EPfl
FINAL
CASE STUDIES:
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES RELEVANT TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
Submitted to:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134
Work Assignment 2-26
May 1, 1995
Prepared by:
Battelle
397 Washington St.
Duxbury, MA 02332
(617)934-0571
Ginger Webster
12 Parkside Road
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.
759 Parkway Street
Jupiter, FL 33458
(407)746-7946
-------
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY j
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 METHODS 4
3.0 CASE STUDIES 7
3.1 Buzzards Bay Project 7
3.2 Cape Cod Commission jg
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Commission 29
3.4 Nisqually River Council 41
3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 46
3.6 Southwest Florida Water Management District 59
3.7 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 72
4.0 KEY INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 86
4.1 Organizational Structure and Participation 86
4.2 Implementation Authority and Mechanisms 88
4.3 Financing on
4.4 Public Involvement 9^
4.5 Measures of Success 92
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 95
6.0 REFERENCES 97
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY INTERVIEWEES A-l
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Cape Cod Commission 20
Figure 2. SWFMD Organization Chart 61
Figure 3. TBRPC Organization Chart 75
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be
measured by implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP). Plan implementation requires a clear understanding among all participating entities
concerning their responsibilities for actions recommended in the CCMP. Because of the
broad scope of environmental problems addressed in the CCMP, it is unlikely that the
responsibility for implementation will fall on a single entity or agency. Rather the
mechanisms and authorities for implementation will more likely reside with multiple players
This is especially true in cases where the estuary and its watershed overlap multiple
jurisdictions (i.e., towns, cities, counties, states, etc.). For this reason, National Estuary
Program management conferences are required to develop a plan for coordinating the
implementation of the CCMP among federal, state, and local agencies. The goal of this plan
is to institutionalize the recommendations made in the CCMP by identifying the
"implementers" and providing a framework for coordinating their efforts. The implemented
may include existing agencies and organizations or new entities, as recommended in the
CCMP.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division is currently developing guidance to
assist National Estuary Program management conferences in planning for the coordination of
CCMP implementation and meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act In support of
that effort, this report was developed as a reference document on the experiences of several
existing organizations established to coordinate or oversee implementation of specific
environmental management plans. Rather than providing a comprehensive set of
recommendations, this report is a first step in identifying key factors that should be
considered when developing institutional arrangements for CCMP implementation based on
the experiences of a selected set of existing organizations.
METHODS
The following organizations were selected for analysis in this report in an attempt to
provide a diversity of information relevant to the greatest number of National Estuarv
Programs: J
Buzzards Bay Project: A project office and steering committee charged with
overseeing implementation of the approved Buzzards Bay CCMP in
Massachusetts.
-------
Cape Cod Commission: A regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable
County, Massachusetts, and its incorporated municipalities.
Chesapeake Bay Commission: A legislative Commission serving the three
Chesapeake Bay states -- Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Nisqually River Council: A coordinating body charged with developing and
implementing a comprehensive management plan for the three-county
Nisqually River watershed in the State of Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority: A coordinating organization charged
with developing a comprehensive plan for Puget Sound, Washington and
overseeing implementation activities in the 12-county region.
Southwest Florida Water Management District: A regulatory entity
responsible for managing water and water-related resources in all or part of 16
Florida counties.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: A regional planning council
established to advise the four county Tampa Bay, Florida region on physical,
economic, and social development issues.
A case study approach was used to analyze these organizations, beginning with the
collection of written background information, followed by interviews with key individuals
who were either directly affiliated, or had experience, with the organizations. Case studies
were then developed to summarize factual information such as organizational mandate,
geographic scope, implementation authority and mechanisms, focus of implementation,
measures of success, methods for coordinating local government implementation efforts, and
methods for involving the public. Lessons learned by the interviewees were also summarized
for each of the case studies.
RESULTS
Organizational Structure and Participation
The seven case study organizations represent a broad spectrum of considerations in
terms of their structures and participants:
The structure of the current Buzzards Bay Project has evolved from the management
conference framework used to develop the CCMP. Unlike the other six
organizations, where staff offices generally function in support of decision-making
bodies, the major oversight effort in the Buzzards Bay Project is focused within the
Project's staff office, using the CCMP as the primary source of guidance.
II
-------
The structure of the Cape Cod Commission is prescribed by state statute, unlike that
of the Buzzards Bay Project, and is primarily focused on local government
participation. In fact, the Commission goes beyond many of the other six
organizations in terms of its inclusiveness of local government; each town within the
region has a member on the Commission's board.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission plays a unique role in the implementation process
compared with the other six organizations. The structure and makeup of the
Commission is focused on a subset of the "stakeholder universe" that is of interest to
most of the other six organizations. This focus is at the legislative level of the three
participating states, with no local or federal government participation (although citizen
representatives are appointed from each state).
Like the Cape Cod Commission, the structure of the Nisqually River Council
emphasizes inclusive stakeholder involvement. This level of involvement appears
much more easily accomplished in a smaller geographic area, such as the Nisqually
River watershed, than in a larger area. Generally speaking, the larger the area the
greater the number of political jurisdictions, and the harder it is to effectively include
all stakeholder entities.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority also emphasizes stakeholder
involvement. In addition, as with all of the case study organizations except the
Buzzards Bay Project, there is a clear hierarchy in terms of the roles played by the
Authority board and the staff office, with the staff office functioning in a support role
to the board.
The composition of the Southwest Florida Water Management District is
established by a political appointment system. Because all board members are
appointed by the Governor (and confirmed by the state senate), there is at least the
perceived potential for skewing the agenda of the District, depending upon the
leanings of its members. This approach differs from most of the other organizations
studied, where a balanced participation on the governing board is statutorily mandated
by a formula.
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council represents the largest governing board
among the seven case study organizations (38 members). The board is dominated by
local government participants (18 municipalities and 4 counties), in keeping with its
mission of providing technical assistance and coordinated planning services within the
region.
Ill
-------
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms
The seven case study organizations can be separated into two distinctive types in
terms of the actual authority they possess to influence implementation:
The first type of organization, which includes the Buzzards Bay Project,
Chesapeake Bay Commission, Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, depends on a
coordinating approach to implementation. Stated another way, none of these
organizations (including those created by statute) possess any legal authority of their
own to require implementation. Instead, these organizations often influence the
implementation process through consensus reached among the participating entities. It
should be noted that the individual entities that participate in these coordinating
structures often include implementing agencies that do have legal authority to require
implementation. However, this report is primarily concerned with the authorities of
the oversight structures.
The second type of organization goes well beyond the coordination role described
above, possessing independent responsibility for implementing management actions, as
well as the legal authority to require their implementation by other entities through
regulation. This type of organization includes the Cape Cod Commission and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District. For example, the Southwest
Florida Water Management District currently has permitting authority for surface
water management projects, such as stormwater management. Therefore, the District
has the ability to directly impact these activities in a way that is consistent with its
management goals, rather than having to rely on its ability to influence the actions of
others. Similarly, the Cape Cod Commission may designate Districts of Critical
Planning Concern, and thereby provide direct protection to significant natural and
cultural resources. This mechanism is of particular interest, as it ultimately works
through local government authorities, as opposed to superseding them. Once a
District of Critical Planning Concern is designated by the Commission and approved
by Barnstable County, a limited moratorium on development is imposed in the area.
The municipality with jurisdiction over the area then develops protective regulations
that must be approved by the Commission. Following this approval, the municipality
retains authority to regulate development in the area.
Financing
The need for a stable funding source for both administrative costs and "on-the-
ground" implementation was emphasized by nearly all of the case study interviewees. With
regard to this factor, the most successful of the seven organizations appear to be the Cape
Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As is typical
for many regulatory agencies, both possess the ability to generate their own funds through
taxing authority and the collection of permit fees. Among the seven structures studied for
IV
-------
this report, this capability was unique to these two organizations. In the absence of revenue
generating mechanisms, direct state appropriation appears to be the next most stable source
of funds. However, the continuity of these appropriations is highly influenced by the
political environment. For example, the operating budget for the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority has been reduced each biennium since 1985, due in large part to overall
reductions in the state budget. Other less stable sources of funds for the case study
organizations include state and federal grants. In addition, the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council collects annual dues from its membership. However, these funds are used
almost exclusively for administrative costs of the Council. Finally, several of the
organizations have been successful in "leveraging" their funds by securing matching dollars
and in-kind services on a project-by-project basis. For example, the State of Washington's
Department of Natural Resources has contributed staff time to the development of a
Nisqually Basin Atlas by the Nisqually River Council. This is a key factor of note to the
National Estuary Programs, since levels of funding required to implement a CCMP in many
cases will exceed the actual availability of funds. The ability to increase the impact of
available resources by building partnerships ("getting more bang for the buck") will be
critical to any institutional arrangement developed to oversee implementation.
Public Involvement
All of the case study organizations accomplish what might be termed a "baseline"
level of public involvement. That is to say, at a minimum, all of the organizations function
in public forums, providing the public with the opportunity to view and participate in their
proceedings. This is typically accomplished through public meetings and hearings, with
advance notification of agendas and public distribution of meeting minutes and summaries.
Beyond this baseline level of public involvement, the seven organizations share certain other
tools:
TOOL ORGANIZATION
Newsletters Cape Cod Commission, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Southwest
Florida Water Management District
Citizen Committees Buzzards Bay Project, Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council
Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Telephone Hotline Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Workshops Chesapeake Bay Commission, Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
-------
The role of the public relative to implementation varies from organization to
organization. Since approval of the Buzzards Bay CCMP, the Buzzards Bay Project has
placed minimal effort, as an organization, into public involvement. As regulatory agencies,
the Cape Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District
respond to a somewhat less flexible pressure to involve the public. Because of the legal
nature of their functions (e.g., permit issuance), these agencies must follow standard
operating procedures in providing public access to their decisions, usually including public
notices, hearings, and comment periods. The Chesapeake Bay Commission does not have
an ongoing public outreach program of its own. Because of its advisory role within the
implementation process, the Commission contributes to the outreach efforts of the larger
Chesapeake Bay Program. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority may conduct the
most extensive and proactive public outreach program of the seven case study organizations.
The stated goal of the outreach program (see Section 3.5) leaves no doubt concerning the
important role that the public plays in the implementation process, a role that is partly
defined by the nature of the problems being experienced in Puget Sound.
Measures of Success
Demonstrating success is one of the more challenging, yet necessary, aspects of the
implementation process. Three basic factors should be carefully considered when addressing
the need to demonstrate success. First, a clear and realistic definition of successful
implementation should be developed and communicated to all stakeholders. For most
implementation oversight organizations, this definition is typically driven by the goals and
objectives developed during the planning process. Considered in total, the achievement of
these goals and objectives equates to the yardstick that the stakeholders will use to determine
if progress is being made during the implementation process. Second, appropriate and
measurable indicators should be selected that track with this definition. It should be noted
that programmatic indicators (e.g., permits issued) are quite often used systematically in
conjunction with environmental indicators (e.g., shellfish areas opened) to measure outcomes
of management actions. Third, results should be communicated through avenues and in
terms that are meaningful to all stakeholders.
The seven case study organizations address these factors in a variety of ways and to
various degrees:
The Buzzards Bay Project focuses primarily on programmatic indicators through an
Environmental Report Card. These instruments track actions that are implemented at
the local level, such as acquisition of open space and establishment of septic system
inspection and maintenance programs.
VI
-------
The Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Plan includes performance standards that
are used by the Commission as criteria in reviewing Developments of Regional
Impact and proposed development activities in Districts of Critical Planning Concern.
However, no post-development monitoring is currently conducted in relation to these
activities to determine their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the Regional Policy
Plan.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority conducts an extensive environmental
monitoring program to establish baseline conditions in the Sound and measure changes
in those conditions as the Water Quality Management Plan is implemented. However,
even with this effort, the Authority has found it difficult to demonstrate to the public,
with certainty, that improvements are directly linked to the plan.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District also conducts extensive
environmental monitoring, focused primarily on water quality parameters. Water
conservation efforts are tracked by measuring reductions in water usage. Various
programmatic indicators are also tracked, such as permit violations, through the
District's enforcement program.
The broad mission of regional structures such as the Cape Cod Commission, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council may make it especially difficult to establish a comprehensive vision
for success. Like the Cape Cod Commission, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council uses the goals set forth in its regional policy plan to communicate its vision
for success. However, these kinds of goals tend to use terms that are very difficult to
measure systematically. This is a common dilemma faced by ongoing management
programs.
CONCLUSIONS
This report was developed to serve as a reference document on the experiences of the
seven case study organizations, rather than comprehensive program guidance on governance
requirements. As such, the reader should bear in mind that no one institutional model will
necessarily be transferrable to the specific characteristics of another estuary or watershed.
Therefore, in developing plans for overseeing CCMP implementation, National Estuary
Programs should be aware of the variety of different approaches and identify the solutions
that are best suited to their specific needs. In some cases, this will include reliance on
existing organizational structures rather than the creation of new oversight entities. In all
cases, National Estuary Programs are encouraged to implement CCMPs using existing
authorities to the maximum extent possible.
VII
-------
The lessons conveyed by the individual case study interviewees emphasize a number
of important themes that should be considered by National Estuary Programs (see Section 3.0
for detailed discussions). The following recommendations were common among several of
the interviewees and, therefore, deserve particular attention:
Representation
Participation in the organizations should focus on those entities that will be expected
to play a role in implementing the CCMP. In addition, individuals designated as
members of the organization should have the authority to speak for, and commit the
actions of, the entity that they represent.
Re-education
Because of the long-term nature of CCMP implementation, the oversight structure
should incorporate an ongoing mechanism for educating new members concerning
mission, goals, and progress. This is an important aspect of maintaining momentum
over time.
Conflicting agendas
Because many oversight organizations consist of individuals who represent other
entities, there is always the potential for conflicts to arise between the individual
priorities of those entities and the goals of the oversight organization. This potential
should be recognized when designing an organization, and addressed through
mechanisms such as charters, bylaws, or memoranda of understanding that provide a
framework for resolving these conflicts.
Flexibility/Adaptive management
Successful coordination of implementation activities requires recognition of the long-
term nature of implementation, and an ability to adjust to new information as it
becomes available. Priorities should be expected to change over time, and the
oversight structure should be flexible enough to accomodate these changes. The need
to add to or modify the participating entities should be addressed.
Funding source
Consistent, stable, and long-term sources of funding are critical to the viability of any
organizational structure. This should be considered in terms of both administrative
costs and funds for actual implementation activities.
VIII
-------
Clear mandate
In defining the mission of the oversight organization, it is critical to clearly describe
the responsibilities and authorities of that organization in relation to other entities.
This can be a complicated issue, particularly under the coordinating approach, where
the oversight organization depends on the individual authorities of its members but
possesses no actual implementation authority of its own.
Finally, because development of the plan for coordinating CCMP implementation
involves numerous and complex issues, the process for developing such a plan should begin
early. Reaching agreements on the structure, responsibility, authority, and funding of an
oversight organization can require much time and effort, and should be included in the
timeline of management plan development. This will allow for a smoother transition from
the planning to the implementation phase, and help to maintain momentum.
IX
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The National Estuary Program was established under section 320 of the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (amendments to the Clean Water Act) to "identify nationally significant estuaries
that are threatened by pollution, development, or overuse; promote comprehensive planning
for, and conservation and management of, nationally significant estuaries; encourage the
preparation of management plans for estuaries of national significance; and enhance the
coordination of estuarine research." Under the National Estuary Program, the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to convene management
conferences to accomplish seven purposes for these nationally significant estuaries:
1. Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.
2. Identify the causes of environmental problems in the estuary.
3. Relate pollutant loads to observed impacts on the uses, water quality, and
natural resources of the estuary.
4. Develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that
recommends priority corrective actions and implementation schedules to
address impacts observed in the estuary.
5. Develop a plan for coordinating the implementation of the CCMP among
federal, state, and local agencies.
6. Monitor the effectiveness of actions that are implemented under the CCMP.
7. Ensure the consistency of federal assistance and development programs with
the CCMP.
A management conference is the organizational umbrella under which each estuary
program is conducted, representing a partnership across federal, state, and local levels, and
designed to reach consensus on priority problems of the estuary, the causes of those
problems, and the actions that must be taken to correct those problems. National Estuary
Program management conferences progress through four phases in accomplishing the seven
purposes:
Phase 1: Convening the management conference and establishing a structure of
committees and procedures for conducting the group's work;
-------
Phase 2: Characterizing the estuary to determine its health, reasons for its decline,
and trends for future conditions; assessing the effectiveness of existing
efforts to protect the estuary; and defining the highest priority problems to
be addressed in the CCMP;
Phase 3: Specifying action plans in the CCMP to address priority problems
identified through characterization and public input. The CCMP builds as
much as possible on existing state, local, and federal programs; and
Phase 4: Monitoring the implementation of the CCMP, reviewing progress, and
redirecting efforts where appropriate.
As the National Estuary Program has evolved, EPA has encouraged management
conferences to proceed with the four phases simultaneously as often as possible. This
process emphasizes that there often is not a clear line of demarcation between development
and implementation of a management plan for a watershed; rather, the two usually build on
each other. For example, early results of characterization (Phase 2) may indicate obvious
management actions prior to completion of the CCMP. National Estuary Program
participants are encouraged to take early action where solutions are already possible. In
these cases, early implementation of management recommendations can proceed using funds
other than those available under Section 320. EPA has found this concurrent approach so
effective that the Agency has based selection of new estuaries on their ability to streamline
the National Estuary Program phases, focusing on estuaries where:
Significant problem characterization is complete;
A management framework analogous to a management conference already exists;
and
Key state and local agencies have already committed to participate in and support
the NEP process.
Purpose of Report
The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be
measured by implementation of its CCMP. Plan implementation will require a clear
understanding among all participating parties concerning their responsibilities for actions
recommended in the CCMP. Because of the broad scope of environmental problems that
will be addressed in the CCMP, it is unlikely that the responsibility for implementation will
fall on a single entity or agency. Rather, the mechanisms and authorities for implementation
will more likely reside with multiple players. This will be especially true in cases where the
estuary and its watershed overlap multiple jurisdictions (i.e., towns, cities, counties, states,
etc.). For this reason, Purpose 5 requires the development of a plan for coordinating the '
implementation of the CCMP among federal, state, and local agencies. The goal of this plan
is to institutionalize the recommendations made in the CCMP by identifying the
-------
"implemented and providing a framework for coordinating their efforts. The implemented
may include existing agencies and organizations or new entities, as recommended in the
CCMP.
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division is currently developing guidance to
assist National Estuary Program management conferences in planning for the coordination of
CCMP implementation and meeting the requirements of Purpose 5. In support of that effort
this report was developed as a reference document on the experiences of several existing
organizations established to coordinate or oversee implementation of specific environmental
management plans. Rather than providing a comprehensive set of recommendations the
report is a first step in identifying key factors that should be considered when developing
institutional arrangements for CCMP implementation based on the experiences of selected
organizations. It should be emphasized that this report is primarily concerned with
organizations responsible for coordinating or overseeing implementation, rather than
implementation per se. However, as will be seen, these coordinating organizations may
include representation by implementing agencies. A case study approach was used to analyze
these organizations, following the methods described below.
-------
2.0 METHODS
In selecting the case study organizations for this report, an attempt was made to
reflect the wide range of variables that define the estuaries included in the National Estuary
Program. To accomplish this, the following selection criteria were used:
Management Phase: The selected organizations should already be into the
implementation phase, rather than the characterization or plan development phases.
Geographic Area: The range of case study organizations should cover
small and large geographic areas.
State Participation: The range of case study organizations should include
single-state participation as well as multi-state participation.
Mode of Establishment: The range of case study organizations should
include those created by statutory mandate as well as through informal,
interorganizational agreements.
Implementation Tools: The range of case study organizations should include
those that possess regulatory authority as well as those that rely on voluntary,
nonregulatory types of tools. Please note that this criterion did not exclude
those organizations that employ a mix of both regulatory and nonregulatory
tools, nor was it intended to imply that the two types of tools were mutually
exclusive.
The objective of using these variables as criteria for selecting the case studies was to
allow the collection of information that was relevant to the greatest number of National
Estuary Programs. This mix of variables also allowed for the selection of organizations that
ranged from strictly coordinating entities to those that possessed actual implementation
authority. Using the selection criteria as a guide, the following seven organizations were
chosen for analysis during development of this report:
Buzzards Bay Project: A project office and steering committee charged with
overseeing implementation of the approved Buzzards Bay CCMP in Massachusetts.
Cape Cod Commission: A regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable
County, Massachusetts, and its incorporated municipalities.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Commission: A legislative Commission serving the three
Chesapeake Bay states - Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Selected for its
specialized focus on legislative issues, the Chesapeake Bay Commission plays a
somewhat different role in the implementation process than that of the other six
organizations.
Nisqually River Council: A coordinating body charged with developing and
implementing a comprehensive management plan for the three-county Nisquallv River
watershed in the State of Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority: A coordinating organization charged with
developing a comprehensive plan for Puget Sound, Washington and overseeing
implementation activities in the 12-county region.
Southwest Florida Water Management District: A regulatory entity responsible for
managing water and water-related resources in all or part of 16 Florida counties.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: A regional planning council established to
advise the four-county Tampa Bay, Florida region on physical, economic, and social
development issues.
Once the seven case study organizations were selected, the approach for gathering
information for this report included use of a template consisting of standardized categories of
information The template was used during interviews with key individuals who were either
directly affiliated with each of the case study organizations or had experience with those
organizations (Appendix A). Following the collection and review of written materials and
information provided by the interviewees, drafts of the case studies were developed and
distributed to all interviewees for review, and comments were incorporated. The case studv
results were then synthesized and key factors deemed relevant to National Estuary Proarams
were identified. &
The results of the case study analyses are presented in the remainder of this report
Section 3.0 presents the following factual information for each of the case study
organizations:
Organizational Mandate: What is the overall mission of the organization and
where does that mandate come (e.g., enabling legislation, etc.)?
Geographic Scope: Over what geographic area does the organization have
jurisdiction?
Organizational Structure: What are the component parts of the organization,
what are their functions, and how do they relate to one another?
-------
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms: What powers or functions (e.g.,
permitting, public education, etc.) does the organization have? What methods does
the organization use to ensure that commitments/recommendations made by entities
in the planning document are actually implemented?
Funding: What is the annual budget of the organization, and from where does this
funding come? Does the organization have authority to generate funds for the
purpose of implementation and, if so, what are those authorities?
Accountability: To whom is the organization accountable (i.e., who do they report
to) and what are the mechanisms used to meet this requirement (e.g., annual
reports, public meetings, etc.)?
Focus of Implementation: What is the organization implementing (i.e., is there a
management plan in place?)?
Measures of Success: What programmatic indicators does the organization use to
measure success relative to its mandate, and how are these indicators measured?
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts: To what
extent, and how, does the organization coordinate with local governments during
implementation?
Methods for Involving the Public: To what extent, and how, does the
organization involve the general public during implementation?
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program: Is there a defined
linkage with the state's CZM program, and if so, what role does CZM play with
respect to implementation?
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency: Does the
organization have responsibilities with respect to ensuring consistency between its
mandate and federal programs and projects in the area and, if so, what is that
role?
Section 3.0 also presents "lessons learned" that were conveyed by the interviewees
concerning their experiences with the case study organizations. These lessons provide
valuable insights from individuals who are involved in the implementation phase.
Finally, Section 4.0 provides a cross-cutting analysis of the case studies, summarizing
for each of the factors listed above the key institutional factors and lessons learned from each
of the case studies and the significance of these experiences for National Estuary Programs
developing plans to oversee CCMP implementation.
-------
3.0 CASE STUDIES
3.1 Buzzards Bay Project
Organizational Mandate:
In 1985, the Congress of the United States directed the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to conduct studies in Buzzards Bay, as well as Narragansett Bay, Long Island
Sound, and Puget Sound, to determine the extent and cause of environmental problems being
experienced in these waterbodies. In response, EPA initiated the Buzzards Bay Project in
cooperation with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. In 1987,
Buzzards Bay was designated an "estuary of national significance" under Section 320 of'the
federal Clean Water Act (National Estuary Program/NEP). Under the National Estuary
Program, a management conference was convened for Buzzards Bay, in 1988, to develop a
CCMP, recommending corrective actions necessary to address priority environmental
problems. Since approval of the Buzzards Bay CCMP by the EPA Administrator in 1992,
the responsibility for overseeing CCMP implementation has been assumed by the Buzzards
Bay Project Office in conjunction with an implementation steering committee.
Geographic Scope:
The area addressed by the Buzzards Bay CCMP is located between the western-most
part of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and the Elizabeth Islands. The Buzzards Bay coastline is
over 470 km, with a drainage basin of approximately 1120 km2. This drainage basin
includes all or part of 17 Massachusetts municipalities and a population of approximately
236,000. y
Organizational Structure:
The management conference established to develop the Buzzards Bay CCMP
ultimately consisted of the following five committees:
Policy Committee: Set overall policy of the Buzzards Bay Project and ensured
coordinated federal and Commonwealth effort (EPA Region 1 Administrator,
Secretary of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs).
Management Committee: Directed program activities, including formulation of
long-term strategy and development of annual work plans for CCMP development
projects (representatives from Commonwealth and federal agencies, regional
planning commissions, local government, and the public).
-------
Technical Advisory Committee: Provided a forum for scientific input and advice
on issues related to Buzzards Bay (representatives of academic institutions and
Commonwealth and federal agencies active in research, monitoring, and resource
assessment).
Management Plan Advisory Committee: Assisted with the development of the
CCMP (administrators and policy specialists from local, state, and federal agencies
and academia). This committee was dissolved after the first draft CCMP was
released in 1990.
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee: Facilitated regional communication and
cooperation among municipal agencies in the Buzzards Bay watershed (local
government officials). In 1987, what was then known as the Citizen Advisory
Committee reorganized into two separate entities: the Buzzards Bay Advisory
Committee and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (the former has since become the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee(BBAC); the latter is a non-profit citizen's
advocacy group).
As was noted previously, since 1992, day-to-day oversight of CCMP implementation
has been assumed by the Buzzards Bay Project Office. This staff office consists of a Project
Manager and approximately 10 staff who are employees of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office or detailees from various Commonwealth and federal agencies. The
Project Office staff include specialists in virtually all technical issues involved in
implementing the Buzzards Bay CCMP.
The Buzzards Bay Project Office receives policy level guidance from a Buzzards Bay
Steering Committee, which represents a scaled-down version of the former Buzzards Bay
Management Committee. Participation on the Steering Committee has been by those entities
that have had the strongest involvement with the Buzzards Bay Project since its inception and
now have the greatest commitment to implementation. As such, representation on the
Committee currently includes EPA Region 1, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office (housed within Executive Office of Environmental Affairs), the Southeastern Regional
Planning and Economic Development District, the Buzzards Bay Action Committee
(representing the 17 municipalities), and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay. There is no formal
charter for the Steering Committee, and no guidelines exist concerning the long-term makeup
of the Committee. There is potential for expanding or modifying Steering Committee
participation in the future, as appropriate, to suit the needs of CCMP implementation.
Authority:
The entities represented on the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee possess individual
authorities that can be brought to bear to enhance CCMP implementation. However, the
Steering Committee as a whole has no special authorities, aside from providing periodic
direction to the Project Office staff, as well as approving the annual work plan and budget
8
-------
developed by the Project Office for conducting implementation activities. The purpose of the
Steering Committee is to provide a forum within which implementation issues can be
addressed as they arise, using the combined authorities of the participating organizations
Individuals interviewed for this case study are satisfied that this model works well for the
Buzzards Bay Project, preferring to capitalize on existing authorities rather than create a new
level of governance. In addition, this model is consistent with the underlying implementation
philosophy of the Buzzards Bay CCMP: that «[t]he future of Buzzards Bay rests with the
communities and their ability to control the quality of their environment." The strong role
local government plays in implementing the Buzzards Bay CCMP is discussed in greater
detail later in this case study.
To the extent possible, the Buzzards Bay Project secured written commitments to
implement the CCMP action plans from the identified lead agencies and entities These
commitments include letters from the Commonwealth's Department of Environmental
Protection Coastal Zone Management Office, and Division of Marine Fisheries; the Region
1 Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the New England Division, Army
Corps of Engineers; and the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development
Council. In addition, the members of the BBAC signed a resolution re-affirming the
commitments made in the Buzzards Bay Action Compact. All of these written commitments
were incorporated as part of the CCMP.
Since securing these commitments, the Buzzards Bay Project Office has maintained
responsibility for incorporating them into the federal and state budget planning process
through development and approval of the annual work plan. In addition, the BBAC attempts
to locus continuing attention on municipal commitments, with varying degrees of success
There continue to be occasional conflicts between the overall goals of the Buzzards Bay '
Project and the priorities of the individual cities and towns represented on the BBAC These
conflicts are not easily resolved, and often challenge the authority of the BBAC to move
beyond its coordinating function.
Funding:
As an entity, the Buzzards Bay Project does not have authority to generate
implementation funds. The primary source of funding for the Buzzards Bay Project has been
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (National Estuary Program). As with all National
Estuary Programs, annual funding for the Buzzards Bay Project must meet a 3:1 federal/non-
federd match ratio. Through 1991, the year the Buzzards Bay CCMP was completed
federal funds ranged from $200,000 to $607,000 per year and were devoted to activities
necessary to support development of the CCMP. These activities included studies to
characterize the nature and extent of environmental problems, as well as development of
appropriate management actions to address them. Since the CCMP has been approved the
Project has received approximately $200,000 per year in funds under section 320 of the
Clean Water Act for activities necessary to monitor the implementation of the CCMP These
resources are in addition to staff full time equivalents dedicated to the Project by the '
-------
participating agencies. Activities eligible for post-CCMP support include oversight, tracking,
and facilitation of implementation commitments, and preparation of progress reports;
evaluation of monitoring data; communication of implementation results to the public; and
modifications to the environmental monitoring program. The federal resources are allocated
to EPA Region 1, which in turn awards cooperative agreements to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Coastal Zone Management Office), the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, and the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee. An annual work plan is developed by the Project Office,
and approved by the Steering Committee. It is anticipated that federal funding will continue
through 1995.
In addition, the Project has been fairly successful in acquiring available federal grant
resources, such as from EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; Clean
Water Act Section 104 (Pollution Research Grants); and Clean Water Act Section 319
(Nonpoint Source Grants). The Project has also been successful in securing a portion of the
Commonwealth's transportation bond that would generate funds to address stormwater
runoff. The Buzzards Bay Action Committee has taken the lead on several budget initiatives
at the state level geared toward developing implementation funds, including a proposed
betterment bill tied to the Commonwealth's sanitary waste code, and a proposed boat excise
tax.
Accountability:
Members of the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee are primarily accountable to the
individual entities and agencies that they represent. Because Committee participation
transcends federal, Commonwealth, local government, and public lines, there is no single
reporting line for the Committee as a whole. The Project Office is accountable to the
Steering Committee, but individual staff also maintain accountability to their home agencies.
The potential for conflict that this dual accountability might pose has been avoided through a
strong commitment by the individual agencies that Buzzards Bay priorities come first,
particularly for the Project Office staff. Any issues concerning these priorities are resolved
during development and approval of the annual work plan.
Focus of Implementation:
The CCMP being implemented by the Buzzards Bay Project is the product of six
years of technical studies aimed at determining the nature and extent of environmental
problems in Buzzards Bay, as well as the causes of those problems. In addition, working
through the management conference framework described previously, the Project identified
possible solutions to those problems. Therefore, the CCMP serves as a blueprint of
corrective actions in the Bay.
The Buzzards Bay CCMP identifies three priority problems:
10
-------
Health risks from pathogens associated with the improper treatment or disposal of
human wastes, and the subsequent closure of shellfish beds;
Excessive nutrient inputs to the Bay, and their potential for causing water quality
degradation and loss of habitat; and
Contamination of fish, shellfish, and lobsters by toxic substances such as trace
metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
To address these problems, the CCMP presents action plans that focus on 11 issue
areas: managing nitrogen-sensitive embayments, protecting and enhancing shellfish
resources, controlling stormwater runoff, managing sanitary wastes from boats, managing on-
site septic systems, preventing oil pollution, protecting wetlands and coastal habitat, planning
tor a shifting shoreline, managing sewage treatment facilities, reducing toxic pollution and
managing dredging and dredged material disposal.
In addition, the CCMP provides recommendations to address unique problems being
experienced in the vicinity of the City of New Bedford (e.g., Superfund site, New Bedford
Wastewater Treatment Plant, combined sewer overflows), as well as options for managing
land use in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Each action plan defines the specific problem to be addressed; provides background
information on that problem; identifies major issues or assumptions associated with the action
plan; establishes a goal and objectives to be achieved; identifies specific actions that will be
taken to achieve the goals and objectives, as well as the agencies responsible for those
commitments; and recommends other actions that should be taken to achieve the goals and
objectives. Cost estimates for implementing several of the action plans, along with funding
T°r^ indU^ ^ SeC°nd V°lume t0 the CCMP' A mooring plan also accompanies
the CCMP as a third volume.
Measures of Success!
For the past six years, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (Coalition) has tracked progress
toward improvement in the quality of Buzzards Bay through an Environmental Report Card
process, essentially "grading" the Buzzards Bay watershed towns on their efforts This
process has included use of a questionnaire that is filled out by the towns, followed by
interviews by the Coalition, and synthesis of the compiled information. In the past grades
were developed for each of the relevant boards within each town (e.g., Planning Board
Board of Health, Conservation Commission, etc.). The results of the report cards are made
public at an annual press conference.
Beginning with the 1993 process (initiated in January 1994), the report cards will be
developed to more closely track implementation of the CCMP by organizing the
questionnaire according to the 11 action plans. In addition, a single grade will be issued to
11
-------
each town, rather than board-specific grades. Three different questionnaires will be used to
make the process more relevant to Coastal, Inland, and New Bedford issues. Example
questions include:
Controlling Stormwater Runoff
What actions has the town taken through preventative maintenance programs such
as cleaning of catch basins to reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution?
Managing On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems
Do the town's septic system regulations establish a setback distance between septic
systems and surface waters and wetlands or require adjustments to the system
design and application rate to ensure viral removal in environmentally sensitive
areas?
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
Have any acres of shellfish beds been closed this year due to pollution? Have any
shellfish beds been opened this year due to pollution mitigation efforts?
As might be expected, reactions to the Environmental Report Cards are mixed. Those
towns that receive good grades generally react favorably to the process, while those that
receive bad grades often react negatively. There appears to be a general sense that, because
the annual grades are publicized broadly, the process has instilled a certain degree of
competition among the towns to achieve environmental improvement. The report cards have
also helped to raise the awareness of the general public concerning CCMP implementation.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
As was noted previously, implementation of the Buzzards Bay CCMP relies heavily
on local governments in the watershed. This critical role of local governments stems from
the legislated tradition of "home rule" in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which places
them in the best position to address the nonpoint sources of pollution that are the causes of
many of the problems in the watershed. In 1987, what was then known as the Citizen
Advisory Committee of the Buzzards Bay Project reorganized into two separate entities: the
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay. The Buzzards Bay
Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of 12 of the Buzzards Bay watershed
communities, was formed in recognition of the special role of local governments in the
Buzzards Bay watershed, as well as the need to coordinate the activities of these communities
in protecting the resource.
12
-------
In 1990, the Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee became the Buzzards Bay Action
Committee to emphasize the lead role that these communities would play during CCMP
implementation, and an Executive Director was hired to coordinate the day-to-day activities
of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. One of the first achievements of the Buzzards Bav
Action Committee was the signing of the Buzzards Bay Action Compact by the 12 member
communities. In signing the Compact, these communities agreed to review and update town
?nylaWr^i>regK S t0 v?luntarily facilitate implementation of the action plans included
m the CCMP. Formation of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee and signing of the
Compact is viewed as a major accomplishment in an area with such a strong tradition of
nome rule.
Under Articles of Organization filed with the Commonwealth, the Buzzards Bav
Action Committee was incorporated in 1991. Under these Articles, the purpose of the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee is to "facilitate regional communication and cooperation
among municipal, state, and federal agencies concerned with the management of Buzzards
Bay and its watershed by discussing water quality concerns in their communities " In
addition, the Buzzards Bay Action Committee is charged with the following:
Taking advantage of technical assistance provided to local boards and commissions
by the Buzzards Bay Project;
Assisting Buzzards Bay communities in identifying public and private funds for
pollution control projects;
Serving as an advocate for continued funding for water quality projects in
Buzzards Bay; and
Providing a coordinating mechanism among the Buzzards Bay communities.
Each of the 17 cities and towns within the Buzzards Bay watershed may designate a
member to the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. In addition, the executive boards of the
Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District, the Coalition for Buzzards
Bay, and the Cape Cod Commission each may also designate a member to the BBAC The
Buzzards Bay Action Committee is governed by a Board of Directors selected by the'
members, with a Chairman presiding over the Board. In addition, the officers of the
Committee include a President, Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Clerk and are
elected annually. '
The Buzzards Bay Action Committee is viewed as a success in establishing a
coordination mechanism among the Buzzards Bay cities and towns. For example a mutual
aid pact for oil spill response has been agreed to by the member communities of the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee. The pact establishes a Buzzards Bay Regional Response
13
-------
Team, as well as standard operating procedures by which a municipality can request
assistance from a neighboring municipality to address an oil spill. The pact addresses
procedures for activating the Team, roles of Team members, and training requirements.
There has been some concern expressed regarding the designation of representatives
to the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. Specifically, because the governance of a single
town in Massachusetts often resides with multiple boards and commissions, it can be difficult
to ensure the ability of a single representative to speak for that town. Therefore, this role
requires that much time be allotted to inter-board communications, often adding to an already
burdensome workload at the local level. The establishment of smaller committees of the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee (e.g., representatives of Boards of Health) has been
suggested as a possible means to address this problem. Turn-over within local boards and
commissions also creates a need for continuing education concerning the goals and objectives
of both the Buzzards Bay Action Committee and the Buzzards Bay Project. To address this
need, the Buzzards Bay Action Committee provides an annual report to all member cities and
towns, and the Executive Director attempts to attend Boards of Selectmen meetings on a
monthly basis to solicit input. Locating sources of implementation funds is cited as a
continuing challenge for the Buzzards Bay Action Committee.
Methods for Involving the Public:
Prior to completion of the CCMP, public outreach efforts on behalf of the Buzzards
Bay Project originated from three sources: the Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies
(under contract with the Buzzards Bay Project), the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the
Buzzards Bay Project Office. These activities included production and distribution of
quarterly newsletters (by the Lloyd Center prior to 1991, by the Project Office after 1991),
conducting public events and workshops, and developing a Buzzards Bay school curriculum.
In 1987, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay was established as an independent nonprofit, tax-
exempt organization to play a Bay-wide advocacy role on behalf of the public.
Since completion of the CCMP, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay has continued to play
an advocacy role in the Bay area. In addition to ongoing public education activities, the
Coalition monitors local boards and commissions concerning Buzzards Bay restoration and
protection efforts, attending board meetings and developing the annual Buzzards Bay
Environmental Report Cards that were previously cited. The Coalition produces and
distributes a regular newsletter on the Bay, which is independent of the Buzzards Bay Project
Office.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program;
Since its inception, the Buzzards Bay Project has been administered through the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, creating a strong link between the goals of
the Project and those of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. A primary
implementation mechanism recommended in the CCMP was incorporation of its action plans
14
-------
into the Commonwealth's Coastal Zone Management Plan. New Coastal Zone Management
Plan regulatory policies were to be drafted that were specific to Buzzards Bay, along with
nonenforceable" pohc.es. The CCMP also established the Massachusetts Coastal lone
Management review process as the preferred mechanism for reviewing federal actions for
consistency with the CCMP. ai-uuni tor
The process of incorporating the CCMP into the Coastal Zone Management Plan has
TS Sn y>, Wo ^ °f *" emphaslS to ** for CCMP imP'ementftion focus^ at
fte municipal level One reason cited for the lack of progress in this area has been the
change in personnel withm the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Program Office since the CCMP
was completed However, "institutionalizing" the CCMP as part of the Coastal Zone
Management Plan is still viewed as an important mechanism for ensuring that the goals of
e
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency!
As was previously noted, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management review
PP PT°h ^ m^ha?ism for reviewing f^eral actions for consistency with the
CCMP. The regional coordinator for this review is located in the Buzzards Bay Project
Office in Marion, Massachusetts, ensuring ready access.
Lessons Learned;
All parties interviewed for this case study believe that the organizational model
used to implement the Buzzards Bay CCMP works well for that
r
approval of the CCMP, there continues to be strong sentiment for working withns ting
authorities and against creating another layer of government.
Based on the Buzzards Bay Project experience, interviewees suggested that the
following issues be considered when developing organizational strategies:
1. Representation within the organizational structure
The organizational structure should focus on those entities that will play a role in
implementation. In addition, entities participating within the organizational
structure should assign representatives with authority to speak for that entity As
has been noted in this case study, a clear understanding of the organizational'
structures of the participating entities (e.g., multiple boards and commissions for a
single town) can help determine the best mechanism for ensuring equitable
representation. 5 ^
15
-------
2. Continuing process of re-education
Over the long term, new individuals will more than likely become active in the
organizational structure, either as other individuals move on or as the agendas of
the participating entities evolve. For this reason, some consideration should be
given to bringing these new individuals "up to speed" in a way that avoids losing
momentum.
3. Competition for the public's attention
Given the current economic climate in the United States, it should not be assumed
that CCMP implementation will be unanimously embraced. Decisions concerning
the expenditure of public resources will always be considered in terms of
competing social needs. Environmental protection is only one of those needs.
Therefore, any organizational structure should strive to include individuals who
can influence public opinion in support of the goals of implementation.
4. Conflicts with the agendas of individual entities
There currently is no centralized authority within the Buzzards Bay Project for
mandating the implementation of commitments made in the CCMP. A consensus
approach has been used to date and, for the most part, has worked. However,
there are times when the participating entities respond to their individual priorities
rather than to those of the Project. In these cases, the Project has no real way of
impacting those priorities if the consensus approach does not work. However,
suggestions concerning the investment of stronger authority in a single entity to
influence the actions of others raise obvious concerns over potential conflicts with
existing authorities (e.g., local governments). No solution to this dilemma has
been identified by the Buzzards Bay Project but, as has been stated, participants
remain committed to working through existing authorities.
5. State and federal agencies as partners
Even in a program that is as dependent on local authorities as the Buzzards Bay
Project, interviewees stressed the need to ensure that relevant state and federal
agencies remain as partners during the implementation process. Financial
resources that may be available from these levels, as well as their ability to play a
coordination role from a watershed perspective, are seen as key elements for
successful implementation.
16
-------
6. Local governments as part of a larger system
Interviewees suggested that the Buzzards Bay Project has demonstrated that it is
possible to motivate what are, at times, disparate local interests toward a common
goal. Achieving agreement among the 17 Buzzards Bay communities to coordinate
their efforts in a state with such a strong home rule tradition is seen as a major
success of the Project, and one that suggests that similar coordination should be
possible elsewhere.
17
-------
3.2 Cape Cod Commission
Organizational Mandate;
The Cape Cod Commission is a regional commission empowered by the Cape Cod
Commission Act under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Commission
was formally approved as the regional land use regulatory agency for Barnstable County and
its incorporated municipalities in 1990. Prior to that time, it had operated as a regional
planning and advisory agency.
The Commission is charged with three responsibilities: 1) regulatory control of
Developments of Regional Impact and Districts of Critical Planning Concern; 2)
comprehensive planning services for the county and its political subdivisions (i.e.,
development of a Regional Policy Plan); and 3) technical services in support of the
regulatory and comprehensive planning programs.
The Cape Cod Commission is primarily a regional planning commission with powers
vested in it by the Commonwealth and by the municipalities in its one county service area.
Due to Cape Cod's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and its dependence on a sole source
aquifer for drinking water supplies, the Commission maintains an active and sophisticated
water resources management program that has defined strong pollution control policies and
regulations through a system of performance zoning aimed at the protection of sensitive areas
such as wellheads, recharge zones, and potential water supply source areas. These
environmental priorities were important factors in convincing voters and legislators to give
the Commission authority to review and approve local plans and permits.
Geographic Scope;
The Cape Cod Commission has jurisdiction over land uses within Barnstable County
which includes the entire Cape Cod area. The coastline is 117 km in length and the area
covers 1020 km2. Barnstable County has a population of 186,605 and consists of the
following 15 coastal towns: Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet, Eastham, Orleans, Chatham,
Brewster, Harwich, Dennis, Yarmouth, Barnstable, Sandwich, Mashpee, Falmouth, and
Bourne.
Organizational Structure;
The Cape Cod Commission is a county agency with jurisdiction over the entire
watershed. The Commission is an example of using special authority commissions and
boards with considerable authority to manage resources with limited political boundaries.
The Cape Cod Commission consists of a 19 member board and agency staff. The
members of the board are appointed as follows:
18
-------
Boards of Selectmen (in Barnstable, the Town Manager) in each of the 15 Cape
towns select one Cape Cod Commissioner to represent their town.
The Board of County Commissioners selects three Cape Cod Commissioners. One
ol these must be a county commissioner, one a Native American, and one a
mmonty member.
The Governor of Massachusetts appoints one minority member.
Each Commissioner has one vote, except for the Governor's appointee who may only
vote in case of a tie. Members serve for three years, except that the Board of County
Commissioners chooses its representatives annually and the Governor's appointee has a term
coterminous with the Governor. The appointed Commissioners are volunteers that donate
large amounts of personal time to the efforts of the Commission.
The Commissioners are the decision and policy makers of the Cape Cod Commission
charged with three mam areas of responsibility: 1) regulatory, 2) planning/policy, and 3)
administrative/executive. The commissioners have the regulatory authority for all land use
projects and function as a special purpose county planning board. The commission uses
subcommittees to review regulatory projects, including an extensive process for public input
The Commissioners also function as the board of directors for the Commission in dealing '
with budget and personnel issues and are very involved in the "nuts and bolts" functioning of
the Commission. &
An increasingly important role of the Commissioners is that of ambassadors of the
Comm.ssion to the towns. This role provides information to, and a mechanism for acquiring
feedback from, the towns. In fulfilling this role, the Commissioners ensure that what is
being reported about the Commission is accurate. However, it should be noted that the
Commissioners are appointed, not elected, and are not unanimously comfortable in assuming
a more public role or becoming advocates of the Cape Cod Commission.
The Commissioners are supported by a Cape Cod Commission staff office (Figure 1)
which provides extensive guidance and technical advice to the Commissioners in support of
their decision making. The staff are well equipped to provide analytical support and
technical guidance to Commissioners during the decision-making process. Many of the staff
from the agency preceding the Cape Cod Commission remained when the current
Commission was formed, thus maintaining long standing relationships and a deep institutional
tSS'posUioVs Ule C°mmiSSi0n has added *aff positions, including Leralnew
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms!
The Cape Cod Commission Act was passed in 1990 in response to widespread and
growing concern about the preservation of Cape Cod's unique and fragile environment. It
19
-------
o
^^
lol
111
11=
I 8 c
.SUi"
o 6
o «
U a
II
|<5
^ o
a""
8 C
jj «
14
1
I 1
> S o
|°8
C jj^
c
u
E £_
&||
S" T!!2
fe >
|UD
~
Transportation
Program Manager
Robert Mumford
^0
11
H
|l
> M
« p
5 ^ «J
"^ 8
N c
H 5
X <
ti
Senior Transp. Engin
Lev Malakhoff
u
Cl
Transportation Engin
Neil Andres
u
Transportation Engin
Vacant
Traffic Analyst
Dave Qark
Seasonal Traffic
Counting Technicians
£ «
5 £
E 5
ell
O
S*?-8
S * E
liJ
els
At* S
«» e v fi
« e
I i
to
e
5
20
-------
created the Cape Cod Commission and established standards and techniques for the
Commission to follow in carrying out its mission. The Act prescribed the following
mechanisms for achieving the Commission's planning and regulatory goals:
Preparation of a Regional Policy Plan to guide development throughout the
County. This plan emphasizes goals and objectives, as well as minimum
performance standards.
Development by Cape towns of Local Comprehensive Plans.
Identification and regulation of developments which have an impact that extends
beyond the boundaries of a single town as Developments of Regional Impact.
The designation of Districts of Critical Planning Concern for special protection of
significant natural and cultural resources.
The Commission has the authority to regulate Districts of Critical Planning Concern
Areas may be nominated by the Commission, the county commissioners or the assembly of'
delegates, or a board of selectman, historic commission, planning board, board of health or
conservation commission of any municipality for any area within the municipal boundaries
which possess a major public capital facility, or significant coastal, natural, historic
economic, cultural, archeological, architectural or recreational resource. They may'also be
areas with sensitive ecological conditions, rendering them unsuitable for development The
voting members of the Commission have the power to accept or reject consideration of
application to designate Districts of Critical Planning Concern, as well as to approve
approve with conditions, or disapprove permit applications falling within these areas ' It
should be noted that the Districts of Critical Planning Concern process is very complicated
and that there have been no applications to date.
The Commission's designation of a District of Critical Planning Concern must be
approved by the County, after which a limited moratorium may be imposed on development
until the municipality in which the District is located adopts regulations approved by the
Commission to protect significant resources. Thereafter, development is reviewed bv the
municipality pursuant to those regulations.
The Commission is authorized to regulate Developments of Regional Impact
according to standards established in the Regional Policy Plan. The Commission has direct
permit authority over Developments of Regional Impacts including the demolition or
substantial alteration of historic structures; bridges and roads that provide access to the coast-
subdivisions exceeding 50 acres; and developments with more than 30 residential or 10
commercial units
21
-------
The Regional Policy Plan is a powerful regulatory document. The Commission's
regulatory program uses the Plan as a guide and all projects must be consistent with it.
Local Comprehensive Plans are small scale versions of the Regional Policy Plan and will be
an important mechanism through which the Regional Policy Plan is implemented. Every
project that the CCC reviews is closely evaluated to ensure that it meets the standards set
forth in the Regional Policy Plan.
Funding;
The Cape Cod Commission may generate its own funds through permitting fees and
public and private grants, and may raise up to $2 million annually through county taxes (in
the form of property taxes) levied by the Board of County Commissioners, with approval by
the County.
Funds are also provided through state and federal grants. Over the years, EPA has
provided funding to the Commission for projects authorized under Sections 205 (Water
Quality Management Grants, 604 (State Revolving Fund), and 319 (Nonpoint Source Grants)
of the Clean Water Act. The Cape Cod Commission also raises funds by collecting fees for
projects that are reviewed by the Commission.
The County must approve the Cape Cod Commission's budget annually. All
expenditures must be supported by appropriated revenues in the form of taxes, fees, and
grants. These appropriations for fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1994 were as follows:
FY91: $1,963,172
FY92: $2,464,135
FY93: $2,329,544
FY94: $2,562,863
Accountability;
The Cape Cod Commission is accountable to the Massachusetts State Legislature and
to Barnstable County. All Commission finances are handled at the county level and are
subject to detailed financial accounting and audits. There is no sunset provision to the Cape
Cod Commission Act, so in theory, the Commission could continue into perpetuity. The
Commission continues to operate under the original enabling legislation without amendment.
Focus of Implementation;
The Commission's focus for implementation has been on issues of "regional
urgency." The Cape Cod Commission has focused much attention on groundwater
22
-------
protection, primarily due to the need to protect the area's sole source aquifer Due to an
increasing influx of people to the Cape Cod region, growth management is becoming a top
priority (i.e., density planning, transportation infrastructure, traffic issues). However the
focus on groundwater protection continues due to the demands placed on water supplies by
the increasing growth pressure.
Since March 27, 1990, when the Commission Act received formal approval the
Commission has been working to refine the process by which the larger development projects
that affect the region are given careful and thorough review. Known as Developments of
Regional Impact, there are projects which exceed specified thresholds of size and which have
a demonstrable effect on important regional attributes of Cape Cod. In general only larger
projects come under Commission review. '
Districts of Critical Planning Concern are intended to allow increased scrutiny and
protection for portions of Cape Cod that need special attention. These Districts can be
designated to protect anything from water quality to economic resources, and can establish
rules which encourage appropriate development. The Act spells out factors which warrant
nomination as Districts of Critical Planning Concern. Including presence of a major public
capital facility, or significant natural, coastal, historic, economic, cultural, archaeological
architectural, or recreational resources. The Act also allows the nomination of areas with
sensitive ecological conditions which make them unsuitable for development. Examples in
the Commission's guidelines include districts designed to protect or encourage water
resources, aquaculture, agriculture, economic development, downtown revitalization and
architecture, to name only a few of the possibilities.
The Regional Policy Plan developed by the Commission was adopted June 20 1991
The Plan is both a planning and regulatory document and is designed to be the blueprint to'
which Commission members can refer as they make crucial decisions about Developments of
Regional Impacts and Districts of Critical Planning Concerns now and in the future The
plan specifies the most important values of life on Cape Cod-its environment, economy and
historic heritage, among others-and suggests how to protect them.
The Regional Policy Plan establishes regional goals and performance standards with
respect to land use and growth management, public access, coastal erosion, coastal water
quality, agricultural preservation, sewage treatment, wetlands, wildlife and plant habitat
transportation, solid and hazardous waste management, affordable housing energy
conservation, open space and recreation, economic development, and historic preservation
Local Comprehensive Plans must be reviewed by the Commission and found to be consistent
with the Regional Policy Plan. Although there is no requirement that municipalities prepare
or adopt Local Comprehensive Plans, towns that have plans certified by the Commission may
impose impact fees, whereby developers are charged directly for the costs of necessary
infrastructure. This provides a significant incentive to the towns. The Commission also
encourages state agency action to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan
23
-------
Of special note is the groundwater component of the Regional Policy Plan. It is
exhaustive in the land use planning system it uses to protect groundwater. Performance
standards are established for development activities in the following six special use zones:
Wellhead Protection Areas
Freshwater Recharge Areas
Marine Water Recharge Areas
Impaired Areas
Water Quality Improvement Areas
Potential Public Water Supply Areas
Measures of Success:
Mechanisms for measuring success of the Cape Cod Commission include the use of
performance standards set forth in the Regional Policy Plan. For example, to maintain and
improve water quality relative to shellfishing and swimming, the Plan requires that
stormwater management systems be designed to accommodate a one foot rise in relative sea
level. The Commission also uses performance indicators as part of the Barnstable County
budget process. However, the qualitative aspects of the programs make quantification
difficult. For example, while it is easy to record numbers of projects reviewed, this type of
indicator does not take into account the quality of technical expertise and comprehensive
planning that the Commission provides.
The Commission attempts to subjectively determine how well the organization is
meeting the goals set forth in the Regional Policy Plan. While it is difficult to monitor
overall success, continual assessments of projects and policies are undertaken. In addition,
indicators such as grants received and acres of open space preserved are recorded and used
as a measure of success.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
In parallel with the passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act, Barnstable County
underwent an unusual reorganization which resulted in a new county charter. This charter
was the first new county charter to be approved in Massachusetts in over 300 years.
Massachusetts county government has not typically been a strong institution. However, in
the Cape Cod area there was, and is, tremendous support for the county reorganization and
for the development of a regional institution. The county charter and the Cape Cod
24
-------
Commission Act were developed simultaneously resulting in strong integration of the Cape
Cod Commission into county government. In addition, the Commission has an agreement
with the Commonwealth's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to strive for a more
unified regulatory process.
Since the Cape Cod Commission is an integral part of Barnstable County government
major policy mechanisms, such as the Regional Policy Plan, require enactment as an
ordinance by the Assembly of Delegates. The Commission is subject to the normal
budgetary process of the County government and appointments to the staff are made by the
Board of County Commissioners.
While the Cape Cod Commission has authority to make decisions at the regional
level, local support is essential to successful implementation. In the past, the Commission
has not coordinated enough with local officials and has, in some cases, alienated local boards
who felt that their input and regulatory processes were being disregarded. Currently the
Commission has an improving relationship with local communities.
As was noted previously the Commission implements the Regional Policy Plan in
P^t^°5lghiLOC^1 ComPrehensive P1*ns. Currently, all towns are involved in a voluntary
effort to develop their plans, with technical and financial support being provided by the
Commission. Once the towns develop these plans, the Commission must review them for
consistency with the Regional Policy Plan.
The Commission's review of projects precedes that of towns. Towns can propose
changes to projects or deny projects that the Commission has approved; however, towns can
not approve projects that the Commission has already refused. The Commission actively
encourages towns to participate in their regional reviews and is attempting to improve and
streamline the review process. A significant aspect of this process consists of public hearings
in which local governments are provided opportunities to participate.
A ^ ConfUcts with local governments still arise over specific projects. The perception that
the Commission is undermining local authority continues to be an issue, and the Commission
is continuing to pursue efforts to ensure a stable and positive relationship with local officials
djici en uiies .
Methods for Involving the Public:
^ The Cape Cod Commission Act originated from a grassroots initiative and established
a culture of going to the people. " The Commission has made continuing public
involvement an important component through public hearings and meetings. The regulatory
program implemented by the Commission requires formal notices and public hearings
Grassroots involvement comes through participation by each of the municipalities in the
voting decisions of the Commission.
25
-------
The Commission's Publications Department produces a periodic publication
summarizing decisions made by the Commission and providing notice of upcoming hearings.
The twice-monthly REPORTER helps explain the workings of the Commission and contains
other information about the agency's activities, both planning and regulatory. It is mailed to
more than 750 subscribers, including local officials, citizens, and professionals. The
Department also serves as a liaison with the local media, and has contributed to the
development of public education strategies.
The Commission recognizes the need to increase public awareness, and one of its
current goals is to improve use of the media, as well as develop a comprehensive public
affairs program. Because the Commission is a political agency, continued positive support
from its constituency is essential to progress.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program;
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has always had a close
working relationship with the Commission. All of the Cape Cod region under the
jurisdiction of the Commission is within the coastal zone. Thus, in addition to review by the
Commission, major projects proposed for the Cape Cod region are also reviewed by the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management program has an active presence in the county, with its regional office located at
the Cape Cod Commission. A Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program Regional
Coordinator provides technical assistance on coastal management issues to the Commission
and the communities of Barnstable County in a number of ways. Coastal erosion, hazards,
and harbor planning received priority attention during 1993, and these will continue to be a
critical focus in the future. Technical assistance is provided on projects reviewed by local,
state, and county officials.
Many of the efforts of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Regional Coordinator are performed in conjunction with the Cape Cod Commission's Marine
Resources Specialist. As a team addressing coastal and marine management issues, technical
expertise is provided to Commission staff and the communities on development of the coastal
resources element of Local Comprehensive Plans. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Program considers this a vital component of the regional program, where the community is
developing and implementing coastal management and harbor planning initiatives at the local
level.
In the future, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program is planning to
incorporate the Commission's Regional Policy Plan into its coastal zone management
program. When this is accomplished, it is anticipated that the Plan will be designated as a
"special area management plan" providing additional implementation authority through
enforceable policies of the coastal zone management program.
26
-------
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency:
All of Cape Cod is within the designated coastal zone, and the entire area is
potentially subject to federal review. As has been noted, the key provisions in the Regional
Policy Plan have been found to be consistent with federal guidelines, and it is anticipated that
the plan will be formally adopted into the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
in the future.
Lessons Learned:
The Cape Cod region has always been recognized as an extremely unique area with a
strong sense of regionalism, a sole-source aquifer, peninsula characteristics, and a similar
economic structure within the towns in the area. These unique attributes were a strong
motivation for the development and eventual passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act. The
passage of the Act, and the resultant establishment of the Cape Cod Commission, was a long
and arduous process. The Commission has been an extremely effective planning and
regulatory agency due, in large part, to the fact that the Massachusetts State Legislature
provided substantial authority to the Commission.
1. Public education and involvement
One of the more notable aspects of the Cape Cod Commission's overall program is
the strong interaction and consultation with stakeholders within the community.
Early on, the Commission recognized the enormous benefit of keeping the lines of
communication open, resulting in a Regional Policy Plan that reflects the concerns
of the people of Cape Cod. However, while there was an effort to involve the
communities on certain levels, the Commission was slow to develop an
understanding of the importance of public affairs and outreach. The Commission
underestimated the need for public relations, considering it an inappropriate role
for a government agency. The realization that there was a negative public
perception of the Commission and the fact that misunderstandings about its mission
existed at the public level, have stimulated the Commission to be more proactive
in fostering and maintaining public interest and trust. Therefore, establishment of
a comprehensive public affairs program is a strong recommendation to any
planning and regulatory entity.
2. Local government involvement
Maintaining the autonomy of local governments is always a challenge. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a strong tradition of "home rule," and the
fact that local towns gave up any control is extremely unusual and makes the
Commission very unique. A positive result of the Commission's institutional
structure is that, although the towns initially delegate some of their authority to the
Commission, once they develop an approved local comprehensive plan, their
27
-------
authority is extended and they gain additional powers. However, the loss of local
autonomy continues to arise as an issue, particularly over the regulation of specific
projects.
3. Regulatory versus technical functions
Over the past four years, there has been much emphasis on the regulatory function
of the Cape Cod Commission, while its technical function has received much less
attention. The Commission is actively working toward increased public knowledge
about the planning and technical expertise that the Commission staff bring to the
region. These planning and technical functions actually comprise two-thirds of the
Commission's programs and have been invaluable to the small towns within the
region.
4. Flexible structure
The Cape Cod Commission has been designed to be flexible, allowing for the
evolution of policies and programs as information is developed. The Cape Cod
Commission's structure is designed to accommodate changing priorities. As a
testament to its institutional structure and adaptability, the agency has been in
existence for four years without a legislative amendment.
Establishment of the Commission allowed the people of Cape Cod to determine
what they wanted Cape Cod to be like in the future. Then, the Cape Cod
Commission developed the regulatory structure to make this vision real.
28
-------
3.3 Chesapeake Bay Commission
Organizational Mandate?
A bi-state Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, was created in 1980 by the
General Assemblies of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia in
recognition of the states' shared concerns and responsibilities for the wise utilization
conservation, and management of Chesapeake Bay resources. The legislation was amended
by mutual consent in 1985 to include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a full member
of the Commission. See Attachment 1 to this case study for the Preamble to the Tri-State
Agreement creating the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
The primary purpose of the Commission is to assist the legislatures of the three states
in responding to problems of Baywide concern and to encourage cooperative, coordinated
planning and action among the executive agencies of the three states.
There are several nonessential differences in legislative language among the
authorizing statutes of the three states. Precise wording can be found in the Annotated Code
of Maryland, Natural Resources Article, Section 8-302; the Code of Virginia Title 62 1
^f? 5'2' SeCti°nS 62'1'69-5 through 62.1-69.20, and Laws of Pennsylvania, Act 25 of
1985, 32 P.S. Section 820.11.
Geographic Scope;
The Chesapeake Bay is widely accepted as the largest estuary in the country with a
total drainage area of approximately 180,000 km2. The Commission assists the leg/slatures
of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania in responding to problems of the Chesapeake Bay.
Organizational Structure:
The Chesapeake Bay Commission was an outgrowth of the 1980 findings and
recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission. The Legislative
Advisory Commission was charged by the Maryland and Virginia State Legislatures with
evaluating existing and potential management institutions for the Chesapeake Bay and
reporting recommendations to the 1980 sessions of the legislatures. Although there was
awareness that existing state and federal programs cumulatively exercised broad management
powers over the Chesapeake Bay region, some problems had been identified with integrating
appropriate solutions into this existing institutional structure.
. w. The Advisory Commission held a series of eight meetings and workshops at locations
in Virginia and Maryland and asked for private individuals and state representatives to
provide background information and supporting documents to identify areas of concern
related to the management of the Chesapeake Bay. In general, the management problems
29
-------
identified through this process were associated with the failure of the states to adequately
coordinate the use of existing controls over Bay resources.
The Advisory Commission reviewed seven general types of alternative management
institutions which could conceivably be adapted for use in improving and coordinating Bay
management activities in the two states. Characteristics of each option were presented in
detail in a report entitled "Description of Available Institutional Alternatives for Improved
Chesapeake Bay Management". The alternatives considered were: reliance upon existing
government agencies, with no new entity being created; a bi-state commission without federal
participation; a federal-interstate commission; a commission created under Title II of the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965; a commission or agency created pursuant to Section
309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; an interstate planning agency created
under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act); and a
federal regional management authority.
After a careful evaluation of alternatives, the Advisory Commission determined that
improved coordination between the states in Chesapeake Bay management would best be
served by the creation of a bi-state Commission answering directly to the General Assemblies
of the two states. The Advisory Commission recognized the central role of executive branch
agencies in achieving a greater degree of interstate cooperation, but also recognized that
disparities in management practices across state lines were often based upon different
legislative policies under existing state laws that could not be reconciled by executive
attention. The bi-state Commission, as conceived, would be an improvement, not an
enlargement of government. The Commission would not include any direct federal
participation, nor would it have any assigned regulatory or management powers. The
Commission would advise the two legislatures on proposed legislation affecting the use of the
Bay resources and serve to focus legislative attention on problems identified by the executive
agencies.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission membership consists of seven representatives from
each of the three states. Each state's delegation includes two Senators, three Delegates or
Representatives, the Governor or his designee, and a citizen representative. The Commission
has a small professional staff of four, with offices in Annapolis, Richmond, and Harrisburg.
Legislators serving as members of the Commission serve terms coterminous with their
current terms of office. The nonlegislative members serve at the pleasure of their respective
appointing authorities for a term of not more than four years. Nonlegislative members may
be reappointed at the end of the four year term. Commission members serve without
compensation but may be reimbursed by the Commission for necessary expenses incurred in
and incident to the performance of their duties.
Chesapeake Bay Commission meetings are held at least once each quarter. In order
to constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business, at least eleven Commission
30
-------
members, including at least three members from each state, must be present. Approval of
proposed actions requires the majority vote of the Commission members present.
The Commission members serve as the governing body of the Commission and
exercise and discharge all powers, functions, and responsibilities assigned to the
Commission. They adopt suitable bylaws. A Chairman and two vice Chairmen, chosen by
respective delegations, rotate annually among the signatory states and may at no time be held
by members from the same states. The Commission may not delegate its power to make
recommendations to the respective legislatures, to issue reports, or to adopt an annual
expense budget.
The Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission is a member of the Executive
Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the highest decision making body of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Members of the Executive Council also include the Governors of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the
Administrator of EPA representing the federal government. The Executive Director of the
Commission sits on the Chesapeake Bay Program Principal's Staff Committee, the
Implementation Committee, and the Budget Steering Committee to ensure that federal funds
are spent in a cost effective manner and that state implementation grant funds remain
committed to the installation and improvement of best management practices. In 1993,
Chesapeake Bay Commission staff were also participants on the Living Resources, Toxics,
Fish Passage, Communications, and Population Growth and Development subcommittees.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms!
The purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Commission is to assist the legislatures of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in evaluating and responding to problems of mutual
concern relating to the Chesapeake Bay; to promote intergovernmental cooperation; to
encourage cooperative, coordinated resource planning and action by the signatories and their
agencies; to provide, where appropriate, through recommendations to the respective
legislatures, uniformity of legislative application; to preserve and enhance the functions,
powers, and duties of existing offices and agencies of government; and to recommend
improvements in the existing management system for the benefit of the present and future
inhabitants of the Chesapeake Bay region.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission has the following authorities:
Collect, compile, analyze, interpret, coordinate, tabulate, summarize, and
distribute technical and other data relative to the Chesapeake Bay and its environs.
Conduct or contract for studies, except those for primary scientific research, and
prepare reports on existing or potential problems within the Bay region.
31
-------
Prepare, publish, and disseminate information in reports related to the resources of
the region.
Serve as an advisory board to any requesting agency of the member states on
matters of interstate concern.
Make application for grants, services, or other aids as may be available from
public or private sources to finance or assist in effectuating any purposes of the
Agreement, and receive and accept such aids on terms and conditions as may be
required by the laws of the respective signatory states.
Purchase administrative supplies and lease sufficient office space if such space is
not otherwise made available for its use.
Exercise such other powers as are granted by the Agreement and take such actions
as are necessary or appropriate for performing the duties set forth in the
Agreement.
In addition, the Commission has the following stated duties:
Identify specific Bay management concerns requiring intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation and recommend to the federal, state, and local
governments, which are involved in the Chesapeake Bay region, legislative and
administrative actions necessary to effectuate coordinated and cooperative
management for the Chesapeake Bay.
Consider the needs of the region for industrial and agricultural development and
for gainful employment and maintenance of a high quality environment.
Respect and support the primary role of the respective signatory states and their
administrative agencies in managing the resources of the region.
Collect, analyze, and disseminate information pertaining to the region and its
resources for the respective legislative bodies; prepare an annual report indicating
the status and progress of environmental and economic issues involving the
Chesapeake Bay.
Represent the common interests of the signatories as they are affected by the
activities of the federal government and assist in the monitoring of those activities
in the Chesapeake Bay region.
> As requested, provide a forum to serve as an advisory mediator for programmatic
conflicts between or among the member states.
32
-------
If Chesapeake Bay legislation and/or appropriations are needed, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission plays a primary role in educating members. Individual members or state
delegations could sponsor or shepherd legislation or appropriations through the legislative
process of their state.
Funding:
The Chesapeake Bay Commission annually adopts a budget which includes the
Commission's estimated expenses for administration and operation. The amount required for
the Commission's expense budget is apportioned equally among the signatory parties unless a
different apportionment is agreed to by unanimous vote of the Commission. In 1985-1986
this budget was $225,000. The 1994 budget is $375,000, with $125,000 from each of the
three states. In addition to this base budget, each state can provide additional funding to the
Commission for special projects.
In establishing the annual current expense budget, the Commission balances total
expenses against the Commission's estimate of revenues from all sources, either previously
appropriated by a signatory state or receivable from any person or governmental agency as a
contract or grant. The Chairman of the Commission certifies this budget to the respective
signatories and submits statements of the amounts requested from them. A budget, approved
by the Commission's Executive Committee, is submitted to the full membership for approval.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission can use its special studies funds for implementation
activities; this would typically occur through annual budget planning. The Commission also
plays a powerful role in the appropriation and allocation of funds. Its Executive Director
holds one of six seats on the Budget Steering Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Its members sit on appropriations and finance committees of the state legislatures where they
can shepherd budget items for the Bay. Its members also sponsor or promote legislative
resources for the Bay.
Accountability!
The Chesapeake Bay Commission is primarily accountable to the legislatures of the
three states; however, as a public agency, the Commission has a responsibility to the general
public as well.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission publishes an Annual Report for the General
Assemblies detailing the status of environmental and economic issues of concern to the
Chesapeake Bay region and the progress of interstate coordination efforts. The Commission
also issues legislative updates annually in May for all jurisdictions. These updates
summarize major legislative and budget initiatives at the state and federal levels to enhance
the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort and are distributed to more than 1000 interested
legislators, citizens, and groups throughout the watershed.
33
-------
As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Commission is obligated to
work to fulfill the commitments made as a result of the agreement. The Commission must
also be responsible to the General Assemblies of the states who have vested in the
Commission the power to represent them in the Bay program.
Members and staff of the Chesapeake Bay Commission are involved in virtually every
aspect of Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. This includes administrative and support
functions of the Chesapeake Bay Program, as well as substantive actions to ensure that the
commitments in the Bay Agreement are fulfilled and, if appropriate, revised to better serve
the needs of the Bay and its resources. The Commission's principal role is in legislative and
policy-related issues, but its tri-state composition and perspective, and the continuity which it
brings to the Bay Program, provide it with a unique opportunity to take a longer range and
more comprehensive view of the issues facing the Bay community.
As an example, to address concerns associated with the Chesapeake Bay nutrient
reduction revaluation, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, along with the other Executive
Council members, signed the 1992 amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This
document re-emphasized the importance of achieving a 40 percent nutrient reduction by
focusing on the individual tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. The amendments also recognized
the importance of air deposition as a source of nutrient pollution, reaffirmed the critical
connection between water quality and living resources, and called for cost effective
improvements in nutrient control technologies. The issues raised in the revaluation and the
responses to those issues by the states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia
will, in large degree, set the legislative agenda for the future.
Many of these concerns have been reflected in legislative initiatives considered by the
General Assemblies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Each legislature has examined
ways to control and better manage nonpoint sources of pollution from land and air.
Mandatory nutrient management legislation introduced in both Pennsylvania and Maryland
represent recognition of these concerns. Similar attention has been paid to atmospheric
deposition of nutrients to Bay waters and surrounding lands, with all three states considering
measures to reduce airborne nitrogen. Growth management, erosion and sediment control,
and fisheries management initiatives have also been considered by the states.
Focus of Implementation:
As previously discussed, the Chesapeake Bay Commission supports the
implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program management plans and strategies. Since its
formation, the Commission has been instrumental in sponsoring legislative and budgetary
actions in the three states to promote the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. The
Commission also actively reviews executive agency actions to ensure that Chesapeake Bay
programs are implemented expeditiously and effectively.
34
-------
The Commission does not have a separate long range strategy or plan. Its annual
work plan is reflected in its budget. Although the Chesapeake Bay Agreements are a guiding
tool, the Commission also addresses issues that may not be under direct consideration by the
Chesapeake Bay Program. As an example, it was the Chesapeake Bay Commission that first
identified tributyltin as an issue and developed emergency legislation to deal with this issue.
The Commission has also raised awareness of the tie between ballast waters and exotic
species as well as the need for forest buffers. Part of the Commission's strength is its
flexibility, due to its independence from state agencies and the Chesapeake Bay Program, to
deal with emerging issues of importance.
Commission-generated issues may be brought forward by a Commission member, a
state legislature, the executive branch, or Commission staff. The Chesapeake Bay
Commission raises awareness of these issues through participation within the Chesapeake Bay
Program structure and release of Commission policy statements, papers, and reports.
The Commission's range of interests is broad and far reaching. It has adopted the
following positions:
Fisheries and Living Resources Management - Cooperative Baywide fisheries
management strategies are needed which incorporate habitat and water quality
considerations as well as biologically sound harvest controls.
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources of Pollution - State programs aimed at the
reduction of nonpoint sources of pollution from agricultural lands within the
region, and the effectiveness of these efforts, need continuing enhancements.
Sediment Control Inspection and enforcement elements of existing erosion and
sediment control programs in all jurisdictions should be strengthened.
Stormwater Management ~ Water quality considerations must be included as an
integral component of storm water management planning.
Nutrient Control Strategies -- Flexible nutrient loading goals are needed in each of
the three states and timetables and implementation strategies by which those goals
can be achieved should be set forth.
Sewage Treatment - Federal funding for the construction and upgrading of
wastewater treatment facilities in the region should be continued, and alternative
means and mechanisms for financing construction in the future through state,
local, and private funding sources should be explored.
Toxic Pollutants ~ A Baywide strategy to reduce the level of toxic discharges to
the waters of the Bay and its tributaries should be developed, and research and
monitoring activities in this area should be continued and strengthened.
35
-------
Population and Land Use ~ There is a clear link between population growth, with
its associated development pressures and changes in land use patterns, and
deteriorating environmental quality. The Commission calls for a stronger
leadership role for state government in land use planning and regulations
particularly as they affect water quality and the preservation and protection of
habitat and living resources.
Water Use Activities ~ Water use activities such as dredging, vessel waste
management, and public access are important to the overall Bay protection effort.
Shoreline Erosion ~ Non-structural measures are the preferred means of stabilizing
eroding shoreline areas throughout the Bay region.
Measures of Success:
The Chesapeake Bay Program has established benchmarks to measure success in a
number of areas. Most notable are the commitments to reduce nutrients by 40 percent,
acreage restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and stream mileage goals for
restoration of habitat for migratory fish. As a signatory, the Chesapeake Bay Commission is
obliged to take actions necessary to achieve those goals. The program engages in extensive
environmental monitoring and evaluation to determine the extent to which these goals are
reached.
While the Chesapeake Bay Commission does not use "programmatic indicators" to
gauge its success, it continually evaluates the extent to which Commission policies are put
into effect throughout the region and reports those findings as part of its operation.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
The Chesapeake Commission coordinates on an as-needed and issue-specific basis
with local governments. One example of this coordination is growth management. Formal
coordination of implementation efforts occurs through the Chesapeake Bay Program's Local
Government Advisory Committee.
Methods for Involving the Public:
All Chesapeake Bay Commission meetings are open to the public, and the
Commission occasionally sponsors conferences and legislative roundtables with key
stakeholder groups. However, there is no ongoing general public outreach program. The
Commission participates in public outreach efforts sponsored through the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
36
-------
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program:
There is no defined linkage with the Coastal Zone Management Program except on an
issue-specific basis. One example of issue-specific coordination is the Chesapeake Bay
Commission's review of the applicabilities of section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments to implementation of Chesapeake Bay-specific actions.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency:
The Chesapeake Bay Commission addresses the consistency of federal programs in
relation to the Chesapeake Bay through its participation in Bay Program committee
discussions with all relevant agencies. For legislative issues, the Commission reviews
federal and state legislation on an issue-specific basis.
Lessons Learned:
Chesapeake Bay Program participants recognize the contribution of the Chesapeake
Bay Commission to Bay implementation efforts and the interaction between the Commission
and the Chesapeake Bay Program is characterized as healthy. It is considered very important
by the Bay Program to have this independent legislative focus; other estuary programs could
benefit from a similar structure, particularly multi-state programs. The Commission is
characterized as a new and aggressive source of ideas, an innovator, and a key source of
political support, recognizing that its range of political views is broader than any other Bay
Agreement signatory.
The Commission brings a broad, visionary view to the Chesapeake Bay Program, as
the only entity, other than EPA, on the Executive Council with multi-state jurisdiction. The
Commission predates the Bay Program, so it has proven its viability and usefulness through
the test of time.
The Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission has offered the following
as rules of success for other estuary programs setting up a comparable structure to the
Commission:
Establish clear, strong, specific, and comprehensive goals which can be embraced
by the members.
Ensure diversity of participants, both among members and among those who are
invited in to participate on particular issues.
Create a funding source ~ with stability; have some degree of leverage over
budgets.
37
-------
Value a connectness to the broader Bay community - help build and support a true
team approach.
Be willing to constantly reassess goals and make modifications; develop a self
analytical ability.
Be guided by state of the art scientific research - have data to back up
recommendations; this is key to development of a solid reputation.
Use a variety of approaches for implementation, from a diverse set of tools -
balance regulatory vs. stewardship approaches, etc.
Demonstrate an ability to act; go for results.
Based on interviewee responses, other issues that should be considered by estuarv
programs in developing institutions for implementation include the following:
1. Formality of relationships with other programs
The link between the Bay Program and the Commission is largely consensual
Some interviewees feel very strongly that the independence of the Commission is
one of its strengths and that adding any more formality or accountability to its
relationship with the Bay Program would be detrimental, since this might result in
losing the ability to pursue issues on the horizon. However it is acknowledged
that the success of the existing relationships and structure in implementing policies
relies on the strength and personalities of individual members and staff.
2. Participation in estuary committee structure
The Chairman of the Commission participates on the Chesapeake Bay Program
Executive Council, but this Council only meets once a year. Typically staff (not
Commission members) participate as working members of other committees Some
interviewees advocate additional legislator involvement within the committee
structure. The advantages to more direct involvement by legislators might include
a greater degree of ownership of decisions and a better understanding of issues and
other s points of view. One primary disadvantage to more direct legislator
involvement is less continuity due to turnover among legislators There are also
several obstacles to greater involvement by legislators, including the lack of peer
relationships among members, and the time commitments that a committee process
cemanos.
38
-------
3. Selection of Executive Director
The Executive Director is a primary factor in the success of the Commission. The
structure and operations of the Commission depend on a strong Executive Director
and good staff as intermediaries. Staff draft positions, policy statements, and
legislative language. Commission members are subject to regular turnover. The
Executive Director provides the knowledge, memory, and continuity within the
organization. The Executive Director personally participates on the Principal's
Staff Committee, the Implementation Committee, and the Budget Steering
Committee. This puts the Commission in a very strong negotiating position vis a
vis other organizations that have more limited participation across committees.
The Commission membership reflects many points of view which must be
accommodated. This requires a skilled Director, often working with individual
members or in smaller groups behind the scenes, to move toward consensus
positions.
4. Commission membership
The Commission is not currently representative of the entire watershed. This is a
disadvantage in addressing implementation issues.
One interviewee questioned the value that is added by Executive Branch
membership on the Commission, suggesting that this is duplicative of other
structures and could have a dampening effect on Commission deliberations.
Another interviewee suggested that the Commission membership be required to be
bipartisan (i.e., require both democratic and republican members from each
House from each state).
5. Commission role with broader legislative community
There is no mandate for the Commission to interface formally with other members
of the General Assemblies -- to communicate analyses of results and more
aggressively educate peers about the Bay. However, some Commission members
do a good job of this informally. It was acknowledged that this would be difficult
to implement on a more formal basis, politically, within given time constraints.
There has also been disagreement within the broad Bay community on who has the
primary role for coordination with the U.S. Congress on Bay-related issues. The
result is that many on the Executive Council try to assert this role. It would be
helpful to clarify this area of responsibility.
39
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
TRI-STATE AGREEMENT CREATING THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION
PREAMBLE
Whereas, the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, wetlands and dependent natural
resources constitute a unified ecosystem shared and used by the State of Maryland,
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
Whereas, utilization of the resources of the Bay, including, but not limited to,
management and regulatory programs for migratory fowl, fmfish, shellfish and
implementation of methods to achieve compatible usage of the Bay for commercial
and mercantile interests and all actions which effect changes in water quality,
substantially involve the joint interests of the three states; and
Whereas, the Chesapeake Bay Commission was formed in 1980 to assist the
legislatures of Maryland and Virginia to evaluate and respond to problems of Baywide
concern; and
Whereas, studies completed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
the Army Corps of Engineers and others have emphasized the importance of the
drainage system of the lower Susquehanna River to the health and welfare of the
Chesapeake Bay; and
Whereas, the need for effective cooperation and coordination of Bay management
among the states of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania has been stressed by
participants in the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Conference; now therefore be it
Resolved, that the General Assemblies of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania enact
legislation adopting an Agreement relating to the Chesapeake Bay and creating the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
40
-------
3.4 Nisqually River Council
Organization Mandate
In 1987, the Washington State Legislature directed the Department of Ecology to
develop a management plan for the Nisqually River (WA SHE 323) which provides for a
balanced stewardship of the basin's economic, cultural, and environmental resources. The
mission of the Nisqually River Council is to implement the Nisqually River Management
Plan. The Nisqually River Council is a broadly based organization committed to the
protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River and its basin (using land management and
nonpoint source technologies).
Geographic Scope!
The Nisqually River is 130 km in length, extending from the west drainage of Mount
Rainier on the Nisqually Glacier downstream through the Nisqually Indian Reservation and
the Fort Lewis Military complex to the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge on Puget Sound.
The boundary of the management area covers three counties. The entire Nisqually River
watershed covers 1870 km2.
The Nisqually River management area consists of a Core Management Zone and a
Stewardship Management Zone. The Stewardship Management Zone is a viewshed corridor
along the Nisqually River a minimum of 1/4 mile and a maximum of 3/4 mile each side of
the River. The Core Management Zone is essentially the Shoreline Management Zone of the
Nisqually River (a corridor 200 feet wide along the shorelines of the state) and the lower
three miles of the Mashel River. Additionally, lands acquired by purchase or donation, and
steep slopes adjacent to the Shoreline Management Zone, are included in the Core
Management Zone.
Organizational Structure:
The overall structure of the Nisqually River management program is based on a 21-
member Nisqually River Council and 21-member Nisqually River Citizens Advisory
Committee. The Nisqually River Council represents the University of Washington's Pack
Experimental Forest; Nisqually Tribe; Fort Lewis; Mount Rainier National Park; Washington
Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ecology;
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; Washington Secretary of State;'
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge; Gifford Pinchot National Forest; Tacoma Public
Utilities; Lewis, Pierce, and Thurston Counties; and the Cities of Yelm, Roy, and
Eatonville. The Council's Citizens Advisory Committee represents citizen interests along the
river and in the region, assisting in the development of recommended policies for the
management plan. Three of the Citizen Advisory Committee members sit on the Council as
voting members.
41
-------
The Nisqually River Council is a coordination body. With no independent authority
of its own, the Council relies on the existing authorities of its members. Its primary powers
are those of advocacy for the river and coordination of actions of member agencies. The
Council does not have the power to require local governments to take specific actions.
Participating state agencies are directed to develop complementary or consistent plans with
the program.
As recommended in the Nisqually River Management Plan, a nonprofit trust has been
formed as an auxiliary organization to facilitate land acquisition. Established in 1989, the
Nisqually River Basin Land Trust is a nonprofit group of farmers, business and professional
people, homemakers, and others dedicated to protecting the natural resources of the
Nisqually River Basin through acquisition of conservation easements and land. Grants,
membership fees, donations, and other fund raising methods are augmented by property and
easement donations.
The Nisqually River Interpretive Center Foundation was chartered in 1992. This not-
for-profit charitable IRS 501(c)(3) organization established and operates the Nisqually River
Interpretive Center, dedicated to environmental education and interpretation of the natural,
historic, cultural, and economic resources of the Nisqually Basin.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms:
As stated above, the Nisqually River Council is an advocacy, coordination, and
education-oriented organization. The Council relies on the existing authorities of its
members to implement plan recommendations. It does not have regulatory authority beyond
that which exists among participating local, state, and government agencies. The Council
has no authority to review or approve permits or local plans, no consistency power in
planning and permitting, and no authority to review or approve state actions.
Commitments are routinely made by member agencies at Nisqually River Council
meetings with respect to specific issues and projects. The use of Council letterhead, which
lists participating agencies, is viewed as a visible sign of commitment. Thus far, the Council
has received full support and participation from its members.
Funding:
Initially, the legislature directed the Department of Ecology to implement the
Nisqually River Management Plan, but did not provide funding for this purpose. In
response, the Nisqually River Council went directly to the legislature and, beginning with the
1989/1990 biennium, began receiving $100,000 per year for implementation. These funds
have provided 1.25 FTEs and a modest amount for project implementation. This funding has
been slightly reduced recently, consistent with state-wide budget cuts. The Council has
received matching dollars from participating entities on a project-by-project basis. For
example, Thurston County contributes some money for the Council's stream rehabilitation
42
-------
project, and (through in-kind support) the Department of Natural Resources has assisted with
the development of the Nisqually Basin Atlas.
The Nisqually River Council allocates the limited amount of funds appropriated to it
by the state legislature and works to secure matching funds from project partners It does
not have independent authority to generate funds.
Accountability!
Although not required, the Nisqually River Council presented an annual report to the
legislature in 1989. Currently there are plans to develop another annual report in the next
year or so. The Council also has an annual retreat at which time the general public is invited
to participate with the Council and CAC in developing an annual work plan.
Focus of Implementation-
The Nisqually River Council is charged with overseeing implementation of the
Nisqually River Management Plan. The preparation of a Nisqually River Management Plan
by the Department of Ecology was mandated by the 1985 legislation (SHE 323) The plan
places heavy emphasis on investigatory research preliminary to development and
recommendation of action programs. The Nisqually River Task Force transmitted final
recommendations for a Nisqually River Management Plan, that was subsequently approved
by the Legislature, in June 1987. The key issues addressed in the plan include: extraction of
mineral resources, water quality and stream flow, reduction of flood damage, anadramous
hsh habitat, wildlife populations and habitat, wetlands and estuarine areas, hydroelectric
facilities, economic development, local land use planning, forestry and agriculture public
recreation access, education and interpretive programs, land acquisition and protection
management entity, and boundaries of the management area.
Measures of Success;
The Nisqually River Council measures success primarily on a project-by-project basis
The Council has completed a number of specific projects, including a popular school-based '
education program, an extensive water quality monitoring network, two river cleanup efforts
siting and acquisition actions for a new state park, restoration of the Yelm Creek and
improved fisheries enforcement on the Nisqually River. The Council received the 1992
Environmental Excellence Award from the Washington State Ecological Commission and
was a Northwest regional finalist in the EPA's 1992 National Pollution Prevention Awards
for geographic initiatives.
Methods for Coordinating Local Governments Implementation Efforts;
The State legislature provided for the formation of the Nisqually River Council as an
mteragency body that functions through the use of its members' existing authorities. A
43
-------
cooperative planning process is employed in which all affected agencies and public sector
interests, including local government, are represented on the planning committee. The
Council meets monthly to enhance the coordination process.
Methods For Involving the Public:
As was noted previously, the Nisqually River Program includes a 21-member Citizens
Advisory Committee made up of citizen representatives from a broad range of backgrounds.
The Citizens Advisory Committee represents citizen interests along the river and in the
region, expresses opinions and concerns, and assists in the development of recommended
policies for the management plan. Three voting members of the Citizens Advisory
Committee serve on the Council. The Citizens Advisory Committee meets a week prior to
each monthly Council meeting. Much of the Council agenda is driven by the Citizens
Advisory Committee. The Council and Citizens Advisory Committee meetings are routinely
advertised and are open to the public.
Linkages to State Coastal Zone Management Program!
The Nisqually River Council is staffed and supported through the Department of
Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Coastal Zone Management
funds have been used for various plan implementation efforts, including the bimonthly
Nisqually River Notes Newsletter.
Relevance of Federal Consistency:
The Department of Ecology's Shoreland and Coastal Zone Management Program
ensures consistency of specific projects, including those in the Nisqually River Basin. The
Council itself does not have responsibility for addressing consistency.
Lessons Learned:
As an advocacy and coordination body, the Nisqually River Council does not
represent another "layer" of government and, as a result, has had strong citizen support.
The Council emphasizes consensus and cooperation, and has a very good reputation for
bringing a diverse set of stakeholders together. The Council is noted for its success in
bringing industry into the consensus process. The private sector has become a willing
participant in the program. This is probably due to the non-regulatory nature of the
program.
44
-------
The following lessons were noted by interviewees:
1. Comprehensive watershed management
The Nisqually River Management Program has been a highly successful
collaborative watershed management model. Interviewees feel that the program's
success is due, in part, to its comprehensive nature. By integrating the
history/culture, environmental, and economy of the Nisqually River basin and
recognizing that the watershed is a system comprised of subsystem components,
the program has engendered a broad range of support from a variety of interests.
2. Participants in the implementation structure
Interviewees suggest that, as with many management programs, the Nisqually
River Program has relied on the energy and creativity of the individuals involved.
The first Chairperson of the Nisqually River Task Force Oversight Committee, has
been cited for providing to the Council tremendous stability. Several individuals
have provided good relationships with the business community as well as the
legislature. In addition, industry has played an important role in the Nisqually
River Program. For example, a Weyerhauser employee is the President of the
Board of Directors for the Nisqually River Interpretative Center Foundation and an
active member of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
45
-------
3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Organizational Mandate:
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (the Authority) was originally established
in 1983 by the Washington State Legislature as a 21-member advisory panel, the purpose of
which was to assess and report on the environmental problems in Puget Sound. In response
to this charge, the Authority produced a report in 1984 that recommended, among other
things, the creation of a single entity with responsibility for coordinating the activities of
Puget Sound water quality management agencies. Based on this recommendation, the state
legislature created a new Authority in 1985 with "adequate resources to develop a
comprehensive plan for water quality protection in Puget Sound to be implemented by
existing state and local agencies" (RCW 90.70). The statute that created the Authority
included an expiration date of June 1991. A 1990 amendment extended the Authority to
1995 and placed it under the state's "sunset" review provisions.
Geographic Scope:
Under the state statute, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (the Plan)
developed by the Authority must "address all the waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, and, to the extent that they affect water quality in Puget Sound, all waters flowing
into Puget Sound, and adjacent lands" (RCW 90.70.060). This area includes 12 of 39
counties in the State of Washington and a distance of 280 km from north to south.
Organizational Structure!
The 1985 statute that created the Authority established a seven-member board
appointed by the Governor, including a full-time paid Chair with management responsibility
for the approximately 35 Authority staff located in Seattle, Washington, and six unpaid
members representing the Congressional districts surrounding Puget Sound. In addition, the
Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology (appointed by the Governor) and
the Commissioner of Public Lands (an elected official) sat on the board as non-voting, ex-
officio members.
In 1989, the Governor of Washington convened a review panel to evaluate the
Authority relative to its mission and develop recommendations concerning the future of the
Authority. Among its recommendations, the panel suggested extending the Authority beyond
1990, adding implementing agencies to the Authority board, and establishing a permanent
Authority staff within the Department of Ecology. The latter recommendation created
considerable controversy, with opponents concerned that a decision to house the Authority
staff within the Department of Ecology would compromise the Authority's ability to serve as
an independent entity during plan implementation.
46
-------
The Budget Committee of the Washington State Legislature also reviewed the
Authority in 1989 and made recommendations to the legislature. The 1990 amendments to
the enabling statute that resulted from these reviews expanded the Authority board to 11
members, with nine of these appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate
(RCW 90.70.011). The other two members include the Commissioner of Public Lands and
the Director of the Department of Ecology. With the 1990 amendments, these latter two
positions on the Authority board became voting members. The Authority board must include
a representative from the counties, a representative from the cities, and a tribal
representative. At least one representative from each of the six Congressional districts also
must be among the appointed members of the Authority board. Members of the Authority
board serve four-year terms upon appointment. The 1990 amendments to the enabling statute
established the Director of the Department of Ecology as the Chair of the Authority. The
amendments also established an Executive Director, appointed by the Governor, who is not a
member of the Authority board, but who has responsibility to manage the Authority staff and
day-to-day operations of the agency. The Executive Director and Authority staff
(approximately 30) are now housed in the Department of Ecology building in Lacey (near the
State capitol of Olympia), but remain in a separate agency. The Authority was extended to
1995, at which time the state legislature will conduct a "sunset" review of the agency.
The Authority may appoint one or more advisory committees to assist in the
development of the Water Quality Management Plan, formulate policy goals and strategies,
review the Plan and make recommendations to the Authority for its amendment, review the
Authority's reports, and review the Authority's budget request proposals. These committees
have included the Puget Sound Estuary Program Management Committee, the Puget Sound
Estuary Program Technical Advisory Committee, the Monitoring Management Committee,
the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Steering Committee, the Education and Public
Involvement Advisory Group, the Committee on Research in Puget Sound, and a 1994 Plan
Advisory Committee.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms!
To accomplish its overall mission of developing Ma comprehensive plan for water
quality protection in Puget Sound to be implemented by existing state and local agencies,"
the enabling statute defines the following nine powers for the Authority (RCW 90.70.025):
Develop interim proposals and recommendations concerning the elements that
should be included in the Water Quality Management Plan;
Enter into, amend, and terminate contracts with individuals, corporations, or
research institutions;
Receive such gifts, grants, and endowments, in trust or otherwise, to accomplish
the mission of the Authority;
47
-------
Conduct studies and research relating to Puget Sound water quality;
Obtain information relating to Puget Sound from other state and local agencies;
Conduct appropriate public hearings and otherwise seek to broadly disseminate
information concerning Puget Sound;
Receive funding from other public agencies;
Prepare a biennial budget request for consideration by the Governor and the state
legislature; and
Adopt rules as necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Authority.
As will be discussed in the section titled Focus of Implementation the Water Quality
Management Plan is advisory in nature. Therefore, a strong emphasis is placed on involving
implementing entities in the Plan development process to gain their support and commitment
to take action.
The primary mechanism available to the Authority for ensuring that commitments are
earned out is through the state's budget process. The Authority estimates what it will cost
state agencies to implement the Water Quality Management Plan. It has also attempted to
estimate costs to local governments. The Authority works with the Governor's office to
develop a budget for Plan implementation activities by state agencies, which is then
submitted to the legislature. Beginning in 1990, this submittal has been a single Plan
implementation budget which identifies implementation line items for each of the
implementing state agencies, resulting in direct appropriations to those agencies. With this
mechanism, the Authority and the state legislature now have the ability to track
implementation expenditures through the biennial progress reports required under the
enabling statute. Given the less than desired response rate, it had been difficult, prior to
1990, to track actual expenditures against planned implementation activities. The Authority
reports, however, that "earmarking" the agencies' budgets has helped a great deal in this
regard.
Funding:
The Authority's operating budget has been reduced each biennium since 1985. These
reductions have been linked to overall reductions in the state budget. The Authority's budget
for 1993-1995 is $4.7 million, including a state legislative appropriation of $3.9 million (75
percent of which is state General Fund) and $800,000 in grants from EPA under the National
Estuary Program. This compares with a total 1989-1991 budget of $5.4 million. Of the
total 1993-1995 budget, $927,000 (from cigarette tax revenue from the state's Centennial
Clean Water Fund) funds a Public Involvement and Education Program which provides
contracts to schools, citizens, local governments, Indian tribes, trade organizations, and
48
-------
businesses; and $540,000 provides funding for a field agent program designed to implement
public education and involvement activities related to Puget Sound water quality, with
particular focus on local governments. This program is jointly administered by the
Authority, Washington Sea Grant, and Washington State Cooperative Extension Service.
As was described above, the Authority develops a biennial Water Quality
Management Plan implementation budget for submission to the state legislature. State funds
are then appropriated directly to the agencies, not through the Authority in most cases.
Although the Authority has the ability to accept "such gifts, grants, and endowments, in trust
or otherwise, for the use and benefit of the purposes of the [Authority" and "receive funding
from other public agencies" (RCW 90.70.025), this has not been a significant source of
funding. The Authority has the ability to generate funds for Water Quality Management Plan
implementation. The Authority, however, has produced several documents on financing and
developed potential financing mechanisms for Plan implementation, several of which were
approved by the state legislature. For example, the Authority wrote and worked for
successful passage of legislation in 1992 which allows local governments to establish shellfish
protection districts. This legislation requires counties to establish a district within 180 days
of a pollution-related shellfish bed closure or restriction. Formation of such a district allows
local financing of restoration activities through tax revenues, inspection fees, charges or
rates, or grants. Shellfish protection districts also received priority status for state water
quality funding.
In 1990, the state legislature authorized the Authority to establish a Puget Sound
Foundation, a public nonprofit organization, to generate permanent, regionally controlled
funding for research and education from private and public sources, and to disburse this
funding through a grants program. To date, efforts by the Authority to establish the
Foundation have been unsuccessful, and, in 1993, the Authority Board decided to cease
working on creation of a Foundation.
Accountability;
As an entity created by statute, the Authority is accountable to the state legislature
and the Governor. Mechanisms for meeting this accountability requirement include a
biennial "State of the Sound" report developed by the Authority and submitted to the
legislature, the Governor, and state agencies and local governments identified in the plan.
Copies of this report are also made available to the public. The Authority also is required to
submit annual progress reports on Water Quality Management Plan revision and
implementation to the legislature and the Governor. As previously noted, the legislature also
conducted a review of the Authority in 1990, and will conduct a "sunset" review in 1995.
Appointed members of the Authority board (10 of 11 members) also have a certain degree of
individual accountability to the Governor, as does the Executive Director. The
Commissioner of Public Lands, as an elected official, is accountable to the electorate.
49
-------
True to its origins, the Authority is ultimately accountable to the people of the State
of Washington. All Authority activities are conducted in public forums, and the public is
encouraged to participate in Water Quality Management Plan revision and implementation
activities. This public involvement aspect of the Authority goes well beyond mere
accountability; the Authority has recognized that successful implementation of much, if not
all, of the Plan is critically dependent on the active support of an informed public.
Focus of Implementation:
As was noted previously, the Authority is required under state statute to prepare and
adopt a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan in consultation with its advisory
committees and appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. The Authority is required to
solicit substantial public involvement during development and revision of the Plan. Review
and revision of the Plan is now required, at a minimum, every four years. The first Plan
was adopted by the Authority in 1987, and subsequently revised in 1989 and 1991. The Plan
was again revised in 1994, and adopted as the 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Plan.
In 1988, Puget Sound was designated an estuary of "national significance" under
section 320 of the federal Clean Water Act National Estuary Program. The Authority,
Department of Ecology, and EPA Region 10 assumed co-management of the Puget Sound
Estuary Program, and, in 1991, the Authority's Water Quality Management Plan was
approved by EPA as the Nation's first approved CCMP under the National Estuary Program.
The enabling statute for the Authority states that the Water Quality Management Plan
"shall be a positive document prescribing the needed actions for the maintenance and
enhancement of Puget Sound water quality" (RCW 90.70.060). The statute goes on to define
the following required elements of the Plan:
A statement of the goals and objectives for long- and short-term management of
the water quality of Puget Sound;
A resource assessment which identifies critically sensitive areas, key
characteristics, and other factors which lead to an understanding of Puget Sound as
an ecosystem;
Demographic information and assessment as relates to future water quality impacts
on Puget Sound;
An identification and legal analysis of all existing laws governing actions of
government entities which may affect water quality management of Puget Sound,
the interrelationships of those laws, and the effect of those laws on implementation
of the provisions of the Plan;
50
-------
Review and assessment of existing criteria and guidelines for government activities
affecting Puget Sound's resources including shoreline resources, aquatic resources,
associated watersheds, recreational resources, and commercial resources;
Identification of resource needs and priorities;
Recommendations for guidelines, standards, and timetables for protection and
clean-up activities and the establishment of priorities for major clean-up
investments and nonpoint source management, and the projected costs of such
priorities;
A procedure assuring local government initiated planning for Puget Sound water
quality protection;
Ways to better coordinate federal, state, and local planning and management
activities affecting Puget Sound's water quality;
Public involvement strategies, including household hazardous waste education,
community clean-up efforts, and public participation in developing and
implementing the Plan;
Recommendations on protecting, preserving, and, where possible, restoring
wetlands and wildlife habitat and shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound;
Recommendations for a comprehensive water quality and sediment monitoring
program;
Analysis of current industrial pretreatment programs for toxic wastes, and
procedures and enforcement measures needed to enhance them;
Recommendations for a program of dredge spoil disposal, including interim
measures for disposal and storage of dredge spoil material from or into Puget
Sound;
Definition of major public actions subject to review and comment by the Authority
because of a significant impact on Puget Sound water quality and related
resources, and development of criteria for review thereof;
Recommendations for implementation mechanisms to be used by state and local
government agencies;
Standards and procedures for reporting progress by state and local governments in
the implementation of the Plan;
51
-------
An analysis of resource requirements and funding mechanisms for updating of the
Plan and Plan implementation; and
Legislation needed to assure Plan implementation.
In accordance with these requirements, the Water Quality Management Plan adopted
by the Authority in 1994 covers the following 13 "programs": Estuary Management and
Plan Implementation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection, Spill Prevention and Response,
Monitoring, Research, Education and Public Involvement, Nonpoint Source Pollution
Shellfish Protection, Wetlands Protection, Municipal and Industrial Discharges, Contaminated
Sediments and Dredging, Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows, and Laboratory
Support.
Each of these programs defines the problems to be addressed by the Water Quality
Management Plan, the goal of the program, the strategy to be used to achieve that goal the
actions that will be taken (including who will take that action), target dates for completion of
each action, and the current status of program implementation. Each program also details
the cost of implementation. The Plan also identifies an "unfinished agenda" of issues that
may be considered by the Authority for future action. Consistent with the enabling
legislation, the majority of the Plan's programs call on existing federal, state, and local
agencies and authorities to implement the specific actions. Recommendations in the Plan for
new legislation generally focus on funding or enforcement of existing laws.
It is important to note that Washington State statutes, while containing conflicting
phrases, suggest, on the whole, that the Plan is not mandatory. For example, in 1991, the
Authority proposed minimum wetland protection standards. The Attorney General of the
State of Washington determined that the Authority's legal power did not include an ability to
mandate such standards. This limitation highlights the importance of the Authority's
involvement of stakeholders (including implementing agencies) during Plan development
review, and revision to ensure successful implementation.
Measures of Success.*
In addition to its responsibilities for Water Quality Management Plan development
and implementation, the Authority is required to ensure implementation of a Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). PSAMP is designed to establish a baseline of
conditions in Puget Sound and measure changes in those conditions as the Plan is
implemented. The strategy for implementing PSAMP focuses on ambient monitoring to
evaluate the extent to which pollution sources affect Puget Sound as a whole. Key indicators
of Puget Sound health include chemical contamination, fecal contamination, types and
amounts of nearshore habitat, abundance of biological resources, and conventional water
quality. PSAMP coordination is managed by the Monitoring Management Committee and
the Authority, with advice from a PSAMP Steering Committee on technical issues
52
-------
Responsibility for actual implementation of PSAMP rests with six state agencies
(Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, Health, and the Authority).
The Authority also reviews the progress of state agencies and local governments in
implementing elements of the Water Quality Management Plan from a programmatic
viewpoint. In response to requests from the Authority, these entities are required to explain
any deviations in actions they are responsible for in the Plan. In addition, state agencies and
local governments are required to submit biennial reports to the Authority that document
their progress in implementing elements of the Plan. The information in these reports is
summarized in the biennial "State of the Sound" report produced by the Authority (also
required by state statute). In past years, the Authority found that the response to this
requirement was less than desired, primarily because of time constraints and workloads
within the implementing agencies. To overcome this problem, the Authority has instituted a
process whereby Authority staff go onsite and conduct interviews of local government
representatives to gather the information. This has included all 12 of the participating
counties, and a representative sampling of 28 of 110 cities. Both the Authority and
representatives of local governments believe that this process, although staff-time intensive,
results in higher quality information, creates less of a reporting burden on implementing
agencies, and provides a more comprehensive picture of Plan implementation.
In recent years, the Authority also conducted a Measuring Results project in an
attempt to determine how implementation of the 1987 Plan was affecting conditions in Puget
Sound. The project was designed to provide information for the Authority to consider during
the 1994 Plan review and revision process. The Measuring Results project focused on
several levels of results, from programmatic (e.g., meeting implementation deadlines) to
environmental (e.g., measurable improvement in water quality). The approach relied
primarily on the collection of anecdotal information from individuals and agencies that have
participated in Plan implementation. Seven geographic areas were targeted for the project,
representing the range of conditions found in the Puget Sound basin. An interview
questionnaire was used to collect specific information concerning water quality trends, public
awareness trends, and expenditures for Plan implementation. The Measuring Results project,
although anecdotal, is viewed by Authority staff as a valuable means for gaining a qualitative
snapshot of the effect of Plan implementation by integrating programmatic indicators with
available source control and water quality information. This is seen as one method for
bridging the conflict between the long-term nature of environmental improvements and the
need to demonstrate short-term results to stakeholders.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts;
As was previously noted, the Authority must include a representative from the
counties, a representative from the cities, and a tribal representative. At least one
representative from each of the six Congressional districts also must be among the appointed
members of the Authority. These are full voting memberships on the Authority, and are
intended to ensure coordination with local government interests. In addition, local
53
-------
governments are required to evaluate, and "incorporate as applicable, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds", the elements of the Water Quality Management Plan that
apply to them (RCW90.70.070). To accomplish this, counties, cities, and towns may adopt
ordinances, rules, and regulations consistent with the Plan.
In addition to mandated representation on the Authority Board, local government
coordination is accomplished in a number of ways. For example, the Authority staff includes
individuals formerly employed by local governments. These staff members often provide a
local perspective to day-to-day operations of the Authority. The Authority also assigns staff
to work with each of the 12 participating counties, and the cities in each of these counties, to
provide technical assistance, as well as to develop an awareness of the counties' concerns.
The Washington State Association of Counties formed a Committee on Puget Sound,
including commissioners and staff from each of the 12 counties in the Puget Sound basin,
that meets with the Authority staff on a regular basis (approximately five times annually)'to
discuss Plan implementation and issues of common interest. The Association of Washington
Cities has also had a task force focused on the Plan. All of these coordination mechanisms
appear to be having the desired effect. Among its key findings, the Measuring Results
project concluded that local agencies are well aware of their commitments under the Water
Quality Management Plan, and are making significant progress in achieving those
commitments in spite of competing priorities and resource constraints.
Methods for Involving the Public:
The 1991 Water Quality Management Plan established the following goal for its
education and public involvement program:
"To support, improve, and sustain education and public involvement programs
in the region over the long term in order to: (1) inform, educate, and involve
individuals, groups, businesses, industry, and government in the cleanup and
protection of Puget Sound; (2) increase understanding of the Sound's
ecosystem; and (3) create the kind of commitment that will be necessary to
sustain efforts to improve and protect water quality over the long term."
The Authority and implementing entities, through the Water Quality Management
Plan, seek to achieve this goal through various mechanisms, including public involvement
policies that are to be followed during implementation. In addition, the Authority provides
some technical assistance on public involvement to local governments during Water Quality
Management Plan implementation. To date, five Washington State University and Sea Grant
"field agents" have been hired in four counties to coordinate and implement education and
public involvement efforts. Six full-time tribal field agents were also called for in the 1991
Plan; however, these were not hired due to lack of funding. However, this program has
been picked up by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension at the local level
and continues to exist, reaching thousands. Several special projects have been conducted
through state appropriations, including a pilot "Ship's Naturalist" program in cooperation
54
-------
with the Washington State Ferries. State agencies and local governments also use citizen
volunteers on a variety of water quality protection, enhancement, and education issues. This
volunteer effort includes a model program managed by the Washington State University
Cooperative Extension to certify "master steward educators" for watersheds and the Sound.
Perhaps the most visible component of the Authority's education and public
involvement program is the Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Fund, established in the
1987 Water Quality Management Plan to fund "projects that could serve as models for public
involvement and education, community cleanup, or citizen monitoring of water quality or
biological resources." The state legislature appropriated $1.1 million for the PIE Fund in
both the 1989-91 and 1991-93 biennia and approximately $950,000 in 1993-1995, funding
over 200 projects through 1994. In 1992 a PIE Conference was held to share the success of
these projects throughout the Puget Sound basin. In 1989 a study was conducted by the
Washington State University Cooperative Extension to evaluate the effectiveness of the
individual PIE projects, as well as the program as a whole, in meeting their goals. The
results of the study indicated that all of the projects achieved program participation
objectives. Thirty-three percent of the projects achieved the desired behavioral changes, and
14 percent contributed to the preservation or enhancement of water quality in Puget Sound.
The Authority has published two volumes of case studies of the PIE Fund, focusing on
lessons learned from each project.
The Authority publishes a newsletter, Soundwaves, on a bimonthly basis to inform the
public of progress in meeting the goals established in the Water Quality Management Plan.
In addition, a toll free telephone number (1-800-54-SOUND) has been established for the
public to contact the Authority for information. Specific Authority staff have also been
assigned the responsibility for providing information, outreach, and assistance to each of the
12 counties in the Puget Sound basin. Staff work with county government, cities, tribes,
businesses, citizen groups, conservation districts, trade groups, and others within their
counties. Authority Board members also offer workshops, testify on key issues, and meet
with groups and individuals to promote Plan implementation. Authority staff are also
assigned to work with state associations representing constituencies affected by the Plan.
Finally, the Authority assigns one staff member to work with the media.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program:
The Department of Ecology has responsibility for administering the State's Coastal
Zone Management Program. As was noted previously, the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan developed by the Authority has also been approved as the CCMP for the
Puget Sound Estuary Program. Because the Puget Sound Estuary Program is co-managed by
the Authority and the Department of Ecology (along with EPA Region 10), the "double
identity" of the Plan has provided a mechanism for coordination between the Authority and
the Coastal Zone Management Program during Plan development and implementation.
55
-------
EPA, in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
encouraged incorporation of approved CCMPs into state Coastal Zone Management Programs
as a means to assist in the implementation of action plans. Although the Puget Sound Plan
states that [a]ll appropriate portions of the [P]lan shall be incorporated into the CZM
program", incorporation has not been a priority since implementation began The 1994
Water Quality Management Plan calls for integration and coordination of Plan actions with
Coastal Zone Management, section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA), and the state's Growth Management Act. It is hoped that the state's
CZARA program (administered by the Department of Ecology) will incorporate key
provisions of the Water Quality Management Plan.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency:
As one of the co-managers of the Puget Sound Estuary Program, the Authority is
responsible for contacting federal agencies to notify them of the requirements of the Water
Quality Management Plan. Contacts have been identified in each of the federal agencies
discussed in the Plan to play a liaison role. The Plan calls on the co-managers of the Puget
Sound Estuary Program (the Authority, Department of Ecology, and EPA Region 10) to
implement a process to review federal activities for consistency" with the Plan This
process currently consists of Coastal Zone Management program review (by Department of
Ecology) of all federal activities that potentially impact portions of the Plan that have been
incorporated into the state's Coastal Zone Management Program. However, as was noted
previously, incorporation of the Plan has not been a priority. No formal federal consistency
review currently exists for other portions of the Plan, beyond continual contact with the
federal agency liaisons. However, the Authority acknowledges a need to more directly
address federal consistency with the Plan on selected issues.
Lessons Learned:
The following issues and lessons have been identified by interviewees who have been
involved with the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority:
1. Authority
There has been some confusion, at times, concerning the extent to which elements
of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan are required, as well as the
power of the Authority to mandate their implementation. This confusion has its
origins in the enabling statute. The Authority has maintained a cooperative
approach in these instances, choosing to reach consensus and avoid destructive
confrontation. This confusion could be avoided through a clearer mandate under
the state statute. This is not to say that individuals interviewed in developing this
case study support a "command and control" mission for the Authority Rather
the suggestion to other developing programs is to clearly describe implementation
authorities, whatever they might be, and avoid ambiguities
56
-------
2. Re-education
Plan implementation is a long-term effort and, during the course of
implementation, participating individuals will change. There is a constant need to
inform these new players of the Water Quality Management Plan's mission, goals,
and progress so that momentum can be maintained.
3. Local issues
Given current funding considerations, it is very important to focus outreach efforts
in areas where they are most likely to be well received. Therefore, it is critical to
stay in touch with trends in local interest concerning issues that are part of the
goals of implementation, and to capitalize on those trends to develop support for
achieving those goals. The Authority has accomplished this through the various
outreach mechanisms described previously.
4. Leaders of key implementing entities
The emphasis of this recommendation is not only on participation by implementing
entities, but on participation by individuals who are in leadership positions to
ensure that the goals and priorities of plan implementation are translated into the
priorities of that entity. Individuals participating on the implementation structure
should carry the authority to speak for and commit the entity that they represent.
5. Conflicting priorities
Because the Water Quality Management Plan is implemented by state agencies
which have statewide as well as Puget Sound responsibilities, it can be difficult at
times to maintain a focus on the water quality priorities established for the Sound.
Conversely, when these agencies have attempted to apply the Puget Sound
priorities on a statewide basis, the Authority has been accused of over-extending
its reach. This is an ongoing issue that is addressed on a case-by-case basis.
6. Realistic expectations
Protection of the water quality of Puget Sound is part of the Authority's mission.
However, it is often difficult to demonstrate protection, since the public typically
looks for observable signs of improvement. Therefore, although consistent
measurement of a particular environmental indicator may show that a problem,
like contaminated sediments, is not getting worse, the public may construe this as
a lack of progress. This has been an issue for the Authority, even though it has
stressed pollution prevention over cleanup, highlighting the need for ongoing
outreach and education to maintain patience with the long-term nature of
environmental protection.
57
-------
7. Adaptive management
Adaptive management, simply defined, allows for adjustment of the management
and decision-making process over time, in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Individuals interviewed for this case study emphasized the need to maintain
progress towards achieving the goals of the Water Quality Management Plan.
This often involves basing decisions on "best available" information, and then
modifying implementation through a feedback loop as new information is
developed. This flexible approach to water quality management has proven
successful in Puget Sound, and is a key element of the Authority's coordination
role.
58
-------
3.6 Southwest Florida Water Management District
Organizational Mandates
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is a regulatory entity
responsible for managing water and water-related resources in all or part of 16 counties. As
stated in Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes:
"Central to its mission is maintaining the balance between the water needs of current
and future users, while protecting and maintaining the natural systems which provide the
District with its existing and future water supply. The Governing Board of the District
assumes its responsibilities by directing a wide-range of programs, initiatives, and actions.
These programs include, but are not limited to, flood control, regulatory programs, water
conservation, education, and supportive data collection and analysis efforts."
The District Governing Board has defined five goals:
Water Supply
To ensure an adequate supply of the water resource for all reasonable and
beneficial uses, now and in the future, while protecting and maintaining the water
and related resources of the District.
Flood Protection
To minimize the potential for damage from floods by protecting and restoring the
natural water storage and conveyance functions of floodprone areas.
Water Quality Management
To protect water quality by preventing further degradation of the water resource
and enhancing water quality where appropriate.
Natural Systems Management
To protect, preserve, and restore natural Florida ecosystems and to establish
minimum water levels and flows necessary to maintain these natural systems.
Management Support
To ensure management support services effectively and efficiently contribute to
realization of the District's mission to manage and protect water and related
resources.
59
-------
Geographic Scope:
Within Florida there are five water management districts. The boundaries of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District encompass all or part of the following 16
Florida counties: Charlotte, Citrus, DeSoto, Hardee, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough
Lake, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, and Sumter.
^ The total area covered by the District is approximately 26,000 km2 Unlike the
state s other four water management districts, the Southwest Florida Water Management
District is further divided into nine hydrologic subdistricts, or basins: Alafia River Basin
Coastal Rivers Basin, Hillsborough River Basin, Manasota Basin, Northwest Hillsborough
Basin, Peace River Basin, Pinellas-Anclote River Basin, Withlacoochee River Basin and
Green Swamp Basin. '
Organizational Structure?
The District has an 11-member Governing Board appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the state senate. The Governing Board appoints an Executive Director, defines
the overall goals and policies of the District, oversees regulatory responsibilities, and
author.** tax levies and budgets. The Executive Director manages the day-to-day affairs of
In addition to the District Governing Board, each basin has its own policy board
Each basin board must include one representative from each of the counties included in 'the
basin, and must have a minimum of three members. Each basin board has a District
Governing Board member who sits as Chairman Ex-Officio(s) for the basin in his/her
respective geographic region. These basin boards are responsible for identification of water-
related issues and problems in their basins, and propose programs and budgets to address
toese concerns to the District Governing Board. Southwest Florida Water Management
District provides staff support to the basin boards.
As shown in Figure 2, most District functions are administered by one of three deputy
executive directors. The three major functional areas include Management Services
Resource Regulation, and Resource Management. Staff working in Management Services
provide a wide array of administrative support to the overall operations of the District
Typica activities include budgeting, payroll, personnel, microfilming, fleet maintenance
internal computer operations, and educational public awareness programs. Staff working
under the auspices of Resource Regulation are involved in activities related to surface water
improvement and water use permitting. The third major function of the District is Resource
Management. Staff within this section perform activities related to data collection anaTys s
and management activities pertaining to groundwater resources, surface water resources and
related land resources for which the District is responsible. Activities include lake level
monitoring, mapping, surveys, surface water improvement planning and implementation
60
-------
n
jj
1
i^j-l
9
<
K
£
V
" E*
Ofliceofl
i
1 L
&
O
*«
^
2
5
V
i
M
^^H
.g
ca
^MMMtf
IM
5
^
jR
Q
M
W
"e
jj
.8
11
F5"
B
9
O
CJ
ce of Genera
E
_
j
L Department!
t
2^
e.
Cfl
>
'"5
?j
jj
M
fid
^
w
C
E
r
1
Q
.S
B
B
jj
&.
w
puty Executive Director
ource Regulation
£8
^5
^v
utive Director
(anagemen
* a
O %j
te
S §
t Executive Direc
gementServi
f- g
s
^
^
Records and Dat
Department
-p
C
unity Aflai
>artment
6 sr
Q
O
U
-p
^
2
JBi
W
«a
lanagement <
2:
j^
.S
Qi
1
M
Venice Permittin
Department
-p
tf
_
*«
« i
1
si
. j ».
73 ji
a
nr
^
V
^
a
O«*
c
J? u
B r
.2 «
c a
« V
go
^
CJ
**
L_pJ
.s
rooksville Permit!
Department
CO
p
urce Data
lartment
1*
-j-
w
B
9
2 -
ic Communii
Departmen
JD
9
ft.
r"^
u
Tampa Permittin
Department
p
M
+0
*r
B
S g
ft- E
2i
M Bi
P
EM
p
g_
S
i S
i £
!«
5 Q.
S ^
|0
s
H"^
M
Bartow Permittil
Department
p
u *
s s
It
!*
-J-
Finance
Departmen
L_^j
«
Technical Servici
Department
-p
°-i T
>» e 1!
SB f
r i
1^1
C/3 ^>
[
c E
2?
c.|
|
61
-------
engineering and construction oversight, water quantity and quality assessments and
community and intergovernmental liaison.
Organizationally, the Sarasota National Estuary Program, which is located within the
District, is administered by the District's Division of Resource Management. A second
National Estuary Program, Tampa Bay, is also situated within the boundaries of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District. However, District staff provide only
technical support to this National Estuary Program, while the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, provides administrative support.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms;
Statutorily, the major areas of responsibilities of the District include water supply
flood protection, water quality management, and natural systems management. Water supply
pertains to needs and sources, as well as source protection. From the District's perspective
flood protection involves facilities and floodplains. Surface water and ground water concerns
are incorporated into water quality and quantity management. Natural systems management
involves issues related to ecosystems and minimum flows and levels. Another area that the
Governing Board feels is essential is education and public awareness. The District has
programs that reach both the general public as well as schools.
There are two ways the Southwest Florida Water Management District seeks to ensure
implementation of its programs: via regulatory or non-regulatory activities. The District has
broad powers to implement its water management programs through regulation To
implement programs or specific recommendations, the District may create a new
regulation(s) or modify permits. The District currently possesses permitting authority for
water withdrawal projects and surface water management projects, such as stormwater
management In addition, the District may receive additional authorities for dredge and fill
activities in the future. Each permit issued by the District advises the permittee that it is
issued subject to revision when the District adopts a new or revised rule. Generally this
applies only to water use permits. Also, the District attaches monitoring requirements to
many of its permits to ensure permit compliance. Based on monitoring data, revisions to an
existing permit can be made. Finally, management program implementation may require the
District to modify an existing regulatory program. None of these changes can be made until
the District complies with the State of Florida rulemaking process, as set out in Chapter 120
Florida Statutes. The rulemaking process in Florida provides for a very open and public '
means of airing all concerns relative to the regulation under consideration, as well as
allowing the public an opportunity to express their opinion(s).
The Southwest Florida Water Management District also uses non-regulatory methods
for plan implementation, such as land acquisition, resource protection, educational programs
research, incentives, volunteer programs, and very open and active public involvement '
programs. The District has purchased land for flood protection, as well as habitat protection
For example, early in its existence, the District purchased 6,500 acres in the Upper
62
-------
Hillsborough Flood Detention Area (FDA) and most portions of the Lower Hillsborough
FDA (14,975 acres). Another special environmental area is the Green Swamp located in
Polk and Lake Counties where District holdings approximate 98,000 acres; the Green Swamp
area has extensive wetlands and serves as a natural flood detention area. Possibly the most
notable example of resource protection is the District's well plugging program that has been
in place for many years. The District also conducts agricultural demonstration projects to
provide a bridge between research and field implementation (e.g., drip irrigation on
vegetables). Nearly all programs developed by the District have an educational and outreach
component. The District has entered into 14 park and/or environmental education
agreements, with five different counties, which provide for construction and/or operation and
maintenance of county park sites on District-owned properties. This reflects the commitment
made by the Southwest Florida Water Management District to support public awareness and
sensitivity to environmental issues. The District is developing in-school education materials,
brochures, and newspaper tabloids. In terms of research, the District either conducts or
funds many research efforts. Because of the prominence of agriculture in the District
(consumed 42 percent of total freshwater use in 1990), a number of research efforts are
underway; one example involves assessing the water percent requirements of tomatoes and
strawberries. The District has also conducted environmental and cultural assessments on
District-owned properties. Also, the District has conducted research on storm water
management (e.g., monitoring surveys of existing permitted stormwater management
systems).
Incentive programs are another alternative that the District uses to achieve plan
implementation. To reduce water consumption, the District has an active xeriscape program.
The District also uses seed money to expand the use of reclaimed water for appropriate
purposes, such as irrigation for landscaping and crops, cooling, and industrial processing.
The District has a comprehensive local government planning assistance program, which has
been established primarily to assist local governments in incorporating sound water
management principles into their comprehensive plans.
Funding;
The Southwest Florida Water Management District is a special taxing district, and its
budget is funded through a variety of revenue sources. For fiscal year 1993, 46.8 percent of
the budget was funded through ad valorem taxes. Approximately 30 percent ($32,630,581)
of the total budget was derived from a combination of intergovernmental revenues from
local, state, and federal sources. Most of the state revenues come from a variety of trust
funds: Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Trust Fund, Florida
Preservation 2000 Trust Fund, and the Water Management Lands Trust Fund, which
underwrites the Save Our Rivers program. The District uses these funds to correct and/or
enhance water quality of its water bodies and to purchase environmentally significant lands.
Although permitting is a major activity of the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
and all persons seeking permits pay an application fee, permit fee revenue in fiscal year 1993
amounted to only 1.6 percent of total budget revenues.
63
-------
Taxes are levied in the nine basins and are included in the District's Special Revenue
Fund. The District has a one mill ($1.00 per $1000 of assessed property value) taxing
capability; 50 percent (or 0.5 mill) is available for use by the basin boards, with the balance
reserved for the Governing Board. Over the past three years, five of eight basin boards had
a millage rate of less than 20 percent of the allowable 0.5 mill.
The District budget for the past several years has declined. In fiscal year 1991, the
overall budget (including basin budgets) was $120,158,780. For fiscal year 1992 the budget
was $118,920,536; and, by fiscal year 1993, the overall budget had declined to
$104,260,061. Of the total fiscal year 1993 budget, 82.4 percent was allocated to the
departments and sections comprising the three major divisions within the District. Resource
Management constituted 53.8 percent of the total budget. Because this division has
responsibility for handling the acquisition of lands under the Save Our Rivers and
Preservation 2000 programs, a major share of the District's budget is typically allocated to
this division.
Besides its normal revenues sources, the Southwest Florida Water Management
District is authorized to borrow money temporarily. While this is not a normal practice of
the District, it does allow the District a financial option to fund "work of the district". A
work of the district is defined as structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other
watercourses along with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Temporarily
means not to exceed one year at any one time.
Accountability!
The District Governing Board is accountable only to the Governor. Although the
water management districts are a subunit of state government, they operate relatively
independently. Statutorily, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has been
delegated oversight responsibility over water management districts. However, exactly what
oversight means is rather vague, and continues to be redefined over time. The statutory
language states: "Exercise general supervisory authority over all water management
districts. The department may exercise any power herein authorized to be exercised by a
water management district" (Section 373.026(7) F.S.).
Further definition of Florida Department of Environmental Protection oversight
responsibility is provided in the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which states that all
water management district rules that would have an affect on the waters of the state must be
reviewed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for consistency with other
requirements. This rule further states, that "At the request of the Department, each District
shall initiate rulemaking pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to consider changes the
Department determines to be necessary to assure consistency with this Chapter."
While the District Governing Board may not be directly accountable to the citizens of
the District, the District, like the State of Florida, has a strong commitment to accountability
64
-------
to its citizens. This commitment is set out in the Florida Constitution, (Section 24, Access to
public records and meetings), which ensures what is commonly called "government in the
sunshine". The District, like all state agencies and departments, local governments and the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, is required to not only allow for,
but also develop policy and rules to ensure that achieving the tenants of the Florida
Constitution. "Government in the sunshine," in and of itself, has been extremely effective in
making all governmental units in Florida accountable to the general public.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District does actively engage a number of
mechanisms to inform the public of its actions. Annually, the District publishes a report that
highlights accomplishments for the year, and provides a balance sheet and a statement of
revenues and expenditures.
The District distributes its agendas in advance of its regularly scheduled monthly
Governing Board meetings. The minutes of these meetings are also distributed widely.
Accountability is also achieved through opportunities for public comment during the
Governing Board meetings. The District has established a series of standing Advisory
Committees on agriculture, industry, green industry, and public supply. These committees
represent major water user groups in the District.
Focus of Implementation:
There is no formally adopted water management plan for the Southwest Florida Water
Management District; however, the District has prepared a number of management-oriented
plans that address its four major areas of responsibility: water supply, flood protection, water
quality, and natural systems.
Over the years, a variety of management plans have been prepared by the District
including basin management plans, water conservation plans, and management plans for
District-owned properties. The District has prepared nine SWIM plans for priority water
bodies experiencing degraded water quality. The SWIM plans address problems related to
point and nonpoint pollution sources and destruction of natural systems, provide solutions for
the correction and prevention of surface water problems, and address research and
development of improved management techniques. The plans contain specific actions or
projects that achieve improved water quality and/or habitat restoration. In addition to
SWIM, eight basin management plans document the issues, problems, and priorities specific
to each basin. In response to concerns about saltwater intrusion and lake level declines, the
District Governing Board has declared the southern portion of the District as the Southern
Water Use Caution Area. While not as geographically extensive, water use caution plans
have also been prepared for other areas in the District, (i.e., Highlands Ridge, Northern
Tampa Bay, Eastern Tampa Bay). Use and management plans have also been prepared for
lands the District has purchased with Save Our River and Preservation 2000 funds, such as
Potts Preserve. By developing these management plans, the District has been able to
65
-------
accomplish multiple objectives. They serve not only to protect sensitive environmental
resources, but provide recreation and educational opportunities, too.
Other focuses of implementation include well plugging and flood protection. For
years the District has had an active well plugging program with a goal of protecting the
quality of its ground water resources through plugging of abandoned, free flowing artesian
wells that discharge highly mineralized water. Flood protection has been a major focus of
the District since its creation in 1961. The flood protection system consists of a major
bypass canal in Tampa, and a system of detention areas, structures, and canals used to divert
flood water to the Hillsborough River, which finally discharges into MacKay Bay. More
recently, flood protection efforts have shifted to natural and preventive approaches, such as
acquisition of flood prone areas.
Measures of Success!
Recently, the District completed a report, titled Final Report for Management &
Operations Evaluation which includes a comprehensive assessment of the efficiency and
effectiveness of the District's operations as well as many recommendations. The District
Governing Board is currently implementing a number of the report's recommendations.
Historically, the Southwest Florida Water Management District has evaluated, through
its various monitoring programs, the health of the water resources. Indicators include
improvements in water quality, as measured by a variety of state-set water quality parameters
(e.g, pH, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids). Effectiveness of its water conservation
efforts is measured by monitoring reductions of total water use or per capita use. Other
measures used to assess program/project effectiveness are reductions in the number or type
of permit violations. Success is also measured in terms of a reduction in the number of
known uncapped, free-flowing artesian wells. These successes are documented through the
District's monitoring and enforcement program.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts;
There is no mandatory linkage between water management planning and
implementation programs of the District and the land use decisions of local governments.
However, while there is no formal mechanism, such as a legal directive or law, requiring
local government to coordinate their efforts with water management districts, the District
does spend considerable time coordinating with local governments. This coordination occurs
not only during the implementation phase, but begins at the time programs and projects are
designed. For the most part, coordination with local governments is achieved through
informal, voluntary means. Formal coordination occurs only if a local government seeks a
District permit, such as a consumptive water use permit or a surface water management
permit.
66
-------
Although being somewhat criticized in the past for being too autonomous, the District
attempts to work cooperatively with local governments to further District water management
objectives. The District conducts workshops and public meetings to discuss and receive
input from local governments. The District, from time to time, produces work products that
further the District's goals, as well as assist local governments in their local planning and
regulatory efforts. One example involved the development of model ordinances dealing with
important water management issues. These ordinances addressed flood management, erosion
control, protecting environmentally sensitive resources, and storm water management and
treatment. Also, the District shares its extensive data and information resources with local
governments. These resources are valuable to local governments as they develop their local
comprehensive plans.
In Florida, local governments are required to address issues of water quality and
water quantity in their local comprehensive plans, and nearly all local governments have
adopted these plans. Water management districts had opportunities to comment on all local
government comprehensive plans within their boundaries. They also have opportunities to
comment when local governments propose amendments to those comprehensive plans.
However, only the Florida Department of Community Affairs can issue a report of
objections, recommendations, and comments regarding a proposed plan or plan amendment,
thus only the Florida Department of Community Affairs determines what comments from
other state and regional agencies will be included in the report. Local governments are
required to respond to the Florida Department of Community Affairs report, and unless the
Florida Department of Community Affairs decides to include water management district
comments, the local government is under no pressure to address the comments and concerns
of the water management district.
Methods for Involving the Public;
Over the years, the Southwest Florida Water Management District has employed a
variety of public participation mechanisms to involve the citizens of the District in its
planning and permitting processes. It is the opinion of the District that involving the public
has mobilized unutilized resources, providing a source of productivity and labor not
otherwise tapped. Further, the public provides a source of knowledge, feedback regarding
policy and programs, and a sounding board for new and innovative approaches.
The following public involvement methods have been used by the District:
Standing committees (i.e., agriculture, industry, public supply, and green industry
[e.g., tree nurseries, landscape firms])
Workshops (Governing Board, basin boards, advisory committees)
Public awareness techniques (e.g., public input hotline, use of information
depositories, tabloids)
67
-------
Surveys & questionnaires
Public noticing of regular and special meetings
Mailouts
Newsletters
Distribution of minutes of public meetings
News releases/Media interviews
Public presentations
Staff participation on external technical committees or other agency's public
meetings/workshops
Which specific method is utilized depends upon the type of project and the audience
the District is attempting to reach.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program:
Water management districts can interact with the Florida Coastal Zone Management
program through its review and comment function.
Annually, the state submits its federal Coastal Zone Management Grant application to
the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
During the application review process, the water management districts are given an
opportunity for review and comment and to lobby for modifications in the state's proposed
program.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency!
Water management districts are routinely involved in federal consistency evaluations
through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Whether water management
districts have authority to not only comment, but to formally invoke consistency
determinations, is a debated issue at this time. This is a legal question undergoing
substantial debate between water management districts and the State of Florida.
The Planning Department of the Southwest Florida Water Management District is
responsible for conducting federal consistency reviews and determinations. There are
generally two ways the District becomes involved in reviewing projects for federal
consistency: through the permitting process and when requests for comment come from the
Governor's Office.
68
-------
From a permitting perspective, a federal consistency review and determination may be
initiated in one of two ways. The first is when an applicant seeks a permit from the District
for either a dredge and fill permit or a surface water management permit. The second is
during the Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit process, as it is common
for the District to be afforded an opportunity to make a federal consistency determination
when an applicant seeks a permit. Also, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, through an informal internal review process, seeks to determine whether or not
the District agrees with a proposed Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit
for a federal project or sponsored activity.
The second way the District is involved in the federal consistency review process is
through review and comment requests received from the Governor's Office. Typical projects
include bridge crossings, highway projects, housing (where wetland impacts may occur),
natural gas pipelines, power transmission lines, and facilities to be built under the power
plant siting act. The Governor's Office also requests comments from the District on relevant
environmental impact statements, as well as the A-95 grant application review process. The
District's comments have been extensively utilized by the A-95 Clearinghouse in the
Governor's Office to revise and modify projects within the coastal zone.
Unlike other Florida laws that have companion administrative rules to provide details
and clarifications, no such administrative rule has ever been codified for federal consistency.
Even though the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has an administrative
manual that explains how it administers federal consistency, both the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and District staff agree that less confusion would exist if a set of
administrative rules were promulgated for federal consistency.
Lessons Learned:
Water management districts provide National Estuary Programs with a unique
institutional arrangement that could be used to implement CCMPs. Historically, independent
authorities have been criticized because they are too autonomous and not directly responsible
to the citizens; however, these authorities are more focused than general purpose
governments in implementing a specific agenda. The taxing, regulatory, and planning
powers of water management districts also support the implementation of specific programs.
The following items highlight some of the positive and negative aspects regarding water
management districts as an appropriate institutional mechanism to implement CCMPs.
1. Watershed-based
National Estuary Programs are watershed-defined, as are water management
districts in Florida. The Southwest Florida Water Management District also has
been further subdivided into a series of smaller watersheds. This nesting concept,
subbasins within the District basin, allows the District to set an overall water
management strategy, yet allow for differences among the subbasins. As a
69
-------
regional agency, the District can focus on local, basin-specific, and
interjurisdictional (or interbasin) issues and solutions for water management.
2. Independent governing board and mandate
Independence from other state and local bodies enables the District to develop and
respond to water management programs quickly and with less political influence.
3. Public outreach and participation
Public involvement at all stages of program development has enabled the District
to generate a constituency to support the District's water management agenda.
4. Regulatory and taxing authorities
Regulatory and taxing authorities have been essential to the District in
implementing its comprehensive water management program.
5. Funding
Two of the District's primary implementation funding sources, SWIM and
Preservation 2000, have a certain degree of instability, because they are dependent
upon annual appropriations from the Florida Legislature. A more stable funding
source would be desirable; however, in Florida many earmarked funding sources
fluctuate depending upon the health of the state economy.
6. Branch offices
As the District encompasses more than 26,000 km2, four service offices have
proven to be invaluable. They enable the District staff to work closer to
constituents than if they worked out of one central location.
7. Local government coordination
The District does not have the authority to mandate that local governments
incorporate District policies and plans in their local comprehensive plans. Because
local government comprehensive plans have the force of law, and because local
governments must comply with their own adopted plans and policies, the lack of
an effective linkage between local government plans and District water policy(s) is
a major weakness. District routine communications with and distribution of
technical information/data to its local governments have supported voluntary
compliance.
70
-------
8. Federal consistency process
The District, through the federal consistency process, can comment on federal
projects and programs; however, should it be determined that Districts have the
authority not only to comment, but invoke consistency determinations, they will
have a more effective means of influencing decisions on federal projects and
programs.
71
-------
3.7 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Organizational Mandate:
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council is the oldest planning council in the State
of Florida; established in 1961, by four municipalities (i.e, Clearwater, Sarasota, St.
Petersburg, Tampa). In 1972, the Florida Legislature passed the landmark Florida
Environmental Land and Water Management Act as a result of recommendations of the
Environmental Land Management Study Committee (ELMS). One of the significant results
of that effort was the creation of substate planning regions throughout Florida.
As stated in the 1993 Annual Report:
"To serve the interests of the entire Tampa Bay region, of matters greater than
local in breadth and effect, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council fosters
cooperation and growth in an ever changing community. Recognizing that our
resources - of humankind and nature - are interdependent and dynamic,
knowing that together, we must face this change".
Geographic Scope:
Florida is subdivided into 11 planning regions, all containing active regional planning
councils. The four counties comprising the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council include
Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and Pinellas. The geographic scope of the Council has
changed since its creation in 1961. Soon after the four Bay Area cities banded together,
counties were extended an invitation for membership. Pinellas County was the first county
to become a member of the Council in 1962, followed by Hillsborough County and Sarasota
County. In 1963, Manatee County became a member, followed by the City of Bradenton.
Pasco County did not become a member of the Council until 1970, nine years after the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was formed. Sarasota County, which is now within
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, was an early member of the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council; however, once the 1972 ELMS legislation was enacted, the state
planning office subdivided the state into substate planning regions. It was at that time that
Sarasota County was switched from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
Organizational Structure:
Membership in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has increased steadily over
the years, and today the Council is governed by a 38-member board. Twenty-two of the
members are from local governments (four counties and 18 municipalities). Municipal
participation has always been voluntary. At the outset, county participation was also
voluntary; however that situation changed with the passage of the Florida Regional Planning
Councils Act of 1980. The new law required all counties to become participating members
72
-------
of Regional Planning Councils. There are a total of 39 municipalities in the four county
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council region; however, 18 or just less than half belong to
the Council. In addition to the local government representatives, 12 Council members are
Governor appointees and are subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate. The Council also
has four ex-officio non-voting members appointed by the Governor, including representatives
from three state agencies (i.e., Department of Commerce, Department of Environmental
Protection, Department of Transportation), and the Southwest Florida Water Management
District.
The Council has ten standing committees. The Executive Committee, Budget
Committee, and the Clearinghouse Review Committee are specifically set out in Chapter 29-
H, Florida Administrative Code, (the formal, adopted rules of the Council). Other standing
committees that have been established include the Legislative Committee, Aging Policy
Committee, Agency on Bay Management, Disaster Medical Assistance Team Committee,
Florida Regional Councils Association, Transportation Committee, and Mediation
Committee.
The level of activity among the ten committees differs. The following discussion
highlights the activities of the Clearinghouse Review Committee and Agency on Bay
Management, the Council's most active committees. The Clearinghouse Review Committee
is charged with the Council's intergovernmental review and comment responsibilities as they
relate to:
Consistency of federal and state assistance applications subject to Florida's
Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Process;
Federal and state permit applications (e.g., dredge & fill);
Proposed federal and state rules, regulations, and policies;
Environmental impact statements; and
State plans with local and regional plans and issues.
The Clearinghouse Review Committee also reviews large-scale developments known
as Developments of Regional Impact. The goal of the Development of Regional Impact
process is to identify and assess the potential impacts of the proposed project, coordinate
with affected governmental agencies, and provide recommendations in a report to the local
government where the proposed development is located. The report identifies what potential
solutions or corrective actions need to be taken in order to minimize and mitigate the
proposed project's impact(s) on the local government and surrounding governmental entities.
73
-------
In 1985, the Agency on Bay Management, was established to monitor, comment, and
take policy positions on natural resource issues of importance to the region, particularly as
they affect Tampa Bay. The agency has 45 members from the industrial, recreation,
commercial fishing, research, educational, and regulatory communities, as well as federal,
state, and local governments and the public at large. The Agency is very active, meeting
monthly, and focuses on three major areas: interagency coordination; public and technical
assistance; and legislative comment and analysis. The Agency on Bay Management has
spearheaded numerous educational and legislative programs on behalf of the proper
management of Tampa Bay. Representing a broad-based alliance of interests, considerable
attention is spent on achieving a high degree of interagency coordination, especially when it
involves critical issues relative to Tampa Bay and its estuarine waters. Members of the
Agency also participate on many technical committees in the Tampa Bay area dealing with
habitat restoration, water quality protection, and Bay management.
As presented in Figure 3, the Executive Director is responsible for implementing the
policies of the Council, overseeing the activities of the Area Agency on Aging, and
administering the Council's planning programs. The Deputy Director manages the daily
operation of the Council staff with the exception of the Director of the Area Agency on
Aging. Reporting to the Deputy Director is the Director of Administrative Services and the
Director of Planning, as well as Council's attorney. The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program is administered locally by the council, having offices in St. Petersburg.
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms.*
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, like other Regional Planning Councils in
Florida, is primarily an advisory body, unlike the regional water management districts in
Florida that have significant regulatory power. To a large extent, Regional Planning
Councils rely upon persuasion, through a review and comment role or convincing local
governments to incorporate provisions of its comprehensive regional policy plan into their
local comprehensive plans. However, there are two very significant points to understand
about Regional Planning Councils. Although their responsibilities and powers are derived
from state law (Section 186.505), Regional Planning Councils are created by an interlocal
agreement of local governments, not by the state. Secondly, their perspective is
comprehensive, not limited to a narrow, specific functional area of concern such as water
management or transportation.
The type of functions the Regional Planning Councils and, more specifically, the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has been involved in covers a broad spectrum of
activities and interests, ranging from services for the elderly to project reviews (i.e.,
Developments of Regional Impact, local comprehensive plan amendments) to regional studies
that address issues related to housing, transportation, environment, or hurricane evacuation.
Council responsibilities have expanded over the years. Some have been as a result of state
legislative mandates, while others have been assumed voluntarily.
74
-------
1^
5i
JB
i!
*s
§
*
w
*
i
B
W
M
H
fl
i
i
1
»
i^m
P.
u
s
I
a
j
i
i
i
i
i
_j
a
1
i
s
*
Tl
i
c
LiJ
Kf
85!
CSi
fi-j
SI'
i
i
u
JL
si
cr
1 II
mmmm
^amm
^ft^H
^mmm
m^mmm
mmm^
|
»
i
MMMiM
tit
!!l
is
Mi
«13
jit-
!i!
C 5
J
85
1
ill
I|
|u°
m m
6 B
3§I
S88
"I
88
-M
W 2 Q
D
!*I
|I
C w
iS
|
i|S
Ml
si
Ii
5.
II
S§! §!
rsSI -gl
ss .si 1
1 ' 12 t
88 a
5 -
2 5 8§
1*8 i
if i
8
si il
*s fi
$ LSJ
75
-------
Under existing state law, the Council has been charged with programmatic
responsibility for reviewing Developments of Regional Impact, and local government
comprehensive plans. In addition, the Council has served as a regional clearinghouse for
many years.
In 1973, the Developments of Regional Impact review process was established by the
Florida Legislature (Section 380.06 F.S.). The intent of the legislation was to provide state,
regional, and local agencies the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of proposed large-scale '
development projects (e.g., regional shopping center, airport expansion). The Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council is charged with analyzing the impacts of these projects on
facilities and services, such as major roads, sewer, and drainage systems. In addition, the
Council must assess the potential impact on adjacent local governments and on regionally-
significant natural resources. Since the passage of the Act, the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council has reviewed more than 220 such projects.
Under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (Section 163.3184, F.S.),
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council is provided an opportunity to comment on local '
government comprehensive plan amendments. Council review is based on:
Impacts on regionally significant resources or facilities identified in Future of the
Region, A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region; and
Extra-jurisdictional impacts inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of affected
local governments.
In 1993, the Council reviewed 1,135 plan amendments.
Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Congress enacted the Intergovernmental Coordination
Act of 1968. As a result of that legislation, a clearinghouse review obligation for the
Council was established. The program is now known as the Intergovernmental Coordination
and Review Process. Although there have been some procedural modifications at the federal
and state levels, the essence of the process, intergovernmental coordination and cooperation,
remains intact. In addition to reviewing applications for federal assistance grants and
projects, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council staff also review programs and
documents relative to the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g., environmental
assessments, environmental impact statements), Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(primarily dredge and fill permits), and the National Historic Preservation Act. Each month
the reviews conducted by the Clearinghouse Review Committee are sent to the Council for
concurrence. Those dredge and fill applications that are found to be of regional significance
are ultimately acted upon by the Council prior to comments being transmitted to the
permitting agency. On average, Council staff review 200-300 projects and programs
annually.
76
-------
In June 1985, the Florida Legislature took a historic step by passing the Growth
Management Act. One of the directives of the legislation required that all Regional Planning
Councils prepare comprehensive regional policy plans. During 1986 and 1987, the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council prepared and adopted the Future of the Region, A
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region. This plan is comprehensive
in scope and it addresses not only man-made facilities and natural resources, but also many
areas of social concern (e.g., families, children, elderly, health, education). The plan has
become the Council's official growth management policy document.
In 1993, the Florida Legislature passed the 1993 ELMS bill. This legislation directs
Regional Policy Councils to prepare Strategic Regional Policy Plans which will supersede
comprehensive regional policy plans. The Strategic Regional Policy Plans are to focus on
affordable housing, economic development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of
regional significance, and regional transportation. The intent of the statutory modification
was to refocus Regional Policy Councils on matters involving regional intergovernmental
coordination, and the provision of technical assistance to local governments.
Besides the review functions as described above, the Tampa Bay Regional Policy
Council serves as the Area Agency on Aging, provides staff support for the Hurricane and
Disaster Planning Task Force, staffs the District Local Emergency Planning Committee,
serves a coordinating role through participation on the technical advisory committees of the
region's four Metropolitan Planning Organizations, staffs the Tampa Bay Disaster Medical
Assistance Team Coordinating Committee, and maintains a Regional Information Center.
Since the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council is an advisory body, regulation is
not an available implementation tool. However, having been in existence for over 30 years,
the Council has established its legitimacy and, therefore, its opinions and comments have an
influence on shaping commitments of state, regional, and local governments. The Council is
able to implement portions of its Regional Planning Policy through its review and comment
functions that have been established statutorily.
Council members and staff participate actively on a host of committees. By
participating on these committees, the members and staff have an opportunity to informally
seek commitments to implement the Regional Policy Plan. By drawing upon the experience
of the Council and the provision of information, the outcome of the various committee
recommendations can be shaped. Council members participate on six committees, including
Agency on Bay Management, Joint Metropolitan Planning Organization, Aging Policy Board,
Regional Visioning Task Force, Disaster Medical Assistance Team Coordinating Committee,'
and Tampa Bay, Region Emergency Management Committee. Staff serve on 29 committees,
a number of which are environmentally oriented such as the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program Management Committee, Greenways Committee, Cockroach Bay Restoration
Advisory Committee. Others are involved in transportation matters, information systems,
economic development, and oil and hazardous substances pollution response.
77
-------
Another way the Council works to implement its Regional Policy Plan is through its
technical assistance efforts. The Council provides technical assistance to local governments,
state agencies, non-profit organizations, and the regional community on a regular basis.
Examples include coordinating Coastal Cleanup '93 in cooperation with the Center for
Marine Conservation, coordinating wildlife rescue efforts in response to an oil spill in Tampa
Bay, and participating in several habitat restoration projects (e.g., salt marsh, seagrass)
around Tampa Bay. Council staff have also been involved in monitoring the success of the
various sites where restoration projects have occurred.
The Council also conducts workshops and public forums. The Council, in co-
operation with the Hillsborough County Public Schools, sponsored a three day Marine
Science and Ecology Teacher Workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to provide
teachers with local information and insights on water quality, restoration programs, and
coastal biota. Another example involves hurricane preparedness; the Council, working with
the Department of Elder Affairs, conducted a one-day workshop on disaster preparedness and
the elderly.
The Council staff also work closely with the Planners Advisory Committee. Local
planners from many jurisdictions throughout the region come together to discuss mutual
problems and common solutions. All local governments have been directed by the State
Legislature to develop an effective intergovernmental coordination element for inclusion in
their local comprehensive plans. The Council, along with local government planners in the
region, are working together to develop a format for local government to follow.
Funding:
The Tampa Bay Regional Policy Council budget for fiscal year 1994 is nearly
$4,600,000. In fiscal year 1990, the budget was $2,823,488. This translates to a 62.6
percent increase in the Council's budget between 1990 and 1994. Major factors affecting the
increase have been the continued expansion of the Area Agency on Aging program, and the
creation of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program in 1990; federal funds for this estuary
program are administered through the council. Other than these two programs, there have
been some fluctuations in dollars committed to various program activities; however, few have
been significant. Only the Developments of Regional Impact program experienced a fairly
sharp reduction in funding. A large proportion of Council Developments of Regional Impact
review activities are funded by Developments of Regional Impact fees collected from
applicants. Because of the down-turn in the economy, fewer development proposals have
been generated.
Funding for Council programs comes primarily from local, state, and federal
governments. Because of the Council's Aging program and Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program, federal dollars have become the largest revenue source for the Council. In fiscal
year 1990, 11.9 percent of the total revenues came from the federal government. By fiscal
year 1993, federal dollars had increased to 34.6 percent. State funds have remained
78
-------
relatively stable over the years. A large share of state funds are received from Department
of Elderly Affairs for the Council's Aging program. Also, the Council has received funds
from the Department of Community Affairs for many years. Although the amount has
fluctuated in recent years, Department of Community Affairs funds are important because
they are used to defray a major portion of the cost the Council incurs in carrying out its
regional planning and regional review programs. The other major funding component, local
revenues, is generated from annual membership dues. All member governments, whether
county or city, pay a base amount of $2,000 per fiscal year. In addition, each county is
assessed a pro-rata share of the remainder of the money required to balance the adopted
budget. The method by which membership dues are established and assessed is provided for
in the Interlocal Agreement establishing the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Since
fiscal year 1990, dues/interest have remained relatively stable, averaging nearly $840,000,
annually. This revenue source constituted 22.8 percent of total revenue in fiscal year 1993.
The per capita fee for fiscal year 1994 is just over $.35 per capita.
Accountability:
In Florida, local governments have enabling powers to form Regional Planning
Councils (Chapter 186, F.S.). The statute charges no state agency with oversight
responsibility for Regional Planning Councils; therefore, Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, is directly accountable only to itself. The only body that can affect the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council is the Florida Legislature through its legislative authority. It can
and does define and shape the roles and powers of the council.
While no state agency has oversite responsibility for Regional Planning Councils, the
composition of the membership of the Council can have an effect on regional policy and
actions. Since the original ELMS legislation was enacted in 1972, the Legislature has
modified the Regional Planning Councils legislation twice regarding the issue of membership
composition. Originally, all Regional Planning Councils membership was comprised of local
government representatives. Then in 1980, the membership was broadened to include
Governor appointees and, in 1993, the statute was further modified to add four Governor-
appointed, non-voting, ex-officio members. Three represent state departments (i.e.,
Commerce, Environmental Protection, Transportation) and the fourth appointment represents
the water management district having jurisdiction within the Council's boundaries. By
altering the membership composition, the State Legislature expressed concern that Regional
Planning Councils had not been sensitive to state interests.
Section 24 of the Florida Constitution ensures what is commonly called "government
in the sunshine". The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, like all state agencies and
departments, local governments, and legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
government, is required to not only allow, but must develop policy and rules to ensure, that
the tenants of the Florida Constitution are achieved. "Government in the sunshine," in and
of itself, has been extremely effective in making all governmental units in Florida
accountable to the general public.
79
-------
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council also employs a number of techniques to
inform the public of its activities and actions. Each year, the Council publishes its annual
report that highlights accomplishments of the previous year. The publication also includes a
balance sheet and a statement of revenues and expenditures.
The Council distributes its agendas, including background and explanatory materials
on agenda items, in advance of its regularly scheduled monthly Council meetings to a large
audience interested in Council activities. The minutes of these meetings are also widely
distributed. Further, the public has an opportunity to express their opinions on agenda items
at all Council meetings.
Focus of Implementation;
Since 1987, the Regional Policy Plan has been the growth management policy
instrument utilized by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to fulfill its numerous
duties and responsibilities. The plan has been formally adopted in accordance with state law,
and provides the basis for the Council's review and comment functions. The Regional Policy
Plan provides long-range guidance for the orderly physical, economic, and social
development of the Tampa Bay region. The plan contains 27 regional issue areas. Examples
of issues include social-related areas such as education, health, children, elderly, families;
economic areas such as urban revitalization, the economy, tourism, and employment; and
physical areas such as coastal and marine resources, land use, natural systems and
recreational lands, water resources, and transportation. For each issue area, regional goals
have been established. They define long-term ends toward which programs and activities
should be directed. For each regional goal, policies are identified that establish principles on
which programs and activities are based. To track the success of each regional goal, the
Council developed a series of measures to show the projected outcome and effectiveness of
each regional goal.
During the 1993 Florida legislative session, the Florida Regional Planning Council
Act was amended, requiring that the existing Regional Policy Plan be replaced by a Strategic
Regional Policy Plan. Under these amendments, Regional Policy Councils must address
affordable housing, economic development, emergency preparedness, natural resources of
regional significance, and regional transportation (Section 186.507 (1)). The Regional Policy
Councils are given the latitude to address other functional areas (e.g., education, public
safety, health).
Measures of Success;
As described above, the Council's Regional Policy Plan contains regional goals.
Most goal statements contain date certain language identifying when the goal should be
achieved. For each regional goal there is one or more measures of success such as the
following:
80
-------
Increase in the productivity of the marine resources
Increase in the acreage of approved shellfish harvesting area
The Council prepares a report every five years that essentially assesses the successes
or failures of the Regional Policy Plan and prepares necessary amendments.
Methods for Coordinating Local Government Implementation Efforts:
The Council has both formal and informal means to achieve coordination with local
government implementation efforts. In 1985, all local governments in Florida were
statutorily mandated to prepare and adopt local comprehensive plans in accordance with the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. The
comprehensive plans were required to contain a series of elements: future land use,
conservation, housing, traffic circulation, parks and open space, infrastructure, (i.e. sewer,
potable water, drainage, solid waste, natural aquifer recharge), intergovernmental
coordination, and capital improvements. In designated coastal areas, a coastal management
element was required as well. Regional Policy Councils are provided an opportunity to
comment on the consistency of local comprehensive plans and amendments with their
comprehensive regional policy plans. However, RPC comments are only advisory. The
Florida Department of Community Affairs, as the designated state land planning agency,
issues an assessment report known as the Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report on a proposed plan or plan amendment.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs solicits comments from all reviewing
agencies, including Regional Planning Councils. Each reviews and submits their comments
back to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. However, only the Florida
Department of Community Affairs determines which comments will be included in the report
and local governments are required to respond to recommendations and objections contained
in the report. Unless the Florida Department of Community Affairs decides to include
Regional Planning Council objections and comments, the local government is under no
pressure to address the comments and concerns of the Regional Planning Council. In actual
practice, the Florida Department of Community Affairs generally incorporates most of the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's comments. Also, when problems or concerns are
raised by the Regional Planning Councils staff early in its review process, prior to comments
being submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, it is common practice for
Council staff to meet with local government staff in an effort to reach a resolution. This
practice has been well received by local governments.
Providing technical assistance to local governments has been an effective way of
achieving implementation of the Regional Policy Plan. This is especially important because
many of the policies require actions to be taken by local government. Historically, the
Council has assisted a number of local governments in preparing their comprehensive plans
81
-------
and plan amendments. Other informal means of coordination include conducting public
workshops and disseminating information.
Methods for Involving the Public;
In its earliest days, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council placed little emphasis
on public involvement. However, with the reorganization of the Council following the
passage of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, the level of
public participation increased significantly. In 1975, the Council conducted a Performance
Effectiveness Program to evaluate its structure, communications capabilities, and its
perceived identity within the region. This study, prepared by individuals that had no
affiliation with the Council, led to an increased emphasis on the need for public involvement
in Council activities. From that time forward, the Council has utilized citizen advisory
committees frequently. As of 1994, the Council operates nearly 30 committees and/or
subcommittees. Their range of concern is broad, including not only bay management and
transportation, but data management, public safety, emergency management, archeology,
historic preservation, and disaster medical assistance. It is the opinion of the Council that
involving the public has provided a means of mobilizing previously unutilized resources. It
has built consensus on issues and has forged the alliances essential to effective
implementation of Council policies and recommendations. The people on these committees
and subcommittees have provided creativity, productivity, and labor not otherwise tapped;
and have provided the Council with feedback regarding its policies and programs, as well as
a sounding board for new and innovative approaches.
As previously mentioned, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council agenda and
agenda package are distributed widely in advance of its regularly scheduled monthly
meetings. Following the meeting, minutes are prepared, published, and widely distributed.
Further, the public is provided opportunities to comment on agenda items during the regular
monthly Council meetings.
Another very successful method used by the Council to involve the regional citizen in
the business of the Council is sponsoring and/or conducting public workshops (e.g., Anti-
Violence Workshop, Anti-Crime Forum, Regional Economic Information Network,
Environmental Education Provider's Workshop). This method enables the Council, to not
only focus the public's attention, but to disseminate information and receive input from the
public.
Linkage to State Coastal Zone Management Program;
On a number of occasions, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has been
successful in applying for Coastal Zone Management funding from the state. These funds
have been used to implement various coastal initiatives of the Council. The Council received
fiscal year 1994 Coastal Zone Management funds to complete a model local government
82
-------
disaster mitigation and recovery plan for the region. The final report will include local
redevelopment model regulations.
Relevance of (and Methods for Addressing) Federal Consistency;
Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act describes the intra and
intergovernmental coordination processes that federal agencies proposing activities in the
coastal zone must follow. Each state, with an approved coastal zone management plan, has
been directed to establish procedures that describe how it will administer the federal
consistency provisions of the Act. The Florida Coastal Zone Management Plan states that
"When an activity requires a permit or license subject to federal consistency review, the
issuance or renewal of a state license shall automatically constitute the state's concurrence
that the licensed activity or use as licensed, is consistent with the federally approved
program. When an activity requires a permit or license subject to federal consistency
review, the denial of a state license shall automatically constitute the state's finding that the
proposed activity or use is not consistent with the state's federally approved Coastal Zone
Management program". The law goes further and states, in those instances where a federal
project or activity is seaward of the jurisdiction of the state, and where there is no state
agency with sole jurisdiction, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as the
designated state land planning agency, will be responsible for making consistency reviews
and determinations. All decisions and determinations may be appealed to the Governor and
Cabinet.
A Regional Planning Council, not being a state agency, may not make determinations
of federal consistency. Councils can and do review and comment on federal assistance
projects pursuant to their clearinghouse responsibilities as set forth in Presidential Executive
Order 12372 and Governor's Executive Order 93-194. The Coastal Zone Management Act
does require that affected regional governmental bodies and local governments have an
opportunity to review and comment on proposed federal applications, in or outside of the
coastal zone, before a decision is made by the funding agency. However, comments of the
Regional Planning Councils and local governments are only advisory, and do not require the
applicant to formally address their concerns, as is required if a state agency makes a
determination of inconsistency.
Lessons Learned;
The Regional Planning Council structure may provide National Estuary Programs
with a viable institutional arrangement for CCMP implementation. Whether this is an
appropriate alternative depends, in large part, upon the types of issues, strategies, or
corrective actions involved (e.g., regulatory, coordination/planning, education, service
delivery), and the boundaries of the area of concern.
83
-------
1. Multi-jurisdictional structure
The geographic boundaries of National Estuary Programs, like Regional Planning
Councils in Florida, are characterized by multiple local governments. In Florida,
Regional Planning Councils have been favorably viewed as an excellent
institutional structure to address issues and problems of greater-than-local interest.
This was recognized during the deliberation of the ELMS III Committee. The
members of the committee concluded: "The regional planning council is
recognized as Florida's only multipurpose regional entity that is in a position to
plan for and coordinate intergovernmental solutions to growth-related problems on
greater-than-local issues, provide technical assistance to local governments, and
meet other needs of the communities of the region."
However, the boundaries of Regional Planning Council in Florida are not
watershed-based. Because the purpose and functions of Regional Planning Council
are broad, the state has multiple criteria it uses to define Regional Planning
Council boundaries. Regional Planning Councils boundaries take into account
population migration, transportation networks, population increases and decreases,
economic development centers, trade centers, natural resource systems, federal
program requirements, designated air quality attainment areas, economic
relationships among cities and counties, and media markets.
2. Local government representation
Many strategies and corrective actions depend upon local government support, or
in many instances require local governments to take specific actions included in
CCMP, to correct deficiencies, such as developing a stormwater management
ordinance, an erosion control ordinance, or constructing a pilot stormwater retrofit
facility project. Therefore, due to their predominantly local government makeup,
Regional Planning Councils provide access to implementation mechanisms.
3. Comprehensive perspective
An important aspect of Regional Planning Councils is their comprehensive
perspective. In Florida, only the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
has an environmental mandate that covers the "environmental waterfront". Most
local or regional environmental agencies have a much more specific environmental
charge, such as water supply or drainage, or habitat restoration, or wetland
protection, or water quality. Regional planning councils have broad directives
allowing them the flexibility to address a wide range of issues and concerns. The
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, through its Agency on Bay Management,
serves as the Tampa Bay watchdog, monitoring the full range of environmental
issues and concerns that may potentially affect the region. The Council has also
been an important catalyst in environmental matters.
84
-------
4. Regulatory authority
Regional Planning Councils do not preempt local land use authority and have no
regulatory powers. Land use regulatory authority rests with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, the state land planning agency, and local
governments. As previously described, Regional Planning Councils do have a
review and comment function role whenever local government proposes a plan
amendment to its local comprehensive plan.
85
-------
4.0 KEY INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
"Implementation" is a relatively simple term that actually represents a complex
process consisting of a set of interconnected responsibilities. In addition to carrying out
multiple environmental restoration and protection actions, the process of implementation can
require coordination of the ongoing efforts of a number of entities, monitoring the
effectiveness of actions as they are implemented, and modification or enhancement of the
management plan as new information arises. Ideally, these tasks occur in an environment
that ensures an open and continuous exchange of information, as well as involvement by the
various stakeholders.
Because of this complexity, institutional arrangements to oversee the implementation
process can take many forms, and can be characterized in many different ways. To provide
a consistent analytical framework, this section summarizes key institutional factors associated
with the seven case study organizations according to the following categories:
Organizational Structure and Participation
Implementation Authority and Mechanisms
Financing
Public Involvement
Measures of Success
These summaries are based on the information provided in Section 3.0 of this report.
4.1 Organizational Structure and Participation
The seven case studies represent a broad spectrum of considerations in terms of their
structures and participants. For example, the structure of the current Buzzards Bay Project
has evolved from the management conference structure used to develop the CCMP. Unlike
the other six organizations, where staff offices generally function in support of decision-
making bodies, the major oversight effort in the Buzzards Bay Project is focused within the
Project's staff office, using the CCMP as the primary source of guidance. The Buzzards Bay
Steering Committee appears to be much less proactive in the implementation process, serving
almost in a pro forma capacity. This lack of overarching senior-level guidance can result in
a loss of momentum in the implementation process. In addition, there are no formal
guidelines concerning makeup of the Steering Committee; participation is representative of
the entities who are playing a significant role during implementation and can be modified as
needed. It should also be noted that the Buzzards Bay Project is the only organization among
the seven case studies that includes federal participation. This is most likely due to the
origins of the Project within the National Estuary Program, which requires federal
86
-------
participation. It is interesting to note that interviewees for this case study emphasized the
desirability of a continued federal role, even though the emphasis on implementation in
Buzzards Bay is at the local level.
The structure of the Cape Cod Commission is prescribed by state statute, unlike that
of the Buzzards Bay Project, and is very heavily focused on local government participation.
In fact, the Commission goes beyond many of the other six organizations in terms of its
inclusiveness of local government; each town within the region has a member on the
Commission's board. This approach to local government participation may help to address
concerns about loss of autonomy by the towns. The role of the Commission board relative to
that of the staff office is clearly defined, with the board setting the agenda for the
Commission and the staff office carrying out that agenda through both regulatory and
nonregulatory means.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission plays a unique role in the implementation process
compared with the other six organizations. The structure and makeup of the Commission is
focused on a subset of the stakeholder universe that is of interest to most of the other six
organizations. This focus is at the legislative level of the three participating states, with no
local or federal government participation (although citizen representatives are appointed from
each state). The Commission also functions independent of the larger oversight
organization: the Chesapeake Bay Program. Staff provide the continuity within the
organizational structure, as Commission members are subject to regular turnover.
Like the Cape Cod Commission, the structure of the Nisqually River Council
emphasizes inclusive stakeholder involvement. This kind of inclusive approach appears much
more easily accomplished in a smaller geographic area, such as the Nisqually River
watershed, than it is in a larger area. Generally speaking, the larger the area, the greater the
number of political jurisdictions, and the harder it is to effectively include all stakeholder
entities. Therefore, the tendency in larger geographic areas is toward cross-sectional
representation; for example, including a representative of local governments (e.g., Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority) as opposed to including all local governments (e.g., Cape
Cod Commission and Nisqually River Council).
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority also emphasizes stakeholder
involvement, but through the cross-sectional approach referred to previously. In addition, as
with all of the case study organizations except the Buzzards Bay Project, there is a clear
hierarchy in terms of the roles played by the Authority board and the staff office, with the
staff office functioning in a support role to the board. However, it should be noted that the
Authority staff office plays a very significant role in assisting the board during the policy and
agenda setting process, as evidenced by the development of staff recommendations to the
board concerning many different aspects of plan implementation. This strong staff office
role may be an artifact of the origins of the Authority. Until 1990, the Authority was a
separate entity from the Department of Ecology. This autonomy helped to establish a history
of credibility for the staff office, since the Authority it served maintained an objective view
87
-------
that was distinct from that of the other State agencies. Since 1990, an effective balance
between the roles of the board and staff office appears to have developed.
The makeup of the Southwest Florida Water Management District is set by a
political appointment system. Because all board members are appointed by the Governor
(and confirmed by the state senate), there is at least the perceived potential for skewing the
agenda of the District, depending upon the will of its members. This approach differs from
most of the other organizations studied, where a balanced participation on the governing
board is statutorily mandated by a formula. No such formula exists for the Southwest
Florida Water Management District. Therefore, although an effort is made to balance the
competing interests on the District board, the District, and other organizations like it, will
always be subject to political criticisms. Like the Cape Cod Commission, the District has a
very visible staff component, due to both the comprehensive nature of its mission and the
regulatory role that the District plays in the region.
Finally, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council represents the largest governing
board among the seven case study organizations (38 members). The board is dominated by
local government participation (18 municipalities and 4 counties), in keeping with its mission
of providing technical assistance and coordinated planning services within the region.
However, municipal participation on the Council is voluntary; less than half of the
municipalities within the geographic scope of the Council are actually members.
4.2 Implementation Authority and Mechanisms
The seven case study organizations can be separated into two distinctive types in
terms of the actual authority they possess to influence implementation. The first type of
organization, which include the Buzzards Bay Project, Chesapeake Bay Commission,
Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, depends on a coordinating approach to implementation. Stated
another way, none of these organizations (including those created by statute) possess any
legal authority of their own to require implementation. Instead, these organizations often
influence the implementation process through consensus reached among the participating
entities. It should be noted that the individual entities that participate in these coordinating
structures often include implementing agencies that do have legal authority to require
implementation. However, this report is primarily concerned with the authorities of the
oversight structures.
The second type of organization goes well beyond the coordination role described
above, possessing independent responsibility for implementing management actions, as well
as the legal authority to require their implementation by other entities through regulation.
This type of organization includes the Cape Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida
Water Management District. For example, the Southwest Florida Water Management
District currently has permitting authority for surface water management projects, such as
stormwater management. Therefore, the District has the ability to directly impact these
-------
activities in a way that is consistent with its management goals, rather than having to rely on
its ability to indirectly influence the actions of others. Similarly, the Cape Cod Commission
may designate Districts of Critical Planning Concern, and thereby provide direct protection
to significant natural and cultural resources. This mechanism is of particular interest, as it
ultimately works through local government authorities, as opposed to superseding them. As
was previously noted, once a District of Critical Planning Concern is designated by the
Commission and approved by Barnstable County, a limited moratorium on development is
imposed in the area. The municipality with jurisdiction over the area then develops
protective regulations that must be approved by the Commission. Following this approval,
the municipality retains authority to regulate development in the area.
There are pros and cons associated with the two implementation approaches described
above. For example, the coordination approach to implementation can help to avoid
duplication of existing authorities, the perception of creating a new layer of government, and
the loss of autonomy by local interests. Conversely, this kind of arrangement can carry with
it the drawback of lacking unequivocal implementation authority in situations where
consensus can not be reached, or where new priorities begin to override those agreed to in
the management plan. However, the addition of regulatory authority to an organization
charged with overseeing implementation can result in effects that are opposite to those
described above. For example, concerns still exist that the authority granted to the Cape
Cod Commission should not supersede those authorities traditionally granted to local
governments in Massachusetts under "home rule." This concern exists despite the inclusive
representation on the Commission board by local government.
When selecting an oversight model, the factors described above should be carefully
weighed, and mechanisms for addressing them should be considered. For example, as has
been noted, one concern related to the coordination approach to overseeing implementation is
the lack of a sound mechanism to compel agencies to take action. One successful approach
for addressing this concern has been through the state budget process, as reported for the
Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. As was noted,
members of the Chesapeake Bay Commission also sit on appropriations and finance
committees of the various state legislatures, which provides a powerful role for influencing
agency mandates concerning implementation. The systematic access to the Washington State
budget process that is afforded to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority not only provides
a mechanism for impacting the plans of state agencies concerning implementation of the
water quality management plan, but also a means by which to track activities against the
plan. This process of "earmarking" agency budgets is a mechanism that is worthy of
consideration in other areas of the country.
The seven case study organizations share several characteristics in terms of the
mechanisms they rely on to implement actions. For example, all of the organizations use
various nonregulatory approaches to influence implementation, including public education and
outreach, as well as the provision of technical assistance to implementing entities. The
voluntary development of local comprehensive plans to implement the goals of a regional
89
-------
policy plan has been a successful implementation tool for both the Cape Cod Commission
and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. The Cape Cod Commission has provided
incentives for the development of these local plans; communities with plans that are certified
by the Commission acquire authority to impose impact fees, an effective growth management
tool. In this way, the Cape Cod Commission enhances the authority of local government
while coordinating the application of that authority through voluntary means. The Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council also impacts activities within its geographic scope through its
review and comment function.
During development of the Buzzards Bay CCMP, it was hoped that the letters of
commitment secured from the implementing agencies, and the Buzzards Bay Action Compact
signed by the Buzzards Bay communities, would serve as effective mechanisms for
influencing future CCMP actions. However, as other priorities have competed for the same
implementation resources, the advisory nature of both the CCMP and the Buzzards Bay
Project has dampened the actual success of these mechanisms. Therefore, as time goes on,
acquiring legal status, such as through incorporation of the CCMP into the State's Coastal
Zone Management Plan, may become more critical to successful implementation. It should
be noted that there continues to be issues concerning incorporation of CCMPs into Coastal
Zone Management plans. Perhaps the most significant of these is the Coastal Zone
Management Program's requirement for "enforceable policies," which is contrary to the
advisory nature of CCMPs. This dichotomy between the two types of plans creates
somewhat of a "Catch 22" in that CCMPs rarely go beyond recommendations, making it
desirable to incorporate them into Coastal Zone Management plans as an implementation
tool, but which also makes it difficult to incorporate them due to the enforceability
requirement.
4.3 Financing
The need for a stable funding source for both administrative costs and "on-the-
ground" implementation was emphasized by nearly all of the case study interviewees. With
regard to this factor, the most successful of the seven organizations appear to be the Cape
Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As is typical
for many regulatory agencies, both possess the ability to generate their own funds through
taxing authority and the collection of permit fees. Among the seven structures studied for
this report, this capability was unique to these two organizations. In the absence of revenue
generating mechanisms, direct state appropriation appears to be the next most stable source
of funds. However, the continuity of these appropriations is highly influenced by the
political environment. For example, the operating budget for the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority has been reduced each biennium since 1985, due in large part to overall
reductions in the state budget. Other less stable sources of funds for the case study
organizations include state and federal grants. In addition, the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council collects annual dues from its membership. However, these funds are used
almost exclusively for administrative costs of the Council. Finally, several of the
organizations have been successful in "leveraging" their funds by securing matching dollars
90
-------
and in-kind services on a project-by-project basis. For example, the State of Washington's
Department of Natural Resources has contributed staff time to the development of a
Nisqually Basin Atlas by the Nisqually River Council. This is a key factor of note to the
National Estuary Programs, since levels of funding required to implement a CCMP in many
cases will outreach the actual availability of funds. The ability to increase the impact of
available resources by building partnerships ("getting more bang for the buck") will be
critical to any institutional arrangement developed to oversee implementation.
4.4 Public Involvement
All of the case study organizations accomplish what might be termed a "baseline"
level of public involvement. That is to say, at a minimum, all of the organizations function
in public forums, providing the public with the opportunity to view and participate in their
proceedings. This is typically accomplished through public meetings and hearings, with
advance notification of agendas and public distribution of meeting minutes and summaries.
Beyond this baseline level of public involvement, the seven organizations share certain
other tools:
TOOL ORGANIZATION
Newsletters Cape Cod Commission, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Southwest
Florida Water Management District
Citizen Committees Buzzards Bay Project, Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council
Public Education Nisqually River Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Materials
Telephone Hotline Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Workshops Chesapeake Bay Commission, Nisqually River Council, Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
The role of the public relative to implementation varies from organization to
organization. For example, since approval of the Buzzards Bay CCMP, the Buzzards Bay
Project has placed minimal effort, as an organization, into public involvement. Instead, the
Coalition for Buzzards Bay has been established as a citizen advocacy group within the
Buzzards Bay watershed. As such, the Coalition has taken on an independent role in terms
of public involvement, serving what might be considered a "watchdog" function in relation to
the implementation process, as evidenced by efforts such as the Environmental Report Cards.
91
-------
This approach has resulted in citizens that identify with the resources of concern, but who
also view themselves as being outside the implementation process.
As regulatory agencies, the Cape Cod Commission and the Southwest Florida
Water Management District respond to a somewhat less flexible pressure to involve the
public. Because of the legal nature of their functions (e.g., permit issuance), these agencies
must follow standard operating procedures in providing public access to their decisions,
usually including public notices, hearings, and comment periods. Deviations from these
procedures can result in legal challenges. These agencies also conduct public outreach
activities outside of their regulatory programs, using many of the tools cited above.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission does not have an ongoing public outreach
program of its own. Because of its advisory role within the implementation process, the
Commission contributes to the outreach efforts of the larger Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority may conduct the most extensive and
proactive public outreach program of the seven case study organizations. The stated goal of
the outreach program (see Section 3.5) leaves no doubt concerning the important role that the
public plays in the implementation process, a role that is partly defined by the nature of the
problems being experienced in Puget Sound. The state legislature, and subsequently the
Authority, has recognized the pervasiveness of nonpoint sources of pollution in the Sound.
They also realize that the ultimate solution to most of these nonpoint source problems will lie
in changing human behavior, as opposed to end-of-pipe regulation. Therefore, public
outreach is viewed as an essential implementation tool by the Authority. The most visible
aspect of the outreach program is the Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Fund, which
has provided the opportunities and resources for average citizens to actively take part in "on-
the-ground" implementation.
4.5 Measures of Success
Demonstrating success is one of the more challenging, yet necessary, aspects of the
implementation process. This is true for several reasons. From a technical perspective, the
linkage between management actions and environmental benefits that result from those
actions is not always clear. This problem is similar to that experienced during the
characterization phase of the National Estuary Program, where it can be difficult to
demonstrate the causes of environmental problems with absolute scientific certainty. In
addition, just as many environmental impacts develop over many years, a demonstrable
reversal of those impacts is also likely to take time, making it difficult to maintain public
support for the management program. In fact, the public may even become impatient with
results that demonstrate that conditions have not gotten worse, since this may fall short of
their definition for success. Even in cases where improvement in environmental indicators
can be measured and linked to actions that have been implemented, these indicators may not
always be meaningful to the public in terms of "success." For example, it may be difficult
for the general public to see how increases in dissolved oxygen levels in the water column,
92
-------
or decreases in sediment contaminants, equate to improvement in the quality of resources
they care about, such as recreational uses, shellfish areas, or habitat.
With these challenges in mind, three basic factors should be carefully considered
when addressing the need to demonstrate success. First, a clear and realistic definition of
successful implementation should be developed and communicated to all stakeholders. For
most implementation oversight organizations, this definition is typically driven by the goals
and objectives developed during the planning process. Considered in total, the achievement
of these goals and objectives equates to the yardstick that the stakeholders will use to
determine if progress is being made during the implementation process. Second, appropriate
and measurable indicators should be selected that track with this definition. It should be
noted that programmatic indicators (e.g., permits issued) are quite often used systematically
in conjunction with environmental indicators (e.g., shellfish areas opened) to measure
outcomes of management programs. Third, results should be communicated through avenues
and in terms that are meaningful to all stakeholders.
The seven case study organizations address these factors in a variety of ways and to
various degrees. The Buzzards Bay Project focuses primarily on programmatic indicators
through the Environmental Report Cards. These instruments track actions that are
implemented at the local level, such as acquisition of open space and establishment of septic
system inspection and maintenance programs. These types of indicators carry an implied
assumption of environmental benefit. The monitoring program developed in relation to the
Buzzards Bay CCMP generally takes a long-term, synoptic view of environmental conditions
in the Bay. This may make it difficult to demonstrate a direct link between implemented
actions and environmental improvement. The Environmental Report Cards have proven
useful as tools for communicating implementation progress to the public, but, again, this
progress is expressed primarily in terms of actions taken, as opposed to improvements
measured.
The Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Plan includes performance standards that
are used by the Commission as criteria in reviewing Developments of Regional Impact and
proposed development activities in Districts of Critical Planning Concern. However, no
post-development monitoring is currently conducted in relation to these activities to determine
their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the Regional Policy Plan.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority conducts an extensive environmental
monitoring program to establish baseline conditions in the Sound and measure changes in
those conditions as the Water Quality Management Plan is implemented. However, even
with this effort, the Authority has found it difficult to demonstrate to the public, with
certainty, that improvements are directly linked to the plan. As previously noted, much of
this difficulty is due to the long-term nature of environmental recovery, as well as the
intrinsic uncertainty of establishing cause/effect relationships. Therefore, the Authority has
attempted to demonstrate success through other methods, such as the Measuring Results
93
-------
project cited in Section 3.5 of this report. This project is viewed as a valuable addition to,
rather than a replacement for, traditional environmental monitoring techniques.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District also conducts extensive
environmental monitoring, focused primarily on water quality parameters. Water
conservation efforts are tracked by measuring reductions in water usage. Various
programmatic indicators are also tracked, such as permit violations, through the District's
enforcement program.
The broad mission of regional structures such as the Cape Cod Commission, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council may make it especially difficult to establish a comprehensive vision for success.
Like the Cape Cod Commission, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council uses the goals
set forth in its regional policy plan to communicate its vision for success. However, these
kinds of goals tend use terms that are very difficult to measure systematically. This is a
common dilemma faced by ongoing management programs.
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division recently funded a project with the
Urban Institute to develop techniques that may be used for measuring progress in the
National Estuary Program and other watershed protection efforts. The results of that project
are to be released soon in a report titled Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs (EPA 842-
B-94-008).
94
-------
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report was developed to serve as a reference document on the experiences of the
seven case study organizations, rather than comprehensive program guidance on governance
requirements. As such, the reader should bear in mind that no one institutional model will
necessarily be transferrable to the specific characteristics of another estuary or watershed.
Therefore, in developing plans for overseeing CCMP implementation, National Estuary
Programs should be aware of the variety of different approaches and identify the solutions
that are best suited to their specific needs. In some cases, this will include reliance on
existing organizational structures rather than the creation of new oversight entities. In all
cases, National Estuary Programs are encouraged to implement CCMPs using existing
authorities to the maximum extent possible.
The lessons conveyed by the individual case study interviewees emphasize a number
of important themes that should be considered by National Estuary Programs (see Section 3.0
for detailed discussions). The following recommendations were common among several of
the interviewees and, therefore, deserve particular attention:
Representation
Participation in the organizations should focus on those entities that will be expected
to play a role in implementing the CCMP. In addition, individuals designated as
members of the organization should have the authority to speak for, and commit the
actions of, the entity that they represent.
Re-education
Because of the long-term nature of CCMP implementation, the oversight structure
should incorporate an ongoing mechanism for educating new members concerning
mission, goals, and progress. This is an important aspect of maintaining momentum
over time.
Conflicting agendas
Because many oversight organizations consist of individuals who represent other
entities, there is always the potential for conflicts to arise between the individual
priorities of those entities and the goals of the oversight organization. This potential
should be recognized when designing an organization, and addressed through
mechanisms such as charters, bylaws, or memoranda of understanding that provide a
framework for resolving these conflicts.
95
-------
Flexibility/Adaptive management
Successful coordination of implementation activities requires recognition of the long-
term nature of implementation, and an ability to adjust to new information as it
becomes available. Priorities should be expected to change over time, and the
oversight structure should be flexible enough to accommodate these changes The
need to add to or modify the participating entities should be addressed.
Funding source
Consistent, stable, and long-term sources of funding are critical to the viability of any
organizational structure. This should be considered in terms of both administrative
costs and funds for actual implementation activities.
Clear mandate
In defining the mission of the oversight organization, it is critical to clearly describe
foe responsibilities and authorities of that organization in relation to other entities
This can be a complicated issue, particularly under the coordinating approach where
the oversight organization depends on the individual authorities of its members but
possesses no actual implementation authority of its own.
Finally, because development of the plan for coordinating CCMP implementation
involves numerous and complex issues, the process for developing such a plan should begin
early. Reaching agreements on the structure, responsibility, authority, and funding of an
oversight organization can require much time and effort, and should be included in the
timeline of management plan development. This will allow for a smoother transition from
the planning to the implementation phase, and help to maintain momentum
96
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
s Bav Project
Buzzards Bay. 1994. Buzzards Bay Oil Spill Mutual Aid Response Team Standard
Operating Procedures.
Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 1992. Buzzards Bay
Project.
Coalition for Buzzards Bay. 1994. Memorandum outlining Sixth Annual Environmental
Report Card questionnaire. January 28, 1994.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1991. Articles of Organization Under G.L. Ch. 180:
Buzzards Bay Action Committee, Inc.
Cape Cod Commission
Barnstable County. 1988. Barnstable County Home Rule Charter. Enacted in Chapter 163
of the Acts of 1988.
Barnstable County. 1993. Barnstable County Annual Report fiscal year 1993. County of
Barnstable, Massachusetts.
Cape Cod Commission. 1991. Regional Policy Plan for Barnstable County. September 6,
1991.
Cape Cod Commission. 1991. Cape Cod Commission Regulations. October 10, 1991.
Cape Cod Commission. 1993. A Guide to the Cape Cod Commission. September 1993.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1990. Cape Cod Commission Act: Chapter 716 of the
Acts of 1989 and Chapter 2 of the Acts of 1990.
Chesapeake Bav Commission
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 1990. Brochure on the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 1992. Annual Report to the General Assemblies of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
97
-------
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1993. A Review of the Chesapeake Bay Program's First
Decade and Recommendations for the Future. "ogram s first
rvv11581011- 198°" Report to the Governors of
rTA 8K?'a> ,*? °eneral AsSembly of *" Commonwealth of V^inL and
the General Assembly of the State of Maryland. Senate Document No. 32.
Swanson, A.P M.S. Haire, and P.O. Swartz. undated. Managing an Ecosystem
Nisauallv
Jones & Jones, JWOS: Inc., Anne Symonds & Associates, and C3 Management Group.
1988. Nisqually River Interpretive Center Conceptual Plan. Prepared for the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Jones & Jones. 1988 Nisqually Basin Interpretation and Environmental Education
study' Prepared for * Washington Ste
Jones * Jones 1989 Nisqually River Public Access Site Feasibility Analysis. Prepared
Sii f?98?Q y COUndl thr°U8h *" WaSWngt0n ^ 'Department of Sogy.
CoalM 19fpNiSqU3lly Ww Management Plan. Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Sound Water fVffry Authnrjty
McKay, Nancy. 1994. A Management Plan for Puget Sound: A Case Study.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Fnd4«ty-- 199°' Publi< lavement and Education Model
Fund: 47 Success Stones from Puget Sound. November 1990.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1992. State of the Sound: 1992 Report. June 1992.
Puget ^Wa^Quali^Authority. 1993. Measuring Results Summary Report. Draft
98
-------
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1994. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan:
Status Report. February 14, 1994.
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Division of Statutory Revision. 1993a. Official Florida Statutes, Volume 2, Chapters 237-
402. State of Florida, Joint Legislative Management Committee, Tallahassee FL.
Division of Statutory Revision. 19935. Official Florida Statutes, Volume 5, Florida
Constitution, United States Constitution, General Index. State of Florida, Joint
Legislative Management Committee, Tallahassee FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1991. Rule 17-40, Florida Administrative
Code. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
KPMG Peat Marwick. 1993. Management & operations study. Final report prepared for
Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1989. Peace River Basin Board, fiscal year
1991 Basin Board. Peace River Basin Board.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1990. Surface water improvement and
management plan for Winter Haven Chain of Lakes.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1992a. District water management plan
draft report.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1992b. Charlotte harbor surface water
improvement and management plan, draft.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1993b. Southern water use caution area
management plan, Draft 9-01-93.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1993c. Citizen version, draft district water
management plan.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1993a. Reports and publications.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1994a. District water management plan
draft report.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1994b. Annual report 1993.
99
-------
Twwa Bav Regional Plp^ine Council
Division of Statutory Revision. 1993a. Official Florida Statutes, Volume 1, Chapters 1-236
btate of Florida, Joint Legislative Management Committee, Tallahassee, Florida.
Division of Statutory Revision 19935. Official Florida Statutes, Volume 2, Chapters 237-
402 State of Florida, Joint Legislative Management Committee, Tallahassee
Hlnnna '
Division of Statutory Revision. 1993c. Official Florida Statutes, Volume 5 Florida
Constitution, United States Constitution, General Index. State of Florida Joint
Legislative Management Committee, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of State. 1994. Chapter 29-H, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Florida Administrative Code, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida, Governor. Executive Order 83-150. September 23, 1983.
Florida, Governor. Executive Order 93-194. July 8, 1993.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1975. Interlock Agreement Creating A Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1987. 1987 Annual Report. St. Petersburg
rlonda. &'
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1990. State of the Bay, 1990. St. Petersburg
rlonda. 6'
ipor 1992' FutUre °f *" ReSion' A Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1993. 1993 Annual Report, Our 31st Year St
Petersburg, Florida.
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1994a. In Touch with Tampa Bay. Agency on Bay
Management. St. Petersburg, Florida. y y
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1994b. Council Budget for Fiscal Year 1993-1994
M. Petersburg, Florida.
U.S. Congress, PL 92-583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
100
-------
U.S., President. Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
Federal Register, Volume 47, Number 37. July 16, 1982.
101
-------
-------
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY INTERVIEWEES
-------
-------
LIST OF CASE STUDY INTERVIEWEES
Buzzards Bav Protect
Dennis Luttrell, Executive Director
Buzzards Bay Action Committee
Jeffrey Osuch, Executive Secretary
Board of Selectmen, Town of Fairhaven
Edwin (Ted) Pratt, Resident
Town of Marion
Bruce Rosinoff, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cape Cod Commission
Armando Carbonell, Executive Director
Cape Cod Commission
Bruce Rosinoff, Commission Member
Town of Sandwich
David Ernst, Commission Member
Town of Wellfleet
Alex Richie, Commission Member
Town of Provincetown
Chesapeake Bav Commission
Ann Swanson, Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Commission
William Matuszeski, Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
George Wolf, Citizen Representative
Chesapeake Bay Commission
A-l
-------
Fran Flanagan, Director
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Nisauallv River Council
Steve Craig, Nisqually River Program Coordinator
Washington State Department of Ecology
Doug Canning, Planner
Shorelands & Coastal Zone Management Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Nancy McKay, Executive Director
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
John Dohrmann, Director of Planning and Compliance
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Kevin Anderson, Staff
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Dwain Colby, Chair
Committee on Puget Sound
Washington State Association of Counties
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Richard Owen, Director of Planning
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Joe Quinn, Planner
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Mark Phelps, Federal Consistency Coordinator
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Lynn Griffin, Federal Consistency Coordinator
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
A-2
-------
Suzanne Cooper, Staff
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Debbie Skelton, Staff
Coastal Zone Management Program
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Julia Greene, Executive Director
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Manny Pumariega, Deputy Director
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Sheila Benz, Planning Director
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Suzanne Cooper
Agency on Bay Management
Jan Vorhees, Intergovernmental Coordination Review Process
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Rick MacAuley, Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Paul Conger, Bureau of Local Planning
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Chris McCay, Office of Coastal Zone Management
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Suzanne Traub-Metlay, State Clearinghouse
Office of the Governor
Sam Shannon, Former Executive Director of the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
A-3
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICES 9 95 -622 -8 7 3/ 82 1 94
-------
------- |