Jump to main content.


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:
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 (IJC) 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.

1The 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.

Top of page

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.