
Program Office to improve the Office's management systems,
technical approach, and visibility have been effective.  There
are areas of opportunity, however, in which further improvement
would strengthen the Office.

     A.  Resources

     In FY 85 $1.03 million was appropriated for GLNPO salaries
and expenses along with an additional $4.69 million in extramural
funds for a total appropriation of $5.72 million.  The President's
budget for FY 86 would change the above figures to $1.04 million,
$3.90 million, and $4.94 million respectively.  Figure 1 shows
a break-out of the funding categories for GLNPO1s FY 85 budget.

                            FIGURE 1

                  GLNPO FY85 BUDGET CATEGORIES
                          IN MILLIONS
                                                lAGs
                                                $0.5
                                               Salaries & Expanses
                                               $10    ^
     GLNPO has had a history of its resources being cut from
budget submissions and surviving by Congressional reintroduction
of funds and/or Region V coverage of funding shortages out of
Regional resources.

-------
                              -  6  -
     Figure 2 shows  the  funding  for  GLNPO  from 1977 through
1985.  It  is  important to  note that  in all years but 1977,
1980, and  1981, the  GLNPO  funding  level was determined  by
additions  from Congress  (ranging from $1.0 to $3.4  million)
over and above the level requested by the  Agency.   In 1977
$100K, and in 1981 $500K,  were withheld from GLNPO  appropriated
funds by Headquarters reprogramming.

                             FIGURE 2

        GLNPO ABATEMENT  AND  COMPLIANCE FUNDS BY YEAR
                           IN MILLIONS
          Allocated funds
         1977   1978   1979   1980,  1981   1982  1983  1984   1985
     GLNPO and Region V management assert  that  for  the  first
time Agency senior managment  is giving  recognition  and  support
to the program, particularly  in the budget  cycle.   This has
largely been due to:

     0  The Regional Administrator's perseverance in maintaining
and promoting the program;

     0  The high quality of the technical  staff at  GLNPO;  and

     0  The recognition that  the program now receives outside
of EPA.

-------
                             - 7 -
     Recommendation

     The Agency should continue to support GLNPO and give its
efforts a high level of visibility in order to maintain a
continuing source of funding for the program.  The resource
levels currently appropriated and proposed should be maintained
in order for GLNPO to carry out its mandate effectively.

     B.  Staffing

     GLNPO is currently allocated 20 FTE's for FY 85 and FY 86
(15.8 PFT and 4.2 OPFT).  The program is actually utilizing
approximately 26 FTE's, the difference being made up out of
the Regional ceiling by utilizing lapsed positions.  This
Regional supplement has been the situation for many years due
to the funding problems described earlier.

     Figure 3 shows the staffing levels of GLNPO from 1977
through 1985.  Total staffing has been made up of Agency
requested positions, positions added by Congress, and additional
positions gained from Region V reprogramming.
                            FIGURE 3

                    GLNPO POSITIONS BY YEAR
         flllocotlons

-------
                             - 8 -
     The program also is getting additional help by utilizing
the services of two (soon to be three) people contracted for
through the American Association of Retired Persons and two
computer-firm contract employees.  The Office also utilizes a
Water Division agricultural expert one day per week, and stay-
in-school students to provide additional clerical help.

     The staff on-board is professionally qualified and experi-
enced to perform the complex technical work required by the
program.  Their technical competence was highlighted by several
outside offices contacted by M&O during this study.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should continue to utilize its innovative staffing
techniques (lapsed positions, AARP's, contract employees,
stay-in-school students, etc.) to maintain its high quality
staff at the current level which is necessary to carry out its
functions.

     C.  Organization and Functions

     GLNPO's organization and its functional split are sound.
More than three staffs would unnecessarily fragment the already
small office and would present potential span of control problems
for the Director.  On the other hand, based on the functions
being performed by the Office, it would be difficult to clearly
split them into only two staffs while maintaining a reasonable
balance of staff sizes.

     Recommendation

     The current organization and functional split should be
maintained.

     D.  Independence

     Throughout GLNPO's history there have been psychological
barriers in Region V to its existence as a separate unit reporting
to the Regional Administrator.  These attitudes are slowly shifting
due to increased awareness of GLNPO's multimedia responsibilities,
the direct support it must provide to the Regional Administrator,
and the need to demonstrate to Canada that the U.S. places importance
on compliance with the Water Quality Agreement.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should be maintained as a separate office reporting
to the Regional Administrator.

-------
                             - 9 -
     E.  Cooperation with the Water Division

     GLNPO's strongest relationship within Region V is with the
Water Division.  In fact, one-third to one-half of the Water
Division's workload relates to the Great Lakes.  Nevertheless,
for several years Headquarters mid-year reviews of Region V
have stated that there is not strong enough cooperation between
GLNPO and the Water Division.  Over the last year, however,
cooperation has improved.  To further that improvement, in May
of this year an MOU was executed between the two Offices to
delineate the functions and responsibilities of each and to
ensure close coordination of their efforts.  Although the new
cooperative atmosphere and MOU have gone a long way to correcting
the problems, the Water Division states that further improvement
could come by better alignment of the Water Division's and GLNPO's
planning cycles.  In addition, the Water Division claims that
GLNPO staff sometimes makes commitments for the U.S. in IJC
activities but neglects to tell, until much later, the Water
Division who has to implement those commitments.  Finally, a
GLNPO senior staff member suggested that rotational assigments
(exchange of staff members) between GLNPO and the Water Division
might be useful in fostering a more cooperative, coordinated
relationship between the two Offices.  In this regard, GLNPO
already utilizes the services of a Water Division agricultural
expert one day per week.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO and the Water Division should make every effort to
assure that both staffs live up to the commitments of the MOU.
Cooperation at all levels should be stressed.  In addition, the
two Offices should explore better alignment of their planning
cycles and the use of rotational assignments for their staff
members.  This would enhance a spirit of Great Lakes cooperation
between the Offices and would also provide greater challenges
to their respective staffs.  Finally, GLNPO staff should make
greater efforts to communicate IJC commitments to the Water
Division as soon as possible.

     F.  Cooperation with the Environmental Services Division

     The Environmental Services Division (BSD) officially
allocates 1.7 FTE's to Great Lakes work.  One FTE is utilized in
the Central Regional Laboratory to support GLNPO, including
management of the second-shift work done under GLNPO contract
(approximately 20 contract employees).  The Quality Assurance
Office of the BSD utilizes 0.4 FTE's in Great Lakes related work
and the BSD has allotted 0.3 FTE's to the on-going Upper Great
Lakes Connecting Channels study, a U.S./Canadian cooperative
effort.  In addition to the officially allocated FTE's, the BSD
performs other Great Lakes related work that is not specifically

-------
                             - 10 -
charged back to the Great Lakes effort.  For example, three staff
members of the BSD Pesticides and Toxics Substances Branch partici-
pate in the work of the IJC toxic substances subcommittee.

     Both GLNPO and the BSD stated that their relationship was
good.  It is marked by a cooperative atmosphere that is evidenced
by the Regional Water Monitoring Strategy prepared by the BSD in
cooperation with GLNPO and the Water Division.

     Re c omme nd a t ion

     GLNPO should work to maintain the strong, cooperative relation-
ship that exists with the BSD.

     G.  Involement in Regional Planning Committees

     GLNPO is currently involved in a variety of Regional planning
committees, namely:  the Water Media Coordinating Committee, the
Combined Sewer Overflow Task Force, the Operating and Maintenance
Coordinating Committee, and the Great Lakes Coordinating Committee.
This invlovement allows GLNPO to have input to the planning processes
of other programs in the Region, and for the other programs to have
input to GLNPO's planning.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should continue to utilize its involvement in Regional
planning committees to the fullest extent possible.  Its involvement
is a valuable way to get the Great Lakes message across and to
further integrate it in other programs' actions.  Participation in
the committees serves to keep GLNPO needs on the minds of other
Region V programs, and also reminds GLNPO of its responsibilities
toward those programs.       >

     H.  Relationships with Region III and the State of Michigan

     GLNPO's relations with Region III entail a low level of
contact.  Based on the small amount of Lake Erie shoreline (40
miles) that Region III manages, it feels its contacts with GLNPO
are good and at the proper level for its participation in the
program.

     The State of Michigan asserts that GLNPO's relations with it
are working fine.  The contacts between the two organizations are
based on a logical arrangement that reflects the responsibilities
of each in the Great Lakes area.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should carefully nurture these good relationships in
order to maintain and strengthen them.

-------
                             - 11 -
     I. Relationships with the Duluth Environmental Research
Laboratory and the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research Station

     The Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory of the Office
of Research and Development  (ORD) and its field research station
at Grosse lie conduct Great  Lakes research under both ORD and
GLNPO auspices.  In addition, Duluth and Grosse lie staff mem-
bers participate in IJC activities.  Of the GLPNO work that
they do, approximately 80% is done at Grosse lie and 20% at
Duluth.  The Director of the Duluth Lab states that over the
last year GLNPO has become more cooperative and open to outside
suggestions, better attuned  to political and technical issues,
and more far-sighted in its  research efforts.  Although occassionl
philosophical differences crop up between GLNPO, and Duluth and
Grosse lie, they are able to resolve them through discussions due
to the cooperative nature of their relationship.

     Grosse lie considers GLNPO to be its primary program client
office and directs its research accordingly.  Both Offices state
that a healthy, mission-oriented relationship exists between them.

     The research station receives a lot of requests for techincal
assistance from GLNPO, many  with short turnaround required, that
forces them to place priorities on how they respond to them.  The
priorities on occassion disturb the GLNPO -staff since they are
sometimes different from GLNPO's priorities.  Grosse lie contends
that this comes about due to an apparent lack of coordination of
the technical assistance requests made of them by GLNPO staff.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should strive to  maintain its strong relationships with
Duluth and Grosse lie.  Particularly it should establish a system
to coordinate the technical  assistance requests that go to the
research station.  The system should include a mechanism that
communicates GLNPO priorities on requests sent to Grosse lie, and
a way for Grosse lie to alert GLNPO when their resources are, at
any one time, over-burdened  by the requests.

     J.  Relationship with Region II

     Region II believes that although it has a significant stake
in Great Lakes activities,  the relationship between GLNPO and
Region II is not good.  The  Region believes that GLNPO views the
program as a Region V program rather than a Great Lakes program.
Region II contends that it is not included in the up-front planning
process for Great Lakes activities,  especially for the issues that
impact its Region.   In particular,  it claims that GLNPO sometimes
deals with cities and organizations in Region II without informing
the Region until much later.   For example,  GLNPO awarded a grant to
New York State without including Region II in the process.

-------
                             - 12 -
     Recommendation

     GLNPO should take strong steps to reopen the lines of
communication with Region II and establish a better working
relationship with the Region so that Region II is sufficiently
integrated into the Great Lakes planning and operating processes.
This is important for both GLNPO and Region II due to their common
interests in the Great Lakes area, such as the Niagara River
Frontier work with Canada on which Region II has the lead.  GLNPO
should explore the possibility of establishing an MOU or MOU's
with Region II offices to delineate the duties and responsibilities
of each and to establish better operating relationships.

     K.  Cross-Regional Efforts in the Great Lakes

     Table 2 summarizes the spread of Great Lakes activities
across the organizational units of Regions V, II, and III.
                            TABLE 2

        GREAT LAKES ACTIVITIES IN REGIONS II,  III,  AND V

REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
WATER DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
DIVISION
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
REGION II
,
construction
grants, permits
compliance,
WQ stds
Primary Contact
surveillance &
monitoring,
analysis
permits tracking
REGION III

Primary Contact
construction
grants, permits,
WQ stds
surveillance &
monitoring,
analysis

REGION V
GLNPO is Primary
Contact, Natl Prg
Mgr, coordination,
research, surv &
monitor, grants,
special studies,
planning, IJC &
WQ Bd activities
construction
grants, permits,
WQ stds
surveillance &
monitoring,
analysis


-------
                             - 13 -
     Region II claims that it has never received recognition
 for its workload in the Great Lakes area and that it should be
 given resources (at least two FTE's) to deal with Great Lakes
 issues.

     Recommendation

     Regions V, II, and III, as a team, should work with the
 Office of the Comptroller to set up a workload model that would
 accurately reflect the division of work and fairly allocate
 Agency resources to adequately support the various Great Lakes
 efforts.

     L.  Relationship with the Office of Water

     GLNPO and the Office of Water (OW) have a cooperative,
 informative relationship.  The Office of Water has overall
 management responsibility for the national policy direction and
 oversight of all water programs, including their relationship
 to the Great Lakes.  The Region V Administrator, however, as
 National Program Manager, has direct responsibility for
 implementation of the Great Lakes Program.

     Within OW, the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
 (OMEP) has primary contact with GLNPO.  OMEP views GLNPO as a
 unique, basin-wide program that is mature and experienced.
 Because of this it tends to respect its autonomy as a National
 Program Office.

     OMEP represents GLNPO in the budget process and performs
 the annual OW review of the program.   In that regard, GLNPO is
 not tracked in the Agency Strategic Planning and Management
 System, but is reviewed and critiqued against OW criteria.
 Past reviews have criticized GLNPO's success in accomplishing
 environmental results.  OMEP cbmmented that the most recent
 review showed improvement in this area, including execution of
 the MOU between GLNPO and the Water Division.

     OMEP would like to use GLNPO as a model or framework for
 other basin-wide programs dealing with such areas as the
 Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound,  and Narragansett Bay.   In this
 regard OMEP believes GLNPO should put more efforts  into technology
 transfer.  GLNPO over the years has learned a lot of lessons
 that would be useful to other areas of the country.   Efforts to
 transfer that knowledge would make better use of the results of
 GLNPO's projects and would truly make GLNPO more of a national
program.

     OW and GLNPO were in the process of setting up an MOU
 between their two Offices.  That process stopped when the
Assistant Administrator for Water moved to become Regional
Administrator in Region IV.

-------
                             - 14 -
     Recommendation

     GLNPO should maintain its good relationship with OMEP in
OW.  It is critical that information continue to flow between
the two Offices so that OMEP can serve as an effective spokesman
for GLNPO in Headquarters and help to maintain GLNPO1s visibility,
GLNPO and OMEP should resume discussions on the MOU to formalize
their relationship.  GLNPO should work with OMEP to expand their
technology transfer efforts and support OMEP attempts to use
them as a successful model for other basin-wide programs.

     M.  Management of Grants and Contracts

     Everyone contacted in GLNPO, and the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Planning and Management Division, indicated that
the grants and contracts administered by GLNPO are not managed
very closely.  On the whole, GLNPO project officers, who average
two to three grants/contracts each, have not completed the
Agency Project Officer Certification Course and do not keep
consistent records of expended funds and deliverables due.
The Office does have a system for tracking the status of funding
packages but its accuracy is inconsistent.

     The Director of the Duluth Lab suggests that GLNPO consider
utilizing more competition in the allocation of its grants
resources.  Duluth and Grosse lie have recently undertaken this
approach and have found it to be successful.

     Recommendation

     With the large amount of extramural funds that it expends
each year (approximately $4.69 million this fiscal year) GLNPO
needs to put much more effort into effective grants and contracts
management and tracking.  All'project officers should be put
through the certification program and should maintain accurate
funding and deliverable records.  The Office tracking system
should be transferred to the personal computer which will make
it easier to maintain and more accurate than on the Lexitron.
Individual professionals may also want to use the PC for tracking
their specific grants/contracts.  GLNPO should explore Duluth's
suggestion for more competition in its allocation of grants
resources.

     N.  Travel Funds

     GLNPO travel funds are tracked after the fact but are not
adequately planned for in advance.   This situation is aggravated
by the fact that, generally, all offices' travel ceilings in the
Region (including GLNPO1s)  are funded at levels lower than their
budget requests.   This causes GLNPO to have to request additional
travel ceiling during the year based on it's actual needs, rather
than to have enough based on solid projections and planning.

-------
                             - 15 -
     Due to Congressional requirements/ all international
travel (including travel to Canada) must be approved by the
Office of International Activities (OIA).  This requires
advance planning and consideration of lead-times, although
emergency authorizations can be gained over the telephone.  OIA
claims that, based on past experience, although 90% of GLNPO's
international travel can be planned in advance, it is not.

     Recommendat ion

     GLNPO should utilize its PC to establish a better travel
planning/tracking system.  This will allow it to have its
beginning-of-year budget more closely match its actual needs
for the year.  In addition, better tracking and planning will
provide better lead-times and easier approvals through OIA for
international travel.

     0.  Management Planning and Project Tracking

     GLNPO has established several management planning and project
tracking mechanisms that are good starts toward a strong
management system.  Of particular note are the:

     0  Five-year GLNPO strategy document;

     0  Detailed, yearly workplans for each Staff;

     0  Every-other-month tracking meetings between the Office
Director, Staff Chiefs, and each professional to review how
their projects' due dates are contributing to the Office's
goals; and

     0  Weekly senior staff meetings to go over GLNPO's Lexitron-
based senior staff assignment tracking sheet.

     Recommendation

    GLNPO should continue its efforts to tie its five-year
strategy and workplans closely together.  The senior staff
assignment tracking sheet should be put on the PC for greater
flexibility in preparation.  In addition, GLNPO should consider
establishing a project tracking system for all professionals.
It would allow each professional to track the status of his or
her own work, would alert GLNPO managers to approaching due
dates, would provide GLNPO managers with a mechanism for assessing
workload distribution, and if made available, could foster
inter-professional information exchange and cooperation on
projects as the professionals become aware of related projects
that are being handled by others.

-------
                             -  16 -
     P.  Administrative Officer

     GLNPO claims a need for an Administrative Officer to manage
its grants/contracts processing, travel funds, budget, etc.
The Deputy Regional Administrator believes the Office is too
small to warrant an Administrative Officer and has consisently
denied GLNPO1s requests for one.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should take the Administrative Officer type duties
(ADP coordination, budget planning and tracking, travel planning
and tracking, grants/contracts processing, personnel matters,
etc.), break them into definitive pieces, and assign them
throughout the Office to different individuals.  This is the
approach that has been taken in M&O (a similar sized office)
for several years.  This approach focuses the particular
responsibility on an individual who is accountable for it,
does not over-burden any one person with this type of duty,
gives staff members valuable career experience, prevents the
total loss of administrative institutional knowledge that occurs
when an Administrative Officer leaves an office, and allows for
ease in rotating the duties among the various members of the
staff which helps to distribute the workload equitably and
vary the type of administrative duties that any one person
would be expected to do.

     Q.  Administrative Systems

     GLNPO has only one Lexitron for each clerical person.  The
machines are often tied up with paperwork for personnel, travel,
and grants.  Normal typing is often backed up.
                             /
     GLNPO1s filing and library maintenance have become neglected
items.  It is often difficult for the staff to find needed
items either from the files or the library collection.

     Recommendation

     GLNPO should acquire several more Lexitrons for use by the
professional staff who would like to use them for composing
their work and in preparing first drafts of documents.  All of
the new Lexitrons do not need printers; they can be used solely
as remote composers with documents printed later at the existing
printers.

     GLNPO should put several stay-in-school students to work
bringing its files and library back up to an adequate level.
The Office should contact the Information Management and Services
Division for assistance in preparation of a good filing system
plan and help in organizing its library.

-------
                             - 17 -
     R.  Staff Chief Vacancy

     GLNPO currently has a vacancy for the Chief of the
Surveillance and Research Staff.  This is a good opportunity to
fill a management need in the Office.

     Recommendation

     To fill this vacancy, GLNPO should hire a person who has
not only good technical skills, but also very strong management
skills.  This new hire should be one who can be of great help
to the Director as a strong back-up when he is out of the
Office on travel, and as a supporting player in Office policy
development work that the Director now handles largely alone.

V.  M&O FOLLOW-UP ASSISTANCE

     M&O stands ready to provide assistance to GLNPO in
implementing these recommendations.  M&O has already established
a system in which its administrative duties are distributed
throughout the Division among the professional staff.  In
addition, M&O has developed personal computer systems for
tracking Division projects,  the Division budget, and contract
fund expenditures.  The Division would be pleased to discuss
these approaches with GLNPO as possible models for it to use
in establishing its own administrative systems.

-------
                            - A-l -
                            APPENDIX

                         INTERVIEW LIST

HEADQUARTERS

Tudor Davies, Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,
     Office of Water

Ginger Webster, Acting Director, Policy and Management Support
     Staff, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of
     Water

Paul Kraman, Policy and Management Support Staff, Office of Marine
     and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water

Leo Cox, Resources Management and Administration Office, Office
     of Water

Walter Hunt, Manager of Border Environmental Programs, Office
     of International Activities

M. Lisa Tychsen, Budget Division, Office of the Comptroller,
     Office of Administration and Resources Management

Kathy Wilson, Budget Division, Office of the Comptroller, Office
     of Administration and Resources Management

REGION V

Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator

Alan Levin, Deputy Regional Administrator

Robert Springer, Assistant Regional Administrator, Planning and
     Management Division

Peter Wise, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office

Vacys Saulys, Chief, Remedial Programs Staff, Great Lakes
     National Program Office

Anthony Kizlauskas, Remedial Programs Staff, Great Lakes National
     Program Office

Kent Fuller, Chief, Environmental Planning Staff, Great Lakes
     National Program Office

Ralph Christensen, Environmental Planning Staff, Great Lakes
     National Program Office

-------
                            - A-2 -
David Rockwell, Acting Chief, Surveillance and Research Staff,
     Great Lakes National Program Office

Charles Sutfin, Director, Water Division

Dale Bryson, Deputy Director, Water Division

William Sanders, Director, Environmental Services Division

Stephen Goranson, Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch,
     Environmental Services Division

J. P. Singh, Chief, Water Monitoring Team, Environmental
     Monitoring Branch, Environmental Services Division

REGION III

Charles Sapp, Basin Commission Coordinator, Water Management
     Division

REGION II

Herbert Barrack, Assistant Regional Administrator

Barbara Metzger, Director, Environmental Services Division

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, DULUTH, MN

Norbert Jaworski, Director

LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION, GROSSE ILE, MI

William Richardson, Director ,

STATE OF MICHIGAN

William Marks, Assistant Deputy Director, Department of Natural
     Resources

-------