Recognizing their mutual interests in the Great Lakes and other boundary waters, the United States and Canada signed the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, giving both countries equal rights to use the waterways that cross the international border. Accordingly, the treaty established the International Joint Commission (IJC), comprised of three commissioners from each country, to help the two governments resolve and prevent disputes concerning boundary waters. With increased concern over the contamination of the Great Lakes, the two countries signed the first international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972 to improve the environmental conditions in the lakes. The agreement focused on controlling phosphorous as a principal means of dealing with eutrophication in the lakes. The parties signed a new agreement in 1978 that called for increased control of toxic substances and restoring water quality throughout the Great Lakes Basin. Subsequent amendments were made to the agreement in 1983 and 1987. The 1987 amendments added several annexes that focused on specific environmental concerns, such as contaminated sediment. The 1978 agreement as amended contains 17 annexes that define in detail the specific programs and activities that the two governments agreed upon and committed to implement. Although most of the annexes specify pollution prevention strategies, Annex 2 calls for the preparation of RAPs to address the restoration and protection of beneficial uses in specific contaminated areas designated as areas of concern and the other open waters of the Great Lakes. Such areas may include areas along the Great Lakes’ shoreline and areas that drain into the lakes that states and provinces identified as contaminated areas requiring cleanup. The agreement binds the United States and Canada to cooperate with state and provincial governments to designate such areas of concern, with the IJC reviewing progress by each government in addressing actions to restore water quality in the lakes. The agreement as amended also directs that the public be consulted in the RAP process and that each RAP define the environmental problems and the causes of these problems in provide an evaluation of remedial measures, select remedial measures, provide an implementation schedule, identify organizations or individuals responsible for implementation, include a process for evaluating remedial implementation and effectiveness, and provide a description of monitoring to track effectiveness and confirmation that the areas are restored. In defining the environmental problems, RAPs determine the applicability of 14 adverse environmental conditions to the area. Such impairments include beach closings, tainting of fish and wildlife flavor, and bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems. In addition, the Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to provide that EPA should take the lead in coordinating with other federal agencies and state and local authorities to meet the goals in the agreement. The act also established GLNPO within EPA to fulfill the United States’ responsibilities under the agreement and to coordinate EPA’s actions both at headquarters and in the affected regional offices. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water Act further defining GLNPO’s role and requiring the submission of all RAPs to the office and also requiring each plan be submitted to the IJC for review and comment. The 1990 Act designated states as the primary parties for developing and implementing plans, although ensuring successful completion of the plans remains the responsibility of the United States and EPA under the agreement and the Clean Water Act. When Coastal Environmental Management (CEM) funding first became available in 1992, and because the Water Divisions administered other water program funding, EPA officials made the decision to transfer oversight of the RAP process from GLNPO to the Water Division in EPA Regions II, III, and V, which border the Great Lakes. For the past several years, we and others have reported on slow progress of the Great Lakes cleanup activities, making particular reference to the fact that neither GLNPO nor any other EPA office had devoted the necessary responsibility, authority, and resources to effectively coordinate and oversee cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. In 1990, we reported that the development of the RAPs and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) called for in the agreement had fallen far behind schedule and recommended that EPA better coordinate GLNPO and EPA’s headquarters offices to improve the process. Likewise, EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported in 1999, that EPA officials were not as effective as they could be in working with states and local officials on RAPs and recommended that one official coordinate these activities. The IJC, in its most recent biennial report, identified the RAP process as an area needing improvement and reported that the process for preparing RAPs and LaMPs was no longer being followed, in some cases resulting in an ad hoc modification of the annex. The IJC also reported that information on RAP implementation is not readily available in a standardized, consolidated format. Overall, the IJC concluded that although some progress had been made in the Great Lakes, the governments had not committed adequate funding or taken decisive actions to restore and protect the lakes. Citing the public’s right to know (and in an effort to get the program back on track), the IJC recommended a results-oriented approach, suggesting that the governments of the United States and Canada prepare one consolidated progress report that lists accomplishments, expenditures, what remains to be done, and the amount of funding and time needed to restore the contaminated areas to beneficial use. Progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes and restoring the contaminated areas to their beneficial uses has fallen behind where the parties hoped it would be. As of April 2002, most of the RAPs for which the United States was responsible were in the second stage of having remedial and regulatory measures selected; none has completed all three stages indicating completion of cleanup. (See table 1.) No area of concern in the United States has had its designation removed— that is, been delisted—although the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 plan, which was developed by representatives of federal, state, and tribal governments in the Great Lakes area, lists as one of its objectives the removal of 3 areas from the list by 2005, and 10 by 2010. The RAP process envisioned in the agreement is not being consistently used as a model for cleanup activities occurring at the areas. While cleanup activities have occurred in many areas, such activities have generally resulted from other environmental programs or initiatives. The RAP process has essentially been abandoned for some areas, modified for others, and for a limited number of areas the process is being followed to address the environmental impairments. According to state officials, a major reason that the RAP process is not being followed is the lack of general funding, including funding from EPA. Whether or not the process is being followed at an area often depends in part on state involvement in the process and whether there is local interest. As a result, implementation of the agreement is uneven across the areas and, in areas where the process has been abandoned, the initial investment in the process may have been largely wasted. Each of the eight Great Lakes states—Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—has approached the RAP process in a somewhat different manner after EPA reduced its funding, but in general the volume of resources they devoted to the process has diminished in the past 10 years, according to state officials. The state of Michigan, which contains 14 areas, completed the first stage of the RAP process—defining the environmental problems—in 1987 and 1988. In the preparation stage, the state funded a group of state coordinators, who spent part or all of their time on RAPs. Today, the coordinators spend only a small fraction of their time on RAPs and serve mainly as an area’s informational point of contact. In addition, the state decided that it would no longer follow the three-stage process set forth in the agreement. Responsibility for the Michigan RAP process rests primarily with local groups known as public advisory councils, and while none of these groups have abandoned their work, state officials indicated that two groups are on the verge of quitting and that others had significantly decreased their activities. The officials further stated that, while RAPs may be a catalyst, they are not driving the implementation of the areas’ cleanup activities. Instead, officials noted, other federal programs, such as Superfund, and state and nonprofit programs provide funding for cleanup and restoration activities. An organization representing the public advisory councils recently recommended that the state play a more aggressive role in supporting their efforts by providing funding and technical support. The state of New York, which has six contaminated areas, employs a part- time coordinator for each area. According to state officials, over the years the overall activity in the RAP process has decreased, but the state retains oversight and commitment to the process. However, the RAP process is not the impetus for cleanup activities at the areas. Instead, other programs, such as EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, have been used to clean up contaminated areas. In Wisconsin, which has five contaminated areas, the work on the RAP process for the areas was stopped after EPA decreased funding for RAP activities. As with other states, cleanup work continues at the areas through other programs, although the state only completes projects consistent with a RAP when it has the time and funds to do so, according to a state official. The state does not monitor RAP progress, and community groups are no longer actively involved in the process. In Ohio, which has four contaminated areas, the RAP process evolved differently in each area. For example, a structured process exists to address the environmental impairments in one area, but the process is less structured in two other areas and significantly modified in another, according to a state official. Community organizations are involved in three of the four areas. The state has also modified the three-stage process specified in the agreement, saying that the RAPs could never be used to cleanup an area because they are not implementation documents, according to the official.