OWOW FY92
National Program Meeting
May S - 7,1992
Washington, DC
Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Table of Contents
About the Meeting 1
Welcome 1
Keynote Address.............................................———.»».»«.«».»..—«—......... 2
Regional Customer Survey 5
Regional Comments and Suggestions 5
Program-Specific Highlights/Comments 5
Keynote Speaker 8
Watershed and Ecosystem Protection 12
Sharing of Common Program Goals 15
OWEC 15
OST 15
OGWDW 17
Watershed Protection Approach 18
Agriculture and the Environment 18
Keynote Speech 19
Panel Discussion 21
Stormwater / NPS / CZARA Strategic Integration 27
OWOW Staff Meeting Session..— 31
Wrap-up Session[[[ 34
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Participants
2. Agenda
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
About the Meeting
Welcome
Bob Wayland
The Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW)
FY92 National Program Meeting was held May 5-7,1992 in
Washington, D.C. This was the second meeting of OWOW
program divisions and Regional counterparts since the
Office of Water reorganization in April 1991 (see Attachment
1 for the list of participants). The meeting consisted of two
distinct phases: (1) Joint Sessions and (2) Divisional
Sessions. The Joint Sessions (see Attachment 2 for agenda)
provided a chance for OWOW-wide discussions on topics
that were important to all participants. The Divisional
Sessions provided an opportunity for OWOW Division
Directors, along with their Branch Chiefs and Regional
program managers, to discuss specific program issues and
plans for the upcoming year.
Bob Wayland, OWOW Director, opened the meeting by
highlighting its importance and objectives. He emphasized
" the Office's need to evaluate its customers and allies. He also
discussed the importance of putting the "E" back in EPA by
revitalizing the goal of ensuring ecological protection.
Bob indicated that the featured topic of the meeting would be
agriculture and its impact on the environment, particularly
in terms of nonpoint source pollution, or "wet-weather
runoff." Many agricultural industrialists are good stewards
in their area, and can shed light on this increasingly
important aspect of water pollution.
Meeting Objectives Specific objectives of the meeting were to:
• Review the results of the OWOW Customer Survey, and
provide an opportunity for the Regions to comment;
• Discuss program-specific issues;
• Share a future vision of OWOW programs, and look at
the programs as more than the sum of the parts;
• Provide an opportunity for all program managers to be
heard;
• Establish and maintain good Regional relationships; and
• Discuss both new and ongoing OW initiatives.
Bob introduced Lajuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water (OW). Bob pointed out Lajuana's
contribution to EPA's role in the Exxon Valdez settlement as
an example of her active leadership in OW and her desire to
confront controversial issues directly.
Page 1
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Keynote Address Lajuana discussed the current status of OW along with
LaJuana Wilcher existing and upcoming issues in OWOW. She stressed the
Assistant Administrator importance of integration resulting from bringing together
for Water OWOW divisions into one office.
Lajuana's presentation focused on the significance of
interconnections in the environment. This discussion
served as a natural precursor to the keynote speech
concerning the watershed approach to environmental
protection. She quoted John Muir, who stated, "When we
try to pick anything out, we find it hitched to everything else
in the universe." This should be the motto for how OW and
the rest of EPA does its work.
In the field of environmental protection, connections
abound. Lajuana proceeded with a few examples. All
waters, living resources, and humans, she stressed, are
interdependent. Forty percent of surface water comes from
ground water. Water quality parallels water quantity — there
is an intrinsic connection. Realizing the importance of
protecting watersheds by using a holistic approach will
greatly help OW achieve its goals in the new year.
Needs for OWOW/OW Lajuana outlined three primary needs for OWOW and OW:
1. Identify Progress. Barriers, and Opportunities
By making a realistic appraisal of progress, barriers, and
opportunities within a watershed, EPA can create a better
foundation of understanding upon which to make decisions.
Historically, programs driven by "priority pollutants" tended
to obscure important information about where multiple
sources and pollutants assault an ecosystem, and impaired
our ability to see the locally critical source, pollutant, or
impacted resource.
2. Develop Partnerships
Involving the appropriate players in policy formulation and
program implementation decisions helps build trust and
broaden perspective. EPA must continue to cooperate and
share information with interested parties in order to leam
more about potential solutions and impacts.
3. Integrate Programs and Goals with the Public Sense
Working together, especially with the general public, to
identify problems and potential actions will help create a
common vision for the future. This vision will help EPA
define goals and objectives and measure success.
Page 2
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Given these needs, EPA should continue to strive for the
four basic goals it has set for the Watershed Protection
Approach:
• Work in selected areas to demonstrate the watershed
protection approach (i.e., lead by example);
• Integrate Federal and State programs to support
watershed protection;
• Promote a broad understanding of watershed protection;
and
• Continue to provide new tools and training and measure
success.
Lajuana also complimented OWOW on some particularly
noteworthy events, including:
• Recent uses of the ANDERSON to help implement
Studds Superfund assessment requirements, make key
discoveries, and advance technologies such as sonar and
underwater video;
• The release of a much improved 305(b) Report;
• The efforts of Region n and the Marine Pollution Control
Branch at HQ in implementing the Ocean Dumping Act
requirements;
• The management of Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) guidance development; and
• Continuing commitment, from both staff and the Agency
Administration, to the wetlands program, including field
investigations, creative wetland action strategies, and
public outreach (e.g., American Wetlands Month).
Overview Lajuana concluded her presentation by emphasizing the
tremendous progress that the Office of Water has made from
20 years ago. Conservation requires the proper blend of
ecological development and ecological protection; however,
development and land use do not equate with waste or
robbery. We need real world answers in a short time. As
columnist and World Resources Institute staff member
Jessica Mathews recently wrote, protecting the environment
can lead to protecting the economy; they are by no means
incongruous. We have great power and influence over our
future and that of our children. In order to exercise these
capabilities properly, we must keep in mind that "all things
are connected."
Page 3
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Questions Lajuarva made the following points in response to questions:
• The Administrator will probably not take a position on
the Clean Water Act (CWA) reauthorization this year.
Even so, it needs only minor modifications. The Agency
is trying to determine the best balance of costs and
protection. Other issues are more important to the
American public right now. In a recent poll, only 15% of
the nation put environment in the upper tier of
priorities; the economy ranks first.
• The postponement in the CWA reauthorization will give
the Agency more time to prepare and capitalize on some
existing opportunities. EPA needs creative ideas in order
to be bold (e.g., trading programs, market-based
incentives, risk-based approaches to ecological
protection).
• When asked about the greatest threat to the future, 53%
of American citizens responded that the environment
was a major problem. Also, 89% of those polled consider
themselves environmentalists (a great improvement
from previous decades), but 11% remain reluctant to
prioritize environmental protection — those groups are
very powerful.
• In addition to continuing partnerships with more
traditional agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, we
should broaden our constituency by approaching groups
like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, gaming industry
representatives, and others. Programs like Coastal
America and Partners in Right are excellent examples of
such attempts.
• Headquarters will continue to provide significant GIS
support. OWOW is receiving an increasing flow of
requests for data management money and is trying to
facilitate an integrated system for the Great Lakes
Program (GLNPO), the Gulf of Mexico Program
(GOMEX), and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
• The FY93 budget process for OW is not going well so far;
the only improvements since April 1989 are in the area of
construction grants. The allocations to OAR/OPTS are
about twice the size of those to OW. We need to raise
budget concerns, especially FTEs. The FY94 budget
hearing recently held on the Hill was a genuine
budgeting process due to Regional input; it is a high
priority in OW this year.
Page 4
-------
Regional Customer
Survey
Regions/Louise Wise
Regional Comments and
Suggestions
Program-Specific
Highlights/Comments
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Louise Wise, Director of OWOW's Policy and
Communications Staff, presented the results of the OWOW
FY92 Customer Survey. She noted that all the Regions
participated except Region V and that there was less
involvement from Environmental Services Divisions.
Overall, the survey indicated that OWOW had improved in
nearly every category since FY91. The "OWOW-Wide
Average Rankings by Service," on the other hand, indicated
that there is room for improvement.
The only area of significant decline was that of legislative
strategies and Congressional liaison. A copy of the survey
questionnaire, results, and comments and suggestions was
included in the meeting notebooks.
Communications: General improvement - OWOW has listened
and been responsive to Regional needs and suggestions.
Organization: Structure is sound and roles and responsibilities are
generally clear. Some concerns with great waterbody programs.
Planning and Budgeting: Could still make improvements on an
integrated budget.
Program Agendas: Improvements in engaging Regions in these
discussions - keep it up.
Legislation: Regions still have concerns. Re: CWA effort and
wetlands.
Enlisting Assistance of Others: Need to focus particularly on
other agencies.
National Meetings: Good work! Generally well planned and
facilitated, responsive to Regional comments.
Conference Calls: All three Divisions have responded - these are
very useful for information exchange.
Informational Materials: Good informational packages from
OWOW and better distribution. Legislative updates must be
continued.
Regional Reviews: Three have been completed thus far — and
were well planned — but could have been more focused on issues
of Regional concern.
Requests for Comment: Improvements in comment periods.
Budget Planning and Funding Processes
Money is there faster
Still need to be more proactive in budget planning
319 travel money is a significant issue with respect to the
ability to oversee projects
403 budget decisions should be made sooner
NEP money distribution has been well balanced between
accountability and flexibility
Page 5
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
• Need direction from HQ on prioritization for spending
FTE/monitoring resources
• To Regions, $25K in contract expenditures is a lot of
money
• For AWPD programs (e.g., Clean Lakes, NFS), it is hard to
know what kind of money to access; there is also less
money for the watershed protection initiative (since
much of the monitoring money went away, we could
reinvest in other areas)
• Need more money for watershed protection to establish
infrastructure
• We need to ensure a good balance of Regional and HQ
accountability
• Although much OW money has been redirected to
OWOW, we should leverage Regional budget decisions
with ORD and others
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
• PCS has opportunities to improve, including the addition
of a staff liaison person
• OW should get on the ASIWFCA mailing list
• The Legislative Affairs Office is holding more regular
calls with Regional counterparts
• OW can be much more proactive
• Regions want to be more involved in strategy
formulation and information input; need more
information on implications of each legislative action
• Many state questions are difficult to answer without
more info from HQ
• Send Regions only what would be useful — don't just
inundate with paper; the states, environmental groups,
and the public often know more than Regional staff;
heads-up insights are vital to a better partnership
• Need to be alert about turnover in Congress — freshmen
will be inexperienced. CWA bill would risk Wetlands
this year; we should start thinking about strategies for the
1993-94 Congress.
National Tools
• No sense of efficient ways of communicating
spontaneous needs which arise (e.g.,
watershed/engineering needs)
• Need more NPS/403 guidance
• Need less NEP guidance
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Enlisting Assistance
• Positive interaction with NOAA, especially in
NEP/NCW
• Need more NPDES help in coastal municipalities
Technology Transfer and Outreach
• Need more of it, especially with NEPs
• Rave reviews for Nonpoint Source News Notes
m Need more focused strategy to overcome fragmentation
of target communities
Overall Administration
• Improvements in working relationships and other areas
General
• Need to work with other groups (e.g., OST, OWEC) on
state issues
• States would rather build things internally rather than
hiring and training contractors who will not be around in
the future
• States would rather build in-house than have EPA do the
work
Value of Survey
• Some anomalous comments
• There are drawbacks to preserving Regional anonymity -
hard to test comments; we can get candor and negative
feedback without using a contractor; we need more basis
for bar scores
• Survey should be more narrative (less win/lose), and
more discussion of solutions
• Be more program specific - categories are too broad
• Might get better results through a questionnaire process -
bigger audience because it's less resource intensive — in
combination with focus groups
• Facilitates communication within the Regions
• OWOW should be applauded for conducting the survey
and receiving criticism
Page 7
-------
Keynote Speaker
Margot Garcia
Water Quality 2000
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Margot Garcia, the keynote speaker, discussed the need for
the Water Quality 2000 program. Despite progress in the past
two decades, she explained, U.S. water quality goals are still
not being met. 1972 approaches may not be adequate to
address 1992 problems. The current system for establishing
water quality policies and setting priorities is characterized by
conflict between competing interests and a traditional focus
on short-term and single media concerns. The vision we
should keep in mind is "Society living in harmony with
healthy natural systems." The key elements of that vision
are that it:
• Views water as part of a total management plan
• Links water quality, land use, and economics
• Recognizes global links
The Mission Statement (Adopted May 1989)
Representing a broad range of interests in America, Water
Quality 2000 proposes and promotes national policies and
goals for the 21st century that will protect and enhance water
quality, with a specific agenda for action.
Water Quality 2000 Participation
• Collaboration of approximately 80 groups
• Membership provides different perspectives
— 20% industrial/private sector interest
— 20% environmental groups
— 15% federal agencies (non voting members)
— 10% academic/research organizations
— 10% state governments
— 10% local governments
- 15% professional/technical societies
Four Phases of Water Quality 2000
1. Feasibility and Plan Development
2. Problem Identification
3. Development of Recommendations
4. Implementation
Page 8
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Key Concepts of Phase 1
1. Broad representation
2. Long range, visionary and holistic perspectives
3. Maximum consensus on "national principles"
4. Balanced view of surface, ground, and atmospheric water
5. Avoidance of cross-media problem transfer (solutions of
one problem (e.g., land) should not create a problem in
another area (e.g., water))
6. Water quality and land use are linked, a critical fact that is
often not recognized
Problem identification was achieved by ten workgroups
composed of 150 water quality experts. The workgroup
topics were agriculture, aquatic ecosystems and habitat,
community, energy and resource extraction, industry,
legislation, recreation, transportation, watershed, and water
supply. At the end of Phase 2, the workgroups produced an
Interim Report which identifies:
1. water quality conditions today
2. root causes of water quality problems
3. impediments to water quality solutions
4. water quality challenges for the future
Water Quality Conditions Today
While significant progress has been made, the national goal
of "fishable, swimmable" waters has not been attained in
many areas. Data gaps and inadequate monitoring make it
difficult to draw clear conclusions about progress. Nonpoint
sources (runoff from agricultural, urban, and other lands)
are now the predominant cause of impairment in surface
waters. Impairment results from current activities and past
practices. Sources of impairment include agricultural
pollutants, community wastewater, deposition of
atmospheric contaminants, industrial pollutants, land
alteration, stocking and harvest of aquatic species,
transportation, urban runoff, and water projects.
Root causes of water quality problems are attributed to:
how we live
how we produce and consume
how we farm
how we transport people and goods
how we plan
how we have acted in the past
Page 9
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
As the report states, "Focusing attention on these societal
causes of water quality problems is essential if we are to
articulate long-term solutions in which societal goals are
compatible with clean water."
Impediments to improving water quality include:
1. Narrowly focused water policy
2. Institutional conflicts
3. Legislative and regulatory overlaps, conflicts, gaps
4. Insufficient funding and incentives for water quality
improvement
5. Inadequate attention to the need for trained personnel
6. Limitation of research and development
7. Inadequate public commitment to water resource quality
Challenges to WQ 2000 consist of a combination of goals,
current conditions, causes, and impediments.
Technical/environmental challenges
• controlling runoff from urban and rural lands
• focusing on toxic constituents
• protecting aquatic ecosystems
• protecting ground water
• providing safe drinking water
Policy/cross-cutting challenges
preventing pollution
coping with multi-media pollution
increasing scientific understanding of water quality issues
promoting wise use of resources
setting priorities
managing growth and development
financing water resource improvements
Approach to Phase 3
Recommendations were developed by setting up challenge
groups to consider cross-cutting issues:
1. providing safe drinking water
2. protecting aquatic ecosystems
3. controlling urban and rural runoff
4. protecting ground water
5. focusing on toxic constituents
Page 1O
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
The challenge groups submitted 117 "solution statements".
After grouping the solutions, the steering committee
reviewed solutions one-by-one. (Groupings are consistent
with the major headers in Chapter HI) As a result, 26
accepted as is, 94 edited, and 7 rejected. In the end, 17
solutions were written by the steering committee.
The Phase 3 Report distilled solutions in Chapter 2. The
major thrust of the report calls for a new water policy of total
resource protection based on three principles:
• Multimedia, multi-sectoral pollution prevention.
• Watershed-based planning and management must be
sensitive to the hydroshed unit. Evaluating a national
system is a problem with the watershed approach. Plans
must define spatial boundaries, involve the public, and
address point and nonpoint sources of pollution in an
organized way. Primary benefits of watershed protection
are increased accountability and management for
environmental results.
• Individual and collective responsibility — product
stewardship in industry leads to voluntary substitution of
products to capitalize on market forces that focus on
environment.
For ground water protection, we must call on Congress to
create a new management institution to go beyond state
boundaries. Local plans reflect unique characteristics. We
must take an ecosystematic approach to incorporate land and
air issues.
Actions ensure individual responsibility in education,
government, trade, and financial institutions. Regulation is
necessary to be fair to all. The goal is to develop and
implement an integrated policy for the nation to protect and
enhance the water quality that supports a society living in
harmony with healthy natural systems.
Implementation modes:
legislation
regulation and enforcement
funding and incentives
research and development
education and pubic awareness
basic societal change
Page 11
-------
Watershed and
Ecosystem
Protection
Gregory Low
The Nature Conservancy
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Implementation actors:
federal government
states
local government
private sector
academia
news media
individuals
Major financial contributors:
Water Environment Federation
U.S. EPA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
George Gund Foundation
Johnson Foundation
Water Quality 2000 Member Organizations
Plans for document:
1. Ratify by organization
2. Lobby to Congress
3. Report should be widely read and discussed
Gregory Low, Vice President of Program Development for
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), presented some innovative
approaches taken by his, organization toward protecting
watersheds and ecosystems. He emphasized TNC's desire to
share its work in protecting the biosphere reserve and its
ideas on how TNC and EPA can form solid partnerships.
Greg added that TNC, 40 years old, is the largest conservation
organization in the U.S. with 650,000 members and offices in
48 states.
There has been a consistent mission throughout the life of
the organization. TNC was formed by scientists concerned
about habitat loss in order to protect the "living museum of
primeval America." 1975 was the first time that "preserving
biodiversity" was specifically stated as part of its mission.
The primary conservation tool was direct identification,
acquisition, and management of critical habitats. Partners
include state and local governments, and environmental
organizations.
Page 12
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
A turning point in organizational thinking came with the
realization that saving biological islands was not enough, as
threats and outside forces infiltrate protected areas. The
source of all problems is not restricted to land, but includes
water as well. The mission of preserving biodiversity was
revisited and, as a result, a new three-part concept for
dealing with the sources of problems and threats emerged:
1. Engage in protection efforts
2. Look at the whole ecosystem
3. Think about large threats
TNC began by protecting small 200-acre plots of land, but is
now protecting large naturally functioning ecosystems.
Approximately 40-60 large scale projects resulted from the
new initiative to protect the whole landscape and biosphere.
Especially in regards to protecting water quality, the missions
of TNC and EPA have converged. Seventy-five percent of
projects involve protecting significant aquatic systems (large
watersheds). Examples include: Florida Keys, Eastern Shore
of Virginia. Poconos Plateau, Cobs Cook Bay in Maine, the
Great Lakes, Big Darby in Ohio, Cash River in Southern
Illinois, Edwards aquifer in Texas, Upper Colorado River
Basin, and Horselick Creek in Kentucky.
Greg also explained TNC's approach to protecting
watersheds. He stated that there are "Five S's" which
characterize the plan for protection. Those are:
1. Systems that comprise the geographic area (including
components of the system, components of species,
common conservation requirements, and stresses)
2. Stresses on the system (e.g., nutrient enrichment,
massive petroleum input)
3. Sources of stress. Isolate stresses. Focus on sources of a
single stress and perform a risk analysis. (TNC has
identified 27 sources; the primary source is high density
development)
4. Strategies to address threats. Each stress requires its own
strategy:
- Improve public policy (regulation)
— Demonstrate the "right kinds" of uses
— Direct outreach — build long-term community
support
5. Success of protection efforts. Determining success
requires long term measurement of the biosphere and
conservation. The Good Zoning Ordinance (Virginia
Coast Reserve Project) is an example. "Down zoned"
community is synonymous with protecting the quality of
life. In a city with approximately 15,000 residents, poor
Page 13
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
neighborhoods were included in areas targeted for
protection. An affordable housing project — which had
the support of the farm bureau, the NAACP, the local
community, and other groups — was part of the plan.
Greg concluded his discussion by outlining ways in which
TNC and EPA can come together:
1. Get to know staff.
2. When identifying priority watersheds, urge EPA not to
look for poor examples which are the most degraded, but
to look for good examples to use as models of success.
3. Share knowledge.
4. Actively strive for partnerships and joint projects.
5. Leverage resources — TNC has (1) the ability to get
private resources in the form of matching funds and (2)
the flexibility of a private non-governmental body.
Questions
Greg made the following points in response to questions
from Headquarters and Regional staff:
Q: How was work on the Virginia Coastal Reserve project
received by the state government agencies?
A: Partners in the project included the Division of Parks and
Recreation and Fish and Game. There is no history of
cooperation with the Water Quality Control Board
because historically water was not a focus in our mission.
Q: What is the role of water quantity?
A: Water quantity supports the importance of doing a stress
analysis. The best example is along a river corridor.
When you look at a river system, you examine the flood
pattern (i.e., when, how much). The volume of flow is
an important requirement for preservation.
Q: What future roles will TNC play in "restoration"
activity?
A: TNC doesn't look at it as a mitigation strategy, but rather
from a site bioreserve perspective. Restoration works
well with simple systems.
Q: How significantly do you consider economics? Many
system approaches address economic issues.
A: Yes, we are in the economic and social development
business. Threats have economic and social forces
driving them.
Q: Has the "Five S's" approach been applied to urban areas?
A: It is certainly possible to think globally. So far, we
haven't considered the urban level.
Page 14
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Sharing of Common
Program Goals
Mike Cook
Tudor Davies
Ramona Trovato
OWEC
Mike Cook
OST
Tudor Davies
Mike Cook (OWEC), Tudor Davies (OST), and Ramona
Trovato (OGWDW), offered their perceptions of ways in
which the various offices within OW can all share common
program goals effectively.
Mike Cook highlighted OWEC's approaches to sharing
common program goals:
• Within the framework for the watershed initiative,
provide a series of requirements for pretreatment.
• Capitalize on results made from enforcement efforts and
the permitting process.
• Seek help in communicating various problems.
• Seek ways to improve outside relationships.
• Develop tools to protect the watershed (this requires a
different set of priorities).
High profile activities in OST have included:
• Great Lakes Initiative
• Contaminated Sediment Strategy
• National Toxics Rule
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Great Lakes Initiative
The Great Lakes Initiative is required by the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act of 1990. It provides EPA guidance for
minimum water quality standards, antidegradation, and
implementation procedures in the Great Lakes System.
States must adopt standards consistent with the guidance
within two years. The Initiative contains major innovations
in science and policy. Examples include:
• Tier D criteria
• Wildlife criteria
• Focus on bioaccumulative chemicals
• Strict antidegradation procedures
• Uniform TMDL procedures
In December 1991, the 8 Great Lakes states approved the
guidance for EPA to propose in the Federal Register. OW
has more than sixty people in Headquarters and the Regions
developing preamble and regulatory language. A proposal is
scheduled to be published in the Federal Register in
September 1992.
Page 15
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Current issues include:
• Implementation and antidegradation guidance focuses
primarily on point sources; separate subsequent proposal
for nonpoint sources
• Economic costs and benefits need to be analyzed
• Degree of support within Great Lakes States
• Potential for application elsewhere in the United States
Contaminated Sediment Strategy
The overall goals of the strategy include:
1. Prevent future contamination of sediments
2. Manage existing sediment contamination using:
• pollution prevention
• source controls
• natural recovery (where appropriate)
• remediation of high-risk areas
Recent and ongoing activities include:
• Administrator briefed in February 1992
• "Proposal for Discussion" distributed to over 1000
groups /individuals representing environmental
agencies/groups, industry, and consultants in March 1992
• Public forums held on extent and severity, building
alliances, and public awareness
Next St<
9/92
11/92
12/92
4/92
FY94
»ps
Revise outline/develop complete draft strategy
Agency red border review
OMB review
Proposed in Federal Register
Final strategy
National Toxics Rule
The rule is currently being reviewed by OMB. There is a
pending lawsuit to force publication of the final rule. It
contains numeric criteria for 98 toxic pollutants (91 human
health, 30 aquatic life). The criteria are applied to State
adopted use classifications (including wetlands). Dioxin is
included in the rule. The risk level is 10~6 unless the State
establishes a level of 10"5. It was drafted under CWA §303
(c)(2)(B), which requires States to adopt numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants. There are 126 priority toxic
pollutants. Significantly, this is the first time that Congress
Page 16
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
explicitly directed States to address specific pollutants by a
specified deadline. EPA has taken action by promulgating
water quality criteria for all priority toxic pollutants (the
most significant promulgation action in the program's
history). The goal is to set standards for pollution control
programs to protect human health and ecology.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDD/WLA
CWA §303(d) establishes the TMDL process to provide more
stringent water quality-based controls when technology-
based controls are inadequate. Responsibilities for the TMDL
program are shared between OWOW (programmatic) and
OST (technical support).
Stronger technical guidance is needed for the TMDL process,
as well as more screening level models for TMDL estimates.
Existing models are difficult to use and require considerable
data input. Few existing models work on a watershed scale.
The Exposure Assessment Branch is developing in-house
TMDL modeling capability and user-friendly interfaces for
difficult-to-use models (SWMM). It is also investigating the
potential to develop a screening level, watershed-based
model for TMDL use. OST is also planning a technical
guidance document for the TMDL process.
Improvements in the technical side of the TMDL process
will complement OWOW's programmatic TMDL goals.
Continued coordination between the Exposure Assessment
Branch and the Watershed Branch will help maintain
consistency in the guidance and a well working program.
OGWDW Substituting for Jim Elder, Ramona outlined some of the key
Ramona Trovato focuses of OGWDW:
1. CSGW Protection Program
The strategy was developed last year with a focus on
ecosystems. The approach is similar to the Watershed
Protection Approach (i.e., identify area, sources of
contamination, and solutions). Currently, OGWDW is
writing national guidance on how to implement the
program.
This program has a narrower focus. There are currently
about 20 approved programs. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for nonpoint sources are important to ground
water. There is a recognition that you can not separate
Page 17
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
ground water and surface water protection efforts (e.g.,
don't want to shift pollution from surface water to
ground water).
3. Drinking Water
As of December 31,1992, EPA will have 72 chemicals and
55 organic compounds in the public water supply (PWS)
to monitor every five years.
Watershed In these breakout sessions, participants had the opportunity
Protection Approach to choose from one of the following four areas of discussion
Louise Wise pertaining to the watershed protection approach:
Agriculture and the
Environment:
An Introduction
Dave Davis
• Integrating targeting schemes
• Developing and implementing integrated action plans
• Funding flexibility
• Measurement and monitoring
Each breakout group focused on the following questions:
• What is happening now?
• What needs to happen?
• How do we make it happen (what/who)?
See Attachment 3 for a more detailed description of each
breakout session.
Dave Davis, Deputy Director of OWOW, introduced Bill
Richards, Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, by
highlighting the cross-cutting issues involved in the
agriculture industry and the field of ecological protection:
• Agriculture is the founding sector of the economy.
• Within EPA, it is one of the few areas with a holistic
approach to solutions.
• The approach has been taken with the cooperation of
USDA (an MOA was signed by Jim Mosely (USDA
Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources) and Linda
Fisher (EPA/OPTS)).
• It complements EPA's concern over nonpoint
sources/ wet-weather flow/irrigated agriculture.
• It is applicable to wetlands and coastal protection.
• It provides interesting opportunities
Q Habitat/biodiversity issues abound
Q Many private areas are not regulated
Q Much depends on individual stewardship
Page 18
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
EPA also needs to:
• Hear local experts and lobbyists who have offices in
Washington;
• Understand the different approaches taken by farm
lobbies with respect to nonpoint source issues and
wetlands issues;
• Establish broader and different kinds of contacts with
representatives of the agriculture community; and
• Consider their perspective of EPA and other government
agencies, especially their fear of regulators.
Geoff Grubbs, Director of AWPD, added:
• The commodity groups and others were great at the
recent trading conference in North Carolina about
finding non-federal sources of funding.
• The Agricultural Pollution Prevention Strategy is
definitely on the Administrator's mind; however, the key
element will be the question of whether to attack all
items to a moderate extent or to focus on four or five
flagship items and address them intently.
• Bill Richards (SCS) and Barbara Osgood (USDA's EPA
liaison) have helped make great strides in this area, but
the various roles and responsibilities between EPA and
SCS in this particular effort are not clear yet.
Keynote Speech Bill Richards, Chief of USDA's Soil Conservation Service
William Richards (SCS), discussed the agricultural community's role in
Chief, SCS protecting the environment. He also presented the
perspective of the Department of Agriculture as another
government agency in cooperation with EPA. Bill, a one-
time farmer with a background in residue management,
explained that the typical farmer believes he has a "duty to
be responsible." In addition, business and environment are
unquestionably compatible. He thanked Jim Mosely, his
former supervisor, for bringing EPA and SCS together.
There is an unwavering commitment within the
agricultural community to meet its environmental
responsibilities.
Bill introduced his discussion about the 1990 Farm Strategy
by emphasizing the importance of curbing erosion to protect
water quality. The 1985 bill called for plans on highly
erodable land and will be implemented between 1991 and
1994. It has been an unpopular rule with many farmers; it is
difficult to overcome a hesitant constituency. In 1991,
farmers realized that they had no choice but to strive to
adhere to the requirements of the bill.
Page 19
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Bill stated that the highest degree of progress in this area will
come from doing a better job of conditioning users. It is
indeed happening; there is lots of interest and acceptance. A
change of attitude in the farming community has occurred.
Still, conservation practices need to be implemented as soon
as possible.
Bill pointed out that the efforts to tackle the wetlands issues
are sapping the strength of SCS, just as they require so much
work from EPA. Unfortunately, such intense efforts are
inevitably inhibiting real progress. SCS and EPA will work
together to find solutions (including better ways to
administer programs).
The next bill will be of tremendous importance. It will
probably be the CWA reauthorization. On this note, as SCS
Chief, Bill thanked EPA for its request for SCS input on the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) rule formulation.
He added that a voluntary approach for the CWA bill will be
essential. In other words, as the last five years of experience
exposes the difficulty of forcing farmers to modify their
culture, we must build consensus through the proper
channels. The state water associations and district
associations are undoubtedly the best places to start.
Bill suggested that government agencies and agricultural
producers shift their energies toward total resource
planning. Although this concept has been the focus of SCS
for the last thirty to forty years, it is a shame that the 1985
Farm Bill focused almost entirely on highly erodable land.
Hopefully the next bill will be a "total" plan. SCS and EPA
need to cooperate; a real opportunity exists now. As backers
of agricultural producers, SCS needs to be proactive. That is,
SCS and EPA must articulate what they are for — not
against.
Questions Bill made the following points in response to questions
fielded from staff from the Regions and from Headquarters:
• Farmers don't understand the complexity of issues
involved with wetlands, especially the marginal wetland
definitions; instead of leaning so intently in one
direction, we would be better off to simply enhance the
"wet ones" and leave the "dry ones" alone.
• Section 404 issues need much discussion, especially in
terms of understandings of exemptions in the
community. Some land is currently in a "locked" state.
We must clarify the implications of Swampbuster.
Page 2O
-------
Panel Discussion
Agriculture: Will
voluntary approaches
work and how?"
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
m The primary regions where people are afraid to farm new
or wet areas lie in the midwest and the west, especially in
states like Illinois and Iowa.
• The problems with the Farm Bill began when the circles
on the map started affecting land values and property
rights.
• Based on the direction provided in §404, SCS instructs its
customers that they should check with COE on drainage
issues.
• Regarding the issue of land value, it is true that there is
confusion with regard to Swampbuster, that in some
states (e.g., Nebraska) there has been a misrepresentation
of land value decline, and that EPA consequently had no
vehicle to respond; however, SCS was causing
unnecessary problems. If a farmer calls about drainage,
SCS will come out and help him.
• A voluntary approach for nonpoint source controls will
only work if we can change attitudes; economy,
philosophy, etc. are the real issues. We need to
emphasize the right thing to do.
• The Secretary of Agriculture will have to have to classify
marginal wetlands which are "wet enough for ducks"
and "dry enough for farming."
• Some Regions (e.g., Region IX) have forged very strong
partnerships with districts and other community
organizations. However, SCS priorities seem to be
shifting away from water quality and other issues; the
level of hands-on technical assistance once provided is
increasingly less available. SCS needs EPA to keep
voicing concern about this problem. Also, it needs more
budgetary help since it now has more customers than
resources.
Four panelists led a discussion about the role of the
agricultural community in protecting the environment.
Much of the discussion focused on the responsibility of EPA
and other federal agencies to work through states and local
governments to provide farmers with the tools to
implement environmental programs successfully. In
addition, given the genuine willingness of farmers to
cooperate with these agencies, EPA, USDA, and COE must
create a positive perception of themselves and their
respective roles.
The panelists were: Dale Darling, Manager Agricultural
Associations, DuPont; Roland B. Geddes, National
Association of State Conservation Agencies; Donald
Spickler, National Association of Conservation Districts; and
Ralph Grossi, Director of American Farmland Trust.
Page 21
-------
Dale Darling
DuPont
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Dale Darling of DuPont emphasized that voluntary
approaches would work, if EPA is viewed by production
agriculture as a regular, not a regulator. At these meetings,
EPA and others must talk with farmers, not about them.
Dale presented a flipchart which estimated the current
universe of agriculturalists:
2.1 million farmers
340, 000 farmers — income
8 organizations who produce crops (e.g., corn, rice)
200,000 memberships
3,000 farmers at national level
350 spokespersons for fanners
This is key. We can reach 70-80% of the key people by
communicating directly with these 350 spokespersons.
USDA and EPA should be congratulated for signing the
recent MOA. Doing so signifies the new leadership in terms
of proactive planning in agriculture.
ROLE AROUND SOCIETY
"We" means every key group. As a society, we are
questioning the cost of doing agriculture. We must listen
and do quality thinking with fewer dollars. Currently,
government is perceived very negatively — almost strictly as
regulators. Farmers think of environmental policymakers
as an "activist minority" who spend too much time reacting
instead of solving problems.
The key to overcoming these perceptions lies in relationship
marketing. That is, replace the perception of control and fear
with one of trust by placing relationships before issues i
tasks.
land
R(elationships) Before I(ssues) and T(asks)
This also can be viewed through the Joe-Harry Principle:
Known to Self Not Known to Self
Known to Other*
Not Known to
Others
Free/Spontaneous
Interaction
Tmst
Mask
Hidden
Denial
Blind Spot
Unknown
Potential/Creativity
Limitless
We need to avoid the bottom right corner!
Page 22
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
We should also:
Give advice to local governments
Ask farmers to protect the environment voluntarily
Assist farmers with metrics/measurements
Assist farmers with remediation
Educate farmers
Ask farmers for solutions
Roland Geddes
NASC
Roland Geddes, Washington representative for the National
Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASC), stressed
the need for top-down and bottom-up approaches to
government to meet at the state level. State associations are
very interested in EPA activities and the watershed
approach. We should strive to focus on land management,
not water quality. Currently, there are 17 projects in this
area, subdivided into 491 different tasks. NASC has been
following the watershed approach for years. If you look
especially at §319, you will see that the base grant should be
divided between water quality and watershed protection. To
implement the holistic view, NASC has launched a $2.5
million investment in geographic information systems.
Roland agreed with Bill Richards and Dale Darling that the
voluntary approach will work, adding that he was
somewhere in middle. Having a total resource management
plan is the key. Farmers must implement legislative
requirements by 1994. That is very tough for them to do,
considering that they need approaches to erosion, nutrients,
and pesticides. To do so, the following six elements are
essential:
1. Conduct research and development; get answers for
farmers and spend money to define the problem in each
area;
2. Target Best Management Practices (BMPs);
3. Educate farmers - this is incredibly long-lasting;
4. Provide technical assistance (e.g., planning, design, and
testing methods);
5. Develop financial incentives (e.g., cost share programs,
tax credits to buy equipment {which is in incredibly short
supply}); and
6. Continue regulatory work — an entirely voluntary
program won't work - we can attempt to do "regulation
by exception."
Page 23
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
With §319/208, the mistake was not to set aside the extra
money for successful farmers. We need to simply do what is
right, and do it at the state and local level, not federal!
We're moving in the right direction now.
Don Spickler
NACD
Don Spickler, Northeast Representative and member of the
Board of Directors of the National Association of
Conservation Districts (NACD), discussed the importance of
timing in a voluntary approach. Don focused his discussion
on three major points: the district's role in solving ag-
related water quality problems, NACD's view of the
problem, and potential solutions to the problem.
District Role in Water Quality Programs
Districts are special purpose unit, created by state law,
nationwide diversity, charged with the responsibility of
coordinating and carrying out national resource
management programs in specific areas. The programs
addressed include:
Agricultural and urban erosion control
Flood control and water management
Forest, range, and wildlife management
Water quality protection
Wetlands restoration
Water quality protection
Don clarified that NACD is not part of SCS — it is SCS's local
partner. SCS and state conservation agencies deliver their
programs through districts. Guided and directed by locally
elected/appointed officials, NACD members try to help
discern the needs of the community. They are mostly
farmers and ranchers who voluntarily assess problems, set
priorities, and oversee the implementation of programs.
Effectively, districts provide a mechanism for local
involvement and control.
Assessment of Agriculture's Impact on Water Quality.
Wetlands, and Other Renewable Natural Resources
The districts recognize and understand that agriculture
activities can and do have adverse impacts on the resource
base. If not properly managed, nutrients, sediments, animal
waste, chemicals, and other elements can cause off-site
problems. Consequently, now that districts have accepted
the responsibility, the key is proper management. With
good management practices and wise use of natural
resources, a good life is possible without degrading the
environment.
Page 24
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
In NACD's fifty year history, we have learned that the most
effective and long-lasting solutions are directly tied to a land
manager's overall understanding of the problem and how
he can take steps to avoid or mitigate problems.
Solutions and Incorporation of the Voluntary Approach
We must be wary of the credibility issue as well as the use of
scientific evidence - it gets used everywhere. The voluntary
will work, as long as it is specific and purposeful. We need
to clarify our position; too often the solution to ag-related
environmental problems is presented as either a voluntary
or mandatory approach. The correct approach lies
somewhere in the middle. The primary approach should be
based on education and technical and financial assistance,
with regulation as a backup mechanism.
Don highlighted the need to focus on the following specific
actions:
• Section 319 should remain the primary vehicle because it
places states in the lead and allows for local
implementation
• USDA should play a major role in helping states
implement their programs
• EPA and states have failed to fully utilize the district
delivery system
• EPA and states must learn to communicate with the
people they want to solve NFS problems
• Federal agencies should involve more people (e.g., state
conservation agencies, farm organizations, industry)
• Since this approach is working at the state level, we need
to assist other states in developing better programs
• EPA and SCS must know their customers and partners,
and see the farm community as the solution, not the
problem
Ralph Gross/ Ralph Grossi agreed that there are many different
American Farmland perceptions of "voluntary." American Farmland Trust
Trust attempts to look at issues from the farmers perspective.
There are a fixed number of people and a rapidly changing
landscape. Over the years, more expectations have been
superimposed in addition to food (i.e., the issue of wetlands
watersheds). Economic and social values (e.g., farm worker
housing) also have an impact. We are trying to find ways to
narrow the gap between farmer value social value.
Page 25
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Ralph pointed out that 900 million acres of farmland has a
big impact on the environment depending on land
management. The voluntary approach will work given an
appropriate regulatory framework (e.g., good zoning). Only
five percent of farmers are expressly opposed to any
environmentally protective measures whatsoever. We
must achieve a good mixture of the three basic motivators:
profit (survival), fear, and altruism.
A solely mandatory approach will not work because:
• Enforcement is virtually impossible
• Enforcement has a huge political impact and is too often
accompanied by misuse of the media and over-reliance
on good will by farmers
• Long-lasting regulation is both difficult and expensive
The voluntary approach is cheaper, more agreeable, and
longer lasting. Ralph had two major suggestions to facilitate
this approach:
1. Education (e.g., wetlands, prior conversion rule, spotted
owl)
2. Fundamental reform in farm policy:
• Define objectives and change subsidy system to be
based on stewardship and value;
• Reallocate money to stewardship objectives (we have
to compete with crop subsidies — $30 million per year
— when we argue on the Hill);
• Forge new partnerships — involve public interest
groups, identify common agendas (e.g., flexibility in
farm programs);
— ex. Marin County partnership between
Environmental Action Committee and Farm
Bureau (much protected land)
• Capture profit motivation and public support
• Leave all the tools on the workbench (e.g., holistic
approach, BMPs)
Comments The panel concluded its discussion by providing comments
in response to questions from Regional and Headquarters
attendees:
• Many farmers are already practicing sustainable
agriculture (e.g., BMPs), especially on demonstration
farms. SCS is considering approaching only those
customers with problems; SCS doesn't need subsidies, but
it does need help before entering the common market.
Page 26
-------
Stormwater / NFS /
CZARA Strategic
Integration
Geoff Grubbs
Cynthia Dougherty
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
• EPA and all other interested agencies must adopt the role
of salesmen in order to help provide a clear direction.
• There is indeed a real concern that this rhetoric is not
perceived well by environmental groups. Many of these
groups perceive the marketing and assistance role as a
threat to traditional regulations and a mark of moving
toward "collaboration."
• It is reasonable for EPA to be cautious in sharing
information with the farm lobby and NACD because of
their past perceived roles; however, we must continue to
move in the current direction of cooperation.
• §319 gave states — not EPA — the responsibility for
delivering these programs; that is the source of this
balance.
This session focused on issues related to Stormwater
discharges, nonpoint source pollution, and the strategic
integration of CZARA provisions. Geoff Grubbs, Director of
AWPD, made a presentation entitled "Opportunities for
Working Together: The Stormwater Permit and Nonpoint
Source Programs." The presentation began with an outline
of the key environmental risks posed by Stormwater
discharges:
• About 30% of remaining water quality (WQ) impairment
is attributable to Stormwater discharges from urban areas.
• According to state submissions to the 1990 S 305(b)
Report:
Q Of impaired river/streams, 60% are impaired by
agriculture — the 3 leading causes were siltation,
nutrients and organics;
Q Of impaired lakes/reservoirs, 57% are impaired by
agriculture, 28% by storm sewers/urban runoff — the
3 leading causes were metals, nutrients and organics;
and
Q Of impaired estuaries/coastal waters, 30% are
impaired by storm sewers/urban runoff, 18% by
agriculture — the 3 leading causes were nutrients,
organics and pathogens.
This introduction was followed by an explanation of the
background of existing Stormwater and nonpoint source
programs. The 1987 Amendments to CWA resulted in a
two-phase storm water program under 402(p). The two key
regulations are:
1. November 16, 1990 Phase I Application Rule for
medium-size cities (municipals over 100,000) and
industrial activities
2. August 16,1991 Proposed Storm Water General Permits
Page 27
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
HQ is currently processing 1,200 group applications for 58,000
facilities from industry. Twenty-nine states were approved
and general permits were granted in twenty states. HQ must
define who is covered under Phase n (small cities). On
October 1, the moratorium expires. Future activities include:
• Assist the 27 NPDES states
• Execute the implementation rule
• Sponsor workshops
• Prepare guidance documents
• Develop a tracking system
In accordance with Section 319 of CWA Amendments of
1987, Program Guidance was published in December, 1987
and Grants Guidance was published in January 14,1991.
(There is specific language in the guidance to prohibit grants
for large cities; we need to look at this closely to ensure that
this is policy is appropriate.)
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) consisted of two major parts:
• Management Measures
• Program Approval Guidance
NPS is currently in the third round of 319 grants, continuing
work on the Final Report to Congress; program evaluation;
and completing CZARA guidance. Future activities include
awarding 92 grants and producing the final CZARA
guidance.
Opportunities
The session concluded with a summary of the key
opportunities regarding eight aspects of stormwater and
nonpoint source programs:
1. Permit Coverage
• Stormwater permits focus has been on Phase I: industries
and municipals over 100,000; some emphasis on selected
municipals under 100,000 (Phase n).
• Feedlot permits: currently evaluating NPDES
requirements; a task force led by Mike Cook is charged
with developing a strategic direction for feed lots.
• NPS: continuing to focus on point sources up until
permit activity begins.
Page 28
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Issues and limitations related to coverage address legal
questions, timing, and funding. The questions for NFS are
the following:
• Do the statutes allow/support the current use of the §319
program (i.e., using NFS grant dollars on point sources)?
• Practically speaking, is this strategy feasible?
• Does such a strategy make the best use of available
funding?
2. Criteria and Standards
• No national criteria exist for nutrients. Jointly press OST
for speeding up development of wet-weather standards
and criteria, especially sediment and nutrients.
• Technology and tolls is site specific. We need to develop
models relating controls to water quality standards.
3. Technical Guidance
• CZARA management measures pertaining to urban areas
are targeted at coastal areas, but are generally applicable
everywhere.
• WASHCOG (Washington Area Council of Governments)
manual provides detailed guidance on prevention and
mitigation of urban NFS pollution in developing areas.
Expected date of availability is FY93.
• WASHCOG manual on urban retrofit.
4. Funding
• Section 319: approximately $5-10 million annually for
technical assistance, controls implementation, I/E,
technology transfer/training, development of
ordinances / regulations.
• SRF — press for additional funding by expanding
intended uses.
• Generally, there is a need to look at total resources and
how they are devoted to the right priorities.
5. Outreach
We may be overextended in the outreach area. We need to
focus on the message we want to promote.
Page 29
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Outreach activities include:
• National technical conference in Fall 1992 (joint
sponsorship.
• CZARA workshop(s) — Fall 1992 — invite Regional
permit staff.
• Ongoing permit workshops.
6. Construction/New Development
• Controlling new development is the key to curbing urban
runoff. Municipalities provide detailed site review.
7. Point Source/Nonpoint Source Trading
• A focused initiative to identify more candidate
waterbodies and provide seed money may be the way to
free capital needed for cost sharing and BMPs.
8. Data Needs/Analyses
• Better data on wet-weather impacts.
• More cost-efficient ways to evaluate performance of wet-
weather controls.
• Continued evaluation/identification of innovative non-
structural approaches (transportation planning, master
plan development, etc.).
• Strategy for incorporating monitoring at reasonable costs.
• Characterization of potential benefits.
Next Steps
Develop National Leadership Initiative:
• Hold one-day retreat in late May for new staff from both
programs along with appropriate staff from
OCPD/Wetlands to educate them about "other"
programs.
• Hold one-day retreat in June for managers to draft an
implementation strategy for joint activities.
• Discuss draft implementation strategies in August with
EPA Regions and ASIWPCA and formulate a national
initiative.
Page 30
-------
OWOW Staff
Meeting Session
Bob Wayland
Dave Davis
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Bob Wayland welcomed all OWOW staff, stressing the
significance of this opportunity for Regional colleagues to
participate in this session. He outlined the recent highlights
of OWOW, currently in its second growing season:
Success of and continuing potential for interagency task forces
Interagency Federal Task Force on Water Monitoring (IFTM)
North Carolina Pollution Trading meeting — new ways
of tackling difficult problems
NFS Issue of EPA Journal with article by Bill Richards,
SCS Chief
ANDERSON Chief Scientist Certification Program
NCW Program Guidance
NEPs and outlook for CCMPs
Greenbook implementation/bioassay tests
Ocean dumping and role of OWOW at London Dumping
Convention
Marine debris initiatives
Audubons America
Wetlands defense/Congressional hearings; science of
restoration
CZARA guidance/NPS Issues
Grant guidance/Agency operating guidance will be
released in the near future
• Many watershed projects are underway
Bob stressed that OWOW concepts and definitions have
begun to take shape. Particularly, he noted the watershed
approach and the Water Quality 2000 keynote speech by
Margot Garcia. The Nature Conservancy has also realized
the value of a holistic view and partnership, based on the
natural downstream flow of water. Recent CEQ reports
include a chapter on biodiversity. The fundamental point is
that each program has opportunity to draw strength from a
pervasive approach to ecological protection.
Bob noted that the OWOW Quarterly Highlights report
discussed how we are at the forefront of putting the "E" back
in EPA. The report discussed progress in the habitat duster
initiative and the action plans for agriculture pollution
prevention, including measures to avoid both water
pollution and wetlands loss. With the reorganization
behind us, OWOW and EPA now have an excellent
opportunity for integration and broader focus. OWOW will
continue to conduct customer/employee surveys to identify
needs and improve communication. The CZARA guidance,
for example, revealed the value of improved openness. At
the same time, staff commitment and involvement are
essential to overcome the potentially "dangerous
opportunities" that lie ahead:
Page 31
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Very new Congress in the fall — less knowledge about
our programs
Hard economic times
Grassroots organizations/property rights movement
OMB preoccupation with costs — moving away from
environmental concerns
State/local partners under fiscal stress
A new Administrator will probably be appointed in
January 1993 — simultaneously an opportunity and a loss
Bob stressed that the challenge for each of us, individually
and as a team, is to build on the momentum we are
beginning to develop and exploit the opportunities while
minimizing the dangers. A brief question-and-answer
session followed.
Strategic Plan
Dave Davis provided an overview of the development of
OW's strategic plan. The next plan would still be resource-
oriented, but would be more strategic. Also, it would consist
of greater staff involvement and input to the Management
Advisory Group. Using Region I's work in this area as a
benchmark, the development of the strategic plan will be
more of a TQM process, including involvement by outside
partners.
Dave also discussed the graph below, depicting the Agency's
watershed protection approach:
WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Ecoregion
watershed/
estuary
stream
she/
•poinf
1 issue multiple issues 'all* issues
Compr*h*n*/v«n«**
He stressed the need to move toward the top right — to
address more ecosystematic issues over broader geographic
areas.
Page 32
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Habitat Cluster
Dave also outlined the nature of the habitat cluster initiative
established in the fall of 1991. The habitat cluster is a forum
for discussing one of many cross-cutting issues in the
Agency. With nearly fifty members, it abo serves as a task
force for EPA to confront these problems. Currently, the
group is formulating a long-term strategic plan to present to
the Administrator by the fall. The cluster effectively
encourages a habitat ecosystematic or "bird and bunny"
focus, not unlike many existing migratory bird population
protection programs. It is clear that EPA is moving into new
areas.
Research
Dave concluded by discussing the Agency's new research
planning process. EPA recently dissolved the old
committees in the Offices of Air, Water, and other areas.
Those committees have now been replaced by a single
"issue-based research committee" conducive to ORD central
management. Activity will be planned for every research
area, instead of on an ad-hoc basis. Much of this change
stemmed from the success of the ORD wetlands research
plan.
Currently, there are 41 categories or "issues," each of which
has a lab director and a three-page research outline reviewed
by the Science Advisory Board, among others. These
outlines will be translated into 41 individual research plans.
At this time, OWOW's issues are classified in twenty of
those categories, but we are trying to capitalize on as many as
possible; we have established contacts and /or Regional ORD
liaisons for each one. It is important for Regional staff to
identify and work with their ORD liaisons; OWOW is not in
control. We are hoping to finalize all ORD issue plans by
May 29th. This is a valuable resource which has not yet been
tapped. [NOTE: Martin Brossman is the Headquarters ORD
contact. He can be reached at (202) 260-7040.]
Recently formulated categories include habitat biodiversity
and nonpoint sources. Many new categories, such as
terrestrial ecosystems, are being forged and merged.
Geographic targeting is the most appropriate mechanism for
seeing how all the issue areas fit together. [NOTE:
Headquarters will distribute a matrix of all issue areas
currently being researched.]
Page 33
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Proceedings of Joint Sessions
Regional Involvement
Bob reaffirmed that OWOW will continue to involve
Regional people from the beginning in the decision process.
The Water Management Division Director's Meeting in
Tampa was a good example. We will also involve more
staff-level people.
Wrap-up Session The meeting concluded with the following comments from
Regions the Regions about the meeting itself and activities within
Headquarters and the Regions:
• The Regional perspective is that OWOW HQ is listening.
• The panel discussion was excellent.
• The breakout discussions were productive and useful.
• The format of the meeting was great; it included a useful
cross-section of OW and OWOW instead of having just
one division at a National meeting.
• The outside speakers were excellent and provided a good
balance of internal and external people.
• The fact that the meeting did not result in a "laundry list"
of Regional action items reflects very good conceptual
planning.
Page 34
-------
Attachment 1
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
David Fierra
US. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building, Rm 2203
WAA
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3420
Bob Wayland
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5700
Geoff Crubbs
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7040
Mario Del Vicario
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
MWPB-WMD
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5170
Craig Vogt
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1952
Elizabeth Jester
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7062
John Pai
U.S.EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8076
Catherine Kuhlman
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
W-7
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2001
John Meagher
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7791
Louise Wise
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9108
Victoria Binetti
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9589
Suzanne Schwartz
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8447
Richard Pepino
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
3ES40
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9589
Larry Ferguson
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
WATR:WACM
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7034
Glenn Eugster
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5045
Karen Klima
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6424
Richard Hoppers
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6444
Greg Peck
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7799
Mark Curran
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6502
Norm Thomas
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-2260
Dave Davis
US. EPA
401 M Street SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7791
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
Ron Lee
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
WD-136
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1200
Charles App
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9589
Philip Oshida
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
W-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1971
Tudor Davics
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5400
Barbara D'Angelo
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9301
Tom Yocoirt
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-6322
Marian Mlay
U.S.EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7077
John Pomponio
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-8173
Amy Zimpfcr
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1952
Tom Wilson
U.S EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
WD-136
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1200
Tom Welborn
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, CA 30365
404-347-2126
Richard Sumner
U.S. EPA Region 10
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
503-754-4444
Bill Butler
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3536
Doug Ehorn
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
WQW-16J
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-0243
Don Brady
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5368
Doug Thompson
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-5654422
Bill Kirchner
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-655-2263
Steve Dressing
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7110
Daniel Montella
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
MWPD-WMD
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5170
Diane Hershberger
US. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
PLMG/ENRV
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7573
Rod Frederick
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5989
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
William Garvey
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9900
Catherine Winer
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
LE-132W
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7719
Tom Kelsch
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8795
John Coodin
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9910
Phyllis Feinmark
US EPA Region2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-8241
John Lishman
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7177
Joseph Hall
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9082
Hazel Groman
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8798
Kevin Perry
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6833
John Lyon
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
LE-134W
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8177
Sandy Germann
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6418
Ann Wilhams-Dawe
U S EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3321
Menchu Martinez
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5299
Steve Glomb
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6414
Harry Seraydanan
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
W-l
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2125
Steve Neugeboren
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
LE-132W
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7717
Charles Hoffmann
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-6224
Carl Myers
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7040
Lori Williams
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5624
Judith Johnson
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A104-F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9907
Bruce Newton
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7076
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List off Participants
Peter Stokely
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
3ES42
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-6288
Ray Thompson
U.S. EPA Region 1
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
617-8604372
Mike Cook
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, NW
WH-546
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5850
Bill Riley
US. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1412
Janet Hashimoto
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
W-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1156
Robert Kramer
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9378
Hugh Barroll
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1321
Jovita Pajanllo
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2001
Charles Kanctsky
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
3ES11
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9176
E. Stallings Howell
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, ME
Atlanta, CA 30365
404-347-2126
Gene Rectz
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
8WM-WQ
Denver, CO 80202-2466
303-293-1568
Mary Kentula
U.S. EPA Region 10
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
503-754-4444
Jack Cakstatter
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
WD-139
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0966
Barry DeCraff
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
W-15J
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2147
Bernie Mason
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-546
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5801
Gerry Shimek
US. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7540
Clyde Morris
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
W-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1562
Lajuana Wilcher
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5700
Janet Williams
US. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-7748
James Luey
US. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
8WM-WQ
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-293-1425
Janet Pawlukiewicz
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9194
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
Dov Weitman
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7100
Ralph Grossi
American Farmland Trust
1920 N Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
202-659-5170
Ed Ambrogio
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-3697
Charles Gregg
The Nature Conservancy
1815 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
703-841-5300
Roland Geddes
National Association of State
Conservation Agencies
Route 3, Box 304
Tappahannock, VA 22560
Bob Brown
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9173
Gregory Low
The Nature Conservancy
1815 N.Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
703-841-5300
Marcella Jensen
NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avc., NW
Washington, DC 20235
202-606-4181
Mary Belefski
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7061
Margot Garcia
Virginia Commonwealth University
812 West Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23284-2008
804-367-1134
Jerry Anderson
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-5066
Mary Blakeslee
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-551
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7158
William Richards
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013-2890
202-205-0027
Paul Pan
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9111
Elyse DiBiagio-Wood
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
LE-134W
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8187
Dale Darling
DuPont
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-728-3600
Joan Warren
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7796
Rick Balla
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5671
Donald Spickler
National Assoc. of Conservation Districts
509 Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-547-6223
Bo Crum
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-1740
Barry Burgan
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7060
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
David Chambers
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, IX 20460
202-260-3034
John Ettinger
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9113
Donna Harris
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
PM-222
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5444
John Cannell
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7087
Jane Freeman
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6422
Harry Hatry
Urban Institute
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC
202-833-7200
Clare Donaher
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1277
Virginia Fox-Norse
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9129
Susan Hitch
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9178
Diane Davis
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-3678
Bngitte Farren
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9134
Louie Hoelman
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7040
Joseph DaVia
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1915
Mark Flory
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6504
James Home
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-546
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5802
E. F. Drabkowski
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7009
Robert Coo
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7025
Judy Hecht
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5682
M. Fran Eargle
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1954
Peg Hall
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1952
Robert losco
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7104
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List of Participants
Nicole Veilleux
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1981
Jeff Morin
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
PM-222A
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5445
James Pendergast
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
EN-336
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9537
Fred Kopfler
U.S. EPA
Stennis Space Center
Building 1103
Stennis, MS 39529
601-688-3726
James Meek
USDA
217-W Administration Building
Washington, DC 20250
202-720-4751
Lyn Pennington
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8765
Paul Kraman
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7365
Jane McConathy
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
A100
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-4361
Cynthia Puskar
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7818
Rochele Kadish
U.S EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5700
Paula Monroe
U S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6582
Anne Robertson
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9112
Macara Lousberg
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9109
Philip Maneust-Ungano
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3777
Doreen Robb
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1906
George Loeb
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7166
Susan MacMullin
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6412
Shelli Rossman
Urban Institute
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC
202-833-7200
Eugene Lamb
NACD
509 Capitol Court, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-547-6223
Barbara Osgood
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013-2890
202-205-0027
Margherita Pryor
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9176
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
List off Participants
Martha Stout
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2315
Stuart Tuller
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7112
Lloyd Wise
US'EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-0657
Mary St. Peter
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1915
Betsy Tam
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6466
Chns Zabawa
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7101
Joel Sailer
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-8484
Lara Whitely-Binder
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
A-104F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1901
Amy Sosin
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7058
Anne Weinbcrg
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7107
Lynn Shuryler
US. EPA
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD
301-267-0061
Tim Williams
Water Quality 2000
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
John Thome
ACRE
1155 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-872-3865
Janice Wmgfield
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7166
Ramona Trovato
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-550G
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7077
Hal Wise
US. EPA
401 M Street, SW
WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-7109
-------
Attachment 2
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Agenda
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Day One
Tuesday. Mav 5
The Washington Plaza Hotel
Massachusetts and Vermont Avenues, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
May 5-7,1992
8:30 - 9:00am
Welcome/Introduction
Bob Wayland
9:00 - 10:00am
10:15 -12:00
12:00 - IrOOpm
Keynote Address
Questions and Answers
Lajuana Wilcher,
Assistant Administrator for Water
Regional Customer Survey
Keynote Speaker
Margot Garcia, Water Quality 2000
Louise Wise
1:00 - 2:00pm
Panel Discussion
Watershed and Ecosystem Protection
"How can we strengthen the connection?"
Gregory Low, The Nature Conservancy
Scott Feierabend, National Wildlife Federation
Margot Garcia, Water Quality 2000
Moderator: Dave Davis
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting Agenda (cont'd.)
2:00 - 3:30pm
4:00 - 5:30pm
Day Two
Wednesday. Mav 6
Sharing of Common
Program Goals
Watershed Protection Approach
• Integrating Targeting Schemes
• Funding Flexibility
• Developing and Implementing
Integrated Holistic Action Plans
• Measurement and Monitoring
Mike Cook
TudorDavies
Ramona Trovato
Louise Wise
8:30 - 9:00am
9:00 - 9:30am
9:30 - ll:00am
11:15 -12:00
Review Agenda/Introduction
Keynote Speech
William Richards,
Chief, Soil Conservation Service
Panel Discussion — Agriculture
"Will voluntary approaches work and how?"
Dale Darling, DuPont
Roland B. Geddes, National Association of
State Conservation Agencies
Donald Spickler, National Association of
Conservation Districts
Ralph Grossi, American Farmland Trust
Moderator: Dave Davis
Stormwater/NPS/CZARA
Strategic Integration
Dave Davis
Geoff Gntbbs
Cynthia Dougherty
Marcella Jensen
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting Agenda (cont'd.)
1:00 - 4:00pm
4:00 - 5:00pm
5:15pm
Division Breakout Session
OWOW Staff Meeting
with the Regions
OWOW Staff/Regions Social Event
Day Three
Thursday. Mav 7
8:30 - 9:15am
Resource Allocation Process
for FY93
Bernie Mason
9:15 - 10:30am
OWOW Wrap-up Session
Bob Wayland
Dave Davis
-------
Attachment 3
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Watershed Protection Approach
Breakout Session Notes
-------
MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING
WHAT'S HAPPENING Now?
Headquarters
-» Coastal bioassessments
-» Environmental indicator effort
-» Information management problems
-» Not enough integration between compliance and ambient
monitoring
Region 1
-» Merrimack River Basin and Blackstone
- Using WPA
- Using biological tools
-»• States Vermont and Maine established biological fixed stations
-» Toxicity testing 2 species
•* Sediment toxicity
-» Nutrients
-*• EMAP - Fish Tissue Analysis (Archiving. Freshwater specimens)
Region 3
-»• Water Quality Assessments. Identify causes to extent possible used
for other areas as well as WPA
•* Technical Problems with Major Waterbasin Approach
•* 305(b) not being used to full potential
-* 2 projects under way with no monitoring (planning: USGS -
chemical; EPA - biological)
-------
Measurement and Monitoring
•» Red Clay Creek (PA/DE). Biological indicators used to identify
problems (PS and NPS). Working with SCS.
•* SAB Report - Emphasis moving to biological monitoring;
particularly good for WPA
Region 7
•*• Platte River Basin Project
-» Indicators Workgroup within Region
•* Fish Tissue Monitoring (not just watershed)
•* Working with USGS and Agriculture for WPA planning
Region 8
•* Taking comprehensive look at what's happening; strategy for
technical tools and integration
•» Problems - small-*large. The problem helps to define the
boundaries of watershed.
•* Biological Integrity and beyond. Measures raise (additional) concerns
such as flow; physical habitat; clean and contaminated sediment
Region 9
•* Going beyond compliance monitoring
•* Over $17 million being spent on monitoring
-*• Southern California Coastal Water Research project (regionalize
POTW monitoring)
- same protocols
- same management system
Watershed Protection Breakout 2 May 5. 1992
-------
Measurement and Monitoring
Guff of Mexico
-» Struggling with boundaries of watershed
-»• Use assessments and data
-* Information management problems
-» Shellfish growing water as an indicator (number of acres). More
relevant indicator not presently available.
-»• Bathing beach monitoring problems. (Lack of State standards)
•* EMAP data potential misuse
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN?
-»• Need Monitoring Plan and Program Design
- Use existing sources
NEP Guidance
Region 10 Forestry Monitoring Guidance
-» Integrate EMAP/REMAP efforts
-» Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality needs
effective
- Monitoring Framework
- Environmental Indicators
- Data Collection
- Data Management Information Sharing
•* Evaluate use of regulatory mechanisms for monitoring
-» 305(b) consistency and use (how it fits into WPA)
-*• Interim Policy and Support Data Management (i.e., STORET
modernization)
-» Headquarters Reviews of Regional Watershed Initiatives - Careful
review of monitoring design so that success can be documented.
•* Training - For designing
- monitoring plans
- evaluation and assessment (biological)
Watershed Protection Breakout 3 May 5. 1992
-------
FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
DEFINE;
• Early direct multiple sources of funding to watershed with multiple
activities.
• Need opportunity to make argument and arrangements for funding
• Funding elibibility - variable match
• Cross-Office funding
• Focus on EPA sources
EXPERIENCE WITH FLEXIBILITY
Region I
• Merrimac River Basin
- Reg. AC&C$
Wetland
Ground water
• LOE contracts a limit
• Stakeholder participation upfront needed - workshops - for
watershed approach - EPA responsible
• Can't use OWEC $
• Tools we have vx. over start-up
• Need seed money - lack eligible activity; i.e., watershed conf.
• Can do w. NEP - need flex in other pots.
• Can't use 319 - not implementation
• Regional cross-media review teams
• State serve as convenor
-------
Fundtna Flexibility
Region IV
• NC/AG Cost Share
• Nutrient Trading
- Use 319 funding
• Technical assistance/data management
• Tar-Pamlico
Region V
• GL/LAMP Lake Superior (also Lake Michigan and Upper
Mississippi)
CEM $3.0M
GL $1.0M
104(b) Storm water
WL
• WI/MN/MI joint venture
• Negotiated STARS commits
• Avoid project-of-month problem
Region IX
• Southern California Bight
• Regional monitoring
- 404(3)(c)
- 301 (h)
• Implement existing plan
- EMAP
- NEP Santa Monica Bay NEP Authority
- NPDES
• San Francisco Bay
Watershed Protection Breakout 2 May 5. 1992
-------
Funding Flexibility
$10-$12M
COE-50%
EPA - NEP + MPRSA 1 cnw
California - Penalty $ f 50%
Port funding
• State WL Plan
- Coastal funds
• Wasteload Allocation
- S. SFBay
- NPDES + NEP + Demo project
• AC strategy
• Wetlands
• Contracted States
• Use 319 for high priority areas - national set-aside in FY 1991
• Forced 60% state match
• Need to know where $ are and what requirements/limits
• Will Headquarters earmark $ to support WPA?
• Earmark steps in WPA •*
I gap*
• Sources of funding J
- match requirements?
- All OW (WDD meeting)
Region X
• Restoration of Basin
- Near Coastal Waters
- 319 could have been used
• Coastal America
- NCW $10K i
- Water Division $10K * + $296K
- Part of Puget Sound NEP project
- Other Federal cooperation in-kind
Watershed Protection Breakout 3May 5. 1992
-------
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
INTEGRATED ACTION PLANS
WHAT'S HAPPENING Now?
•* Maryland's Coastal Bays - NCW
• plan development in progress
•» Arkansas River Initiative
• Canaan Valley, West Virginia
-*• Pocono Watershed Approach
•* Remedial Action Plan - G.L.
•* N.W. Indiana
•* Cumulative Impact Studies - Region 6
• Texas
• Tangihpohoa
-» Puget Sound Early Action Watershed
•*• Savannah River
-*• Truckee River
•* Merrimack River
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AMD WHAT ARE THE KEY PROBLEMS?
-#• Who takes the lead?
-»• Resources
• Commitment across programs
- easier within 1 Division
- Region 5 successful - high priority from top for G.L.
- Regional Champions
•* Can't approach as "projects" - need long-term view
-------
Developing and Implementing Integrated Action Plans
ACTION PLAN BARRIERS
* Resources
* Timing
* Need to involve "stakeholders" - Stakeholders involved vs. Nature
Conservancy
How Do WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?
•* Provide Resources
• dedicated resources - tap all? Separate program elements?
•* Highlight in program guidance of others
•* Pro-active planning among programs
• Agree on criteria to shift $
•* Build upon "history"
-* Local recognition of problem
•* Buy-in by upper management in Headquarters and Regions
-* Tools to organize data/information
•*• Incentives: States, local, others
Watershed Protection Breakout 2 May 5. 1992
-------
INTEGRATING TARGETING SCHEMES
WHAT'S HAPPENING Now?
Models
Region 3
-» Participating in Ongoing State Effort
-» Capitalize on Ongoing Efforts
•* Coastal America
Region 6
«*• Regional Risk Assessment
-» Multi-media
•* 24 eco-regions-M2 watersheds-*! priority
->• Criteria - public health and ecology
-*• Time consuming, Resources
Region 9
-*• GW, PP, Wet, NCW, Pest, NEP
-*• Developing State Guidance
•* Developing Regional Priorities
->• Botton-Up Approach
->• Multi-media I nvolvement
-*• Other agencies help with review
-------
Integrating Targeting Schemes
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN?
What
Consistent Framework
Engage States
Capitalize on Existing
Efforts /Infrastructure
Senior Management Buy-In
Publicize Successes
Clarifying Models
Executive Order for WPA
AOG
Opportunities for Managers' Support
Use State Priorities
Realistic Expectations
Involving Other Groups
Evaluate Existing Tech Tools
Test Assumption/Evaluate Success
Re-emphasize Flexibility
Identify Local Support
Guidance, Regulation Language - WPA
Support
Carrot/Stick Approach
Who
HQ, Regions
Regions, HQ
HQ, Regions, States
HQ
Admin
HQ
HQ
Regions
All
All
HQ/Regions
HQ, Regions
HQ
All
HQ
HQ
Watershed Protection Breakout
May 5, 1992
-------
Attachment 4
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Action Items
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
ACTION ITEMS
OWOW-WIDE ACTIONS
What
Who
When
Customer Survey
Continue survey
Develop focus group /questionnaire
Make improvements to survey
contents
PCS
Before next National
Program Meeting
Watershed Protection
Financing Options Matrix
Survey of projects
BPMS
PCS
July 31
July 31
Grants Administration
Cooperate with GAD on training
BPMS
Ongoing
Research
Dave Davis
Provide Regions information on the
new EPA research planning process
July 31
DRAFT: 6/27/92
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
ACTION ITEMS (cont'd.)
ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION
What
Who
When
Fall meeting in Chicago
AWPD
Fall
Involve Regions in NFS strategy
AWPD/NPSCB
Starting now through
winter
319(n) follow-up (really IPA funding
issue)
BPMS - lead
AWPD - make
sure Regions get
answer
ASAP
Hold NPS coordinators meeting
AWPD/NPSCB
Fall - with branch
chief meeting
DRAFT: 6/27/92
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
ACTION ITEMS (cont'd.)
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
What
Who
When
&& Complete ocean dumping workload
model input for MPRSA; send out
memo
£o Development of Regional greenbook
implementation menus
£D Complete NEP evaluation criteria and
select pilot NEPs
£D Identify Carribean activities for budget
initiative
£D Send materials on technology transfer
strategy development (i.e., RESOLVE)
OCPD - memo
Regions - input
Regions
OCPD/UI
Regions H, IV, VI,
and GOMP
OCPD
Input by June 4
July 31 +
Pilots - done
Evaluation criteria -
June 30
May 18
May 29
DRAFT: 6/27/92
-------
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
ACTION ITEMS (cont'd.)
WETLANDS DIVISION
What
Who
When
£s Create checklist of considerations for
§404 cases
£" Provide more information to Regions
on Congressional wetlands activities -
in teleconference and the reports
^° Coordinate reprinting of major
outreach publications with the
Regions
£D Structure future
Headquarters/Regional meetings for
Wetlands
WD
WD
WD
WD
June 30
Immediately
July 31
Fall
DRAFT: 6/27/92
-------
Attachment 5
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Customer Survey Results
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMOREMDUM
SUBJECT: OWOW FY92 Regional Customer Surveyp
FROM: Louise P. Wise, Director
Office of Policy and Communication
TO: Addressees
As Bob indicated in his February 27, 1992 memorandum, we are
conducting a followup customer survey to see whether our services
to you have improved since June 1991 and to invite new suggestions
for improvement. We will discuss the results with you during the
OWOW National Program Meeting scheduled for May 5, 1992.
I have enclosed the new survey instrument as well as a copy of
the results of the last survey for your review and reference. Ms.
Ginger Webster, our consultant who conducted the last survey, will
once again be conducting the telephone interviews. She will be
calling to schedule an interview time with you between April 6 and
17, 1992.
We appreciate your time and cooperation in participating in
the survey and look forward to a full and open exchange of the
results in May.
Enclosures:
Survey instruments
Results of FY91 survey
-------
Addressees:
Reg 1 Ron Manfredonia, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Carol Wood, Chief, Monitoring/Environmental Study Branch
Reg 2 Mario Del Vicario, Chief, Marine and Wetland Protection
Robert Vaughn, Chief, Water Standards and Planning Branch
Richard Spear, Chief, Surveillance and Monitoring Branch
Reg 3 Jon Capacasa, Depute Director, Chesapeake Bay Program
Richard Pepino, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch,
Victoria Binetti, Chief, Program Support Branch
Joseph T. Piotrowski, Chief, Permits Enforcement Branch
Robert Kramer, Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch
Reg 4 Stallings Howell, Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Doug Lipka, Director, Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Reg 5 Ken Fenner, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Jim Giattina, Deputy Director, GLNPO
Valerie Jones, Chief, Monitoring and QA Branch
Reg 6 Norman Thomas, Chief, Federal Activities Branch,
Richard Hoppers, Chief, Water Quality Management Branch
Jim Steibing, Chief, Surveillance Branch
Reg 7 Kerry Herndon, Chief, Environmental Review Branch, office
for Policy and Management
Larry Ferguson, Chief, Water Compliance Branch
Thomas Hollowway, Chief, Enviro. Mon. and Surv. Branch
Reg 8 Dale Vodehnal, Chief, State Program Management Branch
Reg 9 Loretta Barsamian, Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and Esturaies
Cat Kuhlman, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Reg 10 Ron Lee, Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch
Jack Gakstatter, Chief, Office of Coastal Waters
Tom Wilson, Chief, Office of Water Planning
Bienvenido Eusebio, Chief, Ambient Mon. and Analysis Br
-------
OWOW CUSTOMER SURVEY
In preparation for the May Branch Chiefs meeting, OWOW is
conducting a followup customer survey to determine our
responsiveness to the concerns identified in the June 1991 survey,
as well as identify new areas where improvements are needed. A copy
of the results of the June 1991 survey is enclosed.
Interviewees should include Regional Branch Chiefs responsible
for the wetlands, ocean and coastal, nonpoint source and water
monitoring programs. Branch Chiefs can include other managers and
staff in the interviews as appropriate.
I. Improving Services to the Regions:
a. Please rank from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor) the following
OWOW services in each major program area:
Budget planning and funding processes
Legislative strategies and Congressional liaison
National tools, such as policies, regulations and
guidance
Enlisting assistance of other programs
Technology transfer and outreach
Overall administration, including administrative
services, program priorities and working
relationships
b. In your opinion, have OWOW services in each of these
areas improved, declined or stayed about the same since
the last survey?
c. Do you have any suggestions for improving OWOW support
in any of these areas?
II. Improving Communications between OWOW and the Regions
a. Please review the suggestions made in the last survey
on pages 17-19 of the summary report. Has OWOW been
responsive to these suggestions?
b. Do you have any new suggestions that OWOW should
consider?
III. Responsiveness to other Regional suggestions
Please review the suggestions and comments from pages 20-26
of the summary report? Are there suggestions or comments
that you would like to re-emphasize?
-------
IV. National Priorities
What two or three issues should OWOW be addressing that
could have the most impact on continued enviromental
progress in your Region? Please be fairly specific.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
National Program Meeting
May 5-7, 1992
Washington, D.C.
Customer Survey Results
EPA
-------
Table of Contents
Regional Participants 3
Results of Customer Survey -- Part I
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service (FY91 and FY92) 4
Program Specific Rankings by Service (FY91 and FY92) 6
Budget Planning and Funding Processes 7
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 8
National Tools 9
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 10
Technology Transfer and Outreach 11
Overall Administration 12
Division Rankings by Service (FY92) 13
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division 14
Wetlands Division 16
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 18
Results of Customer Surveys Regional Comments -- Part II
Overall OWOW Support 20
Opportunities/Issues for Office Director Attention 21
Division Program Agendas 23
National Priorities 27
Appendix: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Customer Survey
-------
Regional Participants
Region I
Ron Manfredonia
Carol Wood
flea/on II
Dan Forger
Dan Montello
Janice Rollwagon
Robert Vaughn
Region III
Victoria Binetti
Chuck Kanetsky
Robert Kramer
Richard Pepino
Chesapeake Bay Program
John Capacasa
Hag/on f V
Dan Ahern
Bob Howard
Stallings Howell
Carol Terrace
Tom Welborn
Region VI
Beverly Ethridge
Richard Hoppers
George Horvath
Cuff of Mexico Program
Doug Lipka
Region VII
Larry Ferguson
Kerry Herndon
John Houlihan
Region Wff
Dale Vodehnal
Region IX
Catherine Kuhlman
Amy Zimpfer
Jack Gakstatter
Ron Lee
Kerrie Schurr
-------
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service
Excellent 5.0 -,
Poor 0.0
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.6
3.1
2.0
2.7
2.S
3.1
2.9
c S
fl
*•
1
I
I
Is
V) O
11
** I
JS Sc
•*r
OH
i|
I 5
3.1
•§
• ^
4
-------
OWOW-Wide
FY92 Survey Results
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
Improved
14
4
14
8
11
14
Declined
5
10
8
4
2
2
Same
19
23
15
26
24
22
-------
Program-Specific
Rankings by Service
6
-------
Budget Planning and Funding Processes
Excellent
5.0 -i
Poor
0.0
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.9
2.3
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.4
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
Resource losses
continue
Concern about
merger with
NFS program
Still unclear
about FY93 $
NEP/NCW
Some improvements in
getting $ to the Regions
Need to show resource
allocations to specific areas
Would prefer to receive $
early and let Regions hold
till workplans approved
Workplan reviews still late
NFS
Good $ flow to Regions
319 travel $ is significant
issue re ability to oversee
projects; HQ
management should
play stronger role
Oceans
Workload model
rework underway
403$ very late
decisions
VVetlahds
Better $ flow to Regions
Still need to be more
aggressive and show
leadership in budget
development process
-------
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
Excellent 5.0 -f
Poor 0.0
s
/
/-
2.3
>r~?-
X;
2.5
~~^
/••
/
2.9
/
/
1
6
/
/
s~~
/
2.7
-s&-
2.8
"^
X^
.6
~7\
:
2.
7"
X
E
r^~
1.9
|
><
p
7
Monitoring NEP/NCW NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
Need more
information
about Hill
activities,
particularly re
USGS
Need more regular
information about Hill
activities
Should be far more
aggressive with CWA
NFS
Very little feedback
Oceans
Lack of communication
Wetlands
Still lack strategy
Need to be more
aggressive
a
-------
National Tools
Excellent 5.0 -,
4
Poor
0.0
2.8
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.7
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
• Some progress
• Still need
mission
statement
• Problems with
waterbody
tracking system
NEP/NCW
NEP guidance too late for
effective use
NCW still unclear
NPS
Need policy on
grants/administrative
issues
Good job with CZM
guidance, but other areas
neglected
Need to work with
Regions on documenting
success
OceaM
403 forgotten ?
Ocean dumping
regs/COE MOUs
underway but behind
schedule
Wetlands
Not much has happened
Need to work more
aggressively with COE
and FWS and agricultural
community
9
-------
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Excellent 5.0
Poor
0.0
1.9
2,3
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.9
11
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
Some work
underway but
need tools to be
more effective
Many
workgroups
operating from
D.C. so results
not visible to all
NEP/NCW
Positives with NOAA
Try to reach out more
Could have used
NCW/NCMPmore
effectively
NFS
Continue work on
TMDLs with
OST/ORD/monitoring
Work with NOAA on
CZM
Need better integration
with OPPE/OPTS -
agriculture initiatives
OceaihV
More interaction
needed on EMAP,
municipal NPDES with
OWEC, sediment issues
Coordination with
Wetlands better
Wetlands
Too internally focused
Should be networking
more with local, state, and
environmental
organizations
10
-------
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Excellent 5.0 -f
I
Poor
0.0
2.8
3.2
3.4
2.7
Z
3.4
3,1
3.3
2.6
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
Good interagency
work and citizen
monitoring efforts
NEP/NCW
More action and less strategies
Should lead in transferring
success among NEPs,
Chesapeake Bay, etc.
Need annual tech transfer
meeting
More on action demonstration
projects
NPS
Newsletter still great
Monthly updates good
addition
6217 efforts good
Lots more can be done
Oceans
Needs more attention
Wetlands
Agriculture outreach
paper is good
However, outreach in
general needs more
emphasis and discussion
11
-------
Overall Administration
Excellent 5 Q _
I
Poor
0.0
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.4
Monitoring NEP/NCW NFS
Oceans
Wetlands
Monitoring
• Many new
initiatives
underway
• Signs are
encouraging
NEP/NCW
Excellent support
Good working
relationships
NFS
Regional liaisons are very
helpful
Still need to work on
program priorities/ vision
Oceans
Regions do a lot of
initiating
Little HQ outreach
Wetlands
Trying, still need to get on
top of administration
priorities, become more of
a force
Make better use of
Regional expertise and
make Regions integral
partners
12
-------
Division Rankings by Service |
13
-------
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
Excellent 5.0
t
Poor 0.0
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.7
3.6
s
60
J5
I
o
Ol
Ef
Si,10
§
is
«.8
SI S
.£ 41
en bt>
JJ5
60 5
C OS
-
I
NEP/NCW
Oceans
-------
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
NEP/NCW
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
OCEANS
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
Since FY91 , Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
Improved
6
0
4
3
1
3
Improved
3
0
3
1
1
2
Declined
0
4
2
1
1
0
Declined
3
2
1
1
1
0
Same
2
4
1
4
6
5
Same
1
4
3
5
4
5
15
-------
Wetlands Division
FY92 Survey Results
Excellent
t
Poor 0.0
3.4
I
60
41
60
2.1
2.7
2.1
2.8
(A
Ql Z
J5 BO
"U
*» 60'2
*"% f* ™
4 P a
•a
§
I
(fl
M)
I
O 13
'So c
j "
u
3.4
I
_«>
•a
<
-------
Wetlands Division
FY92 Survey Results
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
Improved
3
1
0
0
3
2
Declined
o
3
1
1
0
1
Same
6
5
8
8
6
6
17
-------
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
Excellent 5.0 -/
t
Poor 0.0
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.5
3.2
2.7
2.3
3.1
3.2
2.9
D NFS
HI Monitoring
•
8!
s
•i
8 8
a.
f
• p4 (Q
60'J3
I-a
05 .0
I
^S
1
1
<
I
I
I
o O
1
<
!
18
-------
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
MONITORING
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
NPS
Service
Budget Development and Funding Processes
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
National Tools
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Overall Administration
Since FY91 , Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
Improved
2
2
2
2
4
5
Improved
0
1
5
2
2
2
Declined
0
0
2
0
0
0
Declined
2
1
2
1
0
1
Same
4
4
2
4
2
1
Same
6
6
1
5
6
5
19
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
RESULTS OF CUSTOMER SURVEY
April 1992
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON OVERALL OWOW SUPPORT
COMMUNICATIONS: General improvement — OWOW has listened and been
responsive to Regional needs and suggestions. Signs are positive for continuing
improvements.
ORGANIZATION: Structure is sound and roles and responsibilities, for the most
part, are clear. A few issues still remain with TMDLs, WPA, environmental
indicators. Great waterbody programs do not feel well represented, are not part of
regular communication networks, and perceive conflicts between OWOW and OW
on who is in charge.
PLANNING AND BUDGETING: Could still make improvements on an integrated
budget — and use existing grants to focus more on environmental benefits.
PROGRAM AGENDAS: Improvements in engaging Regions in these discussions —
keep it up.
LEGISLATION: Regions still have concerns. Be aggressive in CWA effort and keep
pushing on wetlands — communicate and keep Regions involved.
ENLISTING ASSISTANCE OF OTHERS: Need particularly to focus on other
agencies — more can be done here. Approaches like WPA should help. NCMP was
making contributions. May take higher level involvement.
NATIONAL MEETINGS: Good work! Generally well planned and facilitated,
responsive to Regional comments. Could focus more on cross-Division issues.
Need Division-specific agendas earlier. Some preference for OWOW-wide meeting
in fall and Division-specific meetings in the spring for budget planning. Some
problems with coverage of breakouts.
CONFERENCE CALLS: All three Divisions have responded to this suggestion and
these are very useful for information exchange. Would be even better with advance
agendas — a little more planning — so Regions can determine appropriate
participation. Should explore more use of videoconferences.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS: Good informational packages from OWOW and
better distribution. Legislative updates must be continued. AWPD in particular
provides good, useful information. Keep key contacts list up to date.
REGIONAL REVIEWS: A few have happened — and were well planned — but
could have been more focused on issues of Regional concern. OST and perhaps
others should have participated in certain sessions.
REQUESTS FOR COMMENT: Improvements in comment periods.
2O
-------
OPPORTUNITIES/ISSUES FOR OFFICE DIRECTOR ATTENTION
BUILDING A COMMON VISION
• Watershed Protection Approach could be used more effectively to
provide an OWOW identity as well as integrate programs within
OWOW, EPA, and other federal agencies. WPA is not currently being
pursued with equal vigor across OWOW.
CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION
• Consider needs for implementation resources, such as NEP
capitalization projects; flexibility; support for WPA.
BUILDING STATE CAPACITY
• Need to find innovative ways to build relationships and build capacity
for OWOW programs, Wetlands in particular.
• Review current resource allocations under 106 and ensure appropriate
guidance is developed for use of these funds.
• Watch for duplicative efforts on initiatives — Coastal America, NCW,
etc.
MONITORING
• Continue efforts to use data and assessments to drive other program
decisions. Need to produce the monitoring mission statement as well
as work out interagency agreements.
• Continue work on bioassessments/ecoregions.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM/NEAR COASTAL WATERS
• Continue commitment to federal role in the NEP, post CCMP. Open
dialogue with the NEPs on how to sustain momentum beyond just
resources. Look for CWA opportunities.
• Assure sound criteria/justifications for new NEP projects.
• NCW still needs work — a definition and how this program fits within
the overall coastal protection framework. Perhaps it should be used to
target specific themes like SAV, coral reefs, etc.
• Coastal America must also be defined within an overall coastal
protection framework. If this continues to be a viable program, must
work to streamline selection and budgeting process.
21
-------
NONPOINT SOURCES
• Needs a national framework to define roles and responsibilities among
federal agencies — EPA, Agriculture, NOAA, etc., areas of emphasis
and implementation strategies.
• Develop a budget strategy to support the above.
OCEANS
• Renew attention to 403 issues.
WETLANDS
• Must maintain viable presence in this program — COE is becoming
more assertive about their role and too little coming from EPA HQ.
Develop plans/options for implementing current policy.
• Outreach is critical — to build alliances with state and local
governments and the environmental community and to convey
information to the public.
22
-------
DIVISION AGENDAS: OCEAN AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
NEP/NCW
• Continue working on support to NEPs, post CCMP. Look for creative ways
to sustain momentum, like customer/supplier agreements.
• Work with NEPs and other geographic programs to foster support for
improved water quality standards and criteria to protect living resources.
• Provide more technology transfer and hands-on learning opportunities
for NEPs and other geographic programs.
• Provide more support for Action Demonstration projects and look at tech
transfer needs.
• Analyze overall data management needs and access to data and
information.
• Work on definition and direction for NCW program — currently too
weak and vulnerable to taps.
• Work more closely with the Regions on the need for new
strategies/workshops and other new initiatives.
• Very helpful in Gulf of Mexico legislative support
Oceans
• Continue work on ocean dumping regulations and national MOU with
COE.
• Continue efforts on ocean dumping enforcement.
• Continue work on sediment strategy.
• Review recent ocean dumping coordinators meeting — need better
planning.
• Renew attention to the 403 program, both issues and budget allocation
process.
• Clarify role of Coastal Technology Branch.
• Encourage details/rotations of 403 staff to get better understanding of
permit issuance process
• Continue 403/301 h national meetings
• Need monthly updates on 403/301h
23
-------
DIVISION AGENDAS: ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION
DIVISION
NFS
Work on NFS and monitoring budget issues — resource allocations
between the two programs, NFS travel $ for appropriate oversight,
diversion of 319 $ to CZM and Gulf of Mexico.
Need a NFS mission statement/program integration strategy with clear
roles and responsibilities.
Continue work on NFS national grants tracking system.
NFS grants management and audit training is still needed.
Continue work with ORD on rapid bioassessments.
Continue working on support and appropriate linkages for mining and
agriculture NFS issues.
Continue work on a national strategy for integrating stormwater
program with NFS.
Develop better and more outreach materials for NFS.
Consider holding joint meetings with States and Regions, similar to
the Clean Lakes meeting, once every year or two.
Continue to support Regional NFS contacts — these contacts are very
important to Regions.
National monitoring program within NFS — need to keep a close
watch on success.
Need to discuss with Regions the issue of federal consistency in the
NFS program.
Need to continue pushing clean sediment criteria.
Gulf of Mexico Program needs points of contact if they are to be a
national demonstration program
24
-------
Monitoring
Monitoring mission statement (including program guidance and
interagency activities) is still very important.
Continue work on standard 305b reporting by states.
Continue work on training opportunities for STORET and other
related programs. Concerns about 5-year schedule for modernization
effort — that states will develop own systems within that time.
Continue work on TMDLs with OST and ORD, particularly TMDLs for
NFS.
Need to address recent issues to make waterbody tracking system
operational.
Continue to work with USGS on NAQWA, and continue to strengthen
ties with EMAP.
Stay on top of other related Agency initiatives, like OPPE
Environmental Statistics group.
Monitoring Branch is focused on improving relationships with ESDs
— don't forget about appropriate communications with Water — need
shared ESD/Water vision.
-------
DIVISION AGENDAS: WETLANDS DIVISION
• Need immediate information on opportunities to work with Federal
Highway Administration on new resources for wetlands mitigation.
• Need to build linkages with related agency initiatives on landscape
approaches and the habitat cluster.
• Need to look for opportunities to build relationships with states and
work on state capacity for the program.
• Continue work on mitigation banking.
• Continue outreach efforts to the farming community.
• Some progress on clearinghouse idea — still need materials on
wetlands values geared to a public audience.
• Still need enforcement training.
• Is anyone addressing seagrasses?
26
-------
NATIONAL PRIORITIES
What two or three issues should OWOW be addressing that could have the
most impact on continued environmental progress in your Region?
1. Demonstrate that OWOW is a credible force and can work as an organization
— effective use of some integrator like the Watershed Protection Approach.
2. Promote the WPA among AA's and other Agencies. Provide the flexibility
and resources to make the program work.
3. Aggressive activity on the Clean Water Act reauthorization in conjunction
with the Regions.
4. Revive the National Coastal and Marine Policy.
5. Continued promotion of volunteer monitoring programs and other public
participation activities to develop local stewardship.
6. Support for agricultural pollution prevention work and technology transfer
of NFS and 319 funded projects.
7. Identification and use of environmental indicators to measure program
success. Completion of the monitoring mission statement.
8. Integrate the Wetlands programs within an overall landscape approach.
9. Develop technology to appropriately categorize wetlands — other than on-
the-ground surveys — like remote sensing, NWI data base overlays.
10. Develop a policy framework for NPS.
11. Flexibility in addressing stormwater-related NPS issues.
12. Develop a greater awareness of state fiscal problems and build capacity.
13. Work on NPS mining, agricultural and hydromodification issues, coupled
with an attention shift away from the coast.
14. Living resources protection through WQ standards.
15. Integration of coastal programs.
16. Define a uniform assessment and priority setting system across OWOW.
17. Get the Wetlands program out of politics.
18. Budget process improvements, $ out sooner and delegation of appropriate
programs to the Regions.
19. Continuing support — resources and other — for NEP implementation.
20. Policy on disposal options for contaminated dredge material — near shore
versus offshore.
27
------- |