BHARC-300/84/016b
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page No.
. i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 THE LOGIC OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION .
2.1 A DEFINITION ....
2.2 REASONS FOR COORDINATION .
2.3 PARTICIPANTS ....
2.4 LEVELS OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION
2.5 FORMS OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION
2.6 CONSTRAINTS ....
3.0 PRESENT COORDINATION OF WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
3.1 INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH
3.2 PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
3.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .
4.0 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVED COORDINATION .
4.1 INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH
4.2 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .
1
4
5
7
9
10
12
14
15
20
29
34
34
42
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
48
49
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 1s the second of two reports analyzing Institutional options for
the Improved management of water quality 1n Puget Sound. The first volume
examines options for improving the coordination of policy direction. The
present report examines options for improving the coordination of
investigation, research, and other activities.
For purposes of these reports, Puget Sound water quality management
is defined to reflect the stated objectives of the Federal Clean Water
Act. It encompasses all governmental decisions and actions concerning the
development and use of land and water resources of the Sound, including
the control of pollutant discharges, that could affect (1) the chemical,
physical, or biological Integrity of Puget Sound; (2) the propogation and
harvest of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in, on, or adjacent to the Sound;
(3) recreation in and on the sound; and (4) human health. Further, any
research or investigation that generates information relevant to these
matters is also considered part of Puget Sound water quality management,
even though such research or investigation might have other, more general
purposes as well.
Following an introduction, Chapter 2 describes an analytical
framework for developing and assessing approaches to activity
coordination. This chapter defines activity coordination as the capacity
of government agencies with capabilities to help address a particular
public policy problem to agree on the planning and conduct of their
activities and to keep each other apprised of the results. Chapter 2 also
-------
explores the reasons for activity coordination, the candidates for
participation, various levels and forms of coordination, and constraints
on Improvement.
Chapter 3 examines current Institutional arrangements for
coordinating water quality management activities on Puget Sound. First,
it describes the means of coordinating Investigation and research
activities. These Include the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Program, the State-EPA agreement, and a number of special-purpose
arrangements among various clusters of agencies. This examination
concludes that while EPA and WDOE coordinate their research and
Investigation activities satisfactorily with each other through the Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Program, coordination involving other
agencies needs improvement. Second, chapter 3 examines procedures for
coordinating permitting and environmental review. This examination
Includes brief reviews of general coordination procedures established by
statute: the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Environmental
Policy Act, the Environmental Coordination Procedures Act, the Energy
Facility Site Evaluation Council, and the Shoreline Management Act. In
addition, it briefly examines three particular permitting processes:
those for Section 301(h) waivers, Section 404 permits, and designation of
open water disposal sites. This examination concludes that permitting and
environmental review activities are generally well coordinated. Third,
the chapter examines the coordination of program implementation
activities—that is, the range of activities undertaken to address any
given priority problem. Such coordination at present occurs primarily
11
-------
through the SEA and through a variety of special-purpose mechanisms
applicable to particular program implementation activities.
Use of either the SEA or special purpose devices to coordinate
program implementation activities has its limitations. The SEA is not
sufficient to coordinate such activities because a number of agencies do
not participate, the SEA is extremely general, it is not appropriately
organized to coordinate similar activities performed to address different
problems, and as an annual negotiation it cannot facilitate coordination
day-to-day. When established, special-purpose mechanisms can fill these
gaps. But establishment of such arrangements requires intense interest on
the part of at least one agency and a willingness to cooperate on the part
of others. Absent these two conditions, necessary coordination may simply
not occur.
Chapter 4 identifies and examines several institutional options for
improving the coordination of investigation, research, and program
implementation activities. Options for improving the coordination of
investigation and research include the following:
1. Establishment of designated information offices in each agency.
2. Publication of research directories by each agency.
3. Establishment of a research clearinghouse.
4. Creation of an on-line data base.
5. Establishment of regular briefings on research plans and results.
6. Establishment of a research society.
7. Publication of research newsletters.
8. Establishment of an annual research agreement or memorandum of
understanding.
9. Transfer to EPA of budgetary control over all federal research
related to Puget Sound water quality.
iii
-------
The options for coordinating Investigation and research activities
are general-purpose, long-term arrangements Involving a fixed set of
agencies. In contrast, the need to coordinate program implementation
activities often arises in the context of specific problems of finite
duration. What is most often needed are simple means of getting a few key
participants together to plan activities, share information, and clear up
specific issues as they arise. The devices for coordinating such devices
are generally well-known. Chapter 4 presents a checklist. The reason for
poor coordination of program Implementation activities is generally not
ignorance of such options, but rather the unwillingness of one or more
agencies to act. Therefore, Chapter 4 closes with a brief discussion of
two possible "coordination-forcing devices:" a commission modeled on the
State Conservation Commission and statutory coordination procedures.
Chapter 5 concludes that each of the three main categories of
activities addressing Puget Sound water quality problems requires a
somewhat different approach to coordination. Permitting and environmental
review are generally well coordinated under existing statutory procedures
and informal relationships. Therefore no particular improvements seem
necessary at this time. Investigation and research activities suffer from
excessive isolation among the agencies with regard to their research
needs, plans, and results. Some significant change, such as the
establishment of a research clearinghouse, seems appropriate. With
respect to program implementation activities, the need for coordination
varies from program to program. Because such needs are highly particular
to the problem at hand, no all-embracing institutional fix seems
iv
-------
appropriate. Rather, program managers should make use of whatever limited
devices are appropriate to their particular needs. Consideration should
also be given to establishment of a coordination-forcing device.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This is the second of two reports analyzing institutional options for
the improved management of water quality in Puget Sound. For purposes of
these reports, Puget Sound water quality management is defined to reflect
the stated objectives of the Federal Clean Water Act. It encompasses all
governmental decisions and actions concerning the development and use of
land and water resources of the Sound, including the control of pollutant
discharges, that could affect (1) the chemical, physical, or biological
integrity of Puget Sound; (2) the propogation and harvest of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife in, on, or adjacent to the Sound; (3) recreation
in and on the sound; and (4) human health. Further, any research or
investigation that generates information relevant to these matters is also
considered part of Puget Sound water quality management, even though such
research or investigation might have other, more general purposes as well.
The first volume examines options for improving the coordination of
policy direction. The present report examines options for improving the
coordination of investigation, research, and other activities. The two
reports are intended to complement each other and should be read together,
preferably beginning with the initial volume on policy direction.
Similarly, the two sets of suggested options are complementary. If
adopted together, the options for improving policy direction and the
options for improving activity coordination should lead to more integrated
management of Puget Sound water quality. However, both sets of options
also have independent merit. Better coordination of activities can be
useful even if, perhaps especially if, policy direction remains somewhat
-------
fragmented. Therefore the two sets of options need not be adopted as a
f
package.
Like the first report, the present one relies on a combination of
theoretical and case study literature on implementation and interagency
coordination; existing descriptions of Puget Sound water quality
management institutions; previous analyses of regional water quality
management programs, both in the Sound and in other areas; official
documents; and discussions with involved officials.
This report is organized as follows:
Following this Introduction, Chapter 2 describes an analytical
framework for developing and assessing approaches to activity coordination.
Chapter 3 examines the mechanisms presently used to coordinate
several types of water quality management activities on Puget Sound:
investigation and research, permitting and environmental review, and
program implementation. For each type of activity, the various approaches
used for coordination are described, and then the overall coordination of
that activity Is evaluated.
Chapter 4 presents options for the improved coordination of each type
of activity. Each option is first described and then assessed in terms of
possible barriers to implementation and overall advantages and
disadvantages. Chapter 5 states conclusions.
-------
2.0 THE LOGIC OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION
As in the case of policy coordination, poor coordination of
activities is a recurring complaint about public programs. As involved
officials themselves are ap't to put it, each agency marches to a different
drummer; the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing; and so
on. Economists and policy analysts speak in terms of shortages,
surpluses, and delays, or a lack of cost-effectiveness in program
delivery. Whatever the formulation, the complaint is essentially the
same: government agencies could act more effectively by acting in
concert. Of course there is usually another side to such complaints,
sometimes stated, sometimes not. The separation of activities among
agencies itself serves a principle of efficiency: specialization based on
division of labor. Moreover, a certain amount of redundancy can be
effective in serving specialized needs and meeting peak demands. And as
with policy coordination, the constraints to coordinating agency
activities can be considerable. Like policy coordination, activity
coordination should not be viewed as an end in itself, but rather as a
response to particular needs.
This chapter develops a framework for identifying those situations in
which the coordination of agency activities may be particularly useful and
for developing options that address such needs. This framework is
parallel but not identical to that developed for policy coordination in
the companion report. It includes: (1) a definition of activity
coordination, (2) reasons for activity coordination, (3) types of
participants, (4) levels of coordination, (5) forms of coordination, and
(6) constraints.
-------
2.1 A DEFINITION
The companion volume to this report defines policy coordination as
the capacity of government agencies with responsibilities or interests in
a particular public policy problem to reach agreement on how that problem
should be addres'sed. It further identifies four stages of policy
formulation at which such agreement may be required: (1) in designating
priority issues; (2) in determining what information is necessary to
address each issue, through new research if necessary; (3) in developing a
strategy to address the Issue; and (4) in assessing the results of the
strategy once implemented. After decisions are made at these various
stages, they must be implemented through agency activities, as illustrated
1n Figure 2.1.
POLICY FORMULATION
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
IDENTIFY PRIORITY ISSUES
1
SUPPLY INFORMATION
DETERMINE INFORMATION AND
RESEARCH NEEDS
1
PERFORM RESEARCH
•5 DEVELOP STRATEGY
IMPLEMENT STRATEGY
AND MONITOR RESULTS
ASSESS RESULTS
FIGURE 2.1 Activities in Support of Policy
-------
Agencies must supply necessary information and perform research if needed;
implement the strategy selected for addressing a particular policy issue
(e.g., through a permitting program, through compliance actions, through
the siting, construction, and operation of facilities); and monitor
results. It is in the performance of such activities that the need for
coordination may arise. Specifically, activity coordination can be
defined as the capacity of government agencies with the capabilities to
help address a particular public policy problem to agree on the planning
and conduct of their activities and to keep each other apprised of the
results. Ideally, coordinated activities support coordinated policy, but
the coordination of activities can be useful in any event.
2.2 REASONS FOR COORDINATION
The need for agencies to coordinate their activities arises from the
very structure of government itself. The division of labor among various
agencies is typically imperfect. Gaps, overlaps, and ambiguities in the
assignment of activities are pervasive. Absent coordination of
activities, the collective performance of the various agencies in
addressing a particular problem may suffer as a consequence. In
particular, coordination may be needed for reasons of production
efficiency, sequencing, responsiveness to policy, or consistency.
Production Efficiencies
Government agencies are in certain respects akin to private sector
producers. The analogy is perhaps clearest for agencies operating
facilities or performing research but applies also to the "production" of
-------
permit decisions, enforcement actions, and other governmental outputs.
Subject to statutory assignments of responsibility and due process
obligations, production should occur as efficiently as possible: the
agency capable of doing each job adequately at least cost should be the
•
agency that does It. As a corollary, agencies should not duplicate each
other's activities unless there 1s a statutory requirement or other very
strong reason to do so. To allocate activities efficiently, and avoid
duplication, agencies need to coordinate.
Sequencing
Activities undertaken to address a particular problem often need to
follow a particular order. While some activities can be performed
simultaneously, and others can be accomplished at any time during some
period, still others absolutely must be completed before the next activity
can proceed—e.g., collection of data must precede interpretation of the
results. For complex projects, analysts often specify a "critical path"
through the project that establishes which activities must be completed
before subsequent activities can begin. In such Instances, scheduling fs
complicated enough when a single agency performs all the activities. When
several agencies are involved, they must agree on a common schedule and
keep each other informed of progress along the way. Otherwise,
intermediate outputs may not be ready when needed, leading to unnecessary
delays.
-------
Responsiveness to Policy
Often, an agency is charged with performing a particular activity in
accordance with policy set by another agency. Such policy can be
peripheral to the operating agency's own particular mission, interests,
and expertise. Therefore the two agencies need to reach agreement on how
the activity will be performed to ensure that it responds to policy needs.
Consistency
In many circumstances, neither efficiency nor policy requires that
agencies perform activities in any particular way, but only that the
activities are performed consistently across agencies or over time. Among
the agencies, consistency may be necessary so that the various activities
fit together~e.g., that data are gathered in the same format in which
they will be used. With respect to the outside world, consistency is
important for reasons of fairness. For example, it may be unreasonable to
require a permit applicant .to supply the identical information to two
different agencies in entirely different ways.
2.3 PARTICIPANTS
In most instances, the groups of agencies that may need to coordinate
their activities fall into one of three categories: agencies jointly
engaged in the same activity to address a particular problem, agencies
engaged in different activities to address the same problem, and agencies
engaged in the same activity to address different problems. The reasons
for coordination differ somewhat among these three groupings.
-------
Same Activities. Same Problem Area
In this situation, two or more agencies jointly perform the same
activity to address a given problem. For example, these agencies jointly
conduct an investigation, commission research, construct a facility or
Issue a permit. In such cases the need for coordination is generally
obvious, for reasons of production efficiency (to avoid gaps and overlaps
in the work), sequencing (to ensure each agency's contribution is ready on
time), and consistency (to ensure that the pieces fit together).
Different Activities, Same Problem Area
In this situation, each agency performs a different activity to
address the same problem. For example, one agency might collect data
pertinent to a problem, another agency might set standards based on the
analysis, and yet another might enforce compliance with the standards.
Again, these agencies may need to coordinate with each other to ensure
proper sequencing, avoid unnecessary gaps and overlaps in effort, and
operate with a consistent set of assumptions.
Same Activities. Different Problem Area
In this situation, a number of agencies perform similar activities to
address a different problem. For example, several localities might be
constructing similar facilities. Or each might be responsible for
enforcing a particular set of regulations in each of their respective
jurisdictions. In such cases, coordination primarily represents an
opportunity for sharing knowledge and other "factors of production" to
exploit economies of scale. If each agency is acting in response to a
-------
common policy, coordination may also be necessary to ensure consistency
and policy responsiveness.
2.4 LEVELS OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION
The possible levels of activity coordination are the same as the
levels of policy coordination: information sharing, consultation, shared
decisionmaking, and central control.
Information Sharing
Agencies can coordinate their activities simply by sharing
appropriate information about their needs, plans, and results in
addressing a particular problem. For activities that are simple and
non-controversial, information sharing probably works reasonably well.
For activities that are complex or contentious, information sharing alone
is at best a cumbersome way of making necessary mutual adjustments in the
planning and conduct of activities.
Consultation
For more complex problems, exchange of advice in a multi-party forum
is probably necessary to ensure that each agency understands which will do
what, where, when, and how in addressing the problem. Consultation is
also the minimum level of coordination capable of producing compromises
necessary when agencies disagree about how to proceed.
-------
Shared Decisionmaking
Infonnation sharing and consultation should work reasonably well when
all that 1s required to secure agreement on how a problem will be
addressed is each agency's know!edge of the other agency's plans and
needs. When there is significant disagreement about the appropriate way
to allocate responsibility and conduct activities, some form of shared
declsionmaking that binds all participants may be necessary to force
closure.
Central Control
When there is apt to be strong disagreement among agencies, central
control by one policymaking agency may be the only way to coordinate
activities. As in the case of policy coordination, however, central
control of agency activities 1s elusive in practice.
2.5 FORMS OF ACTIVITY COORDINATION
The possible forms of activity coordination are also the same as the
forms of policy coordinatio'n: ad hoc procedures, established procedures,
Interagency council, and super agency.
Ad Hoc Procedures
Ad hoc procedures are Informal means of coordination, such as
meetings, phone calls, exchanges of documents, or formation of a working
group, Initiated by one of the agencies. Such procedures are not
triggered by a deadline or other circumstances specified in advance. And
there are no fixed rules about how coordination will proceed. In contrast
10
-------
to policy coordination, the coordination of agency activities often lends
itself to the use of ad hoc procedures, for two reasons. First, at least
some of the participants often have an incentive to seek activity
coordination, so the fact that ad hoc procedures are not self-triggering
is not a defect. Second, in many instances, the need for coordination is
created by a one-of-a-kind problem. An ad hoc effort may be the only way
to coordinate the activities surrounding it.
Established Procedures
On the other hand, certain types of problems recur with great
regularity. Permitting and environmental review are prime examples. For
such problems, both efficiency and consistency argue for a set of
established coordination procedures that are automatically invoked when
certain conditions are met (e.g., the filing of a permit application) and
operate according to fixed rules. Established procedures can also
facilitate coordination of certain problems on an ad hoc basis—e.g., a
regular procedure for creating an ad hoc working group.
Interagency Council
An Interagency council consists of representatives of various
agencies that meet either regularly or in response to prescribed
circumstances or both. Such a council provides a somewhat more formal
means than established procedures for coordinating activities to address a
recurring problem, such as the processing of permit applications. It may
be the most natural vehicle for shared decisionmaking on such matters. An
Interagency council may also be a useful arrangement for information
11
-------
sharing and consultation with respect to problems that are not yet
well-defined and should be explored in wider ranging discussions. In
order for an interagency council to be effective, its members must have a
clear interest in sharing information, consulting, or reaching
decisions—otherwise the council will devolve into a pointless discussion
group.
Super Agency
A super agency consolidates into a single organization all agencies
(or subunits of agencies) performing a set of related activities.
Consideration should be given to creation of a super agency when the need
for close coordination is high, the individual agencies resist
coordination, and central control of separate agencies is otherwise
Impossible to achieve. However, such reorganizations are appropriate in
only the most drastic situations.
2.6 CONSTRAINTS
"Like all large organizations, government agencies prefer to act
autonomously if at all possible. Typically, the agency's conception of
how best to perform its dominant missions lies deeply embedded in its
personnel system, budgetary process, and organizational culture. Most
agencies are extremely reluctant to adjust internal priorities or
procedures to suit the needs of another organization. As a corollary,
they are also reluctant to undertake shared operations. When directed to
do so, agencies tend to negotiate treaties with the other organizations
involved so that each can operate Independently. Efforts to improve the
12
-------
coordination of activities among several agencies must overcome these
tendencies by offering substantial incentives to induce participation.
13
-------
3.0 PRESENT COORDINATION OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
As described in the companion report on policy direction, a number of
federal, state, and local agencies have missions related to the management
of Puget Sound water quality. These include: EPA and the Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) (general regulatory responsibility for water
quality protection), the Corps of Engineers (permitting of construction
and dredging), the Food and Drug Administration (seafood contamination),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (research), the U.S.
Coast Guard (permitting of construction, oil spill monitoring and
clean-up), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (habitat protection and
endangered species), the Washington Department of Fisheries (fisheries
resources, Including aquaculture), the Washington Department of Game
(fisheries resources), the Washington Department of Natural Resources
(lands management and aquaculture), the Washington Department of Social
and Health Services (public health protection, shellfish bed
certification), tribal governments (fisheries resources), cities and
counties (sewage treatment, land and shoreline use, public health
protection), metropolitan municipal corporations (pollution abatement,
sewage treatment), and port districts (harbor development).
For almost any given water quality management problem, several
agencies are engaged in activities that may help address it. For reasons
of efficiency, sequencing, policy responsiveness, and consistency, some
coordination of these activities Is often desirable. But at present,
coordination of water quality management activities is highly uneven.
Some types of activities are reasonably well coordinated. Others are not.
14
-------
This chapter describes and evaluates the present means of
coordinating several broad categories of water quality management
activities: investigation and research, permitting and environmental
review (both generally and with respect to Section 301(h) waivers,
Section 404 permits, and designation of open water disposal sites); and
program implementation.
3.1 INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH
Investigation and research activities support water quality
management by providing crucial information on the sources and impacts of
pollution, 1n terms of both site specific data and underlying biological,
physical, and chemical processes. Investigation and research results
assist policymakers in identifying and defining a particular problem, in
determining the need for yet additional information, and in designing
sensible regulatory or other strategies for addressing the problem. Those
agencies producing the investigation and research need to coordinate with
regulatory and other policymaking agencies to ensure that the research
actually addresses the policy problem and will be available on time and in
usable form. Researchers also need to coordinate among themselves so that
they provide information efficiently and consistently.
The coordination of research pertinent to the management of Puget
Sound water quality occurs in a number of ways. The Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Program provides a focal point for coordination of
relevant research and investigation among EPA, WDOE, and DSHS. Other
state agencies and local governments must rely on the State-EPA Agreement
or on miscellaneous, special purpose arrangements for coordination with
15
-------
EPA, WDOE, or among themselves. Coordination with NOAA, a major producer
of relevant research results often intended for broader purposes than
Puget Sound water quality management, occurs through NOAA's dissemination
of research plans and results and through other internal means.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program
As described in the companion report on policy coordination, the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program is an evolving, largely
informal collaboration among EPA Region 10, WDOE, and DSHS. Subject to
direction by a Steering Committee consisting of senior managers from the
three agencies, staff from EPA and WDOE assigned to support the Program
identify priority issues and then commission research and investigation
aimed at achieving a better understanding of those issues.
To date, the Program has identified four key issues: bacterial
contamination of shellfish beds; toxic contamination of urban/industrial
embayments; longer term, cumulative effects of pollutant loadings on Puget
Sound; and the overall structure for managing Puget Sound water quality.
The Program has assembled about $1,000,000 in budgetary resources (mostly
from EPA Headquarters and the allocation of general state funds and
federal grants by WDOE), which it has used to commission a set of research
projects addressing these issues.
The Program appears to provide a very sharp focus for coordinating
the investigation and research activities of EPA and WDOE that pertain to
Puget Sound water quality. Program staff have also worked informally with
research program personnel in other agencies such as NOAA to foster better
fit between their activities and the Program's. There have been some
16
-------
major success stories on this score: simultaneous samplings, joint
studies, and the like. But as presently constituted the Program does not
yet provide a means of regular, systematic coordination with the other
agencies.
Other State and Local Agencies
The state agencies that do not participate in the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Program, as well as local agencies, must rely for
coordination of research either on the State-EPA Agreement or on various
special-purpose arrangements.
State-EPA Agreement. As described in the companion report on policy
direction, the State-EPA Agreement (SEA) is a non-binding contract
negotiated annually between EPA Region 10 and the State of Washington, as
represented by WDOE, DSHS, and the Washington Department of Agriculture.
The main agreement designates about a dozen "priority environmental
problems," of which Puget Sound water quality is one. The more detailed
Water Quality Program Management Document, appended to the SEA along with
Program Documents for other media, describes supporting activities and the
agencies that will perform them. The 1984 Program Document identifies
research commitments undertaken in support of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Program described above. For each of three priority
issues—bacteriological contamination of shellfish beds, toxic
contamination of urban/industrial embayments, and cumulative effects—the
SEA lists several specific investigations, the period of performance,
responsible agencies, WDOE staffing, and source of funds. The responsible
agencies include EPA, WDOE, and several counties.
17
-------
Thus the SEA provides a "memorial" of the year's Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Program activities. As a vehicle for operationalizing
these research commitments and publicizing agency responsibilities, it
appears to be somewhat useful. But it is incomplete in several respects.
First, other federal agencies—in particular NOAA—are not part of the SEA
process. NOAA is in fact conducting research that will help address one
or more of the three priority issues, but this research is not coordinated
through the SEA because NOAA is not a party to the Agreement. Second,
state agencies (other than VIDOE and OSHS) and local agencies are not full
participants either. The SEA does not give these agencies a voice in the
selection or design of research activities by EPA or WDOE, much less
NOAA. Third, the SEA is an annual, planning document. As presently
negotiated, it does not provide a mechanism for sharing results and
adjusting research activities during the course of the year.
Miscellaneous. Special-Purpose Arrangements
Clusters of agencies have periodically developed arrangements to
coordinate research and investigation pertinent to a particular water
quality program area. One example is the advisory committee assembled in
connection with WDOE's Shellfish Protection Strategy. Prior to the
formation of this committee, WDOE and DSHS coordinated fairly closely, but
DNR and DF (which manage the beds) felt that they were excluded from the
process and that their interests were not being taken into account. With
formation of the advisory committee, which includes representatives from
WDOE, DF, DNR, DSHS, the shellfish growers, and the planning and health
departments of Pierce and Thurston counties, coordination has improved.
18
-------
In particular, the committee has facilitated agreement on selection of
shellfish bedding areas for intensive water quality surveys.
Another example of research coordination concerns the several "catch
and consumption" studies being conducted around the Sound. The initial
study was done by the Pierce County Health Department. It sought to
determine what public health risks (if any) derive from the consumption of
contaminated fish and shellfish caught by sport fishermen in Commencement
Bay. WDOE then funded a similar, $30,000 one-year study by DSHS with a
broader geographic focus. While the DSHS work was underway, NOAA funded
an even larger $200,000, two-year study in the same subject area, to be
conducted by University of Washington researchers. All three studies
employ a similar survey instrument, which asks fishermen on docks around
the Sound how often they fish and the quantity of fish they consume. At
the working level, DSHS and UW researchers have cooperated in using
similar survey instruments, assigning geographic areas to survey (albeit
with some overlap), and entering the results into a common data base. In
initiating the projects, however, DSHS and NOAA did not jointly decide on
the need for such work, the total level of resources appropriate, or the
allocation of responsibilities. Such coordination at the front-end
probably would have resulted in a more efficient use of scarce research
dollars.
In short, coordination of research and investigation outside the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program and the SEA occurs either
serendipitously (as in the case of the shellfish protection strategy) or
incompletely (as in the case of the catch and consumption survey). No
19
-------
mechanism regularly leads the agencies to confront the issue of whether
coordination is necessary in a particular instance.
As a major sponsor and producer of research concerning chemical,
physical, and biological properties of the Sound and man's impact on them,
NOAA stands in a unique position. This work largely derives from NOAA's
broad, national mission and the location of major NOAA facilities in
Seattle, rather than from any specific Puget Sound-related mission. But
because of this work, NOAA has much to contribute to the understanding of
those agencies directly responsible for water quality management.
There Is some perception within these other agencies that they and
NOAA do not work as closely together in planning, conducting, and
interpreting such research as they constructively could. For their part,
NOAA officials note that they have issued an annual research plan since
1974; that they share basic information with-other agencies, such as lists
of ongoing studies and areas of interests; and that they have published
upward of 100 research reports in bulk for broad distribution..
These ongoing efforts, plus the new NOAA Sandpoint Center, which is
intended to maintain an "integrated awareness of NOAA involvement in Puget
Sound," and WDOE's new research project tracking system, create the
potential for close coordination. But centrifugal forces are powerful.
Additional effort by individual officials in each agency may be needed to
achieve close collaboration in practice.
3.2 PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of permits and the review of proposed projects to assess
their environmental impacts are major activities for most of the agencies
20
-------
Involved in Puget Sound water quality management. For any given
application or project, one agency often has the direct responsibility for
ruling on the permit application or issuing the environmental review. In
this case, the lead agency needs to coordinate with other agencies having
an interest in the application or projecl to ensure that their views are
taken into account. In other instances, each agency may be responsible
for considering the proposal independently—for example, by ruling
separately on a series of permits. In this case, coordination is
necessary to ensure that each agency's ruling is responsive to overall
policy and treats the proposal consistently.
General Coordination Procedures
At present, there are five general sets of interagency procedures for
the coordination of permitting and environmental review of proposed
projects with potential environmental impacts on Puget Sound. They are
the National Environmental Policy Act's EIS process, the State
Environmental Policy Act's similar process, the Environmental Coordination
Procedures Act's master permit process,.the Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council, and the Shoreline Management permit procedures.
National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) in connection with any federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. In this context
federal action includes both the developmental activities of federal
agencies (e.g., dredging by the Corps of Engineers) and federal regulatory
approval of non-federal activities (e.g., issuance of a construction
21
-------
permit by the U.S. Coast Guard). If either type of action may cause
significant environmental impacts, an EIS 1s required. Under the Council
on Environmental Quality's NEPA Guidelines, the preparation of an EIS in
connection with an action affecting several agencies is supervised by a
lead agency, with the participation of the other affected ("cooperating")
agencies. Such participation, including preparation of analyses on
matters in which the agency has particular expertise, as well as review
work done by the other agencies, Is a principal vehicle for coordination
among federal agencies with respect to a federally sponsored or approved
project's potential effects on Puget Sound water quality.
State Environmental Policy Act. The State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) is Washington's version of NEPA, requiring preparation of an
environmental impact statement in connection with state or local
2
government actions having significant environmental effects. As
interpreted judicially, SEPA applies both to government-sponsored projects
and to most other projects requiring state or local government permits,
except for construction of a single dwelling unit. Just as NEPA
facilitates coordination among federal agencies, SEPA is a vehicle for
state agency coordination. Each draft EIS is filed with the Washington
Department of Ecology, which then circulates it to all affected agencies
for review and comments, which are Incorporated into the final statement.
The EIS and previous comments can then be used by reviewing agencies when
the project sponsor subsequently applies for necessary state and local
permits.
Environmental Coordination Procedures. A second set of established
procedures that enables state agencies to coordinate their processing of
22
-------
permits for a given project 1s the master permit process created by the
Environmental Coordination Procedures Act of 1973. Before applying for
permits, the developer of a project can first meet with the Natural
Resources Coordination Council, chaired by the Director of WDOE, and also
including the directors of DF, DG, DNR, and several other agencies. Often
problems can be identified and addressed in this forum before the
developer proceeds with formal permit applications. At its discretion,
the applicant can also invoke the master permit process itself by first
obtaining any necessary local permits and then submitting a single
application for all state permits to DOE. The Department next circulates
the application to all affected agencies and conducts a joint public
hearing. The choice as to issuing or not issuing individual permits,
however, rests with each issuing agency. Closely linked to the state's
master permit process is the Environmental Permit and Management Tracking
System (EPMATS), a computerized system of permit registration and tracking
that enables agencies and applicants to determine the status of any given
permit.
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Construction of an energy
facility in Washington State, including electrical generating facilities
and oil and natural gas pipelines, must receive approval from the state's
A
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Represented on the Council
are the state and local agencies whose individual approval would otherwise
be required. Instead of approving the facility separately, however, the
Council's members review the application for compliance with applicable
state law, hold hearings, and collectively pass on the application. If
the Council's decision is favorable, it recommends certification by the
23
-------
Governor, with whom the final decision rests. Among other things, EFSEC
is responsible for ensuring the equivalent of compliance with SEPA through
environmental analysis by an independent consultant. Unlike coordination
under SEPA itself or under the Environmental Coordination Procedures Act,
EFSEC is a vehicle for collective decisionmaklng with binding authority
that supersedes the authority of all state and local agencies that might
otherwise individually impose requirements on the construction of an
energy facility.
Shoreline Management. The fifth statutory mechanism for interagency
coordination is that established by the Shoreline Management Act of
1971. The Act governs most nonresident!al uses of submerged lands,
tidelands, and shorelands within 200 feet of the shoreline. Coordination
occurs at several points 1n the Act's implementation. Initially, city and
county governments prepare a shoreline master program, in essence a land
use plan. WDOE receives the draft program, solicits comments from federal
and state agencies, and then approves or disapproves the program. This
shoreline master program development phase is now substantially complete.
The city or county then administers its plan by requiring substantial
development permits for each proposed shoreline development. Following a
hearing and the local government's decision, the Department of Ecology,
the Attorney General, the applicant or any affected party may appeal to
the Shorelines Hearings Board. The 6-member board consists of 3 members
from the Pollution Control Board, 1 representative from the Commissioner
of Public Lands, 1 representative from the Association of Washington
Cities, and 1 representative from the Washington Association of Counties.
Hearings Board decisions in turn may be appealed to the courts.
24
-------
Summary. These five sets of established procedures for the
coordination of permitting and environmental review generally function
reasonably well. Project proponents still claim that too many permits are
required, that processing the applications takes too long, and that
agencies sometimes adopt mutually inconsistent positions. But given the
diverse statutory responsibilities of the permitting agencies, the system
seems about as well-coordinated as can reasonably be expected.
Section 301(h) Waivers6
The federal Clean Water Act generally requires publicly owned sewage
treatment works (POTWs) to provide for the application of the "best
practicable waste treatment technology," which has been defined as
secondary treatment. However, Section 301(h) of the Act allows POTWs
discharging into marine and estuarine waters to obtain a waiver of this
requirement from EPA if the state concurs and the applicant can meet
certain criteria. In Washington, 22 units of local government, all
discharging into the Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca, have applied for
31 Section 301(h) waivers.
Before issuing a waiver, EPA must obtain the concurrence of
Washington State, which is based on review by WDOE. In particular, WDOE
determines whether issuance of the waiver would be consistent with water
quality standards and the state's coastal zone management plan, and also
whether any other discharger would have to increase treatment. EPA also
seeks review by the regional offices of the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Washington Department of
25
-------
Fisheries and the Washington Department of Game comment on the application
with regard to possible impacts on fisheries resources.
If the proposal entails new construction, for example by change of
outfall location, still other agencies participate. The Washington
Departments of Fish and Game would have to issue a hydraulic project
approval; the Washington Department of Natural Resources might raise its
rent for use of the submerged lands; the Corps of Engineers would
determine whether navigation or anchorage would be substantially impaired;
and the cognizant unit of local government would have to issue a shoreline
substantial development permit. Because SEPA applies, an EIS might be
required.
Processing of the Section 301(h) waiver applications has just begun,
with EPA having sent only the first application to WDOE for
certification. At present WDOE is"constrained by legal uncertainty
concerning its authority to waive secondary treatment under Washington
State law. Therefore, it is too early to assess the coordination of
Section 301(h) waiver processing in practice. Because the review process
is well-defined, there is little reason to anticipate major problems.
However, there is some indication that some of the state agencies such as
DNR would have preferred to participate earlier.
Section 404 Permits8
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows disposal of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States only in compliance with a permit
q
from the Army Corps of Engineers. Disposal of such material is common
on Puget Sound. As in the case of Section 301(h) waivers, the
26
-------
responsibilities and Interests of a number of agencies are Implicated in
the issuance of Section 404 permits.
As Issuer of the permit, the Corps of Engineers serves as lead
agency, and as such coordinates the review process with other agencies.
EPA provides general review for compliance with Clean Water Act
standards. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service review applications for compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. WDOE reviews applications to ensure compliance with water
quality standards and consistency with the coastal zone management plan.
In addition WDOE sends applications to other state agencies for their
review, and takes their comments into account in deciding whether to
support the application. These agencies include the Departments of
Fisheries, Game, Natural Resources, Social and Health Services, and
Transportation, as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Hydraulic project
approval must be obtained from the Departments of Fisheries and Game.
Other agencies may only state objections for consideration by WDOE.
Upon issuance of the Section 404 permit by the Corps, lease of the
disposal site itself must be obtained from the Washington Department of
Natural Resources. In addition, a shoreline substantial development
permit must be obtained from the local unit of government with
jurisdiction over the disposal area.
While Section 404 permitting appears to run fairly smoothly,
coordination could be improved in at least two respects. First, reviewing
agencies sometimes need more information than the Corps requires from
applicants about the materials proposed for disposal. Either the
27
-------
additional Information must be obtained from the applicant, causing delay,
or the permit must be processed using less than complete Information. The
Corps and the other agencies may need to reach agreement on expanding the
range of required Information In Initial permit applications. Second,
local shoreline management permitting may be unduly cumbersome and
dupHcatlve of parts of the Section 404 process Itself. The federal and
state agencies, together with city and county governments, may need to
develop a more streamlined process that eliminates unnecessary overlaps.
Designation of Open Water Disposal Sites
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Is responsible
for managing the submerged lands of Puget Sound. As part of this
responsibility, WDNR selects, establishes, and manages sites In the Sound
for open water disposal of material dredged under Section 404 permits.
Because this activity impinges on the interests of several other agencies,
WDNR coordinates closely with them.
The principal vehicle for this coordination is the Open Water
Disposal Site Evaluation Committee, chaired by WDNR. The Committee's
other members represent four federal and three state agencies: the Corps
of Engineers, Seattle District; EPA Region 10; the National Marine
Fisheries Service; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Washington
Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, and Game. The Committee serves as an
interagency council through which WDNR seeks consultation on the
designation of open water disposal sites.
The ultimate decision on designation of sites rests with WDNR.
However, WDNR must obtain two approvals before it can make use of such a
28
-------
site. Specifically, 1t must obtain a shoreline substantial development
permit from the local government with jurisdiction over the area, subject
to review by the Shorelands Division of WDOE. And it must secure a
hydraulic project approval from the Department of Fisheries or Game.
The process for disposal site designation appears to function
•
reasonably well in expeditiously designating sites and taking diverse
agency perspectives into account. However, this process of designating
sites operates in some Isolation from the Section 404 disposal permitting
process. As a result, all disposal sites are open to disposal of all
materials for which a permit is obtained. From a water quality
standpoint, a more effective approach might be to designate particular
sites as suitable for particular materials. But this approach would
require greater integration between the site designation process and the
permitting process.
3.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Program implementation refers to the entire range of activities
undertaken to address a priority water quality problem area. Consider for
example one such problem area Identified in the 1984 State-EPA Agreement,
Commencement Bay. Activities planned or underway include monitoring,
NPDES permitting, implementation of an Industrial pretreatment program,
compliance inspections, issuance of enforcement orders, Superfund
planning, and implementation of nonpoint source controls. Similar arrays
of program implementation activities are undertaken to address other
priority problems around the Sound. The need for the agencies performing
29
-------
these activities to coordinate with each other may arise In any of the
three situations described 1n Section 2.3 above.
The first situation occurs when different agencies are jointly
engaged 1n the same activity to address a given problem. For example,
WDOE and local government are Implementing nonpoint source controls for
•
Commencement Bay. Such agencies need to coordinate with each other to
ensure that the various localities' controls are responsive to WDOE's
Urban Runoff Management Plan and other guidance and are mutually
consistent with each other. There may also be production efficiencies in
sharing information if one locality has developed experience that others
can use.
The second situation occurs when different agencies are engaged in
different activities to address a given problem. For example, WDOE
monitors ambient water quality while EPA promulgates effluent guidelines.
Such agencies need to coordinate with each other to exploit production
efficiencies (e.g., In obtaining pertinent information about the problem),
to ensure that activities are performed in the proper sequence (e.g.,
inspections must precede enforcement), and to establish consistency
between activities (e.g., between monitoring criteria and effluent
guidelines).
The third situation occurs when different agencies are engaged in the
same activity to address a different problem area. For example, while
Commencement Bay area localities are implementing nonpoint source
controls, so are localities in other priority problem areas, such as the
Duwamish River. Such agencies can perform these activities more
efficiently by sharing their knowledge and perhaps other resources with
30
-------
each other. They also need to coordinate their activities with EPA and
WDOE to ensure consistency and policy responsiveness.
At present, the State-EPA Agreement is the main established procedure
for consultation among agencies to coordinate such program implementation
activities. The SEA's Water Quality Management Program Plan sets out in •
tabular form the agencies responsible for performing each program activity
or task, and sometimes specifies a schedule as well. The SEA provides a
useful framework for joint planning of program implementation activities.
But as in the case of investigation and research, it is lacking in several
respects as mechanism for coordinating these activities.
First, a number of federal agencies do not participate in the SEA at
all: in particular NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Coast Guard.
State and local agencies other than WDOE and DSHS do participate to a
limited degree but not as full parties to the SEA itself. Therefore the
SEA cannot serve to secure agreement on the planning and conduct of
activities involving these excluded agencies.
Second, the SEA is an extremely spare document. It allocates
responsibilities for activities and schedules a few key dates, but it does
not facilitate coordination at any but the most general level of detail.
Third, because of the way the SEA is organized—by problem,
subdivided by activity—the SEA does not necessarily assist in the
coordination of agencies performing similar activities to address
different problems, such as the localities that are developing nonpoint
pollution control strategies for their respective jurisdictions. Only to
the extent that such activities are supported by federal grants under
31
-------
Clean Water Act Sections 106, 205(j), or 208 does the SEA process serve to
allocate resources among them, and thus in a limited way, coordinate them.
Fourth, because negotiation of the SEA is an annual planning
exercise, it cannot assist in the day-to-day coordination of the conduct
of activities as they proceed.
In short, the State-EPA Agreement provides a useful core of activity
coordination on which to build. But additional measures may be useful in
filling some of these gaps. Not surprisingly, therefore, the agencies
have devised a variety of special-purpose mechanisms to coordinate
particular program Implementation activities. One example 1s the ad hoc
coordination that occurs among the agencies involved in Superfund
activities pertaining to Commencement Bay: WDOE, EPA, and the Tacoma-
Pierce County Health Departments. Except for some differences with EPA
Headquarters over scheduling and emphasis on remedial action, this group
has functioned fairly smoothly—all the more so since an EPAA^DOE
agreement explicitly delegated leadership of the project to WDOE. Certain
tasks, such as community relations, are specifically delegated to the
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
A second example is an informal understanding between DSHS and WDOE
concerning the Impact of sewage treatment plants on shellfish beds. DSHS
will comment on the WDOE design manual for sewage treatment plants, now
undergoing Its biennial revision. DSHS and WDOE will then jointly review
the comments and explore ways of mitigating impacts on shellfish.
Yet a third example is an interagency advisory committee on geoduck
management. When the geoduck beds were discovered a decade and a half
ago, they had been inadvertently contaminated by municipal discharge. DF,
32
-------
which became responsible for managing the clams themselves, lacked
regulatory power to address this problem. Therefore it sought the
cooperation of DNR, which has jurisdiction over the beds, as well as WDOE
and DSHS. DF's initiative eventually led to formation of an interagency
advisory committee and the contamination has been minimized.
Still a fourth example concerns shoreline permitting for
aquaculture. DF and DNR together concluded that such permits had become
unreasonably difficult to obtain. They approached WDOE, the lead state
agency for shoreline management, which agreed to amend its regulations to
allow greater cultivation. WDOE also called on local authorities to amend
their regulations to conform with the new state policy. In addition, WDOE
granted funds to DNR and DF to revise and publish management plans for
aquaculture.
Establishment of such special-purpose coordination mechanisms seems
to require a combination of intense interest on the part of at least one
agency and at least a willingness to cooperate on the part of others.
Absent these two conditions, necessary coordination may simply not occur.
Instances cited by officials interviewed for this report include dredge
spoils management (where the agencies reportedly lack available staff to
coordinate) and shoreline permitting (where state interest in resources
development conflicts with local interest in preserving views). In such
instances, some action-forcing device may be necessary if coordination is
to occur.
33
-------
4.0 OPTIONS FOR IMPROVED COORDINATION
Coordination of permitting and environmental review activities now
appears relatively effective. Coordination of investigation, research,
»
and program implementation activities seems somewhat less satisfactory.
Accordingly, this chapter concentrates on examining options to improve the
coordination of these latter categories of activities.
4.1 INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH
As discussed in Section 3.1, EPA and WDOE coordinate their research
and Investigation activities with considerable effectiveness through the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program. Beyond this cooperation,
however, the coordination of research suffers in several important
respects. First, while the SEA plays a constructive role in coordinating
the planning of research among EPA, WDOE, and the state agencies, these
other agencies do not participate actively enough in the SEA process to
have a great deal of influence on research priorities. Second, the SEA
itself does not provide a means for sharing research results among these
agencies. Third, there is no established mechanism for coordinating
research plans and disseminating results among the various agencies. Each
of the options examined here 1s aimed at addressing one or more of these
deficiencies. Each option is briefly described, any major barriers to
implementation noted, and overall advantages and disadvantages stated.
34
-------
Establishment of Designated Information Offices
Each agency performing or sponsoring investigation or research could
designate an office or individual as responsible for providing research
information to other agencies, as is done by the WDOE/EPA project-tracking
system. This office would maintain an index of all research projects*
proposed, completed, or underway; a compilation of work statements and
project schedules; interim drafts; and final reports. Any of this
information could be made available to other agencies on request, if
necessary at a fee to cover retrieval and copying costs.
Implementation Barriers. The main difficulty is inducing the
participation of agencies whose main interest lies in conducting their own
research and which care little about what others are doing.
Evaluation. Designation of such offices is probably the simplest way
of enabling each agency to be informed about disseminating the results,
even in exchange for better knowledge of the other agencies' research
plans and results. Of course such information sharing does not directly
facilitate joint planning of research. But it allows each agency to take
advantage of what the others are doing, and to make adjustments in its own
research plans accordingly.
Publication of Research Directories
A further step would be the regular publication of research
directories by each agency, as was done by the Oceanographic Commission.
Directories would list all projects proposed, underway, or completed;
briefly describe the scope of work; state the period of performance; and
identify the principal staff member responsible for directing the
35
-------
project. A more ambitious version could also contain abstracts of
results. Each agency's directory would be distributed to all other
agencies involved in water quality management.
Implementation Barriers. The added costs of publishing and
V
distributing such directories at close enough intervals to be useful
(perhaps every six months) would make them a more expensive proposition
than designated information offices. Participation might be
correspondingly more difficult to elicit.
Evaluation. Directories would probably be more useful than
designated offices to most agencies wanting to stay abreast of other
agencies' research, because the directories would reduce the need to make
individual inquiries.
Establishment of a Research Clearinghouse
A more comprehensive means of sharing information would be to
establish a research clearinghouse. Such a clearinghouse would function
as a new office within one of the existing agencies, probably WDOE, EPA,
or NOAA. It would regularly obtain from each agency lists of proposed,
ongoing, and completed research projects; work scopes and schedules;
interim drafts; and final reports. The clearinghouse would publish an
integrated directory on the model of the single-agency directories
suggested as option 2, indexed by agency, subject, and author. It would
also maintain a library of draft and final reports, available to other
agencies on request. In addition, it might create specialized data bases
using the various research results.
36
-------
Implementation Barriers. A clearinghouse could not replace the
efforts of Individual agencies to compile Information on their own
research. Indeed It would be heavily dependent on just such efforts. The
challenge again would be to elicit the necessary cooperation. One might
also expect a "dog in the manger phenomenon:" each agency may be
reluctant to take on this function itself, because of the added
administrative and economic burden; but each agency may also oppose
assignment of the clearinghouse role to another agency, for fear of losing
control or Influence.
Evaluation. Such a clearinghouse would provide the most
comprehensive means of sharing information about research. It could be
correspondingly expensive.
Creation of an On-line Data Base
As an additional, ambitious feature, the research clearinghouse could
maintain an on-line data base. Such a data base could take either of two
forms. In one version, it could simply be a computerized edition of the
comprehensive directory, complete with search routines for use by each
agency via Its own computer terminal. In another version, clearinghouse
personnel might extract research results and integrate across projects to
create data files on particular subjects of concern such as the impacts of
specific pollutants. Again each agency would have access.
Implementation Barriers. In principle, an on-line data base should
be no more difficult to implement than establishment of a non-computerized
clearinghouse. Similarly, 1t would face the same barriers: the
reluctance of each agency to take on the mission itself or agree to its
37
-------
assignment elsewhere, the unwillingness of agencies to share costs, and
their desire to control Information about their own research plans and
results, especially Interim results.
Evaluation. Such a system could be made extremely convenient and
useful, but cost Is potentially a major constraint, especially sharing
costs among the agencies.
Establishment of Regular Briefings on Research Plans and Results
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program, each of the three
NOAA subunits, and any other Interested federal or state agencies could
meet regularly to brief each other on research plans and results. Such
briefings could be held monthly, or perhaps quarterly. Each agency would
make formal presentations of research plans, interim results of ongoing
projects, and final results of completed projects. Questions and answers
would follow.
Imp!ementation Barriers. As with the other options, the possible
reluctance of the agencies to participate would be the main Implementation
barrier. Even if agreement on participation could be secured in
principle, ensuring that each agency devoted the necessary attention to
provide complete and detailed presentations could be an additional
difficulty.
Evaluation. Regular briefings could be extremely valuable, possibly
even more so than research directories or clearinghouses in that they
would encourage face-to-face contact and exchange of ideas.
38
-------
Establishment of a Research Society .
Another option for improved information sharing is the creation of a
Puget Sound Water Quality Research Society. The Society could be
sponsored by EPA, NOAA, and WDOE to provide a forum for the exchange of
information among the scientific community on Puget Sound. It might be
funded as a Sea Grant project. Current interaction among scientists and
researchers is limited to specific projects or attempts to solve current
problems; the Society would provide the opportunity for discussion and
sharing of data across a wider range of concerns.
Implementation Barriers. To promote the free exchange of ideas, such
a research society should be kept institutionally separate from any of the
sponsoring agencies. Such independence might also be an attraction for
the sponsoring agencies' participation. But some means would have to be
devised to impart a sense of urgency to the enterprise.
Evaluation. A Puget Sound Research Society would be a useful
supplement to the options suggested for coordinating agency research
activities. While as an extra-governmental body, it would not be a
substitute for interagency mechanisms, it could help create a sense of
shared purpose among individual officials and researchers and thus
facilitate the establishment of such mechanisms.
Publication of Research Newsletters
Newsletters also offer a vehicle for the sharing of information about
water quality-related research on the Sound. The Puget Sound Research
Society could publish a newsletter as a supplement to its meetings. Other
newsletters might be organized by agency, or around a specific set of
39
-------
research concerns. Newsletters could disseminate information about
research plans in a livelier and more detailed fashion than research
directories. In the case of newsletters edited by staff from several
agencies, the process of publication itself could stimulate interchange.
Implementation Barriers. The main difficulty in publishing
newsletters 1s obtaining the necessary resources; both dollars and
personnel are short. If participation from enough different agencies
could be secured, the cost to each individual agency might be reasonable;
but the agencies are notoriously reluctant to pool resources.
Evaluation. Like a research society, newsletters would not
substitute for more direct forms of coordination, but newsletters would
help create a shared understanding of work underway.
Establishment of an Annual Agreement with NOAA
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program could negotiate an
annual agreement or memorandum of understanding with NOAA and its
subunits, Identifying research projects and expected results pertinent to
Puget Sound water quality. Modeled on the .SEA, this agreement could be
negotiated by Program staff and ratified by the Steering Committee.
Alternatively, such an agreement could be negotiated by WDOE on behalf of
the state.
Implementation Barriers. The major difficulty in establishing such
an annual process would be in Inducing the agencies to participate.
Autonomy in the allocation of research resources is a very powerful
organizational norm. Participation might be obtained in exchange for a
greater level of research resources, but not necessarily: most agencies
40
-------
prefer autonomy in allocating their budget, even at the cost of a smaller
budget. Moreover, bigger budgets seem unlikely for the foreseeable
future. Participation could be required by statute or executive order,
but obtaining such legislation would itself be difficult. And the process
is unlikely to work well unless the agencies are willing, preferably
enthusiastic, participants.
Evaluation. An annual agreement would probably be the best means for
the efficient allocation of research resources among the agencies. But it
would not directly facilitate the sharing of research results. And it
would be difficult to implement.
Designation of EPA as Allocator of All Federal Research Related to Puget
Souna Water Quality
At least in logic, greater coherence could be imposed on federal
research activities if EPA were to control all investigation, research,
and projects related to Puget Sound water quality. For example, EPA could
be assigned the power of budgetary approval for such activities. Or water
quality-related functions of the other federal agencies could be merged
into EPA.
Implementation Barriers. In fact such forms of control would be
extremely difficult to implement. The divergent Congressional committee
jurisdiction over the various agencies alone would effectively foreclose
the necessary legislation. Moreover, even if statutory authority could be
obtained, the non-parallel internal organization of EPA and the other
agencies would greatly complicate any such effort—e.g., EPA's regional
organization versus NOAA's different, limited regional structure.
41
-------
Evaluation. If central allocation could be implemented, it would go
far toward more rational expenditure of federal research funds related to
Puget Sound water quality. But this option would be very difficult to
implement. Moreover, while it could rationalize water quality-related
research it could tend to skew resources away from research related-to
resource protection and enhancement.
4.2 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
For purposes of coordination, program implementation activities
differ from research and investigation activities. The agencies that
perform research and the agencies that use research results are well
known. The need for coordination among them is general and stable over
time. Thus the options for coordinating research and investigation
activities presented in Section 4.1 are general-purpose, long-term
arrangements, involving a fixed set of agencies. In contrast, the need to
coordinate program implementation activities often arises in the context
of numerous, specific problems. Any one problem may Involve only a small
subset of the agencies. And often it will have a limited duration. As a
consequence, the creation of formal institutions to coordinate such
activities Is generally Inappropriate. They will quickly atrophy because
they are not workable. What is most often needed are simple means of
getting a few key participants together to plan activities, share
Information, and clear up specific issues as they arise.
The devices for coordinating activities in this fashion are generally
well-known. Some examples were presented in Section 3.3 above. As a
checklist, a number of the more common devices are presented in the
42
-------
sections that follow, grouped accordingly to the three situations giving
rist to the need for coordination discussed 1n Section 3.3. All of these
options assume a shared interest on the part of the involved agencies in
Improving the coordination of program activities. As suggested in
Section 3.3, however, the reason for poor coordination is not ignorance of
appropriate mechanisms, but the unwillingness of one or more agency to
act. Realistically, little can be done to force unwilling agencies to get
together. But consideration should perhaps be given to establishing
procedural devices that raise the cost of noncooperation. Options of this
sort are in the fourth section below.
Agencies Performing the Same Activity to Address the Same Problem Area
Sometimes two or more agencies are jointly engaged in a particular
activity to address a given problem, as when EPA and the City of Tacoma
together implement an industrial pretreatment program to control
industrial discharges to Tacoma's sewage treatment plant. Generally the
need for coordination in this situtation is so obvious and the
relationship of involved personnel so close that formal coordination
procedures are unnecessary. For especially lengthy, large, or complex
projects, however, the following options should be considered.
Clearly designate a project leader from each agency. Designation of
one individual who can speak authoritatively for his or her agency with
respect to a particular project is extremely useful. Together these
individuals can constitute an informal project committee that can consult
as necessary to iron out specific problems. Designation of project
43
-------
leaders seems to be done fairly routinely, but the presumption should be
universal.
Negotiate memorandum of understanding. For large, complex, or
lengthy projects a simple document specifying operating assumptions,
setting a schedule, and allocating responsibilities would be useful. For
agencies that have not worked together in the past, negotiation of such an
agreement is a good way of familiarizing themselves with each other. For
agencies that do work closely together, such an agreement can reveal
differences that might be overlooked by the tendency to take certain
assumptions for granted. Such MOUs should be updated regularly to take
account of new information and revised plans.
Hold regular meetings. Regular meetings between involved personnel,
even without a fixed agenda, can provide a useful means of sharing
perspectives on the project that might not otherwise surface in day-to-day
contacts. Because such meetings can become pointless if there is really
no need to share information, the group should regularly determine whether
it should continue.
Agencies Performing Different Activities to Address the Same Problem Area
Two or more agencies may also be engaged in different activities to
address the same problem, as when Metro monitors ambient water quality
while WDOE and localities implement nonpoint source controls. In such
instances the agencies may have less opportunity to coordinate informally,
despite the benefits of doing so. Therefore, one or more of the following
options may be especially useful.
44
-------
Establish problem area plans. All agencies performing activities to
address a particular problem could agree on a joint plan, to be revised
annually or at another regular interval. Such a plan would constitute a
much more detailed statement of schedules and responsibilities than those
typically contained in the SEA Water Quality Program Management document.
Publish an activities report. EPA or WDOE could publish a monthly
report of all activities underway to address the problem. If kept brief
and informal, such a report can be informative and useful without
absorbing undue resources or becoming an end in itself.
Establish an interagency committee. For the limited purpose of
coordinating activities that address a particular problem, an interagency
committee can be useful. It should be kept as lean as possible, with no
staff assigned specifically to the committee and informal procedures.
General information sharing meetings can be held, but meetings designed to
foster decisions on a particular issue are preferable.
Agencies Performing the Same Activity to Address Different Problem Areas
Several agencies may be independently engaged in the same activity to
address different problem areas, as when a number of cities develop
nonpoint source control programs. Coordination of such activities is
particularly unlikely to happen fortuitously. Any of the following
options could be helpful.
Establish an interagency committee. Such agencies, perhaps with EPA
or WDOE acting as a catalyst could form a group that meets regularly to
discuss their respective experiences and address problems of mutual
concern.
45
-------
Publish a newsletter. As an alternative, such a group of agencies
could jointly publish a newsletter to keep themselves informed of each
other's activities.
Action-Forcing Devices •
Attempts to establish a means of coordination when one or more
agencies opposes it ordinarily fail. However, when an agency is merely
indifferent or mildly unenthusiastic, procedural devices may perhaps be
used to faciliate coordination. Two possible options in this regard, both
requiring legislation, are establishment of a water quality coordination
commission and creation of statutory procedures to invoke rights of
coordination.
Establish a-commission. A Puget Sound water quality coordination
commission could be established along the lines of the State Conservation
Commission. It would consist of three independent commissioners appointed
by the Governor and, ex officio, the directors of all state agencies
involved in Puget Sound water quality management. Upon petition from any
state or local agency, the commission would determine the need for
coordination with respect to a particular set of activities. Upon an
affirmative finding, the commission would determine which agencies should
participate and direct each to designate a staff member to serve on a
coordinating committee. The committee would be required to report to the
commission on specific steps agreed to by the committee's members to
address the coordination problem stated in the petition. The danger of
such a system would be over-bureaucratization of situations calling for
simplicity and flexibility. But such an approach could be tried
46
-------
experimentally for a short period of time—I.e., the legislation could
have a prompt sunset provision—and then extended If shown to be effective.
Create statutory procedures. Similar procedures could be created
without establishing a separate commission to oversee their
Implementation. Instead, that could be done by a standing committee of
agency directors. Such a committee would be easier and cheaper to
establish, but might be more reluctant to impose formation of coordinating
committees than would an independent commission.
47
-------
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Each of the three main categories of activities addressing Puget
Sound water quality problems requires a somewhat different approach to
coordination. Permitting and environmental review are generally well
coordinated under existing statutory procedures and informal
relationships. Therefore no particular improvements seem necessary at
this time. Investigation and research activities suffer from excessive
isolation among the agencies concerning research needs, plans, and
results. Some significant change, such as the establishment of a research
clearinghouse, therefore seems appropriate. With respect to program
Implementation activities, the need for coordination varies from program
to program. Because such needs are highly particular to the problem at
hand, no all-embracing institutional fix 1s appropriate. Rather, program
managers should make use of whatever limited devices are appropriate to
the problem at hand. Consideration should be given to establishment of a
statutory coordination-forcing device, perhaps on an experimental basis.
48
-------
REFERENCES
1. 42 U.S.C. sees. 4321-4361.
2. Wash. Rev. Code sees. 43.21C.010-43.21C.914.
3. Wash. Rev. Code. sees. 90.62.010-90.62.908.
4. Wash. Rev. Code. sees. 80.50.010-80.50.902.
5. Wash. Rev. Code. sees. 90.58.010-90.58.930.
6. This discussion relies heavily on JRB Associates, Evaluation of Five
Regulatory Decision-Making Processes Affecting PugeT Sound's Water
Quality (1983). Ch. 3.
7. 33 U.S.C. sec. 1311.
8. This discussion relies heavily on JRB Associates, Ch. 4.
9. 33 U.S.C. sec. 1344.
10. This discussion relies heavily on JRB Associates, Ch. 6.
49
-------
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Steve Martin (Commencement Bay permits)
Fred Weinman (works with, suggested by Martin)
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Tom El well
Glen Fielder
Carol Fleskes
Jim Krull
Bob Monn
Dan Petke
Bob Saunders
Chris Smith
Greg Sorlie
Joan Thomas
Phil Miller
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Gary O'Neal
John Underwood
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Russ Cahill
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Dave Jamison
Craig Partridge
Steve Til ley
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
Floyd Frost
Ken Merry
Jim Pluntze
METRO
John Lampe
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Chen, NMFS
Howard Harris, MESA
OREGON WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
Chris Wheeler
PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Derek Sandison
Dr. Bud Nicola
50
-------
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Pete Beaulleu
ASSOCIATION OF CITIES
Chuck Mize
SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Dr. Clarice Hyatt
TACOMA (City)
Mike Price
TACOMA (Port)
Gary Kuczinski
51
------- |