&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office Of Water
            (WH-553)
EPA841-S-92-001
August 1992
Administrator's
Point/Nonppint Source
Trading Initiative Meeting

A Summary


-------

-------
                 A SUMMARY

         Administrator's
Point/Nonpoint Source
      Trading  Initiative
                     Meeting
                  April 27-28, 1992
              Durham, North Carolina
                        SPONSORED BY
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


                         HOSTED BY
   North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
                   and Natural Resources
                                   Recycled/Recyclable
                                   Printed on paper that contains
                                   at least 50% recycled fiber

-------

-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION	5
SUMMARY OF MEETING RESULTS	7
  Key Findings	7
  EPA Response	8
  Suggested Next Steps  	8
BREAKOUT GROUP CONCLUSIONS
  Group I	9
  Group II  .	 10
  Group III	II
  Group JV	12
  Group V  	13
  Group VI	13
GENERAL SESSION PRESENTATIONS	15

APPEWDZXA. AGENDA	17
APPENDIX B. LIST OF ATTENDEES	21
APPENDIX c. BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS
  Group I	27
  Group II  	39
  Group III	49
  Group IV	55
  Group V  	61
  Group VI	67
                                                 3

-------

-------
INTRODUCTION
  JTie Administrator's Conference on Trading was designed to broaden general
  -L  understanding of point/nonpoint source pollution trading. Water quality man-
agers came together to exchange views and impressions on the utility and applica-
bility of pollution trading as a way to meet Clean Water Act goals and promote
effective use of water quality management resources.
     More than 120 representatives of Federal and State regulatory agencies, ag-
ricultural producers and commodity groups, municipal governments, and industry
expressed views about the usefulness of trading. A notable element of the confer-
ence was  the range and diversity of views represented by the participants and
their shared commitment to cost-effective water quality management.
     Conference participants were asked to identify factors that encourage or dis-
courage trading. They were also asked to suggest ways in which trading could play
a larger part in the  water program overall and become an integral component of
water quality management.  Many of the regulatory, administrative, and legal as-
pects of trading were discussed, as was the need for additional information and ed-
ucation. Finally,  participants were asked to suggest  specific watersheds where
trading programs could be implemented on a pilot basis.
     The  Conference opened with a plenary session followed by six breakout
groups. The conclusions that follow are distilled from the final breakout group re-
ports. All of the actual breakout group products, including the final reports to the
plenary session, appear later in this document.

-------

-------
 SUMMARY  OF  MEETING RESULTS
 Key Findings

   • Trading is an effective tool: Trading is a potentially valuable tool for
 water quality management, but its usefulness has not been fully demonstrated.
 The merits and drawbacks of various trading programs must be demonstrated and
 evaluated through a number of pilot projects.

   "„ Tradin9 is no* o. panacea: One of many "tools in the water quality tool-
 box," trading cannot be uniformly applied nationwide. The applicability and utility
 of any trading program depend on the water quality problems of a given area and
 the surrounding institutional infrastructure.  Trading is, therefore, site-specific
 and local in nature.

   • Technical issues are real: Technical water quality issues help define the
 usefulness and applicability of trading. Cause and effect water quality data, im-
 proved predictive modeling, and definitive information on the effectiveness of con-
 trols (particularly nonpoint source BMPs) are all crucial elements that will
 ultimately determine the role of trading in the water quality program.

   • Point/nonpoint source dichotomies are significant: The Clean Water
 Act establishes different program approaches for dealing with point and nonpoint
 source pollution. Trading programs must recognize these distinctions and be de-
 signed to complement the different procedures.

  • Education is  key to any trading program: Facts about trading must be
 communicated to the public to help them recognize that trading programs are
 cost-effective ways of meeting existing water quality goals. Education can also be
used to promote understanding among various levels of government and demon-
strate the value of trading to potential participants.

  • Monitoring is essential to a trading program: Trades must be moni-
tored to ascertain the effectiveness of individual trades, the amount of load reduc-
tions in  the  targeted pollutant as well as  others,  and  the operation  and
maintenance of the program itself.

  • EPA should issue guidance: Conference participants encouraged EPA to
issue guidance clarifying the use of trading. Recommendations for this guidance
included defining:

   • applicability under the current Clean Water Act,

   • pollutant types and sources available for trade,

-------
        issues of equity and accountability, and

        the role of trading in relation to existing point and nonpoint source con-
        trol authorities.                                     ;
   EPA  Response
   Martha Prothro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, pre-
   sented five key points determined from the presentations:

      • The more progress made in overall water quality agenda, the more prog-
        ress we can make in trading as well.

      • EPA is both an educator and facilitator in the trading process. We are
        working to develop a framework that enables local and State entities to
        move forward with a trading scheme. We must encourage and document
        successes.

      • Trading is a tool and not a panacea.

      • There is a vital need for coalitions. The conference is a great example of
        what can be accomplished when the public and private sectors join to-
        gether.
      • There were  a  number of ideas such as accountability and equity that
        merit further  examination. EPA is willing to be  a  risk takeir in these
        areas.
   Suggested Next  Steps
   EPA should use the information gathered at the meeting to pursue the concept of
   point/nonpoint source pollutant trading as  a viable water quality management
   tool. EPA should continue to analyze the benefits and implications of trading and
   promote trading where and when it is appropriate. EPA should continue to collect
   and share information from pilot projects and look at barriers to trading to find so-
   lutions to those barriers. EPA should articulate the Agency's position on trading in
   the near future.
8

-------
 BREAKOUT  GROUP  CONCLUSIONS
 Group I

 The main factors addressed were

    • regulatory,

    B legal,

    • information needs,

    • education, and

    • economic considerations.

 Regulatory

 It is important to determine what EPA's real motive is for getting involved in this
 issue and to what extent its authority should be exercised. There is some concern
 that the Agency might use this opportunity to expand its authority without a stat-
 utory mandate. Certainly, there is widespread agreement that EPA should be in-
 volved in this issue, but we must openly discuss the scope of that involvement.

 Legal

 After determining the nature of EPA's involvement and the role of other entities in
 the discussion process, existing laws and regulations must be examined carefuUy
 to determine if statutory action needs to be taken. Hopefully, such an overview
 will minimize possible legal challenges.

 Information Needs

 To adequately assess the problems with trading, a large amount of data must be
 collected. This process should involve everyone with an interest in water quality
 management and trading.

 Education

 It is especially important that time be spent educating all parties involved. Educa-
tion is the primary ingredient in implementing any program.

Economic Considerations

The main issue here is equity between point source and nonpoint source issues in
terms of cost and control. Cost-saving measures should be a consideration, but so
should the idea of spending additional Federal dollars to help more segments of
the community move forward with their programs.
                                                                    9

-------
   Conclusions — Group I

      • To become a useful water quality management tool, all aspects of a trad-
        ing program must be in place. Pilots, tests, and demonstrations must be
        used to assess and illustrate the applicability and usefulness of trading.

      • As  a first step, EPA should issue guidance, not a regulation, to get the
        process moving.
   Group II
   Major issues of concern:

      • credibility of BMP (best management practice) effectiveness;

      • inability to measure effects on water quality and establish the market
        value of the trades; and

      • the need to separate nonpoint source control issues from trading issues.


   Credibility of BMP effectiveness can be broken down into several layers:

      • First, readily accessible information on the fate and transport of pollu-
        tants from various  lancl use practices is missing and, therefore, is not
        making its way to the decisionmakers.

      • Second, there is a great deal of uncertainty  that the dollars being put
        into BMPs to meet  pollutant  reductions are doing the intended job. Re-
        sults seem to be  variable, and it is very difficult to track and measure
        performance.

   Inability to measure effects on water  quality and  establish the market value of
   trades.

      • A value system must evolve among site-specific users and benefactors as
        they set quality goals and allocate those goals among point and nonpoint
        source generators.

      • EPA is in the best position to set up broad parameters for a trading pro-
        gram.

   The need to separate nonpoint source control issues from trading issues.

      • We must be careful not to look at trading program as a panacea for solv-
        ing water quality problems. Any trading program is dependent on water
         quality goals that have already been articulated by Congress or through
        regulations. The  real question is: do we want to- create a new program
        under current legislation or see what comes out of the new Clean Water
        Act reauthorization?

   Conclusions — Group II
   To specifically address  the problems associated with BMP credibility, four recom-
   mendations were made:
10

-------
      Information from existing research needs to be compiled into a useful ref-
      erence document  that includes  actual design elements for  trading
      schemes.

      Additional studies must be performed to fill in gaps identified in the ref-
      erence document.

      A menu of BMP choices must be made available so those who must im-
      plement them are given more than one option.

      We need to create a water quality value system at the local level to gen-
      erate a self-designed market that allows a bottom-up establishment of
      what values should be used on a site-specific basis.
Group III
The two main barriers are attitudes and  uncertainties con-
cerning nonpoint sources. The enabler is cost-effectiveness
of the trading tool.
Attitudes and Uncertainties
Various attitudes and uncertainties can adversely affect any trading program. Ex-
amples include

   • agencies that are limited in their thinking,

   • point sources who may think they have done enough,

   • agricultural interests who think they are not really the problem, and

   • the general public that thinks trading will not work.
Cost Effectiveness of this Tool
After examining the costs and benefits of this tool, it was agreed that an opportu-
nity to save money is an enabler to the program. However, failure to adequately
examine costs and benefits is a real barrier.

Conclusions —  Group III

   • To remove barriers, States need to improve documentation on BMPs be-
     cause it is critical that they buy into their own BMP programs.

   • Monitoring of BMP installation is also needed for point sources to em-
     phasize effectiveness and progress of the programs.   Resources should
     not be  wasted on expensive routine monitoring; rather, using planmng-
     level estimates of BMP effectiveness as a measuring rod, the watershed
     should be assessed at the onset of the nonpoint source management plan
     and again much later (10-15 years) after significant improvement should
     be noted.

   • A nonpoint source control program is and will be a long-term goal.
                                                                       11

-------
   Group  IV

   Main areas addressed:

      • administrative;

      • technical/scientific; and

      • resource issues.

   Administrative
   EPA should develop a framework to facilitate trading and minimize potential bar-
   riers, such as

      • compromise of enforcement authority to achieve reductions, and

      • interstate differences in water quality management programs, as well as
        watersheds, that cross political boundaries.

   There are two differing points of view:
      • trading must be achieved through local initiatives with minimum inter-
        ference; and
      • EPA  has an obligation to  ensure  that  water  quality standards are
        achieved expeditiously.

   A balance must be struck between these two views.

   Technical / Scientific
   These concerns were divided into three areas:

      • The need for monitoring systems and data on land use, BMPs, and other
        sources on the watershed.

      • A need to establish cause and effect relationships by developing model
        linkages based on specific watersheds and calibrated to local conditions
        and data.
      • BMPs need to be adapted to local conditions, both evaluated and applied.

   Resource Issues
   EPA, as well as local and State entities, must be encouraged to maintain a level of
   expertise on trading.

      • A framework needs to be developed to accomplish this objective and pro-
        mote and guide trading. The initial framework should include a Federal
        role and must contain an educational element.

   Conclusions — Group IV

       • Trading is a valid, viable concept, although it may not be generally appli-
        cable in all water  quality management situations.

       H EPA seems to be  defining a new role in nonpoint source pollution man-
         agement; the discussion about point/nonpoint source trading begun at
        this conference should continue.
12

-------
Group V
Six major elements were discussed:

   •  Trading is only a tool to be used to address point and nonpoint source
      pollution. It has merit and drawbacks.

   •  Will trading work? Before implementing a national policy, pilot projects
      should be undertaken and evaluated.

   •  A trading program would be a long-term commitment and must have ad-
      equate funding upfront and throughout the program to assure that data
      necessary to demonstrate  the effectiveness of trading are collected.

   •  Communication between interested parties is critical.

   •  Federal  agencies must coordinate  with the State  agencies to share
      databases and information.

   •  Accountability is key to ensuring that BMPs are implemented and truly
      successful.

Conclusions — Group  V

   •  The implementation of BMPs should be left up to the local conservation
      districts  and the publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

   •  Loading  reductions should be the responsibility of the  POTW. Action
      taken should focus on placing the burden on the point source.

   •  Requirements should be put in the permit that outline steps to be taken
      if loading reductions or goals are not reached.
Group VI
Four main areas were addressed:

    • legal;

    • administrative policy;

    • technical; and

    • education/public relations
Legal
Establishment of a regulatory baseline is essential for starting a successful trad-
ing program. The question is: when a new control technology is developed, what is
the responsibility of the point source system to apply that new technology when
they currently have a trading program underway? Rules are needed to establish
trading regions.
                                                                          13

-------
    Administrative Policy
    Trading opportunities should continue to be explored as a policy option, and EPA
    should encourage States to develop programs by offering technical assistance and
    cost-sharing options. More funds should be directed to nonpoint sources.

    Technical
    Specific information is needed on the effectiveness of BMPs and when and where
    to employ them. A technically defensible ratio should be developed to make sure
    that point sources are getting their money's worth.

    Education/Public Relations
    The emphasis  should be on  local involvement—getting the communities and
    States in the program. A policy statement from State water quality agencies and
    EPA supporting the concept of trading is key to ensuring that point and nonpoint
    sources support this new structure.

    Conclusions —  Group VI

       • More funding needs to be available for modeling and research efforts re-
         lated to  BMP effectiveness.  Without  good  information  on  their
         effectiveness, BMPs will be a weak link in any trading scheme.

       • EPA should publish guidance to help States and smaller units deal with
         the different aspects of a trading program. Such guidance is critical to
         continuing the program.
14

-------
GENERAL  SESSION  PRESENTATIONS
    The Administrator's Point/Nonpoint Source Trading Initiative was intended to
    begin the process of forging a new national agenda on trading and the use of
economic forces and incentives to abate water pollution. To this end, speakers in
the opening General  Session addressed the trading issue from practical, and
again, multiple points of view. They represented the farms and the cities, the envi-
ronmental advocates, and the Federal, State, and local governments.

  • Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director of the Assessment and Watershed Pro-
tection Division, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, emphasized that this conference
represented the deep, personal investment of EPA Administrator William K. Reilly
in the belief that economic forces and incentives bear great potential for long-term
pollution abatement and cleanup. The  linchpin of the Clean Air Act, trading offers
a whole set of new approaches and devices that offer opportunities for the Clean
Water Act.

  • William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Envi-
ronment, Health, and Natural Resources, citing the relatively new experience
of his own State with trading, described three major benefits of the Tar-Pamlico
project: (1) it brought together many diverse groups; (2) it has produced significant
economic benefits, including funds that may be used to cost-share  agricultural
BMPs; and  (3) the project has highlighted the significance of nonpoint source pol-
lution and its control.

  • Robert H. Wayland, III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Wa-
tersheds, U.S. EPA, discussed the three pillars central to EPA management: stra-
tegic planning, quality management, and  pollution prevention. He drew upon
EPA's water pollution statistics to illustrate that trading has the potential to be-
come a pollution prevention  mechanism. And he pointed out that, as EPA enters
its third decade, the myriad of environmental needs must be met even more effec-
tively and efficiently.

  • Steve Tedder, Water Quality Section Chief, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,  and
Natural Resources, described the Tar-Pamlico Experiment in trading from the
water quality/BMP standpoint. An implementation strategy to address nutrient-
stressed  waters, Tar-Pamlico represents an evolution from the regulatory stance
to an innovative market-based approach.

  • Malcolm Green, General Manager, Greenville  Utilities Commission,
North Carolina, gave the commission's perspective on how trading worked in the
Tar-Pamlico project. Pointing out the State's basin-oriented approach to water
quality management, he expressed the concept of trading as an innovative, cost-ef-
fective approach that can be  applied to both air and water.
                                                                        15

-------
      • Steve Levitas, Director North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund,
    explained how coalitions can be built to contribute to such projects as the Tar-
    Pamlico scenario. In describing the process of diverse groups coming together in
    what has become an efficient, economic water quality management process, he
    said the divergent points of view contributed to the evolving strategy for solving
    the basin's pollution problems.

      • Mark Luttner, Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Administra-
    tor, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, discussed how trading has worked in various na-
    tional models, citing statistics from projects in various  basins. He emphasized
    several factors that must be present to make trading work:  (1) clear and signifi-
    cant savings  for point sources; (2) consensus among all the parties affected;  (3)
    self-sufficiency for the project; (4) flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; and
    (5) implementation mechanisms in place.
         To encourage open exchange within the discussion groups, widely varying
    viewpoints were presented by panelists exploring the barriers and opportunities to
    trading. They included:

      • John Burt, Associate Deputy Chief, USDA Soil Conservation Service,
    cautioned that agricultural interests should be involved early in the trading pro-
    cess. The  agricultural community will be interested in the concept, particularly
    when the incentives are appropriate, the technology is practical and cost-effective,
    and the uncertainties are settled by involving the agricultural interests.

      • Diane Cameron,  Natural Resources Defense Council, reiterated the
    need to involve all stakeholders early — especially the farming community — be-
    fore initiating the trading process. The trading concept can work and be cost-effec-
    tive if managed properly by informed participants on a consensus basis.

      • Judy Olson, Secretary, National Association of Wheat Growers, spoke
    of reasonable approaches to the shared goal of protecting water quality. She con-
    curred with the concept of involving all concerned in the initial stages and empha-
    sized the value of trading as a market-based alternative to  regulation.

      • Ken Kirk,  Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan  Sewerage
    Agencies, brought the point source viewpoint to this panel. Representing a highly
    regulated  segment of society, he spoke to the point of taking great care to make
    trading work — to measure its progress and establish its value step by  step.
16

-------
  APPENDIX A
           NATIONAL MEETING:
Administrator's Point/Nonpoint
    Source Trading Initiative
              April 27 - 28,1992
         Sheraton Inn University Center
           Durham, North Carolina

                 Sponsored by
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Hosted by
     North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
              and Natural Resources
            FINAL AGENDA
                                       17

-------
              Conference  Goal and  Objectives
GOAL
To broaden a general understanding of point I nonpoint source pollution trading and
promote its acceptance as an integral component of water quality protection.


OBJECTIVES

  1.  Identify programmatic, technical and legislative factors that facilitate — or discourage —
     trading;

  2.  Develop cooperative action plans to address technical, legislative and programmatic barriers;

  3.  Develop recommendations for supportive activities by EPA, including guidance, policies,
     regulations and legislative proposals; and

  4.  Identify, if possible, specific waterbodies that could serve as pilot opportunities for trading.
Sunday evening, April 26

3-8 p.m.         Registration	Foyer ofThe Greenbrier Ballroom
6 — 8 p.m.         Informal welcoming reception  	The Greenbrier Ballroom C and D


Monday, April 27

7:30 - 8:30 a.m.    Continental Break fast	2nd Floor Balcony
8-8:30 a.m.      Registration	Foyer of The Greenbrier Ballroom
GENERAL SESSION
The Greenbrier Ballroom A—B-C
8:30 - 8:45 a.m.    Call to Order — Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection
                 Division, Office of Water, U.S. EPA

8:45 - 9:00 a.m.    Welcome — William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Department of
                 Environment, Health and Natural Resources

9:00 - 9:30 a.m.    The Entrepreneurial Spirit — Robert H. Wayland III, Director, Office of Wetlands,
                 Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. EPA

9:30 -10:30 a.m.   The Tar-Pamlico Experiment

                   « Approach and design. Steve Tedder, Water Quality Section Chief, Division of
                    Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
                    Natural Resources

                   • Practical consequences. Malcolm Green, General Manager, Greenville Utilities
                    Commission, North Carolina

10:30 -10:45 a.m.   Break
    18

-------
10:45 - 11:45 a.m.  A National Approach
                    • Effective coalition building. Steve Levitas, Director, North Carolina Environmental
                      Defense Fund

                    • Alternative national models. Mark Luttner, Special Assistant to the Deputy
                      Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA

11:45 - 1:00 p.m.   LU2VCHEOJV	The Brightleaf Ballroom E-F

                    • Welcome. E. Stallings Howell, Jr., Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
                      U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta

1:00 - 2:45 p.m.    Barriers and Opportunities

                    • Incentives for agriculture. Gary Margheim, Deputy Chief for Programs, Soil
                      Conservation Service, USDA

                    • Can the environment benefit? Diane Cameron, Senior Research Associate, Natural
                      Resources Defense Council

                    • Can farmers benefit? Judy Olson, Secretary, National Association of Wheat Growers

                    • Can POTWs benefit? Ken Kirk, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan
                      Sewerage Agencies

2:45 - 3:00 p.m.    Break

3:00 - 5:00 p.m.    BREAKOUT SESSIONS
                    • Breakout Session #1	Conference Room 2002
                    • Breakout Session #2	Conference Room 2003
                    • Breakout Session #3	Conference Room 2004
                    » Breakout Session #4	Conference Room 2005
                    • Breakout Session #5	The Brightleaf Ballroom G
                    • Breakout Session #6	The Brightleaf Ballroom H

5:00 - 5:30 p.m.    Interim Status Reports	The Greenbrier Ballroom A-B-C

5:30 p.m.          Adjourn

6:00 p.m.          Social hour  	Poolside - Atrium



Tuesday, April 28

7:00 — 8:00 a.m.    Continental Breakfast	2nd Floor Balcony

8:00 - 10 a.m.      Breakout groups reconvene (same rooms as listed above for Monday)

10:00 - 10:15 a.m.  Break


GENERAL SESSION	The Greenbrier Ballroom A-B-C

10:15 a.m. - Noon  Breakout group presentations and discussion
                  CHAIRPERSON: Martha G. Prothro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA

Noon — 1:00 p.m.   Synthesis, commitments and closing remarks
                  CHAIRPERSON: Martha G. Prothro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA

1:00 p.m.          Adjourn

                                                                                        19

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 This group of people deserve special recognition for their instrumental
 role in developing this conference:

       Robert H. Wayland III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. EPA
       Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S. EPA
       Donald J. Brady, Chief, Water Management Section, U.S. EPA
       Mark Luttner, Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA
       Steve Bugbee, Environmental Scientist, Permits Division, U.S. EPA
       Peggy Michell, Program Analyst, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S EPA
       Amy Sosin, Environmental Scientist, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S. EPA
       Karen Guglielmone, Environmental Engineer, Tetra Tech, Inc.
       Judy Taggart, President, JT&A, inc.
1
20

-------
   APPENDIX  B



                         NATIONAL MEETING:

Administrator's  Point/Nonpoint  Source

                       Trading  Initiative

                               April 27-28, 1992
       Sheraton Inn University Center • Durham, North Carolina

                                  Sponsored by the
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                    Hosted by the
               North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
                              and Natural Resources


                        LIST  OF ATTENDEES
                                      FINAL LIST
Deborah Allen
Nonpoint Source Unit Chief
Michigan Department of Natural
  Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
Phone:(517)335-4102
Fax:   (517)373-9958

Robert Alpern
Senior Advisor to the Commissioner
New York City Department of
  Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 19th Floor
Elmhurst, NY 11372
Phone:(718)595-6569
Fax:   (718)595-6563

Arthur Ashendorff
Director of Water Quality
Bureau of Water Supply
New York City Department of
  Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 19th Floor
Elmhurst, NY 11372
Phone:(718)595-5340
Fax:   (718) 595-6563
Tom Augspurger
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551 F. Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: (919) 856-4520
Fax:  (919)856-4556

Elise Bacon
Financial Analyst
Apogee Research, Inc.
4350 East-West Highway
Suite 600
Bethesda, MD 20814
Phone: (301) 652-8444
Fax:  (301) 654-9355

Sharon Bailey
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue, West
11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario Canada M4V1P5
Phone:(416)323-4578
Fax:  (416)323-4322
John Baker
Agricultural Advisor to Administrator
U.S. EPA
510 Phoenix
Temple, TX 76504
Phone:(817)771-1438
Fax:  (817)983-5171


Rick Balla
Chief, Water Quality Management
   Section
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Room 813 (2WM-SWQB)
New York, NY 10278
Phone:(212)264-5671
Fax:  (212) 264-2194


D. Randall Benn
Attorney Advisor
Office of Water, U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code WH-556
Room 1039-A East Tower
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5700
Fax:  (202) 260-5711
                                                                                  21

-------
Victoria P. Binetti
Program Support Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building/Mail Code 3WM1O
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-6511
Fax:   (215) 597-3359

Don Blackburn
U.S. Forest Service
210 Franklin Road, S.W.
Caller Service 2900
Roanoke, VA 24001
Phone: (703) 982-6085
Fax:   (703) 982-4656

Ron Boatner
Northwest Associates
1312 Falrlane Road
Yreka, CA 96097
Phone:(916)842-2962

Scott Boettcher
Efficiency Commission Coordination
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympla, WA 98504-7600
Phone: (206) 493-2686

Donald J. Brady
Chief, Water Management Section
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5368
Fax:   (202) 260-7024

Steve Bugbee
 Environmental Scientist
 Permits Division
 U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
 Mall Code EN-336
Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-5816
 Fax:   (202)260-1460

 John Burt
 Associate Deputy Chief for Programs
 SoH Conservation Service
 U.S. Department of Agriculture
 P.O.  Box2890
 Washington, DC 20013
 Phone: (202) 690-2500
 Fax:  (202) 720-7690

 Diane Cameron
 Research Associate
 Natural Resources Defense Council
 1350 Now York Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 300
 Washington, DC 20005
 Phone: (202) 783-7800
 Fax:   (202) 783-5917
Ralph Cantral
Senior Policy Analyst
National Oceanpgraphic and
   Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Resource Management
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 701
Washington, DC 20235
Phone:(202)606-4100
Fax:   (202) 606-4329

Margie  Carriger
Vice President, Public Affairs
National Association of Wheat Growers
415 Second Street, N.E.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 547-7800
Fax:   (202) 546-2638

Callie Childress
Water Quality Specialist
The Geological Survey
Department of Ipterior
3916 Sunset Road
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone:(919)571-4000
Fax:   (919)571-4041


Trevor Clements
North Carolina Department of
    Environment, Health and Natural
    Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone:(919)733-4984
Fax:   (919)733-0513


Anne Coan
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation
P.O. Box 27766
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone:(919)782-1705
Fax:   (919) 783-3593

William W. Cobey, Jr.
Secretary
 North Carolina Department of
    Environment, Health and Natural
    Resources
 P.O. Box 27687
 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
 Phone:(919)733-4984
 Fax:   (919)733-0513

 James W. Cox
 Manager, Technical Services Bureau
 Virginia Division of Soil and Water
    Conservation
 203 Governor Street
 Suite 206
 Richmond, VA 23219
 Phone: (804) 786-3957
 Fax:  (804) 786-1798
Jim Cumminjjs
NPS Section Chief
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
North Carolina Department of
   Environment, Health and Natural
   Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Phone:(919)733-2302
Fax:  (919)733-2622

Corbin Darling
Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA, National Enforcement
   Investigations Center
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 8022I5
Phone: (303)  236-S5139
Fax:   (303)  236-2395

Randy Dodd
Research Triangle Institute
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone:(919)541-6491
Fax:   (919)541-7155

Cynthia Dougherty
Director, Permits Division
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code EN-336
Washington,  DC £0460
Phone: (202) 260-9545
Fax:   (202)260-1460

Mitch Dubensky
Manager, Timberlands and Water Quality
American Paper Institute
National Forest Products Association
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2nd Floor
Washington,  DC 120036
Phone: (202) 463-2434
Fax:   (202) 463-2423


Russell Dutnell
Environmental Engineer
State Department of Health
 1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
 Phone:(405)271-7333
 Fax:   (405)271-7339

 Steve Eldredge
 Chief of Planning and Special Program
    Section
 Michigan Department of Natural
    Resources
 P.O. Box 30028
 Lansing, Ml  48909
 Phone:(517)335-4177
 Fax:   (517) 373-9958
  22

-------
 James M. Ferguson
 President
 North Carolina Association of Soil and
   Water Conservation Districts
 Route 3, Box 43
 Clyde, N^C 28721
 Phone: (704) 627-6458


 Karen K. Fidler
 Associate Director of Water and
   Grpundwater Programs
 Chemical Manufacturers Association
 2501 M Street, N.W.
 Washington, DC 20037
 Phone:(202)887-1176
 Fax:   (202) 887-1237


 Stuart  Freudberg
 Director of Environmental Programs
 Metropolitan Washington Council of
   Governments
 777 North Capitol, N.E.
 Suite 300
 Washington, DC 20002
 Phone: (202) 962-3340
 Fax:   (202) 962-3208

 Adrian P. Freund
 State of Connecticut
 Department of Environmental Protection
   Bureau of Water Management
 122 Washington Street
 Hartford, CT  06106
 Phone: (203) 566-2689
 Fax:   (203) 566-8473

 Maryann Froelich
 Acting Director
 Office of Policy Analysis
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code PM-221
Washington, DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-4034
 Fax:  (202) 260-0780

 Bill Funderburk
Attorney
 Collier, Shannon and Scott
 3050 K Street, N.W.
 Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
 Phone: (202) 342-8837
 Fax:  (202) 338-5534

James Gardner
 Loaned Executive
 Edison Electric Institute
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
 Phone:(202)508-5925
 Fax:   (202) 508-5403
 Roland Geddes
 Natural Resources Consultant
 National Association of
 State Conservation Agencies
 Route 3, Box 304
 Tappahannok, VA 22560
 Phone: (804) 443-2484
 Fax:   (804) 443-4534


 Maryann S. Gerber
 Nonpoint Source Coordinator
 U.S. EPA Region IV
 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, GA 30365
 Phone: (404) 347-2126
 Fax:   (404) 347-3269

 Sandy Germann
 Environmental Engineer
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street. S.W.
 Mail Code WH-556F
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-6418
 Fax:   (202) 260-6294

 Malcolm Green
 General Manager
 Greenville Utilities Commission
 P.O. Box1847
 Greenville, NC 27835-8668
 Phone:(919)551-1500
 Fax:   (919)551-1597

 Jim Greenfield
 TMDL Coordinator
 Water Division
 U.S. EPA Region IV
 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, GA 30365
 Phone:(404)347-2126
 Fax:   (404) 347-3269

 Mitchell Griffin
 Water Resource Engineer
 CH2M HILL
 P.O. Box147009
 Gainesville, FL 32614
 Phone:(904)331-2442
 Fax:   (904)331-5320

 Bill Griffith
 Eastern Director
 Potash and Phosphate Institute
 865 Seneca Road
 Great Falls, VA 22066
 Phone: (703) 450-4835
 Fax:   (703) 450-4835

 Geoffrey H. Grubbs
 Director
Assessment and Watershed Protection
   Division
 U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W. / Mail Code WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-7040
 Fax:   (202) 260-7024
 John Hall
 Attorney
 Kilpatrick and Cody
 70013th Street, N.W, Suite 800
 Washington, DC 20005
 Phone: (202) 508-5859
 Fax:   (202) 508-5858


 Terry Hammond
 Raleigh Staff Correspondent
 BNA Daily Environmental Report
 P.O. Box51244
 Raleigh, NC 27609-0244
 Phone: (919) 876-7378
 Fax:   (919) 876-2016

 Carlton Haywood
 Associate Director for Technical Services
 Interstate Commission on the Potomac
   River Basin
 6110 Executive Boulevard, SuiteSOO
 Rockville, MD 20852-3903
 Phone:(301)984-1908
 Fax:  (301)984-5841

 Patricia HiU
 Director, Water Quality & Waste Disposal
   Program
 American Paper Institute
 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 210
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone:(202)463-2420
 Fax:  (202) 463-2423


 John K. Hosemann
 Chief Economist
 American Farm Bureau Federation
 225 Touhy Avenue
 Park Ridge, IL 60068
 Phone: (312) 399-5746
 Fax:  (312) 399-5896

 E. Stallings Howell
 Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and
   Watersheds Branch
 U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, GA  30365
 Phone: (404) 347-2126
 Fax:  (404) 347-5204

Linda Hubbard
 Environmental Scientist
 Bechtel National, Inc.
 P.O. Box 350
Oak Ridge, TN  37831-0350
 Phone:(615)574-3736
 Fax:   (615) 576-4898

Frank Humenik
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
   Department
North Carolina State University
Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
Phone:(919)515-6767
Fax:   (919)515-6772
                                                                                                            23

-------
Marcella R. Jansen
Technical Assistance and Hazards
   Coordinator
NOM, Office of Ocean and Coastal
   Resource Management
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Room 724
Washington, DC 20235
Phone: (202) 606-4181
Fax:  (202) 606-4329

Richard N. Jarman
Director, Technical Regulatory Affairs,
   EPA
National Food Processors Association
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 639-5925
Fax:  (202) 639-5932

Greg Jennings
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
   Department
North Carolina State University
P.O. Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
Phone: (919) 515-6795
Fax:   (919) 515-6772

Bobbye J. Jones
State Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
 Raleigh, NC 27609
 Phone: (919) 790-2888
 Fax:  (919) 790-2881

 James Jones
 Associate Editor
 Inside EPA Weekly Report
 1225 Jefferson Davis Highway
 Suite 1400
 Arlington, VA 22202
 Phone:(703)892-1011
 Fax:   (703) 685-2606

 Richard M. Kashmanian
 Senior Economist
 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code PM-221
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-5363
 Fax:   (202) 260-7884

 Jeannine Kenney
 Legislative Assistant
 National Milk Producers Federation
 1840 Wilson Boulevard
 Arlington, VA 22201
 Phone:(703)243-6111
 Fax:   (703) 841-9328
Amy King
Associate Editor
Inside EPA Environmental Policy Alert
1225 Jefferson Davis Highway
Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone:(703)892-8518
Fax:   (703) 685-2606


Joel King
Siskiyou National Forest
200 Northeast Greenfield
Grants Pass, OR 97526
Phone: (503) 479-5301
Fax:   (503) 474-3032


Ken Kirk
Executive Director
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
    Agencies
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1006
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 833-2672
Fax:   (202) 833-4657


Greg Kosaxin
Evaluator
General Accounting Office
411 G Street, N.W.
Techworld Plaza, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20548
Phone:(202)512-6526
Fax:   (202) 336-6501

Randy Kramer
Associate Professor
 Duke University
 School of the Environment
 Durham, NC 27706
 Phone:(919)684-6090
 Fax:  (919) 684-8741


 Eugene Lamb
 Program Analyst
 National Association of Conservation
    Districts
 509 Capitol Court, N.E.
 Washington, DC 20002
 Phone:(202)547-6223
 Fax:   (202) 547-6450


 David Letson
 Economic Research Service
 U.S. Department of Agriculture
 1301  New York Avenue, NW
 Room 438
 Washington, DC 20005-4788
 Phone:(202)219-0446
 Fax:   (202)219-0477


 Steve Levitas
 Director, North Carolina Defense Fund
 128 East Hargett Street
 Suite 202
 Raleigh, NC 27601
 Phone:(919)821-7793
Mark Luttner
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant
   Administrator
U.S. EPA, Office of Water
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code WH-558
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9454
Fax:   (202)260-5711


Leigh Ann Magee
Conference Coordinator
JT&A, inc.
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 802
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 833-3380
Fax:   (202) 466-S554


Les Mahagan.
Evaluator
Government Accounting Office
10 Causeway Street
Room 575
Boston, MA 02222
Phone:(617)565-7515
Fax:   (617)565-5909


Mark A. Maslyn
Assistant Director, National Affairs
    Division
American Farm Bureau Federation
600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
 Phone:(202)484-3615
 Fax:   (202) 484-3604

 Ron McCormick
 R. J. McCormick and Associates
 160 Grouse Creek Road
 Grants Pass, OR  97526
 Phone: (503) 474-3041

 Beth McGhee
 North Carolina Department of
    Environment,  Health and Natural
    Resources
 P.O. Box27687
 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
 Phone:(919)733-4984
 Fax:   (919) 733-0513

 David McNaught
 Executive Director
 Pamlico-Tar Rivor Foundation
 P.O. Box1854
 Washington, NC  27889
 Phone:(919)946-7211


 Jim Meek
  U.S. EPA Liaison to  USDA
  U.S. Department of Agriculture
  Department of Science and Education
  217-W Administration Building
  Washington, DC  20250
  Phone: (202) 720-4751
  Fax:   (202) 690-2842
  24

-------
 Peggy Michell
 Program Analyst
 Assessment and Watershed Protection
    Division
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code WH-553
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-5378
 Fax:   (202) 260-7024

 Christopher A. Novak
 Director, Environmental Programs
 National Pork Producers Council
 P.O. Box10383
 Des Moines, IA 50306
 Phone: (515) 223-2600
 Fax:   (515) 223-2646

 Connie Oldham
 Environmental Engineer
 Office of Air Quality, Planning and
   Standards
 U.S. EPA
 Mail Code  12
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
 Phone:(919)541-7774
 Fax:   (919)541-0237

 Judy Olson
 Secretary
 National Association of Wheat Growers
 Route #1, Box 93
 Garfield.WA 99130
 Phone:(509)635-1448
 Fax:   (509) 635-1396

 Dana B.  Ott
 Office of General Counsel
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code LE-132L
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-5466
 Fax:  (202) 260-8046

 Daniel S. Palmer
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Room3109MLE-134W
Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-8177
 Fax:  (202) 260-4201

Ray Pahnquist
Professor
Department of Economics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8109
Phone:(919)515-3274
Fax:   (919) 515-7873
 Lynn E. Parseghian
 Attorney
 O'Melveny & Myers
 555 13th Street, N.W.
 Washington, DC 20004
 Phone: (202) 383-5320
 Fax:   (202)383-5414

 Bruce Pewitt
 Northwest Associates
 2709 West Highway 3
 Yreka, CA 96097
 Phone:(916)842-3704

 Mark Pfefferle
 Environmental Economist
 Science Application International Corp.
 7600ALeesburgPike
 Falls Church, VA 22043
 Phone:(703)821-4755
 Fax:   (703) 821-4721

 Mahesh Podar
 Senior Analyst Economist
 Water and Agriculture Policy Division
 U.S. EPA
 401 M  Street, S.W., Mail Code PM-221
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-2756
 Fax:   (202) 260-2300


 Martha G. Prothro
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 U.S. EPA, Office of Water
 Mail Code WH-556
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-5700

 Doug Rader
 North Carolina Defense Fund
 128 East Hargett Street
 Suite 202
 Raleigh, NC 27601
 Phone: (919) 821-7793

 Cindy Ricks
 Westside Engineering Zone
 93976 Ocean Way
 Gold Beach, OR 97444
 Phone: (503) 247-7026

 Loreen Robinson
 Amoco Corporation
 200 East Randolph, M
 Chicago, IL 60601
 Phone:(312)856-6053
 Fax:    (312) 616-0152

A. T. Rolan
 Director
 Department of Water Resources
 101 City Hall Plaza
 Durham, NC 27701
 Phone:(919)560-4381
Fax:    (919) 687-0896
 Julie Rome
 Attorney
 Hopping Boyd Green and Sams
 123 South Calhoun Street
 Tallahassee, FL 32301
 Phone: (904) 222-7500
 Fax:   (904) 224-8551

 Greg Ruehle
 Policy Analyst
 National Cattlemen's Association
 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 300
 Washington, DC 20004
 Phone:(202)347-0228
 Fax:   (202) 638-0607

 Roger N. Schecter
 Director
 North Carolina Division of Coastal
    Management
 225 North McDowell Street
 Raleigh, NC 27602
 Phone:(919)733-2293
 Fax:   (919) 733-0490

 Stuart Schwartz
 Assistant Director for Water Resources
 Interstate Commission on the Potomac
    River Basin
 6110 Executive Boulevard, Suite 300
 Rockville, MD  20852-3903
 Phone:(301)984-1908
 Fax:   (301)984-5841

 James W. Shell, Jr.
 Manager of Water Resources Planning
 Metropolitan Washington Council of
   Governments
 777 North Capitol, N.E.
 Suite 300
 Washington, DC 20002
 Phone:(202)962-3342
 Fax:   (202) 962-3203


 Carol Ann Siciliano
 Attorney-Advisor
 Office of General Counsel
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code LE-132W
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone:(202)260-8653
 Fax:   (202) 260-7702

 Ellen Siegler
Attorney
American Petroleum Institute
 1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
 Phone:(202)682-8271
 Fax:  (202) 682-8033
                                                                                                           25

-------
David Smith
TMDL Coordinator
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code (W-3«2)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone:(415)744-2019
Fax:  (415)744-1078

Amy Sosin
Environmental Scientist
Assessment and Watershed Protection
    Division
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-7058
Fax:   (202) 260-7024

Jean Spooner
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
    Department
 North Carolina State University
 P.O. Box7637
 Raleigh, NC 27695-7637
 Phone:(919)515-3723
 Fax:  (919) 515-6772

 Dave Stawick
 Assistant Vice President
 National Corn Growers Association
 201 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.
 Suite C-4
 Washington, DC 20002
 Phone:(202)546-7611
 Fax:   (202) 544-5142

 Judy Taggart
 President
 JT&A, inc.
 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 802
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone: (202) 833-3380
 Fax:   (202) 466-8554

 Alison Taylor
  Davis, Graham & Stubbs
  120019th Street, NW
  Suite 500
  Washington, DC 20036
  Phone:(202)822-1026
  Fax:   (202) 293-4794

  Steve W. Tedder
  Water Quality Section Chief
  Division of Environmental Management
  North Carolina Department of
     Environment, Health and Natural
     Resources
  P.O. Box 27687
  Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
  Phone:(919)733-5083
  Fax:   (919) 733-9919
Jim Turner
Water Resources Division District Chief
The Geological Survey
Department of Interior
3916 Sunset Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone:(919)571-4000
Fax:   (919) 571-4041

Frank Tursi
Winston-Salem Journal
418 North Marshall Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27012
Phone:(919)727-7267
Fax:   (919)727-7315


John Veil
Environmental Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Suite 702
Washington, DC 20024
 Phone:(202)488-2450
 Fax:   (202)488-2413

 Christine  Wallace
 Atlantic Division
 Naval Facilities Engineering Command
 Commander,  Code 1812
 Norfolk, VA 23511-6287
 Phone: (804)  445-6982
 Fax:   (804)  445-6662

 Robert H. Wayland III
 Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
    Watersheds
 U.S. EPA
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Mail Code WH-556-F
 Washington,  DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-7166
 Fax:   (202) 260-6294

 Cam Wheeler
 Carolina Power & Light Co.
 411 Fayetteville Street
  Raleigh, NC  27602
  Phone:(919)546-6725
  Fax:   (919) 546-4171

  Debra Whitall
  U.S. Forest Service
  Rogue River National Forest
  P.O. Box 520
  Medford, OR 97501
  Phone: (503) 776-3600

  Greg Wilkins
  Environmental Engineer
  Ashland Petroleum
  P.O. Box 391
  Ashland, KY 41114
  Phone: (606) 329-3457
  Fax:   (606) 329-3920
Louise Wise
Director, Policy and Communications
   Staff
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code WH-556F
Washington, DC  20460
Phone: (202) 260-7166
Fax:   (202) 260-6294

Bruce A. Zander
Environmental Engineer
Office of Water Quality
U.S. EPA Region VIII
99918th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone:(303)293-1580
Fax:   (303)294-1386

Everett Zilliinger
Director, Legislative Affairs
The Fertilizer Institute
501 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
 Phone: (202) 675-8250
 Fax:  (202) 544-8123

 Robert J.  Zimmerman
 Program Administrator
 Delaware Department of Natural
    Resources and Environmental Control
 89 Kings Highway
 P.O. Box 1401
 Dover, DE  19903
 Phone: (302)  739-5726
 Fax:  (302)  739-3491
   26

-------
APPENDIX  C
BREAKOUT  GROUP  I DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS

Joel King, facilitator
Maryann Froelich
Robert Wayland, III
Amy Sosin
Patricia Hill
Mark Maslyn
Greg Ruehle
Richard Jarman
Scott Bpettcher
Rick Balla
Elise Bacon
Russell Dutnell
Deborah Allen
Greg Wilkins
Jean Spooner
Connie Oldham
William. Cobey, Jr.
Worst  Outcomes

  m Show how little I know about water.

  • Won't have open communication between point source and nonpoint source
    contributors.
  • Won't answer questions.

  • Ken Kirk's prediction about paperwork would come true.
  • Plane crash situation; we won't learn.
  • If everyone doesn't speak up.

  • If the agenda developed here does not reflect all opinions.
  • If we discover contracting errors.

  • If recommendations have no practical applications.

  • No recommendations for market incentives in water program.
  • If EPA uses this agenda exclusively in making decisions.
                                                                27

-------
    • Private industry excluded from market-based programs.
    • Won't be able to say what I'm supposed to say.
    • Won't know the answer to "Why are we here?"
    • If Inside EPA quotes me — while I'm wearing two hats.
    • If group fails in its task.
   Best  Outcomes
     • We find trading can be a win/win situation for all parties.
     • We realize the promise that point/nonpoint trading holds — and its benefits
       for agriculture.
     • We learn more about trading so we can better relate to constituents.
     • We broaden trading to be a permitting option in the future.
     • All parties will get a better understanding of the concept.
     • We increase understanding of the power of trading for environmental
       protection and find risk-takers to advance and demonstrate market
       incentives.
     • We will work cooperatively with agricultural agencies to maintain long-term
       conservation practices.
     • We will have an open and honest exchange of views and be able to translate
       them into a new consensus in meeting environmental challenges.
     • We will explore administrative and institutional issues associated with
       trading — is it worth the administrative risks?
     • We will be able to administer trading to the satisfaction of the States,
       POTWs, and other affected parties.
     • We will learn enough about procedures and process to implement, the
       concept.
     • We will gain enough knowledge to educate constituents and begin
       cooperative actions.
     • Participating in the group is an outcome if we get reactions to the report.
     • We will continue to identify management tools and efficient mechanisms to
       achieve water quality goals.
     H We will gain new, transferable insights.
   Barriers/Opportunities  —
   Brainstorm  List
     • Suspicion of hidden agenda.
     • Questions about accuracy of identified sources of pollution.
28

-------
 Questions about data reliability.
 Complexity or size of watershed.
 Ability to measure success that is technically and politically acceptable.
 Improve water quality.
 Education process required for cooperation.
 Adequate enforcement mechanisms.
 Need to periodically evaluate progress.
 Potential expansion of enforcement and compliance actions without
 statutory authority.
 Complexity of technical issues.
 Identification of water quality problems and sources may be incomplete.
 Potential for cost savings.
 Liability associated with nonattainment.
 Different goals of various parties involved.
 Absentee landlords.
 Lack of clarity of different parties.
 Long-term reliability of nonstructured BMPs..
l Point source dischargers unwilling to pay for nonpoint source controls.
i Institutional resistance to innovative tools.
i Inflexibility of existing laws and regulations — legal.
i Need for site-specific information on BMP effectiveness.
I Inability of point sources to meet water quality goals by themselves.
i Political climate.
i Need to involve all parties.
i Chance for everyone to obtain mutual objectives.
i Is there a lack of government resources to oversee.
i Inability of parties to accept responsibility.
i Accurate data needs.
i Economic climate that would encourage more cost savings.
i Lack of incentives for  nonpoint sources to participate.
i Reauthorization of CWA that precludes trading.
i Need to address intermediate transfers.
i Potential freeing up resources for other societal needs.
i How to address need for continued economic growth.
i Rate payer support.
                                                                           29

-------
      • Creation of unstable market.
      • Limited focus on trading.
      • Questions about private property rights.
      • Real or perceived inequities of bearing the cost.
      • Existing command control mentality that we are working with/under law.
      • Opportunity to focus on costs and benefits.
      • Need to have a tool to address a large number of various discharges.
      • Nonpoint source dischargers unwilling to pay for nonpoint source control.
      • Annual variability in loads.
      • Absence of success stories.
      • Land use controls.
      • Legal challenges.
      • Risk of a perceived subsidization.
      • Education.
    SUBGROUP  1:  Regulatory/Legal Issues
    Regarding Implementation
    ACTION PLAN
    1.  Address suspicion of "hidden agendas."
       • Agree that overall objective is improvement of water quality and meeting
         water quality standards.
       B Without abdication of private property rights and/or excessive land use
         controls.
    2.  Once above is accomplished, identify barriers/inconsistencies in. existing
       laws/regulations, then
       • amend statute and revise regulations to
        — remove barriers,
        — clarify objective to promote or encourage implementation of trading,
           and
        — clarify enforcement and compliance mechanisms (i.e., document
           chain of responsibility for contracts, agreements, penalties,
           sanctions).
    3.  If above are successfully accomplished, legal challenges could be
       minimized.
    4.  Determine who will be responsible for implementing, regulating, and
       monitoring these programs. The question, "who?" should be linked to each
       stage of the action plan.
30

-------
    • EPA, States, national trade associations, locals, public/environmental
      interest groups through public education, working groups, and public
      meetings.
    • All of the above.
    • Regulatory agencies and legislators.
    • Regulatory agencies.
    • All parties or no parties.

LIST OF ISSUES
  • Inflexibility of existing laws and regulations.
  • Suspicion of hidden agendas.
  • Adequate enforcement mechanisms.
  • Potential expansion of enforcement and compliance actions without
    statutory authorization.
  • Reauthorization of CWA that precludes/promotes trading.
  • Questions about private property rights.
  • Liability associated with nonattainment.
  • Land use controls.
  • Legal challenges.
GROUP FEEDBACK ON ACTION PLAN
  • As part of clarifying enforcement mechanisms: add innovative
    enforcement/sanctions; not traditional penalties.
  • Question: What are the hidden agendas? Hard to argue with goal of
    improving water quality. Hidden agenda may be related to who is
    responsible for improving water quality.
  • Hidden agendas potentially — in transfers of responsibility. Many think
    there are hidden agendas.
  • Address hidden agendas through open process.
  • Agendas not hidden — goal is geared toward improving water quality; just
    finding a different way of getting there.
  • But is there authority now in CWA?
  • Is this approach unique?
  • There are two existing programs, and two that will begin.
  • All parties in above programs have agreed to trade. If trading is required,
    people will be wary.
     Is role of Agency to say this is what we should do
     opportunity, possible tool?
     When does guidance become GUIDANCE?
or to present it as an
                                                                            31

-------
    SUBGROUP  2:  Information Needs
    ACTION PLAN
    A. What needs to be done?
    B. To develop opportunities
    C. Who?
         — State
         — Federal
         — Point Source
    1.  Problem Assessment
         *3
         *4
         *7
         *10
         *12
         A. Collect data
         B. Share existing information
         C. State, Federal, private, local sector
    2.  Implementation
         * 5 *10  A. Demonstration pilot projects
                 B. Information/education process
                 C. Private sector and State/local, Federal overview
                 (targeting B., B. reflecting on A)
*1*13
*2
*8
*2
    3.  Evaluation
         * 5 * 10  A. Monitor — experimental design
         * 1 * 13  B. All parties agree on goals (water quality, land treatments)
         * 2      C. Large State role, but all parties, local government
         *4
         *6
         *7

    ISSUES
    1.  Long-term reliability of structural BMPs.
    2.  Need for site-specific information on BMP effectiveness.
    3.  Questions about accuracy of identified sources of pollution.
    4.  Questions about data reliability.
    5.  Complexity or size of watershed.
    6.  Need to periodically evaluate progress.
    7.  Accurate data needs.
    8.  Opportunity to focus on costs and benefits.                  !
32

-------
9.  Need to have a tool to address a large number of various discharges.

10. Annual variability in loads.

11. Identification of water quality-based problems and sources may be incomplete.

12. Absence of success stories.



GROUP FEEDBACK

  • Was there any discussion on the need for more fundamental research? Are
    the tools and technology that exist adequate?

  • There always needs to be more research on data collection methods.

  • Costs/benefits: if we want a basinwide effort, we need to break out goals and
    set priorities (limitations on resources); then we can look more carefully at
    costs/benefits. This requirement results in ranking alternatives (i.e.,
    costs/benefits analysis goes beyond data).

  • Are there any requirements for nonpoint sources?

  • There are no Federal regulation requirements, but some State requirements.

  • There are regulatory programs under USDA. There are incentives in the
    Farm Bill.

  • There are some State regulatory programs — States have authority.

  • There is  threat/fear for agricultural community. Agricultural community
    needs to  take advantage of existing programs.

  • Ranchers and fanners have tremendous incentive to put BMPs and other
    management ideas in place. Programs are very well received. But there are
    cost restraints. Need to overcome economic barriers.

  • Need to include cost of not doing BMPs and other management techniques
    in cost/benefit analysis.

  • A lot of this is education.

  n The audience is receptive. Farmers want to  do what is right for the
    environment, but they also want demonstration of nonpoint problem.

  • Want proof of benefits — proof that a difference will be made. This
    requirement implies education and demonstration.

  • How can we get parties to commit if don't have absolute demonstrations
    (e.g., Boulder Creek — cost savings)?

  • Need increased transfer of information and  information on  relationships
    between activities and environmental results.

  • How long does it take to educate the farmer? Why do nonpoint sources need
    special treatment and special education?
                                                                            33

-------
   SUBGKOUP 3:  Economic
   Considerations

   ACTION PLAN
     • Ensure equity between point sources and nonpoint sources in controls and
       costs.
         —  National/State — laws/regulations.
         —  Education and economic analysis to show cost savings.
         —  State - analysis.
         —  Locals — education.

   LIST OF ISSUES — ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
     • Creation of unstable markets.
     • How to address need for continued economic growth.
     • Potential freeing up of resources for other societal needs.
     • Potential for cost savings.
     • Land use.
     • Economic climate that encourages cost savings.
     • Lack of incentives for nonpoint sources to participate.

   ADDITIONAL ISSUES — EQUITY/RESPONSIBILITIES
     • Inability of point source to meet water quality goals by themselves.
     • Real or perceived inequities of bearing costs.
     • Nonpoint source dischargers unwilling to pay for nonpoint source controls.
     • Economic climate that would encourage more cost savings.
     • Lack of incentives for nonpoint sources to participate.
     • Rate payee support.                                  :
     • Absentee landlords.                                  ;
     • Point source dischargers unwilling to pay for nonpoint source controls.

   GROUP FEEDBACK — ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
                             I                                 ~~
     • Are the players always POTWs (point source) and agricultural (nonpoint
       sources)? The community can be broader; it depends on location a.nd
       problems.
     • There are industries (and food) that are tied into POTWs — some dealt with
       through pretreatment (not trading).
     • Scope gets complicated with more players — economic analyses and other
       issues become more complex.
34

-------
    Discussions in group have applied to broader approach that brings in other
    entities. (What about abandoned mines?)
    Is there anything to be said about the fact that a lot of money was
    transferred from government to State to contract point source dischargers
    (e.g., in 1970s)?
    Point source community highly regulated — local governments now expend
    great amounts of resources.
    Nonpoint source dischargers are now regulated, but are not getting the
    same level of assistance.
    Add incentives to national/State regulations.
    How important is equity compared to overall cost savings? Costs eventually
    get passed on to public in all cases. Is least cost more important than equity?
SUBGROUP  4: Institutional Issues

ACTION PLAN
EPA TO DO
1. Law
     — Guidance
     — Legislative initiatives
     — Legal analysis — Clean Water Act issues
     — Empowerment
     — Policy statements regarding expectations
2. Organizational role of EPA articulate structure/culture of watershed
   protection approval step up
     — Pilots
     — Basin organization
     — Education "resistance to change"
     — Success stories
3. Implementation
     — Promote risk taking
     — Promote consensus/collaborate negotiations
     — Guidance/publications
     — National regulations
     — Pilots
     — MODELS (USA, Europe)
     — Momentum/trends
     — Federal/State/local/regulated
                                                                        35

-------
    4.  Education buy-in
         — National associations educate/involve
         — "Tool kits" for locals
         — Put expectations in check/establish
    5.  Win-win
         — Promote consensus-building skills
         — Change of approach

    LIST OF ISSUES — INSTITUTIONAL
    Institutional resistance to innovating tools:
     • Inflexibility of existing laws and regulations.
     • Suspicion of "hidden agendas."
     • Complexity or size of watershed.
     • Ability to measure success (technically and politically).
     • Cooperative education is required.
     • Need to periodically evaluate progress.
     • Need to address intermediate transfers.
     • Chance for parties to attain mutual objectives.                  ',
     • Limited focus on trading (with nutrients).
     • Complexity of technical issues.
     • Goals of involved parties.
     • Tool to address large number of discharges.
     • Lack of clarity regarding roles.
     • Political climate.
     • Need to involve all parties,
     M Lack of government resources for oversight.
     • Existing command and control climate.

    GROUP  FEEDBACK
     • Everyone needs to be involved in all action items (not just the EPA).
     • Basin organization includes all parties and institutional structures.
        Coordination among agencies and parties is implicit — "Basin Culture."
     • Oversight/Enforcement — this approach requires cultural change. Need
        institutional changes.  How will this be enforced?
     • Guidance should address above issue of enforcement and also needs to
        clarify the role of the EPA.
36

-------
   • Enforcement: program is driven by economics. If approach doesn't work on
     basin-by-basin basis, at least cost, then old ways will emerge. This is
     enforcement mechanism — cost savings.
   • For farmers — penalty could be paying money with interest.
 CONCLUSIONS
   • Potential to be a viable tool:
      — Needs further assessment
      — Pilot studies, tests, demonstrations
      — Not to be mandated yet — if so how?
   n Cautious  optimism

 IMPROVE WATER QUALITY
   • Inability of point sources to meet water quality by themselves.
   • Opportunity to focus on cost and benefits.
   • Annual variability in loads.
   • Complexity in technical issues.
   • Limited focus on trading (nutrients).
   • Complexity or size of watershed.
   • Improve water quality (topic not covered in detail).
 SOCIAL/POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE
   • Narrow-focused.
   • Suspicion of hidden agenda.
   • Land use  controls.
   • Different goals of various parties.
   • Political climate.
   • Chance for different parties to achieve mutual objectives.
  • Inability of parties to accept responsibility.
  • Risk of perceived subsidization (topic not covered in detail).

POTENTIAL  PILOT WATERBODIES/CONTACTS
  • Gushing, OK (Cottonwood Creek) — Russ Dutnell
  • McAlester, OK (West Plant) — Russ Dutnell
  • Chehalis, WA— Scott Boettcher
  • Spokane River, WA — Scott Boettcher
  • Puyallup,  WA — Scott Boettcher
  • Westchester County Drainage of Long Island Sound — Rick Balla
                                                                           37

-------
   GROUP FEEDBACK
     • Good identified barriers and concerns that need to be addressed.
     • Fleshed out questions — will find answers to communicate back.
     • Going well.
     • Hopeful that what we've done will help EPA come up with alternative
       permitting option.
     • Progress going well; fleshed out questions, concerns, and opportunities.
       Good backdrop for moving forward.
     • Starting to see agenda for further action; group members are positive about
       process.
     • Good about process; on way to developing "what to do" solutions.
     • Nothing new here.
     • Consensus-building process makes us feel good, but it remains to be seen if
       questions will be answered.
     • A lot of work ahead (for EPA), but there's a structure in place for it.
     • Anxious to hear what group accomplished.
     • Different perspectives are interesting.
38

-------
BREAKOUT  GROUP  II  DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS

Debra Whitall, facilitator
Robert Alpern
Diane Cameron
James Cox
Steve Eldredge
John Hosemann
Roger Schecter
Greg Jennings
Greg Kosarian
Judy Olson
Mark Pfefferle
Dave Stawick
Geoff Grubbs
Trevor Clements
Peggy Michell
Bill Punderburk
Jim Greenfield
Frank Tursi
Worst Outcomes
    We don't listen to each other and process falls apart.
    We can get a real good idea or concept for pollution trading (PT) but have
    too many controls (in setup). Don't think we should regulate first.
    We won't successfully understand.
    I fear we won't get beyond the surface rhetoric.
    People with good ideas won't get a chance to express them.
    This could be another good idea to put on the shelf— if it doesn't get
    integrated.
    It won't take place.
    People will walk away from the meeting not knowing about PT.
    We'll develop a Cadillac version of a trading policy applicable to a few places
    but not to all — showcase watersheds that won't get translated to all the
    watersheds that need work. Need more dialog and meshing of our goals.
    We won't address ourselves to the common themes on trading.
    We'll have great ideas but neglect finances.

    Have to keep in mind there are a lot of policy issues.
                                                                    39

-------
       We may not be smart enough or strong enough to think through financial,
       political, and technical stuff to get where we want to go.
       People won't speak candidly about whether it's a good or bad idea because
       EPA seems to be going down this road already.
       A potentially good idea may be turned against major urban centers because
       they're easy to control and easy targets.
       I fear that higher ups will decide rather than those doing the polluting —
       for example, farmers own the property they are polluting.
   Best  Outcomes
     m All participants speak out regarding trading.
     • Set priorities.
     • Identify options for trading systems.
     • Everyone will speak freely — and everyone will listen — regardless of who
       we represent.
     • Set up a network and schedule for resolution of key issues.
     • We come away with the first two steps accomplished — we can all agree we
       have a set of watersheds that need to be addressed — point/nonpoint
       trading might be a good idea; no one source of pollution takes responsibility
       but all sources take responsibility.
     • A clear understanding of where the agreements and disagreements lie. Not
       get all jumbled together.
     • Candid, open discussion.
     • A clear idea of what trading is.
     • Identifying all the players and their roles and how to keep people involved
       in positive role.
     • Walk away with more open minds than we had when we came in.
     • How to convince point source dischargers that this is valuable to them.
     • Develop demonstration project.
     • Need something ongoing — agree to nonpoint question — answer scientific
       questions — ownership —- discipline and trading.
     • Need solid science on who's polluting what.
     • We need some science about site pollution.
   Barriers and Opportunities  —
   Brainstorm  List
     • Barrier — what is trading?
     • Problems are multiparameter — single parameter concerns me.
40

-------
   •  Effective means for point source cooperation.

   •  Blending of the different technical roles.

   •  A lack of public involvement — people may feel they're being worked on
      rather than being worked with.

   •  Concept is very broad — get a handle on what it is and what's been done
      with it.

   •  Nonpoint and point sources are contributing — definition of point and
      nonpoint — who's got ownership?

   i  How do you bring both parties to table and fairness/equity?

   I Trading will end up masking the effects of urbanization and, if not done in a
     sensitive way, enabling urbanization and its effects.

   i Issue of credibility — point and nonpoint runoff— predictable effectiveness.

   I Great opportunity to move to cost-effective program.

   i Liquidity — best done on watershed basis. Are there enough participants in
     that watershed?

   i Real need to find additional capital to pay for water.

   i Present mindset.

   i Inappropriate focus on point sources.

   i Problem of moving standards, data, qualities — need standards for these
     and technology.

    Atmospheric vs. hydrologic sources.

    Habitat restoration needs to be recognized.

    Differentiate between sources (problems) and what's a trading issue.
Is suet
   i Trading schemes ignore upland and upstream effects in favor of
    management in the very end (estuaries) — Chesapeake Bay protected at
    cost to wetlands, uplands habitat, and other issues. Am against it if trading
    is at this cost.

   i What's the best way we can protect and restore this watershed?

   i Market and values will eventually work this out — broaden to include all
    values.

   i What do we mean by a basinwide plan? Need a better definition.

    We may be defining trading through too narrow a focus.

    Today we have a worldwide context and trading around the clock.

    Identify objectives — are we forgetting about this aspect — have
    opportunity of using basinwide plan to get at these priorities and goals.

    Can the market give us more habitat protection — yes, if broadly defined —
    no, if narrowly defined.
                                                                           41

-------
      If we ever got to a discussion of water-trading values, we'd have made a big
      step.
      The integrative process will eventually deal with these things.
      Stormwater runoff — trade-offs in Maryland — very difficult.
      Agriculture — last remaining hastion of pollution — need to think about
      nonpoint source.
       — If we purify the sector, we make progress.
       — The broader the base at the bottom, the better chance this lias to
          work.
       — Agriculture needs to ask "are they harming anyone — killing
           anyone?"
     i Nonpoint and point trading — the ability to measure contribution is a real
      problem.
     I Establishing the value of what you're trading.
       Giardia cysts and cryptocysts on the farm. Data, standards are not there
       yet. Chlorine doesn't even get at them. We're just at the beginning of
       understanding.
       Recreation, mining, and other sources of pollution
   Summarizing
     • Equity and getting runoff polluters to the table.
     • How do you create value, market — create priorities and hierarchies?
        —  Appropriateness of the trading process.
        	  Once you have this list, then you have subquestions.
     • If I have a value, but I don't know how to market that value, that's
       inappropriate.
     • We're here to hear what differing views are and how to mesh them.
     • What's been done and what it really is? Track record.
     • Trading as a concept is a value if it will solve more environmental problems
       at lower costs.
     • What about getting the same kind of gains under current regulatory laws at
       lower cost?
     • Current gains only recognized in better water quality.
     • The issues are broader than water quality.
     • Urban area wetlands need to be considered, too, in relation to water quality.
     • Should we limit to water quality?
     • $40 billion in source treatment?
     • Regulating freshwater at lower costs.
42

-------
   • Should we talk	[about] public health.
   • Chemistry is not a good substitute.
   • Problem: are living resources important in Chesapeake Bay and chemical
     resources?
   • If you have a multiparameter basin plan and a fuzzy chemical plan,
     numerical goals win out — fuzzy values lose.
   • If you maintain the health standard of the water but improve water for the
     fish, those resources will come back.
   • No longer see or make a connection between water quality and living system.
   • Most important thing we can do is to define the problem. Until we've done
     that, we're just giving in to majority vote.
   • Do we want to go back to the group saying these are the problems we see or
     do we want to say this is what we see as what to do about these problems?
   • What are values and how do we create a market?
   • Not only what waterbodies but also what kind of pollutants should be
     considered?
   • Is there a need for statutory change?
   • Key issues are 10, 18, 22, and 24.
   • How to determine what has a value?
      — Credibility of BMP effectiveness
      — Separate trading from nonpoint source control issues.
      — How to create value and market — ability to measure.

Brainstorming  Writeouts
(Please note: asterisks (*) denote number of votes given to each topic.)
  • Define trading: lay/politician.
  • Multiparameter problem.
  • Effective means for point source cooperative.
  • Reconcile technical and regulatory Issues. *
  • Lack of public involvement.
  • No track record.
  • Define ownership of point and nonpoint source. *
  • Equity and getting nonpoint source people to trade. *
  • Enabling urbanization and masking its effects.  ***
  • Credibility of BMP effectiveness. ******* #1
  • Move to use more cost-effective BMPs.
                                                                        43

-------
    • Liquidity: enough participant facilitation.
    • Need for additional capital to finance BMPs. **
    • Mindset. *
    • Changing standards. **
    • Atmospheric vs. hydrologic sources. **
    • Habitat restoration has to be recognized. *
    • Separate trading from nonpoint source control issues. ***** #2
    • Minimizes upland effects.
    • Opportunity for basin planning. ***
    • NP/NP trading — on narrower base — this is the worse case, the problem.
    • Inability to measure — establish the value of what you are trading. ********
      #3 combined with  (24)
    • Other contributors — recreation — silviculture — chronological — water
      quality gains under current regulatory framework at lower cost.
    • How to create value? Market? *** #3 combined with (22)
    B Kind of pollutants considered for trading. *
    B Need for statutory change. ***•
   SUBGROUP  1  — Discussion
     • Claim credibility — menu of choices — don't force options.
     B Begin at local level — let locals identify problems — take first shot at
       options for correction.
     B State and local pick up on finances — feed down to local level — partnership
       for implementation.
     B Waterbodies — more of a generic need.
     B What about resources needed to do evaluation?
     a State source of evaluation along with EPA and others.
     B Should some of the trading money be traded off for this?
     B I don't think so.  Real reductions are your ultimate goal.
     B Could post-reduction be part of the trading process?
     B Maybe they have to document that they made their claims in trading
       process.
     B What size watershed?
     • The larger the watershed — deal with urbanization — look to controlled
       watersheds'— small to moderate watersheds  so you can track them.
     B Forest Service has rules of thumb.
44

-------
  • 8 to 10 thousand acres.
  • Can test beyond edge-of-field but not so far that we lose control.
  • Looking at ways to improve our modeling capabilities.
  • Work done at North Carolina State and at Wisconsin.
  • As a group we don't know what has been done and what hasn't. Need to get
    the word out (on what's already been done).
  • Need to know why results in different areas and States are different from
    one another.
  • Each watershed unique.
  • Will modeling help? Yes, we think so.
  • Deal with what data you have, consider what you need, and begin to work
    from there.
  • Coastal plain of Piedmont — extrapolate.


SUBGROUP  2 — Discussion
  m Still some problems between source issues and trading issues.
  • Generic, nonpoint issues vs. trading issues.
  • Someone at center needs to be in touch with wide variety.
  • Facilitate change — go talk to these people to see how they handled problem
    — largely informational to get trading off the dime.
  • We need a two-step approach.
     — Identify regulatory goals — must be understood
     — Then you can begin putting together market values and setting up
        structures — trading not panacea to problem.
SUBGROUP 3  —  Discussion
  • Been working on trading for as long as I've been in water quality.
  • Create a value system that evolves from trading — generate on-site among
    the users and benefactors — privatization.
  • Quality goal of some kind — allocate goal among point and nonpoint
    coalitions.
  • Consider impact of both on- and off-site pollution.
                                                                       45

-------
   GROUP 1  — Issue  10

   Barrier: Credibility of BMP effectiveness

     • Lack of readily accessible information on the fate and transport of pollutants
       from various land use practices, particularly on a watershed scale as
       opposed to edge-of-field.

     • Uncertainty that dollars put into BMPs to meet equivalent pollutant
       reductions will actually result in targeted reductions.       :

     • Others: Feasibility — "one-size-does-not-fit-all" administrative effectiveness
       to ensure that BMPs are in place and length of tune BMPs are effective.
         — What needs to be accomplished to remove barriers?

            a) Need to aggregate information from existing research and compile
              into useful reference. If already done, then need to get thes word out.

            b) Perform additional studies to fill gaps identified during the
              compilation of existing information, particularly "before and after"
              studies on the watershed scale (warning: be sure to account for all
              land use activities during study, not just on BMP implementation
              areas).

            c) To maintain credibility with those having to implement BMPs,
              provide for a menu of BMP choices; try not to force one option.

         — Who needs to do it?

            a) Needs to be a partnership of local conservation districts with State
              and Federal agencies:

              ROLES:
              Local district: Opportunity to identify known problems or discuss
              those presented to them from outside agencies and take first shot at
              which direction needs to be taken to address the problems (i.e., types
              of BMPs, feasibility). Input and shape  direction.
              State and Federal: Fund and perform additional studies as needed
            .  to develop technical information base. Mechanism for technology
              transfer, feed information back down to local level.
              Technical research and information transfer.  ,
              Partnership in implementation: equal say in strategies.

         — Pilot waterbodies? Generic need; apply to any waterbody that meets
            other trading criteria.
46

-------
GROUP 2  —  Issue 18
  m Confusion between problems that are inherent in addressing nonpoint
    source pollution (regardless of approach), e.g., establishing goals, monitoring
    enforcement, and those limited to trading, e.g., institutions to facilitate
    trades.

  n EPA to provide guidance to those considering trades:

     — More specific guidance needed to clarify distinctions.
     — A clearing house function.

     — Facilitate exchange between those who have done trades and those
        interested in trade networking.
GROUP 3  —  Issues  22  and 24

  • Have been working in environment trading for 50 years. What we want to
    do is create a value system to allow bartering and generate a self-designed
    market. Privatization.
  • Need to define a water quality goal.
  • Need to allocate per watershed point vs. nonpoint — on-site vs. off-site
    benefits.
                                                                       47

-------

-------
BREAKOUT  GROUP  III  DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS:

Ron Boatner, facilitator
Dave Leston
Randall Benn
Louise Wise
Richard M. Kashmanian
Dana B. Ott
James Gardner
Eugene Lamb
Ralph Cantral
Stuart Schwartz
Robert Zimmerman
Arthur Ashendorff
Mitchell Griffin
Beth McGhee
Jim Cummings
Bobbye J. Jones
Worst and Best  Outcomes
  • Too much disagreement about trading initiative/spill over into point source
    area.
  • Total chaos/more cost sharing.
  • Point source focus thinking: too strong/more decentralized focus — nonpoint
    focus.
  • Waste of time; no listening/good answers to questions.
  • Oversimplified outcome; rosy picture/source tradeoff.
  • Miss benefits of big picture/Get view of big picture.
  • Big report gets put on the shelf/ideas of widespread application.
  • Too rosy impression/identification of shortfalls in ultimate report.
  • Polarization/questions get answered — especially about watersheds.
  • Additional delay/new ideas; moving forward even without all the answers.
  • EPA gets too rosy picture/clarification of meaning.
  • Thinking that this will work everywhere/accept concept.
  • Disincentives/arrival at least cost solutions.
  • Conference waste of time/productive.
  • Layers of bureaucracy.
                                                                     49

-------
   Barriers and Opportunities —
   Brainstorm  List
   (Key: B for barrier; E for enabler; asterisks indicate priority to group)
     • Proving BMPs difficult; lack of quantification of BMPs. *** (B)
     • Initiative allows people to pollute. (B)
     • Water quality problem is  one that people identify with. (E)
     • NPS — lack of positive communication. (B)
     • Historical attitudes. (B)
     • Perception that point source has footed bill for too long. (B)
     • Technical data on the table for everyone to see. (E)
     • Contradictory objectives.  (B)
     • Without total maximum daily load (TMDL), the process set-up cost is too
       high and borne by point source. (B)
     • Scientific certainty of TMDL.  (B)
     • Absence of loading limits (TMDL). (B)
     • Funding. (B)
     • TMDL process itself. (B)
     • Traditional attitudes of agriculture. *** (B)
     • Changing attitudes. (E)
     • Opportunity to quantify BMP benefits. (E)
     • Dual management tool (protect water quality and promote growth). (E)
     • Inappropriate standards  for point source. (B)
     • Variability in water quality standards. (B)
     • Potential for saving money means voluntary interest. *** (E)
     • Elevate public knowledge of existing NPS management options and
       programs,
                 ***
(E)
       We have reached the point where the amount we spend on point source
       doesn't make the difference it used to — now it's time for nonpoint to take
       over a bit; it will be beneficial to spend money now on nonpoint.
       Greater gain environmentally for dollars spent.  *** (E)
       Cooperation. (E)
       Cooperation. (B)
       Lack of variability in water quality strides for NPS. *** (B)
       Suspicion of innovation. (B)
       Something different than regulations. (E)
50

-------
  • Flexibility. *** (E)
  • Changing attitudes (agencies and locals). (E)
  • Uncertainty /controllability of NFS. *** (B)
  • Existing statutes; what is the baseline? (B)
  • Facilitates BMP implementation. (E)


 Organize,  Summarize Data, and
 Set  Priorities

 (Based on participant vote)
  • Attitudes = most important.
  • Flexibility = Barriers and Enablers.
  • Cost/Benefit.
  • NFS uncertainty.


 Group Work Assignment:
Four Questions

  • What needs to be done to remove the barrier or enhance the enabler?
  • Who needs to do it?
  • List pilot waterbodies.
  • Prepare five-minute report for presentation.


SUBGROUP  1  — Discussion

ATTITUDES

Barriers:
  • Agricultural attitude — "We're not the problem."
  • Agency attitude:
    — Thinking only it can fairly deal with problems.
    — Refusal to let go of traditional programs.
  • Point source attitudes — feel they've done their share.
  • General public attitudes:
    — Suspicions
    — Lack of knowledge
    — Unsure it will work
    — Perception of agriculture
                                                               51

-------
   Solutions:

     • Foster cooperation — Who: everyone

     • Use Watershed management to bring all stakeholders together . .. then use
       stakeholders to sell peer to peer the trading concepts *(on pilot basis) —
       Who: EPA, USDA, shared participation, constituent groups, NACD, AS &
       WPCA, NASDA, and others.

     • Educate and promote watershed trading to national constituencies by
       building on national watershed committees (e.g., EPA and interagency
       group) as appropriate; don't be too rosy — Who: national local levels.

     • Provide knowledge.
     • Educate public about trading concepts from national level:
        — Develop education program.
        — Distribute public education document on information in Mark
           Lutner's report.
        — Put articles into newspapers (e.g., Washington Post).

     m Training workshop — use hypothetical situations to teach.
   SUBGROUP 2  — Discussion

   NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION UNCERTAINTY

   Barrier:

     • Nonpoint sources of pollution are inherently variable: spatially, temporally,
       and in magnitude. This makes regulating NFS and quantifying the control
       of NPS more difficult. In turn, this lessens the confidence of both the
       regulators and the public in the ability to formulate effective NPS
       management plans.

   Solution:

     • Educational opportunities exist by improving documentation about available
       and accepted BMP performance. This documentation should address
       targeting BMPs to the right problem; for example, parameters that are
       controlled and effective placement (locating BMPs in the watershed).
         — Who: This documentation needs to be developed on a State basis,
            although some "grouping" of States could occur. Need the States to
            "buy in" to a set of BMPs.
        EXAMPLES:
         — 319 Programs listed BMPs — need to be revisited by States,
         — CZMA guidance too general and uneven.             '•
        — Florida just published a nice document, but it lacked performance data.
52

-------
 Barrier:

   n Extensive routine compliance monitoring drains resources that could be
     more effectively used in implementing NFS controls. The high variability of
     NFS loadings makes routine monitoring less useful than for point sources.

 Solutions:

   • Use planning-level estimates of BMP effectiveness as a "measuring rod."
     Carefully assess the watershed at the onset of a focused NFS management
     plan, but don't do it again until after a significant improvement has been
     noted. See lessons learned from the Rural Clean Water Program. This
     strategy would be more successful if the State will "buy in" on BMPs.

   • States need to keep a geographic database of BMP installations to be able to
     track compliance and compute benefits. Followups are needed by the
     regulators to ensure that the BMPs are implemented.

 WATER BODIES — POSSIBILITIES FOR PILOT TRADING;

 Simplicity —

   • Lakes — phosphorus.

   • Lakes that have a history of good data.

   • Existing infrastructure.

   • Point source.

   • Nonpoint source.

   • Impaired.

   • Smaller watershed (+) or (-).

   • Historical data.

   • Willingness to proceed (decision that all this will be presented to the large
    group by one member of each subgroup).



SUBGROUP  3 — Discussion

COST/BENEFIT

Barrier:

  • Identifying specific water quality problems

Solutions:

  • Inventory current point and nonpoint source pollution — Who: sources;
    States/basin management.

  • Identify control strategies.

  • Quantify costs of control for each — Who: consortium of sources.
                                                                        53

-------
    • Quantify nutrient (pollutant) reduction — Who: consortium; State/regulators.
    • Quantify/qualify ancillary benefits and control methods — Who: consortium.
    • Develop matrix of comparative costs/benefits — Who: consortium;
      State/regulators.
    • Offer matrix to point sources (Menu) — Who: State/EPA approval.
    • Track effectiveness of costs/improvements — Who: consortium;
      State/regulators.

   CONCERNS
   Is this conference giving us just another watershed planning guide?  Is this any
   different from what we've done in the past? What's new?
    • We have new people and groups involved this time.
    •  EPA is taking new approach here; now concentrating on watershed and
       targeting solutions.
    •  Focusing on point source and nonpoint source now rather just point source.
    •  New Source of funding.
54

-------
BREAKOUT GROUP IV DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS:

Ron McCormick, facilitator
Steve Bugbee
Mahesh Podar
Daniel Palmer
Donald Brady
Allison Taylor
James Gardner
Margie Carriger
Jim Meek
Karen Fidler
James Shell, Jr.
Corbin Darling
Loreen Robinson
Linda Hubbard
Bill Griffith
James Jones
Roland Geddes
Jim Turner '
Tom Augspurger
Worst  Outcomes
  i  Hurt the profit of the farmer.
  I  Poor communication .

  i  Problem that isn't solvable.

  i  Substituting trade for direct involvement.

    Trading that might result in a degradation of water quality.
    Miss practical solutions.

    Innovative idea that does not fly.

    Opportunity lost.

    Localized water quality impacts being traded off so that overall degradation
    increases.

    Local regulations not capturing local concerns.

    People from different institutions not being able to think without
    institutional barriers.

    Premature criticism before anything is done.
                                                                  55

-------
  Best Outcomes
    • Let the flowers bloom.
    • Identify overall objective.                            !
    • Realization of many sources of degradation.
    • EPA provide adequate resources — both financial and manpower — to help
      it along:
    • Farmers be included.
    • Provide momentum for non-command and control program.
    • Learn from each other.
  Advantages and Limitations
      What is the best choice? Trading becomes the acceptable tool to meet State
      and local goals.
      Meet water quality objectives at cost-saving approach.
      Concrete ways to let the flower bloom.
      Getting agricultural community and other nonpoint source people plugged
      in.
    n Make wise decisions; come up with better ways to measure nonp'oint source
      pollution progress.

   Products
    • List of factors — barriers/opportunities — recommendations for supporting
      activities.
    • Action plans.
    • List of pilot waterbodies.

   Barriers and  Opportunities  —
   Brainstorm List

   BARRIERS;
    • Perception of increased workload for programs.
    • Lack of accurate predictive models.
    • Demonstrated ability to show results to the public.
    • Lack of sensitive monitoring data and interpretation to public.
    • Narrow limits, enforcement, and legislative barriers.
56

-------
   • In the absence of TMDL, permit must achieve water quality standards
     without mechanism for enforcing nonpoint source controls under CWA.
   • Insufficient financial resources.
   • Making process too complex and considering it an art.
   • Liability to point source industry; lack of incentive for point source to pay
     the bill; amend Clean Water Act to allow equitable distribution of cost-
     both nonpoint and point.
   • Coordinate across State laws.
   • Inadequate technical assistance/BMPs in place — farmers can support.
   • Enhanced difficulty hi determining compliance.
   • Lack of data; impact on the land; system to manage it; money to buy and
     use system.                                             J     y
   m Lack of resources to manage personnel and money.
   • History is a barrier/we may not need a nationally managed program but to
     encourage local projects such as Pamlico; think small as well as big.
   • Lack of trust by people being regulated.
   • Determining cause and effect.
   • Not addressing agronomic practices.
OPPORTUNITIES;
  • Enabling legislation to get the nonpoint sources on board.
  • Who contributes/ diminishing returns on point source controls.
  • Flexibility to State and local governments.
  • Focus on watershed/basin approach.
  • Potential for win-win for nonpoint and point sources.
  • Flexibility for industry.
  • Address all sources.
  • Opportunity for equitable solutions.
  • Coalition builder bottom-up.
  • Added benefit of soil and water conservation.
  • Increase of habitat conservation.
  • Historic inability to conserve water quality; now it is time to try something
    new — trading is a new approach.
                                                                           57

-------
 SUBGROUP  1  — Discussion

 TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC BARRIERS;
   • Lack of monitoring data on which to make trading decisions and drive
     models.
   B Lack of predictive models to demonstrate cause and effect relationships.
   B BMPs must be locally tailored to be effective.
   B Needs GIS system/data tracking system.

  OPPORTUNITIES
   B Budget should include price of education of system.
   B Better localized models (watershed models) calibrated with local data.
   B Research is needed (local universities).
   B Model needs to consider all elements.
   B Watershed-specific modeling.
   B Local agricultural extension people work on development of models.
  SUBGROUP  2  — Discussion

  ADMINISTRATIVE;
    B Promote nonpoint/point trading.
    B Coordinate involvement across State lines; extent to which top-down
      approach is taken will be the extent to which trading does not happen.
      Federal government involvement is needed, so we can come to an agreement.
    B EPA come up with framework to minimize barriers; top-down sipproach and
      down-top approach balance; enforcement mechanism is needed to result in
      improved water quality.
    B Mechanism to make sure that trading does occur; increase controls.
   SUBGROUP 3 — Discussion
   RESOURCES;
     B Lack of trust in community.
     B Framework to work a system.
     B Expertise from EPA and State.
     B Public acceptance and involvement.
     B Unrealistic expectations.
58

-------
    • Federal presence that needs to back off later.
    • Federal role to be a catalyst for cooperative effort.
    • EPA and State level contacts where information can be retrieved.
  COMMON TERMS  FOR ALL GROUPS;
    • Framework.
    • Minimum requirements.
    • EPA guidelines.
    • Facilitator.
    • Enabler.
    • EPA catalyst.
    • Technical assistance.

 MEETING OF BOTTOM UP AND TOP DOWN:
   • Pilot suggestions.
   • Potomac river basin.
   • 3 States involvement.
   • 40% nutrient reduction.
   • Disadvantage large complex system.
   • Susquehana River Basin.
   • James River Basin.
   • Chesapeake Bay.
   • Transparencies.
   • Rearrange order.
   • Administrative.
   • Technical/scientific resource.
ADMINISTRATIVE;
EPA should develop framework to facilitate trading, minimize potential barriers
such as                                                                  '
  • compromise of enforcement authority to achieve load reductions,
  • interstate differences in WQ management programs, and
  • inflexible command — control approach.
Need to find a balance between:
  • Trading achieved through local and State initiative with minimal Federal
    role. The greater the Federal role, the less trading.
  • EPA obligated to ensure WQS achieved: minimum requirements, oversee
    implementation.
                                                                          59

-------
  TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC ISSUES;
                            I
    • Monitoring systems and data:
       	 Need intensive upfront basin — specific monitoring.
       — Land use data for all sources.
       — Postimplementation monitoring.
    • Establish accurate cause and effect relationships.
       — Develop model linkages.
       — Watershed-specific models.
       — Calibrate with local conditions.
    • Adapt BMPs to local conditions.
       — Research at the local level.

  RESOURCES THEME;
    • To encourage local/State to work with EPA to create a level of e:q?ertise.
    • Develop framework to promote and guide trading.

  FRAMEWORK
    • Initial red role as a catalyst and resource.
    • Need for education of regulated community and public at large for
       acceptance of trading.                                 ,
     • Continuing level of expertise and resources local/State/Federal.
6O

-------
BREAKOUT  GROUP  V DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS:

Bruce Pewitt, facilitator
Cynthia Dougherty
Carol Ann Siciliano
John Veil
Everett Zillinger
Stuart Freudberg
Maryann Gerber
David Smith
Sharon Bailey
Les Mahagan
Jeannine Kenny
Don Blackburn
Frank Humenik
Ray Palmquist
Randy Dodd
Callie Childress
Randy Kramer
A.T. Rolan
Doug Rader
Terry Hammond
Best and Worst Outcomes

  • Best outcome would focus on trading; Worst would polarize the group.
  • Best would be that trading would be useful; Worst would be to think trading
    not useful at all.

  • Best would accomplish objectives and gain national perspective; Worst
    would not accomplish anything.

  • Best would be an open, honest discussion; Worst would be to not be open.
  • Best would understand how trading applies to nonpoint; Worst would limit
    trading to nontoxic pollution.
  • Best outcomes would apply to permits, e.g., learning how to apply in
    DC/Metro area and for nonpoint and point source programs; Worst would be
    excessive impediments to implementation.

  • Best would be to learn how to address all pollutant sources; Worst would be
    not to agree.

  • Best would be increased understanding of requirements to make trading
    work, understanding obstacles, and overcoming them; Worst would be to
    lose this opportunity to make it work.
                                                                    61

-------
     • Best would be to learn nutrient training and get perspective of different
       agencies represented; Worst would be no accomplishment.
     • Best would be not to lead to more litigation, find solutions that everyone can
       buy into eventually; Worst would be to leave here polarized, discouraged.
     • Best would be to identify barriers; Worst would be no accomplishment.
     • Best would be to identify barriers (e.g., laws, institutions, cultural
       drawbacks), promote ecological approach to watershed management; Worst
       would be not to succeed at this task.
     • Best would use trading as catalyst for wetlands protection;
       Worst would be ...
     • Best would be to stick to management approach instead of permit approach;
       Worst would be not to give trading time to work before introducing national
       legislation.
     • Best would be to learn from air quality trading lessons.
     • Best would be to find practical solutions; worst would be if third party
       objects to procedures.                                  '.

   Barriers and Opportunities —
   Brainstorm List
   Barriers (B): lack of trust between regulators, point and nonpoimt source dis-
   chargers. (1)
   Opportunity (O): nonpoint sources include more than agriculture (i.e., water). (5)
     • Downstream doesn't want to contribute to upstream costs. (3) (B)
     • Ensuring accountability, assuring that nonpoint source controls work. (8) (B)
     • Liability if controls don't work, need public support, balance between
       monitoring and modeling. (6) (B)
     • Lack of information and good information on which programs were
       successful and which were not. (5) (B)
     B Farmers don't have incentive to control (gains from trading are unclear). (1)
       (B)
     • Equity; asking nonregulated agencies to work with regulated agencies, cost
       share assist may not fully fund BMPs. (3) (B)
     • Better document/study nonpoint source problem. (1) (O)
     • Best Management Practices (BMP) are extremely costly (1  million per farm)
       and farmers can't afford it. (1) (B)
     • Increases money for BMP implementation. (9) (O)         :
     • Assume that trading works to reduce nutrient loads. (B)
     • Uncertainty over loads reduction and difficulty in showing water quality
       effect. (B)
     • Achieve real improvements in reducing loads of other pollutants (i.e.,
       sediments, pathogens, fecal). (5) (O)
     • Difficulty in identifying impacted area. (B)
62

-------
   • Hard to design monitoring program for nonpoint sources. (B)
   • Opportunity to build trust between parties represented here, develop more
     innovative solutions, enhance creativity. (O)
   • Administrative difficulties in managing these BMPs. (B)
   • Cost. (B)
   • Multiple agencies. (B)
   • Not enough point source discharges to buy meaningful levels of reduction. (B)
   • If it is toxics you are trying to eliminate, trading won't be very helpful.
   • Poor understanding of natural sources. (1) (B)
   • Avoid improper transfer (i.e., ground water and surface water). (B)
   • Look at total water resource. (8) (O)
   • Air sources contribute to water pollutants, possible air water trading. (1) (O)
   • Save money. (8) (O)
   • Bring people together to address common concerns/empowering people  (6)
     (O)
   • Pollutant transport and trading. (3) (O)
   • Evaluate possible nonpoint to nonpoint trading. (3) (O)
   • Influence authorization. (O)
   • Possible local "hot spots". (B)
   • Nonpoint sources/nonpoint source trades difficult. (B)

SUBGROUP  1  —  Discussion

BARRIER — Lack of Good Information/Documentation
  • Source identifications (actors: dischargers, State, EPA, city, County, USGS,
     agricultural agencies, watershed groups)
  • BMP effectiveness (actors: agricultural agencies, agribusiness, government)
  •  Document existing nonpoint source Controls (actors: program participants,
    Federal/State/local agencies)
SOLUTIONS
  • Improve:
     — monitoring/remote sensing
     — data analysis
     — modeling
     — demonstration projects
     — allow time for BMP to work/fail
     — collect information on BMP effectiveness from other States
                                                                          63

-------
     • Monitor:
        — individual trades for effectiveness
        — load reductions
        — reductions in other pollutants
        — surface/ground water effects
        — operation & maintenance

   SUBGROUP 2  — Discussion

   OPPORTUNITY — Look Holistically at Entire Watershed
     • Characterize ecological resources and stresses in watershed
        — AG/rural
        — air
        — urban
        — natural
     • Model/determine pollutant fate/transport
     • Evaluate alternative trading models                    :

   SOLUTIONS
     • Collect and evaluate information on watershed basis (actors: Staite, EPA,
      USDA, USGS)
     • Develop a system of integrating data bases
     D Upstream, downstream data) (GIS?)
     • Develop/validate watershed model
     m Standardization and ease of database query/retrieval
     • Capability (user friendly)
   Group asks: "Is this effort really worth it? Is trading going to be cost effective?"
   SUBGROUP  3 —  Discussion
   ISSUES
       Are trading programs viable?
        — pilot projects (Federal funding)
        — criteria (EPA and States)
        — identify sites
        — consider other trading partners
64

-------
   • Acountability

      —  how to write permits (place dual limits in permit) point source is
          responsible for accountability
      —  Third-party contractors to implement

   • Trust
      —  coalition


 GROUP OBSERVATIONS

   • Group needs to be more frank about issues and practicality (i.e., if
     management wants to know what group really thinks, why didn't it ask the
     question, "Is trading worth it?").

   • If this program is for real, it's going to be a long-term commitment. .  .
     trading is not necessarily the end-all answer but could be a useful tool to get
     to where we want to be.

   • A five to ten year pilot is necessary to really show results (want budget to
     come from Congress)

   • Don't need to rewrite Clean Water Act to include trading across the board . .
      don't want to mess with the law.

   • Do we want to move toward a watershed approach and then decide whether
     trading is right for that watershed?

   • Do we fear the technical tasks involved in  a watershed approach?


FINAL PRESENTATION

   • It's a huge job . . .  need lots of data, money, time

   • Keep exciting initiatives going
      — doBMPswork?

      — encourage States to address water quality problems

   • Coordinate between Federal agencies . . . need to start working together to
     gather data

  • Encourage coalition building


MAJOR POINTS

  • Trading is only a tool, not an end in itself, to improve the effectiveness of
     water quality programs.

  • Will trading work?

      — assess through pilot project (Start in 5 pilot projects that need
        Federal funding)

  • Requires long-term commitment.

  • Coalition building should be emphasized.

  • Better interagency coordination is needed (e.g., information collection and
    sharing).

  • Accountability will be key (e.g., does participant  actually do BMP and was
    BMP effective?).
                                                                           65

-------

-------
BREAKOUT  GROUP VI DISCUSSION
GROUP MEMBERS

Cindy Ricks, facilitator
Sandy Germann
Lynn Parseghian
Mitch Dubensky
John Hall
Marcella Jansen
Ellen Siegler
Adrian Freund
Carlton Haywood
Bruce Zander
Christopher Novak
Amy King
Christine Wallace
John Baker
Julie Rome
Cam Wheeler
Anne Coan
Best and  Worse Outcomes

WORST

  • People won't listen to each other; disjointed thought; won't clarify; people
    will posture and be narrow in their approach; egos will interfere.
  • No focused recommendations to EPA.
  • We won't focus on the problem in our discussions.
  • Some historic antagonisms between groups represented here may block the
    opportunities for success.
  • Lack of focus; inability to reach consensus.
  • Not be able to frame issues.
  • Personal fear — not be able to understand trading concept.
  • Freeze to death.
  • That we make bad assumptions about what the nonpoint source problems
    really are. Then we'll be worse off 10 years from now.
  • Conclude that there is no future for trading.
  • People will be turned off by the unanswered questions.
                                                                 67

-------
     • Prematurely conclude that trading does not have substantial promise/role in
       water management programs of the future.
     • That no conclusions are reached; therefore, we'll have no story to tell.
     • That we don't come up with innovative approaches.        i
     • That we wouldn't realize trading's potential.

   BEST
     • Everyone would express their opinions freely.
     • State all opinions, complete brainstorming today.
     • Recognition that point source and nonpoint source differ.
     • That our group will contribute to the atmosphere and opportunity for
       continuing dialogue.
     • Take one step forward in answering some of the questions.
     • Increase understanding.
     • Identify one or two significant issues.
     • That this group's outcome will serve as an inspiration to a watershed to
       undertake trading.
     • Intelligent, rational discussion.
     • Better understanding of trading so can take advantage of opportunities.
     • Identify opportunities and barriers.
   Barriers  and Opportunities —
   Brainstorm List
     • Level playing field — regulatory/technological baseline for point and
       nonpoint source trading.
     • Equal responsibility: quid pro quo responsibility for both point and nonpoint
       sources prior to starting a trading program.
     • Lack of information on the water quality impact of some BMPs.
     • Water quality issues are usually multifaceted — cross-pollutant; trading
       needs to deal with trading between multiple pollutants and multiple water
       quality objectives.
     • Enforcement and liability need to be addressed: if one party fails! to abide by
       the trading agreement, how do you enforce? Accountability.
     • Point source may think that nonpoint sources are being treated differently
       (fairness).
     • Perception that prohibition on growth or economic activity may occur.
     B Trading program needs to be integrated with other regulatory programs.
     • Old vs. new growth barriers, a trust issue.
68

-------
• Define private sector.
• Need to understand all the facets of nonpoint source.
• To allow growth and maintain water quality.
• Identification of nonpoint sources.
• What is the measure of compliance by nonpoint source: what parameters do
  you use to determine effectiveness.
• Administer on local level.
• Opportunity to explore performance-based compliance rather than
  parameter-based.
• Watershed basis.
I Develop defensible trading ratio.
i Double-jeopardy for point source: may buy nonpoint source credit but a year
  later still have to put in tertiary treatment.
I No incentive for new control technologies — is EPA considering movement
  away from technology-based requirements?
i How are States going to be able to issue permits that on their face do not
  meet water quality standards — therefore, a statutory barrier.
i Practical vs. legal requirements of CWA: baseline requirements may be a
  barrier because minimum requirements have already been published
   — practice (nonpoint source) vs. baseline requirement (point source).
   — current trading schemes require technology.
i Trust among the parties is an opportunity.
i Getting people to buy into uncertainty.
i Limited resources (State, local, Federal).
i Timeframe: nonpoint source approach needs more time to meet water
  quality  standards than point source — farming practices take more time to
 produce results.
 The possibility to target limited-resource farmers that might not be able to
 afford implementing needed practices.
 Target water  quality problems/contributors.
 Organize nonpoint source interests.
 Trading examples could  serve as catalyst to go further in addressing
 nonpoint source in general.
 Urban nonpoint sources  need to be involved — must determine who the
 stakeholders are.
 Need to define private sector interests.
                                                                        69

-------
  SUBGROUP  1  — Discussion

  LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • Regulatory baseline requirements to enable trading (level playing field)
        — Examine whether nonpoint source baseline should be prerequisite
           to trading.
        — Should common terminology for point source/nonpoint source
           control requirements be established? Performance or technology
           based? (Examine)
        — Examine how to establish equivalency between PS and NPS (what
           are trading ratios?)
        — Should additional point source requirements be deferred in lieu of
           more stringent nonpoint source requirements?       ;
        — Examine role of stormwater permitting and relationship to PS/NPS
           baseline.
    • Point/nonpoint source enforcement issues (responsibility of each discharger)
        — Is point source liable if nonpoint source fails to perform

           i. Is Clean Water Act change needed?
           ii. Can (should) individual landowners be held liable?
        — Examine monitoring, reporting, and data management necessary to
           evaluate nonpoint spurce compliance?
        — Can different point source/nonpoint source compliance schedules be
           allowed?
        — What form of permitting/contract should be used to enforce
           nonpoint source commitments?
     • Role of point source/nonpoint source stakeholders when technology/water
       quality standards improve/tighten.
        — Examine ways to equalize responsibility of point source/nonpoint
           source.                                         !
        — How to prevent new BAT from deterring point source participation
           in trading?
        — How to issue point source permits that do not (by themselves) meet
           water quality standards?
        — EPA should examine barriers in Clean Water Act.
        — Are regions approaching permits consistently?
        — Examine barriers to cross-pollutant trading.
        — Evaluate incentives for resource restoration/enhancement
           (pollutant to wetland trading).
     • What rules are needed to establish trading regions?
        — How can consistency be encouraged?
        — How to address fairness re: inclusion of new stakeholders
            (dischargers).
        — Define area large enough to provide trading opportunities but small
            enough to verify water quality benefits.
70

-------
 SUBGROUP 2  — Discussion

 ADMINISTRATIVE. POLICY. AND ECONOMIC
 CONSIDERATIONS

  • Trading should continue to be explored as a possible policy option.

  • Encourage the establishment of technical assistance and cost-sharing
     programs for NFS water quality improvement.

  • Direct funding efforts to nonpoint sources.

      — research into BMPs development and effectiveness
      — research into relative contributions of different types of activities
      — develop models for establishing defensible trading ratios

  • EPA needs to develop a guidance framework that tells States or smaller
     units to describe in their program how they  will handle the following:
      — How to quantify NFS contributions and reductions vs. the currently
         more quantifiable point source contributions and reductions.
      — Integrate the many programs into the whole trading scheme.
         BMPs, wetlands protection, and CZMA to simplify and coordinate
         implementation.

      — Develop methods to monitor compliance with the contract
         provisions and identify enforcement mechanism for noncompliance
         with the contract. Who is liable for noncompliance must be
         identified.

        i. Who will enforce noncompliance?

        ii. Develop a penalty structure and framework that is commensurate
          with the violation.

      — Encourage local involvement and as much local administration as
        possible. Resources to these local administrative  units are needed.
         Encourage innovative ways to get those dollars. Adequate technical
         assistance needs to be met.


SUBGROUP  3 —  Discussion

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC POLICY

  • Barriers reviewed as opportunities
     — Local involvement
     — Economic development
     — Equity — responsibility is not  evenly distributed. This remains a
        barrier.

  • Action plans

     — Legislation: identification of explicit legal barriers to the concept of
        trading and attempt to modify laws. Involve the EPA.
     — Policy: seek strong policy statements from EPA that endorse
        concept of trading.
                                                                       71

-------
        — Education: educate the public as a whole by publishing success
           cases to illustrate the flexibility of trading schemes, importance of
           involving stakeholders early in the process, education for
           interaction.
        — Public Policy:

           i. EPA and States providing seed money and technical assistance.

           ii. Get the government involved, announce grants.

           iii. Public participation is a key element using a network of
             communications on all levels (public meetings, committees).



   SUBGROUP  4 — Discussion


   TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

     • Lack of quantifiable information on BMPs
        — Need to measure actual nutrient production
           How: Develop methods
           Who: States, EPA, USDA, Land Grant Universities
        — Need cost information
           How: Develop a database from existing sources
           Who: States, EPA, USDA, Land Grant Universities
        — Need for priorities among NFS contributions
           How: Through modeling
           Who: States, EPA, USDA, Land Grant Universities
        — Need more information on effectiveness of BMPs
           How: Field demonstrations
           Who: States, EPA, Forest Service, and agricultural services

     • Develop method for determining the baseline (TMDL) for watershed.

        — Measure/model background conditions
        — Determine role of natural landscape
        — Determine role of natural processes and landscape (hydrology,
           climate, geology)
           Who:  State environmental agencies

     • Develop method to determine success in terms of water quality
       improvements (ecological, chemical, and physical).
       Who: State environmental agencies

     • Develop technically defensible trade ratios to meet water quality objectives
       Who: State agencies with technical guidance from the EPA
       How: using information gathered in II.

     • EPA needs to develop a technical guidance manual
         — Phased approaches (maybe, maybe not)

     • In future, address trading between water quality objectives and, between
       parameters.
72
                                     •fcU.S. Government printing office : 1992 - 312-014/40188

-------

-------

-------