Briefing for the Administrator
Where Does EPA Take the NEP
    Over the Next Five Years?
     Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

              Office of Water

              January 1992

-------
Pi.. pose of Briefing
• To review major issues
• To discuss future directions for the NEP
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 2

-------
Pr gram Status
• 17 estuaries in the program
• 1 approved CCMP
• $53m in section 320 funds committed
from 1987 through 1991; matched with
non-federal funds of $18m
• Nominations received for 3 new estuaries:
Peconic Bay, NY, Morro Bay, CA, and
Mobile Bay, AL
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 3

-------
Is es
• Continued EPA funding after CCMP approval for
management support
- to pay for what activities?
- how much?
- what implementing entity?
• Whether new NEPs should be designated
• EPA financial support for implementation of
recommended action plans
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 4

-------
Iss 1
Continued EPA Funding After CCMP Approval for
Management Support
Activity Options
1. Statutory activities (e.g. monitor program, conduct Federal
consistency reviews, progress reports to public)
2. Enhanced implementation (e.g. regulatory development or
public outreach designed to carry out implementation
action)
3. Further development of the plan (e.g. design new
environmental monitoring systems)
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 5

-------
ISSUe 1
Continued EPA Funding After CCMP Approval for
Management Support
Funding Options
1. Sustained “substantial” 4 year funding ($300K/$200K)
2. Sustained “moderate” 4 year funding ($1 50K/$1 00K)
3. Phased-down 4 year funding ($300K/$200K - 0)
4. No funding after plan approval
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 6

-------
Issue i
Continued EPA Funding After CCMP Approval for
Management Support
Options for Management Conference Extension
1. Extend current management conference upon request
2. Do not extend (would not preclude funding support)
3. Recognize newly designated “Implementation Committee”
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 7

-------
Issue 2 Options
Whether New NEPs Should Be Designated
1. No new estuaries
2. Convene new estuaries of “national significance” to Program
3. Add new estuaries; apply NEP lessons learned; “streamline”
process/funds
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 8

-------
Issue 3 Options
EPA Financial Support for Implementation
of Recommended Action Plans
1. Review base programs and assure that approved plans receive
clear priority for resources
2. Use unallocated NEP resources to leverage implementation of
approved plans
3. Work with other demonstration programs to develop joint venture
projects directed at high risk coastal areas
4. Seek limited new budget/legislative authority to leverage
implementation actions planned under approved plans
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 9

-------
Nea, oastaI Waters Program
• Assess coastal problems on a regional scale
• Target corrective actions using a watershed approach
• Apply existing authorities in an integrated fashion
• Develop new tools where existing authorities are inadequate
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? i 0

-------
Rey.onal Near Coastal Waters 3trategies
• Establish long term goals for improvement of
Regional near coastal waters
• Identify priority geographic areas
• Characterize extent of problems in priority areas
• Outline approach for addressing problems, making
use of full range of solutions
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 11

-------
S,enarios
NCW
Relative
Emphasis
IJEP
I II III Iv
Scenario
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 12

-------
Scenarios
Scenario I
• No funding for post-CCMP activities
• Do not extend management conference
• No new estuaries in the Program
• Provide support from EPA base programs
• NEP resources redirected to NCW Program
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 13

-------
Scenarios
Scenario II
• Sustained 4 year funding after plan approvals: ($300K/”large”,
$200K/”small” estuaries)
• Support for monitoring effectiveness of actions, Federal consistency
reviews, and reports to public/Congress; limited funding for
“enhanced” implementation
• Recognize an “Implementation Committee” tied to lead State agency
• No new estuaries in the Program
• Base Program priority; seek joint ventures
• Direct balance of resources to NCW to support efforts in other high
priority areas
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 14

-------
Scenarios
Scenario III
• Moderate 4 year funding after plan approvals:
($1 50K/”large”, $100K/”small” estuaries)
• Support monitoring effectiveness of actions, Federal
consistency reviews, and public/Congress reports
• Extend current management conferences upon request
• Convene new NEPs, narrower selection criteria
• Base program priority; joint venture
• NCW would cover lower priority efforts
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 15

-------
Scenarios
Scenario IV
• Sustained 4 year funding after plan approvals: ($300K/”large”,
$200K/”small” estuaries)
• Support program monitoring, Federal consistency reviews, and
public reporting
• Extend management conferences upon request
• Add new NEPs, use existing approach
• Seek new legislative authority to provide substantial support
• Minimal NCW effort (no new support)
Where Does EPA Take the NEP Over the Next Five Years? 16

-------
Attachnent A
National Estuary Program
Casco lay
ssaohusstts Bays
Buzzards Bay
Narragans.tt Bay
Island Sound
NY • NJ Harbor
D.Iawar. Bay
D.lawar. Inland Bays
*lb.niarl..Pamllco
Sounds
San
Santa Monloa
Qalvaston Bay
Tampa Bay
Bays
Sarasota Bay
RIv.r Lagoon
Where Does EPA Tale the NEP Over the Next Five Y•a,s?

-------
Attachment B
PECONIC BAY
January 6, 1992
Background
o Included in Title II — Designation of Areas for Priority
- Consideration Under National Estuary Program of the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act of 1988;
o New York State, through the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation, submitted a Governor’s Nomination to
include-the Peconic Estuary in the National Estuary Program on May
15, 1991;
o Correspondence supporting this nomination have been received from:
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Region II Regional
Administrator
- Gerry E. Studds, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment
— -George J. Hockbrueckner, House of Representatives
- Save the Peconic Bays Inc.
— Mr. Daniel Mancini
- Mario M. Cuomo, New York Governor
- New Suffolk Civic Association, Inc.
o The Village of Greenport Board of Trustees adopted a resolution to
protect the Peconic-GardinerS Bay Estuary on July 18, 1991
Priority Problem
o In June 1985, a previously unknown species of phytoplankton
appeared in the Peconic Bays and other estuaries in northeast of
the United States. This species, Aureococcus anophaciefferens ,
bloomed in such high concentrations that it c lored the water a
murky brown; hence its popular name the Brown Tide;
o--This Brown Tide reappeared in 1986, 1987, and 1991;
o The recurring Brown Tide events destroyed a bay scallop population
which once supported a $2 million/year fishery, caused the loss of
large areas of eelgrass which serve as nursery areas for bay
scallops and several commercially important fish species. The
aesthetically unappealing bloom also adversely impacted tourism and
tourist related businesses in the area.
o NEP funds would finance research and development of management
strategies to deal with problems caused by Brown Tide and other
sources of stress to the estuary. This information could then be
used by other areas that are periodically impacted by Brown Tide
and other noxious blooms.

-------
Attachment C
FACT SHEET ON MORRO BAY. CALIFORNIA
Environmental Issues -
o The Bay represents-about 75 square miles-located within San
Louis ObispoCounty south of-San Francisco Bay.
o -Contains the- mostnslgn:ificant - wetland system on California’s
central coast; supports many species-óf migratory birds, and
provides a protected harbor foràff—shore marine fisheries;
contains rich biOtic diversity i èsulting from its geographic
:location within the climatic transition zone between
northern and southern California.
Stâtus- pf Morro Bay’s Nomination
o - Governor Pete Wilson - submitted the Nommnation of Morro Bay
:tothè:Nationa1 iEsttiary Program(NEP) to the Agency on May
28, 1991; :a lso. signed -by Jamés -Strock, -Secretary for
Environmenta-1-pjotectjon, and Chairman of-State Water
Resources Control Board W. Don Maughan.
o The-Administrator then passed the nomination to the Office
of Water. The Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds is
ho lding on to it pending resolution of whether to add new
estuartes t6 th program. - -
-o M jor:issues addr ssed--inthe-Nomjnatkon include: urban
runoff, marine mammals, living resources, economic
importance, environmenta]. problems and cause/effect
relationshi s, r creatjona1/c mmercjal/ifldu$trja1 uses of
the Bay.
o The Agency also received letters--of support from Leon A.
Panet:ta , Chairman of the House Budget Committee; Rep.
Panetta also introduced legislation in 1990 that would give
Morro Bay io -i ty -- consideration for inclusion in the NEP.
Ph&Nomrjnatjon cites !orro Bay’s.small size, relative
pristine- -state- àn substantial local support as factors
which woul ñtijbütetb successful implementation of a
management plan under the NEP.
o Morro Bay is being used as a model for developing a state
coastal nonpoint source management plan under recent
revisions to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

-------
Attachment D
. FAcT SHEET ON MOBILE BAY. ALAB J4A
Environmental Issues
o Mobile Bay and Delta lie between Mobile and Baldwin Counties
insouthwest Alabama, the two counties which comprise the
‘totäl’co stal area of Alabama. The Dèlta opens into the
northern end of the Bay and encompasses 289 square miles of
open water, fresh-mixed marsh, swamp, and mixed bottomland
forest. -Although large portions of the Delta have been
sêl-ectively--logged for cypress trees, most of the system
provides relatively unspoiled and natural forested scenery
and wildlife habitat. -
o Major land uses in the watershed include commercial timber
-lands, agriculture and densely urban areas around the City
of Màbile. The Bay is relatively shallow, averaging less
than 10 feet, sowaterborne commerce is restricted to
-designated navigational channels. Re reational uses of the
Bay include sportfishing, boating and duck hunting. Other
important uses of the Bay are commercial fishing, commercial
ship 1ng iñto the Port of Mobile, and natural gas
exploration and oduction in the lower part of the Bay.
oMajor environmental problems facing the Mobile Bay and Delta
incIude the contaminants from indusfria-1 and municipal
discharges and stormwater runoff, including heavy metals
—-such-as-mercury and organic toxins such as dioxin. Fecal
coifform levels are frequently too high to allow shellfish
harvesting, and demand is increasing for coastal residential
development with or without centralized sewage treatment.
Water and ediment quality are impacted to some extent by
navigation and port improvements, as well as by oil and gas
industry development, while wetlands are impacted by all
types—of coastal development.
Status of the NominatiOn or Mobile Bay -
o Alabama Governor Guy Hunt nominated Mobile Bay and Delta to
the National Estuary Program in November, 1991. The
Administrator ackflowledged receipt of -the nomination, but no
evaluation of the nominatiOn páôkage has been undertaken by
EPA.

-------
Attachment E
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR CONVENING NEW MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
- - UNDER THE-NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
MILESTONE *ELAPSED TIME *PROPOSED DATE
ADMINISTRATOR MAKES DECISION Day 0 January 15
TO ADD NEW ESTUARIES; REGIONS -
NOTIFIED -
-o -Write Federal Register Noticè
Prepare letters to coastal governors
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS Day 30 February 15
Publish FR Notice
o Send letters to governors
o States prepare nominations
0 OCPD establishes review teams and schedule
DEADLINE FÔR NOMINATIONS Day 150 June15
(Day 90) (April 15)
o Review nominations
o Evaluation meeting(s)
Prepare summary :of comments
o Prepare comment letters to states
RESULTS FROM PRELIMINARY REVIEWS Day 210 August 15
I (Day 180) (July 15)
-o Send commentletters to states
o -On-site visits to discuss revisions to nominations
0 States respond to comments
o- Review revised nomination
o OWOW reconunendations to OW (briefing)
:o LOW -recommendations to Administrator (briefing)
0 Decision packages to Administrator
o: Tprepare communications strategies
DMI NISTRATOR:ANNOUNCES DECISIONS Day 330 December 15
- (Day 240) (September 15)
- o Funds awarded out of Headquarters for “start up
activities” (in the absence-of-a State/EPA Conference
Agrêëñ ent, these funds must be awarded out of
Headquarters; see attachment)
NEGOTIATE STATE/EPA CONFERENCE Day 450 April 15, 1993
AGREEMENT BASED ON “STREAN-LINED” (Day 360) (Jan 15, 1993)
NEP GUIDELINES
* - Elapsed times and proposed dates in parentheses are
expedited estimates

-------
Attachment P
SCHEDULE FOR CONVENING MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
FOR PECONIC DAY UNDER THE
- NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
MILES! ’ONE ELAPSED TIME PROPOSED DATE
Administrator makes decision Day 0 January 15
- to ad new estuaries
Review Peconic Bay nomination - Day 30 February 15
against “Final Guidance on the
Contents of a Governor’s
- Nomination”
Develop “stream-lined” NEP Day 30 February 15
guidelines based on lessons
- learned from existing 17
NEP estuaries
Meet with Region Il/State of Day 45 March 1
New York to revise nomination -
and discuss “stream-lined”
guidelines
Administrator notifies State of Day 75 April 1
New York/Region ii of decision
to convene a management
conference for Peconic Bay
Fu ds ($150K) awarded out of Day 135 June 1
Headauarters for “start up
activities” (in the absence of
a State/EPA Conference Agreement, -
these funds must be awarded out
of Headquarters; see attachment)
Negotiate State/EPA Conference Day 210 - August 15
Agreement based on “stream-lined”
-}IEP guidelines

-------
Attachment G
.JUSTIPIcATIqN FOR CONVENING MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
-POR-PECONIC BAY IN ADVANCE OP OTHER NEW
- ESTUARIES
Background
o Peconic Bay was added to the list of priority consideration
for NEP managernentconferences, - along with Barataria-
TerrebonneBay, Massachusetts Bays, and Indian River Lagoon,
under the Oàean Dumping Ban Act.
o The State of New York áhos not to submit a nomination for
-- - Peconic Bay during the last tiérof additions to the NEP.
The callfor.nomjnations for Tier III closed November 1,
l989
Q The nçmina tion to convene a management conference for
Peconic Bay was received from Governor Cuomo (through DEC
Commissioner Thomas Jorling) on May 15, 1991.
o The nomination has received support from Representatives
George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) and Norman Lent (R-NY), as well
as other New York State Congressional delegates.
Justification
1. The Clean Water Act allows the governor of any state to
nominate an estuary and request that a management conference
be convened by the Administrator. The ómination must
do um rit the national significancé ó f the estuary, the need
ior a management conference, and the likelihood of success
of the management conference -th developing a comprehensive
ran. - These factors are
described in detail Tn EPA’s) ’inaL Guidance on the Contents
or a Gove rn or’s N6miriatioz .’1. The AdMnj trator can also
conv ne management conference in the absence of a
nomination from the governor. There is no requirement for
the Administrator to make a general call for nominations
prior to convening a management conference .
2. Section 320(a) (2) (B) directs the Administrator to give
priority consideration to several estuaries around the
country when convening management conferences. To date,
this list of priority consideration consists of 16
estuaries, including Peconic Bay which was added to the list
under the Ocean Dumping Ban Act. Because the State of New
York chose not to submit a nomination during the last tier
of additions to the NEP, Peconic Bay is the only one of the
estuaries listed for priority consideration that has not had
a management conference convened .

-------
Attachment H
ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR
“START-UP” FUNDS UNDER TEE
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Grant awards for start-up projects will be provided to
support the following activities:
o Formulate and put into place a management conference
committee structure for the project
o Establish and staff a project office for effective
administrative and technical management of the project
Hold a public kick-off workshop in order to develop
mãnagement goals and objectives for the project
o Develop a State/EPA Conference Agreement
o Develop an annual workplan for the first fiscal year of the
-project
o Attend national training workshops- on the establishment and
functioning of management conferences under the National
-Estuary Program
o Develop an initial public participation strategy
The authority of Regional Administrators to award National
Estuary Program (NEP) funds is limited to projects supporting
activities identified in NEP Annual Workplans and that are
consistent with State/EPA Conference Agreements. Because new
estuaries will not have developed Conference Agreements at the
time of the Administrators decision to convene, grants supporting
start-up activities must be awarded out of the Office of Water.
Consistent with the grant regulation for the NEP, each award must
include a 25 percent non—Federal cost share.

-------
Attachment I
A “BTREANLINED” NATIONAL -ESTUARY PROGRAM
The blueprint currently being followed by the 17 National
Estuary Program (NEP)-management conferences consists of a 4
phased process. Phase 1 (planning initiative) consists of
building a management: organiz&tion for-identifying and solving
•-pr-Obrems.- This- includes setting. up the inanagement .conference and
committe structure. -‘Phase 1. lasts:lor —approximately 1 year.
Durin: Ph ase ’ 2- (characterization) the state- of the estuary and
its problems are defined. - Phase 2 generally lasts for 3 years.
The -chief task under Phase i; —is to deveiop the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The CCMP is designed,
developed, and adopted by the management conference during Phase
3,which occurs during :the-final year.: Phase 4T involves
implementation of the CCNP and :begins upon approval of the CCMP
by —the Ad ini trator.
- - - This blueprint ‘carries—several assumptions that have been
applied to all estuaries that have come into the NEP to date.
First, we assumed that building the organizational structure
necessary to develop a CCMP (Planning Initiative) would require
up to a year. Second, there was a basic assumption that little
was known about the problems being experienced by the estuary,
particularly the causes of those problems. Since this is
critical information for the development of a CCMP, the
characterization phase was viewed as the most time consuming
phase of the process. Third, based on the previous assumption,
the characterization phase was also allocated the highest
proportion of resources over the 5—year process.
Based on lessons learned from the original 6 estuary
programs, several of the Tier II and III management conferences
have begun to modify the traditional NEP blueprint. For example,
several of these management conferences, such as for
Massachusetts Bays and Delaware Estuary, have decided to develop
draft CCMPs in the early years of the 5-year process based on
work that has already been conducted in their estuaries. The
characterization phase will then be focused on filling
information gaps identified during the development of these early
drafts. Other management conferences, such as for Casco Bay,
Massachusetts Bays, and Tampa Bay, have committed to completing
their CCMPs in 4 rather than 5 years. Again, this decision was
based on the amount of work that had been done in the estuary
prior to convening a management conference, as well as the
public’s desire to implement the CCMP as soon as possible.
If a decision is made to convene new management conferences
under the NEP, it may be possible to develop a streamlined
approach to the development of a CCNP that would be used as a
guideline in negotiating the State/EPA Conference Agreements.
The streamlined approach would be developed based on lessons

-------
learned from the existing 17 management conferences and steps
already taken by several of the Tier II and III estuaries. The
goal of such an approach would be more efficient use of available
resources and faster progress towards environmental improvement.
A streamlined approach might include development of a final CCMP
in 3 years. The Clean Water Act allows for “up to five years”
for CCMP development, but EPA has the flexibility to require a
CCMP in less time. This could be accomplished by selecting
estuaries where considerable characterization work has occurred
prior to nomination. Evidence of this work could be presented in
the nomination document submitted to EPA by the Governor. It
should also be possible to reduce the time required under the
planning initiative, since many of the estuaries that have been
or are expected to be nominated already have management
structures in place.
It is important to note that adoption of a streamlined CCMP
development approach will impact the selection of new estuaries
for designation under the NEP. The specifics of the approach
that is selected will to some extent determine the estuaries that
are capable of participating under that approach.

-------