EPA's Great Lakes Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
In March 1998, Region 5 senior management requested advice and assistance on how to (1) improve processes
for developing lakewide management plans (LaMPs) and remedial action plans (RAPs), and (2) negotiate and
implement a U.S. strategy for the Great Lakes. The Office of Inspector General's (OIG) plan for auditing
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water programs also called for a evaluation of the Great Lakes
program. To meet both of these needs, the OIG performed a evaluation with the objective of determining what
the Regional Administrator, Region 51 can do to:
•	improve the LaMP and RAP processes, and
•	develop and implement effective national strategies and agreements.
BACKGROUND
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Agreement) between the U.S. and Canada, was originally signed in
1972, and amended in 1978 and 1987. The stated purpose in the agreement is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The 1987 amendments
established LaMPs and RAPs as systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approaches to address the Great
Lakes as a whole and specific areas of concern throughout the lakes, respectively. The LaMP and RAP
documents also provide an historical record of the assessment of critical pollutants, proposed remedial actions
and their method of implementation, changes in environmental conditions as a result of remedial actions, and
significant milestones in restoring beneficial uses of the lakes.
In April 1992, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) issued a joint Federal/State 5-year strategy
(strategy) for protecting the Great Lakes. The strategy represented a commitment by Federal agencies, states
and tribes to achieving specific environmental goals through a full range of coordinated activities.
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA needs to improve two key processes for protecting and restoring the Great Lakes: LaMPs and RAPs.
LaMPs and RAPs are taking longer than expected to complete. For example, while a draft LaMP for Lake
Michigan was first published in 1992, the LaMP was never finalized, thereby not meeting the statutory deadline
of January 1, 1994. Officials currently plan to issue a LaMP document for Lake Michigan by April 21, 2000. To
date, no U.S. RAPs have had all of their beneficial use impairments corrected.
To improve the LaMP process, EPA needs to (1) place a priority on issuing written plans for Lakes Michigan,
Erie and Huron during FY 2000; and (2) propose to Great Lakes partners and the International Joint
Commission (DC) revising the LaMP process to address issues that have hindered completing the plans. To
improve the RAP process, Region 5 needs to establish a coordinator to better organize the RAP liaisons.
Finally, Region 5's work on LaMPs and RAPs would benefit from clarifying the organizational roles and
responsibilities of the offices, divisions and teams. These actions are needed to reach the goal of restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes.

-------
GLNPO does not have official agreements with other EPA offices that work in the Great Lakes. These offices
include Regions 2, 3, 5, and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). As a result, relationships between
Region 5 offices working in the Great Lakes have suffered, and GLNPO and ORD did little coordination on
research planning. GLNPO should enter into agreements with all of these entities to identify the roles and
responsibilities of each in the Great Lakes.
GLNPO officials can learn from problems they encountered creating and implementing the 1992 strategy. In
developing the next strategy, GLNPO should strive to (1) obtain buy-in and commitment from all parties, (2)
focus on goals, (3) include performance measures, and (4) provide accountability for implementation which will
result in a meaningful strategy that helps bring together Great Lakes efforts and activities. From this, GLNPO
can design a new strategy that will fulfill a new purpose for the Great Lakes and help carry efforts forward to
the millennium.
Details on each of these findings and recommendations are contained in Chapters 2 through 4.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND ACTIONS
In response to the draft report, the Regional Administrator, Region 5, agreed with the recommendations or
proposed alternative actions to address the findings. Action plans, with milestone dates, were also provided. A
summary of the response and action plans is included throughout the report, and a complete copy of the
response is included in appendix 1. The response includes details on the resources and other support needed to
implement the report's recommendations.
The Regional Administrator outlined plans to accelerate the LaMP and RAP processes. At the April 1999
Region 5 and State Environmental Directors meeting, the states issued a challenge to complete LaMPs for
Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Superior by April 21, 2000 (Earth Day). LaMP groups have prepared detailed plans
for meeting the challenge. For Lake Huron, a report describing the environmental problems and actions that
need to be taken will also be issued by April 2000. To accelerate the RAP process, Region 5 will work with the
states on roles, schedules, and grant funds to be devoted to RAPs. The liaison function will be reorganized to
devote resources towards those RAPs most in need of EPA assistance.
The Regional Administrator also plans to issue a new Great Lakes Strategy by April 2000. In developing the
strategy, the Regional Administrator has agreed to consider how best to implement the recommendations in the
report. The issue of roles and responsibilities of EPA offices working in the Great Lakes will be addressed when
developing the Great Lakes strategy.
OIG EVALUATION
The Agency's actions, when completed, will address the findings and recommendations in the report.
'The Region 5 Regional Administrator also serves as the National Program Manager for the Great Lakes
National Program Office. For reporting purposes, we are only using the Regional Administrator title.

-------