-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection expresses exceptional
appreciation to the participants of the National Meeting and Technical
Workshop.
We are especially grateful to the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) for their excellent presentations and assistance in sponsoring the
conference. Thanks to Mr. Peter Wise (Director, GLNPO) for hosting the
conference.
A special thanks to Mr. Mark Alderson, EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, for developing, organizing and facilitating the workshop. Thanks
to Mr. Kent Fuller and Bob Tolpa for their assistance in selecting the facility
and in preparing the GLNPO presentation "A Taste of GLNPO."
-- Agency
SS ^nticnal Program Office
OL.Ji'O r •
-------
PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM REVIEW AND TECHNICAL
WORKSHOP (Chicago, Illinois, September 16-18, 1986)
Introduction
The National Program Review and Technical Workshop was conducted to
provide the EPA regional offices with the opportunity to give a status report
on program accomplishments; to allow for discussion of program problems and
develop solutions; and to provide the Great Lakes National Program Office with
the opportunity to discuss its program and share technology transfer. The
workshop served as a milestone in the National Estuary Program. Attendees
included representatives from NOAA, EPA regional offices and headquarters,
citizen organizations and EPA support contractors. Participants of the
workshop generally agreed that the management structures implemented in each of
the program areas are working and that coordination between all levels of
government and the regions has improved as a result of this process.
The Great Lakes National Program Office presented a day of information
which was of great benefit to the regional participants. The presentations on
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Toxic Control Program, and
the Great Lakes Nonpoint Source Program were particularly beneficial. The
workshop also provided a forum for all participants to openly discuss the
problems and issues in each of the estuarine programs.
Day 1; September 16, 1986
Welcome: Mr. Peter Wise, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office and
Acting Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator.
Mr. Wise opened the meeting by summarizing recent accomplishments of the
Great Lakes National Program and giving an overall status report. He also gave
background information on the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreements of 1972, 1978, and 1983. The importance of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreements as the driving force in the cleanup efforts in the Great
Lakes was stressed; the agreements served as a catalyst in developing the load
reduction programs. Mr. Wise also discussed the efforts to integrate Great
-------
Lakes program activities with Region V Water Division and Superfund activities.
Great Lakes National Program cleanup efforts are given priority in the regional
office.
I. National Program Review:
Mr. Thomas DeMoss, Director of the Technical Support Division in the
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection at EPA, introduced this section.
Mr. DeMoss stressed the importance of open interaction during the meeting and
then welcomed Ms. Virginia Tippie of the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office.
NOAA ESTUARINE RESPONSIBILITES
Ms. Tippie discussed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Technical
Support Division of the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) in EPA
and the Office of Estuarine Programs in NOAA. She reported that this MOA
should be signed soon and would allow for closer coordination between NOAA
activities with regard to estuarine environments and EPA activities in
estuarine programs. Ms. Tippie mentioned that the geographic focus in staff
assignments in the Office of Estuarine Programs in NOAA was similar to that in
OMEP. She hoped that coordination between the regional representatives at EPA
and the NOAA estuarine regional coordinators would improve over the next seven
months as a result of this effort. Ms. Tippie also outlined the major
responsibilities of NOAA in estuarine environments and described the major
ongoing research and monitoring programs. Ms. Tippie turned the program over
to Mr. DeMoss to discuss development of workplans and master environmental
plans.
WORKPLAN AND MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR ESTUARIES
Mr. DeMoss explained that each estuarine program had the responsibility
for developing five-year water quality and resources management workplans.
These workplans are designed to ultimately develop master environmental
programs to protect and/or restore the estuaries of particular concern. The
importance of the five-year plan was highlighted in this discussion. In
response to questions Mr. DeMoss explained that this workplan is a working
-------
document to provide the framework for regional research and monitoring efforts
in support of the master plan development.
REPORTS BY REGIONAL OFFICES ON CHARACTERIZATION EFFORTS
Mr. DeMoss introduced regional representatives of Buzzards Bay,
Narragansett Bay, Puget Sound, and Long Island Sound, who gave status reports
on the characterization efforts in each of their regions. Wendy Wiltse gave
the presentation on Buzzards Bay, outlining the problems in the estuary and
giving a status report on when the program was predicted to make
recommendations on Buzzards Bay clean-up. Katrina Kipp presented the status of
characterization efforts in the Narragansett Bay area. One of the major
problems outlined by Ms. Kipp was the lack of comparable data on the estuary.
Since Joe Brecher could not attend the meeting, Ms. Kipp also presented the
status of the Long Island Sound study. Mr. John Armstrong, Region X
Coordinator, gave a presentation on the status of the Puget Sound
characterization efforts.
II. Characterization and Data Management Support:
The introduction to this segment of the workshop was given by Mr. DeMoss
with assistance from Mr. Joe Hall, both of the OMEP.
DATA QUALITY AND ASSURANCE
Data quality and assurance were stressed as important components in
developing the regional programs. Mr. Hall outlined OMEP's Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program. The OMEP QA/QC program has been
well received by both the research community and the regional offices. An
intensive effort has gone into making the data collected under regional grants,
contracts, and cooperative agreements meet EPA standards and be compatible.
Compatibility will allow for national analysis at a later date. Common
techniques in analyzing data are of utmost importance to the OMEP office.
Comparable techniques in analyzing and collecting information will allow for
historical analysis in the future. In many estuaries, data collection and
analysis techniques have varied widely over time, making it difficult to
-------
analyze trends and track declines in estuarine systems. Most workshop
participants agreed that the use of different techniques was creating problems
in analyzing historical information.
REGIONAL PROGRAM EFFORTS TO FILL DATA NEEDS
The Puget Sound protocol development that has been conducted under
contract with Tetra Tech was presented as one milestone in resolving this
issue. All data now collected on Puget Sound, for instance, will be comparable
in the future. Long Island Sound was presented as an example of data
management and support which seem to be working successfully in the program.
The dissolved oxygen analysis performed in Long Island Sound is an example of
how trend analysis works. The results discussed recent data that indicate
dissolved oxygen problems in Long Island Sound have increased in recent years.
Mr. Dan Farrow of NOAA gave a presentation on the characterization of pollutant
loadings to Long Island Sound. Results of this analysis showed that many
pollutants to the system were coming from upstream portions of the watershed
rather than from the areas closer to the basin, although it was apparent that
the New York City areas were providing a tremendous input to the Long Island
Sound system.
III. Water Quality and Habitat Criteria Development:
In recent years deteriorating water quality conditions have become a
primary concern in estuarine environments. Both EPA and NOAA have been
conducting work in this area. This section of the meeting allowed for
discussion on the topics.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland, has been doing
extensive work on the development of living resource and habitat criteria for
the Chesapeake Bay. The focus of habitat criteria development in the Chesapeake
Bay area has been in laboratory studies to determine loss of habitat in the
Bay. Mr. Hank Zygmunt, Deputy Director of the Chesapeake Bay Program, gave a
status report of Chesapeake Bay Program activities.
-------
HABITAT SUITABILITY - STRIPED BASS
Ms. Kim Devonald of OMEP presented a paper on striped bass work for Mr.
Chuck Coutant of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Ms. Devonald s
presentation was on habitat suitability for striped bass in lake and estuarine
environments and on developing management strategies based on habitat
suitability. Mr. Coutant of the Oak Ridge Laboratory has been conducting
extensive work on striped bass in lakes in the southwest. He has found that
striped bass have a tremendous affinity for a temperature regime of 20 to 22
degrees Celsius. The striped bass, therefore, tend to congregate in areas
where this temperature regime exists. In fact, in lakes suffering from anoxic
conditions which overlap the 20 to 22 degree temperature regime, striped bass
suffer stress; whereas in lakes that do not have overlapping anoxic and
temperature problems present, the striped bass do not seem to suffer stress.
Mr. Coutant is now testing this habitat loss theory in Chesapeake Bay,
especially around the Chesapeake Bay Bridge where suitable conditions for
striped bass once existed and may no longer be available. His tentative
conclusion is that major portions of the Bay are now suffering from low
dissolved oxygen and are no longer suitable for striped bass habitat. The
extent of the problem in the Chesapeake Bay has not yet been determined. This
work, combined with the living resource and habitat criteria work in the
Chesapeake Bay, should serve to give managers in the area a better indication
of the interaction between water quality and resource management problems. One
possible management action could be to protect those areas wher-j more favorable
temperature regimes exist that do not suffer from low dissolved oxygen
problems.
INTEGRATING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The next section of this segment of the program was given by Mr. Ron
Manfredonia of Region I. Mr. Manfredonia discussed the integration of existing
water quality standards and objectives throughout the estuarine programs. The
importance of additional attention by the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) to the needs for water quality standards in estuarine areas was
highlighted. Representatives from ORD responded by acknowledging the need for
more work in the marine and estuarine areas and that there were several ways to
-------
assure this would occur, including stronger participation in the ORD Research
Committees.
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - CHESAPEAKE BAY
The next segment of the program was on the Chesapeake Bay Program's
compliance assessment project. This project was presented by Mr. Hank Zygmunt
from Region III. Mr. Zygmunt gave a status report on the compliance project
which was developed in response to a recent Washington Post article written by
Ms. Victoria Churchill. The project is designed to do a preliminary assessment
of the compliance programs in the regional office and to provide information to
the EPA administrator on the status of the program in Region III.
GB CRITICAL AREAS PROGRAM
The guest dinner speaker was Mr. Kevin Sullivan, who gave a presentation
on the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program. This program is significant
because it is specifically designed to regulate growth and protect resources
and habitats in the estuarine environment. Mr. Sullivan discussed the
applicability of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program to other areas of
the country.
Day 2; September 17, 1986
Introduction: The second day of the workshop was dedicated to the Great
Lakes National Program Office. The Great Lakes National Program staff provided
summary briefings on current Great Lakes Program activities and some technical
background on the future direction of the program. The introduction was given
by Mr. Wise, Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office. The Great
Lakes National Program's experiences will be helpful in developing the programs
in other regions of the country. The information gained from the briefings by
the Great Lakes National Program staff was beneficial, especially in regard to
the presentations on toxics, the importance of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, the nonpoint source control programs, and program integration
activities.
-------
TOXICITY MANAGEMENT
The additive approach for toxic substances was discussed by Mr. Larry
Fink. His presentation was enlightening, especially in regard to the risk
assessment information developed by the estuarine Great Lakes National Program
on consumption of fish in the Great Lakes area. For most fish in the Great
Lakes areas, it is recommended that no more than one fish per week is
consumed. However, the risk of getting cancer from eating Great Lakes fish
dramatically increases as the consumption of fish increases. Several members
of the audience commented that these statements were possibly politically
unacceptable. Mr. Fink indicated that approximately 40% of all Americans
contract cancer, and although cancer incidence may not be caused by eating
Great Lakes fish, the risk of getting cancer from these fish does increase.
*
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
The discussions on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement were also
informative to the estuarine program staff. The importance of the Great Lakes
Agreement is well documented in the area. The agreement provided a working
document by which both Canada and the U.S. could agree to deal with the toxic
contamination of the lakes and to establish nutrient load reductions to the
system. The level of contaminants such as organic nutrients and toxics has
been reduced by a large percentage in the Great Lakes system over the past ten
years. Load reduction may not lead to improved water quality in some areas,
because high levels of contamination have already occurred. However, there is
no notable improvement in water quality throughout the Great Lakes region.
NFS CONTROL PROGRAMS
The nonpoint source program presentations were also very informative since
many of the problems of other estuarine areas around the country are
predominately of a nonpoint source nature. Demonstration programs which have
been put in place in the Great Lakes are nationally recognized as "success
stories."
-------
REGIONAL PROGRAM INTEGRATION
The program integration presentations were useful to the national
audience. The integration of Great Lakes National Program activities and
priorities is perhaps the most important component leading to the success of
the Great Lakes National Program. The permit enforcement and compliance
programs are all integrated with the Great Lakes National Program. These
permit and enforcement programs receive priority attention in the Great Lakes
because of the importance of the lakes in supplying drinking water to a large
proportion of the population in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes
Agreement and program integration activities have allowed the Great Lakes to
receive priority attention and made cleanup activities possible. Summaries of
the appropriate presentations can be found in the appendices of this document.
Day 3; September 18, 1986
The third day of the workshop began with two presentations by Ms. Devonald
of OMEP. The first presentation was a report on a recent shellfish workshop
conducted by OMEP and the second was on the Finfish Workshop also conducted by
OMEP. Ms. Devonald reviewed the findings and recommendations of the
workshops. The underlying theme of the recommendations was that better
information on levels of contamination in fish and shellfish is needed and that
it is necessary to resolve the differences between the criteria recommended by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and those recommended by the U.S. EPA.
The next presentation was given by Mr. Joe Hall of OMEP on the QA/QC
program and the Puget Sound protocols. (The Puget Sound protocol development
which supports the OMEP program was given earlier by Mr. Armstrong of Region
X.) The Puget Sound Program was recommended as a possible guide to other
programs in designing the QA/QC program for particular estuaries.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The next component of the three-day workshop was on public participation
and reiterated approaches to involve the public. The first presentation was
given by Catherine Krueger of the Puget Sound Program. Ms. Krueger outlined
-------
current public involvement efforts in the Puget Sound estuary and reviewed the
coordination activities between the regional office and Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority. Mr. Mark Alderson from OMEP presented Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF) efforts. Mr. Alderson reviewed the ongoing education programs
at CBF, the Land Conservancy Program, and the relatively new CBF legal
initiatives. The CBF attorneys, in cooperation with the National Resource
Defense Council (NRDC), have successfully sued two corporations in the
Chesapeake Bay area. The successful law suits resulted in a $1.3 million
dollar penalty against Gwaltney and will result in substantial penalties
against Bethlehem Steel. The judge in the Bethlehem Steel case has ruled in
favor of the Foundation and NRDC, but no fines have been cited yet. The next
presentation was given by Ms. Trudy Cox of the Narragansett Bay Foundation.
Ms. Cox gave an informative presentation on efforts in Narragansett Bay. Mr.
DeMoss of OMEP gave an overview on the importance of building coalitions and
constituencies in the estuarine program. The need for building coalitions was
exemplified by the success of public participation efforts in the Narrangasett
Bay, Puget Sound, and" Chesapeake Bay regions. Mr. DeMoss stressed the
importance of public involvement, the development of management structure to
deal with the issues, and the development of master plans to address the
issues.
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
Ms. Ginger Webster of OMEP summarized the status of the Near Coastal
Waters Strategic Initiative and outlined the options that were sent to the EPA
administrator. The initiative was well received by the participants.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The last presentation was given by Mr. Bob Biggs from the University of
Delaware on the "scorecard" of relative conditions in estuaries. Mr. Biggs
work relates populations of given estuaries to the current condition of the
estuarine system. This work is based on the assumption that sewage treatment
plants in any given estuary are coming close to meeting their effluent limits
and that their level of treatment is no more of a 10X portion difference.
Mr. Biggs also incorporated flushing characteristics of estuaries into his
-------
model. Therefore, the model incorporates both flushing characteristics and
total population and compares them to the relative knowledge of the given
estuary. It is interesting to note that his analysis pointed out that there
are several estuaries around the country that are not being studied and of
which little is known regarding water quality parameters such as low dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm, Thursday, September 18, 1986.
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
NAME
Mark Alderson
John Armstrong
Rich Batiuk
Al Beck
Bob Biggs
Paul Campanella
Ralph G. Christenson
Karen Chytalo
Mike Connor
Tom DeMoss
Kim Devonald
Dan Farrow
Fran Flanigan
Kent Fuller
Anthony P. Graffeo
Joe Hall
Jeremy Johnston
Anthony Killauskas
Katrina Kipp
Edward W. Klappenbach
Ron Kreizenbelk
Ron Manfredonia
Howard Marshall
Andrea McLaughlin
Bill Muellenhoff
Jerry L. Oglesby
John Pai
John Paul
Sam Petrocelli
Pranas Pranckericlus
Bill Richardson
David Rockwell
Darcey C. Rosenblatt
Vacys J. Saulys
Paul Stacey
Eulalie Sullivan
Virginia Tippie
Robert Tolpa
Sally Turner
Ginger Webster
Wayne Willford
Wendy Wiltse
Hank Zygmunt
ORGANIZATION
EPA/OMEP
EPA, Region 10 Office of
Puget Sound
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA/ORD ERL Narragansett
University of Delaware
EPA/OPPE/OMSE
EPA/GLNPO
NYSDEC/DMR
Battelle
EPA/OMEP
EPA/OMEP
NOAA/SAB
Citizens Program for
Chesapeake Bay
EPA/Great Lakes
Battelle
EPA/OMEP
EPA Region 9
EPA/GLNPO
EPA, Region I; Narragansett
Bay Project
EPA/GLNPO
EPA, Region 10
EPA, Region I
EPA/IV
Technical Resources, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
SCI Data Systems
EPA/OMEP
EPA/Narragansett
Battelle New England
EPA/GLNPO
EPA/ORDERC-DCCRS
USEPA-GLNPO
Technical Resources, Inc.
U.S. EPA GLNPO
CT DEP/Water Compliance
Technical Resources, Inc.
NOAA/EPO
EPA/Great Lakes
EPA, Region IV
EPA/OMEP
EPA/GLNPO
EPA, Region I; Buzzards Bay
Long Island Sound
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
PHONE //
202-475-7109
206-442-1368
301-266-
401-789-
302-451-
8-382-
312-353-
516-751-
617-934-
202-475-
202-475-
301-443-
301-377-
6873
1071
8165
4906
3545
7900
5682
7102
7114
8843
6270
312-353-3503
617-934-5682
202-245-3042
415-974-8174
312-353-3576
617-565-3523
312-353-1378
206-442-1265
617-565-3555
404-347-2126
301-231-5250
415-974-4400
301-757-6660
202-475-7102
401-789-1071
617-934-5189
313-226-
312-353-
301-231-
312-353-
203-566-
301-231-
202-673-
312-353-
404-347-
202-382-
312-353-
617-565-
7811
1373
5250
2117
2588
5250
5003
0201
2126
7166
1369
3514
301-266-6873
-------
Agenda - National Estuary Program
Review and Technical Workshop
(Chicago, Illinois - September 16-18,1986)
Day 1; September 16
Reception: Coffee and Danish 9:00 am
Welcome: Mr. Peter Wise, Director
Great Lakes National Program 10:00 am
I. National Program Review
Introduction: Tom Demoss, Director 10:15 am
Technical Support Division
A. Memoranda of Agreement with NOAA 10:30 am
Virginia Tippie, Estuarine Programs Office
B. Developing a Five Year Workplan and 10:45 am
Master Environmental Plans
Hiller/Demoss, EPA
C. Characterization - 15 minute presentations on 11:15 am
characterization efforts in:
Buzzards Bay - Wendy Wiltse
Narragansett Bay - Katrina Kipp
Puget Sound - John Armstrong
Long Island Sound - Joe Brecher
Discussion (12:15 pm - 1:00 pm)
Lunch: 1:00 - 2:00 pm
II. Characterization: Data Management and Support 2:00 pm
Introduction: Tom Demoss/Joe Hall,Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection
A. Long Island Sound
1. Characterization of Pollutant 2:15 pm
Loadings to the Basin
Dan Parrel1, NOAA
-------
-2-
III. Water Quality and Habitat Criteria Development
A. Living Resource and Habitat Criteria in Water 2:45 pm
Quality Management Plans
Rich Bateuk, CBP
Coffee Break: 3:15 pm
B. Habitat Suitability for Striped Bass:
Developing Management Strategies 3:15 pm
Chuck Coutant, Oakridge
C. Integration of Existing Water Quality Standards 3:45 pm
and Objectives through Estuary Programs
Ron Manfredonia, Region I
D. CBP Compliance Assessment Project
Hank Zygmunt, Region III 4:15 pm
Social Hour
6:00 pm
Dinner: 7:00 pm
Guest Speaker: Mr. Kevin Sullivan
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program
Day 2; September 17, 1986
"A TASTE of GLNPO"
Summary Briefings on Activities
of the Great Lakes Program
September 17, 1986
Introduction
GL WQA, the IJC & the Ecosystem Approach
P. Wise 8:30am
I. A Four Point Framework for the Session:
Impairments, Pollutants & Criteria, Sources,
and Remedial Actions 8:45am
-------
-3-
I. Panel #1: Impairments
A. Algal Productivity
8:50am
P. Bertram
B. Fish and other population recoveries
W. Willford
1. Fish Symptons
2. Fish Consumption Advisories
A uniform advisory for L. Michigan
D. DeVault
3. Epideminology Study L. Fink
II. Panel #2: Pollutants, & Monitoring for
Violations of Standards, Criteria IJC
Objectives
A. Open Lake Monitoring
1. Lake Surveys by ship, helicopter and
water intakes
D. Rockwell
2. Open Lake Fish
"Harbor/Estuary Areas
- Fish D. DeVault
3. Sediment (hot spots)
T. Kizlauskas
BREAK : 10:20am
III. Panel #3: Loading and Sources
A. Introduction (Phos. to Toxics & Mass
P. Wise
Balance)
B. Atmospheric
C. Tributaries
D. Nonpoint Source
1. Run-off
a. Groundwater
b. Sediment
E. Klappenbach
K. Fuller
P. Pranckevicius
1. Point Source
2. Municipal (Loading)
P. Horvatin
3. Chemical Inventories
L. Fink
9:40am
10:3 5 am
-------
-4-
LUNCH : 11:50am
IV. Panel #4: Remedial Programs 12:50pm
A. State Programs & Coord, with Water
Division R. Tolpa
B. Permits, Compliance & Construction
P. Horvatin
C. Dredge & Fill & Confined Disposal
Facilities (CDF's)
T. Kizlauskas
1. RCRA
2. CRCLA P. Pranckevicius
3. Nonpoint Source Projects
R. Christensen
V. Panel 15: Beyond BAT l:55pm
A. Mass Balance & Toxic Strategies Including
Lake Michigan L. Fink
B. Biomonitoring G. Lahvis
C. Human Health, Rish Assessment &
How Clean Is Clean
D. Control of "New" Compunds (IJC Comprehensive
Track) L. Fink
BREAK : 2:55
VI. Panel #6: Integrative Programs 3:15pm
A. Areas of Concern & AOC Remedial Action Plans
K. Fuller
B. Special Initiatives V. Saulys
1. Niagara River
2. Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels
3. Green Bay P. Wise &
D. DeVault
-------
-5-
VII. Modeling for Toxics
Wm. Richardson
Large Lakes Research
Station ORD
4:00 pm
General Discussion
4:30 pm
Adjourn
5:30 pm
Day 3: September 18, 1986
I. Report on Shellfish Workshop
Kim Devonald, OMEP
II. Report on OMEP Finfish Workshop
Michelle Killer, OMEP
III. QA/QC and Puget Sound Protocols
Joe Hall,OMEP
John Armstrong,Region X
IV. Creative Approaches to Involve the Public
9:00 am
9:30 am
10:00 am
1. Puget Sound - Catherine Krueger
2. Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mark Alderson
2. Narragansett "Save the Bay"
Trudy Coxe
V. Building Coalitions - Tom Demoss
VI. Region IV's Antidegradation Policy
Sally Turner
10:30 am
11:00 am
11:30 am
12:00 am
12:15 pm
Lunch 12:30 pm - 1:30 pm
V. Technical Coordination: Kim Devonald
Program Integration: Mark Alderson
Program Status Report: Michelle Killer
1:30 pm
-------
-6-
VII. Near Coastal Waters Initiative 2:15 pra
Tudor Davies
Ginger Webster, OMEP
VIII. Proposed CWA Amendments and State Match Requirements
in FY87 and 88 Tudor Davies, OMEP 2:45 pm
IX. Scorecard for Assessing the Relative 3:00 pm
Condition of Estuaries
Robert Biggs,
University of Delaware
Adjourn: 3:30 pm
------- |