: of Commerce••
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, DC 20235
v>EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAM
Program Development and
Approval Guidance
January 1993
S41-B-93-O03
-------
-------
» » COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION SIG » »
The protection of our coastal waters from nonpoint source pollution is now covered on the
Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System (NFS-BBS).
The Nonpoint Source (NFS) Information Exchange Bulletin Board System (BBS) provides federal,
state, and local agencies, private organizations, businesses, and concerned individuals with timely,
relevant NFS information, a forum for open discussion, and the ability to exchange computer text
and program files.
THE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION SIG IS NOW OPEN!
A new BBS Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum is now open. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
SIG will cover issues related to Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), and is intended to assist states in developing and implementing
their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. The technical monitor is John Kosco in EPA's
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, who will manage
EPA and NOAA inputs to the SIG on a daily basis.
The SIG is sponsored by EPA's Nonpoint Source Control Branch, and co-managed by EPA and
NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. EPA and NOAA jointly administer
Section 6217 of CZARA and promote the use of the SIG for the following purposes:
• Provide timely information regarding Section 6217 to State, local and Federal agencjes, and
other concerned groups and individuals,
• Provide a forum for open communication on Section 6217, and
• Provide for the exchange of text and program files among users.
There are three file libraries on the SIG: a technical library, a program library, and a library of
user uploads. These libraries will be updated as needed. Files currently in the library include:
• The complete text of the Section 6217 "Management Measures Guidance" and the "Program
Guidance", segmented into different files for easy downloading.
• Directories of Agricultural Program and Water Quality Extension leaders.
• Questions and Answers from NOAA and EPA on the Program and Management Measures.
• Directories of EPA and NOAA contacts.
This SIG wffl be a forum for discussion and a location for information about the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program under Section 6217. Your questions, comments, discussion and input
are invited.
To get to any of the SIG Forums from the Main Board, typ» (for "join"), and press
< ENTER >. Then from the menu select the SIG you wish .> enter. The Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution SIG is SIG number 8.
-------
NTS BBS FEATURES
NEWS FLASHES: A screen or two of information that scrolls by when you first sign on or
enter a Special Interest Group (SIG) area. News flashes may contain announcements of
upcoming conferences and workshops, timely tidbits from the states and regions, and notes on
new federal regulations and actions.
BULLETINS: Short text files that contain information on NFS-related topics,
conference/workshop schedules, contacts, bibliographies, and other information.
FILES: Large text files, program files and free software for downloading (transferring to your
computer). You are invited to upload files of interest here.
MESSAGES: Post announcements, send private messages and files, or ask questions.
SIGs: Mini-BBSs for specific topics. SIGs have all the features of the main BBS. The current
SIGs are Agricultural Issues, Fish Bans and Advisories, Waterbody System Support, NFS
Research, Watershed Restoration, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), Volunteer Monitoring,
and Coastal Nonpoint Pollution (Section 6217).
DOORS: An online gateway from the NFS BBS software to other software. Currently, Doors
include the News-Notes Searchable Index, the Clean Lakes Bibliography, the Educational "
Materials Database, Fish Consumption Bans and Advisories, and QMail. ^
HOW TO ACCESS THE NFS BBS
You will need:
• A PC or terminal
• Telecommunications software (such as CrossTalk or ProComm)
• A Modem (1200, 2400 or 9600 baud)
• A phone line that can accommodate modem communications
The NFS BBS phone number is (301) 589-0205 and the telecommunication parameters are no
parity, 8 bits, and 1 stop-bit (N-8-1).
A comprehensive user's manual for the NFS BBS, which describes how to access and use the
various BBS features, can be obtained from EPA Office of Water, NFS Information Exchange,
(WH-553), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The NFS BBS is a free service ofEPA's Nonpoint Source Information Exchange. Come join us on
the NFS BBS and share your experiences, post questions, debate issues, and get to know your
colleagues around the country I Feel free to upload your reports, articles, and noncopyrighted
software (no games, please) onto the BBS, and remember to tett your friends and coworkers about
the system.
SEE YOU ON-LINE!
-------
FOREWORD
As part of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Congress
enacted a new Section 6217 entitled "Protecting Coastal Waters". This provision requires
states with coastal zone management programs that have received Federal approval
under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), to develop and
implement Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. These coastal nonpoint
programs are to be used to control sources of nonpoint pollution which impact coastal
water quality.
Section 6217 requires coastal states to submit their coastal nonpoint programs to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Failure to submit an approvable program will
result in a state losing a portion of its Federal funding under section 306 of the CZMA
and section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
This document, developed by NOAA and EPA, contains guidance for states in
developing and implementing their coastal nonpoint programs. It describes the
requirements that must be met, including: the geographic scope of the program; the
pollutant sources to be addressed; the types of management measures used; the
establishment of critical areas; technical assistance, public participation, and
administrative coordination; and, the process for program submission and Federal
approval. The document also contains the criteria by which NOAA and EPA will review
the states' submissions.
This document should be used in conjunction with the Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters published by EPA in
January 1993. Copies of that document can be obtained from EPA, 401 M ST, SW,
Washington D.C. 20460.
Trudy
Director
Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management
NOAA
Robert H.'Wayland, III
Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds
EPA
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
L PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION j
IL OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAM
PROGRAM APPROVAL PROCESS 4
A. Statutory Requirements 4
B. Section 6217(g) Management Measures Guidance 6
C. Procedures for Program Development and Approval 6
D. Federal Support for Coastal Nonpoint Programs 7
m. SPECIFIC COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 9
A. Coordination with Existing Programs 9
B. Coastal Zone Boundaries and 6217 Management Area 9
C. Implementation of Management Measures In
Conformity With Section 6217(g) Guidance 12
1. Identification of Sources to be Addressed 13
2. Identification of Management Measures to be Implemented '/,[ 15
3. Description of the Implementation Process 20
D. Requirements for Implementation of Additional
Management Measures 22
1. Identification of Coastal Waters Not Maintaining
or Attaining Water Quality Standards 23
2. Identification of Land Uses Causing or
Threatening Water Quality Impairments 24
3. Identification of Critical Coastal Areas 25
4. Process to Implement Additional Management Measures '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 27
5. Selection of Additional Management Measures 28
6. Using Innovative Pollutant Trading Techniques !' " 30
E. Technical Assistance 31
F. Public Participation 32
m
-------
G. Administrative Coordination
H. Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms
1. Regulatory Approaches ...
2. Non-regulatory Approaches
IV. PROGRAM SUBMISSION, APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Program Submission and NOAA/EPA Review
B. Threshold Review
C Conditional Approvals
D. Schedule for Implementation
E. Final Program Approval Standards and Penalties
33
34
36
38
41
41
41
43
44
46
APPENDIX A:
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
APPENDIX B:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
APPENDIX G
List of Section 6217(g) Management Measures
APPENDIX D:
list of States and Territories with Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs
APPENDIX E:
Overview of Existing National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
APPENDIX F:
Designated Uses and Support Levels
APPENDKG:
State Coastal Nonpoint Program Submission
APPENDIX H:
Demonstrated Benefits of Trading
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) and
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance for state Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs (coastal nonpoint programs) developed under section 6217 of
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). This document
should be read in conjunction with EPA's Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, which is discussed below.
Section 6217 requires states to establish coastal nonpoint programs, which must be
approved by both NOAA and EPA. Once approved, the coastal nonpoint programs will
be implemented through changes to the state nonpoint source pollution program
approved by EPA under section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and through
changes to the state coastal zone management program approved by NOAA under
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Beginning in fiscal year
1996, states that fail to submit an approvable coastal nonpoint program to NOAA and
EPA face statutory reductions in Federal funds awarded under both section 306 of the
CZMA and section 319 of the CWA.
The statute and legislative history indicate that the central purpose of section 6217
is to strengthen the links between Federal and state coastal zone management and water
quality programs in order to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use
activities that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats. This is to be accomplished
primarily through the implementation of: (1) management measures in conformity with
guidance published by EPA under section 6217(g) of CZARA, and (2) additional state-
developed management measures as necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water
quality standards.
This Program Development and Approval Guidance sets forth NOAA's and EPA's
interpretation of the statutory requirements for the state coastal nonpoint programs, and
is intended to assist states in developing approvable programs. The document first
provides an overview of the legislative goals and requirements of section 6217. It then
provides a description of the criteria that NOAA and EPA will use when reviewing
coastal nonpoint programs for approval based on NOAA's and EPA's interpretation of
CZARA's requirements. Finally, it discusses the program approval process established
by NOAA and EPA. A decision by NOAA and EPA to approve or disapprove a state's
program will be made on the basis of the applicable laws and regulations as applied to
the specific facts presented by the program.
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
The following is a summary of the requirements for state coastal nonpoint programs.
6217(g) Guidance Management Measures and Additional Management
Measures
The statute requires state programs to provide for the implementation of management
measures in conformity with EPA's (g) guidance and for additional management measures
for land uses and critical coastal areas adjacent to unpaired or threatened coastal waters.
Implementation of these additional management measures in combination with the basic (g)
management measures must be designed so as to attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards under section 303 of the CWA including protecting designated uses.
(Section 6217(b)(l) and (2)).
In order to meet these requirements, states will need to include the following elements in
their coastal nonpoint programs.
6217(g) Guidance Management Measures
• An identification of those nonpoint source categories and subcategories that
impact coastal waters for which applicable (g) guidance management measures
will be implemented. States must include a description of and justification for any
exclusions from (g) guidance measures. These exclusions are limited to sources
within a category (e.g., agriculture) or subcategory (e.g., confined animal facilities)
which, individually or cumulatively, do not significantly impact coastal waters.
• A description of the (g) guidance management measures to be implemented, and
the technical documentation for any alternative measures selected by the state for
implementation in lieu of those in the (g) guidance.
• A description of the procedures that the state will use to ensure implementation
of the management measures, including operation and maintenance practices,
inspection procedures, certification procedures, and monitoring.
Additional Management Measures
• An identification of land uses and critical coastal areas that will require additional
management measures.
• A description of state-developed additional management measures to be
implemented to meet water quality standards and protect designated uses.
VI
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
Implementation of All Management Measures
• A description of a state program that ensures implementation of both the (g)
guidance management measures and the additional management measures,
including: designation of a lead state agency for each source category and/or
subcategory, a description of the legal authorities to implement the management
measures (i.e., enforceable policies and mechanisms), and a description of how the
lead agency will implement the program.
• A schedule for full implementation of the (g) guidance management measures
within three years of Federal approval and full implementation of additional
management measures within eight years of Federal approval. The latter includes
a two year period for evaluating the implementation of the (g) measures, and
three years to implement the necessary additional measures. New activities will be
subject to the applicable management measure requirements at the time of
Federal approval.
6217 Management Area and Coastal Zone Boundary Modification
The statute requires each state to include a proposal to modify its coastal zone boundary as
the coastal management agency deems necessary to implement NOAA's boundary
recommendation.
NOAA has conducted its initial review of each state's coastal boundary. Based on this
review, NOAA will make its recommendation to the states on the area to be included in
the coastal nonpoint program (i.e., the section 6217 management area) in early 1993.
NOAA and EPA expect that states will respond either by modifying the coastal zone
boundary to implement NOAA's recommendation or by identifying other authorities that
exist or will be established, as necessary, to implement the coastal nonpoint program
outside the state's current coastal zone boundary but within the 6217 management area.
Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms
Section 306(d)(16) of the CZMA requires state coastal zone management programs to
contain enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of
the coastal nonpoint programs.
In order to satisfy this requirement, states will need to adopt, at a minimum, enforceable
policies and mechanisms to implement the (g) guidance management measures and the
additional management measures. These enforceable policies and mechanisms may be
Vll
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
state and local regulatory controls, and/or non-regulatory incentive programs combined
with state enforcement authority.
Program Coordination
The statute requires the coastal nonpoint programs to be coordinated closely with existing
Clean Water Act programs and with approved state coastal zone management plans. In
addition, the statute requires the establishment of coordination mechanisms among state
agencies and between state and local officials responsible for land use programs and
permitting, water quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health
and safety.
NOAA and EPA expect state coastal nonpoint programs to be well coordinated with all
relevant Federal, state and local programs including those administered by EPA, NOAA
and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, states should establish
mechanisms to coordinate the relevant state and local programs through joint project
reviews, memoranda of agreement, or other mechanisms. Where possible, these
mechanisms should build upon existing coordination procedures.
Technical Assistance
The statute requires states to provide technical and other assistance to local governments and
the public for implementing the additional management measures.
NOAA and EPA expect states to identify those portions of the coastal nonpoint
programs that are to be implemented by local governments and to include a program to
provide technical and other assistance to local governments and the public in the state
coastal nonpoint program.
Public Participation
The statute requires states to provide opportunities for public participation in all aspects of
the coastal nonpoint program.
NOAA and EPA expect that the public will be involved early in the process of
developing the coastal nonpoint program. The state must also provide an opportunity
for public comment on the final coastal nonpoint program prior to submission of the
program to NOAA and EPA, and an opportunity to participate in the implementation of
the program.
Vlll
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
Program Submission and Approval
States must submit their coastal nonpoint programs to NOAA and EPA for approval
within 30 months of the publication of final management measures guidance (i.e., July
1995). When a state coastal nonpoint program receives final Federal approval, it will
be incorporated automatically into the state's coastal management and nonpoint
programs. NOAA and EPA have established a voluntary threshold review process to
assist states in the development of their programs.
Federal Support for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs
NOAA is authorized under section 6217(f) of CZARA to provide funds to state coastal
management agencies to develop coastal nonpoint programs. In addition, funds may be
available under section 319 of the CWA to implement coastal nonpoint programs.
NOAA and EPA will also work with the states to identify other sources of funds to
develop and implement the state programs.
IX
-------
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL GUIDANCE
L PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION
Water quality remains one of the most important environmental problems facing the
United States. In coastal areas, beach closures, prohibitions on harvesting shellfish, and
loss of biological productivity in coastal habitats are evidence of water quality
impairment. Based on an assessment of 75% of United States estuarine waters, current
best estimates are that 35% of these waters are impaired and 10% are threatened.
Coastal waters are affected by both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, with the
latter a significant and, in many cases, the dominant form of pollution in a given water
body. While great strides in controlling point sources of pollution have been made since
the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972, nonpoint source
pollution remains a major problem in many coastal areas. The leading nonpoint
contributors to estuarine waters are urban runoff (including certain construction activities
and onsite disposal systems) and agriculture. Other significant nonpoint contributors in
some coastal watersheds include silviculture, marinas, and hydromodification. In
addition, the loss and degradation of wetlands and riparian areas has adversely impacted
coastal water quality.
Congress enacted section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990 (CZARA) in November 1990 to help address the problem of nonpoint source
pollution in coastal waters.1 (A copy of this statute is found in Appendix A.) Section
6217 requires that coastal states with federally approved coastal management programs
develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (hereafter, coastal nonpoint
programs).2 The legislative history indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is
to strengthen the links between Federal and state coastal zone management and water
quality programs in order to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities
that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats.3 The state coastal zone management
agency designated under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and
nonpoint source management agency designated under section 319 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) will have a dual and co-equal role and responsibility in developing and
implementing the coastal nonpoint program.
1 Section 6217 does not amend the CWA or the CZMA, but rather contains independent provisions.
2 The term "state" refers to states, territories and commonwealths having coastal management programs
approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
3 As defined in section 304 (10) of CZARA and used in this guidance, "land use" includes water uses.
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
Although nonpoint source pollution is a significant source of pollution in coastal waters,
the legislative history states that "the new program will not and ought not bear the full
burden of restoring and maintaining coastal water quality, but will operate instead in
conjunction with controls on point sources established under the Clean Water Act and
associated programs." Therefore, state coastal nonpoint programs under section 6217 are
required only to address nonpoint source pollution, and are expected to address, at a
minimum, the major sources of nonpoint pollution specified in the (g) guidance.4
Thus, a state does not need to provide in its coastal nonpoint program for the
implementation of the management measures developed by EPA under section 6217(g)
of CZARA for activities that are clearly regulated as point source discharges.5
However, in the interest of consistency and comprehensiveness, each state may choose to
apply the (g) management measures to both point and nonpoint sources throughout the
state's section 6217 management area, as long as the specific NPDES requirements are
also met for those sources subject to NPDES permitting requirements.
Section 6217 envisions a two-tiered management approach for the control of nonpoint
sources of pollution. To receive Federal approval, the state coastal nonpoint program
must ensure: (1) the implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in
conformity with the guidance developed under section 6217(g) by EPA, in consultation
with NQAA and other Federal agencies, to protect coastal waters generally, and (2) the
implementation of additional management measures applicable to land and water uses
and critical coastal areas identified by the state pursuant to section 6217(b)(l) and (2) so
as to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards under section 303 of the
CWA and to protect designated uses.6
The purpose of the first tier is to protect coastal waters generally, and therefore, is not
tied to specific water quality problems. The state must provide for the implementation
Historically, there have been overlaps and ambiguities among programs addressing nonpoint and point
sources of pollution. Some of these overlaps, such as those which occur with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit program (under section 402(p) of the
CWA), are discussed in more detail in Appendix B. Many of the techniques and practices used to
control point sources, such as channelized urban stormwater, are equally applicable to nonpoint
sources, and vice versa. Nevertheless, the programs do not have identical requirements. Certain
NPDES requirements may go beyond the management measures specified in the (g) guidance.
For simplicity, the guidance containing these management measures, which was published by EPA in
January, 1993, will be referred to as the "(g) guidance" in this document. A list of the management
measures included in this guidance is provided as Appendix C.
In addition to addressing the contribution of pollution through runoff from the land, the state coastal
nonpoint program should also consider the infiltration of pollutants into ground water which can
result in the pollution of surface waters.
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
of these management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance which includes
management measures for the following categories of nonpoint pollution sources:
agricultural runoff; urban runoff; silvicultural runoff; hydromodification, shoreline erosion,
and dams; and marinas. In addition, the (g) guidance includes management measures for
wetlands protection, riparian areas, and vegetated filter strips, which are effective for
several different source categories.
If the general level of protection provided by the first management tier is insufficient to
enable coastal waters to meet water quality standards and protect designated uses, then
the state must implement the second tier which consists of additional management
measures. The purpose of the second tier is to restore coastal waters and, in the case of
the critical areas, to protect against future pollution problems.
This document, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contains guidance for
developing and implementing coastal nonpoint programs. The first section of this
guidance introduces the coastal nonpoint program. The second section provides an
overview of the statute's requirements. The third section discusses the specific program
requirements, including requirements for coordination with other programs; the
geographic scope of the coastal nonpoint program and coastal zone boundary review;
implementation of management measures in conformity with EPA's (g) guidance and
additional state-developed management measures; technical assistance; public
participation; administrative coordination; and enforceable policies and mechanisms. The
final section describes EPA's and NOAA's process for review and approval of coastal
nonpoint programs submitted by the states, and the schedule for state implementation of
the program.
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
H. OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAM
APPROVAL PROCESS
Congress enacted CZARA section 6217, entitled "Protecting Coastal Waters," to address
the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality.7 Section 6217(a)
requires each state with a federally approved coastal zone management program under
section 306 of the CZMA to develop and submit to NOAA and EPA a coastal nonpoint
program for approval. The statute states that the purpose of this new state program
"shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution
to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other State and
local authorities."
NOAA and EPA do not expect states to develop and implement stand-alone coastal
nonpoint programs, but rather expect that states will develop and implement the coastal
nonpoint program through changes to the approved state nonpoint source management
program and to the approved state coastal zone management program developed under
section 306 of the CZMA, as amended.
All states and territories have EPA-approved nonpoint source management programs or
portions of programs and are currently receiving section 319 grants to assist them in
implementing the approved programs. Currently, there are 29 federally approved state
and territorial coastal zone management programs developed and approved pursuant to
the CZMA (see Appendix D).
ILA. Statutory Requirements
Under section 6217, coastal nonpoint programs must contain a number of elements in
order to be approvable by NOAA and EPA The state programs must:
1. be closely coordinated with existing state and local water quality plans and
programs developed pursuant to sections 208, 303, 319 and 320 of the CWA, and
with state coastal zone management programs.
2. provide for the implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in
conformity with the guidance published under section 6217(g) to protect coastal
waters generally (discussed in section II.B).
3. provide for the implementation and continuing revision from time to time of
additional management measures that are necessary to attain and maintain
applicable water quality standards and protect designated uses with respect to:
This section has been codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1455b.
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
4.
5.
6.
7.
a. land uses which, individually or cumulatively, may cause or contribute
significantly to a degradation of (a) coastal waters not presently attaining or
maintaining applicable water quality standards or protecting designated
uses, or (b) coastal waters that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable
increases in pollution loadings from new or expanding sources; and
b. critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters which are failing to attain or
maintain water quality standards or which are threatened by reasonably
foreseeable increases in pollution loadings.
provide for technical and other assistance to local governments and the public to
implement additional management measures.
provide opportunities for public participation in all aspects of the program.
establish mechanisms to improve coordination among state agencies and between
state and local officials responsible for land use programs and permitting,
water quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health
and safety.
propose to modify state coastal zone boundaries as the state determines is
necessary to implement NOAA recommendations under section 6217(e), which
are based on findings that modifications to the inland boundary of a state coastal
zone are necessary to more effectively manage land and water uses to protect
coastal waters.
This guidance discusses these requirements in greater detail in section III and explains
NOAA's and EPA's expectations for state coastal nonpoint programs.
In addition to the provisions of section 6217, CZARA amended section 306 of the
CZMA to require that, before approving a coastal zone management program submitted
by a coastal state, NOAA shall find that, "...the management program contains
enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of the
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program of the State required by section 6217...."
(section 306(d)(16)). States with federally approved coastal management programs must
demonstrate compliance with section 306(d)(16) in order to receive final approval of
their coastal nonpoint programs.
The statute requires that states submit their coastal nonpoint programs to NOAA and
EPA 30 months after EPA publishes final (g) guidance. The final (g) guidance was
published in January 1993; therefore, coastal states must submit their coastal nonpoint
programs to NOAA and EPA for approval in July 1995.
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
II.B. Section 6217(g) Management Measures Guidance
Section 6217(g) requires that EPA, in consultation with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and other Federal agencies publish "guidance for specifying management
measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters." Management measures
are defined in section 6217(g)(5) as:
"economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from
existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which reflect
the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the
best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting
criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives"
As provided by section 6217(g)(2), the management measures guidance includes:
(A) "a description of a range of methods, measures, or practices, including
structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures,
that constitute each measure;
(B) a description of the categories and subcategories of activities and locations
for which each measure may be suitable;
(C) an identification of the individual pollutants or categories or classes of
pollutants that may be controlled by the measures and the water quality effects
of the measures;
(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction effects and costs of
the measures;
(E) a description of the factors which should be taken into account in adapting
the measures to specific sites or locations; and
(F) any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the measures to assess
over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving
water quality."
The (g) guidance provides a basis for the state coastal nonpoint programs.
n.C Procedures for Program Development and Approval
NOAA and EPA have prepared this program development and approval guidance to
assist states in developing approvable coastal nonpoint programs. The states are
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
encouraged to consult with NOAA and EPA as they develop specific program elements.
NOAA and EPA have established a voluntary threshold review process to assist states
in the development of their programs. This process is discussed in more detail in
section IV.B.
NOAA and EPA will jointly review the state program within six months after submission.
Because of the inseparable nature of the land use and water quality portions of the
coastal nonpoint programs in achieving the statutory goals, NOAA and EPA have
determined as a matter of policy that neither agency will grant approval to a state's
coastal nonpoint program until the program meets the Federal approval requirements as
determined by both agencies.
If a coastal state fails to submit an approvable program within 30 months after
publication of the (g) guidance, NOAA and EPA will reduce Federal grant dollars to the
state under the coastal zone management and nonpoint source management programs as
required by section 6217(c)(3) and (4). The penalty provisions begin in Fiscal Year 1996
with a 10% reduction in funding under both programs, increasing to 15% in FY 1997,
20% in FY 1998, and 30% in FY 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter. In the case of the
coastal zone management program, the penalty is based upon the grants otherwise
available to a state in the current fiscal year. In the case of the section 319 nonpoint
source management program, the penalty is based on the grant amount awarded to the
state for the preceding fiscal year.
Under certain limited circumstances, a state may request a conditional approval of its
coastal nonpoint program. If a state is granted conditional approval of its program, the
penalty provisions of section 6217 will be suspended during the conditional approval
period if the state continues to make progress on the workplan and to meet the
milestones agreed to with NOAA and EPA as part of the conditional approval. (See
discussion of conditional approval in section IV.C.)
H.D. Federal Support for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs
NOAA is authorized under section 6217(f) of the CZARA to provide funds to the
designated state coastal management agency to develop its coastal nonpoint program.
The Federal funds may not exceed 50% of the cost of developing the program, and the
state share of costs must be paid from non-Federal sources. NOAA has published
separate guidance on application procedures and allocations. Since funds will be limited,
state coastal agencies are encouraged to work closely with state nonpoint source agencies
and other appropriate Federal, state, regional and local agencies to develop their coastal
nonpoint programs. Funds under section 319(h) of the CWA are available for program
implementation.
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
NOAA and EPA will consider using additional financial incentives and/or disincentives to
encourage states to develop effective coastal nonpoint programs within the statutory
deadline.
8
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
SPECIFIC COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
State coastal nonpoint pollution programs must contain a number of components
mandated by section 6217. The following section discusses these statutory requirements
and the minimum criteria that the state coastal nonpoint program needs to meet to
obtain Federal approval.
IILA. Coordination with Existing State Programs
The statute requires that state coastal nonpoint programs be closely coordinated with
state and local water quality plans and programs under sections 208, 303, 319, and 320
of the CWA, and with state coastal zone programs. (Section 6217(a)(2)). Some of
these programs are discussed in Appendix E. This requirement is necessary to ensure
that the new coastal nonpoint program can be integrated into existing state programs
upon approval.
During the program development process, NOAA and EPA expect state coastal zone
management and nonpoint source agencies to involve the relevant Federal, state, regional
and local programs. A number of states already closely coordinate the activities of these
programs through their existing coastal zone management and state nonpoint programs.
States should develop their coastal nonpoint programs to complement and strengthen
existing coastal management and nonpoint source authorities, while minimizing
unnecessary duplication or conflicts at the Federal, state or local levels. Components of
existing programs that meet the requirements of section 6217 should be incorporated into
the states' coastal nonpoint programs.
HLB. Coastal Zone Boundaries and 6217 Management Area
As directed by section 6217(a), the geographic scope of each coastal nonpoint program
must be sufficient to ensure implementation of management measures to "restore and
protect coastal waters." Section 6217(e), which requires NOAA to conduct a review of
each state's coastal zone boundary, refines the focus to require NOAA to determine the
geographic area encompassing the land and water uses having a "significant" impact on a
state's coastal waters. A significant impact can occur from both the individual and
cumulative effects of land and water uses. NOAA and EPA will not approve a state
coastal nonpoint program whose geographic scope does not encompass such uses because
a program that does not control the significant land and water uses cannot be expected
to "restore and protect coastal waters".
Section 6217(e) requires that NOAA, in consultation with EPA, review each state's
existing state coastal zone boundary established under the CZMA, and recommend any
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
modification to that boundary needed to effectively manage land and water uses to
protect coastal waters. Specifically, the statute directs NOAA, in consultation with EPA,
to evaluate whether each state coastal zone boundary extends inland to the extent
necessary to control nonpoint source pollution from land and water uses that have a
significant impact on a state's coastal waters. See section 6217(e)(l). If NOAA, in
consultation with EPA, finds that boundary modifications are necessary for a state to
more effectively manage land and water uses to protect coastal waters, then NOAA shall
recommend appropriate modifications. See section 6217(e)(2).
Although expressed in terms of a recommendation that a state modify its coastal zone
boundary, NOAA's recommendation also defines what NOAA and EPA believe should
be the geographic scope of that state's coastal nonpoint program, i.e., "the 6217
management area". A state program need not adopt the exact 6217 management area
recommended by NOAA if the state can demonstrate that a smaller geographic area
would be adequate to restore and protect coastal waters. Absent such a demonstration,
however, NOAA and EPA expect the geographic scope of the coastal nonpoint program
to correspond to NOAA's recommendation.
To provide a basis for its recommendation, NOAA conducted a review of states' existing
coastal zone boundaries and provided each state with an analysis of its boundary. In
conducting this review, NOAA, in consultation with EPA, compared indicators of
nonpoint source pollution potential within coastal zone boundaries, and within coastal
watersheds. Coastal watersheds were selected because watersheds provide a logical
physical unit when dealing with nonpoint source pollution. To provide a uniform
framework for evaluation, the review was based on the national hydrologic unit
classification system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). For purposes of
this review, coastal watersheds were defined as the USGS Cataloging Units adjacent to
the shore and extending inland along estuaries to include the USGS Cataloging Units
that encompass the head of tide.
Within each state, NOAA evaluated each watershed that drains into coastal waters,
whether or not that watershed is encompassed within a state's existing coastal zone.
Based on nationally available data, NOAA determined for each watershed whether
significant indicators of nonpoint pollution potential were present within four analysis
areas: (1) the existing coastal zone, (2) the coastal watershed, (3) the area inland of
the coastal watershed within the state's borders, and (4) the area beyond the state
borders that drain into coastal waters. NOAA has focused on significant indicators
of nonpoint source pollution in compliance with section 6217(e) which directs NOAA to
evaluate whether the coastal zone extends inland "to the extent necessary to control
land and water uses that have a significant impact on coastal waters of the State."
(Section 6217(e)(l)).
10
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
Based on the review of each coastal watershed, NOAA will develop a preliminary
assessment of the appropriate geographic scope of the state's program, i.e., the 6217
management area, and will make a corresponding recommendation for modification to
the state's coastal zone boundary. Where the coastal watershed appears to capture most
of the significant indicators of nonpoint pollution potential, NOAA will recommend the
coastal watershed as the 6217 management area. Where significant indicators of
nonpoint source pollution are present inland of the coastal watershed, NOAA will
recommend that the 6217 management area extend inland of the coastal watershed.8
Finally, in coastal watersheds where an area less than the coastal watershed captures
most of the significant indicators of nonpoint source pollution, especially where the
existing coastal boundary closely aligns with the coastal watershed, NOAA will
recommend that lesser area as the 6217 management area. In no case will NOAA
recommend an area less than the existing coastal zone as the 6217 management area.
The geographic scope of the coastal nonpoint program must be based on the impact
of land and water uses on coastal waters. NOAA's boundary recommendation will
specify a 6217 management area to guide states during program development.9 In
response to this recommendation, states are encouraged to undertake their own analysis
of their coastal watersheds. At the time of program submission, a state may propose
an alternative 6217 management area, in which case the state must demonstrate to
NOAA's and EPA's satisfaction that the management area extends as far as necessary
to control sources of nonpoint pollution that, individually or cumulatively, significantly
impact the state's coastal waters. NOAA and EPA will evaluate the adequacy of the
state's proposed 6217 management area as part of the program review and approval
process. Specific criteria for this evaluation are being developed by NOAA and will be
published separately.
A state is expected to demonstrate authority to manage the final 6217 management area
in one of two ways. First, a state may demonstrate that its coastal zone boundary has
been modified to encompass the entire 6217 management area. If the state coastal zone
management agency lacks authority to modify the boundary, the coastal nonpoint
program must contain recommendations to the appropriate state authority for changes to
the coastal zone boundary. Because there is no assurance that the coastal zone boundary
will be modified as proposed, NOAA and EPA also expect a state to demonstrate that it
The nature of the underlying data makes it infeasible for NOAA to recommend a specific distance
beyond the coastal watershed. States will be expected to examine these watersheds during program
development to analyze indicators of nonpoint pollution and to determine the inland extent of the
6217 management area.
Section 6217(b)(7) requires that each state program contain a proposed or recommended coastal zone
boundary modification as necessary to implement the NOAA recommendation.
11
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
has the necessary authorities, including enforceable policies and mechanisms, to ensure
implementation of the coastal nonpoint program within the 6217 management area.
Second, because the modification of a state's coastal zone boundary necessarily has
other implications besides nonpoint source pollution control, a state may choose not
to alter its coastal zone boundary. Areas outside the coastal zone, but within the
6217 management area, would be managed with other state authorities networked into
the coastal nonpoint program. Although changing the coastal zone boundary to address
NOAA's recommendation may be preferable because it would provide the clearest
delineation of the geographic scope of the coastal nonpoint program, the statute does
not make this a prerequisite for Federal approval. If the state's 6217 management area
extends beyond the state's existing coastal zone boundary, the state must also show
that it has the necessary authorities, including enforceable policies and mechanisms,
to ensure the implementation of the program's management measures with the 6217
management area.10
IH.C Implementation of Management Measures In Conformity with Section 6217(g)
Guidance
For program approval, each coastal nonpoint program must "provide for the
implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in conformity with the
guidance published under subsection (g), to protect coastal waters generally..."(section
6217(b)). In developing the (g) guidance, EPA focused on the significant categories and
sources of nonpoint pollution identified in state section 319 nonpoint source assessments.
The categories of nonpoint sources addressed in the (g) guidance are: agricultural
runoff; urban runoff (including developing and developed areas); silvicultural (forestry)
runoff; hydromodification, including shoreline erosion, and dams; and marinas. In
addition, the (g) guidance includes management measures for wetlands protection,
riparian areas and vegetated filter strips, which apply to a number of sources. A number
of specific source subcategories are also discussed in detail in the (g) guidance.
In order to satisfy the statutory requirement to provide for implementation of
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance, state programs must:
1. Identify nonpoint source categories or subcategories that will be addressed;
2. Identify management measures to be implemented for those categories and
subcategories; and,
3. Describe the process by which the state will ensure the implementation of
the management measures.
10
In addition, a state may choose to utilize a combination of the two approaches described above.
12
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
These elements are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
In its coastal nonpoint program document, a state must respond to each of the (g)
management measures by either: (1) providing for the implementation of that measure or
an alternative as effective as the (g) measure; or (2) justifying why the management
measure is not included in the program. This justification must be based on the
exclusion of certain nonpoint categories or subcategories using the process described in
section III.C.1.
m.C.1. Identification of sources to be addressed
For program approval, states must provide for the implementation of management
measures for each of the nonpoint source categories (e.g., agriculture) and subcategories
(e.g., confined animal facilities) identified in the (g) guidance to protect coastal waters
generally. States must also provide for the implementation of management measures
specified for wetlands and riparian area protection. In addition, a state may include
management measures for sources not identified in the (g) guidance (e.g., mining
operations not subject to permitting under section 402 of the CWA), if the state
determines such management measures are necessary to protect coastal waters generally.
NOAA and EPA may allow a state to exclude some categories, subcategories or sources
from the requirements of its coastal nonpoint program. An exclusion may occur under
two scenarios: (1) if a nonpoint source category or subcategory is neither present nor
reasonably anticipated in the 6217 management area, or (2) if a state can demonstrate
that a category, subcategory or particular source of nonpoint pollution does not and is
not reasonably expected to, individually or cumulatively, present significant adverse
effects to living coastal resources or human health.
Under the first scenario, a state can exclude one or more nonpoint source categories or
subcategories in coastal watersheds or parts of coastal watersheds. To do so, a state
must clearly demonstrate that each of those nonpoint source categories or subcategories
is neither present nor reasonably anticipated in such areas. If such a demonstration is
made, the state need not develop and provide for the implementation of management
measures for those nonpoint source categories or subcategories. For example, if a state
does not have and does not foresee the establishment of an animal feeding operation in
the 6217 management area, it need not develop a program to control such operations. It
should be noted, however, that when the exclusion applies only to a portion of the area
or a particular coastal watershed, the state must still provide for the implementation of
the management measures in all other portions of the 6217 management area where the
categories or subcategories are present or anticipated.
13
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
Under the second scenario, states may exclude certain sources within retained categories
and subcategories. To do so, the state must adequately demonstrate that those sources,
individually and cumulatively, do not and are not reasonably expected to present
significant adverse effects to living coastal resources or human health. Factors that may
be considered to exclude such sources include, but are not limited to:
• pollutant loadings or estimates of loadings from the sources;
• intensity of land use; and
• ecological and human health risk associated with the source.
In general, this second type of exclusion is designed to exclude sources that are present
in the 6217 management area but that, individually or cumulatively, do not and are not
reasonably expected to cause significant adverse effects to living coastal resources or
human health. In determining the significance of adverse effects, states should consider
both direct and indirect adverse effects. An example of a source that may be excluded
under this approach could include an on-site disposal system located a considerable
distance from surface coastal waters and above the groundwater table.
NOAA and EPA wish to emphasize the limited applicability of this second type of
exclusion. For this reason, NOAA and EPA have expressly placed the burden upon
the states to demonstrate that any excluded sources will not and are not reasonably
expected to present adverse effects to living coastal resources or human health, and
that the application of the (g) measures to the remaining sources will protect coastal
waters generally.
For either type of exclusion, states must submit a description and documentation of the
data and rationale relied upon for excluding the sources. The documentation should
include information contained in existing state water quality assessments (including those
developed under sections 305(b) and 319 of the CWA), other information sources listed
in Section IILD., and existing data (or modelling results) that indicate the
insignificance of the loadings or hydrologic impacts caused by sources that the state
proposes to exclude.
EPA and NOAA will review the states' submissions, including the adequacy of the
assessments, to determine whether the category or subcategory needs to be addressed by
the coastal nonpoint program. The issue of assessment adequacy may be discussed
through the threshold review process. In addition, NOAA and EPA will, at a state's
request, consider proposed exclusions during the threshold review process discussed in
section IV.B.
In the "Applicability" section of many management measures in the (g) guidance, EPA
has already established minimum sizes below which the measures do not apply (e.g.,
marinas with less than 10 slips) based on economic achievability analysis. In such cases,
14
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
state programs should address all sources above those minimum levels, except where a
state can document, as described above, that a less stringent level in a particular
geographic area will still allow protection of coastal waters generally.
It should be noted that sources excluded from the (g) measures implementation
nevertheless may be subject to additional management measures discussed in
section III.D.
m.C.2. Identification of management measures to be implemented
For program approval, states must specify the management measures that will be
implemented to address each category or subcategory of sources identified through
the process in section III.C.1 of this guidance document. Section 6217(b) requires
state management measures to be in conformity with those measures specified in the
(g) guidance. A state management measure is "in conformity with" those specified in
the (g) guidance if it is identical to, or is demonstrated to be as effective as, the
(g) guidance measures.
In order to accommodate variabilities relating to source, location and climate, or other
local conditions that could affect the implementation of the (g) guidance management
measures, the (g) guidance also lists a number of practices that can be used to
implement each management measure. States have considerable flexibility in choosing
management practices to achieve the management measures and are not restricted to
specifying or implementing the practices described in the (g) guidance. The practices or
system of practices chosen, however, must ensure the effective implementation of the
management measures. For program approval, the coastal nonpoint program must
describe the process the state will use to select practices that will result in the effective
implementation of the (g) guidance management measures.
Selection of Alternative Management Measures
In developing management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance, states may
select "alternative management measures" under two conditions: (1) states have
conditions that make the 6217(g) measures inapplicable or unsuitable, or (2) other
measures that equal or exceed the effectiveness of the 6217(g) measures already exist or
are scheduled to be implemented under existing state laws or programs. The use of
alternative management measures in these situations is supported not only by the statute,
which acknowledges that the (g) measures may be adapted to specific sites or locations
(section 6217(g)(2)(E)), but also by the legislative history which directs NOAA and EPA
to accord states flexibility in selecting management measures.
15
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
States may use these alternative measures instead of the (g) measures in their coastal
nonpoint programs only if they can demonstrate that such alternatives are as effective in
controlling nonpoint pollution as the measures specified in the (g) guidance. For
program approval, a state electing to specify an alternative management measure for
implementation will need to demonstrate that the alternative is at least as effective as the
(g) guidance management measure it intends to replace. States should use the best
available information to make this showing.
Management measure effectiveness can be evaluated or described in many ways:
pollutant loading, pollutant loading reductions, pollutant concentration in discharge, peak
concentration reductions, mean concentration reductions, habitat impacts (including
impacts resulting from changes in flow), impacts to fisheries, impacts to
macroinvertebrates, wildlife impacts, effects on support of designated uses, direct impacts
to the water resource of concern, the extent to which the source is actively managed, or
other factors. States may use any combination of these factors to demonstrate the
effectiveness of alternative management measures.
For approval of an alternative management measure, the state will need to demonstrate
that the alternative management measure (or a combination of measures or a series of
measures applied over time) is as effective as the measure set forth in the (g) guidance
when applied in the specific state or local area. For example, when management
measures in the (g) guidance specify certain storm events, design criteria or pollutant
reduction levels, the alternative management measures must specify similar storm events,
design criteria or pollutant reduction levels. In addition, the state will need to
demonstrate that the operation and maintenance procedures for the alternative are
feasible and adequate to maintain a level of pollution control as effective as the (g)
guidance measure over the lifetime of the measure. In choosing an alternative
management measure, states should take into account possible adverse impacts of these
alternative measures on other coastal resources such as ground water or wetlands.
In support of its alternative management measure, a state will need to identify the
procedures used to evaluate the measure and the results of that evaluation, and provide
specific technical documentation of the evaluation as part of their coastal nonpoint
programs. In general, information used to document that an alternative management
measure is as effective as a (g) guidance measure should be comparable in scope and
depth to that provided in EPA'S (g) guidance. States must support the evaluation of
alternative management measures with appropriate technical documentation. Although
sources such as "refereed" technical journals are preferred, other publications, such as
Federal and state technical guides, are acceptable. Fliers, fact sheets, and other general
public materials generally are not adequate sources of information without additional
supporting information.
16
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
In addition, or as an alternative to relying on written studies, the state may wish to
convene a technical review group consisting of experts knowledgeable in the subject area
covered by the management measure. This may be especially useful where the state is
interested in pursuing innovative approaches. The technical review group should provide
a report describing the evaluation procedure that was used to assess the effectiveness of
the alternative management measure. The report should be submitted to NOAA and
EPA as part of the program review process. EPA and NOAA will, at the state's
request, consider proposed alternative management measures during the threshold review
process and/or approval process discussed in section IV.
Innovative Market-Oriented Incentive Mechanisms
EPA and NOAA are interested in encouraging states to propose innovative market-
oriented incentive mechanisms to implement the (g) measures or alternative management
measures at lower costs. An important example of incentive mechanisms that could
serve to lower substantially the costs of obtaining a given level of loadings reductions is
the trading of pollution reduction credits.
Trading programs are proving to be a successful and cost-effective approach under
the Clean Air Act for reducing air pollutant emissions. Several case studies in
North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin show that the trading of pollution credits
holds considerable promise for reducing water pollutant loadings as well, particularly
nutrients. See Appendix H for short descriptions of these cases. Appendix H also
presents several brief summaries of relevant technical publications. These publications
indicate that pollutant trading programs may hold potential for achieving substantial
cost savings while attaining pollution reductions equivalent to those established by the
(g) measures guidance.
Conceptually, sources with low control costs would make trading arrangements directly
with sources facing high control costs. The low-cost sources would undertake additional
abatement efforts in exchange for financial compensation from the high-cost sources.
Sources with higher abatement costs would undertake less control efforts, while acquiring
additional reductions from other lower cost sources. Increased loadings from the high-
cost sources would be offset by the additional abatement efforts of low-cost sources, so
that the total loadings would be the same as if no trading occurred. In this manner, the
private incentives of polluters would be harnessed for public purposes. Thus, more
pollution abatement would be undertaken where it was cheapest, and less would be
undertaken where it was costly, reducing the overall cost while achieving the same overall
level of control. Such a trading scheme can minimize the total cost of achieving the
required reduction in loadings.
17
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
EPA and NOAA encourage states to propose innovative approaches such as the
theoretical case outlined above and as described in Appendix H. Any such proposal, of
course, must be consistent with the requirements of CZARA. At a minimum, in order
for EPA and NOAA to approve a market-based proposal as achieving implementation of
particular (g) measures, states would need to demonstrate that the proposal would result
in expected pollutant reductions equalling or exceeding those that otherwise would be
achieved in the same watershed if each participant separately implemented the (g)
measures. Finally, as with the implementation of any management measure, a trading
program would also need to meet the requirements for enforceable policies and
mechanisms described in section IILH.
States may consider trading schemes which involve trading of pollution credits among
nonpoint and point sources as well as among nonpoint sources alone. States may also
consider trading among sources inside and outside of the geographic area subject to the
(g) measures guidance, as long as such sources are within the same watershed. States
may also consider trading arrangements involving different pollutants (such as nutrients)
with similar environmental effects, to the extent that the state demonstrates that any net
environmental benefit is expected to result from the trading program. However, these
trading schemes should take into account uncertainties such as those associated with
measurements or predictions of pollutant loadings of a pollutant from the array of
sources involved. States should consider whether trading ratios should be established to
account for such uncertainties.
The likelihood of success of trading programs can be increased if states carefully define
the responsibilities of sources involved. Trading programs should provide assurance that
the validity of trading agreements will be preserved. Trades between sources are most
promising if they shift the responsibility for the agreed-to controls entirely from the buyer
to the seller, who would then be subject to the enforceable policies and mechanisms
referenced above. If buyers are required to adopt additional controls when sellers fail to
implement agreed-to controls, then trading programs are less likely to succeed. Similarly,
trades are most promising if they are based only on the validity of the agreement, and
not on the success of the controls agreed to by the seller. Otherwise, the risks to buyers
of trading ~ that is, having to pay twice - may prevent many trades and undermine the
effectiveness of a trading program.
EPA and NOAA encourage states to focus on minimizing the costs of transacting trades.
Delays and uncertainty in arranging specific trades, as well as direct application fees, can
serve to raise the costs of transacting trades, to hinder trades, and to lower the likelihood
that such trades will reduce compliance costs. Similarly, arbitrary requirements that
trades substantially reduce net expected pollutant loadings can serve to raise transaction
costs and deter trades. Finally, states should establish guidelines for sources to follow in
arranging trades. Such guidelines should help reduce unnecessary delays, avoid any later
18
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
invalidation of trades, and lower transaction costs by increasing the likelihood that trades
will be approved in advance.
When proposing a trading program to control nonpoint sources, a state would need to
determine from EPA's (g) measures guidance and other sources the pollutant loading
reductions that must be achieved from a group of sources within a watershed over a
specified period, such as a season or a year. This establishes the baseline that the trade
would need to achieve. For example, implementing the (g) guidance control measures
on a dairy farm of given characteristics could be expected to reduce nutrient loadings by
a certain amount. Each source would be required to reduce loadings by the necessary
amount, by implementing controls on-site, or off-site through appropriate trading
arrangements. Sources that believe their costs of achieving the necessary loading
reductions are high could finance incremental controls at other sources with lower costs,
expecting such trades to be approved. Compliance would be ascertained through
demonstration that the necessary loadings reductions are achieved either on-site by
implementing control measures, or off-site through appropriate trading arrangements,
consistent with enforceable policies and mechanisms established elsewhere by the state in
its coastal nonpoint program.
Multiple Management Measures
Section 6217(g)(5) of CZARA requires that management measures be economically
achievable. In its economic achievability analysis, EPA estimated costs of selected
combinations of multiple management measures applicable to sources. EPA focused its
analysis on those cases which it believes are most likely to occur. Multiple measures
which EPA concluded are economically achievable include (1) erosion control, confined
animal feedlots, and grazing management measures, (2) combination of all forestry
measures, (3) new development requirements such as stormwater, erosion and sediment
control, and septic tanks, (4) all marina requirements; and (5) municipality requirements
such as stormwater, erosion and sediment control, bridge maintenance, salt storage, street
sweeping, wetlands protection, stream stabilization, and dam-related expenses.
EPA and NOAA recognize that it is impossible to determine economic achievability for
all possible combinations of management measures. For example, a dairy farm might be
responsible for control of discharge from animal feedlots, grazing, erosion, streambank
stabilization, and wetlands preservation. In this case, EPA has found that a combination
of management measures for erosion, feedlots and grazing are economically achievable,
but not in combination with wetlands protection and streambank stabilization. In
situations where EPA has not considered a specific combination of management
measures in its economic achievability analysis, states may be granted flexibility to re-
examine whether a particular combination of multiple management measures is
economically achievable for a group of sources. If, in its program submission or in
19
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
subsequent revisions, a state finds that EPA did not consider the economic achievability
of multiple management measures that apply to a group of sources when added together,
the state may propose a fresh determination of management measures applicable to that
group of sources. When making these determinations, states will need to meet the
requirements of CZARA, including section 6217(g), which defines management measures
as reflecting the greatest degree of pollutant reduction economically achievable. States
may take into account direct and indirect costs and may consider incremental costs
relative to incremental reductions in loadings.
BI.G3. Description of the implementation process and authorities
For program approval, the state will need to provide detailed information on how it will
ensure implementation of the management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance.
This information should be provided for each nonpoint source category or subcategory as
identified in section III.C.1.
At a minimum, for each category and subcategory, the state coastal nonpoint
program will:
a. Describe the scope, structure, and coverage of the state implementation
program.
b. Describe the organization, structure and authorities of the state or local agency
or agencies that will have responsibility for administering the implementation
program, including:
i. an identification of the designated lead agency for the program
addressing each category or subcategory. If the designated lead agency is
not the section 319 or coastal zone management agency, the description
must specify how the lead agency and its authorities have been
incorporated into the coastal nonpoint program.
ii. a description of how the lead agency expects to implement the program
including, for example, the number of staff and general responsibilities, cost
of the program and potential funding sources.
c. Include a schedule for each nonpoint source category or subcategory with
milestones for achieving full implementation of the management measures within
three years as described in section IV.D.
d. Identify enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure that each management
measure identified in the coastal nonpoint program is implemented in accordance
20
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
with section III.H. of this guidance. States must submit copies of the appropriate
legislative and administrative documents to demonstrate that authorities exist to
support implementation of the management measures. Furthermore, if the
enforcement authority will not be exercised directly by the state coastal zone
management or section 319 agency, the state coastal nonpoint program must
include provisions to ensure that the governmental body with the statutory
authority exercises that authority as set forth in the state's coastal nonpoint
program. States must submit documentation such as memoranda of
understanding, executive orders or administrative directives which embody
agreements to ensure this conformity. These authorities must be incorporated
into the coastal nonpoint program.
e. Describe mechanisms to improve coordination among state agencies and
among state and local officials responsible for land use programs and permitting,
water quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health
and safety as required by section 6217(b)(6). States will need to include copies of
any memoranda of agreement or provisions for joint project review.
(See discussion in section III.G.)
f. Describe a process to identify practices to achieve the management measures.
g. Describe activities to ensure continuing performance and long term
effectiveness of the measure through proper operation and maintenance. States
should follow the operation and maintenance programs described in the (g)
guidance or, where the state has developed its own measures, describe the
operation and maintenance requirements for the alternative measures. Activities
to monitor implementation and enforcement should include a program for the
comprehensive survey of sources that are required to implement the management
measure, and a program for periodic inspections of sources.
h. Describe state activities to monitor the effectiveness of the (g) measures based
on accepted water quality monitoring protocols such as those described in Chapter
8 of the (g) guidance.
States may meet any of these requirements by: (1) identifying existing program activities
currently being implemented effectively under state coastal zone management programs,
state nonpoint source management programs, or by other state programs; (2) providing
the information discussed above for the existing programs; (3) developing new
enforceable policies, as necessary; and (4) incorporating these programs into the new
coastal nonpoint program.
21
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
m.D. Requirements for Implementation of Additional Management Measures
For program approval, state coastal nonpoint programs must provide for the
implementation of "additional management measures" where coastal water quality is
impaired or threatened even after the implementation of the management measures
specified in the (g) guidance. See Section 6217(b).11 These additional measures apply
both to existing land and water uses that are found to cause or contribute to water
quality impairment and to new or substantially expanding land uses within critical coastal
areas adjacent to impaired or threatened coastal waters. Specific statutory requirements
for implementation of additional management measures can be found in sections
6217(b)(l), (2) and (3) of CZARA.
As described by the amendment's sponsor in a floor statement on CZARA, the
additional management measures provide a "second tier of pollution control efforts" and
"are targeted to those coastal land uses that are recognized to cause or contribute to
water quality problems generally." See 136 Cong. Rec. E. 3590, October 27, 1990. In
addition, the legislative history describes the additional management measures provision
as also requiring "the identification of important coastal areas ~ as contrasted to
individual land uses under paragraph (1) [section 6217(b)(l)] ~ that need additional
measures to protect against anticipated pollution problems. Unlike paragraph (1), the
imposition of additional measures are not contingent upon identified water quality
problems, and are to be established as a preventative step to avoid water quality
problems that might otherwise develop." Id.
For program approval, states will need to do the following:
1. identify coastal waters that are not attaining or maintaining applicable
water quality standards or protecting designated uses, or that are threatened
by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings from new or
expanding sources;
2. identify land uses that individually or cumulatively cause or threaten water
quality impairments in those coastal waters;
3. identify critical coastal areas;
4. develop a process for determining whether additional measures are necessary
to attain or maintain water quality standards in the waters identified above;
11
For purposes of section 6217(b), the definitions for water quality standards and designated uses are
those found in section 303 of the Clean Water Act and in 40 C.F.R. Part 131.
22
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
5. describe the additional management measures the state will apply to the
identified land uses and critical coastal areas; and,
6. develop a program to ensure implementation of the additional management
measures within the time frame described in section IV.D.
These elements are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
in.D.l. Identification of coastal waters that are not attaining or maintaining
water quality standards
For program approval, states must, at a minimum, identify the following as threatened or
impaired waters:
a. coastal waters identified in a state's most recent report under section
305(b) of the CWA as "partially meeting" or "not meeting" designated uses or
as "threatened";
b. coastal waters listed by a state in accordance with the requirements of section
303(d)(l)(a) of the CWA requiring Total Maximum Daily Load calculations if
listing is due at least in part to nonpoint sources;
c. coastal waters listed by a state under CWA section 304(1) as impaired by
nonpoint source pollution;
d. coastal waters identified by a state as impaired or threatened by nonpoint
source pollution in an assessment submitted to EPA under section 319 of the
CWA or in any updates of the assessment.
States should also consider the results of water quality monitoring associated with
assessing the effectiveness of the (g) measures in attaining and maintaining water quality
standards when identifying impaired or threatened waters.
States should also identify coastal waters for which existing dilution calculations or
predictive models indicate nonattainment of water quality standards. Other organizations
and groups should be actively solicited for research they may be conducting or reporting.
For example, volunteer monitoring organizations, university researchers, the USD A,
NOAA, USGS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and a wide variety of state
agencies can be good sources of field data. In addition, states should examine waters for
which coastal water quality problems have been reported to the state by local, state or
Federal agencies, members of the public, or academic institutions.
23
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
States should use the most current data available, including information generated in
evaluating the effectiveness of the (g) measures, and must describe the validity of the
data used to determine threatened or impaired waters. States should consider the
following in evaluating the validity of the data:
a. whether the assessments are based on monitored or evaluated data;
b. the limitS|on the availability of water quality information for coastal wetlands,
estuaries and groundwater resources that affect coastal waters; and,
c. the difference between each coastal waterbody's current condition and the
condition needed to support the designated uses that the state has identified in its
water quality standards. (See Appendix F for examples of designated uses and
support levels).
NOAA and EPA require each state to identify its impaired and threatened coastal waters
in order to evaluate both the adequacy of the state's identification of land uses required
by section 6217(b)(l) and the critical coastal areas required by section 6217(b)(2), and
the adequacy of its determination that additional management measures need to be
implemented. As part of the threshold review process (see section IV.B.), NOAA and
EPA will work with the state to evaluate the state's water quality information. If the
information is incomplete, the state may be asked to develop reasonable additional
information on water quality impairments. States are encouraged to complete water
quality assessments for coastal waters and estuaries. In addition, states are encouraged
to adopt water quality standards for marine waters and for common nonpoint source
pollutants such as nutrients.
III.D.2. Identification of land uses causing or threatening water
quality impairments
Once threatened and impaired coastal waters have been identified, as described in
section III.D.l, states must then identify those land uses that individually or cumulatively
cause or contribute to coastal water quality impairments. The land uses should include
the general nonpoint sources categories and subcategories described in the (g) guidance
and other land uses not mentioned in the (g) guidance that are or may be sources of
runoff and infiltration to coastal waters such as landfills and certain mining operations.
States should use the most current land use information available (local and state land
use maps, Geographic Information Systems, etc.) to identify these land uses. NOAA and
EPA encourage states to use maps to display identified land uses.
Water quality impacts may occur where a land use involves: (1) substantial disturbance to
the land or water resource; (2) substantial treatment, introduction, or creation of a
24
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
nonpoint source pollutant; or (3) a substantial temporary or permanent change to the
hydrology or other natural characteristics of a land area or water resource.
Once general land use patterns and potential water quality impacts have been identified,
states should consider more specific land use characteristics to help determine whether
current or future uses are likely to cause or contribute to water quality impairments.
State should consider the biological and physical impacts of these land uses within the
watershed adjacent to the impaired or threatened waterbody or segment. States should
consider physical characteristics such as: topography/slope; soil characteristics
(credibility, etc.); shoreline erosion characteristics; hydrology, in particular groundwater
linkages to coastal waters and high water tables; and the presence of forest and other
vegetated areas that may provide natural buffers or nutrient sinks. States should also
consider habitat and other biological impacts that may be caused by specific land uses.
The preferred source of information on the relationship between land uses and water
quality is "refereed" technical journals. However, other sources often will be needed
to fill gaps caused by a shortage of information relating land use to nonpoint source
impacts. Additional sources could include Federal and state publications, generally
accepted models (e.g., loading coefficients), and similar information. Sources used
by the state in identifying and evaluating the land uses should be cited in its coastal
nonpoint program.
m.D.3. Identification of critical coastal areas
For program approval, a state must also identify and map critical coastal areas — as
contrasted to individual uses identified under paragraph (1) of section 6217(b) ~ that
need additional measures to protect against current and anticipated nonpoint pollution
problems. See section 6217(b)(2). The establishment of critical coastal areas should
focus on those areas in which new or substantially expanding land uses may cause or
contribute to the impairment of coastal water quality.
States have flexibility in their approach to delineating critical coastal areas.
The following two examples illustrate approaches for the establishment of critical
coastal areas.
Under the first approach, a state could establish the critical coastal area as a strip of land
along the portion(s) of the shoreline adjacent to threatened or impaired coastal waters.
Some states have programs that specify a land area along the shoreline of a waterbody
and that extend inland a uniform distance from the shoreline or from landward
boundaries of wetlands or heads of tides. Within this area, special controls such as
setbacks and low density zoning can be employed to protect coastal waters.
25
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
In establishing a critical coastal area along the shoreline, a state may omit areas where
recent water quality assessments demonstrate that the coastal waterbody is neither
impaired nor threatened, and where a state can demonstrate that new land uses or
expansions of existing land uses will not contribute to a future threat or impairment of
the waterbody. For example, shoreline segments could be omitted if: (1) a state can
demonstrate that its coastal area is predominantly in Federal or state conservancy, the
use of which will not threaten coastal water quality, and that changing or expanding land
uses are not a concern; or (2) existing ordinances for an adjacent area effectively manage
new or expanding land uses (e.g., by controlling the extent of impervious surfaces and/or
the density of development along the coastal waters).
Under a second approach, a state could rely on site specific evaluations to determine the
extent of a critical coastal area. The critical coastal area could be established on an
ecosystem basis for the impaired or threatened coastal waters.12 Under this approach,
states may include broader geographic areas in the critical area designation, starting with
shoreline segments adjacent to threatened or impaired coastal waters, and extending
inland to encompass significant coastal features or resources further inland. These
broader areas may include entire watersheds or portions of watersheds adjacent to
coastal waters, and may encompass significant biological features such as wetlands.
In selecting an approach, states should consider the following factors:
• The nature of the coastal water quality problem(s) caused by
nonpoint sources.
• The extent to which the nonpoint sources are located adjacent to the
waterbodies as opposed to further inland.
• The physical and biological characteristics of the adjacent lands, such as
those described in the previous section on land use, that will affect the
extent to which uses of these lands will cause nonpoint source pollution
problems. (See section III.D.2.).
• Important biological features that should be included as a whole in critical
coastal areas, e.g. wetlands.
• The type(s), density and characteristics of the new or expanding land uses
that are anticipated and their expected effect(s) on water quality.
12
Ecosystem is defined as a biological community whose environment functions as an ecological unit.
26
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
• The extent to which the above effects can be prevented or reduced by
implementation of (g) management measures and/or the additional
management measures for land uses.
NOAA and EPA also encourage states to consider including other previously designated
areas within the critical coastal areas under this program. Such areas may include: areas
of particular concern designated as part of state coastal zone management programs;
National Estuarine Research Reserves; National Marine Sanctuaries; and, significant
watershed areas within National Estuaries designated by EPA under section 320 of the
CWA. NOAA and EPA expect that this approach will help to fully integrate and
coordinate this new coastal nonpoint program with other existing programs.
IILD.4. Process to implement additional management measures
Once the land uses and critical coastal areas, described above, have been identified,
states must describe additional management measures applicable to those land uses and
areas in order to address the sources of nonpoint pollution. See section 6217(b)(3).
States will also need to develop a continuing process, including milestones, for
implementing, evaluating and, as necessary, revising the additional measures.
NOAA and EPA expect that it may be necessary for a state to provide for the
implementation of some additional management measures immediately and others only if
implementation of the (g) measures are shown to be insufficient to protect and restore
water quality. The two categories of additional management measures are:
1. Immediate Implementation: For the waterbodies identified in section III.D.1.,
states should evaluate the relative contributions from point and nonpoint sources.
Where a threat or impairment of a particular water or waterbody segment is due
to nonpoint sources, the state should determine whether existing pollution
prevention activities and/or the implementation of the (g) measures will be
adequate to address the threat or impairment. If existing information indicates
that the implementation of the (g) measures will not be adequate to attain or
maintain water quality standards of the coastal waters or waterbody segment due
to contributions from nonpoint sources, then the state program must specify, at
the time of program submission, additional management measures applicable to
the appropriate land uses and critical coastal areas. Implementation of these
additional measures should begin at the time program approval is granted. Two
instances where additional management measures are most likely to be needed
immediately are: (1) where the (g) measures (or their equivalents) are already
being implemented under existing nonpoint source programs but water quality is
still impaired due to identifiable nonpoint sources; and (2) where states have
identified critical coastal areas pursuant to the description in III.D.3. because new
27
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
or expanding land uses threaten or impair coastal waters notwithstanding existing
nonpoint source controls.
2. Implementation based on performance of (g) measures: States should also
specify a continuing process for identifying, implementing, and revising, as
necessary, additional management measures after the program's (g) measures have
been implemented. As the (g) measures are implemented, the states should
monitor their effectiveness and should verify whether water quality standards are
being attained or maintained and designated uses protected. If a state determines
that nonpoint sources contribute in whole or in part to water quality impairment
even after implementation of the (g) measures, then the state will need to provide
for the implementation of additional management measures. As discussed in
section IV.D. (Schedule for Program Implementation), additional measures under
these circumstances must be fully implemented within eight years of Federal
approval of the coastal nonpoint program. The additional management measures
also must be monitored to assess their effectiveness in attaining and maintaining
water quality standards and protecting designated uses. Further refinements to
these management measures, the use of other additional measures, or
enforcement action may be necessary if water quality goals are still not met.
III.D.5. Selection of additional management measures
Having determined the need for additional management measures under III.D.4., states
will then need to select the additional measures to be implemented. Like the (g)
measures, these measures can include a broad range of structural and nonstructural
nonpoint source controls. Unlike the (g) measures, the additional measures need not
apply to all similar land uses throughout the 6217 management area. Rather, the
additional management measures apply only to those identified land uses and critical
coastal areas where further nonpoint source controls are necessary to ensure that coastal
water quality standards are attained or maintained and designated uses are protected.
For program approval, states are expected to provide the following information on the
additional management measures that will be implemented:
a. a discussion of the measure and the land uses and pollutants it is designed
to address;
b. evidence of the anticipated effectiveness of the measure in reducing nonpoint
pollution to meet water quality standards; and,
28
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
c. a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the measures once they are
implemented, and a schedule for revising such measures, as necessary, to meet
water quality standards.13
A number of alternatives are available to states in selecting the additional
management measures.
• States can select management measures not specified in the (g) guidance.
Under this alternative, states or local governments could develop very specific
additional management measures that could include buffer zones, low density
zoning, cluster development ordinances, conservation zoning, or other land use
measures best developed at the local level.
• States can apply the measures specified in the (g) guidance more
intensively (e.g., require a wider stream-side management area for certain
forestry operations than that necessary to achieve the (g) guidance measures
for stream-side management).
• States can apply the measure specified in the (g) guidance more stringently
(e.g., require a higher removal rate for suspended solids for new urban
development than that specified in the (g) guidance measure).
• States can provide management measures for land and water uses not
identified in the (g) guidance, or for sources excluded under the process
described in section III.C.l.
• States can employ innovative approaches as additional management measures.
For example, where there is adequate information, states could consider the use of
pollution trading for discharges from nonpoint and point sources or among
nonpoint sources in watersheds in order to attain or maintain water quality
standards in coastal waters and to protect designated uses.
Given the focused nature of additional management measures and the opportunity
to tailor the measures to local conditions, the requirement provides an excellent
opportunity to use local land use measures to control nonpoint source pollution. Thus
states are encouraged to work closely with local governments to develop and implement
these measures.
13
EPA and NOAA will establish a schedule for evaluating the need for management measures revision,
which may be tied to 305(b) biennial water quality assessments. If these assessments indicate that
water quality is not improving, the additional management measures already in place will need to be
revised.
29
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
m.D.6. Using Innovative Pollutant Trading Techniques
One innovative approach that states could consider as they develop additional
management measures is pollutant trading. Pollutant trading is a concept that
enables one or more sources to meet less stringent treatment levels in exchange for
other sources meeting more stringent treatment levels than the levels they would
otherwise be required to meet. In appropriate situations, trading can result in more
cost-effective pollutant control.
There are two types of nonpoint source trades that are possible:
(1) Point-nonpoint source trading. A point source that has complied with its
technology-based requirements may be able to avoid or lessen more stringent
water-quality-based treatment requirements by obtaining the requisite (water-
quality driven) reductions from nonpoint sources.
(2) Nonpoint-nonpoint source trading. A nonpoint source may apply more
stringent treatment than another one, and together the sources obtain the
requisite reductions.
Pollutant trading, to date, has been used only sparingly under the Clean Water Act.
Point-nonpoint trades have been approved in the Dillon Reservoir, Colorado (for
phosphorus) and for North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico watershed (for nitrogen).
The following factors, developed at a recent EPA conference on pollutant trading, should
be considered before considering the use of trading techniques14:
1. Trading is a potentially valuable tool, but its usefulness has not been
fully demonstrated.
2. Trading cannot be applied uniformly nationwide; it is site-specific and
local in nature.
3. Cause and effect water quality data, improved predictive modeling, and
definitive information on nonpoint source control effectiveness are all crucial
technical elements for trading.
4. Education and monitoring are both essential to the success of any
trading program.
14
A summary of that conference, "Administrator's Point/Nonpoint Source Trading Initiative Meeting"
(August 1992) is available from EPA.
30
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
Despite the formidable technical and administrative difficulties, EPA and NOAA
continue to believe that trading offers some potential water quality benefits and will work
to help state and local governments identify opportunities for beneficial trades and to
implement such trades.
IDLE. Technical Assistance
For program approval, state coastal nonpoint programs will be required to provide for
technical and other assistance to local governments and the public for implementing the
additional management measures (section 6217(b)(4)). This may include "assistance in
developing ordinances and regulations, technical guidance, and modeling to predict and
assess the effectiveness of such measures, training, financial incentives, demonstration
projects, and other innovations to protect coastal water quality and designated uses."
States are also encouraged to provide assistance to local governments and the public on
the implementation of the (g) measures.
In order to tailor the type and scale of their technical assistance activities, states should
identify those aspects of the program requiring implementation at the regional or local
level and the situations where regional entities or localities may need additional expertise
and/or experience. In designing the assistance program, NOAA and EPA expect that
states will consult with regional and local governments regarding their concerns about
implementation, and with the public about its needs and concerns. For certain
management measures, training sessions and certification programs conducted by the
state for regional and local officials may be appropriate. For others the financing of
demonstration projects may be an effective means of enhancing implementation. NOAA
and EPA will provide support to states in the implementation of this technical assistance,
as requested.
The statute states that technical and other assistance shall be provided to the public as
well as to local governments. The technical assistance to the public should include help
in solving individual problems and information on how citizen groups can participate in
the development and implementation of state programs (e.g., monitoring).
At a minimum, the state coastal nonpoint program should discuss the types of technical
assistance that will be provided to support implementation of additional management
measures for each of the major land use categories identified in a state's program. States
should identify the agency that will provide the technical assistance, the intended
recipients of the assistance, and a schedule of when such assistance will be available.
NOAA and EPA are committed to providing technical assistance to the states in the
development and implementation of their coastal nonpoint programs. EPA has
assembled a great deal of technical information during development of the (g) guidance,
31
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
and is continuing to add to this collection. This information will be available to the states
in a variety of formats, including bibliographies and summaries, both in hard copy and by
electronic bulletin board. NOAA and EPA will hold a series of national and regional
meetings with state and local officials to discuss their technical assistance needs.
Throughout the development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint programs,
NOAA and EPA will maintain a dialogue with the states and will provide technical
assistance whenever possible. NOAA and EPA will also work with other Federal
agencies and will encourage them to use their expertise to assist the states in the
development and implementation of the state programs.
HUE7. Public Participation
For program approval, states must provide opportunities for public participation in all
aspects of the program (section 6217(b)(5)). Congress intended the public to have the
opportunity to be extensively involved in the development and implementation of the
state coastal nonpoint programs, calling not only for public participation, but also for
public education.
As an integral part of the coastal nonpoint program, the goals of the public involvement
and education program should be defined by the state before it begins to develop its
coastal nonpoint program. The public will need to be involved as early as possible in the
development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint program, and the process
should seek to promote and maintain the public's long-term commitment to the program.
Each state must demonstrate that its coastal nonpoint program has undergone public
review and comment prior to submittal to NOAA and EPA. Specifically, a state will
need to demonstrate that it has provided opportunities for public comment prior to
determining which management measures will be used, what enforceable policies and
mechanisms should be employed to ensure implementation of the identified measures,
the geographic scope of the coastal nonpoint program, the identification of land uses and
critical coastal areas, and the selection and implementation of additional management
measures. Depending on the type of threshold review a state selects, there may also
need to be public participation as part of that process (see section IV.B.).
The public involvement and education program should include a schedule for initial
public contact and education activities, and milestones for further involvement throughout
the development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint program. These milestones
will need to address public participation, particularly in the development phase, and
public education, particularly in the implementation phase. The coastal nonpoint
program should also describe how the state expects to fund the public involvement and
education programs, including both program development and implementation activities
(e.g., Federal funds, state and local funds, or the innovative use of private sector dollars).
32
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
As part of the public participation and education programs, states should describe how
they will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.
Public education programs are expected to target several types of audiences, including
those regulated or affected by the program (e.g., farmers, building contractors, and
marina operators) and those that can assist with program implementation (e.g.,
conservation organizations and county extension agents). In the implementation phase of
the coastal nonpoint program, volunteers may be a very valuable source of assistance.
For example, Federal and state funds often are limited for water quality monitoring
programs, but volunteers can help to fill the gap. While clearly supplemental to
professional data collection, a number of states have successfully used volunteers in their
programs. Although costs will be incurred for training volunteers and supporting staff
time to coordinate the volunteer efforts, studies and reports demonstrate that volunteers
can effectively provide accurate, useful long-term water quality monitoring data.
in.G. Administrative Coordination
For program approval, the coastal nonpoint program must include administrative
coordination mechanisms (section 6217(b)(6)). At a minimum, the coastal nonpoint
program must include a list of state, regional and local agencies that will play a role in
developing and implementing the state nonpoint program. The list should describe the
mission, structure and operation of the agencies as they relate to nonpoint source
pollution control, and identify the specific role to be played by each agency in the coastal
nonpoint program.
A variety of mechanisms can be used to improve coordination among the agencies
involved in the coastal nonpoint program and to ensure that the various programs are
fulfilling their responsibilities to implement the applicable provisions of the program.
These mechanisms include, but are not limited to:
• Memoranda of Agreement/Understanding describing specific agency roles
and points of coordination
• Joint permitting processes
• Formal interagency comments during other agencies' permitting processes
• Cross training of staff in other agencies' programs
• Temporary assignment of staff to other agencies, e.g., Intergovernmental
Personnel Agreements
33
-------
Coastal Nonpoint frogram
• Interagency task forces (e.g., those associated with national
estuary programs)
• Interagency advisory committees
• Regularly scheduled interagency staff meetings
• State statutes/regulations describing expectations for interagency
cooperation and coordination
The mechanisms selected to ensure coordination among participating agencies should be
in place when the coastal nonpoint program is submitted to NOAA and EPA for review
and approval. The coastal nonpoint program should also explain how the state will
measure the effectiveness of program coordination and should provide a schedule for
periodic evaluation and reporting of the results to NOAA and EPA.
NOAA and EPA will work with other Federal agencies at the national level to ensure
their understanding and cooperation in the development of the coastal nonpoint
programs. NOAA and EPA will also work to assist in resolving conflicts that may occur
between states and Federal agencies during the development and implementation of the
state coastal nonpoint program.
m.H. Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms
Section 306(d)(16) of the CZMA states that, M[b]efore approving a management
program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find the following: ... [t]he
management program contains enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the
applicable requirements of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program of the
State required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
of 1990." The Act further provides that, "[ejach State which submits a management
program for approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended by this subtitle (including a State which submitted a program before
the date of enactment of this Act), shall demonstrate to the Secretary --... that the
program complies with section 306(d)(16) of that Act by not later than 30 months
after the date of publication of final guidance under section 6217(g) of this Act."
The statute includes a definition of "enforceable policy" in section 304(6a) of the
CZMA: "[t]he term "enforceable policy" means State policies which are legally binding
through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or
judicial or administrative decisions, by which a State exerts control over private and
public land and water uses and natural resources in the coastal zone."
34
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
NOAA interprets the term "applicable requirements" in section 306(d)(16) of the
CZMA to include the implementation, at a minimum, of: (1) management measures
in conformity with the guidance developed under section 6217(g) in order to protect
coastal waters generally, and (2) such additional management measures applicable to
land uses and critical areas identified in the program as are necessary to maintain or
restore coastal water quality and protect designated uses.
States can design a coastal nonpoint program that uses a variety of effective regulatory
and/or non-regulatory approaches in order to meet the requirement for enforceable
policies and mechanisms. Non-regulatory approaches must be backed by enforceable
state authority which ensures that the management measures will be implemented.
States are expected to demonstrate that they have the authority to take enforcement
actions where incentive or other programs do not result in implementation of
management measures, or where significant harm to coastal waters is found or
threatened. The selection and design of enforceable policies can be tailored to
specific state or local circumstances. The approaches states choose should take into
account the nature of the activity and existing institutions and authorities. States may
also want to evaluate the costs and benefits of various approaches. States may include
existing and/or new enforceable polices and mechanisms in their coastal nonpoint
programs. Whatever enforceable policies and mechanisms a state uses, they must
meet the threshold test in section 306(d)(16) of ensuring implementation of the
applicable requirements, (e.g., management measures as described above).
Enforceable policies may be established through state, regional or local authorities.
Where implementation occurs at the regional or local levels, the state must be able to
exert or retain authority to ensure local implementation in accordance with the
federally approved coastal nonpoint program.
As reflected in the section 6217(g) management measures guidance, a state may need
to develop different approaches or requirements for new and existing sources. For
example, the (g) guidance specifies separate management measures for the installation
of new onsite disposal systems and for the operation of existing onsite disposal
systems. States may want to consider these differences in designing enforceable
policies and mechanisms for implementing the various management measures to
restore and protect coastal waters.
To ensure the effective implementation of the enforceable policies and mechanisms,
states should educate the public about the importance of the management measures
and should provide technical assistance to local governments and the affected
interests. While public education and technical assistance programs alone may not be
used to fulfill the requirement for enforceable policies and mechanisms (except as
noted below), these programs can enhance the success of both regulatory and
non-regulatory programs.
35
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
Although the (g) guidance includes educational programs as practices under a number
of management measures, only the measures for urban pollution prevention and
marina public education require educational programs as part of the management
measures itself. For these measures, a demonstration that the state will conduct
educational activities will be adequate, and, therefore the state programs need not
include enforceable policies and mechanisms for these two measures.
Similarly, the guidance contains management measures which call for the state to
promote the restoration of wetlands and riparian areas, and the use of engineered
vegetated treatment systems such as constructed wetlands or filter strips. A
demonstration that the state will promote these efforts will be adequate to respond,
and the state will not be required to include enforceable policies and mechanisms in
its coastal nonpoint program for these two measures.
The next two subsections describe examples of the various approaches that a state
might consider in developing enforceable policies and mechanisms. The presence in a
state coastal nonpoint program of enforceable policies and mechanisms identical to
the examples does not necessarily guarantee approval of these approaches because
NOAA and EPA will need to evaluate a state's enforceable policies and mechanisms
in the context of that state's complete coastal nonpoint program.
IU.H.1. Regulatory approaches
One way to implement the requirement for enforceable policies and mechanisms in
the coastal nonpoint program is the traditional regulatory approach. Examples of
regulatory approaches include permit programs, local zoning, or direct requirements
contained in state statutes.
Permit programs
If a state chooses a permitting approach, it has flexibility in the type of permits it
uses: individual and general. An individual permit is written for a specific entity.
For example, states and localities can issue individual permits for onsite sewage
disposal systems prior to home construction. These permits can require
implementation of the management measures related to the siting, design, installation,
operation, inspection, and maintenance of new systems. These permits also may be
renewed periodically to ensure that the system continues to operate properly and/or is
pumped out at specified intervals. Implementation of the management measures for
the operation of onsite sewage disposal systems can be accomplished through these
permit renewals. Other types of individual permits such as coastal development,
building, or grading permits can be used to ensure that a number of the urban
management measures are implemented.
36
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
A state can also issue general permits for specific source categories. These permits
prescribe management measures that must be adopted by all entities that meet the
category definition. The state would conduct an education program to notify the
targeted entities that they must comply with the conditions of the general permit.
Individual permits may be issued or penalties imposed for non-compliance.
For example, a general permit can require farmers to adopt management measures
for various facets of their operation: e.g., nutrient management, pesticide
management, and livestock management. Farmers would choose site-specific
management practices from technical guidance provided by the state.
In another example, general permits are currently allowed for certain storm water
discharges under section 402(p), e.g., construction activities. Persons engaged in
construction activities would have to undertake certain sediment and erosion control
practices as conditions of a general permit. If recipients of a general permit fail to
meet conditions of the permit by not adopting the management measures, they may
face enforcement actions or could be required to apply for an individual permit
containing more detailed management, reporting, and inspection requirements.
Local zoning
Many local governments already use zoning ordinances to set conditions on
development. For example, local zoning ordinances may restrict the siting of marinas
to protect sensitive areas such as shellfish beds, and could, therefore, be used to
implement the management measures for marina siting. States could provide
oversight of these local decisions by setting the standards by which the zoning
ordinances are adopted and by retaining appeal of local decisions if they do not meet
the state standards. In addition, local zoning may be an effective mechanism to
implement additional management measures. For example, a state may direct local
governments to adopt provisions restricting land uses in critical coastal areas to protect
and restore water quality.
Direct state statutory requirements
A state may adopt laws that directly require or prohibit certain activities in certain
areas as a way to implement some of the management measures. While not requiring
a permit per se, state forest practices acts can require forest operators to maintain
streamside management areas as part of their plans of operation. This mechanism
could provide a way to implement a number of forestry management measures.
37
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
Enforcement of Regulatory Approaches
Enforcement under the regulatory approach could be triggered for failure to obtain or
comply with a permit, zoning ordinance, or direct statutory requirement. Enforcement
actions may include cease and desist orders, administrative orders, fines, or in certain
cases, criminal penalties. Fines can be punitive or can be based on the economic
benefit an entity gained from not implementing the management measures or the cost
of restoring the environment from harm caused by the noncompliance. Enforcement
may be triggered when inspections or monitoring programs show that operators are
failing to implement the (g) measures or the additional management measures.
III.H.2. Non-regulatory approaches
Although regulatory approaches may be well suited for certain nonpoint sources, they
may be difficult to design and implement for other sources. In addition, efforts to
control some nonpoint sources historically have relied almost solely on non-regulatory
programs. Accordingly, a state has the flexibility to employ economic incentive,
disincentive, or innovative approaches to address these types of sources, provided that
the state can ensure such approaches will result in the necessary implementation of
the (g) management measures and additional management measures. States will have
to include back-up enforcement authority for voluntary programs. Such back-up
authority could include sunset provisions for incentive programs. For example, a state
could provide that if too few operators participate in a tax incentive program, the state
would develop additional incentives or mandatory requirements to achieve the
necessary implementation of management measures.
Non-regulatory approaches may use financial mechanisms to encourage or discourage
certain behaviors. State tax credits, tax deductions, tax rebates, cost-share programs,
performance bonds, or loan programs are economic incentives that are often used to
encourage changes in behavior. Economic disincentives include increased taxes, fees,
or pricing structures. There are a variety of economic tools that states can use;
however, each state should analyze the relative effectiveness of the tools in
implementing the management measures before applying them in a given situation.
Economic incentives
State economic incentives can be used to provide financial support to guarantee
implementation of some management measures. For example, as a condition of the
receipt of state agricultural cost-share funds, farmers can be required to fully
implement specific management measures (e.g., sediment and erosion control, nutrient
management, pesticide management). Cost-share funds can also be used to ensure
38
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
that some of the forestry management measures are implemented (e.g., road
construction/reconstruction, road management, revegetation of disturbed areas).
State tax credits, deductions, or rebates could be granted or pricing structures created
to encourage the adoption of water efficiency measures to implement urban
management measures for onsite disposal systems (e.g., marginal cost water pricing to
encourage conservation of water, installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures). States
could set up grant or low interest loan programs to help individuals finance capital
expenditures associated with management measures such as replacing failing onsite
disposal systems, installing animal waste controls, stabilizing eroding shorelines using
vegetative methods, or constructing pumpout facilities for marinas.
Although economic incentive programs can be very effective in many cases, states
should recognize their limitations. Incentive programs can be very expensive for a
state to administer and implement, and state revenues will be required to support
them. In addition, if such approaches are used alone, it may be difficult to establish
the rate of cost-share or tax credits at a level that guarantees widespread adoption of
the management measures. As a state raises the level of financial support, the costs
of the incentive program will increase.
Economic disincentives
States can also develop economic disincentive programs to implement some
management measures. Fees, taxes, or price increases on specific items can be used
to reach the level specified in the management measures. For example, increased
prices may be used to stimulate water conservation (or modifications to pricing
structures that inadvertently encourage high consumption). Similarly, taxes or fees
may be levied on products to discourage their inefficient use.
States also should recognize the limitations on the effectiveness of disincentive
programs. The success of these approaches depends on the level of the tax or fee
relative to the price of the good. If a tax or fee is too high, it may change behavior
more than is necessary to meet the management measure. If a tax or fee is too low, it
may not change behavior sufficiently to adequately implement the management
measures. However, a fee could be supplemented by other approaches to meet the
measure. Despite these limitations, the use of mechanisms such as taxes and fees has
the advantage of generating program revenues.
Other innovative approaches
States also may use more innovative approaches to encourage management measure
implementation. Trading of pollution control requirements among point and nonpoint
39
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
sources or among nonpoint sources may be a useful tool in implementing additional
management measures to meet water quality standards in a particular waterbody.
(See discussion in section III.D.6.)
States may require that performance bonds be posted before an entity engages in an
activity requiring management measure implementation. For example, prior to
authorizing a channelization project, a state could require a developer to post a bond
to ensure that proper design and construction activities occur. When the developer
complies with the practices, the bond will be returned. If not, the bond will be
forfeited to the state. Bonds can also be used to ensure that proper operation and
maintenance activities occur.
As mentioned earlier, states may enhance the success of these non-regulatory
approaches through education programs. For example, as part of an existing pesticide
applicators' licensing program, states may require that applicators be educated on
management measures and appropriate practices and may require certification of
course attendance.
In conclusion, NOAA and EPA expect that states will employ a range of approaches
in crafting enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the (g) management
measures and additional management measures. A state coastal nonpoint program
should indicate clearly what approaches and authorities the state will rely on to meet
the requirement for enforceable policies and mechanisms and should describe how the
approaches will ensure the necessary implementation of the management measures.
40
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
IV. PROGRAM SUBMISSION, APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
The legislative history of section 6217 states that "coastal nonpoint pollution control
programs are not intended to supplant existing coastal zone management programs
and nonpoint source management programs. Rather, they are to serve as an update
and expansion of existing programs." Id. See also section 6217(a)(2). The legislative
history indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the links
between Federal and state coastal zone management and water quality programs and
to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal
waters and coastal habitats.
The sections below describe several aspects of the approval process. States may elect
to undertake "threshold reviews" with NOAA and EPA. Under certain circumstances,
NOAA and EPA may grant "conditional approvals" for state coastal nonpoint
programs. The last step in the process is "final approval" by NOAA and EPA. When
a state coastal nonpoint program receives final approval, it will automatically be
incorporated into the state's coastal management and nonpoint source programs.
IVj\. Program Submission and NOAA/EPA Review
Within 30 months after the publication of EPA's (g) guidance, states must submit their
coastal nonpoint programs to NOAA and EPA for approval. Appendix G contains a
listing of the information that needs to be included in the state's submission.
The statute requires the Secretary of Commerce to make a determination whether
the portions of the state's program under the Secretary's authority meet the
requirements of section 6217, and likewise, the Administrator of the EPA must make
a determination whether the portions under the Administrator's authority meet the
requirements of section 6217. If both officials determine that the requirements
of section 6217 have been met and each agency official concurs with the other's
determination, then the program will be approved. As stated previously, NOAA
and EPA have determined as a matter of policy that neither agency will approve a
state's coastal nonpoint program until the program meets all the Federal approval
requirements as determined by both agencies. NOAA and EPA (including both
headquarters and regional offices) will coordinate their review of the coastal
nonpoint program.
IV.B. Threshold Review
A state may request that NOAA and EPA conduct a threshold review of its proposed
coastal nonpoint program. The threshold review is an initial review by NOAA and
41
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
EPA of a state's approach to specific elements of its coastal nonpoint program. The
review would address key issues and decision points (e.g., identification of sources,
geographic scope, alternative management measures) that a state may wish to discuss
prior to drafting its coastal nonpoint program. The intent of this early review is
twofold. First, the process would allow the state, NOAA and EPA to discuss the
state's approach to certain program elements before the state invests substantial
resources in program development. Second, it would help states set priorities and
focus early on the final program, particularly on elements, such as enforceable policies
and mechanisms, that may take time to adopt. Threshold reviews may take the form
of informal consultations or a more formal process. The requirements for each type
of review are discussed below.
Informal Review
The first type of threshold review would be an informal consultation between a state
and NOAA and EPA The informal threshold review should occur as early in the
program development process as is practical.
A state would initiate the threshold review by developing a threshold review package
that briefly describes how it expects to address the requirements for the coastal
nonpoint program. NOAA and EPA will provide additional information for states to
use in preparing for the threshold review.
NOAA and EPA will review the information and will work with the state coastal and
nonpoint agencies to refine the state's approach, as necessary. Public participation in
an informal threshold review is not required; however, states may decide to involve the
public in some aspects of the process.
Formal Review
States may wish to undertake a more formal review of specific program elements prior
to submitting their final program. NOAA and EPA may issue preliminary findings on
the approvability of elements of the program. The purpose of these findings would be
to increase the predictability of the final review process, although these findings would
still be subject to the outcome of review of the program in its entirety.
As with the informal review, a more formal review is optional. However, if a state
wishes to take advantage of this form of threshold review, it should submit, at a
minimum, the following information: a description of the portion(s) of the coastal
nonpoint program which the state wishes to have reviewed, an analysis of how that
portion(s) meets the program requirements, the specific management measures
addressed by that portion(s) of the program, a description of opportunities for public
42
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
review and comment, and to the extent possible, how that portion(s) would fit in with
and relate to the remainder of the program.
Unlike the informal threshold review, the formal review process must include
opportunities for public participation and review. Prior to seeking formal review, the
state must provide a minimum period of 30 days in which the public is given the
opportunity to review and comment upon all portions of the program being submitted
to NOAA and EPA for their preliminary findings. The public notice for the review
period must indicate that the state is seeking such findings from the Federal agencies
on the specific portions of its coastal nonpoint program. It must also include a
description of the submitted portions and how they address the 6217 requirements.
NOAA and EPA also expect the state to consider any comments received prior to
finalizing the submitted portion(s) of the program.
NOAA and EPA will review the submissions and determine, as a preliminary matter,
whether they meet the specified program requirements. NOAA and EPA will provide
the state with written preliminary findings. Elements that have received preliminary
findings would still be subject to the final approval process, including public
participation, as part of the state's submission of its final coastal nonpoint program.
IV.C. Conditional Approvals
States are expected to submit a coastal nonpoint pollution control program that meets
all the requirements of section 6217 at the time of the statutory deadline for program
submission. However, NOAA and EPA recognize that in limited situations, a state
might submit a program for which all state enforceable policies and mechanisms
necessary to implement the applicable program requirements are in place, but that will
require further development of state, regional, or local authorities, or administrative
mechanisms, to ensure close coordination with existing plans and programs as required
by 6217(a)(2). In other cases, a state might have a substantial majority of the required
state enforceable policies and mechanisms in place, but need additional time to
develop other state enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of
all applicable program requirements.
In either situation, NOAA and EPA may elect to exercise their discretion and grant
conditional approval of the state coastal nonpoint program. Final approval of the
program would be conditioned upon the state's ability to demonstrate that all
necessary enforceable policies and mechanisms are in place. It should be noted,
however, that a conditional approval will not postpone the date by which NOAA and
EPA expect full implementation of the (g) measures. As discussed in section IV.D.
below, these measures are to be fully implemented within three years of the first
Federal approval action regardless of whether that approval is final or conditional.
43
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
Conditional approval of the program will be granted only in situations where the state
can demonstrate its ability to ensure adoption of the necessary regulations or local
ordinances or obtain state authorities for the remaining portions of the program.
NOAA and EPA will consider the following factors in evaluating a state's submittal for
conditional approval:
• Scope and significance of nonpoint sources addressed and the geographic
coverage for the enforceable policies and mechanisms already in place;
• Status of efforts to date to obtain the remaining enforceable policies and
mechanisms;
• The state's plan and reasonable timetable for obtaining the remaining
enforceable policies and mechanisms; and,
• The presence, in the submitted program, of enforceable policies and
mechanisms for additional management measures to be implemented
immediately to protect and improve coastal water quality.
In cases in which NOAA and EPA grant conditional approval of a state's program, the
state and local enforceable policies or mechanisms necessary to satisfy the conditions
will be required to be adopted within one year from the date of conditional approval.
Under very limited circumstances, NOAA and EPA may grant a state an additional
year to obtain the required enforceable policies and mechanisms. If the state is able
to satisfy the conditions within the required period, final approval of the program will
be granted. Conditional approval does not alter the program implementation schedule
described in section IV.D. below.
If NOAA and EPA find that a state fails to submit an approvable program or fails to
meet the conditions for full approval, both section 319 and section 306 funds will be
withheld according to the schedule described below.
IV.D. Schedule for Program Implementation
NOAA and EPA expect states to fully implement management measures, including
alternative measures in conformity with the measures specified in the (g) guidance,
within three years of Federal approval of the program and to fully implement
additional measures within eight years of that Federal approval.15 That is, if state
15 "Federal approval" as used in this section means the first Federal approval action, whether final or
conditional. For states receiving conditional approval, the implementation schedule begins to run at
the time that conditional, rather than final, approval is granted.
44
-------
Program Development and Approval Guidance
programs are submitted in July, 1995 and approved by NOAA and EPA in January,
1996, the (g) measures must be fully implemented by January, 1999 and the additional
measures by January, 2004. The period for implementation of additional measures
includes a two year period for evaluating the implementation of the (g) measures and
a three year period for implementing the additional management measures.
Under the statute, the purpose of the states' coastal nonpoint programs is to protect
and restore coastal waters. This purpose is advanced by establishing a schedule that
requires management measure implementation as soon as possible. In addition,
NOAA and EPA believe that states should begin implementing certain additional
management measures at the time of program approval to ensure that the statutory
goal of attaining and maintaining coastal water quality standards is achieved.
However, it is recognized that it may be necessary to defer implementation of other
additional management measures until the (g) measures are in place and their
effectiveness is monitored. The statute also requires continuing revision of the
additional management measures to ensure that water quality standards are met.
For new sources, NOAA and EPA interpret full implementation to mean that new
sources within each identified nonpoint source category or subcategory would be
subject to the management measures at the time of Federal approval. Full
implementation of management measures for existing sources (e.g., existing
agricultural operations or existing urban development) means that each identified
category and subcategory of existing sources is expected to implement the
management measures to which they are subject not later than three years after
Federal approval.
The state coastal nonpoint program should include milestones established at
appropriate intervals within the three year implementation period, by which progress
toward full implementation can be assessed in terms of management measures in
place and water quality protection achieved. This schedule should ensure that sources
having the most significant impact on coastal waters are addressed first. NOAA and
EPA will monitor progress of state implementation as part of program and grant
reporting requirements under section 319 of the CWA, section 306 of the CZMA, and
regular program evaluations under section 312 of the CZMA. States not making
satisfactory progress in meeting their milestones may be subject to loss of funds
awarded under section 319, as well as to sanctions imposed under section 312 of
the CZMA.
State coastal nonpoint programs must also include a schedule and milestones for
implementation of additional measures. Implementation of additional management
measures for critical areas and for those land uses (sources) for which state authorities
already require management measures in conformity with the (g) management
45
-------
Coastal Nonpoint Program
measures but where coastal water quality is still threatened or impaired, should begin
at the time of Federal approval.
IV.E. Program Approval Standards, Implementation and Penalties
Both EPA and NOAA will base their review of a state's coastal nonpoint program on
whether the state has met the requirements of the statute. NOAA and EPA will
perform their review consistent with the interpretation set forth in this guidance.
NOAA and EPA will consult with the states during the six month review period above.
The states will have an opportunity to amend their submission, if necessary, subject to
the public participation requirements and time constraints.
If either NOAA or EPA determines that a state has failed to submit an approvable
coastal nonpoint program, the relevant penalties will be levied both on section 306
coastal management grants and section 319 nonpoint source grants. The penalties
start at 10% in fiscal year 1996, and increase to 15% in FY 1997, 20% in FY 1998,
and 30% in FY 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter. In the case of the coastal zone
management program, the penalty is based upon the grants otherwise available to a
state in the current fiscal year. In the case of the section 319 nonpoint source
management program, the penalty is based on the grant amount awarded to the state
for the preceding fiscal year. Given the joint approval process, no state will
experience penalties to only one program. Funds withheld by NOAA and EPA will be
made available to states with approved coastal nonpoint programs.
46
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
APPENDIX B:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
APPENDIX C:
List of Section 6217(g) Management Measures
APPENDIX D:
List of States and Territories with Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs
APPENDIX E:
Overview of Existing National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
APPENDIX F:
Designated Uses and Support Levels
APPENDIX G:
State Coastal Nonpoint Program Submission
APPENDIX H:
Demonstrated Benefits of Trading
-------
-------
APPENDIX A:
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990
P.L. 101-508
SEC. 6217. PROTECTING COASTAL WATERS.
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.-Not later than 30 months after the date of the
publication of final guidance under subsection (g), each State for which a
management program has been approved pursuant to section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 shall prepare and submit to the Secretary and the
Administrator a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval pursuant
to this section. The purpose of the program shall be to develop and implement
management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal
waters, working in close conjunction with other State and local authorities.
(2) PROGRAM COORDINATION.-A State program under this section shall be
coordinated closely with State and local water quality plans and programs developed
pursuant to sections 208, 303, 319, and 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1288,1313,1329, and 1330) and with State plans developed pursuant
to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by this Act. The program
shall serve as an update and expansion of the State nonpoint source management
program developed under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as the program under that section relates to land and water uses affecting coastal
waters.
(b) PROGRAM CONTENTS.-Each State program under this section shall provide for
the implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in conformity with the
guidance published under subsection (g), to protect coastal waters generally, and shall also
contain the following:
(1) IDENTIFYING LAND USES.-The identification of, and a continuing process
for identifying, land uses which, individually or cumulatively, may cause or contribute
significantly to a degradation of—
(A) those coastal waters where there is a failure to attain or maintain
applicable water quality standards or protect designated uses, as determined
by the State pursuant to its water quality planning processes; or
(B) those coastal waters that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable
increases in pollution loadings from new or expanding sources.
(2) IDENTIFYING CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS.-The identification of, and a
continuing process for identifying, critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters
referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and (B), within which any new land uses or
substantial expansion of existing land uses shall be subject to management measures
in addition to those provided for in subsection (g).
(3) MANAGEMENT MEASURES.-The implementation and continuing revision
from time to time of additional management measures applicable to the land uses
-------
Appendix A
and areas identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that are necessary to achieve
and maintain applicable water quality standards under section 303 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) and protect designated uses.
(4) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE-The provision of technical and other assistance
to local governments and the public for implementing the measures referred to in
paragraph (3), which may include assistance in developing ordinances and regulations,
technical guidance, and modeling to predict and assess the effectiveness of such
measures, training, financial incentives, demonstration projects, and other innovations
to protect coastal water quality and designated uses.
(5) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.-Opportunities for public participation in all
aspects of the program, including the use of public notices and opportunities for
comment, nomination procedures, public hearings, technical and financial assistance,
public education, and other means.
(6) ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION.-The establishment of mechanisms to
improve coordination among State agencies and between State and local officials
responsible for land use programs and permitting, water quality permitting and
enforcement, habitat protection, and public health and safety, through the use of joint
project review, memoranda of agreement, or other mechanisms.
(7) STATE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.-A proposal to
modify the boundaries of the State coastal zone as the coastal management agency
of the State determines is necessary to implement the recommendations made
pursuant to subsection (e). If the coastal management agency does not have the
authority to modify such boundaries, the program shall include recommendations for
such modifications to the appropriate State authority.
(c) PROGRAM SUBMISSION, APPROVAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION-
(1) REVIEW AND APPROVAL.-Within 6 months after the date of submission by
a State of a program pursuant to this section, the Secretary and the Administrator
shall jointly review the program. The program shall be approved if—
(A) the Secretary determines that the portions of the program under the
authority of the Secretary meet the requirements of this section and the
Administrator concurs with that determination; and
(B) the Administrator determines that the portions of the program under the
authority of the Administrator meet the requirements of this section and the
Secretary concurs with that determination.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROVED PROGRAM.-If the program of a State
is approved in accordance with paragraph (1), the State shall implement the program,
including the management measures included in the program pursuant to subsection
(b), through—
(A) changes to the State plan for control of nonpoint source pollution
approved under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
(B) changes to the State coastal zone management program developed under
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by this
Act.
(3) WITHHOLDING COASTAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.-If the
Secretary finds that a coastal State has failed to submit an approvable program as
required by this section, the Secretary shall withhold for each fiscal year until such
-------
Appendix A
a program is submitted a portion of grants otherwise available to the State for the
fiscal year under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
follows:
(A) 10 percent for fiscal year 1996.
(B) 15 percent for fiscal year 1997.
(C) 20 percent for fiscal year 1998.
(D) 30 percent for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter.
The Secretary shall make amounts withheld under this paragraph available to coastal
States having programs approved under this section.
(4) WITHHOLDING WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSISTANCE-If the
Administrator finds that a coastal State has failed to submit an approvable program
as required by this section, the Administrator shall withhold from grants available to
the State under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, for each
fiscal year until such a program is submitted, an amount equal to a percentage of the
grants awarded to the State for the preceding fiscal year under that section, as
follows:
(A) For fiscal year 1996, 10 percent of the amount awarded for
fiscal year 1995.
(B) For fiscal year 1997, 15 percent of the amount awarded for
fiscal year 1996.
(C) For fiscal year 1998, 20 percent of the amount awarded for
fiscal year 1997.
(D) For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, 30 percent of the
amount awarded for fiscal year 1998 or other preceding fiscal year.
The Administrator shall make amounts withheld under this paragraph available to
States having programs approved pursuant to this subsection.
(d) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE-The Secretary and the Administrator shall provide
technical assistance to coastal States and local governments in developing and implementing
programs under this section. Such assistance shall include—
(1) methods for assessing water quality impacts associated with coastal land uses;
(2) methods for assessing the cumulative water quality effects of coastal
development;
(3) maintaining and from time to time revising an inventory of model ordinances,
and providing other assistance to coastal States and local governments in identifying,
developing, and implementing pollution control measures; and
(4) methods to predict and assess the effects of coastal land use management
measures on coastal water quality and designated uses.
(e) INLAND COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES.-
(1) REVIEW.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall, within 18 months after the effective date of
this title, review the inland coastal zone boundary of each coastal State program
which has been approved or is proposed for approval under section 306 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and evaluate whether the State's coastal
zone boundary extends inland to the extent necessary to control the land and water
uses that have a significant impact on coastal waters of the State.
(2) RECOMMEND ATION.-If the Secretary, in consultation with the
-------
Appendix A
Administrator, finds that modifications to the inland boundaries of a State's coastal
zone are necessary for that State to more effectively manage land and water uses to
protect coastal waters, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall
recommend appropriate modifications in writing to the affected State.
(f) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL—Upon request of a State having a program approved under
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, may provide grants to the State for use for
developing a State program under this section.
(2) AMOUNT.—The total amount of grants to a State under this subsection shall
not exceed 50 percent of the total cost to the State of developing a program under
this section.
(3) STATE SHARE.-The State share of the cost of an activity carried out with a
grant under this subsection shall be paid from amounts from non-Federal sources.
(4) ALLOCATION.—Amounts available for grants under this subsection shall be
allocated among States in accordance with regulations issued pursuant to section
306(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, except that the Secretary may
use not more than 25 percent of amounts available for such grants to assist States
which the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, determines are making
exemplary progress in preparing a State program under this section or have extreme
needs with respect to coastal water quality.
(g) GUIDANCE FOR COASTAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL-
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary and the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies,
shall publish (and periodically revise thereafter) guidance for specifying management
measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.
(2) CONTENT.-Guidance under this subsection shall include, at a minimum-
(A) a description of a range of methods, measures, or practices, including
structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance
procedures, that constitute each measure;
(B) a description of the categories and subcategories of activities and
locations for which each measure may be suitable;
(C) an identification of the individual pollutants or categories or classes of
pollutants that may be controlled by the measures and the water quality
effects of the measures;
(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction effects and costs of the
measures;
(E) a description of the factors which should be taken into account in
adapting the measures to specific sites or locations; and
(F) any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the measures to
assess over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and
improving water quality.
(3) PUBLICATION-The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
publish—
(A) proposed guidance pursuant to this subsection not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
-------
Appendix A
(B) final guidance pursuant to this subsection not later than 18 months after
such effective date.
(4) NOTICE AND COMMENT-The Administrator shall provide to coastal States
and other interested persons an opportunity to provide written comments on
proposed guidance under this subsection.
(5) MANAGEMENT MEASURES.-For purposes of this subsection, the term
"management measures" means economically achievable measures for the control of
the addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint
sources of pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction
achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control
practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other
alternatives.
(h) AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.-
(1) ADMINISTRATOR-There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator for use for carrying out this section not more than $1,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994.
(2) SECRETARY.-(A) Of amounts appropriated to the Secretary for a fiscal year
under section 318(a)(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
by this Act, not more than $1,000,000 shall be available for use by the Secretary for
carrying out this section for that fiscal year, other than for providing in the form of
grants under subsection (f).
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for use for
providing in the form of grants under subsection (f) not more than-
(i) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
(ii) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1993;
(iii) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; and
(iv) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
(i) DEFINITIONS.-In this section-
(1) the term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(2) the term "coastal State" has the meaning given the term "coastal state" under
section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453);
(3) each of the terms "coastal waters", and "coastal zone" has the meaning that
term has in the Coastal Management Act of 1972;
(4) the term' "coastal management agency" means a State agency designated
pursuant to section 306(d)(6) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;
(5) the term "land use" includes a use of waters adjacent to coastal waters; and
(6) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
A. Urban Runoff
Historically, there have always been overlaps and ambiguity between programs designed
to control urban runoff nonpoint sources and those designed to control urban stormwater
point sources. For example, runoff may often originate as a nonpoint source but
ultimately be channelized and become a point source. Two statutory requirements have
resulted in additional confusion about program applicability. Section 402(p) of the Clean
Water Act, establishes permit requirements for certain municipal and industrial storm
water discharges, and Section 6217 of CZARA, which requires EPA to promulgate and
States to implement management measures to control nonpoint pollution in coastal
waters. The discussion below is intended to clarify the relationship between these two
programs and describe the scope and applicability of the coastal nonpoint program to
urban runoff in coastal areas.
B. The Storm Water Permit Program
The storm water permits program is a two-phased program enacted by Congress in 1987
under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. Under Phase I, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required to be issued for municipal
separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000
or 100,000 people, respectively), and for storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity. Permits are also to be issued, on a case-by-case basis, if EPA or a State
determines that a storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA
published a rule implementing Phase I on November 16, 1990.
Under Phase II, EPA is to prepare two reports to Congress which assess remaining storm
water discharges; determine, to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of
pollutants in such discharges; and establish procedures and methods to control storm
water discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality. Then,
EPA is to issue regulations which designate storm water discharges, in addition to those
addressed in Phase I, to be regulated to protect water quality, and EPA is to establish a
comprehensive program to regulate those designated sources. The program is required
to establish (A) priorities, (B) requirements for State storm water management programs,
and (C) expeditious deadlines.
These regulations were to have been issued by EPA not later than October 1, 1992.
However, due ta the numerous discharges to be covered by the studies and regulations,
EPA has not yet issued these regulations.
-------
Appendix B
C. Scope of Urban Runoff in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs
As discussed above, Congress enacted section 6217 of CZARA in late 1990 to require
that States develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs that are in conformity
with the management measures guidance published by EPA. Although EPA's
management measures guidance includes measures to address certain urban runoff, EPA
is excluding from coverage under this Section 6217(g) guidance all storm water discharges
that are covered by Phase I of the NPDES storm water permit program. Thus EPA is
excluding any discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more; any point source discharge associated with a permitted
industrial activity; any discharge which has already been permitted; and any discharge for
which EPA or the State makes a determination that the storm water discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States. All of these activities are clearly addressed by
the storm water permit program and thus are excluded from the coastal nonpoint
pollution control program.
EPA is adopting a different approach with respect to other (non-Phase I) storm water
discharges. At present, EPA has not yet promulgated its regulations that would designate
additional storm water discharges, beyond those regulated in Phase I, that will be
required to be regulated in Phase II. It is thus not possible to determine at this point
which additional storm water discharges may be regulated by the NPDES program and
which will not. Furthermore, due to the great number of such discharges, it is likely that
it would take many years to permit all of these discharges, even if EPA allows for
relatively expeditious State permitting approaches such as the use of general permits.
Therefore, to give effect to Congressional intent that coastal waters receive special and
expeditious attention from EPA, NOAA, and the States, discharges that potentially may
be ultimately covered by Phase II of the storm water permits program are covered by the
management measures guidance and will be addressed by the coastal nonpoint pollution
control programs. Any storm water discharge that ultimately is issued an NPDES permit
will become exempt from this guidance and from the coastal nonpoint pollution control
program at the time that the permit is issued.
In addition, we note that some other activities are exempt from the NPDES permit
requirements and thus are covered by the coastal nonpoint pollution control program.
Most important, construction activities on sites less than five acres, which are not
currently covered by the NPDES Phase I stormwater application requirements, are
covered by the coastal nonpoint pollution control program.1 Similarly, discharges from
wholesale, retail, service or commercial activities, including gas stations, which are not
covered by Phase I of the NPDES stormwater program, are covered instead by the
The provision exempting construction activities on sites less than five acres from the NPDES
permit requirements is currently being reviewed by EPA in response to a recent court decision.
-------
Appendix B
coastal nonpoint pollution control program. Further, on-site disposal systems, which are
generally not covered by the stormwater permit program, are covered by the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program.
Finally, EPA emphasizes that while different legal authorities may apply to different
situations, the goals of the NPDES and CZARA programs are complementary. Many of
the techniques and practices used to control urban runoff are equally applicable to both
programs. Yet, the programs do not work identically. In the interest of consistency and
comprehensiveness, States have the option to implement the CZARA section 6217(g)
management measures throughout the State's coastal zone, including Phase I stormwater
areas, as long as the NPDES requirements are met for areas subject to NPDES
requirements. In general, States are encouraged to develop consistent approaches to
addressing urban runoff throughout their coastal zones.
D. Marinas
Another specific overlap between the stormwater program and this coastal nonpoint
source program occurs in the case of marinas. EPA intends that the management
measures guidance for marinas and recreational boating apply only to sources that are
not currently required to apply for and receive an NPDES permit. In the (g) guidance,
EPA has attempted to avoid addressing marina activities that are clearly regulated point
source discharges. Any stormwater discharge that is ultimately issued an NPDES permit
will become exempt from this guidance and from the coastal nonpoint pollution control
program at the time that the permit is issued.
Marinas contributing stormwater runoff to municipal sewer systems serving a population
of 100,000 or more are a part of the municipal NPDES permit and are not covered by
the coastal nonpoint source program. Marinas are also required to obtain permits for
those portions of the marina that are involved in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication) and equipment
cleaning operations. However, many marinas are not currently required to apply for and
receive NPDES permits. The (g) management measures are applicable to marinas and
the parts of marinas that are not required to apply for NPDES permits.
E. Other Point Sources
Overlapping areas between the point source and nonpoint source programs occur in
addition to storm water and marinas. For example, concentrated animal feeding
operations that meet particular size or other criteria are defined and regulated as point
sources under the section 402 permit program, while other confined animal feeding
operations are not currently regulated as point sources. Overlaps may occur with respect
to aspects of mining operations, oil and gas extraction, land disposal, and other activities.
-------
Appendix B
EPA intends that the coastal nonpoint pollution control programs to be developed by the
States apply only to sources that are not currently required to apply for and receive an
NPDES permit, and that the management measures similarly apply only to sources that
are not required to apply for and receive an NPDES permit. In the (g) guidance, EPA
has attempted to avoid addressing activities that are regulated point source discharges.
-------
APPENDIX C: list of Section 6217(g) Management Measures
Management Measures for Agriculture Sources
Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure
Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal
Facility Management (Large Units)
Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal
Facility Management (Small Units)
Nutrient Management Measure
Pesticide Management Measure
Grazing Management Measure
Irrigation Water Management
Management Measures for Forestry
Preharvest Planning Management Measure
Streamside Management Areas (SMAs)
Road Construction/Reconstruction Management Measure
Road Management
Timber Harvesting
Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration Management Measure
Fire Management
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Forest Chemical Management
Wetlands Forest
-------
Appendix C
Management Measures for Urban Areas
New Development Management Measures
Watershed Protection Management Measure
Site Development Management Measure
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure
Construction Site Chemical Control Management Measure
Existing Development Management Measure
New Onsite Disposal Systems Management Measure
Operating Onsite Disposal Systems Management Measure
Pollution Prevention Management Measure
Management Measure for Planning, Siting and Developing Roads and Highways
Management Measure for Bridges
Management Measure for Construction Projects
Management Measure for Construction Site Chemical Control
Management Measure for Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure for Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff Systems
Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating
Marina Flushing Management Measure
Water Quality Assessment Management Measure
Habitat Assessment Management Measure
-------
Appendix C
Shoreline Stabilization Management Measure
Storm Water Runoff Management Measure
Fueling Station Design Management Measure
Sewage Facility Management Measure
Solid Waste Management Measure
Fish Waste Management Measure
Liquid Material Management Measure
Petroleum Control Management Measure
Boat Cleaning Management Measure
Public Education Management Measure
Maintenance of Sewage Facilities Management Measure
Boat Operation Management Measure
Management Measures for Hydromodification: ChanneMzation and Channel
Modification, Dams, and Streambanks and Shoreline Erosion
Management Measure for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface
Waters
Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration Management Measure
Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control
Management Measure for Chemical and Pollutant Control
Management Measure for Protection of Surface Water Quality and Instream and
Riparian Habitat
Management Measure for Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines
-------
Appendix C
Management Measures for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated
Treatment Systems T ''
Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Management Measure for Restoration of Wetland and Riparian Areas
Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
-------
APPENDIX D: List of States and Territories with Approved Coastal Zone
Management Programs
ALABAMA
ALASKA
AMERICAN SAMOA
CALIFORNIA
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GUAM
HAWAII
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MISSISSIPPI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
VIRGIN ISLANDS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WISCONSIN
-------
-------
APPENDIX E: Overview of Existing National Efforts to Control Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Section III.G of this document describes the statutory requirement for administrative
coordination. It also describes EPA's and NOAA's expectation that state coastal
nonpoint source programs build on and complement, rather than duplicate and conflict
with, other Federal statutory requirements and state-implemented programs. The
following section describes several existing and on-going efforts to control nonpoint
source pollution. State coastal zone and nonpoint source agencies are encouraged to
work with these programs in implementing their coastal nonpoint programs.
EPA Programs
1. dean Water Act Section 319 - Nonpoint Source Program
A number of local, state and Federal programs have been implemented over time to
address nonpoint source pollution. However, the first national program to authorize
Federal funding for the control of nonpoint sources began in 1987 when Congress passed
the Water Quality Act of 1987, enacting section 319 of the Clean Water Act, which
established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Section
319 requires that, in order to be eligible for federal funding, states develop an assessment
report detailing the extent of nonpoint pollution, and a management program specifying
nonpoint source controls. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to states to assist
them in implementing their nonpoint source management programs or portions of
management programs that have been approved by EPA.
As of August 1992, all states and territories had approved nonpoint source assessments
and management programs or portions of management programs. Congress
appropriated $40 million in section 319 FY 1990 and $51 million in FY 1991 funds to
assist States in implementing their management program.
2. Clean Water Act Section 320 - National Estuary Program
EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the Clean
Water Act. This program focuses on point and nonpoint pollution in geographically
targeted, high-priority estuarine waters. Under this program, EPA assists state, regional
and local governments in developing estuary-specific comprehensive conservation and
management plans that recommend corrective actions to restore and maintain estuarine
water quality and to protect fish populations and other designated uses of these targeted
waters. To date, seventeen estuaries have been designated as part of the National
Estuary Program.
-------
Appendix E
3. Near Coastal Waters Program
The Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program serves as a primary vehicle for implementing
environmental protection in coastal areas under a variety of programs and authorities. It
is also the framework for coastal regions for carrying out Agency directives, strategic
themes, and other initiatives not specifically related to distinct program issues. Examples
of these cross-cutting themes include geographic targeting for management attention;
pollution prevention; and setting priorities based on the expected efficacy of preventive
measures as well as the magnitude of ecological or human health risks. Specific
objectives include:
• directing and focusing EPA's coastal activities within priority geographic
areas;
• promoting linkages among programs;
• encouraging a comprehensive approach to problem assessment and
management; and
• maximizing environmental results.
The NCW Program is implemented through two basic components: specific national
activities which provide direction, support, and oversight; and Regional development of
NCW Strategies that serve to implement the Program within EPA's Regions and that are
carried out through activities described in annual work-plans.
4. Ground Water Protection Programs
EPA has a number of programs, in addition to section 319, to control nonpoint source
pollution of ground water. Since at least 1984, ground water protection programs have
provided technical and financial assistance to states for the development of state ground-
water strategies and, more recently, Ground Water Protection Programs. Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA may designate sole source aquifers. These are aquifers that
are the sole or principal of drinking water source for an area. At EPA's discretion, no
commitment for federal funds can be made for projects that will contaminate these
aquifers. In addition, the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act established
a Wellhead Protection program. This program was created to protect ground waters that
supply wells and wellfields that contribute to public drinking water supply systems.
USD A and EPA are also cooperating under a program to assess private drinking water
wells on farmsteads.
-------
Appendix E
5. Pesticides Program
EPA's pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
addresses some forms of nonpoint pollution. Among other things, this statute authorizes
EPA to control pesticides that may threaten ground water and surface waters. In
determining the appropriate regulatory approach for specific pesticides, EPA uses the
following step-by-step approach:
1) EPA determines the pesticide's potential for leaching into ground and surface water;
2) if there is such potential, EPA considers whether establishing national label restrictions
(enforceable under FIFRA) would adequately address leaching concerns (included in
these restrictions can be classification of the pesticide as "restricted-use," which requires
application by a trained, certified applicator; requirements for certain methods of
application, safe handling, storage, and disposal; etc); 3) if these restrictions are not
adequate to address the potential problem, EPA will determine whether providing states
with the opportunity to develop Pesticide State Management Plans for the chemical will
effectively address the unreasonable risk from pesticide contamination. In the event that
Pesticide State Management Plans could not sufficiently reduce the risks to human health
and the environment (i.e., an unreasonable risk remains), then EPA would resort to
national cancellation of the pesticide.
Pesticide State Management Plans will be developed by state agriculture,
water/environment, and health agencies and will prescribe pesticide application measures
to protect ground water that is vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Required
components of these Plans will include: state philosophy and goals, state roles and
responsibilities, legal authority, resources, assessment and planning, monitoring,
prevention, response, enforcement, public awareness and participation, information
dissemination, and records and reporting.
Since areas to be managed under State Pesticides Management programs and coastal
nonpoint programs may overlap in developing the coastal nonpoint programs'
management measures for agricultural pesticides, state coastal zone and nonpoint source
agencies should work with the State Lead Agency for Pesticides (or the state agency that
has a lead role in developing and implementing the State Management Plan). Such
coordination is necessary to ensure that program efforts and pesticide management
measures and practices to protect ground and surface water, complement and are not in
conflict with the pesticide label and with requirements in the Pesticide State Management
Plans. (For instance, if a Pesticide State Management Plan prescribes a moratorium on
pesticide use in one are, the coastal nonpoint program should not allow pesticide use in
that area). In states where Pesticide State Management Plans have not been developed,
planning efforts for the two programs should be closely coordinated.
-------
Appendix E
6. Wetlands Protection Program
EPA's wetlands program also has undertaken a number of projects to increase awareness
of the relationship between the protection and restoration of wetlands and nonpoint
source control. In 1990, the agency developed guidance to encourage coordination of
nonpoint sources and wetlands programs, both within EPA and the states, to attain water
quality goals shared by the two programs. In addition, EPA has released guidance on
how to ensure effective application of water quality standards to wetlands. Projects in
this area include:
Efforts with other Federal Agencies: The Wetlands Division is working with several
agencies to develop methods and transfer information on protecting and restoring
wetlands in ways which can be expected to provide nonpoint source abatement benefits:
• The Wetlands Division is working with members of the Interagency Task Force
on Floodplain Management and the Association of State Floodplain Managers
to better protect and enhance the natural and beneficial values of the Nation's
floodplain by promoting the concept of comprehensive or multi-objective river
corridor management. Managing river corridors for multiple uses provides the
opportunity for communities to simultaneously address nonpoint source
pollution, water quality, flooding, recreation, habitat and any number of needs
and challenges.
• The Wetlands Division is initiating a pilot project with USDA, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and non-profit groups to encourage landowner participation in
USDA's Wetland Reserve Program. By working cooperatively, these groups will
help landowners identify wetland restoration sites that will improve water quality
as well as enhance other wetland values.
Development of technical and outreach materials: The Wetlands Division has worked
with a number of other EPA offices and regions to develop materials that can increase
awareness of the important role wetlands play in improving water quality.
• Publications include: "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas"; "Summary
of Section 319(h) Wetlands and Riparian Projects for Fiscal Years 1990 and
1991"; and "Beyond the Estuary: The Importance of Upstream Wetlands to
Estuarine Processes" which focuses on the beneficial effects that upstream
wetlands have on the downstream water quality in estuaries.
• EPA has released technical guidance to States on how to ensure effective
application of water quality standards to wetlands. The development of standards
provides the foundation of a broad range of water quality management activities
including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under
-------
Appendix E
Sections 402 and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and control of
nonpoint pollution under Section 319.
a The Wetlands Division is developing a manual on best management practices to
protect wetlands from excessive stormwater runoff and to avoid overloading their
water quality improvement functions.
Criteria to address nonpoint source pollution: EPA is providing support for the
development of criteria to address the many types of nonpoint source pollutants including
nutrients, clean sediment, and organic contaminants (e.g.. pesticides). The Wetlands
Division is assisting in the development of wildlife criteria applicable to all waterbody
types and biological criteria for wetlands.
Wetlands Regional Contacts: For more information regarding regional or state
initiatives, contact the EPA regional wetlands coordinator.
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
(617) 565-4422
(212) 264-5170
(215) 597-9302
(404) 347-2126
(312) 886-0243
(214) 655-2263
(913) 551-7573
(303) 293-1570
(415) 744-1971
(206) 553-1412
NOAA Programs
Coastal Zone Management Program
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a program for states and
territories to voluntarily develop comprehensive programs to protect and manage coastal
resources. In order to receive Federal approval and implementation funding, states and
territories must demonstrate that they have programs, including enforceable policies that
are sufficiently comprehensive and specific to regulate land uses, water uses, and coastal
development; and to resolve conflicts among competing uses. In addition, they must
have the authority to implement the enforceable policies. The programs operates within
a coastal zone bound any which includes coastal waters and those which have a direct
one significant impact on coastal waters.
There are currently 29 federally approved state and territorial programs. Despite
institutional differences, each program must protect and manage important coastal
-------
Appendix E
resources, including: wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and
fish and wildlife and their habitats. Resource management and protection is
accomplished in a number of ways through state laws, regulations, permits, and local
plans and zoning ordinances.
While water quality protection is integral to the management of many coastal resources,
it was not specifically cited as a purpose or policy of the original statute. The Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 specifically charged state coastal
programs, as well as state nonpoint source programs, with addressing nonpoint source
pollution affecting coastal water quality.
USDA Programs
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Extension Service administer a number of
programs that contribute to reducing nonpoint pollution from agricultural production.
Agricultural Conservation Program
The Agricultural Conservation Program, administered by ASCS, provides cost-share funds
to farmers and ranchers to install conservation practices. The program has several goals
including: conserving soil and water, improving water quality, protecting and maintaining
productive farm and ranch land, and preserving and developing wildlife habitat.
ASCS also administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), designed to protect
the nation's most highly erodible land and to protect and improve water quality. Under
the CRP, farmers are reimbursed for retiring highly erodible and environmentally
sensitive croplands from production under ten year contracts. Water quality
improvements occur as lands are taken out of production because of lower fertilizer and
pesticide applications and because reductions in soil erosion decrease sediment loadings
to water. Land enrolled in the reserve program also provides habitat and other
environmental benefits.
Criteria for the conservation reserve program have been expanded to include
environmentally sensitive lands such as filter strips, wetlands and wellhead
protection areas.
Soil Conservation Service
The Soil Conservation Services (SCS) is the technical arm of USDA. SCS provides
technical assistance to conservation districts throughout the U.S. Under the President's
Water Quality Initiative, started in 1989, SCS is focusing some of its technical assistance
on a number of demonstration projects to address water quality problems. SCS staff are
-------
Appendix E
also located in many of EPA's Regional Offices to provide technical assistance and
support to the States and EPA. SCS is also providing accelerated technical assistance
to multi-state, regional projects such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gulf of
Mexico, the Great Lakes National Program, Land and Water 201, and the National
Estuary Program.
Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Areas
In selected agricultural watersheds and aquifer recharge areas, SCS, Extension Service,
and cooperating federal, state and local agencies will provide technical assistance and
conservation planning to help farmers and ranchers meet state water quality goals
without undue economic hardship. These hydrologic units are selected based on:
significance of the agricultural sources of pollution, relative predominance of pollutants
such as pesticides, nutrients, and animal wastes, and conformance with other water
quality efforts. Findings on the water quality effects of selected conservation practices
will provide a basis for expanding applications of such practices to other areas with
similar water quality problems.
Forest Service
The Forest Service managers 191 million acres of public forest and range land for
multiple use purposes. These lands comprise the National Forest System. EPA and the
Forest Service held a joint technical workshop in Oregon this past winter on sediment
and water quality. This meeting reflects the increased concern regarding the potential
impacts of sediment production from forest management activities on water quality and
aquatic life.
President's Water Quality Initiative
In 1989, President Bush launched an initiative to protect ground and surface water from
contamination of fertilizers and pesticides. Congress has funded the initiative in the past
several years. USD A, EPA, USGS, and NOAA are all working together on this initiative
through a series of work groups. Through this initiative, a number of watershed projects
have begun to address fertilizer and pesticides problems. The agencies are tracking the
implementation progress in these watersheds.
U.S. Geological Survey
EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) pledging cooperation and collaboration on water quality monitoring and
assessment activities. Both agencies expend much effort on monitoring and assessment
activities and the MOU is a tool to coordinate these efforts.
-------
-------
APPENDIX F: Designated Uses and Support Levels
DESIGNATED
Wildlife
Fishery
Shellfishery
Drinking water
Agriculture
Industry
Recreation
Navigation
High Quality
Fish and wildlife
Warmwater Fishery
Coldwater Fishery
Shellfish protection
Domestic water supply
Agriculture
Irrigation
Livestock watering
Industrial
Recreation
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Noncontact
Navigation
High Quality Nondegradation
SUPPORT LEVELS
Fully Supported
Partial Support
Non-support
Threatened
= all uses supported
= one use not supported
= 2 or more uses not supported
= all uses supported, but one or more uses may not be fully supported
in the future (unless additional management measures are
implemented) because of anticipated new or expanded sources
-------
-------
APPENDIX G: State Coastal Nonpoint Program Submission
1. DESCRIBE PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The introduction should include a description of the magnitude and distribution of
sources of nonpoint pollution in the 6217 management area.
2. DESCRIBE OVERALL PROGRAM COMPONENTS
a. §6217 Management Area
Respond to NOAA's boundary recommendation.
[§6217(b)(7); Program Guidance, p.9]
b. Coordination Mechanisms
Describe the mechanisms which have been established to coordinate among
the state, regional, and local agencies responsible for implementing portions
of the program. [§6217(b)(6); Program Guidance, p.33]
c. Public Participation
Describe the process used to ensure full public participation in the
development and implementation of the program. [§6217(b)(5); Program
Guidance, p.32]
d. Technical Assistance
Describe the state program for technical assistance to localities and the
public. [§6217(b)(4); Program Guidance, p.31]
e. Water Quality Monitoring
Describe activities to monitor the effectiveness of management measures
(see Chapter 8 of the (g) Guidance). States may choose to design specific
monitoring programs for individual source categories.
3. DESCRIBE MANAGEMENT MEASURES "in conformity with" (g) GUIDANCE
State programs should address each management measure identified in the (g)
Guidance for the six source categories: agriculture, forestry, urban, marinas,
hydromodification, wetlands and riparian areas. The following information should
cover each management measure, but may be provided by source category,
subcategory, or individual management measure.
a. Covered Sources
Identify nonpoint source categories and subcategories in the 6217
management area. Identify the categories or subcategories specified in the
(g) Guidance which 1) do not exist in the 6217 management area or 2) may
be excluded based on Program Guidance criteria, p.13.
-------
Appendix G
b. Management Measures
Identify the (g) Guidance measure or alternative measure to be
implemented. Alternative measure must include technical documentation.
[Program Guidance, p. 15]
c. Management Practices
Describe state practices to implement measure or the process for selecting
practices to meet site-specific conditions. Include operation and
maintenance practices where appropriate.
d. Lead Agency
Identify the lead agency and cooperating agencies responsible for
implementation of the management measure. Identify available resources
(staff, funding, etc.)
e. Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms
Cite state and local authority to ensure implementation of the management
measure, including inspection and monitoring provisions. If the program
relies on local or regional authorities, cite state oversight authority to
ensure implementation. [§306(d)(16); Program Guidance, p.34]
f. Schedule
Describe schedule, including milestones, to ensure implementation of
management measures for existing sources within three years of program
approval or conditional approval. New sources are subject to management
measures at time of program approval. [Program Guidance, p.44]
4. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Describe the implementation of additional management measures including the
following information:
a. Impaired and Threatened Coastal Waters
Identify impaired and threatened coastal waters using existing water quality
assessments. [§6217(b)(l)(a); Program Guidance, p.23]
b. Land Uses
Identify land uses in the 6217 management area which individually or
cumulatively may cause or contribute to a degradation of coastal waters.
Use(g) Guidance source categories as a starting point and add others
appropriate to state conditions. [§6217(b)(l); Program Guidance, p.24]
-------
Appendix G
c. Critical Coastal Areas
Identify and map, critical areas adjacent to impaired and threatened coastal
waters. [§6217(b)(2); Program Guidance, p.25]
d. Additional Management Measures
Describe measures that will be implemented at time of program approval
1) in critical areas and 2) in cases where (g) Guidance measures (or their
equivalent) are fully implemented for certain source categories or
subcategories, but water quality threats or impairments persist.
Describe process for determining the need for additional measures to meet
water quality standards even after implementation of (g) Guidance
measures. Describe process for revising measures.
e. Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms
Cite state and local authority to ensure implementation of the management
measure, including inspection and monitoring provisions. [§306(d)(16);
Program Guidance, p.34]
f. Schedule
Describe schedule, including milestones, to ensure implementation of
management measures for existing sources within three years of program
approval or conditional approval. [Program Guidance, p.44]
-------
-------
Appendix H: Demonstrated Benefits of Trading
SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
A. Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. 1985. T.H.
Tietenberg.
In Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. Tietenberg
references studies that show that trading may be used in lieu of command-and-
control approaches to limit biological oxygen demand in water. The studies
demonstrate that trading can lower costs by factors of 1.12 to 3.13 without
affecting benefits. Tietenberg also discusses a variety of air emission studies that
illustrate that trading can lower the costs of achieving environmental objectives by
factors ranging from 1.07 to 22.
B. "Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient
Reduction Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Basin," 1991. R. Camacho.
Trading can offer very large cost savings to sources while achieving quality goals.
In order to offer gains to all market participants, incremental costs of pollution
control must differ between sources. Camacho demonstrates this in "Financial
Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin." The article states that for nitrogen and
phosphorus, the cost effectiveness of controls differs by as much as a factor ten.
This differential provides the necessary economic incentive for trading to be
effective.
C. The Private Use of Public Interest 1975. C. Schultze
Schultze presents trading programs as a means of harnessing the private incentives
of polluters for public purpose in The Private Use of Public Interest. Trading
programs allow sources with low control costs to undertake additional abatement
efforts in exchange for compensation from high-cost sources. More pollution
abatement is therefore undertaken where it is cheapest, and less is undertaken
where it is costly. Such a trading scheme minimizes the total cost of achieving
loading reductions.
D. "Incentive Analysis for Clean Water Act Reauthorization: Point
Source/Nonpoint Source Trading For Nutrient Discharge Reductions,"
1992. USEPA.
"Incentive Analysis for Clean Water Act Reauthorization: Point Source/Nonpoint
Source Trading For Nutrient Discharge Reductions" provides an assessment of
trading potential for nutrient discharges to surface waters. The .report states that
-------
Appendix H
over 900 water quality-limited waterbodies could potentially benefit from trading
under current conditions, and that the best opportunities are for trading nutrient
allocations.
E. "Point Nonpoint Source Trading of Pollution Abatement: Choosing the
Right Trading Ratio," 1992. A. Malik.
The question of the right trading ratio for trades between point sources and
nonpoint sources has been addressed by Malik et. al. in "Point Nonpoint Source
Trading of Pollution Abatement: Choosing the Right Trading Ratio." Two types
of uncertainty are recognized: the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls, and
NPS loadings reductions attributable to weather. Uncertainty in the effectiveness
of nonpoint source controls would justify higher trading ratios, which imply
expected net reductions in loadings. The uncertainty attributable to weather,
however, may justify lower ratios.
H. NOTABLE CASE STUDIES
A. Dillon Reservoir, Colorado
The Dillon Water Quality Management Plan established the nation's first
point/nonpoint source phosphorus trading program. The program is driven by the
reservoir's phosphorus limit and a perceived need to offset new nonpoint sources
of phosphorus with phosphorus removals elsewhere in the watershed. A 2:1
trading ratio was established in which point sources received a credit of one
additional pound of phosphorus above their allocation for every 2 pounds of
phosphorus removed from a nonpoint source that existed before 1984. This ratio
establishes a safety margin and has also been used in two trades to offset
increased loadings from new nonpoint source discharges to the reservoir.
B. Tar-Pamlico, North Carolina
A point/nonpoint source trading program was developed as part of the overall
nutrient management strategy of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Under the
established rules of this trading program, it is anticipated that trading will achieve
equivalent or better water quality than would have been achieved under originally
proposed effluent limits. The trading program allows a coalition of point source
discharges (the Basin Association) to fund less expensive nonpoint source controls,
thus avoiding high compliance costs associated with major facility upgrades.
Monies generated by trading go into a fund where they are subsequently allocated
by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation for nonpoint source control
implementation.
-------
Appendix H
C. Cherry Creek, Colorado
Several years ago, the citizens of Cherry Creek Reservoir in Colorado anticipated
a significant population increase as a result of development pressure. It was
determined that this growth would result in an exceedance of the reservoir's
phosphorus budget by 1990. The Cherry Creek trading program will allow the
reservoir to accommodate growth by permitting municipal wastewater treatment
plants to gain waste load allocation credits in exchange for the implementation of
nonpoint source controls. Because the greatest amount of phosphorus loading
comes from nonpoint sources, the trading program will go into effect only after
urban nonpoint sources reduce their loading by 50 percent.
-------
------- |